Skip to main content

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

See other formats

The Library 



77 Go = = Ve 

International Critical Commentary 
on the Soln Scriptures of the Old and 

New @estaments 



Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York; 

Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford; 

Master of University College, Durham. 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2021 with funding from 
Kahle/Austin Foundation 

Che International Crifical Commentary 

on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and 

New @estaments. 


THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, 
written by British and American divines, of a popular or 
homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for Schools, 
the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The 
Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), 
The Expositor’s Bible, and other similar series, have their | 
special place and importance. But they do not enter into 
the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such 
series of Commentaries as the Kuwrzgefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette’s Kuragefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum N. T.; Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
mentar; Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblischer Commentar tuber das 
A.T.; Lange’s Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s 
Handkommentar zum A. T.; Holtzmann’s MHandkommentar 
zum NV. 7: Several of these have been translated, edited, 
and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- 
speaking public; others are in process of translation. But 
no corresponding series by British or American divines 
has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared 
by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, 
Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has 
come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, 
when it is practicable to combine British and American 
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive 


Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar- 
ship, and in a measure lead its van. 

Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
T. ₪ T. Clark. of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a 
series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, 
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briccs, D.D., in America, 
and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and 
the Rev. ALFRED PLuMMER, D.D., for the New Testament, 
in Great Britain. 

The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- 
fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical 
bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of 
the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of 
interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and 
clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each 
book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results 
of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions 
still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear 
in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each 
section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, 
or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and 
philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from 
matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testa- 
ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted 
with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books 
will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, 
with critical notices of the most important literature of 
the subject. Historical and Archzological questions, as 
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the 
plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical 
Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series. 


Tue following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the Volumes 


The Rev. JoHN SKINNER, D D., Professor of Old Tes- 
tament Language and Literature, College of Pres- 
byterian Church of England, Cambridge, England, 

The Rev. A. R. S. Kennepy, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. 

J. F. Stenninec, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, 

G. BucHANAN GrRAy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready, 

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Vow Ready. 

The Rev. GEorGE ADAM תואפ‎ D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow. 

The Rev. GEorcE Moors, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Theology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
[Mow Ready. 

The Rev. H. P. SmiruH, D.D., Professor of Biblical 
History, Amherst College, Mass. [Mow Read). 

The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York City. 

The Rev. EpwaArp L. Curtis, D. D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn, 

The, Rev. LW. Barren, Ph.D.) D:D Rector of 
St. Marks Church, New York City, sometime 
Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 

Reve | GrAceeAa BRIGCS sD) Dyan) itt eb TO=‏ םה 
fessor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological‏ 
Seminary, New York.‏ 

Oven) SDs Ly Dani rotessoiuos‏ מות מ הפו 
Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.‏ 

[Vow Ready. 

The Rey. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 

Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. S. .ג‎ Driver, D.D., 
D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 
Ghaps. שו הק | ו‎ Revay Protas Ane B: 

Davipson, D.D., LL.D. 

The Rev. A. F. KirKxpatrick, D.D., Master of 
Selwyn College, Regius Professor of Hebrew, 
Cambridge, England. 

By the Rev. G. A. 00088, M.A., Fellow Mag- 
dalen College, and the Rev. CHARLES F, BURNEY, 
M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. Johns 
College, Oxford. 

The Rev. אס[‎ P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., sometime 
Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael’s Church, 
New York City. 

named below: 







Ezra and 







Amos and Hosea W. R. HArrper, Ph.D., LL D., President of the 

University of Chicago, Illinois. [Zn Press. 
W. R. HArrer, Ph.D., LL D., President of the 
University of Chicago. 

The Rev. L. B. PAton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Hartford Theological Seminary. 

Micah to Malachi 


The Internationa? Critica? Commentary. 

Prof. GrorGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of 
Biblical Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. 

Rev. CHARLES P. FAGNANI, D.D., Associate Profes- 
sor of Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. 

Rev. Cuar_es A. 221665, D.D., D, Litt., Professor of 
Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. 


The Rev. WILLoUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of 
Exeter College, Oxford. 

The late Rev. E. P. Goutp, D.D., sometime 
Professor of New Testament Literature, P. ₪. 
Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Now Ready. 

The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master 
of University College, Durham. [Now Ready. 

The Very Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean 
of St. Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, 
University of Dublin. 

The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the 
Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of 
Exeter College, Oxford. 

The Rev. FREDERICK H. CHASE, Norissonian Pro- 
fessor of Divinity, President of Queens College 
and Vice-Chancellor, Cambridge, England. 

The Rev. אגזנט‎ SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of 
Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. 
HerApDLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of Kings College, 
London. [Mow Ready. 

The Right Rev. Arcu. RopertTson, D.D., LL D., 
Lord Bishop of Exeter, and the Rev. RICHARD J. 
KNow Linc, D.D., Professor of New Testament 
Exegesis, Kings College, London. 

The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of 
New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 

The Rev. T. K. Axszsott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime 
Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, 
Dublin, now Librarian of the same. [Vow Ready. 

The Rev. Marvin R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor of 
Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York City. [Mow Ready. 

The Rev. JAMES E. FRAME, M.A., Associate Profes- 
sor in the New Testament, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 

The Rev. WALTER Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble 
College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 

The Rev. A. Natrne, M.A., Professor of Hebrew 
in Kings College, London. 

The Rev. James H. Ropss, D.D., Bussey Professor of 
New Testament Criticism in Harvard University. 

The Rev. CHARLES Bice, D.D., Regius Professor 
of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ 
Church, Oxford. . [Mow Ready. 

The Rev. S. D. F. SALMonp, D.D., Principal of the 
United Free Church College, Aberdeen. 

The Rev. Ropert H. CuaArtes, M.A., D.D., Profes- 
sor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. 



Song of Songs 

and Lamentations 

St. Matthew 

St. Mark 

St. Luke 

St. John 

Harmony of the 





Ephesians and 

Philippians and 


The Pastoral 

St. James 

Peter and Jude 

The Epistles of 
St. John 









OF SA\UETE‏ ו וו 





‘Theo! ogy Library 


7 tornia 



8 ל סלפ אד 
Cushing 8 Co. — Berwick & Smith‏ .8 .4 
Norwood Mass. U.S.A.‏ 


Anna fAacneale Smith 





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

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

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

thrown upon the exegete will appear to the careful student of 



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

The expositor is encouraged in the face of these difficulties 
by the fact that excellent work has already been done in both 
these departments of study. The criticism of the text was 
seriously undertaken (though with inadequate apparatus) by 
Thenius in 1842, and since that time the problem has been 
attacked by Wellhausen, Klostermann, Driver, and Budde. In 
the department of the higher criticism so much cannot be said. 
Yet even here the books before us have had as much attention 
as any part of the Old Testament, except the Pentateuch and 
the Book of Isaiah. 

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

In my anxiety to be helpful to the beginner I have sometimes 
explained that which the more advanced student will find to be 
sufficiently clear in itself. So far as I know, I have passed no 
difficulty by in silence. That the consideration of many passages 
results in a zon 00/67 will probably not be found surprising. 

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

AMHERST, MAss., Judy 20, 1898. 









TINPRODUCTION |). ¥. 5 «1. 
Sq. SOG TTI a oe BS 
5 re ie 

§ 3. Composition of the Book 

§ 4. Analysts of 1 Sam. i-xv.. . . « « 

§ 5. Analysis of 1 Sam. xvi-2 Sam.t. . 

§ 6. Analysis of 2 Sam. tt.—xxiv.. . . ב‎ 

§ 7. The Text and Versions . 

§ 8. Religious Ideas . 

§ 9. Commentaries . . ב‎ 
6 כ‎ ae ee Oe 
סו‎ “al Ayo on Bal Cee aD 

(ABBREVEATIONS «i « © « © 


> 1. Zhe Title. 

THE two books are one book in Hebrew manuscripts. The 
division into two was first made by the Greek translators or by 
the Greek copyists. As we know from classic writers, the rolls on 
which Greek and Latin works were written were of certain con- 
ventional sizes. Biblical books (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) were 
divided into two in order to conform to this rule of the trade. 
The division passed over into the Latin Bible, but invaded the 
Hebrew copies only with the first Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg.* 
The original state of the case is still indicated, in editions of 
the Hebrew, by the Massoretic summary which gives the number 
of verses only at the end of the second book, thus treating the 
two as one. In this summary we find also the phrase Book of 
Samuel used, and are told that the middle verse is the one num- 
bered by us 1 S. 28%. Origen is quoted by Eusebius} as affirm- 
ing specifically that the first and second Books of the Kingdoms 
form one book among the Hebrews, and that this bears the name 
of Samuel. A Greek MS. also remarks 1 at the close of 1 5. that 
Aquila following the Hebrews does not divide but makes the two 
one book. Jerome in the Prologus Galeatus (printed in the 
authorized editions of the Vulgate) names as third in the list of 
the Prophets, Samuel, quem nos Regum primum et secundum atct- 
mus. With this agrees the Talmud, which names Judges, Samuel, 
Kings, § as though each were but a single book. 

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

+ Aust. Eccles. V1. 25, as cited by Kl. 

t Field, Hexap. Orig. 1. p. 543. 

§ The passage (Baba Bathra, 142) is translated in Briggs, Biblical Study (1883), 
p. 175 ff., and Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (1899), 
Dp. 2524: 




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

In the more accurate editions of the Hebrew text 2 S. has no heading, and 
is separated only by a space of three words’ breadth from the preceding book. 
The note at the end of 2 5. begins ,סכום פסוקי דספר שמואל‎ the verses of the 
two books together being reckoned 1506. The edition which introduces 
ספר ראשון (שני) מהמלכים‎ along with (ב')‎ ‘x שמואל‎ is the edition of Plantin, 
1680. In @ we find Bacircayv ,דשח‎ Sevrepa, represented in some Latin 
MSS. by Regnorum instead of Regum. In = Kethabhaé dashmwil nebhiya. 

§ 2. Contents. 

The Books of Samuel form a part of the continuous history of 
Israel which begins with the conquest of Canaan and ends with 
the Exile, or, if we include the Pentateuch as is apparently the 
design of the collectors of the books, which begins with the Crea- 
tion and ends with the Exile. This part of the history is, how- 
ever, less closely connected with the Book of Judges, which 
precedes, than with the First Book of Kings, which follows. For, 
while there is every reason to believe that the Philistine oppres- 
sion, from which Samson began to deliver Israel, is the same 
which afflicted the people in the time of Samuel, we have no 
certain means of deciding how long a time had elapsed from the 
death of Samson until the events narrated in 1 S. 1; while at the 
conclusion of 2 S. the unfinished life of David is immediately 
continued in the opening chapters of 1 ₪. 

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


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

In accordance with what has just been said, the subject-matter 
divides itself readily under the three heads: Samuel, Saul, and 
David. But as the three are contemporaneous for some years, the 
sections overlap, and the transition period of Saul falls within 
the time allotted to Samuel on the one hand or to David on the 
other. Such seems to have been the mind of the author (or final 
redactor) of the Books, to whom Saul was of minor importance. 
This is sufficiently indicated by the fact that Samuel is the real 
authority after Saul is anointed, and that so soon as Saul is 
rejected David is anointed. To the theocratic view, the history 
belongs to Samuel and to David, and its two sections are 1 S. 1-15, 
the life of Samuel; and 1 5. 16-2 S. 24, the life of David. The 
life of David, however, consists of two well-marked sections, the 
first, the period of struggle, is described in 1 S. 16-2 S. 1; 
the second, his reign over Israel, occupies 2 S. 2-24. 

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


1-7. Samuel as Judge. 
11-414, Birth, consecration, and call. 
4ib-2, The house of Eli. 


51-71. The capture and return of the Ark. 
7217, Deliverance from the Philistines. 

8-12. Election of a King. 
8. The people’s demand. 
9, Io. Saul is secretly anointed and then publicly chosen, 
11. Saul’s victory over Ammon. 
12. Samuel’s farewell address. 

13-15. Saul’s Early Reign. 
13, 14. Defeat of the Philistines. 
15. Disobedience and rejection. 


101-211. David at the Court. 
161-18, The secret unction. 
1614-23, The service of Saul. 
171-18°, The encounter with Goliath. 
1880, Saul’s jealousy. 
19. Attempts upon David’s life. 
201-211. David’s flight. 

21-26. David an Outlaw Captain. 
21710, The help of the priest. 
2111-22% "1116 escape made good. 
228-23, Murder of the priests. 

23. Saul seeks David. 
24. David spares Saul. 
25. David and Nabal. 
26. David spares Saul. 

27-2 S.1. David as Vassal of Achish. 
27. David takes service. 
28. Saul’s extremity. 
29. David’s rejection from the Philistine army. 
30. Burning of Ziklag. 
31. The battle of Gilboa. 
28.1. Information of Saul’s death, 


2-4. In Hebron. 
21-31. The civil war. 
3. David’s family. 
3°9, Death of Abner. 
4. Assassination of Ishbaal. 


5-24. In Jerusalem. 
5. Capture of Jerusalem. 
6. Transter of the Ark. 
7. The Messianic promise, 
8. Sundry wars. 
9. Meribbaal. 
10-12. The Ammonite war and David’s adultery, 
13. Amnon’s crime and Absalom’s revenge. 
14. Absalom’s recall. 
15-19. The usurpation. 
20. Sheba’s revolt. 
211714. The Gibeonites avenged. 
21-22, Sundry exploits. 
221-237. Two Psalms. 
235799. Catalogue of the chief warriors. 
24. The pestilence. 

§ 3. Composition of the Book. 

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


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

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

§ 4. Analysis of 1 Samuel t.-xv. 

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


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

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

The continuation of the story is 10”. The choice of a king 
by lot follows immediately on the people’s demand. In handling 
the lot Samuel appears not exactly as another Moses, but at least 
as another Joshua. Like Joshua also he delivers a farewell address, 
now contained in chapter 12. This originally followed at once on 
the election of Saul. Its resemblance to Jos. 24 is obvious. In 
it Samuel still appears as the executive officer of the theocracy. 
He holds up to the people their revolt against Yahweh, and con- 
vinces them that they have sinned in asking a king. ‘The convic- 
tion leads to no attempt to undo what has been done, and_ people 
and king are allowed to go on on sufferance. But they are sol- 
emnly warned that, if they do ill, they and their king will perish. 

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


a failure; and Samuel pronounces the divine sentence to this 

The common tone of these chapters will be admitted by the 
attentive reader, and their contrast with the sections now inter- 
polated between them will scarcely be denied. And, reading 
them in connexion, we discover that they form an unbroken nar- 
rative. Their author told in them all that he cared to tell of the 
life of Saul. But we naturally suppose that he told more of Samuel, 
who was to him the important figure. And it is altogether likely 
that he introduced him at an earlier stage of life than that in which 
he here appears — already at the height of his power. It is not 
improbable, therefore, that the account of Samuel’s birth and 
youth form part of the same document. And in the account of 
this which we find in 1 there is nothing inconsistent with the sup- 
position that it is a part of the same history. With this we 
naturally take the call of the prophet as narrated in 3. As the 
text now stands, chapter 4 belongs in the same connexion, for it 
is the sequel of 3. 

Provisionally, then, we may restore a life of Samuel which was 
once a separate document and which embraced what we now read 
as chapters 15..3,,4, 7° 4 0,910" 5125456) Lowill. desionateut san 
We next examine the parts which do not belong to this source, 
and our attention is attracted by 0-10". This is a continuous, 
and, for the most part, homogeneous, narrative, contrasting re- 
markably with the one we have been examining. It begins like 
a separate book, introducing persons hitherto unknown. When 
Samuel appears, it is in a very different character from the one he 
wears in Sm. This story has little of the theological character of 
the other account, though the author shows piety of another 
stamp. Chapters 11, 13-14”, agree so well in their tone with 
9, 10, that we have little difficulty in joining them together. As 
in the other case, they belong to a single document, and are 
apparently continuous.* This document is a life of Saul, as truly 
as the other is a life of Samuel, and we may call it SZ. 

There are considerable portions which have not yet been as- 

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


signed to either of our two sources. The most marked in its indi- 
viduality is the account of the Ark in the country of the Philistines, 
5-75 It contains no references to Samuel or Saul, so that we are 
quite at a loss to place it. Our only clue is that it presupposes 
the capture of the Ark, the account of which is now contained 
in 4. We therefore put it in Sm., but its individuality is so 
marked that we may suspect it to have been embodied in that 
document from some source now lost to us. Chapter 2, which 
next claims our attention, is made up of several distinct para- 
graphs. First is Hannah’s Psalm. This is now universally con- 
ceded to be an independent composition inserted in the text from 
some poetical collection like our own Book of Psalms. We next 
find an account of the wickedness of Eli’s sons, 2”, followed 
by a panegyric of Samuel 7. The next four verses take up 
Eli’s sons again, while v.% recurs to Samuel. Finally, we have a 
denunciation of Eli )27-*( by an anonymous man of God who 
reminds us of the similar character in 1 K. 131. 

By experiment we discover that the paragraphs concerning Eli’s 
sons and the weakness of their father, with the message of the 
man of God, can be put together without the references to Samuel. 
But the references to Samuel do not stand together (if taken by 
themselves), and seem to have been inserted into the other 
account when it was already complete. The case is not like that 
of the references to Eli in chapter 1, for those references are so 
wrought into the narrative that we cannot suppose them ever to 
have been independent of it, nor it ever to have existed without 
them. The riddle will be solved if we suppose that Sm. took 
from an earlier source the account of the wickedness of Eli’s sons, 
the rebuke of the anonymous prophet, and the account of the 
capture and restoration of the Ark. This material he wrought 
into his life of Samuel in the usual method of the Hebrew 

The analysis given above, so far as the separation of the documents is con- 
cerned, is the one now the common property of criticism. The only point at 
which I have ventured to diverge from my predecessors is in regard to the 
denunciation of punishment contained in 277-6, This is generally taken to be 
a sheer intrusion made by a very late hand, after the virtual completion of our 
present Book. The argument is, that it duplicates chapter 3 and takes away 


its point. The truth in this is that 4 is the sequel either of 277-86 or of 3. One 
of the two denunciations is superfluous. But I find it more probable that an 
author in writing the life of Samuel should add 3 to the denunciation already 
in the text, than that one should put 27755 into a text which already has the 
message to Samuel. The author of Sm. must give the honour to Samuel even 
if he found the anonymous already there. And that the anonymous is pre- 
supposed is evident from 315, for in this verse Yahweh says: /x that day [will 
execute upon Eli all that I have spoken against his house. The palpable refer- 
ence is to what the man of God has said in the preceding chapter. 

The earlier document which I here postulate consists of 212 17. 22-25. 27-36 4lb_v71, 
It also contained originally some further account of Eli and of Shiloh which 
the author could not use. One indication of this is the fact that Eli steps 
upon the scene in 13 without introduction. As 8 Philistine oppression of forty 
years is known to the author of Judges (131), from which Samson only began 
to deliver Israel (Jd. 13> 2°), it is not unlikely that this Eli document was once 
read in that connexion. The argument that 27-95 is of later date than the 
context has no weight in the face of the difficulty we meet in assigning a defi- 
nite date to either of our documents. 

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

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


Books of Samuel. The original independence of the document which we 
have called Sl, accounts for the insertion of one section which has puzzled the 
critics. I refer to 13°%4, the first account of Saul’s rejection or of the breach 
between him and Samuel. The paragraph is an evident duplicate of 15 and 
its insertion in the completed book is unaccountable. Yet the critics generally 
assume that it is a late insertion by an editor or scribe to whom Saul’s rejection 
in 15 came too late. As the reason why the other events of Saul’s life are 
duplicated is that they are narrated once in each document, there is a pre- 
sumption that the same is true in this case. The section 135 was Sl.’s 
account of Saul’s rejection and was inserted into his history before Sm. was 
written. The argument is briefly: (1) that this section was closely inwoven 
into Sl. by the preparatory verse 108. This could hardly be called the method 
of a mere interpolator; (2) historical fidelity called for some account of this 
kind. The fact was notorious that Saul’s kingdom did not endure. This was 
as well known to the writer of Sl. as it isto us. Though far from the prag- 
matism of Sm. he would yet find the reason for this in the will of Yahweh and 
his prophet; (3) this account is as mild as it well could be. It does not blame 
Saul but leayes us in doubt whether he was really at fault. In this respect, 
certainly, the paragraph does not show dependence on 15, where a high- 
handed act of disobedience is narrated. The gentler treatment of Saul would 
naturally come earlier in time; (4) only by supposing this to have preceded 
can we account for the geographical location of 15. As is well known, the 
centre of Samuel’s public activity, according to Sm., is Mizpah. It is here 
that he calls the people together on solemn occasions, and it is here that Saul 
would most naturally bring the people for his festivities. Why then do we 
find the festivities and the rejection of 15 at Gilgal? Only because the author 
had before him an account which already made Gilgal the site.* 

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

*In order to show the state of the discussion I have here assumed that the 
paragraph in question is exactly 135-158, which is its extent according to the analysis 
of Wellhausen, Budde, and others. The exact boundaries of the insertion how- 
ever are not absolutely certain, as the reader will see by turning to the exposition 
in the body of the book. I myself think it begins with v.4. It should be remarked 
also that though the section was in the history of Sl. before it was joined to מס‎ it 
is nevertheless an addition to the earliest text of Sl, It fits so badly in its present 
context that it shows itself to be an insertion, My only contention is that it is an 
early insertion, 


duction to the story of David. This is confirmed by the phe- 
nomena before us. Chapter 15, which is as far as we have traced 
Sm., is continued in 167% while 14” certainly prepares the way 
for 164%", The paragraph 14777 is indeed a concluding summary 
such as we find elsewhere at the end of an important reign or 
period. But it is probable that the author of Sl. would at least 
give us some account of his hero’s death. As he has no more 
exploits to tell, it is not improper for him to insert his summary 
here. Still it is possible that these verses are a later insertion or 
have been transferred hither from some other place. 

Redactional alterations, made to fit the documents together, 
are not numerous. The most marked is 11" where the proposi- 
tion to renew the kingdom is a concession to the other document. 
Some other minor alterations or insertions will be considered in 
the course of the exposition. 

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

§ 5. Analysis of 1 Samuel xvi.—2 Samuel i. 

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

* The theory that the Pentateuchal sources extend into the historical books is as 
old as Gramberg’s Avitische Geschichte (1830) and was elaborated by Schrader in 
the eighth edition of De Wette’s Lindeitung (1869). It has recently been revived 
by Budde and Cornill, with the qualified approval of Professor Moore (Judges, כ‎ 
xxxiil 5(. A judicious review of the arguments of Bu. and Co. is given by Kittel, 
SK, 1891, p. 44 ff 


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

The first definite clue in what follows seems to be 18% where 
we read that Saul removed David from his presence (מעמו)‎ by 
giving him a command of troops engaged in service away from 
the court. This points back to 167 where David had been made 
his armour-bearer; 187% therefore belongs with 16*9. It did 
not follow immediately on that paragraph, however, because the 
song of the women 18° which is the occasion of Saul’s distrust 
must have been preceded by some exploit of David’s which called 
forth the eulogy. Such an exploit is indeed found in 17. But 
that chapter agrees more nearly (in its representation of David’s 
youth) with the other document. We must assume that the 
original paragraph has been omitted, or else that it has been 
worked over so that we no longer recognize it.* 

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

* The question whether the recension of & is to be preferred to that of # in 17 
and 18 will be discussed in the commentary. The presumption is in favour of the 
shorter text, which 15 that of ₪ 


still more. This would properly introduce one of the attempts 
upon David’s life. Among several that offer themselves, the one 
which fits most naturally in the story is 19777 where Saul sets 
guards about the house of David. The night in which this took 
place is the wedding night, a time when David would be least 
suspicious. The evident sequel is the flight to Nob, 217”, and 
the conclusion to this is the massacre of the priests 22"? °*, 

The most striking duplicate in what follows is 23-24” com- 
pared with 26. It is altogether probable that one of these should 
be assigned to each of our documents. If so, 26 is the one which 
belongs with 51. because in it David appears as the daring warrior 
who invades the enemy’s camp. ‘The intervening matter offers 
2314 which seems to belong in the same stream. ‘The story of 
Nabal in 25 and the account of David’s service with Achish 27. 
29. 30 also go well in this connexion. 2 ₪. 1 seems to be the 
continuation of the same document. 

Without denying the subjective nature of such an analysis, I 
venture to think that we have a consistent narrative in the sec- 
tions <thne put together, to. wit: 16°" 13° 2" ae eer 
יכ‎ 0 126. 265.297.2904 30, 2.005. , Whatasilettcis moteao 
homogeneous, though for the most part the fragments fit together 
fairly well. It makes David, the shepherd lad secretly anointed 
by Samuel, come to the camp of Saul where he slays the Philistine 
champion. His introduction to Saul is followed by Jonathan’s 
pledge of friendship (18'°). Saul, on the other hand, is his 
enemy at oncé and tries to pin him to the wall (18'*"*) — the evi- 
dent reference to 16'** does not necessarily prove the coherence 
of the two paragraphs. We had reason to believe in the earlier 
period that Sm. was dependent to some extent on Sl. The same 
seems to be true here. The evil spirit which Sl. made the occa- 
sion of introducing David to the court, becomes in Sm. the divine 
inciter of Saul against David. Yahweh is with David to protect 
him, while Saul is the incarnation of all villainy. So in 187% 
Merab is promised to David, being his by right on account of the 
defeat of Goliath, but taken from him by a flagrant breach of 
faith, and given to another. Soon after, Saul orders Jonathan to 
slay David, but a temporary reconciliation is effected, 18-197. 
But at the next exhibition of prowess Saul tries again to murder 


David with his own hand, 107 David escapes and comes to 
Samuel at Ramah, where he is miraculously saved from Saul’s 
various attempts to take him, 19°". This, it should be noticed, 
is a duplicate account of what we have in ro”, and as that be- 
longs to Sl., this is naturally attributed to Sm., where we have 
already placed it. The natural continuation is 211, David’s 
flight to Achish, with which we may perhaps connect 227 It 
has already been pointed out that 23-24 belongs in this 
document. Its tone agrees with this, for David is saved by an 
interposition of Providence, 23% and his enemy is delivered 
into his hand by the same power. ‘The distinct recognition of 
David’s kingly future on the part 01 Saul, 247, seems to point 
‘in the same direction. Further, 237 should perhaps be taken 
with this narrative, though it may be a later interpolation. Samuel 
appears for the last time in 28, where, although dead, he plays the 
part assigned to him in the earlier chapters of this source, and his 
message is vindicated in 31, the story of Saul’s despair and suicide. 

Reading continuously 167% 17'-18° (in the text of @) 18% 
187-109 19 21116 2277 231 24% 28. 31 we shall find no in- 
superable objection to considering them one history. We have 
thus accounted for all our text except 20 (including 21’). This 
seems impossible to fit into either of our sources. It is the ac- 
count of Jonathan’s device for sounding his father and acquaint- 
ing David with the result. In the composite text it comes after 
Saul’s repeated attempts upon David’s life, when it is simply ludi- 
crous to have Jonathan deny that David is in danger. But it is 
equally out of place in either of the separate sources. In one it 
comes immediately after David’s flight to Samuel, which, with 
Saul’s pursuit, must have been known to all the world. In the 
other it would follow David’s escape from his own house, in con- 
nexion with which Saul’s animus must have been revealed to the 
court and to his own immediate family. The only place where it 
would seem possible is after Saul’s first manifestation of hostility, 
which is the first attempt with the spear, 18°". But when we 
place it here we are at once brought into difficulty by the fact 
that at the end of the interview David leaves the court for good 
—which contradicts the subsequent tenor of both documents. 
There seems to be nothing left except to suppose we have here 


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

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

§ 6. Analysis of 2 Samuel ti.-xxtv. 

The narrative here shows few duplicate sections such as we 
meet in the earlier book. It is now generally conceded that we 
have in 9-20 a block of homogeneous matter from an old and 
well-informed source. It reaches a period with the description 
of David’s court in 20% A similar description is given in 
$618. It seems natural to suppose that in the latter place the 
paragraph was intended to serve the same purpose as in the 
earlier ; and, in fact, chapter 8 is a compendium of David’s wars, 
designed to take the place of the more extended history in 9-20. 
Chapters 5 and 7 seem to belong with 8, for their author empha- 
sizes the religious ideas of Israel’s unity and of David’s significance 
with reference to the Messianic hope. The tone of these chapters 
would agree with Sm., while there seems no objection to making 
9-20 a part of Sl. Chapters 2-4 will then belong with the latter, 
while 6 represents matter belonging to both. At least, it is 
impossible to suppose either to have lacked an account of the 
capture of Jerusalem such as is here given. 

The curious appendix, 21-24, contains pieces of widely different 
origin. The two calamities recounted in 217 and 24 seem to 
belong together, and to have been originally continuous. Between 


them was first inserted an old catalogue of exploits and of heroes, 
21°” 23°. This was in turn rent asunder by the two Psalms, 
22 and 23'7. It is possible that some of this material belongs to 
the documents already separated, and there seems no internal 
reason why we should not make 21 and 24 a part of the history 
from which came g-20. But how they came to be dislocated 
from the main body is difficult to say. It should be noted that 
the whole section, 21-24, separates what belongs together, for 
1 Kings 1 is the original continuation of 1 Sam. 20. 

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

The first attempt at detailed analysis of the Books of Samuel seems to have 
been made by Eichhorn, in whose Introduction ץ‎ we find a comparison of the 
matter common to 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. This he supposes to be taken 
from a common source, 8 compendious life of David. He further points out 
that 1 5. 24 and 26 are duplicates, and that 161+-5 and 171! are inconsistent. 
The last-mentioned paragraph he strikes out of the text, on the ground of its 
omission by 65. He points out also that 1 5. 1-3 and 7 are later than the 
adjacent matter. 

Eichhorn’s hypothesis of a brief life of David which furnished the matter 
common to Samuel and Chronicles was ably refuted by De Wette in his Bez- 
trige (II. p. 14 ff.). The same scholar} gives the evidence of compilation, 
beginning with the contradiction between 16!+%3 and 17126. 55, He adds that 
these last are not consistent with 17°!-40 54, Besides other inconsistencies, he 
points out the duplicate nature of 23!%-24?8 and 26, recognizes that 2 5. 4 
is an appendix, and that the poetic sections are inserted from a book of songs. 

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

+ Zinleitung in das Alte Testament, Finfte Auflage, Gottingen, 1823, 111. pp. 

+ In his Zinleitung in das Alte Testament, Vierte Auflage, Berlin, 1833. 


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

Gramberg * with genuine critical insight calls attention to the resemblance 
between the pragmatism of 1 S, 7 and that of the framework of the Book of 
Judges. He also recognizes that 1 S. and the early part of 2 S. consist of two 
narratives which relate the same events in different ways. He disentangles 
the two documents, beginning with 1 ₪. and following them through 16, 
From that point on, his analysis is not so successful. 

Ewald + divides the historical books Judges to 2 Kings among six different 
authors. He supposes the earliest materials to have been statistical, like 2 = 
238-8, and that these were taken from the public records—it is unfortunate 
that he should class with them 1 Chr. 11/047 and 12!**, Next to these was a 
narrative, near the events in point of time, which embraced such sections as 
1S, 13. 14 and 30%-9, Then came an extended work, the Prophetical Book 
of Kings, which is the source of a large part of the material in Samuel and 
Kings (down to 2 K. 10). Another writer, of less vigorous style, covered the 
same period—a specimen of his work is 1 ₪. 5-8, and another is I S, 31. 
Later fragments inserted into the history are 1 ₪. 12. 15-17. 24. 20. 28. The 
work thus compiled was Deuteronomically edited, brief insertions indicating 
the point of view of the editor, like 1 5, 85+ and parts of 12. The final 
redactor lived in the Exile, but the changes made by him in our books were 
slight, the insertion of 1 S. 276- being the only one mentioned. 

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

The problem was taken in hand afresh by Wellhausen.§ With great clear- 
ness of vision he separates the two main sources of 1 S., though he is not 
always positive concerning the intricacies of 19 and 20, In 2S, he makes 6. 
9-20 parts of a life of David, while pointing out the various elements which 
are put together in the rest of the Book. His conclusion is that the bulk of 
2 5. is a literary unit, and that 1 5. 1452-2 5. 818 is another literary unit, “in 
which however the continuous thread is frequently interrupted by foreign 
matter. These later insertions are doubtless supplements which attach them- 
selves to the older connexion, or put a new elaboration in the place of a 

* Kritische Geschichte der Religionsideen des Alten Testament, Berlin, 1830, 
p. 71 ff. : 

t 00560. des Volkes Israel8, 1. pp. 193-244; ETr. I. pp. 133-168. 

1 הז‎ De Wette’s Hinleitung, Achte Auflage, 1869. 

§ In his edition of Bleek’s Finleitung, the fourth, published in 1878. This sec- 
tion is not contained in the later editions of Bleek, but is reprinted in the book 

entitled Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Liicher, Berlin, 1889, 


genuine member of the older document.” In 1 ₪. 1-14, finally, he unites 
three pieces which belong to each other but which have not sprung from the 
same point of view (Com. p. 265). 

Budde * marks an advance by showing how complete each of the two docu- 
ments in I ₪. 1-14 1s in itself. He seems to exaggerate however in declaring 
that neither can be shown to be dependent on the other. In the second half 
of 1 S. he finds the continuation of the same two histories but with consider- 
able supplementary insertions, and he follows the two documents down to 
28.7. As already remarked, he believed them to be identical with the Pen- 
tateuchal sources E and J, having come to this conclusion independently of 
Schrader.t 25S. 8 he supposes to be a compendious conclusion to the history 
of David designed to replace 0-20, which an editor sensitive to David’s repu- 
tation left out of the history, but which one with more historic sense afterwards 
reinserted. This scholar’s textual and higher criticism is embodied in his 
edition of the text.{ The student will readily convince himself that the analy- 
sis in this book is not always correct, that the colouring is sometimes certainly 
wrong, and further, that his rearrangement of the chapters in 2 S. creates a 
book which in fact never had any earlier existence. But the work is never- 
theless indispensable, and a distinct advance on anything which had been 
done before. 

Kuenen (4/CO”.) comes to substantially the same conclusion with Well- 
hausen. A careful statement of the phenomena is given by Driver, ZO7®. 
pp. 172-185. While agreeing with Budde that one of the two sources shows 
affinity with E, he points out the considerable differences between the other 
and J. Cornill (£zz/eztung*) seems to add little to the results of his prede- 

§ 7. The Text and Versions. 

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

* Die Biicher Richter und Samuel, 1890. 

+ Budde’s book was preceded by a study entitled “Saul’s Konigswahl und 
Verwerfung,” ZA TW. 1888. Cornill treated the same subject under the title “ Ein 
Elohistischer Bericht iiber die Entstehung des Israel. Konigtums,” ZA W&L. 
1885, and in the Kénigsberger Studien, 1887, and ZATW. 1890. His discussion 
seems to have been of material help to Budde. 

t Part 8 of Haupt's 52/0 7. Baltimore, 1894. 


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

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

In the absence of light from the MSS., we must seek the help 
of the ancient versions. And among these the Greek easily takes 
the first place, owing to its age and to the fact that it had a Hebrew 
original very different from the one known to us. If we had © in 
its earliest form, it would be equivalent to a Hebrew codex of the 
first Christian century, or even of earlier date. Unfortunately the 
copies of 65 now in our possession have suffered manifold cor- 
ruption. Logically, we should wait until their faults have been 
removed, and the uncorrupt original has been restored, before 
proceeding to the correction of the Hebrew text. 

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


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

A second group is represented by the Codex Alexandrinus (4). 
That this also represents a recension — that is, a form of the text 
modified by the work of an editor — must be evident to every 
reader. For, on comparison of “ with ®, the former is seen to 
have been systematically corrected by a Hebrew copy resembling 
the one now current. ‘Typical of a third group is the edition of 
Lagarde ("). This also has been frequently corrected by a 
Hebrew copy or by one of the other Greek translations.* But 
with almost equal frequency, this copy has retained the earlier 
reading along with the correction. 

The great divergence of these several types of text shows the 
complexity of the problem which confronts the editor of the 
Septuagint. For the corrector of the Hebrew it is not quite so 
serious. It allows him to argue that where these three copies 
agree they represent a very early type of text. Where they agree 
in a reading different from that preserved in 30, this reading 
deserves to be considered on its merits, as if it were the read- 
ing of a very ancient Hebrew copy. Internal probability should 
decide between them. 

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

* מך‎ the Books of Samuel it shows no special affinity with the fragments of 
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion that have come down to us. Its agreement 
with the current text of 5 is remarked by Dr. and others, Cf. Stockmayer in 
ZATW. XII. p. 2178 f 


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

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

The most complete apparatus for 65 is the well-known edition begun by 
Holmes and continued by Parsons (HP.), Oxford, 1798-1827. The Books of 
Samuel (Kings) are contained in the second volume of this work. I have con- 
sulted it on all difficult passages. Repeated attempts to group the MSS. as 
presented in this work have given no results in which I have confidence, and I 
have fallen back upon the rule formulated above. My citation of 65, there- 
fore, must be taken to mean only that @48" agree in a particular reading. 
The text of 8 is reproduced in Swete’s Old Testament in Greek, 1. Cambridge, 
1887, with some corrections by Nestle in the appendix to Vol. 11. The varia- 
tions of 4 are given in the margin of the same edition. The edition of 
Lagarde (which the editor supposed to represent the recension of Lucian) 
is entitled, Lzbrorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior, and was 

published in Gottingen, 1883. 

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

The readings of the Old-Latin (1) sometimes throw light on the 
Greek text from which they are derived. I have therefore exam- 
ined the fragments contained in Sabatier’s Bisliorum Sacrorum 
Latinae Versiones Antiquae (1743), and also those given by Ver- 
cellone from the margin of a codex of Leon — Codex Gothicus 

The Syriac version known as the Peshitta has apparently under- 


gone a revision under ecclesiastical authority. Its testimony to 
a Hebrew original is therefore open to suspicion —for the im- 
portance of the Greek Old Testament in the Church influenced 
the revisers, if not the translators, of $ Where this version dif- 
fers materially from 39 we cannot be sure that the variation is not 
due to Greek influence. The difficulty of using this translation in 
criticism of the Hebrew is enhanced by the state of its own text. 
The only printed edition within reach is that of Lee, which was a 
reprint of the Syriac part of Walton’s Polyglott, which in its turn 
was taken from the Paris Polyglott, resting finally upon a single 
MS. — of late date and slender authority. The edition published 
at Oroomiah in connexion with a rendering in Modern Syriac dif- 
fers very slightly from that of Lee, and it is not yet certain that it 
can be called an independent witness. Where I have adduced a 
reading of 5 I mean the edition of Lee. In a few instances this 
testimony seems to have some value.* 

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

§ 8. Religious Ideas of the Books of Samuel. 

In turning our attention to the religious ideas expressed or 
implied in the Books of Samuel, we are first impressed by the 
variety of view in different parts of the work. In some places 
we have a glimpse of the most primitive stage of Israel’s religion. 
An instance of this is the treatment of the Teraphim (1 S. 19). 
We cannot doubt that this was an image in human form and that 

* The need of a critical edition of 5 is great. But there is no evidence that such 
an edition will influence our view of the Hebrew text to any considerable extent. 
On the editions and MSS. the reader may consult an article by Rahlfs in ZA7TW. 
IX. pp. 161-210, and the volume by Barnes, An Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles, 
Cambridge, 1897. 


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

The narrative we are considering reminds us of another passage, 
Gen. 311° (E), where Rachel steals the Teraphim of her 
father. Here also the presence of the Teraphim in the family 
of Israel gives the author no offence. Yet we can hardly avoid 
seeing that he views them with something of contempt. They 
are carried off by a woman, and when they must be concealed 
they are ignominiously thrust under her camel saddle and sat 
upon. This author has a touch of sarcasm in his tone, from which 
the narrator in Samuel is free. The story of David and Michal 
therefore represents an earlier stage of thought than that of E. 

It is rather striking that the only other reference to the Tera- 
phim in Samuel is at the opposite pole of religious thought. In 
this (1 S. 15”) the Teraphim are classed with idolatry and witch- 
craft as an abomination to Yahweh. 

We shall probably not be wrong in seeing a survival of pre- 
prophetic religion in the account of the witch of Endor (1 S. 28). 
The narrative, however, does not stand in the same relation to 
its material as in the case just considered. The author condemns 
necromancy (at least as we now read) and makes Saul in his 
better days to have cut off its devotees from the land. But 
through the story we are able to see the spiritistic ideas which 
once prevailed in Israel. The spirits of the dead are classed with 
the gods. They possess superhuman knowledge. They can be 
induced by magical means to reveal the secrets of the future. 

This was once religion. From the time of Isaiah it was distinctly 


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

But, as in the case already considered, the diversity of view in 
different parts of the Book is so marked as to constitute contra- 
diction. In the Deuteronomic sections there can be no doubt 
that the author has the exclusive view, according to which the 
gods of the nations are no gods. ‘This is in fact distinctly asserted 
in one passage (1 S. 12”'), which however may be a late expan- 
sion of the text. The way is prepared for this universalism by 
the account of Dagon before the Ark. Here the god of the 
Philistines is not regarded as a nonentity, but his inferior power 
when brought into conflict with Yahweh is made evident. 

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

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


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

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

Yahweh is a God who reveals himself to his people. Even 6 
individual (it would appear) may seek an omen from casual things, 
as did Jonathan from the words of the Philistines. But more dis- 
tinctly the divine will is revealed in certain appointed ways. One 
of these is the Urim and Thummim which we may identify with 
the sacred lot. The oracle given by the Ephod probably ex- 
pressed itself in the same way. Most distinctly, Yahweh speaks 
to (and through) his prophets, sometimes apparently by dreams, 
sometimes in waking visions. He sends the Spirit also, which 
produces extraordinary effects in those who are seized by it. They 
experience exaltation of feeling so that they join in religious 
dances, rave, fall down in a cataleptic state. In other cases, the 
Spirit drives to deeds of heroic courage, or prepares the Anointed 
of Yahweh for his work as a ruler; and again it produces morbid 
jealousy, melancholy, and deeds of frenzy. 

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


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

The pragmatism which shows itself in the Book of Judges is 
carried over into the first section of 1 Samuel. This is a philoso- 
phy of history, according to which when Israel was faithful to 
Yahweh it was prospered and kept in safety. When it forgot him 
it was delivered over to the power of its enemies. Thus the Phil- 
istine oppression comes because the people have forsaken Yahweh 
and served Baal and Astarte. When they repent and seek their 
God, he delivers them by the hand of Samuel. As an expression 
of belief in the justice of God in dealing with the nations, this 
view deserves all respect. The mechanical way in which it is 
carried out, however, gives a one-sided view of the course of 
Israel’s history. 

§ 9. Commentaries. 

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

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

Among the Roman Catholic expositors I know only Cornelius 
8 Lapide, in the edition of Venice, 1700, and those who are cited 
by Poole in his Synopsis, or by Schmid in his commentary. 

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


Among the Protestant scholars of the seventeenth century a 
high place must be accorded to Sebastian Schmid of Strasburg. 
His commentary on the Books of Samuel (two volumes, quarto, 
1687, 1689) is a monument of solid and judicious learning. 
The author shares the prejudice of his time in favour of the 
received text, and the theological questions which he discusses at 
length have to us lost a large part of their interest. But, so far 
as the text on which he comments is uncorrupt, the author’s judg- 
ment is sound, and much that is of value in recent conservative 
commentaries is derived from him. Among Reformed theo- 
logians Clericus (Le Clerc) is much esteemed. His commentary 
on Samuel appeared in 1708. The often suggestive Annofationes 
of Grotius are embodied in the 2/0/06 /Mustrata of his Lutheran 
opponent Calov. Of this I have used the second edition (1719). 

The questions of textual criticism which have come to the front 
in recent years were first fairly discussed by Thenius. He under- 
took systematically to correct the text by comparison of the ancient 
versions. His commentary forms part of the Aurzgefasstes Exe- 
getisches Handbuch.* Thenius sometimes goes too far in his 
preference for the reading of ©, but this should not make us 
undervalue his really pioneer work. The next step was taken by 
Wellhausen in his 76207 der Biicher Samuels (1871). The author’s 
well-known brilliancy and balance are manifest in this early work, 
and all succeeding commentators are indebted to it. The only 
criticism to be made upon it is that it is not always sufficiently 
appreciative of the work accomplished by Thenius. Keil alone, 
of recent expositors, holds on to a conception of the Hebrew 
text inherited from the seventeenth century, and his commentary 
(second edition, 1875) refuses to recognize the most evident gains 
of recent scholarship. The exposition of Erdmann in Lange’s 
Bibelwerk is accessible in an English translation (1877). The 
author can hardly be said to be in advance of Keil, but his Ameri- 
can editor (Professor Toy) has enriched the work with notes which 
show a scholarship abreast of the times. The great work of Reuss, 
La Bible, Traduction Nouvelle (Paris, 1874), contains in its first 

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


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

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

In addition to the books mentioned, I have had constantly by 
me Kittel’s translation in Kautzsch’s 2/0/0000 Schrift des Alten 
Testaments. I have examined also a number of programmes, 
dissertations, and pamphlets, some of which will be referred to in 
the notes. 

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


se 2 

/ו 3 | \ i % Li‏ ' / \ 1 4 0 כו 
ו 4 טר א 6 ae ee a ee‏ כ 2 וו 4 

ב דדא יצ ב אוו 


וו ו 

ו של 





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

I. 1-IV. 12. Samuel's birth and call. — Hannah, the child- 
less wife of Elkanah, grieves over her privation and prays for a 
son. Her prayer is answered, and in accordance with the vow 
made in her prayer she dedicates her son to the service of Yahweh. 
He is therefore brought to the sanctuary at Shiloh when yet a boy. 
Here his behaviour is in marked contrast to that of the hereditary 
priests, the sons of Eli. While yet a lad (as it would seem) he 
becomes a prophet by the divine call, and the first revelation 
which he receives is a denunciation of punishment on Eli for his 
indulgence of his sons. This revelation is followed by others, 
which establish Samuel’s reputation as a prophet throughout 

The piece begins like the stories appended to the history of the 
Judges, Jd. 17' 191 (cf. 13”). The place to which it introduces 
us is Shiloh, where we find the Ark of God under the guardianship 
of Eli and his family, and where there is a temple for it. The 
time is not far from that commemorated by the story of Samson, 
as the Philistines are the prominent enemies of Israel. Probably 



the author of the Book of Judges had in mind the story of Eli or 
of Samuel, or even of Saul, when he credited Samson with only 
the beginning of deliverance (Jd. 13”). Shiloh appears as the 
sanctuary of Israel in the Book of Joshua in at least one passage 
ascribed to JE (18*") as well as in others of later date, also in 
Jd. 187% in an insertion which is classed with E. The prominence 
given to this sanctuary in our present account makes it probable 
that the various documents are in some way connected. 

Our account, however, is not a unit. It has received at least 
one insertion from an extraneous source in the Song of Hannah. 
Again, the warning of Eli by an anonymous man of God (27%) 
unpleasantly duplicates the message revealed to Samuel in the 
next chapter. One of the two is superfluous. Against the opinion 
of most critics which sees in 277* a barefaced insertion, I have 
given reasons above (Introduction, p. xix f.) for supposing that it 
was already a part of the account of Eli’s sons which the author 
used in writing the life of Samuel. 

That the earlier part of 1 Sam. properly belongs in the period of the Judges 
has often been pointed out. That there was ever a separate book of Judges 
which included 1 Sam. I-12 cannot be certainly asserted. Graf* claims that 
Jd. 17 18 19-21 and 1 Sam. 1-778 are from the same source. But no one 
seems to have followed him in this, and the character of the documents is 
quite dissimilar. If the assertion had been limited to Jd. 17 18 and 1 Sam. 
3-6, more could be said in its favour. Graf also points out that the speech 
of Samuelin 1 Sam, 12 marks the close of the period of the Judges, as Joshua’s 
farewell address marks the close of the period of conquest. To this Kuenen + 
adds the obvious argument that both Eli and Samuel are called Judges, 1 Sam. 
415 71-17, The latter passage, however, uses the term jzdge in a different sense 
from that which it has in the Book of Judges. That at some time Eli was 
counted among the Judges of Israel is possible. But it seems impossible to fit 
both him and Samuel into the scheme of the author of the present Book of 
Judges. At the same time it must be admitted that the point of view of the 
author of 1 Sam. 7217 was very similar to his. t 

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

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

1 Cf Bu, RS, .כ‎ 201, Ki. GH, 11. pp. 29-32. 

I. 1-3 5 

Luphite of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was E lkanah | 
cf. similar openings, Jd. 13% 1 S.9!. There has possibly been 
conflation in the description. That he was a Rumathite would 
be enough to indicate that he was of the hill country of Ephraim, 
without the addition of those words. Ramah is a common Old 
‘Testament name, designating at least eight different places. Four 
Jocalities have been identified with the Ramah of Elkanah and 
Samuel. These are Bezt Rima thirteen miles northeast of Lydda, 
Ram Allah nine miles north of Jerusalem, Z7-Ram four miles 
nearer that city, and Vedy Samwil about four miles northwest of 
it. The first of these seems too near the Philistine territory, the 
last two are in Benjamin. The Biblical data are not sufficient to 
decide the question with certainty, but my own mind inclines to 
Ram Allah as having the probability on its side. Zwph occurs 
again as the name of the district in which Saul finds the home of 
Samuel, 9°. The genealogy given seems to leave no doubt that 
Elkanah was an Ephraimite by blood.—2. As in some other 
cases where aman had two wives, sorrow was caused by the fact 
that one was blessed with children, while the other had no child — 
so we should read here with ©. She would not have grieved, 
had she had even one. The case of Rachel before the birth of 
Joseph will occur to every one. The name Hannah corresponds 
to the English name Grace, and Peninnah means Coral or Pearl. 
—3. Elkanah wsed to go up year by year to worship and to sacri- 
Jice to Yahweh Sebaoth in Shiloh] the institution of the pilgrimage 
is apparently as old as the existence of shrines. That Elkanah 
went 066 a year seems to point to a time when the three yearly 
festivals were not yet regarded as obligatory. The divine name 
Vahweh Sebaoth occurs in Samuel eleven times, and all seem to 
belong to the later strata of the book. The meaning of the name 
has been much discussed. To our conception Yahweh is appropri- 
ately called God of the hosts of heaven, understanding by the hosts 
either the stars or the angels. But to the earlier thought of Israel, 
the angels were unknown. God of the armies of Israel is favoured 
by the fact that צבאות‎ does designate these armies in many pas- 
sages (Ex. 7* 127 Num. 1% al.). It should be noted, however, that 
Amos, the earliest writer to whom we can trace the appellation, 
seems to have been especially impressed by the fact that Yahweh 


uses the armies of the heathen for the accomplishment of his ends, 
Am, 4" 48 5¥, He is’ therefore God-of the mations; not of 
Israel alone. (SAz/oh is the modern Sez/un, and its situation is 
described in Jd. 21% as north of Bethel, east of the 7000 
goes up from Bethel to Shechem. There was a yearly festival there 
in the time of the judges, Jd. 21". In order to an understanding of 
what follows, the narrator adds: And EX and his two sons, Hophni 
and Phinehas, were there priests to Yahweh] the text is that of 6. 

1. [מן-הרמתים‎ The pointing makes the name of the place Ramathaim. 
This name (that is, the dual form, later drzmathaea) does not appear else- 
where in the Old Testament, but even in this same account (v.19) is given as 
a singular. We., 772.5 p. 35, therefore supposes an attempt made in this 
instance to substitute a more modern form for the older, which, however, did 
not extend beyond this single case, It seems simpler with 141. to point ,הרמתים‎ 
for which we may cite הרמתי‎ 1 Chr. 2727, dps [הרמתים‎ is grammatically 
impossible. For the second word we have 26006 655, which indicates suff- 
ciently that the 0 has come from the following word. @ seems to feel the 
difficulty in the received text, for it renders .מתלמידי נביא‎ The restoration 
of We. is now generally adopted, as 806. [ירחס--‎ 65 renders ,ורחמאל‎ but 
1 Chr. 61% seems to go back to [אפרתי---.(3‎ seems to have been originally 
equivalent to Ephratmite, Jd. 12° 1 K. 1199. In this place, however, 65 has év 
NaceiB 1302666, so that the original may have been בן צוף אפרים‎ as suggested 
by We.—2. [אחת‎ a number of MSS. have ילדים---.האחת‎ px] אטס‎ Fv wadlov 
@ seems more forcible. —8. aby} the perfect with Waw Consecutive is used 
of customary action, Dr., 765655 §120; Dav., Syntax, § 54; Konig, Syntax, 
367 2. — [האיש ההוא מעירו‎ 655 has simply 6 &vOpwaros; the shorter text has the 
presumption in its favour.— [מימים ימימה‎ Ex, 1310 Jd. 114 211% cf. 6. 
Syntax, 266 0.  תואבצ יהוה‎ --- 0651665 the Bible Dictionaries the student may 
consult ZATW. VI. p.17; PRE., article Zebaoth; Smend, Alttest. Religions- 
geschichte, p. 185 ff. On the pronunciation of the name of Israel’s God, 
ZATW. IIL. p. 280 f., IV. .כ‎ 21 ff. — by 33 [שני‎ "Hdel xat of 560 viol 60700 6. 
It is necessary that Eli should be mentioned because he appears in the imme- 
diate sequel. There is every reason to adopt the reading of 65 therefore. 
Even if Eli had been mentioned in some preceding part of this history now 
lost, it would be quite as appropriate to mention him here as to mention his 
sons alone. The change to 30 may possibly have been made to shield Eli 
from the blame afterwards pronounced upon his sons. We. and Dr. decide 
against 65, while Bu. supposes that the original was simply .ושם עלי כהן‎ The 
name Phinehas is said to mean negro in Egyptian (Lauth, 22/6. XXV. 
p- 139). 

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

I. 3-8 7 

wept and could not eat. But the connexion is broken by a long 
sentence, which gives an account of Peninnah’s habitual scornful 
treatment of her rival. The result is awkward, and we must con- 
cede the possibility that the text has been interpolated. As it 
stands, we must make a long parenthesis: 77 came to pass on one 
occasion that Elkanah sacrificed (now he used to give portions to 
Peninnah and her children, but to Hannah one portion though he 
loved her, and her rival would vex her...) and she wept and 
would not eat. ‘Vhe words are plain enough in themselves, with 
the exception of ,אפים‎ which will be discussed in the critical note. 
—6. The received text asserts that her rival vexed her, taunting 
her with her barrenness. The expression is somewhat confused, 
however, and it is noticeable that © in its primitive form only 
asserts that she (Hannah) was greatly troubled. There is reason 
to suspect the text.—'7. The received text must mean: So he 
would do year by year| making Elkanah the subject. In this case 
we must (by a change of the points only) read: as often as he 
came up to the house of Yahweh. ‘Vhe next clause is either an in- 
terpolation or corrupt. Conjecturally we may read: But Han- 
nah covered her face and wept and would not eat.—8. Elkanah 
endeavours to-comfort her: Why wilt thou weep and 70001 not eat, 
and why does thy heart reproach thee ?| ‘The rhetorical question 
is followed by another: Am J not better to thee than fen sons ?[ 
The answer would have been in the affirmative, but it was for his 
sake that she wished children, so the attempt at consolation 
rather opened the springs of grief afresh. 

4. The author begins אלקנה‎ nam) ויהי היום‎ as though he were going to relate 
what happened on one particular occasion. He then drops into the frequen- 
tative tense ונהן‎ as though what followed was a common experience, and this 
is kept up until the end of v.’, where we find והבכה‎ which would naturally 
connect with nz. The result is an obscure sentence, and 65 unfortunately 
gives little help. —ovn [ויהי‎ 1/5. 141 2 K. 481118 Job 1%. There seems no 
reason to separate the phrase from others like ההיא‎ nya ,ויהי‎ cf, also ווהי החדש‎ 
1 S. 20, Ges.26 126g.— nn] one is tempted to change to jn», which is 
apparently favoured by @. But this would involve change of the following 
ולכל-בניה ובנותיה ---.6108ץ‎ [ 65% has simply cal 7005 viots abr 7s, which is original. 
The expansion of such phrases by a scribe is too common to call for remark. 
--5. [אפים‎ is impossible; many dre 655 points to »s-ppx, cf. Num. ו‎ 
15% Jd. 49 Am. 9% where it evidently means nevertheless. It is awkward, how- 


ever, to say: Mevertheless he loved Hannah and Yahweh had shut her womb. 
We expect the author either to say ody one portion (7735) in contrast to 
Peninnah, or else to say that he distinguished her in some way as: he gave 
her a portion defore them. The latter alone would be accounted for by the 
following .כי‎ There is reason to suppose, therefore, that the corruption is 
incurable in the present state of our knowledge: kara 700 עס חש‎ 655; 
% seem to be attempts to render the text of 3(.--- בחיר‎ @ gives a good sense, 
but cannot be got out of the present text, and it is difficult to suppose that this 
translator had another reading before him. Bu. supposes that the original 
may have been .מר אפיס‎ But the point of the narrative is that Hannah wept 
because of the contrast between herself and her co-wife, not because of any- 
thing in her husband’s mien.—6. The verse is removed by Bu. to the margin 
of his text as a later insertion, but without sufficient reason, As it stands we 
must render and her rival provoked 6. -- צרה‎ [ the co-wife, as is shown with 
abundant learning by Lagarde, A/ztthetlungen, 1. 125 ff. In this place, however, 
655 renders cata Thy OAlWiv דטש‎ (5, evidently reading .כצרתה‎ This would join 
very well to the preceding clause of 658. ‘For the Lord had not given her a 
son 7206 her rival.’ But, on the other hand, it does not join well with what fol- 
lows. A further difficulty is made by ,הרעמה‎ an abnormal form, Ges.?° § 225. The 
verb in the Hiphil is always 20 thunder, in the Qal fo roar (Ps. 96"). The 
word is probably corrupt here, as neither of these meanings is appropriate. 
After בעבור‎ we expect mention of the cause of Hannah’s בעבור חרפתה---161ע₪‎ 
would give a good sense. @8 seems to have read יעשה .7 -- .בעבור זה‎ [ must have 
Elkanah in mind as the actor, which indeed he was. There seems to be no 
reason for changing to תעשה‎ (Dr.). The עלתה‎ which follows must be עלתה‎ of 
course, though % seems to favour [בבית ;עלתס‎ should be .בית‎ The words 
כן תכעסנה ותבכה‎ make a difficulty by their abrupt change of subject. It is not 
unlikely therefore that הנה‎ is represented in the last three letters of the first 
verb. KI.’s proposal to read ,והכס חנה‎ and Hannah covered her face in sign 
of grief, is attractive. 65 seems to have read ,ותכעס‎ kal (0666 With מדי‎ 
עלתה‎ cf. מדי צאתס‎ 1 5. 1880, 8. After הנה‎ G introduces cal efrev 07600 0 
ey, 6וקטא‎ * kai etrev airy. This is entirely appropriate, but if original it is diffi- 
cult to see how it was lost. For למה‎ 65 has: rf 607 006 076, which has no claim 
to be more original, but probably goes back to a variant Hebrew text.— ירע‎ 
225] 6דחטז‎ ce 7 Kapdla ov, which indicates 4335 .יכך‎ = This is more appro- 
priate, for ירע לכ"‎ is used of the heart that hardens itself against its neighbour, 
Dt. 15°. Hannah no doubt reproached herself with her shortcoming, though 
it was not voluntary. Her husband exhorts her not to blame herself, which is 
precisely what she was doing — her heart smote her is the natural expression 
in the case. 

9-11. The vow. — Hannah presents herself before Yahweh: 
She rose after they had eaten, and stood before Vahweh] the read- 
ing is that of 69. The condition of things is described in the fol- 

I. 9-11 9 

lowing clause: EU the priest was sitting at the time on his chair 
at the door posts of the temple of Yahweh] the structure seems to 
have been a solid building, otherwise it could not be called @ 
temple ; the same word is afterwards applied to the temple of Sol- 
omon, 1 K. 6%.—10. She was greatly distressed | lit. bitter of soul, 
cf. 2 K. 4”, where it is said of the woman who has lost her only 
son that her soul is bitter. —11. The prayer culminates in a vow: 
Yahweh Sebaoth! If thou wilt indeed look upon the affliction of 
thy maidservant and wilt give thy maidservant a man child, then I 
will give him to Yahweh all the days of his fife she means that he 
should become a temple servant, a methin, Num. 8%. A vow isa 
promise to give something to Yahweh, or to perform something 
for him, in case he grants a prayer. An example is Jacob’s vow, - 
Gen. 28°” (5ך)‎ : Zf Yahweh God will be with me and protect me 
on this journey .. . then this stone shall be to me a house of God, 
and all that thou shalt give me I will tithe for thee. The devotion 
of human beings in this way is illustrated by Jephthah, and is pre- 
supposed in the elaborate provisions of the law for redemption, 
Lev. 27. Our author does not seem to be troubled by the ques- 
tion whether Hannah had a right to make a vow of this kind with- 
out the consent of her husband. The point which most interests 
us is that the author cannot have thought of Samuel (or Elkanah) 
as a Levite, for in that case the vow would have been unmeaning. 
But that he also loses sight of the ancient regulation that every 
male that opens the womb is already the property of Yahweh, 
seems evident. The statement in the text: @ razor shall not 
come upon his head reads like a later addition. But it is readily 
accounted for by the view of a scribe that Samuel was to bea 
Nazirite —a lifelong Nazirite like Samson. © carries the like- 
ness to Samson further by adding: and wine and fermented 
liquor he shall not drink] cf. Jd. 13°. And wilt remember me] 
reads like a reminiscence of Gen. 30”, where God remembers 
Rachel in giving her a son. 

9. [ותקם חנה אחרי אכלה בשלה‎ the last word is unnecessary, and difficulty is 
found in accepting ,אכלה‎ because 2/6 had not eaten. The latter is somewhat 
relieved by reading אכלם‎ with @. The objection that she finds the family still 
at their meal in y.18 is hardly cogent in view of the state of the text there. 
Still it is not impossible that there has been scribal expansion. We. points 

10 1 SAMUEL 

nbwa, which is possible, only I should take a letter from the preceding word 
הבשקה‎ box אחרי‎ = after the eating of the boiled flesh, 2%. The conjecture of 
161. אחריה אכלה בלשכה‎ mim, which is adopted by Bu., seems too remote from 
any external testimony. It seems necessary, however, to insert with 65 ותתיצב‎ 
לפניי יהוה‎ (Th., We., al.). -- [ועלי . . . ישב‎ a circumstantial clause. | מזוזת‎ is else- 
where used in the plural, and should, peshaps, be so pointed here, with 65.-- 
10. [ובכה הבכה‎ the emphatic adverbial infinitive. The imperfect tense indi- 
cates continued action: she kept weeping bitterly. —11. ולאהתשכח אתהאמתך‎ is 
superfluous and is also lacking in @®; we may disregard 16. אנשים---‎ yr] does 
not occur again. That she means 0 male child is evident. 

12-18. Eli's rebuke, followed by a blessing. As Hannah 
prolonged her prayer, Eli, who saw the movement of her lips, but 
heard no sound, “ook her for a drunken woman] that excess 
in wine was not an infrequent concomitant of religious feasts seems 
indicated by the readiness with which the suspicion is entertained 
here. For the construction cf. Job 13%: why dost thou reckon me 
thine enemy ?—14. The rebuke: How long wilt thou show thyself 
drunken | seems to emphasize the disgracefulness of the spectacle. 
Put away thy wine and go from the presence of Yahweh| the 
second half is found in 65 only, but seems to be original. In 6 
Eli’s servan¢ is made to utter the rebuke, an evident attempt to 
shield the priest from the charge of harshness.—15. Hannah 
repels the charge: /Vo, my Lord; an afflicted woman am I, and I 
have not drunk wine or intoxicating drink| the two are often men- 
tioned together. But 7 poured out my soul before Yahweh, cf. Ps. 
62° (pour out the heart), 42°. —16. Do not take thy servant to bea 
vile woman] lit. a daughter of behal. The corresponding phrase 
sons of 06007 is frequent and evidently means w/e men, Jd. 19”, 
1 Sam. 2”. The derivation of the word de/a/, however, is obscure, 
and recent discussions are inconclusive. The Greek translators 
render men of belial, or sons of belial, by adjectives like wile, un- 
godly, senseless, contrary. A satisfactory Hebrew etymology has 
not been found. The older commentators propose without yoke, 
for which they cite Jer. 2”. Other conjectures, “rat rises no more 
(after falling), chat profits not, are equally precarious. The word 
is possibly a foreign word, but the Babylonian derivation does not 
as yet seem unequivocally established. For on account of the 
greatness of my grief have I continued until now. The soft answer 
turns away wrath.—1¥7. Eli not only dismisses her in peace, but 

3 I, 12-18 II 

adds a prayer that her petition may be granted, —18. Her prayer 
is that she may s/and well with him] lit. find favour in his eyes, 
a frequent Old Testament phrase. The historian adds: So 6 
woman went her way, and her face was no more sad | for the text 
see the critical note. 

12. [והיה‎ is possible, as one of the rare cases of the perfect with weak 
ו‎ (so Dr., Motes, and Tevses?, § 133). But it is more likely that it is the 
mistake of a scribe who thought the verb continued the preceding sen- 
tence. Restore ויהי‎ (Bu.).—opnnd [הרבתה‎ the main verb expresses the 
idea which we express adverbially: ske prayed much. Similar cases are 
הטיב לעשות‎ : he did well; לעשות‎ ann: he did quickly. sy) introduces the 
circumstantial clause: she continued praying while 2208 was observing her 
mouth. —13. [וחנה היא‎ the casus pendens: As for Hannah, she was speak- 
ing in her heart; only her lips were moving, but her voice was not heard |* 
the whole sentence is explanatory of what Eli was observing. The name of 
Hannah is here omitted by 6585,--- ויחשבה‎ [ resumes the story introduced by 
the ויהי‎ at the beginning of v.!2.— 7 >v] on the form of the adjective, Ges.” 
§ 84 4, 24.14. [תשתכרין‎ one of the few cases of the old feminine ending, 
Ges. § 47 0.--- מעליך‎ [ 65 substitutes cal mopevou (kal 67606 1( 66 rpoodmov 
Kvuplov. The clause seems to me one likely to be changed, to avoid the seem- 
ing identification of Yahweh with the Ark.—15. myvnwp] harsh of spirit 
seems impossible. Most modern scholars have adopted Th.’s emendation to 
קשת יום‎ : 7 ckAnpa juepa G, cf. Job 30%, where dv קשה‎ is one in misfortune. 
-- שכר‎ fruit-wine or cider, cf. Benziger, Hebr. Archéologie, p. 96.— 16. אל‎ 
[תתן . . . לפני‎ would naturally mean do not give... into the power of, which 
cannot be correct. What Hannah desires is that she may not be reckoned to 
26 a vile woman. In this sense we find נרן‎ followed by ,כ‎ and we should 
probably emend to na>, throwing out .לפני‎ K1.’s לפי‎ does not occur with this 
verb, and Dr.’s ל‎ is also without parallel. Cf. Gen. 4239, ויתן אתנו כמרגלים‎ : 
and took us for spies. —yv53] is an obscure word, cf. BDB. s.v., Moore on 
Judges 19”, Baudissin in PRZ.3 11. .כ‎ 548 f., Cheyne, in the Hxpostéor, 1895, 
and in the Expository Times, June, 1897, with Baudissin’s reply, 26z@., Nov. 
1897, and Jensen’s remarks, ?070., Apr. 1898. — ‘bDy3) [שיחי‎ 65 seems to have 
found but one of the two words, probably שיחי‎ which was not definite enough 
for a Hebrew scribe, so that an explanatory word was 80060. -- [רברתי‎ decid- 
edly less forcible than éxréraxa 65, probably .הארכתי‎ --- 7. snow for ,שאלתך‎ 
cf, Ges. 8 23 c.—18. ותאכל‎ [ is lacking in seven Hebrew MSS., and although 
this is rather a slender basis on which to erect a theory, I suspect the word to 
be an insertion. The sense is perfectly good without it, as is seen in the 
translation given above. It is a question whether the author would have said 
she went her way if he meant simply that she returned to the chamber imme- 

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

12 1 SAMUEL 

diately adjoining the temple. The text of @: and came into the chamber and 
ate with her husband and drank will be a further expansion. If original, we 
cannot account for its abbreviation. —97)A-N9 [ופניה‎ Kal 7rd עס חש 000 ח‎ 07 
00 cuvérecev 65. The only parallel cited for 99 (Job 9°”) is of doubtful integrity. 
It seems better therefore to correct היוחלה‎ to ,נפלה‎ which is quite in accord 
with Hebrew usage. 

19-28. The prayer answered, and the vow performed. — 
The division between this and the preceding is artificial. ‘The 
narrative continues without a break. After paying their respects 
at the temple the next morning the family returned to their home 
in Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife] cf. Gen. 1% 
And Yahweh remembered her| as he remembered Rachel Gen. 
30”. —20. And it came to pass at the end of a year that she bare 
a son| about the time of the yearly festival. And called his name 
Samuel: For from Yahweh I have asked him] the last words evi- 
dently give her reason for the choice 01 this name. The etymology 
does not bear out the intention. — 21. At the usual time Elkanah 
went up to Shiloh 4 offer the yearly sacrifice| as we have heard 
nothing of ₪ vow, which is added in the received text, the words 
are probably the insertion of a scribe. — 22. Hannah excuses her- 
self from the present journey in the words: When the boy ts weaned 
then I will bring him for two years she would keep him at home, 
for this was the usual time, and is still the case in the East, cf. 
Koran, 2**, Some commentators have thought it impossible that 
the boy could be actually delivered to the priest at so early an 
age, and have tried to interpret the verb 7060060 in a figurative 
sense. But this seems uncalled for. Zhen we shall see the face 
of Yahweh, and he shall dwell there forever | where the last clause 
means of course 0 his “fe. —23. Elkanah consents, adding: 
Only Yahweh establish thy word] a wish that their lives may be 
spared to do as she purposes, — 24. At the time set, she drought 
him up with a three year old bullock| an unusually valuable sacri- 
fice. The received text has ¢hree bullocks by an error of transcrip- 
tion. And an ephah of flour and a skin of wine] the abundance 
of provision was in order to invite many to “eat and drink and 
rejoice before Yahweh” with them. The 6220 of flour is Gideon’s 
offering also, Jd. 6". “The quantity according to the smallest 
computation was over a bushel” (Moore).— 25. After sacrificing 

I, 19-28 13 

the bullock they brought the lad to Eli] that the whole family was 
present is quite in accord with the fitness of things. —26. She 
recalls herself to his remembrance: By thy Life, Sir, 1 am the 
woman that stood near thee here to pray to Vahweh !/—2%. The 
answer to her prayer; Concerning this boy 1 prayed and Yahweh 
granted what I asked lit. my request which I asked of him. — 
28. The return she proposes to make: Mow J, on my part, have 
given him to Yahweh. All the days that he shall live he is given to 
Yahweh] is Hannah’s devotion of her son only a revival of the 
ancient law which claimed all the first born for Yahweh? At the 
end of the verse #9 adds and he bowed to Yahweh. If this refers 
to Samuel, it seems appropriate enough. It is, however, lacking 
in 6*, which inserts a clause not found in % at the end of the 
Song which follows. The probable explanation is that the Song 
was inserted in the two texts at different points. The original text 
seems to have said, after Hannah’s presentation of the lad, so she 
left him there and went to Ramah. The Song was inserted in 
between the two halves of this sentence ; in 65 it comes before the 
first half. 

90. [לתקפות הימים‎ similarly לתקפת השנה‎ Ex. 3422 2 Chr. 2428.*— ayn ותהר‎ 
[ותלר‎ 65 puts cal cvvé\aBev at the end of v.19, The word has been interpo- 
lated in both recensions. Before ,בי‎ @ and @ insert and she said, a case of 
explicative expansion. — [כי מיהוה שאלתיו‎ as Kimchi sees, the theory of the 
author is that שמואל‎ is a contraction of .שאול מאל‎ But such contraction is 
unheard of elsewhere. There is an exegetical tradition in favour of שמועאל‎ 
as the original form of the word, but, as shown by Dr. ) 2/0/65, in loc.), this 
also is without analogy. The most natural derivation, making it mean, Vame 
of God, is attributed to St. Gregory by Schm. —21. [ואתהנדרו‎ Jewish tradition 
sees in this a vow made for the birth of ason, But the only vow of which the 
narrative gives us any knowledge is Hannah’s vow. There is reason to sup- 
pose the words an addition to the original text therefore.. The tendency to 
such expansion is seen in 65 here, which reads, kal ras 6009 00700 Kal rdcas 
ras dexdras THs 795 00700.--99. [ער יגמל‎ a parallel case is Jd. 16 so that 
there is no need to insert 006 00800206 G4.— ונראה‎ [ apparently intended 
by the punctuators as a Niphal. It is better to read it as the Qal imperfect 
on account of את-פני‎ which follows—perhaps the well-known cohortative 
with weak 1: JZ wall bring him up that we may see the face of Yahweh.— 
28. [את-רברו‎ must be understood of some promise. The only one of which 

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

14 1 SAMUEL 

we have record is Eli’s wish that Hannah should have a son — which might 
be construed as a word of Yahweh. But this is already fulfilled in the birth 
of Samuel. It seems better therefore to read 7125 with 65 76 ע666\00‎ 66 0 
07600765 cov. —24. [בפרים שלשה‎ év pdoxw tperif~ovre 6 = ;בפר משלש‎ cf. 
Gen. 159. The reading of 65 is to be restored. At the end of the verse והנער‎ 
נער‎ is unintelligible; «al 7d maddpiov per’ adr Gy 65 is superfluous, though 657 
helps it by reading kat ע6/07(\00‎ for .והבאהו‎ In the present state of our 
knowledge we must be content to omit the words; ‘the boy was young is an 
impossible rendering, and besides, the sentence is superfluous. Dr. conjectures 
that the words any והנער‎ belong at the end of v., and he is followed by Bu. 
—25. I see no reason for departing from the received text. The consent of 
Eli was necessary to make the act valid, and it was entirely appropriate that 
both parents should present the lad at the sanctuary, though the mother takes 
the leading part. If we are to change at all, we must read  ילע והבא אם הנער אל‎ 
Any אדני .86--.והנער‎ 13] a phrase claiming the favourable notice of the one 
addressed, Jd. 6!5.—28. For the 01 correlativum (Th. after Clericus) cf. 
Gen. 20% xn7o1 she for her part.  ליאשה‎ is to encourage a person to ask 
by granting his request, then fo gz?ve without a previous request. — in [אשר‎ 
seems impossible: אשר חי‎ seems indicated by @@S and is found in one 
ליהוה---.6006%‎ pw [וישתחו‎ some MSS. have .וישהחוו‎ The whole clause is lack- 
ing in 659% which give a substitute at the beginning of 211, It is represented 
in 657 in both places. 

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

The structure of the poem is very simple. Four stanzas may 
be marked off: (1) The believer’s doxology; (2) Warning to 
the arrogant; (3) Yahweh’s government; (4) Confidence for 
the future. The metre regularly shows three accents to a line, 
except in one or two instances, where the text is probably at fault. 

TI. 1-5 15 

A translation is given by Professor Briggs in his Messianic Prophecy (N.Y., 
1886), p. 124 1, and with critical notes in the Presbyterian Review, 1885, 
p. 112 8 

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

Glad is my heart in Yahweh, 

My horn is exalted in my God, 

My mouth is enlarged over my enemies, 
For I rejoice in thy salvation. 

There is none holy like Yahweh, 

For there is none righteous like our God, 
And there is no rock besides thee. 

1. [ותתפלל חנה ותאמר‎ 65% has simply kat efev, which is enough. — py] 
6076060 65 may go back to pox; but as this verb with לב‎ might convey the 
meaning of obstinacy (cf. Dt. 2°°), it seems better to adhere to #7. The 
elevation of the horn and the widening of the mouth are familiar figures 
in Hebrew poetry, Ps. 9211 Is. 574. The second ביהוה‎ should doubtless be 
באלהי‎ with @ and 28 MSS.—2. The second member is בלתך‎ px .כי‎ Evi- 
dently something has been lost; and as 65 has dfxavos, we cannot do better 
than to insert it. But having followed 65 in this, it seems better to go with 
it also in the interchange of בלתך‎ and .כאלהינו‎ The parallelism is thus 
improved. For ,צור‎ cf. 5. 

3-5. Warning to the opposers. 

Do not speak haughtily, 

Or let arrogance come from your mouth, 
For a God of knowledge is Yahweh, 
And a God who weighs men’s deeds. 

The bow of the mighty is broken, 
And the weak are girded with might. 
Those who had plenty do lack, 

But the famished inherit the land. 
For the barren has borne seven, 
And the mother of many languishes. 

3. The first member is unmanageably long. It seems probable, therefore, 
that תרכו תדברו‎ are duplicates, and that the same is true of the double 7722. 
It answers every purpose to read .אל תרברו גבהה‎ For pny, cf. Ps. 311%. — 
רעות‎ 5x] Job 364. The plural is probably emphatic, and might be rendered 
all-knowing (Briggs).—mibby נתכנו‎ xdv] ef les crimes ne passent pas impunis 
(Reuss) is hardly justified. At least the עללות‎ should be described, in order 
that we may understand that crimes are meant. The Q7é, reading ולו‎ )0 

16 1 SAMUEL 

in the text in some copies), makes a possible sense: And by him actions are 
weighed. But 65, reading kal 0605 érommdgwy émirndeduata 00700, makes us 
suspect the original to have been עללות‎ y2h ואל‎ (SS). —4. [חתים‎ Th. and 
Dr. cite Is. 2117 in favour of the reading. But it seems simpler to correct 
to Ann: 66ףע0₪06‎ G.—5. נשכרו‎ | Live themselves out would be appropriate, 
but the verb is nowhere found in this stem, and yon, suggested by 6, is 
preferable. — tn] needs something to complete the sense. Briggs takes 
ער‎ from the beginning of the next verse, and translates 2062 holiday forever. 
But in order to mean keep holiday, the verb needs something to complete 
the sense—cease from labour. Reifmann, cited by Dr., proposes ,חדלו עבר‎ 
which is adopted by Bu.: ל עאא(ק6ח‎ 66 does not seem to help us, but 
habitaverunt | points to mapgxnoav, which is also confirmed by the Armenian 
(according to HP). I have, therefore, ventured to restore ,ירשו ארץ‎ cf. Ps. 
[ער--.251%‎ could undoubtedly be spared. S$ omits, but @ represents it by 
876. [אמללה---‎ )265.% § 55 d. 

6-8. Yahweh’s government. 

Yahweh kills and gives life, 

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

He raises the poor from the dust, 

From the dung-hill he raises the needy, 

To make him sit with nobles of the people, 
And gives him in possession a glorious throne. 
[For to Yahweh belong the pillars of the earth, 
And he has set the world upon them]. 

6. The second half is synonymous with the first — Sheol the abode of the 
dead. — 7%, 4s] is represented by kal alone in @: ef /.--8. רל‎ and אביון‎ 
are parallel, Ps. 721%.-- [מאשפת‎ Many codd. have ,ומאשפת‎ which is also the 
reading of 653. The אשפת‎ 18 the mound of rubbish which accumulates near 
an Oriental town. Beggars often spend the night upon it in default of a 
lodging. — 12193] duvacray dady GB: 667עט6‎ 0 raod 65, evidently reading 
,נדיבי-עם‎ which seems more vigorous. The couplet in brackets is not found 
in 65, and is therefore probably not original. In place of it we find: d:d0vs 
evxIY TS 6006, Kal eddynoev ern Sikalov, which seems an endeavour to 
adapt the psalm more nearly to Hannah’s circumstances. 

9, 10. The confidence of the believer. 

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

II. 6-12 17 

Yahweh will shatter his enemies, 

Upen them ne will thunder in the heavens, 
Yahweh will judge the ends of the earth; 
He will give strength to his king, 

And will exalt the horn of his anointed. 

9. @ omits the first two members of the verse. These seem, however, 
more in accord with the context than the third.—10. [וחתו‎ 4 nn) with 
65.-- [מריבו‎ is confirmed by G, but is of course to be taken collectively: 
מריביו‎ Qré.— ry] עליו‎ 0/0. Bu. proposes ,עליון‎ which would not be out of 
place. In this verse @ inserts six lines from Jer. 09%. For nym. in line 3 
65 has simply משיהו -- .6זש6‎ [ as a title of the king (and we can hardly under- 
stand it otherwise here) this word is another indication of comparatively 
late date. 

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

11. kal xarédurev avrév 6660 évdrrioy עס)קטא‎ & is represented in #7 by the 
last three words of 178. It is scarcely possible to doubt that 65 has the original, 
and that its proper place is here. — [וילך אלקנה הרמתה‎ can scarcely be original, 
as Hannah has been the prominent character in what precedes. We should 
read .וילכו הרמתה עס ותלך הרמתה‎ The words על-ביתו‎ are lacking in 65 and 
superfluous. —n wn] is often used of priestly service. 

12-17. The corruption of the existing priesthood. — The 
author describes the conduct of Eli’s sons in a manner to point 
the contrast afforded by Samuel, and also to prepare for the catas- 
trophe that is to overtake their house. The crime of which they 
are accused is arrogance in demanding a share of the sacrifice 
and in not contenting themselves with the portions assigned by 
custom or by law. 

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

12. The sons of Eli were wicked men] the phrase used, sons 
of belial, is parallel to daughter of beial used in 1%. We must be 
careful not to assume that belial was at this time a proper name. 
Whatever its origin, it denotes extreme depravity. Zhey knew not 


18 1 SAMUEL 

Yahweh] in any such sense as would lead them to do his will, 
nor the priests due from the people| this clause from the next 
verse seems to belong here. —13, 14. Whenever a man sacrificed, 
the priest's servant would come, at the boiling of the flesh, with his 
three-pronged fork in his hand, and would strike tt into the pot or 
the pan or the kettle| the method could scarcely be more offensive. 
All that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself | by 
the hand of his servant, that is. This violence was not exercised 
in isolated cases only, but was practically universal — ₪ 0// 7 
thatcame to sacrifice to Yahweh in Shiloh. —15. Worse is to follow : 
Moreover, before they burned the fat, the priests servant used to 
come and say to the offerer: Give roasting-flesh for the priest — he 
will not take botled flesh from thee, but raw | this amounted to 
sacrilege, as nothing ought to intervene between the presentation 
of the offering and the burning of the part belonging to Yahweh. 
The expostulation of the worshipper to this effect only led to 
fresh insult: Should the offerer say: They are going to burn the fat 
at once, then take whatever you please, he would reply: No! You 
shall give it at once or I will take tt by force. —17. The greatness 
of the sin consisted in this, that these priests despised the offerings 
of Yahweh. 

18. [ומשפט הכהנים את‎ 665 had ומשפט הכהן מאת‎ ; this is confirmed by 9 MSS. 
and seems preferable. The nearest parallel is Dt. 18%-- ,משפט הכהנים מאה‎ 
It is extremely difficult to decide whether this clause belongs with the preced- 
ing verse or whether it should begin a new sentence: che custom of the priest 

> was that his servant would come. The decisive consideration is the use 
of the phrase in Dt. 18% where it certainly means the due of the priests from 
the people. On this account it belongs with the preceding, though we expect 
an אר‎ to precede .משפט‎ For שלש השנים‎ We. and Dr. read והכהּ .14 — .שלשה שנים‎ 
doubtless should be the pointing, with 65. Instead of four vessels 65 has but 
three. —13] should be corrected to לו‎ with @$@.—7>wa ow] the tautology 
is relieved by @B 00606 ש)קטא‎ év Dydd, and this should be restored. It is 
not certain that 0» should be retained with this reading (K1., Bu.).—15. 07] 
evidently introduces the climax.—np»] \dBw 65%. The reading of # seems 
more likely to be original. —16. [ויאמר‎ as pointed by §# would describe a 
single case. It seems better to point ויאמר‎ and to understand it as stating a 
hypothesis. — אליו‎ is not represented in @.— Kt.) לא‎ Qré and in 19 codd., 
besides 658. -- לקחתי‎ [ is justified by analogy, cf. Dr. Tenses,3 § 1367; but it 
is smoother to change to אתדפני יהוה  .17 ---. (.141) ולקחתי‎ which is inserted in 
different places in different recensions of 65, is possibly not original, as it is 

II. 12-21 19 

superfluous and may have crept in from the next verse. —ow3xn] lacking 
in 65, seems to be an insertion intended to lighten the categorical assertion 
that the 27716972 treated the offerings with contumely. 

18-21. The narrative returns to Samuel who continued serving 
Yahweh| lit. the face of Yahweh, which means Yahweh himself. 
Samuel is described as a /ad girded with a linen ephod | where 
the ephod is evidently a priestly garment, 22% 2S. 64%. Bau- 
dissin* points out that linen garments were worn by the Egyptian 
priests. Direct influence cannot be proved.—19. And his mother 
used to make him a tittle robe| no English word exactly corre- 
sponds to the Hebrew. The garment was worn over the tunic. 
There seems no reason to find fault with the statement on the 
ground that as the boy grew it would no longer be a ///7₪ 64. 
The narrator has the earlier years especially in mind. Doubtless 
the cloth was spun and woven by his mother, as well as the robe 
cut and sewed by her. —20. The blessing of Eli: Yahweh repay 
thee with seed from this woman for the gift which she gave to 
Yahweh] the received text is obscure, but the reference must be 
to 1, where Hannah expressly says she has given him to Yahweh. 
21. And Vahweh visited Hannah] as he did Sarah, Gen. 21’, so 
that she gave birth to three sons and two daughters| in addition to 
Samuel. But the lad Samuel grew up in the presence of Yahweh. 

19. [ומעיל קטן‎ the מעיל‎ was the outer garment worn by well-to-do people. 
Tt was usually sleeveless, as we may judge from the emphasis laid upon 
those with sleeves. For קטן‎ KI. proposes ,כתון‎ cotton, which, however, occurs 
nowhere in Biblical Hebrew.—20. [ישם‎ would perhaps answer our pur- 
pose. But dmoricac G® indicates ישלם‎ as 000665 6 6@U, —bxw 
[ליהוה‎ cannot be right, though the attempt is made to translate il, 7 
one asked of Yahweh. But there is no reason for the indefinite verb here: 
Eli would certainly have said שאלה‎ or שאלת‎ and would also have used yp. 
On the basis of 128 we naturally restore השאילה‎ (Bu.). = 65 has éxpyoas which 
is evidently השאלת‎ cf. Ex. 1235, But it seems unfair to give the merit to Elka- 
nah. — ppb [והלכו‎ better to make the suffix plural as in some codd.; 6 
however makes the verb singular.—21. [כיהפקד‎ seems without motive: ויפקר‎ 
655 should be restored. —177n)] is lacking in 6®, cf. 12°, which shows how 
easily such insertions are made. After ותלד‎ insert עוד‎ 

* Geschichte des Alttestamentlichen Priesterthums, Leipzig, 1889, p. 70, referring 
to Herodotus, 11. 37. Compare, also, Nowack, Hebr. Archdologie, 11. p. 116, 

20 1 SAMUEL 

22-25. Eli’s ineffectual rebuke. — The paragraph joins di- 
rectly to v.”, and, as already indicated, was probably part of a 
source which treated the sin and punishment of Eli’s sons without 
reference to Samuel. —22. Although Eli was a very old man, yet 
he used to hear what his sons were doing| the reference is to the 
sins already laid to their charge. ‘The impurity predicated of them 
in the second half of the verse was not in the mind of the original 
author. —23. The rebuke: Why will you do the like of these things 
which I hear from the mouth of all the people ?\ this, which is an 
abbreviated text, seems to convey all that he meant to say. — 
24. No, my sons! Not good ts the report which I hear... the 
people of Vahweh| the text is suspicious, and perhaps originally 
contained a prohibition. —25. The motive is the difficulty of 
finding a mediator when Yahweh is the offended party: Jf a man 
sin against a man, God will mediate| cases of this kind could be 
brought before God as umpire, and the oracle would decide 
between the parties. But if against Vahweh one sin, who shall 
act as mediator? No higher power exists to whom the case can 
be submitted. The conclusion is, that the offended party will 
take his revenge. The expostulation was fruitless, for Vahweh 
was minded to slay them], and on that account incited them to 
sin, as he afterwards incited David to take the census, 2 S. 241. 

26. Samuel is again brought in, in contrast. He kept srowing 
larger and better in the estimation of Vahweh, and in the estima- 
tion of men. 

22. 55] is lacking in 6597, The second half of the verse brings as an 
additional accusation against the priests that they wsed to lie with the women 
who ministered at the gate of the Tent of Meeting] the sentence is suspicious; 
first, because it is lacking in 65%. In the second place the original narrator 
has stated his accusation above and this should have been made a part of that 
accusation. Finally, the whole narrative, except in this verse, is ignorant of 
women who ministered and of the Tent of Meeting as established at Shiloh. 
The language is borrowed from the Priestly document of the Pentateuch, 
Ex, 38°. For these reasons the half verse is to be regarded as a late inter- 
polation (We., Kl, Dr., Bu.).—28. [אתהרבריכם רעים‎ is lacking in @B and 
difheult to construe: for 7 hear of your evil dealings (RV.) cannot be the 
meaning. It seems better to leave the words out.—nxp] א6‎ orduaros & is 
more vivid, — [העם אלה‎ is impossible. The אלה‎ has come in by false duplica- 
tion of the following .אל‎ @ has xvplov which perhaps represents ;אלהים‎ but 

II. 22-26 21 

notice the phrase יהוה‎ oy at the end of the next verse. — 24, pow אשר אנכי‎ 
מעברים‎ [ seems unintelligible: which [ hear the people circulating T would 
require העס‎ to be expressed before the participle: Vou make the people trans- 
gress would require the addition of ony, and the same is true of Kimchi’s pro- 
posal: You make the people forsake [the sanctuary]. If a word of this kind 
can be used here at all, it is better to correct to an ayn or ,האברתס‎ ye lead 
astray. But אל‎ at the beginning of the verse suggests a negative command, 
in which case there has been radical corruption. — 25. פללו‎ [ as the direct 
object is without analogy we may read ;ופלל לו‎ We., Bu,, al., point --.ופללוּ‎ 
26. [וגרל‎ is lacking in G8. 

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

The piece reminds us of similar sections elsewhere, Jd. 6 1 ₪ 
13'*, where a prophet is sent with a rebuke, and of others, Jd. 2'* 
10, where Yahweh himself (or his Angel) delivers the rebuke. 
All such sections are of comparatively late date, and the present 
one is no exception. ‘The only question which is raised concern- 
ing it is whether it is an insertion made after the narrative of 
Samuel’s life was completed. In answering this we need to note 
that the account of the priests’ wickedness, ending at 1”, might 
be continued perfectly well by the account of the capture of the 
Ark beginning at 4’. The oldest historian would then have left us 
to draw the moral ourselves. It seems on the whole probable 
that this was the case. But an editor, not content with this form 
of the story, inserted our section on purpose to point out the 
lesson. This may very well have been done before the story 
of Samuel was inserted in the narrative, as the author of that 
story had abundant reason to tell us of his hero’s call even if 277% 
were already in his text, while the interpolator would have no 
motive to insert 277% if 3 was already a part of the history. 

We. (Comp., p. 239 f.) treats this section as an interpolation into the narra- 
tive similar to the Song of Hannah, though of earlier date, “ yet scarcely older 
than Deuteronomy and the reform of Josiah.’ Bu., 2S. p. 200, thinks the 
section in place but “ Deuteronomistically recast,” with which Cornill agrees 
Einleiting®, p. 99; and Driver takes substantially the same view, , 6% 

22 1 SAMUEL 

can see no evidence of the recasting, and if the piece is not much‏ 1 .174 יק 
later than Josiah, there is no reason why it may not have existed before the‏ 
incorporation of the story of Samuel into this context.‏ 

27. A man of God] the phrase is frequently used of a prophet, 
especially in the Books of Kings; it is twice used of an angel, 
Jd. 13°5, in a passage ascribed to J. by Prof. Moore, once applied 
to Moses in Deuteronomy (33', E), and once also in Joshua (14°, 
a passage Deuteronomistically coloured). Zhus saith Yahweh] 
is a standing phrase in the prophetic books. J certainly revealed 
myself to thy father’s house, while they were in Egypt, servants to 
the house of Pharach| the father’s house was probably the clan 
of Levi. Parallel to this election by Yahweh as a reason for obe- 
dience, is the frequent argumentation from his choice of Israel as 
his people. — 28. And J chose him from all the tribes of Israel as my 
priest, to offer on my altar, to burn sacrifices and to bear an ephod | 
whether we should translate 40 dear an ephod, or Zo wear an ephod 
depends upon the meaning of the word ephod, concerning which 
this passage leaves us wholly in the dark. And J gave thy father’s 
house all the offerings of the sons of Israel for food | the last two 
words are omitted by 30, but found in 69. They seem necessary 
to the sense, for the point of the rebuke is that Eli’s sons were 
dissatisfied with the provision made for them. It seems clear 
that the writer has in mind either the tribe of Levi or the house 
of Aaron which was chosen to the priesthood in Egypt, and that 
therefore he lived before the descent of Zadok (who displaced the 
descendants of Eli) was traced either to Levi or to Aaron.* — 
29. Why then dost thou look with an evil eye on my sacrifices and 
on my offerings and dost honour thy sons above me, in fattening 
them with the first-fruits of all the offerings of Israel my people ? 
The Hebrew text is obscure and this restoration is only pro- 
visional. It seems to express the mind of the writer — that Eli 
allowed his sons to seize as their own the portion that belonged 
of right to God. — 30. A change of purpose is declared: J had 
thought that thy house and thy clan should continue tn my presence 
Jorever | lit. should walk to and fro before me. The figure is that 

* Cf. Baudissin, Geschichte des Alttestamentlichen Priesterthums, Leipzig, 1889, 
Pp. 197 + 

II. 27-36 23 

of a courtier who lives in his sovereign’s favour, basks in the light 
of his countenance. But now, saith Yahweh, far be 17 from me ; 
Jor them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me 
shall be lightly esteemed. —81. The prediction to which this leads 
up: 7 well cut off thy seed| a man has hope in the survival of his 
posterity, long after he himself is gone. So that there shall not be 
an old man in thy family] premature death is a sign of the divine 
displeasure. — 32. And thou shalt look, being in straits and with 
envious eyes, upon all with which I favour Israel] as a punish- 
ment for the present greedy behaviour. The text must be con- 
fessed to be very uncertain. — 33. And the man of thine whom 1 
do not cut off from my altar shall be spared in order to consume his 
eyes and to starve his soul, and all the increase of thy house shall 
die by the sword of men] one is tempted to see a reference to the 
slaughter of the priests by Saul. — 34. An earnest of the calamity 
should be the death of Eli’s sons : on the same day both shall die. — 
35. In contrast with Eli there shall be a faithful priest : 4/7 that ts 
in my heart and in my desire he will do, and I will build him an 
enduring house| that is, a continuous posterity, cf. 2 S. ,ד‎ 
makes known to thee that Yahweh will build thee a house. This 
priest, in person or in his descendants, shall walk before mine 
Anointed for all time] \it. all the days. The Anotnted is of course 
the king of Israel, and the writer seems to look back upon a long 
line of kings. There can be no doubt therefore that 6 7 
priest is Zadok, who was made priest by Solomon in place of 
Abiathar (Eli’s great-grandson). This is expressly stated to be 
the fulfilment of the prophecy, 1 K. 2%. The family of Zadok 
maintained themselves in the sanctuary of Jerusalem until the 
final destruction of the temple.—36. Eli’s family shall be so 
reduced as to seek the menial offices of the sanctuary for the 
pittance that might thus be earned. And the one that ts left of thy 
house shall come to do him obeisance for a bit of money or a loaf 
of bread | the contrast is between the regularly installed priesthood 
which lives of the altar, and the hangers-on of the sanctuary who 
are willing to earn an occasional penny or an occasional meal by 
menial services. ‘lhe ambition of the latter is to be put into one 
of the priests’ places 272 order to eat a morsel of the bread of Yahweh | 
the state of things is that which we find after the reform of Josiah, 

24 1 SAMUEL 

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

27. [הנגלה‎ the interrogative ה‎ is out of place, for it would call for a 
negative answer. It has come on to this word by duplication of the next pre- 
ceding 16666. -- [לבית פרעה‎ might in connection with בהיוהם‎ mean Jdelonging 
to the house of Pharaoh. But 65 is probably right in inserting dovAwy; read, 
therefore, [ובחר .28--.עבדים לבית פ'‎ as an infinitive absolute representing a 
finite verb, the word might pass. But it is simpler to restore ואבחר‎ with GL. 
The scribe probably thought he was going to begin the verse with ובחר בחרתי‎ 
corresponding to נגלה נגליתי‎ above; לעלות‎ seems to stand for להעלות‎ or 
to be corrupted from it.—nxw>] probably ולשאת‎ with GX. At the end of 
the verse eis Bpdow 65 should be restored.—29. [למה‎ prefix ו‎ with 6.-- 
תבעטו‎ [ the verb occurs only Dt. 32!5, where it means Zo ick. But whether it 
would take ב‎ in the meaning 20 2zck af is not certain. @ evidently read הביט‎ 
which makes good 56286.-- [אשר צויתי מעון‎ is unintelligible in this context: 
600660 6p0adug 65 may represent מעוין‎ 18% (KI.). This makes good sense, 
and we must suppose אשר צויתי‎ inserted to help out the unintelligible מעון‎ 
after the מעוין‎ had become mutilated. —o 287375] may be conjecturally 
altered to ans xan, for it is Eli’s indulgence to his sons that is rebuked: 
évevoyeto Oar 65 would be 37279. For לעמי‎ we should perhaps read לעיני‎ 
(Bu.) aithough it is equally good simply to leave off the ל‎ as a duplicate 
of the preceding letter. — 80. אמור אמרתי‎ [| only the second word is indicated 
by @. The contrast may be between Yahweh’s former declaration and his 
present one. But it seems more forcible to make אמר‎ denote the thought 
of his mind, as frequently.—7)7.-aN3] is frequent in the prophets. — 
81. [זרעך‎ 7d orépya cov 65. The latter alone seems to be justified by the 
concluding words of the verse (contra Dr., Kl.). | אה-זרע‎ should be made to 
conform to the word just discussed. --88. The verse, down to ,בביהך‎ 8 
omitted by 655, whence some have supposed it not original. But the omis- 
sion can be accounted for by homeoteleuton, and the verse is represented in 
most MSS. of 665 and also in|]. But to make sense of it is another matter. — 
[והבטת צר מעון‎ is nonsense; 11. is probably right in seeing a reference to 
the מעון‎ which we have changed to מעוין‎ above (very possibly the form may 
have been })yp). In that case, the simplest correction will be to read ומעוין‎ 
instead of .מעון‎ For 2 I have ventured, in so desperate a passage, to put 
--.איטיב‎ 88. pry] read [ולאריב --.65 עיניו‎ is pointed as a Hiphil with the 
ה‎ dropped. The reference to Dt. 28° is so evident, however, that the correc- 
tion to להדאיב‎ seems obvious.— [נפשך‎ read אנשים---.65 נפשו‎ cannot mean 
cum ad virilem aetatem venerit &. Read with 66 אלהחפני .84--.בחרב אנשים‎ 
[ופנהס‎ is superfluous and perhaps a gloss. -- 85. [בית נאמן‎ cf. 2528. — 36. [כל‎ 
is lacking in 65% and superfluous. — [וככר-לחס‎ also lacking in @B,—on>] GL 
adds rov kuplov, confirmed by J, and doubtless original. 

II. 36-111. 3 25 

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

The chapter seems to be a unit. Doubts have. been expressed 
as to the originality of 775; but these seem not to be well 
founded. ‘The necessity of the account in a life of Samuel is evi- 
dent. ‘The fact that this section duplicates the warning of the 
anonymous man of God in the preceding chapter does not make 
it the less necessary that Samuel should be accredited as a 
prophet. And no more appropriate credential could be found 
than a prediction of the destruction of the house of Eli. The 
tone and style agree well with ch. 1. 

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

26 1 SAMUEL 

renthesis is difficult to maintain. The other items are important for 
the picture they present of the sanctuary. It is evident that Eli and 
Samuel slept in adjoining rooms, if not in the same room. Sanuel, 
at least, lay in the apartment in which the Ark stood. ‘The dif- 
ference between this arrangement and that provided in the tradi- 
tional Tabernacle is evident. That a lamp should burn all night 
before Yahweh is in accordance with the fitness of things. The 
early Israelites in providing Yahweh a dwelling were careful to 
furnish it with articles of use and luxury according to their ideas. 
Of any typical or symbolical meaning such as later attached itself 
to this furniture we find no trace in our narrative. We may as- 
sume, however, that the lamp burned all night in the sanctuary, 
as was later expressly provided, Ex. 277, cf. 2 Chr. 13", and 
therefore that the time of Samuel’s call was in the early morning. 
The sanctuary is here called a “mple as in 1°. ‘The sleeping of 
an attendant near the Ark, as a servant sleeps near the monarch 
so as to serve him, seems to show preéxilic custom, but how it 
shows this account to be pre-Deuteronomic* I do not see. The 
belief that sleepers in the sanctuary receive revelations in dreams 
was common in antiquity and seems not yet to have died out, as 
there are traces of it among the Moslems to the present time. 
The Ark of God is here mentioned for the first time. It is evi- 
dently the same which was afterwards transferred to his citadel by 
David, and which was the sacred object in the Temple of Solomon. 
But we have no description of it by an early writer. See below, 
on 4’. —4. The text must be restored at this point, where we ex- 
pect the most detailed account, so as to read: Yahweh stood and 
called: Samuel! Samuel! The repetition of the name is one of 
the marks of E among the Pentateuchal documents, Gen. 22" 7 
Ex. 3‘.— 95. Answering what he supposed was the call of Eli, 
Samuel is bidden to return to his place. —6. Yahweh calls again: 
Samuel! Samuel! with the same result as before. —7. The re- 
mark that Samuel did not yet know Vahweh, and the word of Yah- 
weh had not yet been revealed to him, is added to explain how it 
was that he did not recognize the voice of the speaker.— 8. At 
the third experience Eli perceived that Yahweh was calling the 

* As affirmed by Kittel, GH. 11. p. 33. 

III. 3-10 27 

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

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

1. [נפרץ‎ seems to give no good meaning. y 5, which We. substitutes, is 
too violent in meaning for this place, though it is possible that the נ‎ has come 
from the preceding word. — 2. [ועיניו‎ should be read with the Qré.— mina [החלו‎ 
We. seems to be wrong in insisting that the second word cannot be an infini- 
tive, on the ground that a ל‎ would be required. Cf. nn אחל‎ Dt. 2% 8, אחל‎ 
גדלך‎ Jos. 37. It is better, therefore, to point [לא---.כָהות‎ should perhaps 
be ולא‎ (G).—8. טרס‎ is usually construed with the imperfect tense as here, 
Dr., Tenses?, 27 8. —4. sp] In v.!° we read that Yahweh stood and called 
as before. It seems necessary, therefore, that the opening account should 
contain this particular, and so we find in 657 kal xaréory Kal éxddece KUptos. 
The omission of ויהיצב‎ may be accounted for by its anthropomorphism. That 
it was not omitted below only shows, what we know from other passages, that 
a correction of this kind is rarely carried far.—Sxrnw-bx] should be שמואל‎ 
שמואל‎ as below, and here also in 65. -- 5. הנני‎ [ the regular answer when one’s 
name is called. —6. op] is lacking in @BL. By its omission we lose 
nothing, and the second call is made uniform with the first. —7. [טרס‎ 
6ע6600(6‎ mplvy 7 657 seems to be a case where a Greek editor tried to make 
sense out of a text he did not understand.*—yy>)] should be pointed as an 
imperfect after טרס‎ (Bottcher, followed by Th.). —9. pox] 657 adds 6 kadar, 
which is a correct interpretation of the writer’s meaning. — 717) [דבר‎ has 
simply \dAe., which is what Samuel actually says in v.19. It seems to me 
more likely that the name is a later insertion than a later omission. — 
10. [כפעם-בפעםס‎ cf. Jd. 16%. From what has already been said it is evident 
that the narrative cannot be made to illustrate the zzcudatizon common among 

* The reading, however, is found in | serviebat anteguam, Cod. Goth. Leg. apud 

28 1 SAMUEL 

Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. But there is probably a similar idea at the 
basis; namely, that the sanctuary is a favourable place to receive revelations. 
Cf. Seyffert, Dictionary of Classical Antiquity, p. 435, Friedlander, Darstel- 
lungen aus a. Sittengesch. Roms®, 111... 571 ff. 

11-14. The message. — The contents are of such a nature that 
Samuel could no longer be in doubt as to the personality of the 
speaker: Behold I am about to do a thing in Israel such that the 
ears of every one that hears it shall ring| cf. 2 K. 21” Jer. 5% 
both describing the effect of news of calamity. The verb is used 
once of the trembling of the lips from fear (Hab. 3).—12. Jn 
that day I will fulfil upon El all that [have spoken against his 
house from beginning to end | lit. beginning and ending; the ad- 
verbial infinitives express the completeness of the punishment. — 
13. And thou shalt tel him| a slight change from the received 
text — that [will punish his house forever for the guilt of his sons, 
in that his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not rebuke 
them| the text has been purposely obscured to shield the reader 
from pronouncing the words d/aspheming God, but the original has 
fortunately been preserved in 65.--- 14. Therefore have 1 sworn to 
the house of Eli that the guilt of the house of Eli shall not be ex- 
piated| the technical term can best be translated thus, though 
Hebrew and Greek ideas of expiation must not be confused. By 
sacrifice or by offering forever| the expression seems to be made 
very general in order to emphasize the impossibility of placating 
the offended deity by any of the methods known to the ritual. In 
ordinary cases of his anger he might be appeased by smelling an 
offering, 26". 

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

11. [עשה‎ on the use of the participle in divine announcements, cf. Dr., 

Tenses, § 135, 3. —12. 5x] in the first occurrence at least we should read 
by, The interchange of the two prepositions is so common as scarcely to call 

III. 11-18 29 

for remark, — 138. [והגדתי לו‎ cannot mean for I have told him (RV.), but 
must be and 7 will make known to him. This seems unnecessary, and the 
conjecture of KI. (adopted by Bu.) that we should read לו‎ pam is taken 
as the basis of the translation above; for the object of this revelation is to 
warn Eli of the impending doom of his house. —yiya] the construct, govern- 
ing the clause which follows, is doubtless possible, Ges.2° §130c. It seems 
awkward here, however, and the word is left out by Bu. on conjecture. As it 
seems better to have some authority, I prefer to emend according to G48 which 
reads בעון בניו‎ but omits .אשרהדידע‎ — ond מקללים‎ [ cannot mean made themselves 
vile, AV., or bring a curse upon themselves, RV. All the analogies are in 
favour of מקללים אלהים‎ which was read by G. The passage is one of those 
altered by the scribes (¢/gguné sophertm), cf. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueberset- 
2/0/0675, Pp. 271.— [[כהה‎ is used in the sense of restrain only here, so that there 
may be an error of the text.— 14. yaw] is regularly followed by אס‎ giving the 
oath a negative force, or by אס"לא‎ where the force is affirmative. — p97] this 
stem is found here only, but there can be no doubt of the meaning. The Piel 
is the technical term for removing by a ritual act anything which is offensive in 
the sight of God and would therefore make his worshippers unacceptable to 
him, cf. Dr., Deateronomy, p. 425, BDB., s.v. 

15-18. The message delivered. — Samuel lay until the morn- 
ing, when he rose and opened the doors of the house of Vahweh] 
a part of his regular work as servant of the sanctuary. That he 
was afraid to make the vision known is easily understood. — 
16,17. Eli’s adjuration, so may God do to thee and more too, if 
thou conceal from me a word of all that he spoke to thee| induces 
aresponse. The formula so may God do 0 shee is an imprecation 
originally connected with the ceremony of slaying an animal at the 
taking of an oath. The parties pray that the fate of the victim 
may be theirs. The fact that the formula is used only in Samuel 
and Kings is an argument against attributing these books to the 
Pentateuchal authors E and J, who had abundant opportunity to 
use the expression in their histories. The omission of the subject 
of the verb shows Eli’s dread of the divine sentence. At Samuel’s 
report, the old man resigns himself: /¢ 7s Vahweh, let him do what 
is good in his sight compare David’s expression in 2 5. % 

15. After ,הבקר‎ add וישכם בבקר‎ which has fallen out of # on account of the 
resemblance of הבקר‎ and ;כבקר‎ it is preserved by 65. The doors here men- 
tioned are another evidence that the House of Yahweh was not a tent. — 
16. [את-שמואל‎ some MSS. have [ממנו .18 --.אלדש"‎ 667 adds 2966 (= 735), 
which seems necessary to the sense.—1y2] the Qré substitutes בעיניו‎ as 

30 1 SAMUEL 

usual. With the phrase she good in his eyes, compare the right in his eyes, the 
evil in his eyes. Strictly parallel with the present passage are Gen. 16° 198 
(both J) and Jd. 19% (late). But we find הישר והטוב‎ once in Dt. (61*) and 
ככל-הטוב‎ in Jd. 105 (E). Exactly like the text are 1 5. 178 1486-40 2 5. % 
representing both the main streams of narrative from which our history is 
made up. 

III. 19-IV. 18. The sequel is, that Samuel becomes widely 
known as a prophet. ‘The verses are, however, not necessary to 
the connexion, and may be an editorial insertion. 

19. As Samuel grew up he continued to enjoy the favour of 
Yahweh. Vahweh was with him and let none of his words fall to 
the ground | that is, he confirmed them, so that they were not 
useless. — 20. And all Israel knew, from Dan to Beersheba] cf. 
Jd. 2012S. 3 17"; that Samuel was authenticated as a prophet 
of Yahweh] the evident idea of the author is that the people came 
to the sanctuary to consult the prophet. — 21, IV. 18. The verse 
as it stands is tautological. By the change of a single word, we 
get an excellent continuation 01 the preceding: And Lsrael again 
appeared in Shiloh because Yahweh revealed himself to Samuel, 
and the word of Samuel came to all Israel| the sanctuary had 
been deserted because of the wickedness of Eli’s sons, and because 
God did not reveal himself to them. All this was changed by the 
establishment of Samuel as prophet. At the end of this paragraph 
65 adds: (and Samuel was established as a prophet from one end 
of the land to the other) but Eli was exceeding old and his sons 
Rept on doing worse and worse before Yahweh] what is here in 
parenthesis is duplication of *, but the rest is possibly original. 

19. For [הפיל‎ @ may have read bps, cf. Jos. 2145 2 K. 10 --91. Bu. 
proposes to interchange this verse and the following, partly on the ground of 
G, and partly because that order seems more natural. The difficulty, however, 
is caused by ויסף יהוה להראה‎ Which, as it now stands, only says that Yahweh 
appeared again in Shiloh, and thus duplicates the second half of the verse. 
By the single change of יהוה‎ to ישראל‎ the difficulty is avoided, and the verses 
fall into a natural order. -- להראה‎ 18 an unusual form for an infinitive construct, 
but occurs Jd. 1371, cf. Ges.26 75 ¢, Stade, Gram. 622 [בשלה בדבר יהוה---./‎ 
is lacking in 65 and probably later expansion. —IV. 18. The division into chap- 
ters has cut off this clause from the paragraph to which it belongs. The addi- 
tion adopted above is found in the MSS. of G, apparently without exception. 

III. 10-10. 2 aT 

IV. 15 זט‎ 1. War with the Philistines; defeat of Israel 
and capture of the ark; the experiences of the Philistines 
with the ark and its return to the land of Israel. 

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

IV. 15-22. The great disaster. — The author tells us of the 
first repulse in few words. ‘The original opening of the account, 
however, is mutilated in 39 by the same cause which made the last 
words of 3” illegible. Restoring the reading from ©, we get: 
And tt came to pass in those days that the Philistines gathered for 
war against Israel | the Philistines appear as the oppressors of 
Israel in the time of Samson. We know very well that they occu- 
pied the great maritime plain from Joppa southwards to the border 
of Egypt. They appear as a confederacy of five cities, each with 
a chief magistrate (in some places called a king) bearing the title 
of Seren. That they were immigrants was known to Amos (9’), 
who derives them from Cafhtor. Cf. Dt. 2% Jer. 475 At the 
opening of this campaign the Israelites camped at Ebenezer. 
According to 7” the place did not receive the name until later. 
But the historical accuracy of that account is open to question. 
The Philistine camp was at Aphek, probably the same with the 
Aphek in Sharon of Jos. 12 (@). Sharon was the natural con- 
tinuation of the Shephela. The place cannot now be certainly 
identified. —2. When battle was joined, /svael was smitten before 
the Philistines] and their loss is put at four thousand men א‎ the 
ranks in the field. This calls attention to the fact that the Israel- 
ites did not flee, but suffered heavy loss while holding their 
ground. ‘ 

IV. 1. Having given the first clause to the preceding paragraph, we find 
this one beginning with xs», which gives no explanation of the reason why 

Israel went out. This is supplied by 65 which begins Kal eyevnbn év rats 
Auépats éxelvars kal cvvabpolfovrar וטו‎ els modeuov érl 1020. This is 

32 | 1 SAMUEL 

now generally adopted as the original beginning of the section. It seems to 
be found in all MSS. of 6. -- [לקראת פלשתים‎ should probably be לקראתם‎ 6. 
On the Philistines, Ebers, Aegypten und die Biicher Mosis (1868), pp. 130- 
237; Max-Miiller, Asien und Europa (1893), pp. 387-390. — האבן העזר‎ [ can- 
not be right. The first word must be אבו‎ (We.).— pax] We. (Comp., p. 254) 
identifies this with the Aphek of 29! 1 K. 20% 2 K. 137. Cf. Buhl, Geog., 
p. 212.—2. [ויערכו לקראת.‎ cf. 2 S. 10% 0. — [והטש‎ gives no suitable sense here : 
kal éx\wvev 65 points to ותט‎ (adopted by We. al.). It should be noticed, how- 
ever, that נטה‎ is nowhere used of a battle, so that the emendation is doubt- 
ful; ותקש‎ would give a good meaning and would easily be corrupted into wom, 
cf, 2 5. 217, — ישראל‎ [ prefix איש‎ with @ (Bu.). 

3-11. The bringing of the Ark to the camp does not deliver 
the Israelites; on the contrary the Ark itself falls into the 
hands of the enemy. — As usual “Ae Shezkhs determine what is to 
be done. They recognize that Yahweh has smitten them] the de- 
feat of course could not be because their God was less powerful 
than the deities of the enemy. Let us bring to us from Shiloh the 
Ark of our God that he may go out in the midst of us and save us 
Jrom our enemies. Yhe Ark was taken into battle on other occa- 
sions, as in the Ammonite war, 2S. 117. The cry which was 
raised when the Ark set out at the head of the people was (Num. 
10”) : Rise, Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered, and let thy 
haters flee before thee—a war-cry on the face of it. That the 
Ark went before the people at the invasion of the country and the 
siege of Jericho (Jos. 3, 4) is significant in the same connexion. 
The present account identifies Yahweh and the Ark very closely, 
but it does not describe the sacred object. From the name we 
infer that it was a chest, for the same word is used of the sarcoph- 
agus of Joseph, Gen. 50”, and of the box set by the side of the 
altar to receive the money contributions of the worshippers, 2 K. 
12’, The author of Deuteronomy (10°) describes it so far as to say 
that it was of acacia wood, and made to contain the two tables of 
the Covenant. Hence his name for it is Ark of Yahweh's Cov- 
enant, and this usage prevails in Deuteronomistic passages in 
other books. The priestly writer of Ex. 25 gives us the exact 
dimensions, and covers it with gold after his manner. He also 
makes it contain the tables of the Law which he calls the Zest- 
mony. So that his name for it is Ark of the Testimony. He also 
gives an elaborate description of its lid or cover, to him the most 

IV. 3-11 33 

important part of the sacred object, something of which we do 
not hear in earlier writers. Jeremiah alludes to it once under the 
name given it by the Deuteronomist, but in terms which show 
that he attached no great importance to it, Jer. 3. The com- 
moner name in the historical books is Ark of Yahweh or Ark of 
God. In some cases this designation has been obscured by inter- 
polation, a scribe having inserted the word Covenant to conform 
to his own usage, as is illustrated in the passage before us. 

8. [ארון ברית יהוה‎ THY ש6דש8]א‎ Tod 0600 Huey GB; both readings are com- 
bined in 65. The original is evidently ,ארון אלהינו‎ for which a scribe substi- 
tuted the Deuteronomic phrase. We must judge in the same way of the 
insertion of ברית‎ in + (twice) and in v.65. So far the revision was car- 
ried and then given up. In all these cases the testimony of 655 is against the 
insertion. The problem of the nomenclature of the Ark is, however, some- 
what complicated. No less than twenty-two various designations are found 
for it. Of these, ארון ברית‎ with its expansions, are Deuteronomistic, and 
ארון העדות‎ belongs to P. The original name must have been simply ,ארון יהוה‎ 
for which might be substituted .ארון האלהים עס ארון אלהים‎ The only one of 
these used in the Hexateuch is יהוה‎ 1198, which occurs in Jos. 3, 4, 6, and 
7, always in the narrative of JE, and (curiously) in both elements, J and E. 
The occurrence of ארון האלהים‎ in the present chapter would, therefore, militate 
against its assignment to either of the Hexateuchal sources. 

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

1. ארון ברית יהוה‎ in vv.2 is the result of interpolation, as already noted, 
and 50 is ,ארון ברית האלהים‎ which occurs in .ל‎ 

2. ארון אלהי ישראל‎ which is used in 57-8 10.11 63, in the mouth of the Philis- 
tines is the natural expression for them to use. 

3. mm ארון‎ is used 4°; it then gives place to ,ארון האלהים‎ but is resumed 
52-4, interrupted by 5!°, but again resumed in 6}, being used throughout the 
rest of the chapter and in 7!, which belongs with it. 

4. ארון אלהים‎ is used only once (411); but ארון האלהים‎ characterizes 415- 
52, in which it occurs eight times. It recurs again twice תו‎ 

The verse 5!° can well be spared and is probably an insertion. The section 
4-2 forms a distinct section of the narrative, being concerned with the recep- 
tion of the news by Eli and the effect upon him and his house. Nothing 
stands in the way of our assigning it to a different hand from the one that 
wrote the rest of the account. The two verses 5!:? are, in part, a necessary 
introduction to what follows. But they are over full, and probably have suf- 
fered redactional accommodation to their present place. 

Notice that ויבא‎ should be x3», which was read by 6. 


34 1 SAMUEL 

4. The proposition is adopted and the Ark is brought from 
Shiloh ; and also the two sons of Eli with the Ark of God | they 
would naturally accompany it, but the author calls attention to 
their presence because their fate is involved. If this were part of 
the document which makes Samuel so prominent, his name would 
certainly have been mentioned here either to explain his escape 
or to account for his absence. —5. When the Ark reached the 
camp all Israel shouted a great shout and the earth resounded | cf. 
Jos. 6° * (E).—6. The Philistines inquire the cause of 270% nozse of 
shouting in the camp of the Hebrews| so the Israelites are named 
ordinarily by foreigners. They ascertain that the Ark of Yahweh 
has come to the camp.—'%, The fear of the Philistines is motived 
by the thought: Zhese are their gods; they have come to them to 
the camp] the text is that 01 @®. Woe to us, for it has not been 
thus heretofore| indicates that the palladium had not usually been 
taken to war in this period. —8. The question of desperation : 
Who shall deliver us from the hand of these mighty gods ? is fol- 
lowed by the historical reason: Zhese are the gods which smote the 
Egyptians with every sort of plague and with pestilence | the received 
text has qwzth every sort of plague in the wilderness. This might be 
condoned in the mouth of the Philistines, but it would hardly occur 
to an Israelitic writer to impute the inaccuracy to them. —9. Zake 
courage| Jd. 20”; and be men] lit. and become men if you never 
were men before. In case of defeat they could expect only to 
become slaves of the Hebrews; as they have been slaves to you. 
10. The result was the courage of despair on the part of the 
Philistines, so that in the battle which ensued /svae/ was defeated, 
and fled each to his tents] 2 S. 18" 19°. The slaughter in Israel 
is given as thirty thousand footmen] cf. Jd. 20° 1 S. 15* 2S. % 
—11. The climax: Zhe Ark of God was taken and the two sons 
of LE: died | so the sentence pronounced by Samuel was executed. 

4. The Ark is here called in 99 צבאות ישב הכרביכ‎ ATMA ארון‎ 01 which 5 
omits ברית‎ and .צבאות‎ The presumption is in favour of the shorter form, and it 
is probable that ישב הכרבים‎ also is a later insertion, for no reason can be given 
why the author should so describe Yahweh here, cf. 2 S. 62, — aw] is inappro- 
priate. The word שם‎ is not represented in @.—9 proposed by 141. would not 
be out of place. But on the testimony of 65 it seems better to read simply 
the. The names Hophni and Phinehas read like an afterthought. —5. [ברית‎ 

IV. 4-15 25 

is to be omitted, with והַהס--.65‎ | on the form Ges.25 § 72, who makes it 
Qal.—6. [קול ההרועה‎ cf. קול הצעקה‎ y.i4,— ap] on the pointing, Ges. § 37f. 
-- 7. The speech of the Philistines varies somewhat in the different recensions 
of 65, and all differ from 99. The latter has simply .בא אלהיס‎ But it must be evi- 
dent that אלהיהס‎ is the appropriate word. As this is rendered by 65 we naturally 
adopt it, and with it the context as translated above. The reading of @¥ otros 6 
0605 adr Gv seems to be a correction of the phrase in 653. — בא‎ [ should be read 
באו‎ with GB.—135 [אוי‎ 65 adds éfedod Huds, 190066, ojpuepor, which is of course 
impossible in the mouth of the Philistines. If original, it is part of a speech 
attributed to the Israelites, which it is now impossible to reconstruct. — אתמל‎ 
[שלשם‎ cf. Ex. 57% 1 5. 142! 197. -- 8. האדירים‎ [ 676060 G8 seems to render ,האבירים‎ 
which is more appropriate, so Cappellus, 0/0606 Criticae, p. 433.-- [במדבר‎ 5 
been supposed to indicate a tradition which made the Egyptians follow the 
Israelites into the desert and there to be smitten by the plagues. But the text 
is uncertain, 65 reading kcal év rH épjuw. This is of course ungrammatical, but 
may conceal 7273) as conjectured by We. and adopted by Dr., Bu., al. — 
9. The two imperatives are continued by two perfects with waw consecutive, 
Dr., Tenses’, § [ונלהתתם---.112‎ G seems to render [וילחמו .10 ---.ונלחמתום‎ as 
655 omits the Philistines, it is altogether probable that both parties are thought 
of as subjects— ‘they fought.—11, The names Hophni and Phinehas read 
again as if an afterthought. 

12-21. The effect of the tidings. — 7here ran a Benjamite 
from the ranks [ Rabbinical tradition makes him to have been Saul, 
who had rescued the tables of the Law from the hands of Goliath. 
With his clothes rent and earth on his head] the usual signs of 
grief, 2 5. 1? 15°%.—13. The verse is difficult to understand. 
The received text (Q7é) makes Eli sit dy the side of the road, 
watching| the road would naturally be the one leading to the 
scene of battle. Yet the fugitive apparently comes first to the 
town and afterwards to Eli. A change of pointing would make 
Eli’s station to be deside the Mizpah road, but this does not relieve 
the difficulty. We are forced therefore to read with © dy the side 
of the gate watching the road | where the gate is evidently the gate 
of the sanctuary, at which he was accustomed to sit, ד‎ “rhough 
he was blind, his mind was intent upon the road along which news 
must come —for his heart was trembling for the Ark of God. 
The bearer of tidings comes first to the town, which s/rvieks at the 
news. —14. Eli hears the outcry before the messenger reaches him, 
put the latter does not delay — he hastened and came and told Lh. 
—15. The verse, which speaks of his age and blindness, inter- 

36 1 SAMUEL 

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

19. [אישדבנימין‎ is possible, but more natural is ,איש בנימיני‎ which is 
favoured by @©.— 18. [יך‎ 1, 07/4 and some MSS., is undoubtedly correct. 
It seems unnecessary to change to ביד‎ or ,ליך‎ however, as is done by some 
commentators. מצפה--‎ 377] would naturally be interpreted the AZzzpah road. 
But the punctuators give us nay, which is confirmed by 65. This version, 
however, reads rapa THv ששח‎ cxorevwv Thy 660 = ,יד השער מצפה הררך‎ which 
is restored by Th.—14. המון‎ is the confused noise made by a crowd of people. 
—15. The verse is expanded in 65 by the repetition (substantially) of the 
greater part of v.14. This indicates that its original place was different from 
the one in which we now find it; and, as a rule, such dislocations are proof of 
later insertion. For sznety-e7ght years 65 has nznety.— np [ועינין‎ for which the 
Orientals give קמו‎ Qré, seems harsh in spite of the parallels adduced by Dr. 
Votes. The confusion of ה‎ and ו‎ is so easy that it seems better to restore the 
plural here. Cf. 1 16. 144. Twelve 6000. read ועינו קמה‎ here. —16. If the 
preceding verse be omitted, we may also omit האיש אל-עלי‎ with 6542, For 
the first המערכה‎ 65 seems to have read המכשר .11 --,המהנה‎ [ the original mean- 
ing was one that made another change colour, therefore a bringer of important 
tidings, whether good or bad. In actual Hebrew usage it generally means a 
bringer of good tidings. For לפני‎ read מפני‎ with 16 MSS. and probably 6. 
The successive stages of the disaster are emphasized by 51. The names of 
the two sons are omitted by 0595.--18. [כהזכירו‎ some MSS. have .בהזכירו‎ 
The two prepositions are not infrequently confused. — בעד יד‎ [ can hardly be 
right. Probably an original ביר‎ was corrupted into ,בעד‎ and then the יד‎ was 
inserted in the endeavour to make sense: éxdmevos GAB, éydueva GU" else- 
where represent ביד‎ or ,אלדיר‎ Ps. 141° 1 S. [מפרקתו---.19%‎ here only. It means 
the neck as dividing (פרק)‎ the head and trunk. 

IV, 15-V. ג‎ 37 

19. The effects in the family of Eli are set forth. Ais daugh- 
ter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was with child] the phrase used 
here does not occur elsewhere: it seems to mean pregnant and 
near the time of childbirth. The news of the capture of the Ark 
and the death of her father-in-law brought on the pangs of labour. 
—20. At the moment of her giving birth, le women standing 
about her said to her; fear not, for thou hast given birth to a son] 
a message which should give her comfort in her sorrow. Aut she 
neither answered nor heeded [ lit. set her heart, Ex. 7” Prov. 27”, 
—21, 22. The account is over-full, probably by conflation, ” 
being almost an exact duplicate of a part of “. Leaving out the 
latter we get: And they called the boy Ichabod, saying; the glory 
Jrom Israel ts taken captive — because of the capture of the Ark of 
God and because of her father-in-law and her husband | the sub- 
ject is the women standing about her, for she was already uncon- 

19, nb$ nan] the nearest parallel is Is. 2617: .כמו חרה תקריב ללרת‎ On the 
form ,ללת‎ Konig, Gram. 1. p. 402, Ges.26 § 69 m. The form here may be a 
simple scribal error, no parallel to the contraction having been pointed out 
except אחת‎ for .אחדת‎ After אלההלקח‎ we should expect nn», which should there- 
fore probably be restored for np). Still an infinitive may have been intended, 
6 MSS. read ,ואל מת‎ With צריה‎ cf. Is. 218. Sy נהפך‎ is found in the sense of 
being poured suddenly upon, 15. 60°,— 20. [וכעת מותה‎ in itself gives good 
sense, but the reading of 65 kal é€v ד‎ xaip@ וכעתה מתה : 07000686 דט‎ which 
seems to fit the case better. —21. [ותקרא‎ the subject evidently cannot be the 
mother, for she was already unconscious; so that we must suppose the subject 
is indefinite — ove called. The verb is feminine because the writer has in 
mind the women standing about. —7)23 אי‎ [ /zg/lorious is the evident intention 
of the writer — 680206 (Josephus). The only instance that can be cited for 
אי‎ as an equivalent of אין‎ is Job 229°, where the text is doubtful. 65 seems to 
point to אוי‎ as the first member.—%sx] should probably be 9y.— 22. The 
verse is omitted (on grounds already stated) by We., and is put into the 
margin by Bu. 

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

38 1 SAMUEL 

indicates that this was originally the conclusion of the preceding 
section. After the account of the family of Eli the author adds: 
But as for the Philistines, etc. He then begins his specific ac- 
count of the fortunes of the Ark.—2. As we should expect in the 
case of so remarkable a trophy, éhey drought it to the temple of 
Dagon and set it up by the side of Dagon] the national god of the 
Philistines if we may argue from his prominence here. 6 
temple here alluded to existed until the time of the Maccabees, 1 
Maccuro” ert. 

The nature and attributes of Dagon are wholly unknown. He 
is a god of the Philistines in whose honour a great feast is held, 
Jd. 16%. According to Schrader, COZ. Ip. 270, the namevis 
found in Assyrian. If the name be Semitic, it may be related 
either to דג‎ fish or to דגן‎ corn. The adoration of a fish-god in 
Syria is well attested, and on the other hand the god of corn 
would be at home in the fine grain-growing land of the Shephela. 
For Beth-Dagon (two places of the name are mentioned in the 
Old Testament) Jerome gives us domus tritici, while for Dagon 
he allows prscis trishtae (OS. pp. 25, 32). Isaaki and Kimchi 
suppose that the figure of Dagon was half man and half fish. 
The combination with Atargatis (Derketo) is uncertain, see 
Moore’s note on Jd. 16”, Baudissin in PRZ®. 11. p. 171, Movers, 
Phonizter, 1. p. 590. For the god of the harvest Sanchuniathon is 
cited by Movers. Cf. Wellhausen, Szzzez, 111. p. 170, n. 2. 

3. The next day, the Ashdodites rose, and came to the house of 
Dagon and looked | the latter clause is lacking in 3, but is prob- 
ably original. They found Dagon prostrate on his face on the 
ground | cf. Jd. 3%, Gen. 17°”; the narrator evidently means that 
Dagon was doing obeisance to Yahweh. Without learning the 
lesson of Yahweh’s superiority, the Ashdodites raised their god 
and returned him to his place. —4. The next lesson was a severer 
one. The following morning they not only find him prostrate, but 
the head of Dagon and his hands were cut off upon the threshold, 
only his trunk was left of him] the received text has only Dagon 
was left, which is manifestly impossible. — 5. The narrator traces 
a peculiar custom of the worshippers at this temple to this event 
— therefore the priests of Dagon and all who enter the house of 

V. 1-6 39 

Dagon do not tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod until 
this day, but step over it] the last words are not in but seem to 
be original. The threshold, having been the resting place of the 
hands and head of Dagon, is consecrated, so that it must not be 
touched. We find every one who leaps over the threshold (or 
upon the threshold) alluded to, Zeph. 1°, but we cannot be sure 
that there is any connexion between the passages, or that the 
custom is the same in the two cases. Various threshold cere- 
monies are cited by Schm. p. 132. 

1. On the location of Ashdod, Robinson, BX2. 11. p. 33; GASmith, Geog.8 
p- 192.—2. 13] elsewhere of setting upright as Gen. 30°8 Jd. 827. It seems 
to imply that worship was to be offered to the captive God as well as to 
Dagon. — 8. ממחרת‎ [ is lacking in @8, which, however, reads kat elo #NOov els 
oixov Aaywy, kal eidov lacking in #9. Probably 65 is right in both respects, 
the ממחרת‎ can be spared here though it is needed in [נפל---.5.ץ‎ the participle 
describes the state of the 1801. [לפניו---‎ would mean Jefore 2 which is super- 
fluous. | על-פניו‎ should be restored, following @ (We). --- [ויקחו‎ kal qyepay 
65 points to ,ויקימו‎ which alone is in [וושיבו--.1806‎ kal xaréorynoay 6 
indicates ,ויציבו‎ which, however, would scarcely be followed by ,למקומו‎ At 
the end of the verse @48 | add a sentence taken from v., but which here 
interrupts the sequence.—4. [וישכמו‎ @ seems to have read ,ויהי כי השכימו‎ 
adopted by Bu. But the wording in 65 may be due simply to free transla- 
tion. [לפניו--‎ should doubtless be על-פניו‎ as above.— רדגון‎ pr] ץלח‎ | paxes 
Aayév 65: Dagon solus truncus %. The emendation 1) for רגון‎ is due to 
Lagarde, Prophetae Chald. p.\i. @ has גופיה‎ and ₪ ;ונשמה ררגון‎ and Ew., 
GVT®, 11. p. 586 (English Trans. 11. p. 415), had already proposed to insert 
גוף‎ or גוית‎ before .דגון‎ We. suggests ,דגו‎ which does not seem natural 
without some explanation.—5. At the end of the verse @ adds: 076 brepBal- 
vovres UnepBalvovoty. We. admits that this is correct description, but re 
fuses to admit the words to the text, because we cannot account for their 
omission. To which the obvious reply is, that the archetype of # was evi- 
dently illegible in many places and so very possibly here. 

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

6-12. A plague breaks out in the city and follows the Ark 
wherever it is carried. —6. And the hand of Yahweh was heavy 
on the Ashdodites| a phrase elsewhere used of oppression by a 
ruling caste or people, Jd. 1%. And he wasted them] in Hos. 2* 
the same verb is used for destroying the vines and fig trees ; and 

40 1 SAMUEL 

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

6. [בעפלים‎ The word עפלים‎ occurs only in this passage and in Dt. 2827, 
though the singular occurs as a proper name bpy. The root seems to mean 
to swedl, and so the word would appropriately be used of any tumour or boil. 
In later Hebrew it seems te have been applied only to hemorrhoids, and 0 

V. 6-12 4I 

have become a vulgar word. No other reason can be given for the Massoretic 
substitution of פהרים‎ in the Qré, than that the latter was a more decent name 
for the same affliction. The copies 01 65 show much variation kal 65606665 0% 
els Tas vais B: kal 6060000 0 66 rds vas adrdvl. The shifs seem out of place 
here, so that we are unable to accept this reading. 65% has, along with the 
rendering just quoted: (שא‎ émdratev avrovs els Tas 26005 abr @v, which shows 
the earliest meaning given to ovbay, cf. 35 ef percussit in secretiori parte 
natium. Josephus has the same idea when he says: “they died of dysentery, 
a sore disease and one that brought the most painful death; before their soul 
could be released by an easy death they brought up their bowels eaten away 
and destroyed by the disease.” The same interpretation of עפלים‎ may have 
been in the mind of the author of Ps. 78%; cf. also @8® in its rendering of Dt. 
2877 eis עד‎ 2606. Whether vais in the passage before us )65( is equivalent 
to 2620, as supposed by Schleusner, must be decided by a Greek scholar, — 
את-אשרוד ואתדגבוליה‎ [ is evidently superfluous, and, as it is not rendered by 
@, we may safely omit it. 

65 in its turn has an addition: kal ע₪600‎ Tis xwpas adrfs avepiyoav wes * 
kal éyévero auvxvats 00ד6ע06‎ ueyadyn ש6‎ TH oder. The mention of mzce here 
is consistently carried on by similar additions in v.10 (lacking in @" but con- 
firmed by |) and in 61. In 6+ 14-18 the mice appear also in 3. It is evident 
that we must choose one consistent recension — either adopting 65 throughout 
or else striking out the mice altogether. In favour of the latter alternative is 
the general rule that the shorter text is more likely to be original; secondly, 
the text of #7 reads with perfect smoothness up to the point where the golden 
mice are first mentioned, and where they are mentioned they read like inter- 
polations; and thirdly, the explicit assertion in 6% ove plague was upon you all, 
could not have been made in this form if the author had known that two 
plagues had been sent. I conclude on these grounds that the mice, wherever 
they appear, are the result of late redactional insertion. —%. ואמרו‎ [ seems to 
be a mistake for .ויאמרו‎ The phrase ארון אלהי ישראל‎ is appropriate in the 
mouth of the Philistines, as has been remarked above. — 8. [כל‎ is lacking in 6. 
— [פרני‎ is evidently the native name, Jos. 135 Jd. 38. Conjectures as to their 
powers are found in Stark, Gaza, p. 136 ff.—na] cf. GAS., Geog. p. 194 f.— 
יסב‎ [ We also speak colloquially of coming around to a place even where no cir- 
cuit is necessary. @ adds eds 1/6006 at the end of the verse. -- 9. [אחרי 1307 אהו‎ 
65 seems to have read 1307 אחרי‎ or ,אחרי הפב אתו‎ but the construction of # is 
not without analogies. — ND [ורהי יד-יהוה בעיר מהומה גדולה‎ is confused, and 
KI. (followed by Bu.) proposes to omit .יד יהוה‎ It seems to me more prob- 
able that the words מהומה גדולה מאר‎ are secondary. The panic is here prema- 
ture. — nw] the verb is found only here. The corresponding Arabic 
word means ?0 have a cracked eyelid. —10. It has already been pointed out 
that the verse is possibly an intruder.—})2py] on the site, cf. Robinson, 
BR?. 11. 228; GAS. Geog. p. 193; Buhl, Geog. p. 187. [רפבו--‎ rl dwearpé- 
Ware 65 is more animated, and perhaps original. —11. [וישב‎ 66 points 770. 
For מהומת-מות‎ & has only מהומה‎ and is perhaps right, for @ death-dealing 

42 1 SAMUEL 

panic would hardly be 80601916 -- מות‎ might arise from duplication of the 
two letters just preceding. — 723] is abruptly introduced; we should expect 
והכבר‎ or .כי כברה‎ @ omits יר‎ and connects 733 with .מהומה‎ For the rest 
of the verse, also, 65 has a different reading: ws ע6/07(06‎ 6080705 0600 *Icp. 
éxet. This may have arisen by the corruption of מארד יד‎ 772) into ,כבא ארון‎ or 
the reverse may have taken place. But the sense is complete at העיר‎ without 
either of the additions. —12. This verse joins very well on to the preceding 
in the shorter form that has been suggested. For והאנשיס אשר לאדמתו‎ : Kal 1 
FGvres kal 006 arodavovres 65. השמימה [ השמים--‎ 17 codd. (DeR.). 

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

The section is evidently connected with what precedes. But it 
is possible that we have not the complete narrative. We look for 
the conclusion of the account concerning Ekron (or Gath, if Ekron 
is not original), but instead are simply told how long the Ark was 
in the 6/7 of the Philistines. ‘The actors who consult the necro- 
mancers here are not the ‘l'yrants who had been called to help the 
Ekronites, but the people as a whole. While therefore we con- 
cede the coherence of the narrative in its general features, we 
must admit that these differences point to its composite nature. 
With them coincides the change from the hand of God 5", to the 
Ark of Yahweh, 61. 

1. Zhe Ark of Yahweh was in the field of the Philistines | David 
dwelt zz the field of the Philistines while in possession of Ziklag 
27°" so that we cannot here claim “he fie/d as the open country 
in distinction from the cities, cf. Jd. 55 At the end of the verse 
6 adds: and their land swarmed with mice, which is adopted by 
Bu. as a part of the text. Reasons against this have been given 
above.—2. The Philistines seek advice from 726 priests and the 
diviners | who, as conversant with divine things, would know how 
to placate the offended deity. The diviners are elsewhere coupled 
with the soothsayers or the prophets, Is. 3” Jer. 27° 29%. Balaam 
is called a diviner Jos. 13%. Micah speaks of the priests as giving 
an oracle, and the prophets as divining (3"). In Arabic also the 

VI. 1-5 43 

kahin (the same word is in Hebrew the fvzes¢) is a diviner. Ze// 
us with what we shall send it to its place| the demand shows that 
they expect to offer a present of some kind.—3. The reply em- 
phasizes the need of the trespass offering: Jf ye are sending the 
Ark away | the participle treats the future action as already begun 
in the intention of the actors, cf. Jer. 315, Is. 65% You must not 
send it away empty] the phrase is elsewhere used of sending one 
away with empty hands, Job 22" Gen. 31% Dt. 15, What is 
meant is at once explained : for you shall surely repay him a repa- 
ration | the verb is used of giving back or taking back what has 
been wrongfully taken away, Gen. 14% 20’ 2S. 9’. The transi- 
tion is easy to the requiting of a wrong either by punishment, 
Jd. 9”, or by reparation, Ex. 21%. The endeavour of the Philistines 
is to recompense Yahweh for the wrong done him. ‘The remainder 
of the verse as it stands in #9 says: then you shall be healed and it 
shall be known to you why his hand does not turn from you| which 
must be interpreted as meaning that the hand of Yahweh would 
be heavy upon them so long as they refused this acknowledgment. 
But the text may not be sound. ‘To the question as to the nature 
of the required present the answer is: the number of the Tyrants 
of the Philistines, five golden tumours, for one plague was upon you 
and your Tyrants] the bearing of this upon the question of the 
mice which are here introduced (as 00/00 mice) by # has already 
been noted. It should be remarked that Budde, who is large- 
hearted enough to admit the mice in v.', finds it impossible to 
retain them here. In fact, they and the tumours cannot both have 
been original in this place. ‘They are, besides, lacking in ©. 

The ingenious hypothesis of Hitzig should be noticed: that the mice were 
symbols of the pestilence, so that the votive offerings were five golden mice 
simply, and the misunderstanding of this led to the confusion in the text. 
Wellhausen came to the same conclusion independently of Hitzig. There 
seems to be no Hebrew analogy to strengthen this supposition, and it seems 

pretty certain that if the earliest author of this account had known of the 
assumed symbolism he would have indicated it in some way. 

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


6. The priests exhort the Philistines not to be obstinate in their 
opposition to Yahweh, putting their exhortation in the form of 
rhetorical questions: Why will you harden your hearts| after the 
manner of the Egyptians, who furnish a frightful example: lit. 
make your hearts heavy. The same verb is used Ex. 879 * 9% (J). 
Was it not after he made sport of them that they let them go ?| the 
subject of the first verb is Yahweh, cf. Ex. 10" (J).— 7. Instruc- 
tions as to the proper way of sending the Ark back to its people. 
A new cart should be made, for one that had been used would 
have been already profaned. The animals to draw the cart were 
to be two milch cows upon which the yoke had not come| they 
were to be unbroken, for the same reason that the cart must be 
new. ‘Th. calls attention to the fact that the ved heifer must be 
one that had never been yoked, Num. 105 and cites from Ovid: 
nullum passa jugum. In order to test the will 01 Yahweh the 
cows were to be yoked to the cart, dut you shall leave their calves 
behind them in the house| so that the natural inclination of the 
mothers would keep them from going away.— 8. They are to 
place the Ark on the cart: and the golden objects which you shall 
have repaid him as a reparation| the construction shows that the 
matter, being determined upon, is certain to be done — you shall 
place in a box at tts stde| the word translated 20 occurs only in 
this account. — 9. The behaviour of the cattle would show 
whether Yahweh wished to return to his own land: / 7? goes on 
the way to its own border, to Beth Shemesh, then he has done us 
this great harm] the identification of Yahweh and the Ark is com- 
plete and we might equally well translate: Z/ he gees on his way 
to his own border, etc. Lut if not, then we shall know that it 
was not his hand that smote us —tt was an accident that came to 
us| the way is left open in case the behaviour of the Ark should 
not be what they expect. Beth Shemesh was probably the nearest 
Israelite town to Ekron. It was counted to Judah, 2 K. 1 
Jos. 15”, and lay on one of the natural roads from the Shephela to 
the hill country. 

1. After חרשים‎ kal ע606)606‎ 7 yF adr ay uwias &.—2. On the kind of divina- 
tion practised by the cpp we have light in Ezek. 212%, Cf, also Stade, 6 I. 
p- 505; Wellhausen, Sézzzez, 111. p. 126f.; Driver on Dt. 1810. — [הודענו‎ with 
two syllables written defect/ve to prevent the accumulation of vowel letters. — 

VI. 6-9 45 

mp2] מס‎ the pointing Ges, § 102 2.—8. משלחים‎ [ we should add אתם‎ with 7 
MSS. GS (Dr.).— [אשכ‎ the meaning of the word seems sufficiently evident 
from the examples given above. _We may add Gen, 2019, where Abimelech 
says that Isaac had nearly brought upon him @ five. In the legal system the 
trespass-offering is an endeavour to compensate Yahweh for infringement of 
his rights, cf. BDB. s. v. הרפאו ---.אשם‎ [ as the priests were not yet certain that 
Yahweh was the sender of the plague (cf. vs.°) the assurance seems premature 
that they should be healed. One is tempted to read הראו‎ or war. For ,ונודע לכס‎ 
G renders kal é&AacOjoerar duty and then reads the rest as a question: why 
should not his hand turn from you? ‘This is favoured by the tense of the 
verb. But the probability does not seem sufficient to establish the reading of 
65 rather than #).— 4. זהב‎ spy] וחמשה עכברי זהב‎ which is added by ¥, is lacking 
in 65 and therefore suspicious. — 5939] some MSS. לכלכס‎ : 6558 represent simply 
---.לכם‎ 8. The half verse (down to (הארץ‎ duplicates the preceding verse and is 
therefore superfluous. The sense is perfectly good without it, and part of it 
is lacking in @. We. regards it as a gloss. -- לאלהי ושראל‎ [ 70 16000 65 may be 
original, having been changed so as not to have the most sacred name in the 
mouth of the uncircumcised. —6. התעלל‎ [ the verb in this stem seems to mean 
he amused himself with another, or at the expense ef another, Saul fears that 
the Philistines will amuse themselves by torturing him, 31% cf. Jer. 38! The 
anthropomorphism need cause no surprise in view of such a passage as Ps, 2+, — 
7. עשו‎ wp] does not seem to occur elsewhere without designation of the mate- 
rial. —>ay] as the vehicle had two wheels, the word is properly rendered car‘. 
The word is used Gen. 4519, where it designates the ‘ wagon’ used for the trans- 
port of persons, and Num. 7%, where it designates the vehicle on which the vari- 
ous parts of the Tabernacle (though not the most sacred) are to be carried. It 
recurs in the account of the transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem in the time of 
David. According to Erman (Life ix Ancient Egypt, p. 491) the word was 
adopted in Egyptian as the name of the baggage wagon (or cart) drawn by oxen, 
in distinction from the chariot drawn by horses. — עלור‎ [ is the participle of עול‎ 
to give suck, cf. Is. אפר---.4011‎ [ the verb is used of harnessing to the chariot, 
Gen. 4679 2 K. 9?!, —}2 is used of the young of animals, Job 394 and elsewhere. 
-- ביתה‎ [ the house of the family is also the home of the cattle. —8. 5x] is so 
evidently a mistake for אל‎ that we wonder at any one’s making it. The inter- 
change is frequent in precisely those books which have a badly transmitted text, 
so that it is to be attributed to careless scribes rather than to the authors. It 
is in fact difficult to believe that the two words could be confused, so long as 
Hebrew was a living language. Cf. BDB. s. v., 20¢e 2. — 73] is a word of very 
wide meaning; implements, instruments, vessels, ornaments are all included 
under השבתכ---.16‎ [ the perfect indicates that in intention they have already 
given the recompense. — 13782] pointed with the article, which, however, may 
mean no more than Zhe box which was necessary for the purpose. On the other 
hand, the punctuators may have supposed the ארגז‎ a necessary part of every cart. 
The word is generally taken to mean 209 or chest, though some suppose ₪ bag 
intended. Bochart makes it a Philistine word, //terozoicon, 11. 36, The versions 

46 1 SAMUEL 

evidently have no more light than we, 658 év 6éwarc Bepex Ody, where the last 
word is probably an attempt to transfer the Hebrew word, év 00074 being the 
translation. 6éua represents ,מערכה‎ in Ley. 24% and elsewhere, and something 
might be said in favour of setting the votive offerings 7 a row by the side of the 
Ark. But the evidence is not sufficient to assure us of a variant reading here. 
5 ברגזתא‎ evidently has the root רגז‎ in mind and makes the sense put them in 
reverence by its side, for which some might argue. But if the author wished to 
give a warning of this kind he would connect it with the handling of the Ark, 
not with the votive offerings alone. It should be noted that the word ארגז‎ occurs 
in vs. 15 both of which are late insertions into the narrative. — מצרו‎ [ the Torah 
roll was also to be put Sy che side of the Ark, Dt. 312°. —9. [ררך גבולו‎ ix the 
direction of his own territory, cf. Ex. 1317 Num. 2133 1 S, 1318 On the site 
of Beth Shemesh, the modern Azz Shems, cf. GAS. Geog. p. 219, Lagarde, 
(OS) jos 2A INO, AMES ING, fd, DAB 

10. The advice adopted; the cart is made and the kine are 
yoked. —11. And they placed the Ark of Yahweh on the cart | 
the rest of the verse seems to be a late insertion. The variations 
in the text of 65 show that different attempts were made to con- 
form its text to #9. The interest of the original narrator is in the 
behaviour of the cattle, and he passes over the subordinate mat- 
ters. —12. And the kine took a straight course on the Beth She- 
mesh road; in the highway they went, lowing as they went, and 
aid not turn to the right hand or the left| the apparent redun- 
dancy is due to the author’s desire to make the miracle plain. 
The lowing of the kine shows their natural desire to return to 
their calves. The Tyrants followed as far as the Beth Shemesh 
line. -- 18. At this time the people of Beth Shemesh were 
engaged in harvesting the wheat in the valley up which the Ark 
came. At such times the whole village goes forth to the field. 
They lifted up their eyes and saw] a form of detailed description 
common in Hebrew. And came rejoicing to meet it| should be 
read with 65.-- 14. The Ark came @o the field of Joshua the Beth- 
shemshite and stood still| this is an important item, as the stop- 
ping indicated the will of Yahweh as to his abiding place. For 
the next clause we should probably read: and they set there a 
great stone| as an altar, and they split the wood of the cart and 
offered the kine as a burnt-offering to Yahweh] an appropriate 
welcome. Araunah also offers the implements of the oxen for 
wood, and the oxen themselves as sacrifices, 2 5. 24”%.—15. The 

VI. 10-18 7 

verse is superfluous, * joins directly to’. The Ark has already 
been lifted from the cart — this we know because the cart has been 
burnt. The burnt offering has been offered. The only reason for 
the verse is found in the mention of the Zevites. A late editor or 
scribe could not reconcile the free handling of the Ark by the 
men of Beth Shemesh with the legal prescription, and therefore 
inserted the Levites. These are utterly foreign to our whole nar- 
rative up to this point. Yet they alone (on the later theory) were 
empowered to touch the sacred things, not only the Ark but the 
chest and its contents. Hence the insertion. It is possible also 
that the author did not like the great stone, and so made it in this 
verse only the pedestal for the Ark.—16. The five Tyrants 
having seen their object attained returned to Ekron the same day. 
—1%7. The verse (with ™) is another late insertion, a recapit- 
ulation after the method of the Priestcode and the Chronicler. 
It is free with its gold, according to the precedent set by these 
writers, for it is doubtful whether the original author contem- 
plated golden mice for all the cities, towns, and hamlets of the 
Philistines. —18. The first half should be omitted with the pre- 
ceding verse. The rest seems to affirm: Witness is the great 
stone by which they set the Ark of Vahweh; to the present day tt ts 
in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemshite| other memorial stones, 
(Geuret jos. 24". 

11. [אל‎ for על‎ as so [ואת הארגז . . . טחריהס---.ם006‎ the half verse is not 
objectionable on the ground of Hebrew style as is shown by Dr., Votes. But 
comparison of the copies of 65 shows so many yariations, in the words and in 
their arrangement, that we must suppose the original 65 to have been supple- 
mented in various ways to bring it into harmony with 39. טחריהם‎ in the text 
is also an indication of interpolation, for the original narrative has עפליכ‎ as the 
name of the plague; though some MSS. here conform to the usage elsewhere, 
reading עפליהס‎ in the Av. We. strikes out all but ;ואת הארגז‎ Bu. remands the 
whole to the margin.—12. The construction is not free from difficulty. — 
[וישרנה‎ older form of the third person feminine plural, Ges”. § 472; Bottcher 
sees in it a dual, Lehrbuch, § 931 B. The form is Qal with assimilation of the .י‎ 
This stem, however, means Zo be straight or to be right, whereas to go in a 
straight path is expressed in Hebrew by a Piel or Hiphil, Proy. 9! 1574. It 
does not seem violent therefore to change here to sw), though analogous 
verbs are followed by the direct object or by the infinitive with ,ל‎ cf. Ex, 8% 
25. 1514. Possibly 7772 is an error for דרכן‎ which we expect. — [במפלה אחת‎ 
the ove highway implies that various others were within reach. A מסלה‎ is a 

[8 ז‎ SAMUEL 

road made by throwing up the 681. --- הלך וגעו‎ [ the adverbial clause describ- 
ing continuous action, Gen. 8° 12% Jos. 6° 2 5. 31. --18. שמש‎ na is here put 
for the inhabitants and followed by the plural, cf. Hos. 58, --.הריעו בית און‎ 
אתדעיגיהס ויראו‎ N21] the phrase occurs in the Hexateuch several times, always 
in’ J, but in both [ and’ B; 2.c.,'\Gen. סד סב ליל כ‎ 
(assigned to J) 2S. 18% Jer. 3? 13?’ Is. 49'8 60* Zech. 51-5. The prophetic 
passages are all in the imperative, in which the detailed expression is easily 
accounted for. —nx1>] els שוש 7ע076‎ ₪071(5 65 points to לקראתו‎ which should 
be restored, cf. Jd. 193 (We.).—14. ושם‎ ow [ותעמר‎ Kal €ornoay 6060 map’ 
airy 655 evidently renders עמה‎ ow ויעמידו‎ It is not impossible that the 
original had both verbs: 77 staved and they placed there by tf = ותעמר וועמירו‎ 
yoy ow, and that one verb dropped from one recension and the other from 
the other—or is ושם‎ ow an original ow וישימו‎ which became illegible? — 
[אכן גדורה‎ it is conjectured by Bu. that the stone was set up as a magcebah. 
But the immediate context favours an altar. The proximity of the Ark and 
the necessity of offering sacrifices in its honour argue for an altar. Doubtless 
a 2000606 would be set up as soon as the dwelling of Yahweh should be 
arranged. A case strictly parallel does not occur. Jacob’s stone was a 
mar¢geba according to E (Gen. 2818-22), but it was destined to mark a per- 
manent sanctuary, and the same is true of the maggeba in Gilead, Gen. 314 
(E). A memorial stone was raised by Joshua, 242, and the same was 
done by Samuel at Ebenezer according to a late passage, 1 ₪. 71%. Saul’s 
altar, 1438, is more like the account in our text than any other mention of a 
stone. Various heaps of stones are mentioned as memorials, but present no 
close resemblance, at least in the recension of the Old Testament which is in 
our hands. —15. The glossatory character of the verse is pointed out by We. 
[אל--‎ 16 MSS. have על‎ which alone is in place. —17%. [טהרי‎ is evidence of 
interpolation, as already shown. — 18. bax וער‎ [ makes no sense. The meadow 
(if it were allowable to translate so) in which the Ark rested could not be one 
of the villages of the Philistines. For אבל‎ read ,אבן‎ with G, and point the 
other word וער‎ as was first suggested by We. The emendation is accepted by 
so valiant a defender of the traditional text as Keil. The insertion of the 
article before אבן‎ seems to be unnecessary. 

19. The verse affirms that Yahweh smote some of the people. 
The received text seems to give as a reason that shey looked upon 
the Ark. ‘There is, however, no other indication that this author 
thought it sinful to look upon the Ark. Had he thought so, he 
would have shown what precautions were taken by the Israelites 
before the battle to prevent this profanation, and would for this 
cause have aggravated the plague sent upon the Philistines. @ 
has a whole clause which has fallen out of #9 and which relieves 
the difficulty: Zhe sons of Jeconiah did not rejoice with the men 

VI. 19-VII. 1 49 

of Beth Shemesh when they looked upon the Ark of Vahweh] by 
adopting this we avoid the awkward repetition of the word trans- 
lated and he smote, which in # comes at the beginning of the 
verse, as well as at the beginning of the next clause: And he 
smote among them seventy men| the anger of Yahweh was not 
always easy to account for. Such an occasion for it as the 
indifference of the sons of Jeconiah is not stranger than some 
others of which we have a record. To the seventy men, the 
present text adds ungrammatically fy thousand men — doubtless 
a gloss. The various attempts to explain the words scarcely 
deserve attention. The oldest is that of the Targum, which 
renders seventy men of the elders and fifty thousand of the con- 
gregation. Kimchi represents the traditional interpretation to 
be seventy men, of the worth of fifty thousand. Kimchi’s own 
theory is that asyndetically the expression means simply fifty thou- 
sand and seventy men.—20. The people ask two questions, the 
first indicative of their fear— who zs able to stand before Yahweh 
this holy God? ‘The holiness of Yahweh is his apartness from the 
world. ‘This makes it impossible to approach him except after 
special ceremonial preparation, and his displeasure is fatal to 
those who approach him without that preparation (consecration). 
The question of the Beth-Shemshites shows their despair of meet- 
ing Yahweh’s requirements. They regard his presence as a con- 
stant source of danger to them. The second question is a prac- 
tical one: Zo whom shall he go up from us ?| the verb indicates 
that some place in the hill country was to be chosen. —21. The 
place chosen is Kivyath Jearim. The name evidently means 6 
of Thickets. It is mentioned in Jos. 15°, where it is identified 
with Baalah ; in Jos. 15% it is called Kirjath Baal, cf. 18% Euse- 
bius * places it ten (or nine) miles from Jerusalem on the road to 
Lydda. It is not yet certainly identified with any existing site. 
Probably the name Kirjath Baal indicates that the town was 
already a sanctuary. On this account the men of Beth Shemesh 
chose it as the place of the Ark, and the people of Kirjath Jearim 
found it natural that they should have such an offer made them. 
—VII.1. They therefore came and brought up the Ark, and 

* OS, 234, 95 and 271, 40. 

50 1 SAMUEL 

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

19. 4] anticipates unpleasantly the next clause: kal 006 jopuévioay ot viol 
*Ieyoviov &. As the Greek verb does not occur elsewhere in the Old Testa- 
ment, we are left to surmise its original. Kl.’s conjecture ולא חדו כני יכניהו‎ is 
probably correct (adopted by Bu.), cf. Ex. 18% Ps. 217.— aya] should be cor- 
rected to בהס‎ with @.— חמשים אלף איש‎ [ the words are a late insertion, appar- 
ently unknown to Josephus, and recognized as a gloss by Keil. Whether 
they were a marginal note, intended to remind the reader of the later plague 
(2 ₪. 24) where seventy thousand fell, cannot be determined, — [ויתאבלו‎ 
Gen. 375% Ex. 33% (E). bya הכה מכה‎ occurs Jos. 1019 Jd. 1183 (also ascribed 
to E).—20. On the idea of holiness, cf. WRSmith, Religion of the Semites, 
יק‎ 135, Smend, Adttestamentliche Religionsgeschichte, p. 333, Duhm’s Commen- 
tary on Isaiah, 1%.--91. On the site of Kirjath Jearim, Moore on Jd. 8% 
GAS. Geog. p. 226. The essay of Poels, Le Sanctuaire de Kirjath-Jearim 
(Louvain, 1894), is a harmonistic attempt to identify Kirjath Jearim, Gibeon, 
Gibeah, and Mizpah, and so to show that the law of a single sanctuary was in 
force in the time of Samuel. 

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

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

VII. 1-3 51 

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

In Jer. 15! we find Yahweh saying: “Though Moses and Samuel should 
stand before me, my soul would not be towards this people.” Co. (£273. p. 
99) argues that Jeremiah has our present account in mind and the reasoning 
is adopted by Bu. (AS. p. 178) and Dr. )207 9. .כ‎ 178). The codrdination 
of Moses and Samuel is undoubtedly striking. But Jeremiah’s conception of 
them seems to be that they were prophets like himself—for it is his own 
intercession which is rejected and the rejection justified by the mention of his 
predecessors. The passage does not prove more than the existence of a tradi- 
tion of Samuel’s prophetic activity. The present narrative seems to represent 
a more advanced stage of theocratic theory. 

2. The intention of the verse is evidently to say that from the 
time of the Ark’s return the people received a new impulse. 
Unfortunately the main verb is obscure and probably corrupt. 
We should probably read: From the day the Ark dwelt at Kirjath 
Jearim all the house of Israel turned after Yahweh | the inserted 
clause: the days were many and became twenty years is probably 
secondary. —3. Jf with all your heart | the clause is put first for 
emphasis. The passages in which it occurs are comparatively late, 
Derr 13* Jos. 22° ד‎ Sam. 12 Jer.29” Joel 2”. You are [now] 
returning to Yahweh) the expression betrays the same conception 
which is contained in the phrase s/range gods which follows, cf. Dt. 
31° Jer. 5" Jos. 24”. Zhe Ashtaroth seem an afterthought here, 
as in some other passages. The word is the plural of the name 
which in the Old Testament is vocalized (probably wrongly) as 
Ashtoreth. The well-known goddess of the Canaanites (properly 
Astarte) is elsewhere associated with Baal. An Astarte of the 
Philistines is mentioned 1 Sam. 31". And prepare your heart 


towards Yahweh your God | a late formula, 2 Chr. 12 20% 30” 
Ezr. 7°. And serve him] that is worship him, in this sense the 
word is Deuteronomic. TZhat he may deliver you| the form of 
the verb indicates that this is the purpose of the preceding imper- 
atives. —4. The preaching is effectual: Zhe Sons of Israel put 
away the Baals| the word is used as equivalent to the foreign 
gods above.—5. Samuel announces a general assembly at Mz2- 
pah| doubtless the same place afterwards occupied by Gedaliah 
as the capital of the country, Jer. 40. It is identified, since Rob- 
inson, with Vedy Samwi?, a prominent hill five miles north of Jeru- 
salem. ‘The place is a sanctuary (or Zhe sanctuary) also in Jd. 
20'.—6. The assembly engages in public expression of sorrow 
for sin: Zhey drew water and poured it before Yahweh] a rite 
not elsewhere mentioned. It must be symbolical of contrition. 
Fasting, which is the second observance mentioned, is elsewhere 
expressive of sorrow. We have sinned in relation to Yahweh] Dt. 
1% Jd. 10%. That Samuel judged the people in Mizpah is prob- 
ably to be taken in the sense in which other rulers are said to 
judge. He heard the cause of the oppressed and secured their 

2. mw [וירבו הימים ויהיו עשרים‎ the only way we can fit the words into 
the present text is by making them a parenthesis, and even then it is more 
natural to say .והימים רכו וגו"‎ It seems that the whole sentence is a gloss, 
not merely ויהיו עשרים שנה‎ (Bu.). Possibly, however, it is a corruption of 
something which cannot now be recovered. 65 év eipyvyis confirmed by |, and 
may point to some statement about 10. [וינהו--‎ gives no suitable mean- 
ing. The verb means ¢o0 lament for the dead, Mic. 2* Ez. 421% But the return 
of Yahweh could not be an occasion for such mourning. @48 has 676866 
65 kat éréorpee, both which point to 15. @ conjectures only, as is shown 
by Dr., and 53 seem to have read וינהו‎ (Cappel, 677266 Sacra, p. 364). It 
seems best, with Ew., Bu., to adopt the reading of 65.--8. [אם-בכל-לבבכם‎ 
the phrase occurs in D frequently, usually with the addition of wa) .ובכל‎ On 
the literary usage which shows לבב‎ (not 35) to be the form characteristic of 
E, D, and Deuteronomistic editors, cf. BDB., s. v.— [הפירו אתדאלהי הנכר‎ 6 
phrase occurs Gen. 357 Jos, 2428 Jd. 101% all which are assigned to E? by 
recent editors, cf. also 2 Chr. 431%.-- אלהי הנכר‎ are gods of foreign countries, 
like 7237 בני‎ men of foreign countries. —4, הבעלים‎ [ cf. Jd. 211.19 where 
also the Baals and Astartes are the gods and goddesses of the heathen, see 
Moore’s note. On Baal, Baudissin in PRE. 11. p. 323 16, WRS., Rel. Sem. 
p-. 92ff. The god and goddess are mentioned together by Eshmunazar in his 
inscription, 1. 18. On Astarte, Baudissin, PRZ%. 11. p. 147 ff., and of the 

VII. 3-12 53 

older literature, Selden, De Dits Syris, 11. 5 [המצפתה‎ the name, which 
means the watchtower, generally has the article. On the identification, cf, 
Robinson, 205. I. p. 460, Buhl, Geog. p. 168.--6. [ושפכו‎ G adds on the 
$vound. Such phrases are easily inserted, and therefore suspicious. —Dv] 
lacking in 655 must be exscinded for the same reason. 

7. The Philistines heard that Israel had assembled | the oppor- 
tunity for plundering an unwarlike company was not to be lost. 
Josephus correctly understands that the people had come without 
arms. — 8. Israel has recourse to spiritual weapons: Do not be 
silent, so as not to cry to Yahweh thy God | cf. Ps. 28! Job 138; 
thy God © seems more appropriate than our God %. Several 
MSS. of © add at the end of the verse: And Samuel said: Far 
be it from me to refrain from crying to Yahweh my God for you. 
—9. In his worship Samuel “ook a sucking lamb| no emphasis 
is to be laid (as some have supposed) on the comparative insig- 
nificance of the offering. A lamb of the first year is enjoined as 
the regular burnt offering in Ex. 29%* Lev. 23” Num. 6%. And 
offered tt as a whole burnt offering to Yahweh] the burnt offering 
is the present with which one approaches the divine king. To 
Samuel’s prayer, Yahweh answers by audible voice, as is more 
fully set forth in the next verse, cf. Ex. 10%. -- 10. While Samuel 
was engaged in offering the burnt offering, the Philistines advanced 
to the attack. Aut Vahweh thundered with a great voice that day 
against the Philistines and routed them] cf. Jd. 4” and its poetical 
parallel, 55 In the present passage the interference of Yahweh 
is so pronounced that the rout begins before any active effort is 
made by Israel. At the battle of Bethhoron, where Yahweh routed 
the Canaanites by casting great stones from heaven upon them 
(Jos. ro"), the Israelites were an armed force, as they were at 
the Kishon. The interference of Yahweh for his people by 
thunder and lightning is a not uncommon feature of poetic the- 
ophanies, 2 5. 221 5. 2" Is. 66% Cf. also Ps. 68" 77°. —11. The 
people had only to pursue the flying foe, which they did #7 below 
Beth Car the place is nowhere else mentioned, and the text 
has possibly suffered. —12. A memorial stone is set up Jetween 
Mizpah and Veshana] see the note on 6". The name Yeshana 
here is restored from 65 and S. The name in # is probably cor- 
rupt. What follows in #9 makes, further, a double difficulty, for 


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

> 7. [התקבצו‎ with pluperfect force. — 5x] is doubtless to be read or under- 
stood as ,על‎ which is the proper word when a hostile attack is described. — 
8. pyro] for the force of the preposition cf. his eyes were dim /rom seeing, i.e., 
so as not to see, Gen. 271.--9. abv] a rare and apparently late word, Is. 404 
655. --- ויעלהו‎ is doubtless to be read, with the Qré. -- [כליל‎ describes the burnt 
offering as wholly consumed upon the altar, Dt. 3319 Lev. 65% --- 10. ויהי שמואל‎ 
מעלה‎ [ cf. the similar construction 2 K. 1321 1937. onan] the verb is used of 
‘striking with panic terror’ (Moore on Jd. 415(.-- 11. כר‎ m3; @ reads Beth 
Sharon; % has Beth Veshan as in v.2; Kl. suggests Beth Horon. —12. [השן‎ 
the word is appropriate for a sharp rock or peak. In connection with Mizpah 
we rather expect the name of a town, and this is given by 658 who read הישנה‎ 
evidently the Benjamite town mentioned 2 Chr. 13!9. This reading is adopted 
by Graetz (Gesch. der Juden, I. p. 157) followed by most recent expositors. — 
[ערההנה‎ is not explicit enough, whether the הנה‎ be taken of space or time. 
Wellhausen seems first to have discovered that the first word must be .ער‎ He 
therefore restores ,עד היא כי‎ for which Bu. substitutes ,עדה תהי כי‎ which seems no 
improvement. — 18. [ויכנעו‎ cf. Jd. 33° 1188. עוד לבוא--‎ worndy] 1585 Jd. 1322. 
— 14, [ותשבנה‎ there is no other instance of the active voice with céfies as 
the subject; perhaps we should read ותושבנה‎ which is favoured by 6 cf. 

r2—VWillte 55‏ ו 

Jer. 271°. — From Ekron to Gath] @B has from Ashkelon to Azob. In Azob 
We. sees an allusion to Zeph. 24.15. וישפט‎ [ the allusion to the function of 
the judge as described in the Book of Judges is palpable. This author de- 
scribes the activity in detail in what follows. -- 16. [והלך‎ of customary action, 
Day., Syntax, § 54 R, 1.-- 123 [מרי שנה‎ is heavy, but is supported by Zech. 
1416, 33D is used of going about to various places in order, 2 Chr. 179, —- 
[את"ישראל את כל וגו"‎ is tautological. It is probable that the scribe had in mind 
the אהדישראל‎ of the verse below and inserted it 1696.-- [המקומות‎ 66 had 
,המקדש ם‎ which may possibly be original (Cappel, Vorae Criticae, p. 434( . -- 
17. vay] the pausal form seems unexplained, Ges?®. § 20 7, note. 

VIII. The demand for a king. — In Samuel’s old age he 
makes his sons judges, but they do not follow his example in 
their administration of the office. The people thereupon demand 
aking. The demand is offensive to Samuel and also to Yahweh, 
who describes it as rebellion against him and as in line with the 
people’s customary depravity. Without hope of converting them, 
but as a testimony against their folly, Samuel describes the man- 
ner in which the king is likely to carry on his office. As was 
expected, the people persist in their demand, and Samuel is com- 
manded to accede to it. The account as it now stands concludes 
with the dismission of the people, but was originally continued by 
the choice of a king by lot as now read in 107%, 

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

56 1 SAMUEL 

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

Stade places the section later than Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Wellhausen 
gives the argument summarized above in favour of a date posterior to the 
Judaic monarchy (Comp. p. 246). Bu. argues for priority of this as compared 
with Deut. (7S. p. 184), and is followed by Co. at least in the earlier editions 
of his Zinlertung. 

1-5. The occasion of the demand.— When Samuel became 
old, he appointed his sons gudges for [srael.—2. That both should 
be settled at Beersheba is surprising, and two places were proba- 
bly named originally. פטםק6פס[.‎ gives one im Bethel and one in 
Beersheba. — 8. The common experience of Orientals was illus- 
trated: they turned aside after gain and took bribes and wrested 
jJustice| so far there seems ground for the complaint of the peo- 
ple. —4. The Sheikhs act for the people, as in 4" Num. 16".-- 
5. The desire for a king is here motived by the maladministration 
of justice. In v.” it is due to a desire for a leader in war. 

6-9. The demand is sinful. — The view of the author is evi- 
dently that the theocracy is the divinely appointed constitution 
for Israel, and that the substitution of another form is treason to 
God. He does not seem to recognize that Samuel was chargeable 
with fault in not correcting the abuses of his sons’ government, 
nor does he tell us how Yahweh would give them relief. Yahweh’s 
prejudgment is on the side of Samuel, whose anger he shares. — 
7. The grievance of Samuel is adopted by Yahweh: Hearken to 
the voice of the people according to what they keep saying| the tense 
implies importunity. or 17 7s not thou whom they have rejected, 
but itis 7 whom they have rejected from being king over them] the 
pronouns are made emphatic by their position. —8. The main 
sentence says: Lzke all the deeds they have done tome... have 
they done to thee. Parenthetically the deeds are described: “hey 
have forsaken me and served other gods| Jd. 2% 10% 1 K. 9? 
(apparently Deuteronomistic).—9. The people are, however, to 
be left without excuse: Zhou shalt solemnly testify] Gen. 43° 

VIII. 1-17 57 

Jer. 11'— the method of the king who shall rule over them] that 
is, his customary behaviour. Yahweh will allow him, perhaps 
authorize him, so to act. 

1. Dw is used of appointing officers, Dt. 17% 2S, 814. — 2. The statement 
of Josephus cited above (Azz. VI. 32) is adopted by Graetz and Ewald.— 
8. בררכו‎ AZ, בדרכיו‎ Qré. There seems no reason for preferring the latter ex- 
cept that usage is on the side of the plural.— wn] ‘turmed aside from its 
proper course, Dt. 1619. בצע‎ is generally used of unrighteous gain, Ex, 18?) 
Jer. 618. —4. [כל‎ is lacking in 659, which reads dvépes for [וירע הרבר .6— .זקני‎ 
Gen. 211-1) (EH) [וותפלל--- 119.9 .₪5 2 188 .₪ ד‎ cf. Jer. 3216 424.— 7. For 
לכל אשר‎ we should perhaps read כאשר‎ With [כי--.65‎ assigns a reason why 
Samuel should not hesitate—it was not a personal concern.— 8. wy] 6 
adds ,לי‎ which is adopted by most recent commentators. — [ויעזבני‎ specifies the 
acts intended by wy. 

10-18. The king’s method. — Samuel repeated all the words 
of Yahweh /o the people who were asking of him a king| as though 
he had one in his possession. —11. TZhis ts the way of the king 
who shall rule over you: Your sons he will take and place in his 
chariots and among his horsemen, and they shall run before his 
2207708 [ the runners before the chariot continue in the East 
down to the present day, and their office is an honourable one. 
—12. And he shall make them captains of thousands and captains 
of hundreds| reading with 69. The author counts on very small 
military ambition in Israel, a view which would argue for a late 
date. The people would also be forced to plough and reap for the 
king, and to make his arms and his chariot furniture. —18. The 
women would not be exempt from conscription, but would be 
compelled to serve as ferfumers] perhaps we should read as 
embroiderers with $; and as cooks and as bakers| of which the 
king’s kitchen would need many.—14. Oppression will affect 
not only persons but also property; fields and vineyards will be 
seized and given to the king’s servants. —15. Heavy taxes will be 
laid: Your grain fields and your vineyards he will tithe and give 
the proceeds to his eunuchs and to his servants] the Oriental thinks 
of the king as wealthy enough to dispense with such methods of 
raising money, which are therefore hated and resented. —16. He 
would exact the service of their slaves and their dest cattle] so 
is to be read.—1%. The tithing will be extended to sheep and 
goats; and the Israelites will be slaves instead of freemen, — 

58 1 SAMUEL 

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

10. [ויאמר‎ is not frequent with the accusative, as here.—11. [ורצו‎ for 
which 65 seems to have read ,ירציס‎ is doubtless original. —12. ולשוס‎ [ the peri- 
phrastic infinitive is illustrated by Dr., 7 esses, § 206 and and Dav., Syntax, 
§ 94, R.4. It should be noted that several of the examples cited are of suspicious 
integrity, the 1 having arisen by duplication of a preceding». In the present 
case, however, the reading seems to be confirmed by ©. We assume an ellipsis 
of »a, the full form being לשוס‎ yn. Captains of fifties in B® is replaced by cap- 
tains of hundreds in 65, while 5 has both, and adds and captains of tens. 6 
seems original. — 18. לרקהות‎ [| preparers of unguents, of which the Orientals 
are notoriously fond. seems to translate 412p79, which would be equally ap- 
propriate. — לטבחות‎ [ the cook is also the butcher. —14. רעבדיו‎ [ Graetz con- 
jectures (Gesch. der Juden, 1. p. 164) that we should read 133%, as the servants 
are spoken of in the next verse. There is, however, no external evidence for the 
reading. —16. [ובהוריכס‎ Kal Td Boveddra 00 G, pointing to ,ובקריכס‎ which 
is undoubtedly original. The correction was made by Cappellus (Cri¢ica 
Sacra, p. 247).— [ועשה למלאכתו‎ the only parallels are Ley. 724 Ez. 155. We 
should expect ,לעשות במלאכתו‎ cf. 1 K. 58° 93. The unusual construction led a 
scribe to substitute ,עשר‎ which was read by @.—17. jsx is small cattle in dis- 
tinction from neat cattle (7p2).— 18. @ adds at the end of the verse: Because 
you chose a king for yourselves. ‘This is at least correct interpretation. 

19-22. The expostulation was fruitless: Zhe people refused to 
listen to the voice of Samuel and said: No! Buta king shall be 
over us| this obstinacy is parallel to their treatment of Moses. — 
20. The reason here assigned for their desire is the example of 
foreign nations. Our king shall gudge us| possibly in the sense 
of windicating them, or of delivering them from their enemies. 
But as the account begins with the miscarriage of civil justice, the 
author may have this still in mind. The administration of justice 
was always a prominent function of the king. Fighting his peo- 
ple’s battles was also his work. This author seems to forget that 
Samuel had secured them peace. — 21, 228. When the report of 
the people’s continued demand is brought to Yahweh, he con- 
sents to gratify them: Hearken to their voice and make a king 
rule over them. — 22. The half verse is a later insertion. The 
original account joined 10” directly to 8“. The compiler was 

VIII. 18-IX. 2 99 

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

19. On the Dagesh in לא‎ cf. Ges.8, § 20g, and Baer’s dissertation De pri- 
marum vocabulorum literarum dagessatione prefixed to Liber Proverbiorum, 
ed. Baer et Delitzsch (1880). Some MSS. have לו‎ in the text, while @ seems 
to have read [ושפטנו .20 — .לו לא‎ on the force of the verb cf. Moore’s note on 
Jd. 31%.-- [מלחמתינו‎ is given by Ginsburg. Many editions and MSS. have 
.מלחמתנו‎ For the phrase go out before us cf. Jd. 414,—22. [והמלכת‎ 8 the 
perfect with waw consecutive continuing the imperative. The second half 
of this verse, in which Samuel dismisses the people to their homes, is 
inserted to allow the inclusion of the following account in the narrative. The 
document we have just read originally made Samuel at once call an assembly 
at Mizpah, where a king is chosen by lot. This is recognized by most recent 

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

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

1-4. Introduction of Saul, and occasion of the journey. — 
There was a man of Gibeah of Benjamin] so we should probably 
read. The place should be mentioned at the outset. Kish is 
described as a man of some position in the community: ₪ mighty 
man of valour is more than the Hebrew intends to say.— 2. He 
had a son named Saul zm the prime of life and goodly| the words 
do not imply that he was in his adolescence ; and the same may 
be said of his position in the household, it does not imply im- 
maturity. So long as his father lived he would be under his 
authority, and there is no necessary contradiction between the 
language used here and the later account, according to which 
Saul had a son already grown. The name of Saul is probably 
abbreviated from a longer form meaning Asked-of-God. 6 
clause at the end of this verse is probably a late insertion. — 

60 1 SAMUEL 

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

1. [מבן-ימין‎ the fact that he was a Benjamite is related again at the end 
of the verse, and We.’s conjecture that we should read מגבעת בנימין‎ is plau- 
51016. -- [בן"איש ימיני‎ is not without analogy, at least איש ימיני‎ is found 2S. 
20! Est. 2°. But it is unusual to terminate a genealogy by saying son ofa 
Benjamite. It is probable that בן‎ is the error of a scribe who expected to 
continue the genealogy. — 5 n [גבור‎ the phrase seems to mean no more than 
a man well to do, cf. BDB., s.v. משכמו וגו" .8--.חיל‎ [ the clause recurs in 
1023, where it is entirely appropriate (at Saul’s first appearance in public). 
Here it seems to have come in from there by a late hand (Bu.).— 3. [האתנות‎ 
the she-asses seem to have been especially prized, Job 1°.—w p>] cf. Dav., 
Syntax, § 28, R. [נא --.ף‎ after the imperative softens the command. — 
[אתהאחר‎ is unusual, perhaps a scribal error; but a precisely similar instance is 
found Num. 1675. ns is pointed in both cases as a construct and might be 
regarded as made definite by this relation, Konig, Syztax, § 288 f.; cf. also 
Dav., Syntax, 72, R. נערים---.4‎ is used of servants not infrequently. At the 
end of this verse GUS add: and Saul arose and took one of the servants of his 
father and went to seek the asses of Kish his father — one of the rather numer- 
ous instances of agreement of 65" with $.—4. The verbs which are partly 
singular and partly plural in 39 should be all plural asin 65. For Skalisha and 
Shaalim the versions give a confusing variety of equivalents, but none which 
help us to a better text. A Baal Shalisha is mentioned in the region of Sama- 
ria 2 K. 44%. Shaalim has been conjectured to be an error for Shaalabim 
mentioned in connection with Beth Shemesh, Jd. 155 1 KX. 49. It seems easier 
to combine with the ארץ שועל‎ of 1317. 

5. The verse indicates that they had planned further search 
when Saul suddenly proposes to abandon the effort: They had 
come into the land of Zuph| a part of Benjamin — when Saul said 

: Let us return, lest my father cease thinking of the asses and 
be anxious about us| the verb means #0 have fears, Jer. 17° 38” 
42" Is. 57".—6. The servant has a different idea: Zhere is a 
man of God in this city; and the man is honoured, all that he 
says surely comes true] the title man of God is frequent in the 
account of Elijah and Elisha. The commendation of the seer is 

IX. 3-10 61 

to induce Saul to apply to him for an indication: Perchance he 
may tell us the way on which we came out] the journey is not yet 
complete, and we may yet be rightly directed. What they want 
is guidance in order to complete the mission on which they have 
started. — 7. Saul objects that to approach a great mana present 
is necessary, and this is not at hand: And suppose we go, what 
shall we bring the man? ‘The question is raised which confronts 
them if they agree to carry out the plan of the servant. Zhe 
bread ts gone from our sacks| this would suffice if there were any, 
cf. 10%. ‘The rest of the verse is obscure. —8. The servant 
relieves the difficulty. He has 6 guarter of a shekel of money | a 
small coin containing about sixty grains of silver, but proportion- 
ately much more valuable then than now. And thou shalt give it 
to the man of God] a slight change of the text is necessary, as 
Saul must be the giver. —9. The verse tells us that the prophet 
of to-day was formerly called a seer. It interrupts the connexion 
here, however, and seems to be a marginal note which has crept 
into the text.—10. The objection being met, Saul consents: 
And they went to city where the man of God was] the city is 
intended by the editor to be Ramah. The original account, how- 
ever, may have named another place. 

5. [צוף‎ cf. 1. @ connects it fancifully with צפה‎ and translates: che land 
in which was the prophet.—6. [הנה-נא‎ cf. Gen, 1211 1 K. 2218; the phrase 
invites favourable consideration of the proposition which follows. — For the 
imperfects of repeated experience cf. Dav., Syztax, § 44 a, Dr., Tenses, § 33 a. 
--7. [והנה‎ the case at first sight seems to be one where we should expect 
הן‎ 25 But cf. BDB. sab ₪006.-- [תשורה‎ occurs only here; the versions are 
at a loss, and the word is possibly corrupt. Cappellus (Votae Criticae, 
P- 435) supposes 65 to have read .תשארה‎ We expect and we have nothing else 
to bring. But this cannot be got out of the text.— nx [מה‎ also is abrupt 
and awkward (some Hebrew editions have .(ומה‎ I therefore suspect corrup- 
tion too deep-seated to be healed. — 8. [ונתתי‎ 65 seems to have read nnn, 
but it is better to correct to ונתתו‎ (KI.), which will more readily account for 
the corruption. —9. In v.° Samuel has been called ,איש אלהיס‎ on which see 
the note to 227. The verse now before us calls him a Seer (ראה)‎ , a word used 
twice by Isaiah (287 301°), elsewhere only in this passage and in Chronicles 
(1 Chr. 922 2678 29”, dependent on the account before us, and 2 Chr. 167-1 
where it is applied to Hanani). The rarity of the word led a scribe to insert 
this verse as an explanation, which, however, has fallen into the wrong place; 
it belongs after v.11, The conception of the prophet (8132) which it betrays 


is that of a clairvoyant to whom one may come for the discovery of lost arti- 
cles. On the bearing of the gloss on questions of criticism cf. Briggs, Higher 
Criticism of the Hexateuch®, p. 150.-- [לפנים‎ occurs Dt. 210.--- [יקרא‎ the 
tense indicates what was customary in the past. 

11. As they were going up the ascent of the city| cf. 2 S. 15%, 
they met maidens coming out to draw water] the usual duty of the 
young women of the village, as we see from the case of Rebecca 
Gen. 247% One well or spring supplied the whole village. — 
12. To the inquiry of Saul whether the Seer is here, they answer : 
He is! Behold he ts before you. Just now he came to the city. 
The rest of the verse explains the situation more distinctly: /or 
the people have a sacrifice today on the Bamah| at this period of 
Israel’s history each town had its sanctuary on a hill in the vicin- 
ity. Hence the name high-place. This one had a building for 
the accommodation of the worshippers. -- 18. As soon as you 
come to the city you shall find him, before he goes up to the Bamah 
to eat | the sacrifice is a feast — “the essential rite was eating the 
flesh of the victim at a feast in which the god of the clan shared 
by receiving the blood and fat pieces”? (BDB). The importance 
of Samuel is such that che people will not eat until he comes, for he 
as to bless the sacrifice| it should be noted, however, that blessing 
the sacrifice 18 not a priestly function, and there is no ritual neces- 
sity for Samuel’s presence. —14. The two strangers follow the 
advice; but as they come into the city gate Samuel comes out 
towards them on his way to the Bamah.—15. The verse is a 
digression, showing how Samuel had been prepared for the inter- 
view: Yahweh had told Samuel] lit., had uncovered his ear, cf. 
20" 228 2 5. .16--."ך‎ About this time to-morrow] Ex. 9" (J) 
1K. 19? 20°. Zhou shalt anoint him prince over my people Israel | 
the word translated prince (722) is not used in Hexateuch or 
Judges, but is found several times in Samuel and Kings, 1 S. 10" 
13°25" 2.5. 5° 6" 9° ד‎ K.a”,-ete;. It is also found im Chronicles, 
which is probably influenced by the earlier books, and in some 
other late passages. The passages in Samuel seem to belong to 
the same stream of narrative, except 2 5. 7%. And he shall save 
my people from the hand of the Philistines] the sentence is a 
direct contradiction of 7". For I have seen the affliction of my 
people| the text of 65. The evident view of the author is that 

IX, 11-21 63 

the king is a gift of God, and not that there is sin in asking 
such a gift: For their cry is come to me| Ex. 3°. We may note 
that anointing is a rite of consecration for things, as Jacob’s mag- 
gebah, Gen. 31” (E), the Tabernacle, Ex. 40° (P), as well as per- 
sons, 1 K. 19" (prophets). There is no reason to suppose the 
significance any different in the case of kings. —17. When Sam- 
uel saw Saul Yahweh answered him] that is, the question raised in 
his mind: Behold the man of whom I said to thee: He shall rule 
over my people. —18, 19. Saul questions Samuel: Where is the 
house of the Seer? Samuel replies to the intent of the question 
rather than its form: fam the Seer; go before me to the Bamah] 
he politely gives Saul precedence. Jn the morning I will dismiss 
thee| the guest goes away with the permission of his host. / 
that is in thine heart| implies that Saul had more questions to 
ask than those about the asses ; moreover, this one is answered at 
once, without waiting for the morrow. 20. Saul’s mind is set at 
rest concerning the asses that strayed now three days ago| and 
more important matters are hinted at: Zo whom belong the de- 
strable things of Israel? 75 it not to thee and to thy father’s house? 
The meaning cannot be called certain. But it does not seem out 
of place that Saul’s ambition should be raised to the office within 
his reach. — 21. Saul’s answer shows becoming modesty: Am 7 
nota Benjamite, of the least of the tribes of Israel, and ts not my 
clan the least of all the clans of the tribe of Benjamin? ‘The asser- 
tion (put in the form of a question) must not be taken too lite- 
rally. Saul’s father, as we have already seen, was a man of stand- 
ing in the community. 

11. ody [המה‎ the circumstantial clause, Dav., Syntax § 141. In some 
cases the clause is followed by 727), which is read by 657 here.— [בזה‎ zz 
this place as Ex. 2414(E).—12. 790 לפניך‎ [ why they should Aasten is not 
clear. As pointed out by Lagarde (Anum. zur Griechischen Uebersetz d. Pro- 
verbien, p. iii) 65 read ,לפניכס‎ which he supposed to imply that מהר‎ was made 
up of the final letter of לפניכס‎ and the first two of ,הראה‎ This last word, how- 
ever, is not represented in 65, and it seems better to read  אוה לפניכס‎ (Bu.). — 
[כי היוס‎ better ,כהיום‎ with @ (We.) cf. Gen. 2531 1 Sam, 2!6.— 18. [אחרי-כן‎ 
some MSS. and edd. prefix [כהיום ---.ו‎ the form we have restored above. On 
the repetition of the accusative cf. Dr., Tenses*, § 197. 6. Of the examples 
cited, 2 K. 927 seems the only exact parallel. — 14. [באים . . . יצא‎ the partici- 
ples indicate the flow of events—they were just coming into the city gate 

64 1 SAMUEL 

when Samuel met them. בתוך העיר‎ was conjecturally emended to בתוך השער‎ 
by Th., and the emendation is adopted by most moderns, being confirmed by 
y.18, The received text makes no difficulty, as the village was probably small 
and compact and the two men would soon reach the centre of it. But as it is 
necessary to read alike in the two verses it seems better to restore השער‎ 6 
than yn in v.18 (KI.).—15. 51] with pluperfect force, Dr., Tenses, § 76, 
Obs.; Dav., Syntax, § 39 c.—16. [ראיתי אתדעמי‎ GT read ,ראיתי את-עני עמי‎ 
which is evidently original, cf. Ex. 37 (E) 2 K. 1476. On the meaning of the 
verb משח‎ cf. an article by Meinel, 2.4 7 W. XVIII. p. 1 ff. —17. אשר אמרתי‎ | con- 
cerning whom I said; a similar expression in v.?3 Gen, 377 Jd. 7%. [יעצר---‎ 6 
verb nowhere else has the meaning 70 rule. It means to shut up (the heay- 
ens) Dt. 111", fo restrain (an animal) 2 1%. 474, 0 check (one’s words) Job 4?. 
But such a meaning seems inappropriate here, and we must suspect the text. 
161. proposes ישר‎ on the ground of 60006 GAB: 076006 GY, cf. Jd. 9?? Is. 
321,18, [אתדשמואל‎ the verb is generally found with 9x, — unless Num. 4 
be an exception, —and this preposition should probably be restored here. — 
[אי-זה‎ seems to imply that the object sought is in the immediate vicinity, cf. 
1 K. 13!%.—19. 65 has 7 am he instead of 1 am the ואכלתם---.-/%60,‎ [ the pre- 
ceding verb is in the singular, addressed to Saul alone, so that we should 
restore ואכלת‎ here. — 20. [הימים‎ We. and Bu. omit the article. But as the 
prophet has in mind the particular three days which have just elapsed, the 
article seems in place. Cf. Lev. 2571: it shall produce a crop sufficient for the 
three ./607% לשלש השנים--‎ --- where we must understand the three years you 
have in mind, for they have not been described. —20. [כל‎ is omitted both 
times by 68. — חמדת‎ [ the two possible translations are represented in the desire 
of Israel (AV.) and [all] that zs destrable im Israel (RV.). The latter is 
favoured by @ and adopted by Kl., Dr., Ki., and by the analogy of Hag. 2%, 
where, however, we should read a plural (and so possibly here). —21. [מקטני‎ 
occasional instances occur of an ancient construct ending in » (Jd. 20! cited 
by We.); such a form may be represented in the second שבטי‎ (instead of 
.(שבט‎ “The construction with מן‎ is sometimes virtually a superlative.” 
Day., Syntax, § 34, R. 4. 

22-25, Saul is Samuel’s guest. — The 7oom into which they 
are brought is apparently a hall built for the express use of wor- 
shippers at the Bamah, in their sacrificial feasts. Saul and his 
servant are given the place of honour 67 the head of the guests. 
The simplicity of manners is indicated by the equal treatment 
of Saul and his servant. There were present about thirty men, 
probably the heads of families or the freemen of the village. — 
23. Saul’s coming had been anticipated, as we see by Samuel’s 
command to the cook: Bring the portion which I gave to thee, 
concerning which I said to thee: Set tt by thee| in Arabia also it 

TX. 22-25 65 

was customary to set aside a choice portion for an honoured 
guest.* — 24. In obedience to the command the cook Jifred the 
leg and the rump| the choice part of the sacrifice, and the one 
still regarded as the portion of honour by the fellahin. The rest 
of the verse is obscure and apparently corrupt. It says: Behold 
what is deft | but it is almost certain that the guests had not begun 
the meal until Samuel appeared. And the clause: For i¢was kept 
for thee to the time appointed, saying, the people I have called 
is nonsense. With due reserve I propose below an emendation 
which gives the sense: Behold, the meal is served! Eat! For to 
the appointed time we have waited for thee to eat with the guests] 
if this, or something like it, were the original reading, we see that 

‘Samuel had directed the villagers to wait for his coming, which 
was of course politeness to his guest.— 25. After the feast, chey 
came from the Bamah to the city, and they spread a bed for Saul 
on the roof, and he lay down | the text of the last clause 38 is here 
also unintelligible (in this context), and must be corrected by 6. 
For sleeping on the roof, we have abundant examples in modern 
Oriental life, though no other Old Testament example has come 
under my observation. The verse-division should include the first 
word of the following verse with this. 

22. [לשכתה‎ the לשכה‎ is a chamber in a palace, Jer. 3612, or in the temple, 
Jer. 3524; one was also in use at Shiloh according to 1 Sam. 18% @.— 
הקרואים‎ | chose invited, the guests. — כשלשים‎ [ acel EBSounkovra 65. The larger 
number is the less likely to be original. —23. [לטבה‎ cf. 8!8,— rien] 14.— 
[אשר אמרתי‎ as in v.17, —24. [העליה‎ the intention is to read the preposition 
עלי‎ with the article and pronominal suffix. No other instance of such a con- 
struction has been pointed out (Dr., Votes) ; and if the construction were allow- 
able, it would not be appropriate here, for pwn is, of course, the leg with 
the flesh upon it. The slight change into האליה‎ seems first to have been 
proposed by Geiger, Urschrift, p. 380, and has everything to commend it. 
The reading is apparently suspected by the Talmud, for the Gemara asks 
(Aboda Zara, 25°): What was it that was upon the leg? to which Rabbi 
Johanan answers, 2/ was the leg and the rump. Other passages from Talmud 
and Midrash are cited by Dr. ‘The parallel in the custom of the fellahin of 
to-day is noticed by Nestle, M/arginalien und Materalien, p. 13. If האליה‎ 
was the original reading, as accepted by We., Bu., Dr., Brown (Lexicon), we 
can see a reason for the mutilation of the word, for the 75x was to be burned 

* Wellh., S£izzen, 111. p. 114. 

6 + 

upon the altar. The editors supposed it impossible for Samuel to be ignorant 
of this “ Mosaic” ordinance. KI. proposes ,הכליה‎ which seems to have no 
superiority to the reading just considered. The difficulty of the rest of the 
verse is admitted. The people do not ordinarily eat until Samuel comes, much 
less would they proceed without him when he had made preparations for a 
guest; הנשאר‎ therefore cannot be right.— 7N7p לאמר העם‎ [ seems absolutely 
unintelligible in the context. For כי למוער . . . קראתי‎ 65 gives 076 els waprvpioy 
7606070) cor mapa 7005 06)ע00 67 * צטס\\(6‎ (G" has maparébeckd cor 7000 0 
.(ססשג‎ This is better than #9, but, as pointed out by Dr., ,קרץ‎ which we 
should assume as the original of aoxvigfe (so Ew. and We.), is not used in 
biblical Hebrew in the sense of taking food; and after Saul has been exhorted 
to eat, it is superfluous to add /0// /0. The conjectures of the commentators 
scarcely call for attention, except that of Bu., who restores at the end שמרו לך‎ 
הקראים‎ oy .לאכל‎ More radical treatment seems to be necessary. What we 
expect is a polite invitation to Saul as the guest of honour to begin the meal, _ 
because the guests were waiting his lead. First, then, it seems necessary to 
read השאר‎ for שאר ,הנשאר‎ being flesh prepared for the table, Ex. 211° Ps. 7870. 
Samuel says: Behold the meat ts set before thee, as we should say, the meal is 
served. For שמור-לך‎ I would substitute לך‎ winx, we have waited for thee, in 
which case מועד‎ would be the time to which Samuel and the other guests had 
agreed to wait for the expected stranger.— הק‎ oy לאכל‎ I adopt from Bu. in 
place of the useless [וידבר עםהשאול עלההגג: וישכמו .85--.לאמר העם קראתי‎ is 
evidently out of joint, for they certainly did not rise in the morning until after 
Samuel called Saul, which follows; kat duéortpwcav r@ Daovdr érl ד‎ 0 
kal 6600007 G evidently represents 392%) .וירבדו לשאול על הגג‎ The text is 
corrected accordingly by recent expositors from Schleusner down. Keil alone 
hardens his heart. 

IX. 26-X. 8. Saul is anointed by Samuel. — He also receives 
signs confirmatory of the prophetic commission, and is encour- 
aged, after the signs shall have been fulfilled, to act according to 
his own judgment. <A? the rising of the dawn Samuel called to 
Saul on the roof [ for the time of day cf. Gen. 19” 32” 7 6. 
The original text seems to have added only: and they went out 
into the street| all three together, as is evident from the next 
verse. — 27. They were going down in the edge of the city when 
Samuel said | the construction is similar to v.". Say to the lad 
that he pass on] the addition of #7: and he passed on breaks the 
connexion, and must be exscinded. Aut thou stand here that I 
may tell thee the word of God | which for the present concerns 
Saul alone. — .א‎ 1. The vial of oil is described by the same word 
which is used in the description of another prophet’s anointing of 

IX. 26-X. 3 67 

aking, 2 K.9'*. And poured it upon his head [ the act of anoint- 
ing could not be more clearly described. And hissed him] an evi- 
dence of personal affection, for kissing is nowhere an act express- 
ive of fealty toa king; the kissing of an idol 1 K. 10% Hos. 13? 
can hardly be called parallel. A part of Samuel’s words have fallen 
out of %#, and the whole must be restored as follows: Mas not 
Yahweh anointed thee as prince over his people Israel? And thou 
shalt reign over the people of Yahweh and shalt save them from the 
hand of their enemies round about. And this shall be the sign 
that Yahweh has anointed thee over his heritage as prince] it is 
possible that theological prejudice has had something to do with 
the mutilation of the text, for, to the later view, Saul did not act- 
ually save Israel from their enemies.—2. As Saul has no reason 
for delaying longer, we may suppose that the signs which follow 
occur on the road from Ramah to Gibeah (Saul’s home). Unfor- 
tunately we are not able to identify either Ramah or the other 
points mentioned, except Bethel. When thou goest from me to-day 
thou shalt meet two men at the tomb of Rachelin the boundary of 
Benjamin | the boundary here mentioned must be the boundary 
between Ephraim and Benjamin, for the district of Zuph was in 
Ephraim. It is impossible therefore to identify the Zomd of 
Rachel here mentioned with the traditional site south of Jeru- 
salem. As Jeremiah hears Rachel weeping for her children in 
Ramah (31), and as her children are Joseph and Benjamin, we 
naturally suppose her tomb located in the boundary of their 
respective territories. To make Samuel’s home in Judah in order 
to bring Saul home by the traditional Tomb is to violate all the 
probabilities. The next word is unintelligible. The men would 
tell him: Zhy father has dismissed the matter of the asses and ts 
anxious for you, saying: What shall I do for my son ?[ the state 
of things anticipated by Saul, 9’°.—3. The second sign: Zhou 
shalt pass on thence and come to the Oak of Tabor| supposed by 
some to be identical with the tree of Deborah, between Ramah 
and Bethel, Jd. 4°. This can hardly be called probable. The 
grave of Deborah (Rebécca’s nurse) is also put in this region by 
Gen. 35° and associated with it is an oak —the Oak of Weeping. 
In the number of sacred trees which once abounded in the 
country, there is no need to merge these three into one. The 

68 1 SAMUEL 

three men he should meet going up to God at Bethel, the ancient 
sanctuary, would have their offerings with them : one carrying 
three kids, one carrying three baskets of bread | the reading is con- 
jectural, based on the paucity of the thvee loaves in 49. ‘Twenty 
loaves are easily carried by a man, 2 K. 4”, and would be no 
more than the equivalent of she skin of wine borne by the third 
member of the party. —4. The men should be so impressed by 
Saul’s bearing that they would sa/uz him and give him éwo loaves, 
an earnest of the dacksheesh to be paid later to the king. — 
5. The third sign: Afterwards thou shalt come to Gibeah of God | 
apparently the full name of Saul’s home, for he goes directly to 
his house after meeting with the prophets. Where is the Resident 
of the Philistines| evidently the same mentioned in 13°, though 
the location there given is Geba, And it shall be at thy coming 
thither thou shalt meet a band of prophets coming down from the 
Bamah with a lyre and tambourine and flute and harp before 
them while they engage in prophesying | it must be evident that we 
have here a company of dervishes engaged in their religious exer- 
cises. The enthusiastic nature of these exercises is evident from 
the later narrative and from the parallel account, 10%%.--- 
6. And the Spirit of Yahweh will rush upon thee| the same verb 
is used to describe the enthusiasm which seized the earlier heroes 
of Israel, Jd. 14% etc. And thou shalt prophesy with them and be 
turned into another man] it is worth remarking that in the later 
account, 16%, the Spirit comes as a result of the anointing. The 
verb used to describe the transformation effected in Saul is the 
same found in Ex. 7” (E), where the rod is changed into a ser- 
pent and Ex. 7" * (E), where the waters are turned into blood. 
-- 7. The coming to pass of the signs will justify Saul in doing 
whatever the occasion demands | cf. Jd. 9 — for he will be sure of 
the divine help. —- 8. The verse is an evident interpolation into 
the earliest narrative, but not necessarily late. It commands Saul 
to go down to Gilgal and to wait there seven days for Samuel. 

26. [וישכימן‎ is a corruption of ,וישכב‎ originally the conclusion of the pre- 
ceding 6186. -- [כעלות‎ some copies have בעלות‎ (Ginsb.). -- [הגגה‎ Qré is 
doubtless correct. —o71v] lacking in 65, is superfluous. Probably the origi- 
nal text was without explicit subject (Bu. omits הוא ושמואל‎ following We.). 
yin is whatever is outside the house.—27. ויעבר‎ [ gives the purpose of the 

69 8 .א 

command. — [ויעבר‎ is superfluous and is lacking in 655. -- [כיום‎ it seems un- 
necessary to tell him to stand ¢his very minute, whereas in contrast to the pass- 
ing on of the servant it would be natural to tell him to stand ere. We should 
probably emend to הלוס‎ with KIl.—X. 1. For kissing the king, Gen. 4140 
and Ps. 2! might be cited, but the text in both is suspicious. — [הלא כוהמשהך‎ 
the construction is apparently smooth. But as in the next verse Samuel goes 
on to give the signs which are to come to pass, it is evident that something is 
missing. @ inserts after הלא‎ the sentence given above, and this is adopted as 
original by Th., We., KL, Dr., Bu., Ki., and Ginsb. (margin). It has dropped 
out by homeoteleuton.— noms] cf. 261% 2 S. 1416 213 Jer. 1618,—2. We 
have assumed that Samuel’s home was at Ramah, though this document no- 
where so affirms. If the assumption be correct, Ramah can hardly be identi- 
fied with 47-Ram, which is only three miles away from Gibeah. GASmith 
suggests Bert Xima on the western edge of Mt. Ephraim, while Ew. )6 8 
III. p. 31, E. Tr. III. p. 21) puts it at Ram Allah, about ten miles north of 
Jerusalem. The tradition which puts Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem seems 
to go back to Gen. 35! (E) 48’ (J), but must be later than Jeremiah, as 
shown above. The present text of Genesis seems to be interpolated in these 
two passages. —nx>s3] is intended to contain the name of a place — zx 
Zelzach. But the definition is already precise enough. The name of the 
place from which the men were coming would be appropriate, in which case 
Jrom Zelah, the burial place of Kish in a later passage 2 5. 211% might be 
conjectured. @ has a confused variety of readings, one of them possibly 
going back to ons, /eaping, which is adopted by Ew. zz grosser Eile; an- 
other (G") seems to reproduce ons meridie 38. [וראנ---‎ should probably be 
pointed as the participle (Bu.).—38. [והלפת‎ the verb is used of the quick 
motion of the whirlwind, Hab. 115, once apparently of ¢ransgressing the com- 
mandment, Is. 24°. It does not seem especially appropriate here, therefore, 
and the text may not be sound.—nan [אלון‎ the conjecture which identi- 
fies this with the Palm of Deborah is due to Ew. (GVZ III. p. 31, E. Tr. III. 
[ככרות —.)21 .ק‎ for reasons given above, the conjecture of KI. כלובי‎ is plau- 
sible and adopted by Bu., but כלי‎ seems more likely, cf. 97. —4. [שתי-לחם‎ 
dv0 dmapxas dptwy G evidently had ,בכורי‎ probably a corruption of an original 
.8--.ככרות‎ 5x] found in the current editions is lacking in almost all MSS. 
(De Rossi) and omitted by Ginsb.—»233] we should read נציב‎ with GY. 
The word means (1) a7 officer or prefect; (2) a garrison of soldiers; (3) @ 
pillar. As Jonathan smote the one in question it seems most likely to have 
been a single officer stationed by the Philistines as representative of their 
authority. -- [וְיהי‎ the form is unexpected; Dr. compares 2 S. 524 where also 
a divine message is given. But there the message is a command and natu- 
rally employs the jussive, which is inappropriate here. It seems necessary, 
therefore, to correct to .והיה‎ The verb פגע‎ means he came suddenly upon 
something. —5an] 6 string, but, as we use and, not necessarily a company 
in single file. —13) [ולפניהס‎ the whole is a circumstantial clause. The names 
of the musical instruments here mentioned are translated, as nearly as may 

70 1 SAMUEL 

be, in the foregoing. An elaborate discussion is found in Weiss., Die Must- 
halische Instrumente in d. Heiligen Schr. des Alten Testamentes, Graz. 1895. 
-- 7. Bu. inserts כל‎ before אשר‎ on the ground of 665. But this does not 
seem necessary. — 8. That the verse does not belong to the original narrative 
should be evident. It flatly contradicts the preceding command to Saul, to 
act according to his own judgment and the leadings of Providence. It evi- 
dently prepares for the paragraph 13°" which also is an interruption to the 
flow of the narrative. The interpolation is recognized as such by We. (Comp. 
245, 248), Stade 66 7. I. p. 211), Co., Bu. I have given reasons in the 
introduction for thinking the insertion not so late as is generally supposed. — 
Seven days shalt thou wait... then I will tell thee| on the construction cf. 
Moore, /udges, p. 350. 

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

X. 9-16 71 

expected to prophesy, but that his known individual character 
was such that his prophesying was a surprise. On this theory the 
question who 22 their father is indeed pia quidem vox sed quae 
ipsi questioni non satisfecit (Schm.). Such an answer could 
hardly be composed by our author. The original reading seems 
to be lost. Because of this incident a proverb circulated in the 
form: ls Saul also among the prophets ? ‘The Rabbinical expos- 
itors see in the question of v.” an expression of surprise that the 
son of so lowly a man as Kish should be found in such distin- 
guished company. ‘The reverse is more likely, for Kish has been 
described as a well-to-do man, and it is evident from some pas- 
sages in the historical books that the prophets did not stand high 
in the estimation of the .6[קס6כן‎ -- 18. After a time Saul ceased 
prophesying avd went down to the house| on the reading see 
the note below. —14. Saul’s uncle asks about the journey. — 
15, 16. His further question as to Samuel’s word only brought 
out the reply: Why! he told us that the asses were found. 

9. [והיה‎ should be .ויהי‎ The scribe was misled by the preceding series of 
verbs [כהפנתו---. (.עכ1)‎ Jer. 4839 is the nearest 8181161. -- [ויהפך‎ Zeph. 3°, 
cited by Dr., protects the verb here (contra 141.( .--- לב‎ [ our word hear¢ hardly 
expresses the idea, which is that his #z¢zd@ was illuminated, cf. BDB. s.v.— 
10. av [ויבאו‎ Kal €pyerac ע6006א6‎ @. As the servant has been lost sight of for 
some time 65 seems to be correct. But if we adopt own it seems clear that 
something has dropped out.—11. [ויהי כלדיודעו‎ the nearest parallel seems to 
be 2 S. 278 where we have ויהי כלההבא‎ followed by ויעמדו‎ in the apodosis. But 
the point is here not that a// who knew him saw him, but that all who knew 
him and saw him asked the question. It seems better and more vigorous 
therefore to make ויאמר‎ begin the apodosis and omit oyn with &%. For the 
construction cf. Nu. 218, where however the other tense is used. — [מההזה‎ on 
the form of the question BDB. s.v. 71.—12. own] seems to have been read 
מהם‎ by 66.-- כ[ דשח [אביהכ‎ 00700 GS [ seems to give no help. @ interprets: 
and who is their master ?— which seems as irrelevant as the ordinary transla- 
tion. —18. [הבמה‎ As Saul met the prophets coming from the Bamah he 
would probably not go on thither but to his home. We. therefore conjectures 
.הביתה‎ There he would meet his uncle who appears in the next verse. — 
14. The uncle on the father’s side would have almost a father’s claim, — 
16. הגיד‎ 727] the adverbial infinitive strengthens the verb: 26 told us, sure / 
The second half of the verse is relegated to the margin by Bu. perhaps cor- 
rectly. It really adds nothing to the sense. —’pw [אשר אמר‎ is lacking in 5. 

ON THE MEANING OF --.נביא‎ 126 word is obscure and we can do little 
more than note the bounds of our ignorance. The word does not seem to be 

72 1 SAMUEL 

Hebrew in its origin, as the verb exists only in the denominative forms. It is 
however a good Semitic form, like קציר‎ @ harvester, פקיר‎ an overseer. As 
these examples show, nouns of this form usually describe a person who devotes 
himself steadily to the particular action indicated by the root. The only clue 
to the root meaning of נבא‎ is in Arabic where it means: (1) he uttered a low 
voice or sound, (2) he was elevated, (3) he went from a land to another land. 
Hoffmann (ZA 7 W. 111. .כ‎ 87) explains (2) to be he rose into view, he comes 
Jrom another region, where we cannot see him, into our own. Ue therefore 
supposes the x23 to be ove who rises [is roused] from his sluggishness under 
the influence of a divine inspiration. This seems rather forced, however, and 
as the organs of supernatural communication notoriously chirp, or mutter, or 
give forth a murmuring sound, it seems most likely that the zaéz was originally 
the mutterer. Later we find Saul מהנבא‎ under the influence of an evil spirit, 
where the utterance of inarticulate sounds would probably be one of the 
phenomena. ‘The prophet is elsewhere called insane — y3~p— where also 
the utterance of incoherent sounds is probably one of the symptoms, 2 K. 1 
Jer. 296. The account of the meé¢zmz in the text reminds us strongly of the 
priests of the Syrian goddess described by Lucian. The ‘prophets’ of Baal, 
also, rave about the altar, 1 K. 189. 

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

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

Our paragraph seems to be homogeneous down to 57 After this, we may 
suspect that the dismission of the people to their homes is intended to prepare 
the way for 11 —tne original continuation of 8 being 121. I find no reason 
for suspecting 17-19, with Cornill, or %®, with Budde. The evidences for a 
comparatively late date are the same here as in other parts of the same docu- 
ment. In accordance with his general theory Bu. derives the paragraph 
from E. 

17. A general assembly of the people is called at Mizpah as 
in 7. The reason for the choice of Mizpah may be the same that 

X. 17-24 73 

influenced the author of Jd. 20.—18. Yahweh again reproaches 
the people with ingratitude: Z drought you up from Egypt and 
delivered you from the hand of Egypt, and from the hand of all 
the kingdoms that were oppressing you the construction is unusual, 
and it is possible that the passage has been interpolated. — 19. 
Their sin is rejection of Yahweh: who has been your saviour] the 
same word is used of the judge, Jd. 3%. The author has the idea 
which is illustrated in the occurrence described in 774. And ye 
said: No! but a king shalt thou place over us| the reference is 
evidently to 8%. In order to the fulfilment of their desire he 
commands them to station themselves before Yahweh (who would 
choose among them): dy your tribes and by your thousands | the 
thousand is a subdivision of a tribe Jd. 6".— 20, 21. The choice 
is made by the sacred lot, each tribe coming by its representatives 
before the oracle and receiving the answer yes or zo, until the 
proper one is found. The account is parallel to Jos. 779 where 
however there are four stages instead of three. In the first stage 
the tribe of Benjamin is taken. This tribe was brought dy א‎ 
clans and the clan of the Matrite was taken] the name occurs 
nowhere else, and some have supposed an error. One of the 
sons of Benjamin in Gen. 46” is Beker, which may be the original 
here.* We should now insert with 65: and he brought near the 
clan of Matri man by man] the clause has fallen out of 3 but is 
necessary to the sense. Kish would represent the household now 
chosen. Among his sons the name of Saul finally came out, but 
the man himself was not to be found.— 22. To the question: 
Did the man come hither ?| the oracle replied: He ts hidden in 
the baggage | out of modesty of course. Slight changes in the text 
of this and the following verse will be noted below.—23. One 
ran and fetched him thence and as he stood among the people he 
was taller than all the people from his shoulder upward | a head 
taller, as we should say. A Lapide quotes from the dened: 
cunctis altior ibat (of Anchises), and: toto vertice supra est (of 
Turnus), and similar language from Pliny concerning Trajan. 
Before the invention of firearms, personal strength was essential 
in a leader, as indeed it is still among the Arabs. — 24. At the 

* Ew., 6 73. 111. p. 33 (Ky Tr. 111, p. 23). + Doughty, 11. p. 27 sq. 

74 1 SAMUEL 

presentation to the people, they shout: day the king live / the 
Usval “erecting tora ruler, 20.0 10 oeeheis ee ine 
Emir of Hayil in Central Arabia is saluted with: O, long of days! 
and his subjects in speaking of him say: God give him long 
life !* Whether this account originally added that Samuel anointed 
Saul is not certain, but this is rendered probable by the language 
of 151.—259. Samuel recited before the people the custom of the 
kingdom and wrote it in a book and deposited it before Yahweh | it 
seems impossible to understand this of anything else than the 
custom of the king already recited in 8°"*. This was threatened 
as the penalty of the people’s choice. As they have persisted in 
their choice, the threat will be carried out. The document is laid 
up before Yahweh as a testimony, so that when they complain of 
tyranny they can be pointed to the fact that they have brought it 
upon themselves. 

25>-27. The original document seems to have joined 127 (Sam- 
uel’s farewell) directly to **. The rest of this chapter is inserted 
to give room for 11 in which Saul appears still as a private citizen. 
In the theory of the editor he did not assume kingly power at 
once, because the people did not recognize him, or at least a 
considerable part did not recognize him, as king. When Samuel 
dismissed the people there went with Saul only the érave men 
whose heart God had touched | the phrase does not occur else- 
where (Jer. 4% is different) but the meaning is sufficiently evident. 
But the base men] lit. sons of belial, Jd. 19”, said: How shall 
this fellow save us ?| with a touch of contempt in the form of 
the question. In consistency they brought him no present | cf. 9/. 
There is no thought as yet of fixed taxes. The two words at the 
end of this verse in # belong to the next section. 

17. [יצעק‎ the Hiphil only here, but הזעיק‎ is found in the meaning he called 
out the warriors, 2S. 20° Jd. 416.15 -- 18. myn [כה-אמר‎ the usual beginning 
of a prophetic speech as [העליתי---.27‎ of the deliverance from Egypt, usual 
in E but not confined to הממלכות הלחצים---. וגג[‎ [ the disagreement in gender 
may be accounted for by supposing the participle to be construed ad sensum. 
But I suspect the original had only הממלכות‎ which a scribe found too sweeping 
and tried to correct by insertion. The verb לחץ‎ is used Jd. 21% 43 al., usually 

* Doughty, II. pp. 55, 226. 

X. 24-[. 75 

in Deuteronomistic passages. —19, מאפתם‎ [ of the people’s rejection of Yah- 
weh 87 Num. 112? cf. 1484 (late). —15] in the received text is replaced by לא‎ 
by the 0/4 and in a number of MSS., as well as in 655004, — [התיצבו לפני יהוה‎ 
Jos. 241. — 20. [ויקרב‎ exactly as in Jos. 717. — 21. למשפחתו‎ Az. למשפחתין‎ Oré. As 
the next verse begins with 1 the original may have been simply למשפחות‎ (6). 
After ,המטרי‎ 6545 adds: «al rpoodyouow thy pudyv Marrapel els dvdpas, GU 
has an equivalent, but does not agree verbally. Probably a clause of this sig- 
nificance has dropped out of 38 —so all recent scholars suppose. — 28. x2] 
Kal 6 ש6שף דשסן‎ Dauovnd 655 ₪. Probably the original was simply bxw». For 
the next clause ,הבא עור הלם איש‎ 65% has: ef pxerar 6 dvip évradda. This 
alone corresponds to the answer which follows, and we restore (with Th., al.) 
האיש‎ cba xan. The baggage of an army is [וירצו .23 — ,2513 1722 ,הכלים‎ 48 
the singular with @; the unexpressed personal subject with the singular is 
appropriate here. — 24. [הראיהם‎ with daghesh dirimens Ges.* § 225.—13] 6 
reads 17, but בחר ב'‎ is found 16% 9.19 2 6. 621 Dt. 185 215. — ayn בכל‎ | év waou 
tutv 65. The case is difficult to decide; בכלכם‎ is perhaps more likely to have 
been changed (under the influence of the כלההעס‎ which precedes and follows) 
than the reverse. —1y7)] kal @yvwoav @B; the Hebrew seems to be original. 
Before וירעו‎ Bu. inserts by conjecture למלך‎ wnwn, while Co. would apparently 
insert the same words at the end of the verse. It is possible, however, that 
this author supposed Saul not to have been anointed, and that the allusion in 
151 is an interpolation. The command to Samuel in 8 says nothing of 
anointing. —26. [החיל‎ che army is out of place here; read כני החיל‎ with 6 
(Th., 41.( אשרהנגע אלהים בלבס---.‎ [ no similar phrase has been pointed out. — 
27. m] is used in contempt, 215 2521 2 S. 131", cf. BDB. s.v. — [ויהי כמחריש‎ 
the words are a corruption of two which originally opened the following 

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

76 1 SAMUEL 

The piece is a part of the narrative which we left at 10. The 
tone is entirely different from that of 10777. The author is in 
ignorance of the public appointment of Saul as king. The mes- 
sengers from Jabesh come to Gibeah, not to seek Saul, but to 
appeal to the people. No one thinks it necessary to send for 
Saul to the field. He comes home at the regular time, and then 
has to inquire before he is told what is the matter. More com- 
plete disregard of what is related as having taken place at Mizpah 
could not be imagined. On the other hand, the entire consonance 
of this chapter and g'~10"° is evident, and the author seems to 
have foreshadowed this event when he says: do as the occasion 
serves, for God ts with thee (10°). 

The resemblance between this passage and some of the early 
narratives of the Book of Judges is plain. ‘The integrity of the 
piece has suffered in vv. 17% as will be shown. 

1-3. The invasion and the terms offered. — /¢ came 70 pass in 
about a month | the reading is that of 6.— Wahash the Ammonite | 
he is called later, ing of the Bné Ammon. ‘The name means 
Serpent, cf. 2 5. 17” and Mahshon, Ex. 6%. This Nahash lived 
until some time after David was settled in Jerusalem, 2 S. 10%. 
The Ammonites were kindred of Israel (Gen. 19"), but always 
troublesome neighbours, cf. Moore on Jd. 11*. In the theory of 
the Israelitic writers they occupied the desert east of Gilead, 
Dt. 27797, but they are represented as claiming the territory 
as far as the Jordan. Probably they were not scrupulous about 
an ancestral title, but like the Bedawin of the present day asserted 
themselves wherever they had the power. — And besieged Jabesh 
Gilead | lit. encamped upon. But where the Bedawin encamp 
upon a territory they destroy it; and while unable to undertake a 
formal siege, they quickly reduce a walled town to submission by 
depriving it of supplies, 2 K. 25 Jabesh is mentioned Jd. 21 1 
S. 317 2 5. 2*° 21” and in Chronicles. It is placed by Eusebius 
six miles from Pella on the road to Gerasa, and is now generally 
identified with /20- 220/ on the Wady Yadis, which appears to 
preserve the ancient name. The men of Jabesh are willing to 
become tributaries. — Make terms with us that we may serve thee | 
the Bedawin frequently reduce the towns of the oases to the con- 

XI. 1-3 77 

dition here in mind, receiving a percentage of all crops. The 
case of Khaibar when it surrendered to Mohammed is in point. 
The covenant here asked is evidently imposed by the stronger 
party, cf. Jos. 9; but it naturally binds him to cease from further 
molestation when it has once been ratified. —2. The reply of 
Nahash: On this stipulation I will make terms with you: the 
boring out of every man’s right eye] lit. by boring out for you every 
right eye. Josephus supposes the intention to be to make them 
unfit for war. But the Bedawy’s motive is probably no deeper 
than the pleasure of insulting an enemy: Zhereby J will put igno- 
miny on all Israel\ the disgrace of Jabesh would be a gibe in the 
mouth of all Israel’s enemies, cf. 17%.-- 8. A respite of seven 
days is asked: Zhat we may send messengers through all the terri- 
tory of Israel, and if there be none to save us we will come out to 
thee. At the end of the verse 69" adds that they sent out the 
messengers, but such complementary insertions are not infrequent. 

1. Kal éyevij@n as mera סע‎ GAB; kal éyévero mera phva juepdv GU 
evidently represents a variant of ויהי כמחריש‎ which is found in ¥# at the end 
of the preceding verse and there supposed to mean: and he was like one 
holding his peace, that is, in reference to the scoffs of the crowd. But it is 
difficult to see why the author should make a comparison when it would be 
more natural to say directly and he held his peace. The reading of 65 restored 
in the form ויהי כמהדש‎ by Th. and adopted by most later scholars. The form 
כמחרש‎ is possible, as we see from Gen. 38% ,כמשלש‎ but as the מן‎ is superfluous 
I think כמו חדש‎ more probable. On the identification of Jabesh Gilead, Eu- 
sebius in OS. 268; Moore, Judges, p. 446, who cites the recent authorities. 
-- כרתחלנו ברית‎ [ the usual formula, Jos. 9! 24% 25.58 2K.114, The term 
seems to have originated in the cutting apart of a victim, cf. WRSmith, 7e/. 
Sem. pp. 297,461; Doughty, II. p.41; Valeton in ZA 7 VW. 12, .כ‎ 227 ff.; and 
Kraetschmar, Die Bundesvorstelling im AT. (1896).—2. [בזאת‎ apparently 
the ב‎ of price. After 055 13 MSS. and 655" add nna. But the omission 
makes no difficulty. —025 בנקור‎ [ év שש 60000606 ד‎ GBL, That they should 
do the mutilating themselves would be a refinement of cruelty. But the Bed- 
awy might not so regard it.—-p is used of the ravens picking out the eye, 
Prov. 3017; the Piel in the same sense Jd. 16?!.—mnnw)] G48 seems to omit 
the suffix.—‘% >] omitted by 659.--8. [זקני‎ dvdpes 65; the latter is favoured 
by Bu. on the ground of v.1, But the conformity is more likely to be the result 
of correction by a scribe than the dissimilation.— 5 הרף‎ [ cf. 2 K. 427. The 
protasis with ואם-אין‎ is followed by perfect with waw consecutive as in Ex, 22? 
Num. 279, The fact that אין‎ has a participle under its government does not 
make the sentence different from those 01666. -- מושיע‎ [ with the accusative, 
as in 1489 Jd. 6%6, 

78 1 SAMUEL 

4-72, The reception of the message by Saul.— The mes- 
sengers came 70 Gibeah of Sau/| the town seems to have gone by 
this name later, Is. 10%. There were several other towns which 
bore the name Gibeah. © has, ₪ Gibeah to Saul, which is contra- 
dicted by what follows. — Zhe people wept aloud| Jd. 2* 217 1S. 
30% 2 5. 13%. —5. Saul was just coming after the oxen from the 
field | as already noticed, the messengers made no inquiry for Saul, 
no care was taken to send for him, no special attention was paid 
to him when he came in sight, but he was left to find out the 
cause of the commotion by questioning the people. All this 
shows that it was not on account of Saul that the messengers came 
to Gibeah.—6. And the Spirit of Yahweh| so is probably to be 
read with © and some MSS. of ®, favoured also by @.— And 
his wrath became very hot| in Jd. 14" also the Spirit of Yahweh 
is the efficient cause of wrath. — 7%. And he took a yoke of oxen 
and cut them in preces| the verb is used of cutting up a sacrificial 
victim, 1 K. 18% and elsewhere; in one instance it describes 
the cutting up of a human body Jd. 19” 20%. In this latter case 
also the pieces are sent throughout all Israel. The threat con- 
veyed is: Whoever comes not forth after Saul, so shall his oxen 
be treated | Ewald’s theory that the oxen were slain as a sacrifice 
is without support in the text. The clause, and after Samuel, is 
probably a later insertion. 

5. [בא‎ is apparently the participle. — בקר‎ [ is the ploughing cattle, so that 
Saul had been tilling his field. Classic parallels for the king cultivating his 
own fields are given in Poole, Syzops’s.—6. [והצלח‎ the same verb in 108, — 
[אלהים‎ some MSS. have יהוה‎ which is favoured also by 65. בשמעו‎ Az, woud 

Qré,; the latter is more vigorous. —%xynw [ואחר‎ is a redactional insertion 


7>-11. The deliverance. — 4 rerror from Vahweh fell upon the 
people and they gathered as one man] the terror was a ¢error of 

ahweh in that he sent it. Its object was Saul; the people were 
afraid to disobey. For ¢hey gathered ©, they went out is given by 
i9.— 8. Bezek, the place of muster, is identified with KAirbdet 
20276, “ thirteen miles northeast from Shechem on the road down 
to Bethshan” (G. A. Smith, Geog. p. 336). The location is well 
suited to be the starting-point in this expedition, being nearly 
opposite Jabesh Gilead. The enormous numbers— 7% 0 

XI. 4-11 70 

Israel 300,000 and the men of Judah 30,000 —are to be judged 
like similar data elsewhere, cf. Jd. 20%. -- 9. And he 20/0 [ Saul is 
the subject (©): Zo-morrow deliverance will come to you when the 
sun grows hot] Saul had detained the messengers until he could 
give a definite answer. The people of Jabesh naturally rejoiced 
at receiving the assurance.—10. "10 keep the besiegers in false 
security, the men of Jabesh promise to come out to them on the 
next day: And you shall do to us whatever you please | lit. accord- 
ing to all that is good in your eyes, 01. 3% 14% * 2 ₪. 10” Jd. 19%. — 
11. The morrow began at sunset of the day on which the message 
was sent, so the army doubtless marched all night as Josephus says. 
Saul divided his troops into three columns as did Gideon, Jd. 7", 
and Abimelech Jd. 9*. The advantage of attacking on different 
sides at the same time is obvious. -- And they came into the midst 
of the camp| the attack was not discovered until the Israelites 
were already in the midst of the scattered camp. The morning 
watch is mentioned also Ex. 14%; the night was divided into 
three watches, notice the mzdd/e watch, Jd. ."ל‎ -- And they smote 
Ammon until the heat of the day and there was ...| the word is 
probably corrupt. What we expect is a statement that there was 
a great slaughter or a great panic. They scattered and there were 
not left two together. 

Note. — The reason for rejecting the numbers in v.® is that in the time of 
Deborah the total fighting strength was 40,000 men, Jd. 5°, and under great 
stress Barak was able to bring only ten thousand into the field. There is no 
reason to suppose that Israel had greatly increased since that time; the 
Philistine oppression indicates the reverse. The later account of Saul’s cam- 
paigns makes the impression that he at no time commanded a large force. On 
the other hand, the ease with which numbers increase in size on paper is seen 
from 65 here which doubles the 300,000 of #), while Josephus raises it to 

7b, [ויצאו‎ does not give a bad sense, but as 65 renders ,ויצעקו‎ this is restored 
by We., al.; the phrase כאיש אחד‎ is used with verbs meaning éo gather, Jd. 20! 
Ezra 31 Neh. 81; nowhere with .8--.יצא‎ A Bezek is mentioned in Jd. 14 
where it would be supposed to be in Judah. 65 seems to have read zn 
Ramah, which however was early corrupted to Bamah or Bala )1(. The 
identification of our Bezek with K/zrbet Jbzik is as old as the fourteenth 
century, cf. Moore on Jd. 15.—9. [ויאמרו‎ Kal elev GAB is apparently correct. 
כחס [בהם--‎ Q7é fixes the point of time more exactly. —10. [ויאמרו אנשי יבש‎ 
65 adds 70 Nahash the Ammonite and something of the kind seems necessary. 

80 1 SAMUEL 

But I suspect the original reading to have been only ויאמרו לנחש‎ and that the 
second word was corrupted to .אנשי‎ For 31977552, @4B gives simply 76 6/6006 
and the shorter reading is to be preferred. —11. ראשים‎ [ of the divisions of the 
army, Jd. 716 93 43 1 5. 1317. On the double accusative, Dav., Syntax, § 76. 
For Ammon & gives sons of Ammon which accords with almost uniform usage. 
-- הנשארים‎ [ can be construed (cf. 1011 2 ₪. 273), but it is extremely awkward. 
Some relief is given by changing ויהי‎ to יהם‎ but the corruption is probably 

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

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

12-15. The evidences of adaptation to the present situation found in vy,!214 
are emphasized by We. (Comp. p. 243) and Stade (GV/J. I. p. 212). The three 
verses are regarded as an interpolation by Co. (Z7zn/3, ,כ‎ 100), and Bu. (2S. 
p- 173). Driver specifies only y.! as redactional (LO7’®, p. 176). 

12. Who ts he who says: Saul shall not reign over us? the 
negative is omitted in the current Hebrew, but found in 6S@ as 
well as some MSS. -- 19. And Saul said] the traces of a reading 
and Samuel said are of no value. Saul’s magnanimity is the 
point of the reply.— Wot a man shall be put to death| the verb 
in this form is generally used of inflicting death as a penalty. — 
14. Samuel proposes to go to Gilgal and renew the kingdom 
there] there is no reason to suppose that the Gilgal here men- 
tioned is any but the well-known sanctuary in the Jordan valley, 
not far from Jericho (Jos. 4" * Jd. 21). The word venew the king- 
dom is a palpable allusion to the preceding account, and therefore 
redactional. On the other hand, Gilgal seems to belong to the 

81 .1 .זא 

main stratum, for otherwise the people would have been invited 
again to Mizpah.—15. Zhey made Saul king] the verb is the 
same used in 8”. — There before Yahweh in Gilgal| the repeated 
mention of Gilgal seems superfluous, but is perhaps intended to 
bring out the importance of the occasion. — Zhey sacrificed there 
sacrifices, peace offerings| the phrase sacrifices of peace offerings 
is more common. The rendering peace offerings is conventional, 
as the original meaning of the word is unknown. It designates 
the offerings in which the greater part of the flesh forms a sacrifi- 
cial meal. The rejoicing before Yahweh is a prominent element 
in early worship. 

12. 3b» שאול‎ | may possibly be a question without the interrogative particle, 
but of the examples cited as parallel some, at least, do not belong here. Either 
the 7 or the negative has dropped out; and as the latter has external authority 
(GST) it seems best to restore it. Kl.’s conjecture: Rather let Sheol rule 
over us! may be cited as a curiosity. — 18. שאול‎ [ Zayouvjd 655 is a mere cleri- 
cal error.—14. Gz/ga/ in this passage might be supposed to be the Gilgal in 
Mt. Ephraim, 2 K. 21. But elsewhere in the Books of Samuel the Gilgal in the 
Jordan valley is intended. So in 10* where ירדת‎ is appropriate only to the 
lower site, cf. 1315. The name (usually written or pointed with the article) 
means ¢he circle and designated a circle of sacred stones, a cromlech, cf. Dr. 
on Dt, 1139, Moore on Jd. 21. For the location we have Jos. 41% 9°, Eusebius 
OS. p. 243, Baedeker Pal?. [ונחרש ---.167 .כ‎ the Piel seems to occur in late 
passages. Kl. tries to make it mean “et us inaugurate the kingdom, so 
avoiding reference to the earlier anointing. But this is not supported by any 
other passage. -- 15. [וימלכו‎ G reads: kal expicev Zayoutr éxet [rdv Zaodr] 
els Baoi\éd. The shorter text seems original. —o-nbw] may be the offerings 
which show the undisturbed relations which exist between God and the wor- 
shipper, Stade, GV/. 1. p. 496. @ inserts kai before the word here. 

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


82 1 SAMUEL 

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

The contrast in thought and style between this section and the 
preceding is obvious, and equally obvious is its resemblance to 
7, 8, and 10”, Outside the Books of Samuel the nearest paral- 
lel is Jos. 24 —Joshua’s farewell address. The present chapter 
seems to be less original than that, and is possibly framed after it 
as a model. The thought and language remind us of the frame- 
work of the Book of Judges, and there is no violence in the sup- 
position that this address once closed the account of the period 
of the Judges, as Joshua’s farewell address closed the account of 
the conquest of Canaan. In this case the author who set forth 
his scheme of history in Jd. 27-35 and repeated Jd. 10%, 
closed his book (or this section of the history of Israel) with this 
chapter as a retrospect. 

Or! the relation between this section and the framework of the Book of 
Judges, see Moore, Judges, p. xxii. Graf’s theory that this was the closing 
section of the pre-Deuteronomic Judges seems disproved by the style and 
vocabulary, as does Bu.’s (7S. .כ‎ 182) that it belongs to E? which he puts 
before 650 2.0. The question is important enough to warrant a somewhat 
detailed examination of the usage of the section. We should first notice that 
Bu. strikes out a number of clauses as Deuteronomistic expansions. But there 
seems to be no evidence for such a working over of the chapter as this would 
imply. Leaving these in the text we note the following affinities: 1. שמעתי‎ 
בקולכס‎ [ frequent in D.—2. [מתהלך לפניכס‎ Gen. 48% (E).— 8. משיח‎ [ frequent 
in Sam. and Psalms.— npwy] Lev. 1015 Dt. 241% 2829, frequent in Ezek. and 
the second Isaiah. — nx] in connexion with pwy in Dt. 2838 Am. 41 and in 
many confessedly late authors. — כפר‎ npb] Num. 35%!f (P) Am. 513. אעלים---‎ 
[עיני‎ Lev. 20%.---4. [מאומה‎ Gen. 3978 4015 (J) Num. 2288 (E) Dt. 1318.— 
5. [ער יהוה‎ occurs nowhere else, but nearly parallel are those passages in 
which a sacred object is made witness to a declaration, as Jos. 2227 (P) 
Gen. 31% (JE).—6. [עשה‎ of appointing men to a work, 1 K. 1291 2 K, 216 
Is. 2815 Eccl. 28.— Moses and Aaron] usually associated in P and Chr., 
nowhere in the historical or prophetical books except here — AZoses, Aaron, 
and Miriam stands by itself (Mic. 6+( . --- העלה‎ [ of the deliverance from Egypt 
in E, D, Hos. 121+ Jer. 1614 237 al. and in redactional passages. —'%. [התיצבו‎ 
Ex. 1438 (J) [ואשפטה --- .101% .5 ז‎ in this sense Jer. 28° Ezek. 20%% Joel 4? and 
other late passages. — 17) [צרקות‎ Jd. 51! and, with a different shade of mean- 

XII. 3 83 

ing, Mic. 65.--8. יעקב מצרים‎ 82] Gen. 466 Ex. 11 (both P).— [ויזעקו אלדיהוה‎ 
a standing phrase of the Deuteronomistic redactor of Jd.; cf. 1 5. 789 818, — 
[וישיבוס‎ Lev. 234 Ezek. 3611-33, --9. [וימכר ביר‎ Jd. 21+ 38 42 107,—10. הטאנו‎ 
wary [כי‎ Jd. 101%. ary is used of forsaking the true God, Jd. 101-13 Dt, 2820 
3115 Jer, 1611 and often in Kings. -- הבעלים‎ [ Jd. 211, cf. 215 where the Ashtaroth 
are brought in as here.—11. [איביכס מסביב —,1739 .14 2 [מיר איביכס‎ Dt. 12! 
2519 Jos. 231 Jd. 21+ 834, —naa [ותשבו‎ Dt. 121, — 12. מלככם‎ man] Is. 3322 5% 
— 14. אסהתיראו אתדיהוה.‎ [ Dt. 6? 15 10% Jos. 241%. והוה---‎ sp“ תמרו‎ [ Num. 2074 
271% (P) Dt. 1°48 973 1 K. 1321-26. --15. בכם‎ mary [והותה‎ Ex. 98 (J) Dt. 25 
Jd. 215 1 8. 718, —16. [עשה לעיניכס‎ Dt. 180 4% 201 Ex. 729 )₪( . - - 17. mbp [ויתן‎ 
Ex. 9% )5( . -- [אשר עשיתס לשאול‎ the infinitive with ,ל‎ specifying more nearly 
what is meant by a preceding noun, is found Gen. 182 (R) Dt. 95 Jd. 9° (E) 
2S. 1315 1 K. 16! Neh. 137.—19. [התפלל בער‎ Gen. 207 (E) Dt. 9%, frequent 
in Jer.—20. [אל-תפורו מאחרי‎ 2 K. 188 2 Chr. 3488.21. yan] notoriously a 
late word, applied to false gods in Is. 419%. --- [לאהיועילו‎ 18. 441° Jer. 28 al. — 
22. [יטש יהוה‎ Jd. 615 Is. 26 Jer. 127 Ps. 0416 [בעבור שמו--‎ cf. Jos. 79 Is. 489 
Ezek. 209 14. 5 [הואיל יהוה---‎ 2 5. 729 and the parallel 1 Chr. 1727 Job 69, — 
To make you a people for himself | does not occur elsewhere in this exact 
wording, but the idea is frequent in Dt.— 28. [והוריתי בררד‎ Ps. 258 2711 % 
— 24. The first half of the verse is nearly the same as Jos. 24!*.— With all 
your heart| Jer. 2013 Joel 219, frequent in Dt. with the addition and with all 
your soul,—2 Dy [הגדל‎ Ps. 12678,—25. won [הרע‎ 1 Chr. 2117.— pon] 
Gen. 19-7 ז‎ S. 2610 27! Num. 16”. 

it must be evident that the passage shows dependence on Dt. and acquaint- 
ance with Jer., Ezek., and possibly later writers. The identification with E? 
does not therefore seem well grounded, and Graf’s theory also falls to the 
ground. That the author is acquainted with 11 is seen from his allusion to 

1-5. Samuel resigns his office. — He opens his speech by stat- 
ing the situation: 7 have hearkened to your voice .. . and have 
appointed a king over you: Now, behold! the king is walking 
before you| the king is thought of as a shepherd walking before 
his flock. A paraphrase is Num. 27" (P). The kingless people 
are sheep without a shepherd. The Homeric parallel is well 
known. — But as for me I am old and gray and my sons are 
among you| already mature men who show that their father is 
advancing in years. Any other reason cannot be imagined for 
the mention of the sons here. — And I have walked before you 
rom youth until this day| as Saul is now to do—the people 
walk at the heels of the leader, 257.-- 3. A challenge as to his 
own fidelity: Here am I! Testify against me| the phrase is 
generally used of a witness who testifies to a crime. The ques- 

84 1 SAMUEL 

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

Eth shor mi lakahti 

Wa-hamor 15 

We-eth mi’ ashdktt 

Lith 95 

U-miyyad mi lakdhti képher. 

The tendency of the prophets to cast their oracles in poetic form 
is illustrated elsewhere. ‘The questions all refer to judicial hon- 
esty, which has always been rare in the Kast. Frequent enact- 
ments and exhortations in the Old Testament testify to the venality 
of the judges in Israel. Samuel asks: Whose ox have I taken? 
Or whose ass have I taken? We then puts the more general 
questions: Whom have I oppressed? Whom have I maltreated ? 
The verbs are elsewhere joined to describe the oppression of the 
weak by the powerful. Or from whose hand have [ taken a gift, 
that 7 might blind my eyes with it? The different reading of 6 
will be discussed below. The verb meaning 4Znd is found Lev. 20% 
2K. 47 Is. 1% Ezek. 22%. That a gift 200% the clear-sighted is 
declared Ex. 23°, cf. Dt. 16%. Zestify against me, and [will restore 
it to you! Such seems the best reading. And J will answer you, 
which has been proposed, does not seem appropriate, and would 
require an additional word.—4. The people acquit Samuel, in 
the words which he himself has used. — 5. He solemnly concludes 
his attestation by making Yahweh and the king witness: Yahweh 
ts witness and his anointed ts witness| the king as the anointed of 
Yahweh meets us in several instances in the later history. Doubt- 
less the anointing has consecrated the king so that he is appropri- 
ately introduced in this connexion. — Zhat ye have not found in 
my hand anything| that would be a cause of accusation. — And 
they said: He ts witness | confirmatory of what Samuel has just 
said. ‘The assertion is made of Yahweh only, who is the principal 

1. אשרדאמרתס לי‎ 555] is superfluous, but this author is diffuse throughout. 
--9. [מתהלך‎ is lacking in 5. [ואני--‎ is somewhat emphatic — Saul is now 
your leader, but I for my part have been your leader a long time. —8. בי‎ yy] 
Ex. 201% Num. 35%? Dt. 19!6. Before each clause of the second couplet 6 
inserts the conjunction ov (= 1).—12 [ואעלים עיני‎ seems to be perfectly good 

XII. 9 85 

Hebrew. @GA8 reads cal drddnua; 6דף060)0ח0‎ car’ éuod. As pointed out by 
Cappellus (Critica Sacra, p. 265), this must represent 13 .ונעלים ענו‎ This is 
adopted as original by Th., We., Dr., Ki., and has influenced Sirach (4619), 
as pointed out by Schleusner, 7770207077, s.v. 00566 (the reading is found 
in the newly discovered Hebrew fragments). A shoestring is proverbial fora 
thing of little worth, Gen. 145% as it is in Arabic (Goldziher in Jour. Assyr. 
VII. p. 296). But the codrdination כפר ונעלים‎ for ₪ bribe even a pair of shoes 
seems strange. We should expect at least ,גם נעלים‎ or ואף נעלים‎ )181.(. For 
this reason it seems best to retain 30. It has been supposed that the pair of 
shoes in Am. 2° is a symbol of transfer of real estate, in which case כפר ונעלים‎ 
might mean gifts of money or deeds of real estate ; and this may be the origin 
of the Syriac text of Sirach quoted by Dr., gift or present. After עיני בר‎ we 
may, however, restore ענו בי‎ (Bu.), the phrases being so much alike that 
one was easily lost; 1 is conflate. — 5. At the end of the verse ויאמר‎ AZ. would 
be possible, but to the solemn adjuration we should expect the whole people 
to reply. The margin of the Massoretic edition, therefore, emends to px», 
which is found in the text of some editions, and is represented in 6@SLT@. 

6-12. The historical retrospect.— Samuel recites the benefits 
received from Yahweh and the people’s ingratitude in return. 
The beginning of the paragraph is obscure from corruption of 
the text. We find in % only Yahweh who appointed Moses and 
Aaron, which is then left without predicate. Fairly satisfactory 
is the reading of ©: Witness is Yahweh, though it may not be 
the original. — Who appointed Moses| is the accepted transla- 
tion, though who wrought with Moses is possible, and is perhaps 
favoured by the following verse. —7. And now take your stand 
that I may plead with you concerning all the just deeds of Yahweh] 
this, the text of #9, seems to give a good sense. The expanded 
text of ©, that I may plead with you and make known to you 
(generally adopted), seems to be secondary. The reading of # 
is supported by Ezek. 17”. —8. The historical sketch proper now 
begins, taking the sojourn in Egypt as the starting-point: When 
Jacob came to Egypt the Egyptians oppressed them] the second 
clause has dropped out of 99, but is preserved in ©.— And your 
fathers cried to Yahweh and Yahweh sent Moses and Aaron to 
bring out your fathers, and made them dwell in this place) this is 
to be preferred to and they made them dwell ¥%, “which is just 
what Moses and Aaron did not make them do” (Dr.).—9. The 
deliverance was followed by ingratitude: Zhey forgot Yahweh their 
God, and he sold them into the hand of Sisera| the phrase is often 

86 1 SAMUEL 

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

6. [יהוה‎ so isolated cannot be right: Aéywy udptus kipios & represents 
לאמר עד יהוה‎ which is now generally adopted. & has Vahweh alone is God 
and 655 adds 6 0665 to xvpios. It is possible therefore that the original was 
יהוה הוא האלהיס‎ which is more appropriate to this fresh start in the speech. — 
[עשה את‎ the verb is unusual in the sense of appointing to a work, but the 
combination occurs just below of working with one. The rendering of @: 
who did great things by the hand of Moses is probably only a paraphrase. — 
7. [את כל-צרקות‎ G prefixes kal 470/66 על‎ on the ground of which most 
recent editors insert .ואגידה לכס‎ But the case seems to be one in which the 
more difficult reading should be retained. The dws is lacking in | (Cod. Goth. 
Leg. apud Vercellone),— 8, מצרים‎ [ 65 adds kal éramelywoev adrovs Atyumtos = 

XII. 9-17 87 

which is probably original (Dr., al.), as the omission can be ac-‏ ויענס מצריס 
counted for by homeoteleuton. On the other hand Jacob and his sons G,‏ 
instead of the simple /acod, seems to be a scribe’s expansion. —x»s))] as the‏ 
emphasis is laid upon Yahweh’s activity all through, étjyayev GAL may be‏ 
ויוציאו right. More attractive however is the simple change of pointing to‏ 
here‏ [ויושיבוס--- .8מ60601שק (We.) which makes the verb subordinate to the‏ 
the singular is decidedly to be preferred (We.), supported by @%.—9. For‏ 
Hazor 65 has Jabin king of Hazor, adopted by We., Bu. The latter is in‏ 
accordance with Jd. 47, but the other is not so entirely without analogy as We.‏ 
Qré and versions. —‏ ויאמרו AZ: read‏ ויאמר .287,—10 supposes; cf. 1 K.‏ 
as Jd. 899; Deborah is read‏ [ ירבעל .73-4,—11 rots tAceow 65 as in‏ [העשתרות 
here by 8 which inserts Gideon later.—}12] has given the exegetes much‏ 
as is given‏ ,73 דן on the theory that it represents‏ שמשון trouble. @ renders it‏ 
by some of the Rabbinical expositors and set forth by Pseudo-Hieronymus in‏ 
his Questiones (Hier. Op. Ed. Vallarsi, 111. 814). Barak 658 which is read‏ 
by most recent scholars (including Keil) is the most suitable name. Ew.‏ 
II. p. 514, Engl. Tr. 11. p. 364) revived an old conjecture mentioned‏ .607% )6 
by Clericus and Michaelis that 4édon is the original name (cf. Jd. 12!8),—‏ 
Samson 657.5 which is adopted by K1., owes its place to the theory‏ [שמואל 
that Samuel would not put his own name here. But the writer found in‏ 
Samuel the climax of the address, and there is no reason for changing the‏ 
to be 8 later insertion (Bu. and apparently Dr.).—‏ ואתדשמואל text or supposing‏ 
[ויהוה אלהיכם )0229 ,706.—12 § the accusative of condition, Dav. Syntax,‏ [ בטח 
the clause is lacking in @. The view which it expresses is found also in Jd.‏ 
(cf. Moore’s note) and 1 S. 87.‏ 88 

13-18. The threat of punishment upon people and king in 
case they turn aside from Yahweh, and its attestation by a miracle. 
—13. And now] frequently marks a turn in the discourse or 
draws a conclusion from what precedes, Jos. 24** Jd. 9%. Be- 
hold the king which you have chosen] the received text adds which 
you asked, lacking in @®. Even without it the verse is overfull. 
And behold! Vahweh has set over you a king| the desire has been 
fulfilled. —14. The promise in case of obedience: // you fear 
Yahweh... then you shall [06ק‎ on the reading see the critical 
note. —15. The alternative threat uses the same expressions : 
hearken to the voice, rebel against the mouth. ‘The penalty threat- 
ened is: shen the hand of Vahweh will be against you and your 
hing to destroy you the text of has and against your fathers 
which is absurd. —16. In confirmation of the prophet’s word 
the people are to see “he great thing which Yahweh is about to 
do| namely, send a thunder-storm in summer.—17. Js t¢ not 

88 1 SAMUEL 

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

18. onbxw [אשר‎ omitted in GB but represented in GA with a 1 prefixed, 
as is the case in many MSS. of #7. The words are an insertion made to 
counteract the impression that the people themselves had 2/00/60 the king. 
The shorter text is noted by Capp. 2/0/06 Criticae, p. 436, and is adopted by 
most recent critics. -- [והנה‎ the 1 is omitted by 9 MSS. (DeR.) and &, but the 
latter is free in its treatment of the conjunctions. —14. The text of #9 is usu- 
ally taken as “a protasis ending with an aposiopesis” (Dr. Motes): Jf ye fear 
Yahweh... and follow... after Yahweh your God—the conclusion is 
left to the thought of the hearer. But the protasis is unconscionably long, and 
there is no such reason for the abrupt breaking off as we readily discover in 
Ex. 3282 (Moses’ impassioned intercession). To begin the apodosis with והיתס‎ 
is grammatically the correct thing to do, but it makes an identical proposition: 
if you fear Yahweh .. . then you will follow Yahweh. @¥ feels the difficulty, 
for it adds at the end of the sentence ra) 60667706 Suds, which, however, has 
no other authority. We. gives וחיתם‎ as the reading of certain Hebr. MSS. and 
in one recension of © we find ,ותחוון‎ though DeR. denies the manuscript au- 
thority and finds that of the version slight. As a conjecture the reading rec- 
ommends itself, even without any external authority. I have therefore adopted 
it, omitting the clause ,אחר יהוה אלהיכס‎ which was probably added after the 
corruption to on) had taken place (so Kl.). That the people may “ive is 
frequently given as the end of obedience, Dt. 41 Am. 5!4.— 15. [ובאבתיכם‎ is 
evidently unsatisfactory: kal ém) roy BaciAéa duay GB is what we require. 
But 657 is probably right in adding éfoAcOpedoar 50065 = ,להאבירכם‎ for this alone 
could give rise to the corrupt reading. The text of 659 is adopted by KL, Bu. 
Tanchum and Kimchi make ובאבתיכס‎ mean and upon your kings, but this is 
forced. @& translate: as 77 was upon your fathers, and are followed by EV. 
—but this does violence to the Hebrew.—16. [גםהעתה‎ is used for variety, 
nny) having been twice used. —17.  ועדו‎ [ the imperative expressing the conse- 
quence of the preceding verb, cf. Gen, 207, Kénig, Syztax, 364 7. — [לשאול‎ 
where we should say zz asking. This construction is not uncommon in 
Hebrew, cf. Konig, Syrtax, 402 0. The clause which ye have done in the eyes 
of Yahweh is lacking in 3.— 18. Nn] is differently placed in # and G, and 

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

XII. 17-25 89 

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

19-25. The people’s confession and Samuel’s concluding ex- 
hortation. — The people, in fear of death because of this crowning 
sin, beseech Samuel’s intercession: Pray for thy servants to Yah- 
weh thy God | that Samuel stands in a special relation to Yahweh 
is evident from the language.— 20. He encourages them: Ye, 
indeed, have done this evil, only do not turn aside from following 
Yahweh| 2 Chr. 257 34%.—21. And do not turn aside after the 
nothings | the word must be taken collectively on account of the 
verbs which follow: Which do not profit and do not deliver, for they 
are nothing| the language is that of Second Isaiah.—22. They 
have reason to be hopeful: For Yahweh will not cast away 
his people for the sake of his great name| for the verb cf. Jd. 6°: 
and now Yahweh has cast us off. That Yahweh will save his peo- 
ple for his name’s sake is a comparatively late conception, Jos. 7° 
(P). That his reputation will suffer if he rejects them is evident : 
for Yahweh has undertaken to make you a people for himself | on 
the main verb cf. Moore, Judges, p. 47.-- 68. The prophet will do 
his part: Lor my part—far be 17 from me that I should sin against 
Yahweh, that I should cease to pray for you| to neglect his media- 
torial opportunity would be to sin against both parties. — 24. The 
condition is that they should serve Yahweh with steadfastness : 
For you see what a great thing he has wrought in your presence | 
not for you,asin EV. The reference is to the miracle just wit- 
nessed. — 25. In case of persistence in evil they and their king 
shall be destroyed; the verb is used of being killed in battle 1 =. 
26” 271 and probably looks forward to Saul’s death at Gilboa. 

19. [רעה‎ Kal 06/05 עפ‎ GY; we expect rather [כל .80--.הרעה הזאת‎ is 
lacking in @!.—21. [כי‎ is entirely meaningless (We., Dr.) and is not rep- 
resented in the versions. A scribe may have written מאחרי‎ under the influ- 
ence of the preceding verse and afterwards tried to make it fit here by chang- 
ing the first letter to 1>.— 22. [הואיל‎ juravit 38 indicates ,האלה‎ but no change 
is necessary. —28.  וכנא‎ D1] the casus pendens, Dr. Tenses®, § 196, Dav. Syn- 
tax, § 106. -- [חלילה לי מן‎ is a common construction: i¢ zs too profane a thing 
for me to do, cf. Jos, 246, — [והוריתי אתכס בדרך‎ cf. Ps. רק‎ NE doyy,, Leo 
— 772] should probably be pointed with the article (K1., Bu.).— 24. [יראוּ‎ 
on the form Stade, Gram. 111, 2.—24. With all your heart; © prefixes and. 
-- ,כי ראיתם = 65 615676 874 [כי ראו‎ is certainly smoother. 

90 1 SAMUEL 

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

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

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

XIII. 1-3 gI 

There is substantial unanimity in the analysis,* and in the connexion of the 
main stream of the narrative with the earlier account of Saul’s election. The 
reason for regarding the sections separated above as of later date than the rest 
of the story, lie on the surface, but will be pointed out in detail in the course 
of the exposition. The student may be referred to We., Comp. pp. 246-248, 
Prol®, pp. 266-272; Stade, GV/. 1. p. 215 ff.; Kuenen, HCO2. PP: 371, 381; 
Budde, AS. pp. 191 f., 204-208, and his text in SBOT.; Cornill, 22079. p. 
97 f., ZATW. .כ .א‎ 96 5; Kittel, GH. 11. p. 28 (the results in his translation 
in Kautzsch, 279.4 7-( ; Driver, 07’. p. 175; W. R. Smith, 07765 p. 134. 

1. The verse as it stands in % is meaningless and evidently 
a late insertion. — 2. There seems no difficulty in connecting this 
verse directly with 11”. As soon as Saul was made king he re- 
cruited an army of three thousand men: and ‘wo thousand were 
with Saul in Michmash and in Mount Bethel] we naturally sup- 
pose each place garrisoned with a thousand. Michmash still bears 

its ancient name, and is a village on the north side of a narrow val- 
> 16 south of which lies Geba. The location is given by Eusebius 
and Jerome as nine miles from Jerusalem near Ramah. The sides 
of the wady on which it is located are still very steep. Bethel, now 
Beitin, the well-known sanctuary, was, like Michmash, a strong- 
hold. Both were occupied by armies in the Maccabean wars. 
The two places are mentioned together, Ezr. 27% Neh. ל‎ 119), 
— And the rest were with Jonathan his sonin Geba of Benjamin] 
the confusion of Gibeah and Geba is so obvious in this chapter 
that I have corrected to the one form throughout. Geba was the 
village just across the pass from Michmash, and the two together 
must be held in order to command the pass. For the location cf. 
Is. 10” which, however, makes evident that in Isaiah’s time Geda 
and Gzrbeah of Saul were two different places, for after Michmash 
it mentions in order Geba, Ramah, and Gibeah of Saul. That 
Geba is intended in our narrative is evident from its mention in 
the immediate sequel. After the choice of his soldiers, Saul dis- 
missed the rest of the people to their homes. —3. Jonathan smote 
the Resident of the Philistines| the verb seems to imply that it 
was a person, not a trophy or pillar, that was smitten. The rest 
of the verse: And the Philistines heard; and Saul blew the 
trumpet in all the land, saying: Let the Hebrews hear!| puts the 

* [ should state that I have differed from the consensus in regard to the extent 
of the insertion which ends at v.14, 

"02 1 SAMUEL 

name Hebrews in Saul’s mouth, which cannot be correct. The 
clause and the Philistines heard presents a further difficulty be- 
cause Saul’s blowing of the trumpet should follow immediately 
on Jonathan’s deed. For the last two words of the verse © 
renders the slaves have revolted in which the verb at least seems 
to be original. But in this form, or in the form the Hebrews have 
revolted, the clause must represent the report that came to the 
Philistines. We are tolerably safe in restoring therefore: and the 
Philistines heard [the report] saying: The Hebrews have revolted | 
the intermediate clause will then be suspicious, as a probably late 
insertion. It is in fact superfluous, and the original narrative 
probably described a prompt movement of the Philistines upon 
Michmash, making Saul retreat to Geba, where we find him with 
six hundred men in y.”. This original datum has been expanded 
into the exaggerated statement 01 

1. The verse as given in # can mean only one thing: Saul was a year old 
when he began to reign and he reigned two years over [srael] this is palpably 
absurd. The earliest endeavour to give the words a sense seems to be re- 
corded in ©: Saul was innocent as a child a year old when he began to reign. 
This is followed by Theod., and the earlier Rabbinical tradition, including the 
spurious Jerome in the Questiones. Isaaki thinks it possible to render zz 6 
jirst year of Saul’s reign... he chose. RLbG. supposes that a year had 
passed since his first anointing. Tanchum however knows of interpreters 
bold enough to assume that a number has dropped out of the text. This has 
very slight Greek authority on its side, as two MSS. of HP read Saul was 
thirty years old. ‘The whole verse is lacking in the most important MSS. of 
65 (A is defective here) and is therefore suspicious. The suspicion is not 
relieved by noticing that the sentence is cast in the form of the chronological 
data found in later parts of the history. It seems tolerably evident that a 
scribe, wishing to make his chronology complete, inserted the verse wéthout the 
numbers, hoping to be able to supply these at a later date, which however he 
was unable todo. This applies both to the years of Saul’s life and to the years 
of his reign, for ושתי שנים‎ cannot be correct, and not improbably ושתי‎ is cor- 
rupt duplication of the following word (We.). Extended discussion of the 
verse in the older expositors, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Schm., Pfeiffer (Dubia Vex- 
ata) have now only an antiquarian interest. The whole verse should be 
stricken out.—2. [אלפִים‎ should be followed by איש‎ as indicated by 68. On 
Michmash, cf. Baedeker, Padestine®, p. 119, Furrer in Schenkel’s Bibel Lexi- 
kon, IV. p. 216. Mount Bethel occurs only here according to #7. On the 
now generally accepted identification of Bethel with Bectin cf. Moore, Judges, 
p. 42. The importance of the two places here mentioned is noted by 

3 93 

GASmith, Geog.3 pp. 250, 290. As Jonathan has not been mentioned before, 
the addition 47s 50 made by 5 has much in its favour.— 093 nyaja] in re- 
gard to the place here intended, we may note that Jonathan’s deed in the next 
verse is performed at Geda. Moreover, the possession of Geba is important 
to him who would control the road leading up from the Jordan valley. In 
v.18 Saul and Jonathan are occupying Geba, which nevertheless is called 
Gibeah of Benjamin in 14, It seems evident that Geéda is intended through- 
out this narrative. In the time of Isaiah however as already noted, Gibeah 
of Saul was distinguished from Geba.—ybax> איש‎ [ the phrase dates back to 
the time when the people were nomads or at least tent-dwelling fed/ahin. — 
3. [ויך‎ the verb is used nearly always of smiting living beings, once of strik- 
ing the rock, Ex. 176. But Jonathan would do more than 2/2776 a pillar, tro- 
phy, or triumphal monument; he would overthrow it, for which some other 
verb would be used; Am. 9!, which is cited as an example of this verb used for 
the overthrow of columns, is obscure and probably corrupt. This reasoning 
leads to the conclusion that נציב‎ is an officer or a garrison. —pnwdp וישמעו‎ 
העברים‎ . . .[ is one of the cruces criticorum. The somewhat violent treat- 
ment advocated above proceeds on the theory that for the words ישמעו העבריס‎ : 
NOerHKacw of 50006 65 we should restore העבריס‎ wes (Bu.). If so the words 
(with or without (לאמר‎ should follow immediately on פלשתיס‎ (Bu.). But in 
that case the intermediate clause is suspicious. The full reason for its omis- 
sion will be seen only after considering the next verse. 

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

94 1 SAMUEL 

The paragraph has usually been supposed a duplicate of ch. 15 
and dependent upon that. It seems to me more probable that 
this is the earlier and therefore the original, the first reason being 
that it is more closely knit with the older narrative. Besides the 
phenomena of v.“*, it is distinctly prepared for in 10% Only by 
supposing this to be the earlier narrative can we account for Gilgal 
as the scene of 15. For the author of that chapter assuredly 
would have made Samuel depose Saul at Mizpah, the sanctuary 
where he chose him, had he not found another locality specified 
by history. It hardly seems likely, moreover, that an author who 
knew the impressive and implacable narrative of 15 would feel any 
obligation to compose the one before us. On the other hand, as 
we have seen, the narrative of which 15 is a part was composed 
to replace this one, and the author had every reason to duplicate 
this section as he duplicated other scenes of the older story. It 
would be desirable to him also (as he is much more distinctly a 
preacher than the earlier author) to make clear the reason of Saul’s 
rejection, which is, to say the least, only obscurely set before us 
in the present narrative. 

If it be taken as proved that we have here a separate document, 
the question arises: Exactly where does it begin? Its lower 
limit is evidently **. But the upper limit is not so plain. It is 
generally assumed to be ’ as we find in Budde’s text. To this 
there seem grave objections. In the first place the gathering of 
the people is already said to be at Gilgal in v.*.. This, to be sure, 
may be corrected to Geba, or omitted. But. Gilgal, as a place of 
mustering the whole people, seems too natural so to be set aside. 
Again we have the enormous numbers of the Philistines in v.’, 
which clearly do not comport with the main narrative —in which 
Saul operates with only six hundred men, and puts the enemy to 
flight. In fact the author, having gathered all Israel, is obliged 
to make them disperse to the caves and dens and carry with them 
a large part of Saul’s standing army. That this could be sup- 
posed possible before a single skirmish had taken place does not 
seem credible in the author who exalts the valour of Jonathan. 
To this we may add that the Grlga/ of v.* is confirmed by the 
opening words 01 ™ which do not say that Saul came down to 
Gilgal, but that he was s#l/ there. For these reasons I suppose 

XIII. 4-6 05 

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

4-7. The situation of the people. — Probably the clause we 
have cast out of לע‎ may be prefixed here: Saul blew the trumpet 
in all the land (*) and all Israel heard saying: Saul has smitten 
the Resident of the Philistines] it is probably not hypercritical to 
see in the change from Jonathan to Saul an evidence of change 
of author. — And also [srael has made itself of ill odour with the 
ו‎ | ct. Gen. 34° Ex. 5" 2S: 10° 16". That Gilgal is the 
place of muster to this author has already been noticed, and cor- 
rection or excision of the word is unnecessary. — 5. The force of 
the Philistines is given as “hirty thousand chariots for which 66" 5 
have ‘three thousand. This is favoured by Bochart and others, 
but is still absurdly large. Egypt only mustered six hundred 
chariots, Ex. 14’, and other notices show that this was the scale 
for large armies. But our author is prodigal of numbers. Syrian 
experience later showed that chariots could not be used in the 
hill country of Palestine. — And people| that is foot soldiers, “ke 
the sand which is on the shore of the sea for multitude] cf. Jd. 7” 
2S.17". The Arab’s hyperbole is similar: ‘like the sand of the 
desert.’ — They came up and camped in Michmash, east of Beth 
Aven| Michmash lies about southeast from Bethel, which by a 
stretch of the imagination might be described as it is described in 
the text. Leth Aven seems to be a scribe’s distortion of Bethel. 
In any case, the author who had just spoken of Michmash and 
Bethel together (v.”) would hardly have felt it necessary to be so 
explicit here. —6. And the men of Israel saw that they were in 
6 strait for they were hard pressed | the diffusiveness shows the 
writer’s difficulty in accounting for the unaccountable dispersion 
of the people. — And the people hid themselves in caves and in 
holes and in rocks and in tombs and in pits | the list is an amplifi- 
cation of what we find in 14", where however the sarcastic remark 
of the Philistines does not imply that this elaborate statement has 

96 1 SAMUEL 

preceded. —%. And much people| the reading is conjectural — 
crossed the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead [ well-known 
districts in the possession of Israel. — But Saul was yet in 1 
. . .[ the latter part of the verse cannot now be restored with any 

4, [שמעו‎ is lacking in $ which joins וכלהישראל‎ to the preceding verse. — 
[נבאש‎ ¢o give intense provocation, 2S. 10% 1691. —ypys] Kad avéByncay GB is 
apparently inner Greek corruption of a&veBénoav which is found in several 
MSS. (HP). -- הגלגל‎ [ supported by the versions, is exscinded by Bu., changed 
into הגבעתה‎ by Co. (ZA W. 1885, p. 123).—5. Bochart’s reduction of the 
chariots to three thousand, in which he includes the baggage wagons ) /21670- 
zoicon, Pars. 1. Lib. 11. Cap. IX.), though only a halfway measure, is adopted 
by We., Dr., [בית און--.81‎ 65 has Beth Horon, S has Bethel. Nearly all the 
passages in which the name occurs have a suspicious text. Certainly the 
author who just wrote בית"אל‎ would have no motive to use a different form 
here; for Beth Aven is another name for Befhel.—6. [ראו‎ Bu. corrects to 
ראה‎ on the ground of 65, which, however, can hardly be taken so literally in a 
case like this, —oyn [כי נגש‎ omit oyn with We., al.; 655 has or orevas aire 
Ky mpoodyew .ע6ד₪0‎ It is possible that the text is corrupt, though what 
Hebrew original is implied by 655 is hard to discover. The verb wa} is used 
of an overseer’s driving his slaves. —ovnma)] is doubtless a corruption of 
ובחרים‎ as first suggested by Ew. — ons] the word is used (as pointed out by 
Dr.) in the inscriptions of Medain Salih, for sepulchres hewn in the rock. — 
7. [ועברים עברו‎ kat of SiaBaivovres עאסף8/68‎ 65. I am not certain that the 
suggested reading ‘y וְעברִיס‎ is not correct. But as the participle in such cases 
usually follows the verb, I have followed Bu. in adopting Kl.’s conjecture, 
רב עברו‎ oy). We. proposed ועברו מעכרות‎ which was syntactically improved by 
Dr. into .ויעברו מעברות‎ The final clause of the verse cannot be correct. Nor 
does We.’s emendation of אהריו‎ to מאחריו‎ on the basis of 657 meet the diffi- 
culty. The flight of the people has already been described; what we now 
want to know is who remained. KI. conjectures העס הררף אחריןו‎ which is 
favoured by %. I should prefer » nx העם הירד‎ but do not feel certain that 
either is correct. 

8-159. Saul’s rejection. — He waited in Gilgal seven days for 
the appointed time which Samuel had se¢| the reference is to 10% 
where, as we have already seen, Samuel directs him to go down 
to Gilgal and wait seven days for his coming. When Samuel did 
not appear 206 people scattered away from him] as we should 
expect, especially in a levy of undisciplined troops without com- 
missary.— 9. Saul orders the offering to be brought and himself 
offered the burnt offering| war was initiated with religious cere- 

97 7-15 זא 

monies, as is indicated by the phrase consecrate war Jer. 6% al. — 
10. As Saul finished the ceremony Samuel came and Saul went 
out to greet him| with the customary: Blessed be thou! is inti- 
mated by the word used, cf. 2 K. 49. -- 11. To Samuel’s question : 
What hast thou done? he replies: 1 saw that the people were 
scattering away from me, and thou didst not come at the appointed 
term and the Philistines were gathering at Michmash] everything 
seemed to call for prompt action; “non solum se excusat sed 
omnes, quotquot potest, 8600881." * -- 10. And J said [ he means 
he said to himself: Vow will the Philistines come down to me to 
Gilgal and the face of Yahweh I have not appeased [ by a gift, Ps. 
45% ; the phrase is also used of approaching Yahweh with entreaty, 
Ex. 32" ד‎ K. 13°.— And I constrained myself | elsewhere in the 
sense of restraining one’s emotions, Gen. 43° 451 Is. 424". The 
intimation is that he would have waited still longer, but the circum- 
stances forced his hand. —138. The reply of Samuel: Zhou hast 
acted foolishly! If thou hadst kept the commandment of Yahweh 
thy God which he commanded thee, then would Yahweh have estab- 
lished thy kingdom over Israel forever | for changes in the pointing 
of 18 see the critical note. —14. But now] adversatively as in 
2” cf. 247, thy kingdom shall not stand. ‘That the language and 
behaviour of Samuel are less stern and damnatory here than in 15 
will be generally conceded ; the fact makes for the priority of this 
account. — Yahweh has sought out a man according to his heart | 
the divine purpose is already a fixed fact.— And Yahweh has set 
him as Leader over his people] still the consecutive tense, in view 
of the divine purpose. —15®. The verse as it stands in # tells us 
of Samuel’s going up ₪ 602020. But as we hear nothing more of 
him there, this is evidently a mistake. A clause has fallen out by 
homeoteleuton which is preserved in 65 and which should be 
restored as follows: And Samuel arose and went up from Gilgal 
and went his way, and the rest of the people went after Saul to 
meet the men of war and came from Gilgal to Geba of Benjamin | 
the eye of the scribe fell upon the second Gilgal instead of the 

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

* Mendoza, cited in Poole’s Synopsis. 

98 1 SAMUEL 

and it is difficult to discover anything in the text at which Sarnuel 
could justly take offence. The original command was to wait 
seven days, and this Saul did. In the circumstances he might 
well plead that he had been too scrupulous. It would not be im- 
pertinent to ask why Samuel had waited so long before appearing. 
No reason is given for his delay, and in the mind of the narrator 
there seems to have been no reason except that Samuel wished to 
put Saul to the test. It cannot be said that Saul usurped priestly 
prerogatives in offering with his own hand. The narrator would 
certainly have let us know this had it been his conception. What- 
ever may have been the priestly rights at this time, we may well 
suppose that the author thought of Saul as no more intruding 
upon them than did David and Solomon when they sacrificed. 
The language of Samuel’s rebuke speaks of disobedience to a 
command of Yahweh, which however can only be the command of 
10° which Saul literally obeyed. The only conclusion to which we 
can come is that the author glorifies the sovereign will of Yahweh 
who rejects and chooses according to his own good pleasure. 
Samuel is the embodiment of this sovereign will. The straits of 
the commentators are evident. Keil interprets Samuel’s language 
not as a rejection of Saul, but as an announcement of the brevity 
of his reign. But this is contrary to the sense. Ewald says: 
“The ruler who prematurely and out of mere impatience lays his 
hand on that from which he should have refrained, trifles away his 
real power and his best success.” * But the condemnation of Saul 
as acting ‘ prematurely’ and ‘ out of mere impatience’ is not war- 
ranted by anything in the text. Clericus also is obliged to read 
something into the text: “Forte citius aequo Sacra facturus, 
contemptim de Samuele aut cogitavit aut etiam loquutus est.” 
Thenius also frames hypotheses for which there is no warrant in 
the narrative. 

8. [וייחל‎ is intended to be Piel, a not uncommon form, Stade, Gram. 
p. 278. It seems unnecessary to change to ויוחל‎ Qré. מועד‎ is an appointed 
time or place, cf. אשר שמואל -- .20% למועד רוד‎ [ is impossible; we must either 
strike out אשר‎ with ₪ or insert a word; אמר‎ is inserted by Th., We., Bu. on 

the ground 01 @@; ow is preferred by K1., Dr., and might easily have been 
lost before .שמואל‎ 6 Hebr. MSS. insert ;;אמר‎ 5 insert ov (DeR.), cf. Ex. 95 

* Ew., GVI®, III. p. 46, EK. Tr, 111. p. 32. 

XIII. 15-17 99 

-- [ויפץ‎ cf. 2 8. 20,9, [והעלה.‎ out of the several animals that were offered, 
the ‘o/a was the one specially set apart for Yahweh.—10. [ככלהו . . . והנה‎ 
marks the appearance of Samuel just as the burnt offering was completed. — 
11. [כי‎ is probably to be taken as כי‎ recitativum (Dr.), but it may also an- 
swer Samuel’s unspoken question as to why Saul had acted as he had. —5)] is 
probably to be pointed so (Bu.), cf. v.8, from which we see that the verb is 
[ופני יהוה לא חליתי. .12— .פוץ‎ the sentence is generally used of conciliating 
God.—18. x5] is the pointing of the received text, but we should quite cer- 
tainly read x, that is ,לוא‎ proposed by Hitzig (as stated by We. who, how- 
ever, gives no reference, apparently depending upon Th., who gives Zeller, 
Theol. Jahrb. 1843, 11. 278 ff.). The particle לו‎ in a hypothesis contrary to 
reality, is followed in the apodosis by ,כי עתה‎ as here, in Num. 2259 1 S, 1480 
Job 67. Dr. inclines to retain the pointing of 146, cf. also Dav., Syntax, § 131, 
R. 2, — any] has lost its temporal force and become logical (Dav.). For: she 
commandment of Yahweh thy God which he commanded thee, we find in 65 my 
commandment which Yahweh commanded thee.—14. בקש‎ [ on the use of this 
tense, Dr., Tenses, §§ 13, 14, Dav., Syntax, § [לו---.41‎ the dative of advan- 
tage, Dav., Syntax, § 101, R. 1 6. — 12355] the only exact parallel seems to be 
Jer. 315 but cf. 2 5. 721,—-yax5 [ויצוהו‎ 2539 2 S, 621, the verb is used of ap- 
pointing the Judges 2 5. 74, cf. Num. 27!9.—15. The plus 01 65 is already 
noted by Mendoza (in Poole’s Synopsis). -- [מן-הגלגל‎ according to Gl (from 
which the words passed into the current recension of #) we should add: 
המלחמה ויבאו מן הגלגל‎ ay העס עלה אחרי שאול לקראת‎ any .וילך לדרכו‎ The cor- 
rection is adopted by all recent scholars (except Keil). Probably ויעל‎ of 3 is 
not original (not represented in @) and was inserted after the loss of this 
sentence. In addition to the commentaries on this passage, the reader may be 
referred to Graetz, Gesch. 0. Fuden, I. p. 175, and Ew., 6 779. .כ‎ 45, E. Tr. 
ו‎ p32. 

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

16-18. The Philistine raid.—The first verse describes the 
condition of things which followed Jonathan’s first stroke. The 
Philistines were in virtual possession of the country. The Hebrews 
only maintained themselves in one post: Saw/ and Jonathan his 
son, and the people that were with them, were abiding in Geba of - 
Benjamin] the addition made by 65 seems uncalled for. —17. The 
Philistine policy is to reduce the people to submission by devas- 

100 1 SAMUEL 

tating the country far and wide. ‘The plunderers were in three 
divisions: One division turned to the Ophrah road] apparently 
the Ophrah mentioned among the towns of Benjamin, Jos. 18%. 
It was identified by Robinson * with Zazyzbeh, five miles northeast 
of Bethel. The location would suit the present narrative. Zhe 
land of Shual seems to be nowhere else mentioned. —18. The 
second band turned west from Michmash towards Beth Horon, 
a well-known town west of Michmash. As the Philistine force 
came from the west, there seems no reason why they should send 
foragers out in that direction. But perhaps the author thinks of 
them as having come up by a more northerly road. The third 
band went eastward: towards the hill which overhangs the valley 
of Zeboim| the description points to one of the heights which 
overlook the Ghor. The author thinks of a Philistine force settled 
at Michmash which employed itself in punishing the country, not 
looking for serious opposition. The valley of Zeboim is of course 
one of the wadys of which the region is full. A place, Zeboim in 
Benjamin, is mentioned after the exile, Neh. 11%. Verse is 
continued directly by v.”; what is between is a later insertion, 

16. After ,בנימין‎ @B adds kal 26 ,סו‎ which is adopted by Graetz (Gesch. 
I. p. 175) and Kl. But it is hardly likely that the little band of soldiers 
would so give way to grief before they had tried conclusions with the enemy. 
-- 17. המשהית‎ [ the verb is used of laying a land waste, as the Bedawin do by 
pasturing cattle on the growing crops, Jd. 6% or, more seriously, by cutting 
down the fruit trees, a custom forbidden in Dt. 20™ as it is by Arabic common 
sense. —owx7 שלשה‎ [ accusative of condition, Dr., WVores, Dav., Syntax, § 70, 
R. 1.— nx] where we should expect .האחד‎ A similar instance is found in 
17, cf. Kénig, Syntax, § 334 5.--- יפנה‎ [ the tense shows repeated action. The 
land of Shual is combined by Th., Erdm., with che land of Shaalim 9*. Rob- 
inson’s identification of Ophrah is accepted by GASmith, Geog. p. 291, Note 1, 
but rejected by Dillmann (Mum. Lev. Jos. p. 551 f.) on the ground that it is too 
far north for a Benjamite town. But it is not unlikely that the author in Jos. 
(P) made it a Benjamite town because he found it in this Benjamite history; 
cf. also Buhl, Geog. p. 177.—18. [הגבול‎ ₪066 G points to ,הגבעה‎ and, as We. 
remarks, it is only a 2/7 that can be said to overhang a valley. —odyayn [גי‎ 
flyena Gorge is still the name (Wady abu Duba') of a valley north of Wady 
Kelt according to Ges., WB'?., but Buhl (Geog. p. 98) makes it one of the side 
valleys of the latter, or even the Wady Kelt itself. -- המדברה‎ [ is omitted by 6 
and looks like an explanatory insertion. 

* BR 1. p. 447. 

XIIL. 17-22 Io! 

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

19. There was no smith in ail the land of Israel; for the Phil- 
wstines said: Lest the Hebrews make sword or spear| the motive 
is expressed in the words of the actors, as in Gen. 327! 424 2 S. 168 
18%. --60. The result was that all Israel was compelled to go to 
the land of the Philistines: shat every man might sharpen his 
ploughshare and his coulter and his axe and his pickaxe| work 
necessary to the peasant. Most recent scholars give the oxgoad 
as the fourth instrument. But however formidable the spike in 
the end of the oriental oxgoad may be, it can scarcely be sup- 
posed that it must be taken to the smith to be sharpened. The 
author of the verse meant to name those tools which need to be 
set and tempered by the smith.—21. The verse is admitted to 
be hopelessly corrupt by Th., We., Dr., Bu., Ki. What we expect 
is either a further account of the oppressive regulations, or else 
a consequence such as is drawn in y.”. The former is in the 
mind of the Greek translators when they say (as it would seem) 
that the price of the smith’s work on each tool was three shekels. 
The latter is the conjecture of Jerome who speaks of 6 5 
which affected all the tools of the farmer on account of the diffi- 
culty of getting them sharpened. A third conjecture is found in 
€ and has passed over into the English version in the form: yet 
they had a file for the mattocks. But this is as impossible to get 
out of the text as either of the others. —22. The results of the 
Philistine policy: So 72 came to pass in the day of the battle of 
Michmash, that none of the people with Saul and Jonathan had 
either sword or spear —but Saul and Jonathan had them] the 
original narrative seems to know nothing of this when it gives Saul 
a standing army of three thousand men. 


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

19-22. The secondary nature of the paragraph is recognized by We., Comp. 
p. 248, Bu., AS. p. 205 (he includes v.73), Co., 22/3. p. 97, and Ki. in 
Kautzsch, WSA7.—19. won] is used of a worker in wood, stone, or metal; 
עשד66ד‎ odhpov 65 may point to 773 חרש‎ (cf. Is. 4415( , or it may be simply an 
attempt to render the word as the context 2601166. -- אמר‎ [ is changed to אמרו‎ 
by the Qré unnecessarily. — 20. הפלשתים‎ [ the conjecture of Dr. Weir (given 
by Dr.) that we should read ארצה פלשתים‎ is confirmed by @@.— ללטש‎ [ so beat 
out, as the blacksmith does in reforging worn tools. Of the four implements 
here mentioned, the first and third seem to be tolerably certain, though tradi- 
tion, as represented by the versions, is not uniform. mw nD is most natu- 
rally the Aloughshare, though 6545 has the szck/e, with which 5 agrees, while 
@ renders oxgoad.— \nx] should be pointed אתו‎ according to the form in 
Is. 2* (Mic. 43) Joel 41°. Beyond the fact that it is a tool of some kind, we 
cannot go with certainty. @ gives 066009 simply; Symmachus translates 
axdp.ov, which is the mattock (Procop. Gaz. Com. in loco). The passages in 
Isaiah and Joel speak of beating the את‎ into a sword, or vice versa. This 
would fit the 602///07 a knife fastened to the plough-beam to cut the sod before 
the ploughshare turns it. But we do not know whether the Hebrew plough 
had such an appendage. 55 renders ploughshare, and © the pin of the yoke. — 
קרדם‎ is quite certainly the axe, Jd. 948. The fourth tool differs (in the received 
text) from the first by the pointing only. This identity is suspicious, and we 
probably have the mistake of a scribe to deal with. But what we should 
restore is doubtful. We. and others propose 13395, influenced by the occur- 
rence of this word in y.2! and the rendering dpémravoy 65, which word occurs 
also in y.?! 65, though ררכן‎ is nowhere else so rendered. But in the confusion 
of the text of v.21, it is difficult to allow much weight to the argument; for 
until we know what that verse means, we cannot be sure that it gives the same 
list of tools with this. The versions give the further choice of the mattock 
(Sym.), the 52006 25, the adze ©, rpiddous (Aq.), sarculum 31, and the axe 
(Ar.). To such variety it may be impertinent to add the conjecture of Ew. 
66 7%. III. p. 47, E. Tr. IIL. p. 33), who reads ,חריצו‎ though his translation, 
the threshing sledge, will hardly do. According to Hoffmann (ZA7W. Il. 
p. 66), חריץ‎ is the stonemason’s pick, from which we may conjecture that the 
pickaxe would be called by the same name. This is an indispensable tool to 
the peasant in a rocky country like Palestine, and could scarcely be kept in 
shape without the services of a blacksmith. I have therefore ventured to 
insert it in my translation of the verse. —21. The difficulties of the verse 
seem to be insurmountable. — [והיתה הפצירה פים‎ is ungrammatical, and unintel- 
ligible even if we try to correct the grammar. — קלשון‎ wbw)] is without analogy 

XIII. 23-XIV. 1 103 

in Biblical Hebrew (on both phrases, cf. Dr., Motes). —asnby] codrdinated 
as it is (or seems to be) with names of tools, makes no sense. For the open- 
ing clause we find kal עף‎ 6 tpuyntds Eromos 00ד‎ OeplCev 65 = ויהי הקציר נכון‎ 
,לקצר‎ which is not very remote from 39. But this promising beginning is left 
incomplete. If we were told that when the harvest was ready to reap the Phil- 
istines came up and plundered it, or that the war broke out, we could fit the 
statement into this context. But what 65 actually adds is: ra 8% 0060 עף‎ 
olicho. cis Tov O5dvra, which is supposed to mean that ¢he tariff fixed for the 
tools was three shekels apiece, though it takes violent treatment to get this 
meaning from the words. The final clause in 65 moreover, which affirms that 
the same arrangement held for the axe and the sickle, is superfluous. Th., 
reading 0°57 ,הפציר‎ translates and the sharpening of the edges (for the plough- 
shares and the spades) was three shekels apiece. But the meaning proposed 
for הפציר‎ and for הפיס‎ is without authority, and the meaning apiece for לשן‎ 
is also unparalleled. Retusae tfague erant acies vomerum ¥ is an attempt 
to make sense out of the text of 39, but is contrary to grammar, and pro- 
vides no suitable preface to the final clause usgue ad stimulum corrigendum. 
Another attempt is made by @, which apparently supposes הפצירה‎ to mean 
a file, for it translates: and they had a file to sharpen the dulness of the 
tron tools. &X also has the file (if, indeed, שופינא רפהא‎ be the file), though 
it understands that the Hebrews in their necessity used their large files for 
ploughshares (?) and for other tools. This is more fully developed by Ar., 
which says in so many words: ‘hey fashioned the broad file into a pruning- 
hook, and took pegs from the harrows for picks. These differences of interpre- 
tation show the impossibility of making sense of the text as it stands, or even 
of finding a plausible emendation. The final clause ולהציב הררכן‎ seems to 
connect most naturally with wo > of the preceding verse. But the sentence 
is long and awkward unless we assume with Toy (in Erdm.) that the verse is 
mainly an erroneous duplication of the preceding. For this hypothesis there 
is some colour in the repetition of several of the same words. But when 
written in parallel lines, the correspondence is not very striking. -- [הדרכן‎ for 
the pointing, cf. Stade, Gram. 52 a.—22. [והיה‎ should probably be made 
.ויהי‎ After מלחמת‎ (on the face of it a construct form) we should probably 
insert מכמש‎ with 65 (Ew.). Toy proposes to read מכמש‎ instead of מלחמת‎ : zx 
the day of Michmash would naturally mean zx the day of the battle of Mich- 
mash. —28. 2130 means in 14 the soldiers who were in occupation of the camp, 
in distinction from those who went out on the various expeditions. Here 
however it may mean the outpost which was thrown forward to protect the 
main camp from surprise. -- מעבר‎ [ it is unnecessary to change the pointing to 
מעבר‎ with Ewald. What is meant is the fass from the highlands to the Jordan 
valley, which ran down the wady. The village of Michmash lay a little back 
from the ravine; the Philistine outpost was stationed on its very edge. 

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

104 1 SAMUEL 

adjutant. A digression is made to describe the scene more exactly. 
-- 22 came to pass on that day| that is, the particular day of which 
we are to speak, as in 1*— 207 Jonathan ben Saul said to his 
armour-bearer| it is proper that Jonathan should be given his full 
name at the beginning of so important a paragraph. The name 
does not imply that he has not been mentioned before, cf. % 
The armour-bearer was the man chosen by a leader or prominent 
officer to be his trusty attendant, aid, adjutant, 0/7/0670 or squire. 
Jonathan proposes a surprise of the enemy’s post, but does not 
let his father know, doubtless fearing to be forbidden the fool- 
hardy attempt. —2. The situation is described: first, with refer- 
ence to Saul, who was sitting in the uttermost part of Geba| so 
we must read, to be consistent, under the pomegranate tree which 
ts in the threshing-floor| for the reading, see the critical note. 
The force with him was the six hundred men already mentioned. 
—3. An important member of the camp is the priest who has 
charge of the sacred lot. He is mentioned here in order to 
prepare us for the part he is afterwards to take.— 4/0 ben 
Ahitub, brother of Ichabod] the mention of Ichabod is possibly 
the work of the redactor. Ahimelech ben Ahitub, mentioned in 
the later history, may be the same as this Ahijah, the names being 
synonymous. ‘The priest is described as bearing the ephod | in 
the correct text of לע‎ we learn that Saul commanded the ephod 
to be brought, cf. also 23° 30’. In these cases the ephod can 
hardly be the priest’s garment. Beyond the fact that it was the 
instrument of the oracle, however, we know nothing about it. 
The description of things in Saul’s camp closes with the state- 
ment: the people did not know that Jonathan and his armour- 
bearer had gone| they were therefore surprised when the commo- 
tion made itself visible in the opposing camp.—4. The locality 
of the exploit is described to us: Between the ravines by which 
Jonathan sought to cross| that is, side valleys running into the 
main wady. As we can readily see, these would leave projecting 
points, two of which are now described: ₪ sooth of rock on one 
stde and a tooth of rock on the other| cf. Job 39% and the well- 
known Dent du Midi. The names of the two rocks in question 
were 220262 and Seneh. We may conjecture that Bozez, the shin- 
img, was the one facing the south, Seneh, she shorny, the one facing 

XIV. 5 105 

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

1. [ויהי היוס‎ the same expression 14, cf. Ges.26 § 1265. — b> [נשא‎ Abime. 
lech had such an attendant and so apparently had Gideon, Jd. + 71°, — 
[מעבר‎ Num. 321% Jos. 227 Jd. 75. The passages show that the word means 
simply deyond.—y35n] cf. Dr. in BDB. sub voce, with his reference, Wright, 
Comp. Gram. p. 117. — בקצה הגבעה‎ [ as Geda is the town overlooking the pass, 
it must be meant here. For בקצה‎ describing a position on the outskirts of the 
town cf. 9%.-- הרמון‎ [ evidently a well-known tree. | מגרון‎ is meant by 30 asa 
proper name, and in fact there is a 1/0070 not far away, Is. 10%. But as it 
lies north of Michmash it will not answer our author’s purpose. The versions 
make a proper name of the word here, but do not agree in the form. As the 
location is already given with some exactness a proper name is superfluous. On 
this account We. proposes 7312 with the meaning of גרן‎ ₪ chreshing-floor. A 
threshing-floor is usually located on a bare open hill and so would be excellent 
for Saul’s purpose —to prevent surprise and keep watch of the enemy’s move- 
ments. —8. אחיה‎ [ in 212 229 we find the priest at Nob called אחימלך‎ and he 
also is a son of Ahitub. It is not unlikely therefore that the two names 
designate the same individual, the original אחימלך‎ having been changed to 
avoid the suggestion of A/olech. The identification is cited by Schm. from 
Sanctius. On the assumed meaning my brother is Yahweh, or brother of 
Yahweh, cf. Jastrow, /BL. XIII. p. tor ff., and Barton, 70/0. XV, p. 168 ff. 
Keil is at pains to calculate the age of Ahijah to show that he could have had 
a son old enough to accompany David after Saul’s massacre of the priests. — 
[פינחס -- .65%5 א68%אש1' [אידכבוד‎ is written פנהס‎ 1% (by the occidentals only). 
Nestle (Am. Jour. Sem. Lang. XIII. p. 173) follows Lauth in supposing the 
name (borne also by a son of Aaron) to be Egyptian and to mean negro. — 
[נשא אפוד‎ there seems to be no clear instance where נשא‎ means 2/0 wear an 
article of dress. In Ex. 2815 59 however it describes the High Priest as bear- 
ing (or wearing) the names on the breastplate. The use of נשא‎ would there- 
fore be against the theory that the ephod was an article of clothing. On the 
other hand, Samuel and David are girded with an ephod )21* 2 S. 6!) which 
would indicate that it could be worn. See Moore on Judges 17% with the 
extended list of authorities there given. —4. המעברות‎ [ on the daghesh cf. Stade, 
Gram. § 317. .The form is construct, governing the clause which follows, 
Ges. § 1306; Dav., Syntax, § 25. % however connects the first two words 
of the verse with the preceding: the people did not know that Jonathan had 
gone to the pass. — 3372] occurs only here and with מזה‎ seems superfluous; 

% So GASmith, Geog. p. 250. 

106 1 SAMUEL 

one of the two words is omitted by 65. -- בוצץ‎ [ the attractive conjecture of 
GASmith as to the meaning of the word goes back apparently to Gesenius, 
Thesaurus, p. 229: appellativa significatio videtur splendens. Later lexicons 
take no notice of this. The form in 65 is Ba(é@ or Ba(és.— 73D] is thus 
pointed by Ginsburg; the editions vary. The word is doubtless the same 
with 73d, 226 ¢horn, as for example, the burning bush Ex. 47% cf. Dt. % 
The word has been transferred from Arabic to English in the name of the 
medicinal senna, 65 has Sevvadp. The two names are rendered by @, S/zp- 
pery and Jnaccessible.—5. It is a question whether מצוק‎ gives a suitable 
sense. Besides this passage it is used in 2° only, and there it is used of the 
pillars which support the earth. But it will hardly do to say of a hill that it is 
a column on the north. In modern Hebrew צוק‎ is the peak or summit of a 
hill (Levy, VHWB.). But what is required here is a word like ,כצור‎ which 
however seems to be applied specifically to cities or walls. As מצוק‎ is not 
represented in 65, it may be an intruder corrupted from the מצפון‎ which fol- 
lows. Were it original we should expect it to be repeated in the second half 
of the verse. It is exscinded by Th., Dr., Bu.; while Kl. goes his own way as 
usual. With מול מ'‎ defining a location, compare Ex. 345 Dt. 4%. 

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

6. Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised | 
the Philistines are frequently so stigmatized, Jd. 14° 15% 1 5. 18% 
3142S. 1% Jonathan’s hope of doing something is a hope in 
God: Perchance Yahweh will act for us| there seems no reason 
to question the construction. — For Yahweh finds no hindrance to 
his saving power in the many or the few] that is, whether many 
be opposed, or few be on his 8106.---7. By emendation we get: 
Do ail to which thy heart inclines: behold, I am with thee; as thy 
heart so is my heart| the text of 39 is awkward, and it is doubtful 

XIV. 6-12 107 

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

6-12. In this paragraph, except 1%, we find the name of the hero spelled 
יהונחן‎ whereas elsewhere in these two chapters we have .יונהן‎ ‘The fuller form 
reappears in 18-20and in2S. The change of form just here may be explained 
by supposing this paragraph the work of a different hand. The incident is 
one which might be interpolated by a pious scribe who wished to magnify 
Jonathan’s faith and dependence on God. But it is skilfully wrought into the 

narrative and cannot well be spared. For a discussion of the names which 
begin with יהו‎ and יו‎ see Bonk in ZA 7W. XI. pp. 125-156. 

6. [ונעברה‎ @ omits the [אולי--.י‎ expresses a hope, as in Gen. 327!,— 
[יעשה יהוה לנו‎ has an analogy in Jd. 27; the object מעשה‎ is contained in the 
verb: perchance Yahweh will do a deed for us (Schm.), Some have ques- 

108 1 SAMUEL 

tioned whether the text is sound, and Kl. proposes to emend to wb pw. 
But this seems unnecessary. — מעצור‎ [ the noun occurs nowhere else, but the 
verb is not infrequent in the meaning Zo shut up, to keep back. —vyn3 או‎ 373] 
is logically connected with ---.מעצור‎ 7. The received text is awkward, and it 
is a question whether it can be translated. wv) certainly does not belong in 
a sentence where it must be made to mean go 0. @ seems to have had 
another text: mole: ray 9 eav 3 kapdla oov éxxAlyy would represent עשה כל אשר‎ 
,לבבך נטֶה לו‎ and this preserves the natural meaning of 103, cf. Jd. 9. This 
text, suggested by Ew., has been accepted by most recent scholars. — 32353] 
65 adds kxapSta pot, which also is generally accepted since Ew. -- 8. [עברים‎ 
the participle is used of action in the immediate future and is carried on by 
--.ונגלינו‎ 9. For ww, de still, cf. Jer. 478, and, of the sun’s standing still, Jos. 
10195. For הגיענו‎ 65 has amayyetAwper, perhaps reading תחתינו--.הגירנו‎ [ 22 
our tracks is a colloquial equivalent, cf. Ex. 167° Jd. 721. —10. [יאמרו‎ 5 
₪85 65 with which S agrees. But no great stress can be laid upon the 
evidence for so easy an insertion. — ny] mpds ₪85 is the rendering of 6, 
as in v.!2 where #7 has ,אלינר‎ which should probably be read here. — 33] a 
number of codd. have ,בידינו‎ but cf. Gen. 437! Dt. 32%.-- [וזה‎ the ו‎ is lack- 
ing in 6553 and may have come from erroneous duplication of the preceding 
letter. —o72y] in the mouth of the Philistines as elsewhere; here without the 
article: some Hebrews, not the Hebrews as in &. According to We., Hitzig 
conjectured המצבה .18 -- .72/66 ,עכברים‎ [ is doubtless to be corrected to המצב‎ 
the form elsewhere used in this narrative. 

13-16. The attack.— When Jonathan and his armour-bearer 
accept the challenge, the garrison is thrown into confusion, and 
the confusion soon becomes a panic.—13. The two Hebrews 
climb up on their hands and on their feet. We must suppose that 
while climbing the cliff they were hidden from the view of the 
post at the top; otherwise there would have been no surprise. — 
And they turned before Jonathan and he smote them | this is the 
reading of © and on the whole the better, though the case is 
particularly difficult to decide. 4% reads: and they fell before 
Jonathan. In any case, Jonathan felled them to the ground, and 
his armour-bearer kept despatching them after him] notice the 
force of the participle. —14. Zhe first slaughter] distinguished 
from the general carnage which came with the panic. The latter 
part of the verse is obscure. What we expect is either a com- 
parison with some similar event: ‘like Gideon’s slaughter of 
Midian’ for example, or else a definite location of the deed: ‘in 
the field which lies before Michmash,’ or something like that. 
65 finds an account of the weapons used; 5 gives a comparison 

XIV. 13-16 109 

of the activity of the heroes with that of the day labourer. A 
satisfactory text does not seem yet to have been constructed. — 
_15. The terror aroused by Jonathan’s onset spread to the whole 
force of the Philistines and became a panic. The force was 
divided (as noted above) into che garrison and the raiders. The 
account seems to assume that these latter were returning to the 
camp when they met the flying garrison; or else the attack was in 
the early morning when the raiders had not yet set out. — So there 
came a terror in the camp and in the field... and even the 
plunderers trembled \ the intervening clause is difficult to place. 
— And the earth quaked | is evidently to be taken literally ; Yah- 
weh intervened directly to increase the fear, which thus became 
a divinely sent panic| lit., a terror of God. —16. The commotion 
was so great that Saul’s sentinels in Geba saw: And behold a 
tumult was surging hither and thither] the remarkable thing was a 
mob moving purposelessly to and fro in its mad impulse. 

18. [ויפלו לפני יונתן‎ seems a little too abrupt. We expect the attack or 
the terror to be asserted. @ enables us to restore 05.) .ויפנו לפני יונתן‎ Ew. 
seems to have been the first to adopt part of this, though he makes it mean 
they looked him in the face, being paralyzed by fear. As Jonathan was “swifter 
than an eagle,” there seems no difficulty in supposing that the Philistines started 
to flee, but were quickly overtaken.—14. The verse is perfectly plain down 
to .איש‎ After that it is now generally considered to be hopelessly corrupt. 
Tradition is represented by 772 media parte jugeri guam par boum in die arare 
consuevit &, and this has passed into the modern versions. But the objections 
to it are of the most serious kind. ככחצי‎ has a combination of prepositions 
very rare, occurring in only two expressions, both defining a point of time 
(Dr., Votes); מענה‎ in the meaning ש0700?/‎ occurs in one late passage, Ps. 129% 
Kt., where the text is not above suspicion. It is difficult, moreover, to see how 
Jonathan could slay twenty men 77 half a furrow, which indeed is nonsense. 
If it said as in a furrow, we should think of the slain as lying along in a row. 
In late Hebrew מענה‎ is said to mean the amount of ground which a plough- 
man takes in hand at one time, Ges., HW 4"., referring to Wetstein in Delitzsch, 
Psalmen®, which 1 have not seen, also Levy, VWW2&. The Arabic usage is 
readily traced; ma‘na is simply the zntention, as is מענה‎ in Hebrew, and so 
applied to /26 task which a man sets himself or intends to 00. But to suppose 
that the word now applied by the fe/ahin to their task of ploughing had 
the same application in Biblical Hebrew is too violent. Nor are the diffi- 
culties yet over. 703 is undoubtedly 0 yoke of oxen, and then possibly as 
much land as a yoke of oxen can plough in a day — am acre, roughly speak- 
ing. Is, 51% which is usually urged for this meaning, is not free from difficulty. 

SAMUEL‏ 1 סז 

But assuming it provisionally, we cannot yet make an intelligible sentence: as 
in half a furrow (?) an acre of field is redundant and ungrammatical. The 
versions testify to the corruption, but unfortunately without helping to correct 
it. GU has ע6‎ Bodlor cal ev 00ד6ח‎ 00045 kal ev «dxAakt 700 65000 with which 
1 agrees (Cod. Goth. Leg.); 65% omits from this kat ע6‎ merpoSddois, which 
Th. (followed by We.) had already conjectured to be a gloss. The reason- 
ing of We. is plausible, though the testimony of | shows that the insertion 
must have been early. @ seems to have had at least (בחצביס . . . השרה‎ 
and between came כצורי‎ or 3383; it should be noted that צור‎ is nowhere 
used of stones as a weapon, but it is more likely than 738 to be the original of 
.צמד‎ If we restore בצרי השרה‎ we should translate among the rocks of the field, 
which would not be out of place. On the basis of S we might restore כחצים‎ 
וכנהגי צמר השרה‎ 06 hewers of stone, or like drivers of oxen in the field. 
The repeated blows of a man hewing stone would not be an inappropriate 
comparison, and possibly the Syrian ploughmen urge on their oxen with 
violent blows; but the language seems rather obscure. Ew. tries to translate 
9, making it mean that the slaughter was ‘like a yoke (?) of land being 
ploughed’ ) ₪ 2% III. p. 48, E. Tr. III. p. 34). But the figure does not seem 
to fit. The reader who is interested in defending tradition may, as usual, con- 
sult Keil. —15. The text is not easy to interpret, though so smooth in appear- 
ance: There came a terror on the camp in the field and upon all the people| 
but why should a distinction be made between ¢he camp in the field and all the 
people? The people here meant are the people of the Philistine camp, and 
the sentence is redundant. Or if we divide so as to read, o the camp, both on 
the field and on all the people, why should the camp be summed up under these 
two heads? @ seems to have read במחנה ובשרה‎ both in the camp and in the 
field, as if to distinguish between the fortified (?) camp and the open coun- 
try. So much is adopted by K1., Bu., and may pass in default of something 
better. For the next clause, @ connects as follows: axd all the people, both 
garrison and raiders trembled, and this again may pass; but we must certainly 
strike out נם-המה‎ which now becomes intolerable. @8 reads ka) aito} %% 
HOeAov 0160 with which we can do nothing; and I suspect the verse has 
been freely interpolated. Perhaps the original was only במחנה‎ AIAN ותהי‎ 
גסההמה‎ AN .ובשדה והמשחית‎ With ותרגז הארץ‎ compare Am. 88 Joel 219; the 
verb is used of the mountains, 2 S. 22° Is. 52. Th. and Keil try to under- 
stand the words here of the commotion produced by the panic, but this is 
rationalistic weakening of the author’s meaning.—aonbsx [לחרדת‎ cf. the 
divinely sent fear, אלהים‎ nnn, which came upon the Canaanites, Gen. 35°.— 
16. [הצפים‎ the sentinels regularly stationed on the walls of a city, 2 S. 1334 
1874, — [גבעת‎ 6026 should be read, as heretofore. -- ההמון‎ [ 66 renders ,המחנה‎ 
But as המון‎ is the less common word, it is to be preferred; and it seems to 
give an excellent sense here, cf. Jd. 47 and v.19 in this chapter. The first 9, 
however, is a duplicate, and we should read המון‎ 737). What they saw was a 
tumult surging. — והלם‎ 75] is impossible, and to be corrected according to 6 
,הלם והלם‎ For נמוג‎ We. suggests the meaning surge, commended by Dr. 

XIV. 17-20 Ill 

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

17. Saul says to the soldiers: Search| the verb is used of 
inspecting the troops, 13”, and also of inquiring for one absent, 
20°: And see who is gone from us| the result is to show the 
absence of Jonathan and his attendant.—18. The text of 6 
which is to be adopted unconditionally, reads: And Saul said to 
Ahiyjah: Bring hither the Ephod, for he carried the Ephod that 
day before Israel | similar language is used in other cases where 
the Ephod is consulted, 23° 30’. We. supposes that the remark 
concerning Ahijah cannot be by the author of v.. But the expla- 
nation of the general situation there need not prevent the reminder 
here, where there is particular occasion for it. The text of # 
inserts the Ark of God here. Historically we could hardly object 
that the presence of the Ark at Kirjath Jearim would decide against 
this text, because our author may not have known of its detention 
at Kirjath Jearim. But the 22/00 is elsewhere the means of giv- 
ing the oracle, and if original here may have been displaced by a 
scrupulous scribe who was aware of its dangerous resemblance to 
an image. —19. The answer of the oracle is not yet given, when 
Saul sees the necessity of immediate action. The state of the 
Philistine camp gives plain enough indication of the will of God: 
While Saul was yet speaking, the tumult kept on increasing | on the 
text see the critical note. The act of consulting the oracle fell 
into two parts ; the king (or other inquirer) asked a question ; the 
priest gave the answer of Yahweh. In the case before us Saul 
interrupted his own question, saying to the priest: Draw back thy 
hand /[ that is, the hand which was stretched out to take the lot. 
The verb is the same used of drawing up the feet into the bed, 
Gen. 49%.-- 20. Saul and his men march to the scene: Zhen 


Saul and all the people with him raised the war cry| such is the 
natural interpretation of the words. When they came to the camp 
of the Philistines: che sword of each was turned upon his fellow, 
an exceeding great confusion as in the camp of Midian where also 
friend was taken for foe, Jd. 7%.—21. The appearance of Saul 
with an orderly band of soldiers gave disaffected allies of the 
Philistines a rallying point: Zhe Hebrews who were on the side 
of the Philistines heretofore, who had come with them into the camp, 
they also turned to be with Saud | Schm. compares the case of 
David who followed Achish to Gilboa.— 22. The noise and the 
news spread rapidly, and all the men of Israel who were in hiding 
in the hill country of Ephraim] although occupied by the tribe 
of Benjamin, the district bore the name of Ephraim. — Zhey also 
pursued them in the battle| joining with the forces of Saul. — 
23. The author sums up the day’s work, before proceeding to a 
more detailed account of one episode: So Yahweh delivered Israel 
that day and the battle went beyond Beth Horon| a well-known 
town on the western edge of the highlands. The name is cor- 
rected on the basis of 69%. Beth Aven, the reading of #9, seems 

17. [אין‎ denies the presence of the subject, Gen. 3779 Ex. 2!2.—18. הגישה‎ 
[ארון האלהים‎ the difficulty in retaining the words is przma facie a historical 
one. The Ark had been settled at Kirjath Jearim, and if brought to Saul we 
should have been told of the transfer. Graetz speaks of a tradition to the 
effect that there were two arks (Gesch. ₪. Juden, 1. p. 160) and supposes that 
one was made to supply the loss of the other. But the tradition probably arose 
from a desire to save the historicity of this passage. Even if we suppose this 
author not to know of the detention of the Ark at Kirjath Jearim, it remains 
true that we nowhere else hear of it in connexion with Saul, and the presump- 
tion is therefore against it here. The second difficulty is that, so far as we 
know, the Ark was not used in consulting the oracle. All the indications, 
therefore, point to the correctness of 65 mpocdyaye rd 60008. The Rabbinical 
commentators are aware that the Urim and Thummim are intended (Isaaki 
and Kimchi 27 Zoc.). For the rest of the verse we must also adopt the reading 
of 65, because #) is evidently the worse and at its close unintelligible. 17 כי‎ 
נשא האפור ביום ההוא לפני ישראל‎ is an exact translation of 65 and gives a perfectly 
good sense. It is adopted in substance by all recent expositors. Dr., fol- 
lowed by Bu., prefers הוה נשא‎ instead of the simple נשא‎ and לפני בני‎ for .לפני‎ 
His reason in the latter case is that לפני ישראל‎ is bald and against the usage of 
Hebrew prose. On this it is sufficient to remark that לפני בני ישראל‎ is found 
in the books Joshua, Judges, and Samuel four times, and that all four (Jos. 412 

XIV, 20-23 113 

895 1015 Jd. 878) come from a redactional hand; whereas לפני ישראל‎ occurs in 
six places besides this (Jos. 10! 115 20% 1 S, 710 2 5, 10! 19) representing three 
different documents. This verse is one of those in which Keil concedes the 
superiority 01 66.---19. 125 sy] the verb should be pointed as an infinitive, cf. 
Jd. 37° Ex. 3352; the more usual construction is .ויהי ער מרבו‎ For the tense in 
,וילך‎ cf. Dr., Tenses’, § 127; but the emendation to הלך‎ (KL) is attractive. 
— הלוך ורב‎ [ “double absolute object, the second being an adjective” (Moore, 
מס‎ Jd. 4), ch. 200. 529 18%, Dav, קלע‎ § 86, R. 4;—20, [ויזעק‎ 8 
pointed asa Niphal; but this is used of the people who are summoned to war, 
not of the leader who summons them. For the latter we find the Hiphil, 
Jd. 41-15 2 5. 2045, If we point ויזעק‎ however, we must change וכל‎ to bo-ar. 
But the people had already been mustered, in order to discover who was miss- 
ing, and it was not necessary to call them together. With all due reserve, 
therefore, I have pointed ויזעק‎ and suppose the shout of those who go into 
battle to be intended —though the verb is nowhere else used in that sense. 
GA has ave8dnoe for which BU have avé8y.— nnn] is used of the panic pro- 
duced in the Philistine cities by the plague, 59.21. The verse division is 
disregarded by S$ which makes the tumult to be Hebrews against Philistines. 
[והעברים--‎ «al of S00A0. 65. The latter is plausible, for the slaves of the 
Philistines might well take advantage of such an opportunity. On the other 
hand, it is pretty certain that the camp would contain a large number of 
Hebrews impressed for the purpose of carrying away the booty, or who were 
seeking to ingratiate themselves with the enemy. Such /edrews might well 
be contrasted, as here, with the /svael with Saul. For היו‎ it is almost neces- 
sary to read אשר היו‎ with Ew., cf. Dr., Votes.— עמם‎ [ is not represented in &. 
[פביב וגם--‎ should be emended to 0) 1220 (Th.) with @S.— 22. wx] is not 
represented in 65, and the sense is good without [וירבקו---.1‎ is abnormally 
pointed, cf. Stade, Gram. § 529 a, Ges.76 § 53n.; the same form is found in 
312 (4 Chr. 107). There seems to be no doubt that a Hiphil is intended, 
Jd. 1822 204 2 6. 15 (lacking » as here). — 28. [בית-און‎ was corrected by Th. 
to ,בית חרן‎ and the conjecture is confirmed by 1. 

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


114 1 SAMUEL 

The paragraph is obscure in places owing to the state of the text 
— possibly because later editors could not reconcile themselves 
to the religiotis views which lie at the basis of the narrative. It 
seems plain that Saul’s purpose was to impose what is known in 
other religions as a 2000. As the confusion of the enemy showed, 
Yahweh was already working. Saul desired a continuance of his 
favour. The extraordinary privation laid upon the people was to 
secure this. Fasting is in itself one means of placating the divinity. 
And Yahweh as the God of Battles had a special claim upon the 
booty. It was in fact sacred, and it would be unsafe for individual 
Israelites to appropriate it until the first fruits had been set apart 
for Yahweh. If the people had set out (as is likely) without sup- 
plying themselves with provisions from their own stores, there 
would be all the more need of special precautions. 

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

24. The introductory clause must be taken from 65, which 
describes the situation as it was during the day, and therefore 
before the conclusion just reached.— So Jsrael was with Saul 
about ten thousand men and the fighting was scattered over all the 
hill country of Ephraim] on the reading, see the critical note. — 
And Saul vowed a vow in that day, and Saul laid an oath on the 
people| the restoration is partly conjectural. If it be correct, the 
author does not condemn Saul; he only gives the facts as else- 
where. Other cases of the vow, Jd. 11°* Gen. 28%”, A vow 

XIV. 24-29 5 

of abstinence is attributed to David, Ps. 132%. Saul’s vow is 
imposed upon the people in the form of a curse, saying: Cursed 
ts the man who shall eat food until evening and [until] I avenge 
myself on my enemies | the older commentators (followed by Keil) 
saw in the form of the oath — my enemies — an overweening desire 
for personal revenge; but this is foreign to the author’s idea. 
The Philistines were Saul’s enemies because they were enemies 
of Israel. Another example of a curse assumed by the people as 
a whole is found in Jd. 21'% The result of this one was that zone 
of the people tasted food, though they were tempted. — 25, 26. The 
text has suffered and cannot be certainly restored. Recent authori- 
ties agree in making it mean: And there was honey [or honeycomb] 
on the face of the ground, and the people came to the honeycomb 
whence the bees had gone, but no one put his hand to his mouth, 
Jor the people feared the oath of Yahweh] the sense is obviously 
that the people were steadfast in the midst of special temptation. 
But the sentence is awkwardly constructed, and we may well 
doubt whether the ingenuity of the critics has yet recovered the 
original text. Why the bees should have deserted the comb, we 
are left to conjecture. That the Philistines had made spoil of 
honey and had thrown it away is possible, but the author would 
have told us if he had known this to be the fact. —27. Jonathan, 
having been absent from the army, had not heard when his father 
adjured the people | he therefore ate of the honey, dipping the end 
of his club in it. The refreshment experienced is described in 
the words, and his eyes were lightened | the eyes of the weary man 
do not see clearly — the world grows dark before him. —28. One 
of the people answered | that is, spoke as the occasion suggested, 
telling Jonathan of the oath. The last two words in the verse 
as they stand in #—and the people were weary — disturb the 
sense, whether they be attributed to the author of the narrative 
or to Jonathan. We should emend so as to read: and the people 
testified, that is, accepted the oath, or else in another way, joining 
to the beginning of the next verse, making it read: So he left off; 
and said. A third possibility is to strike the words out as a gloss. 
— 29. Jonathan gives his opinion of his father’s action and its 
effects on the people: My father has brought disaster on the land | 
relatively, he means. For the verb used here cf. Moore, Judges, 


p. 301. Jonathan’s opinion is based on his own experience: See 
how I am refreshed, just because I tasted a bit of honey! The 
refreshment is again presented as a clearing of the eyes from their 
dulness. — 80, 31. The two verses belong together and their 
sense is: Jf only the people had eaten today of the spoil of their 
enemies the slaughter of the Philistines would have been great and 
the people would have smitten the Philistines from Michmash to 
Azalon| this cannot, to be sure, be got out of the present text. 
An alternative would be to make Jonathan’s speech end (though 
abruptly) with v.*, and to throw out the greater part of v.". That 
the pursuit actually extended to Aijalon, as apparently asserted in 
39, we have no reason to believe, for such a success would have 
been all that the most sanguine could expect. . Aijalon (the 
modern Yalo) lay below Beth Horon well down towards the 
Philistine plain. The last three words of the verse are plain 
enough of themselves, but not easy to fit in the present context. 
--89. The famished people rushed upon the booty] as a bird of 
prey rushes upon the quarry. The booty in such raids consists 
largely of cattle, and these the people slew fo the earth wherever 
they happened to find them. The consequence was that ¢hey ave 
with the blood | the blood was the part of Yahweh, and for man to 
eat it was sacrilegious. This idea runs through the history of Israel 
and is embodied in the various prohibitions of the Law, Dt. % 
Lev. 19%.— 33. Word is brought to Saul that “he people are sin- 
ning against Yahweh in eating with the blood \ the definition of 
the sin leaves nothing to be desired, and Saul at once takes active 
measures against the sacrilege: = 2607 hither a great stone| the only 
way in which this would correct the evil would be by making the 
stone an altar on which the blood could be poured. As we know 
from Arabic heathenism, the original Semitic sacrifice was the 
application of the blood (without fire) to the altar or sacred 
stone.* — 34. Those present are ordered to disperse among the 
people and command them: Let each man bring to Yahweh his 
ox or his sheep and slay tt here| on the original reading, see 
below. The method was successful: AW the people brought each 
what he had in his hand, to Yahweh and slew it there| another 

* Cf WRSmith, Aizship, pp. 223, 311. 

XIV. 29-35 I17 

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

24. [ואיש"ישראל נגש ביום ההוא.‎ is an unexpected opening to the new para- 
graph. wa}, 13°, is used to describe the straits in which the people found 
themselves under the Philistine invasion. But we are here in the midst of 
the deliverance, and although the deliverance was less complete than it might 
have been, the people could hardly now be described as oppressed by a task- 
master, or driven away, or crowding each other, which are the only meanings 
to be got out of the verb. Saul’s vow, though it increased the weariness, 
could hardly be said to oppress the people, and if the author had meant to 
connect this assertion with the vow he would have constructed his sentence 
differently. 65 has an entirely different reading: wal גן10000'‎ hy wera Saova, 
aoe 6660 xiAtades avdpay, kal Av 6 wéAEuos Siecapmeévos eis 0 שף‎ Thy wéAw ev 
שד‎ dpe Eg¢pdiu 650 with which 48 agree nearly. This gives an admirable 
opening for the new paragraph, and one that would not readily occur to re- 
dactor or scribe. It had probably become illegible in the archetype of #9 and 
2 scribe substituted a phrase suggested by 13°, returning to the oppression of 
the people as the new point of departure. With We., it is proper to suppose 
that every city has come in by duplication—“y 732 from .בכל הר‎ The scat- 
tered fighting would be in the open country rather than in the towns. The 
impossibility of 7 was discovered by Ew. (from Th.?) who besides adopting 
65 emends # by conjecture. The reading of 65 is also adopted by Th. with 
the silent correction of עיר‎ to .יער‎ The retranslation of 6542 by We. is adopted 
by Dr., Bu., al. I have chosen the Israel with Saul 657 rather than all the 
people with Saul G48, because it probably refers to the /srae/ with Saul of v.22, 
Et erant cum Saul quasi decem millia virorum, found in the authorized edition 
of XL, is no part of Jerome’s translation but has crept in from |. The narra- 
tive is continued in 65 by: kal SaovaA jyvdnoev עשוסעך0‎ peydrdny ev TH סק‎ 
éxelyy confirmed by J. Since We. this has been supposed to represent ושאול‎ 
שגגה ביום ההוא‎ maw. But it is not certain that the author could so have ex- 
pressed himself. As confessed by We., שגנה‎ occurs only in the Hexateuch 
and Eccles. It is besides a technical term conveying a distinction not empha- 
sized before the Priestcode; nor is it certain that שגגה‎ is the original of the 
Greek word found here which represents in various passages six different 
Hebrew words. In this uncertainty the conjecture of Kl. adopted by Bu. 
becomes attractive, to wit: that the original Greek phrase was: kal 2000 
fryvicev Gyvelav. Bu. restores in his text ,ושאול הזיר נזר‎ citing Num, 617, But, 
as he himself says, usage would favour 173 ושאול גדר‎ (or better (וורר שאול נרר‎ 

118 1 SAMUEL 

ef. 2 5. 158 Is. 1921, — 5x1] is pointed as if from ,יאל‎ he behaved foolishly, But 
this does not agree with the context, so that we should read 5xy) from אלה‎ : 
he caused the people to swear, like השביע‎ below. — [ארור האיש‎ Dt. 2715 Jer. 113, 
[ונקמתי--‎ generally with ,ב‎ as in 1875 Jd. 157; with מן‎ Is. 174. In the latter 
case the vengeance is a satisfaction taken from the enemy, On the tense cf. 
Dr., Tenses*, p. 134. — 25. The text is corrupt, probably beyond restoration. 
-- [וכל-הארץ באו ביער‎ is impossible, whether we understand וער‎ of a forest or 
of a honeycomé, for the simple reason that הארץ‎ is never used for the people 
of the [וכל-הארץ --- *;0ם18‎ may be a corruption of ayn->) though it is difficult 
to see how a scribe could make this mistake here. If so, the words will be a 
duplicate of the כלההעס‎ in the preceding verse; 65 kal raca 4 yh Aplora seems 
to duplicate the whole preceding clause except the negative, and this is repre- 
sented in|]. The only thing which is in place is a statement that 001 the land 
produced honey or that all the land flowed with honey. But none of the 
efforts to put this into the text are satisfactory. We., Bu., Dr., Ki. leave out 
the whole clause, making the verse consist only of היה על-פני השרה‎ ayn, and 
there was honeycomb on the face of the field. ‘This is perhaps the best that can 
be done. — 26, רבש‎ yon 7371] must be intended to mean and there was a flow 
of honey » but 3o2 in the only other passage in which it occurs means a way- 
Jarer, 2S. 124. The change of pointing to q27 (Th.) is now generally 
adopted, and as its consequence the further emendation of דבש‎ to 135, 5 
bees, evidently the original 01 AaAév 65. That the honey was deserted of its 
bees made it especially tempting to the hungry people. It is not yet ex- 
plained, to be sure, why the bees should have deserted their post. משיג‎ is to 
be read משיב‎ with @@, cf. v.27 )141.( . -- [השבעה‎ perhaps to be corrected to 
שבעת יהוה‎ with 66. --27. יערת‎ [ the omen unitatis of יער‎ is ./א. ותראנה .יערה‎ < 
ותארנה‎ Oré; the latter is evidently to be preferred, cf. ארו‎ v.29, — 28. [ויעף העס‎ 
can mean only: the people were exhausted, a statemcnt that interrupts the 
sense, whether supposed to be spoken to Jonathan, or an explanation by the 
author. If anything is in place here it is something completing the informa- 
tion given, like ayn yy, che people testified to the oath when Saul laid it upon 
them, perhaps by saying amen. Or we might read oya ,ויער‎ and he called the 
people to witness, that is, Saul did (cf. 1 K. 24), when he laid the objurgation 
upon them, Something like this seems to have been the idea of Josephus 
(Anz. VI. VI. 3), when he says that Jonathan did not hear the curse zor 6 
approbation the multitude gave tt. @ reads ,ידע‎ an easy corruption of ויעד‎ 
The two words are thrown out, as a marginal gloss which has crept into the 
text, by We., al. Another reading suggested by Josephus is טעם‎ 41», he deft 
off eating, which would be entirely in place at the beginning of the next sen- 
tence. G also connects its kal ששץ?‎ ["Iwvaday] with the following. -- 29. [עכר‎ 
Gen, 34° Jos. 618 775 Jd. 1195, — x] read ראה‎ with 66 (We.).—80. »> [אף‎ 
emphatic introduction to what follows, making a climax: ‘I have been re- 

* Dr. points to one instance, 2 S. 1523: ₪07 the land was weeping aloud. But 
there also it is doubtful whether the text is sound, 

XIV. 24-34 119 

freshed by eating a little honey; how much more if the people had eaten 
would they have been refreshed.’ He changes the construction, however, and 
instead of saying ‘they would have been refreshed’ states the consequence of 
the refreshment ‘there would have been great slaughter.’ — any [כי‎ intro- 
duces the apodosis after .לוא‎ But in this case we must omit the לא‎ which 
follows, and in this we have the authority of 65. The change to הלא‎ makes an 
awkward sentence. Or possibly לא‎ represents the affirmative particle of which 
we have traces elsewhere. — 520] read המכה‎ 65, notice the ה‎ which precedes, 
--81. The first half of the verse is difficult as it stands, because it seems to 
speak of a success such as even Jonathan would approve. But the narrator 
would hardly contradict himself so directly. The only way of fitting the words 
into the context is to throw out ביום ההוא‎ (or correct it to (היוס‎ and make the 
sentence a part 01 Jonathan’s speech: and they would have smitten the Philis- 
times [to-day] from Michmash to Aijalon. ‘he only alternative seems to be 
to throw out the whole clause (We., Comp. p. 248). @ relieves us of the diffi- 
culty so far as to omit Aijalon and to read במכמש‎ for .ממכמש‎ But the narrator 
hardly supposes the whole day’s fighting to be confined to Michmash. Bu. 
adopts this, and also adopts from KI. ער הלילה‎ for .אילנה‎ But in this case it 
would be better to take over the whole of K1.’s conjecture השמש עד הלולה‎ onn. 
The insecurity of our footing must be obvious. On the site of Aijalon, Robin- 
son, BX?, 111. p. 145, GASmith, Geog. pp. 210, 250 f., Buhl, Geog. p. 198 who 
refers to Guérin, /udée, 1. 290. Cf. also Moore, Judges, p. 53 f.— ayn [ויעף‎ 
pointed as if from ,עיף‎ cf. Jd. 471, the more usual form is ,יעף‎ and we should 
probably point yy. The clause resumes the narrative. -- 82. wy AZ. ויעש‎ 
Qré is doubtless to be preferred, cf. 151%. KI. defends the 27. deriving it from 
עוש‎ a rare verb of uncertain meaning; kal 6610 655 points to ויט‎ which favours 
the Qré, which is also directly rendered by ©". The verb is perhaps denomina- 
tive from wy a bird of prey. Sow Kt.: השלל‎ Qré, again to be preferred. —~wn2 
[ארצה‎ cf. אככה ארצה‎ 2 5. 222.—dIn-dy] is probably the original phrase, Lev. 
19% Ex. 128, and אלההרס‎ v.% is to be corrected accordingly. אה ההרם‎ proposed 
by Th. is not superior though we can hardly call it un-Hebraic, cf. Lev. 171°. 
— 33. [ויגידו‎ the undefined subject is [הטאים — .המגידיס‎ on the pointing Ges.” 
§ 747. dwn is given by Ginsburg as the G72. — Sox5] for this gerundial con- 
struction cf. Dav., Syntax, §93, other examples are 1217 19 19° 20%. — בגרתם‎ [ you 
deal treacherously does not seem to be the verb called for. 65 finds the name of 
a place Gitfaim, of which we have no other trace in this region. Perhaps למגידיס‎ 
would be in place. 181.55 reconstruction is toc ingenious. — היוס‎ [ must be cor- 
rected to הלם‎ with 65 (Th.). —34. This command is evidently directed to those 
immediately about the king and strengthens the case for למגירים‎ in the preced- 
ing verse. For 70006ע6 : אלי‎ 65; KI. conjectures אל יהוה‎ for which much may be 
said and I have adopted it. — בזה‎ [ can hardly be won this stone ; more proba- 
bly in this place. —on>>x)] seems wanting in 65 and is in fact superfluous. — 
איש שורו בידו‎ [ we should expect the sheep to be added as above; read איש אשר‎ 
בידו‎ with 65 (Th., 81.(. -- [הלילה‎ lacking in 65% inserted by 657 at the end of 
the verse. KI. followed by Bu. corrects to ,ליהיה‎ which is, in fact, what we 

120 1 SAMUEL 

need, Some reader zealous for the Law changed it as in 99, while another 
left it out as in &,—85. The appropriateness of this addition to the narrative 
is apparent only if we identify the altar here spoken of with the great stone 
already mentioned. Had the author meant to make it something additional 
he would have said Saul built 26/6 an altar (as is actually rendered by S). 
The building of altars is a mark of piety in the patriarchs, Gen. 859 127 138 
2655 (all J) and 357 (E). We have no reason to interpret otherwise in the 
case of Saul. The supposition that the altar was built as a monument — non 
cultus causa, honoris ergo—is excusable in Schm,, but hardly so in Keil, — 
[אתו‎ must be circumstantial: with zt he began the building of altars, —m11? 
nai] the plural of the noun is not required, cf. Gen. 10°: he was the first 
to become a tyrant, and probably Gen. 97): Woah was the first husbandman. 

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

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

36-46. Doubts have been expressed as to the section being a part of the 
original narrative, and it is true that v.°° reads like the conclusion of a chapter 
in the history. But the account of the yow of Saul and of Jonathan’s trans: 

XIV. 36-41 1 

gression is not complete without the present sequel. If necessary to choose, 
it would be better to strike out v.® than to dispense with ®46, We., who 

holds this to be foreign to the genuine context (Com. p. 248), is well answered 
by Bu. (AS. p. 206). 

36. Saul makes a proposition: Let us go down after the Philis- 
tines by night and smite them] reading with Bu. ; the received text, 
let us plunder among them, is weak. The people agree, but the 
priest advises consultation of the oracle: /e¢ ws draw near hither 
to God] Ex. 16° Zeph. 35 The initiative of the priest may be 
accounted for by his knowledge of the transgression. The emen- 
dation of the text to make Saul the subject is arbitrary, though 
Josephus gives the initiative to the king.—37. Saul asks of God 
in the customary form—nhere a double question, but one that 
admits only the answer yes or vo, cf. 30°. From the form of the 
question it is probable that the oracle answered by the sacred lot. 
— But he did not answer him that day| how the priest discovered 
Yahweh's refusal to answer, we are not told. —38. Saul, with his 
usual promptness, takes immediate steps to discover the occasion 
of the divine wrath. 116 issues the order: Come hither, all the 
cornerstones of the people! | the chief men are called by this name 
Jd. 20° Is, 19”.— And know and see wherein ts this sin to-day | or 
more probably zz whom is this sin. Abstractly considered, the 
fault might be in a thing as well as in a person, but as Saul’s 
measures look towards the discovery of a person, it is natural that 
he should express himself accordingly. — 39. Saul solemnly pro- 
tests that the offender shall not be spared: By the Life of Yahweh 
who delivers Israel | that is, who is habitually Israel’s deliverer ; 
though it be I or Jonathan my son, he shall be put to death] the 
conjectural reading represented here will be defended in the criti- 
cal note. The silence of the people shows that they appreciate 
the gravity of the situation. —40. Arrangements are made for 
casting the lot by the division of all present into two parties. On 
one side are the pecple at large, on the other Saul and Jonathan, 
they being the only members of the royal family who are present. 
The arrangement, proposed by Saul, is consented to by the people. 
—4l1. The sacred lot is cast in accordance with Saul’s prayer pre- 
served for us in 65: And Saul said; Yahweh, God of Israel, why 
hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If the guilt be in 

122 1 SAMUEL 

me or in Jonathan my son, Yahweh, God of Israel, give Urim ; but 
if thus thou say: It is in my people Israel; give Thummim. ‘The 
arguments for adopting this text are: (1) the improbability of its 
being invented by a late author; (2) the difficulty of making 
sense of the received text ; (3) the loss by homeoteleuton is very 
probable ; (4) the word תמים‎ alone would not suggest the inser- 
tion; (5) only by supposing something of this kind to have been 
originally in the text, can we account for the statement that Saul 
and Jonathan were 2000. If, as these considerations make ex- 
tremely probable, this is a part of the original text of Samuel, it 
is one of the most important contributions of 65 to the restoration 
of that text, and to our knowledge of Hebrew antiquity. The 
Urim and Thummim were known by name to the post-exilic 
writers, but the method of their use had been forgotten. ‘The 
only early references are 1 S. 28° where Urim is mentioned as one 
method of revelation, and Dt. 33° where Urim and Thummim are 
attributed to the tribe of Levi. The present text describes them 
more exactly than any of these. Urim and Thummim were two 
objects used in the lot — perhaps stones of different colours — one 
of which gave the affirmative, the other gave the negative answer 
to a question put in the form already indicated. In this case: 
Saul and Jonathan were taken and the people escaped. —42. The 
text seems to have suffered here also: And Saul said: Cast 
between me and Jonathan my son, and Jonathan was taken| the 
abruptness of the statement is contrary to analogy. again comes 
to our help and may plead the presumption that the same cause 
which mutilated the preceding verse affected this also. It reads: 
And Saul said: Cast between me and Jonathan! Whom Vahweh 
shall take shall die. And the people said to Saul: It shall not be 
so! But Saul prevailed over the people, and they cast the lot 
between him and Jonathan his son, and Jonathan was taken] the 
added feature of the protest of the people is too original to be a 
Greek expansion of the text. —43. Jonathan confesses in response 
to his father’s question: / aid indeed taste a bit of honey with the 
end of the staff which 1 carried. Herelam! Iam ready to die| 
the last words are not a complaint at his fate, but express a heroic 
willingness to meet it. So Josephus correctly understands it: 
“Jonathan was not dismayed at this threat of death, but submit- 

XIV. 41-46 123 

ting nobly and magnanimously, he said: I do not ask you to spare 
me, Father; death is all the sweeter to me, coming in connexion 
with your piety and after a brilliant victory.” * Jonathan’s spirit 
is comparable to that displayed by Jephthah’s daughter, Jd. 11°°, — 
44. Saul pronounces the sentence, confirming it by an oath: So do 
God to me and so again — thou shalt die, Jonathan /]| the impreca- 
tion as in 37.--45. The people interfere and deliver Jonathan: 
Shall Jonathan die who has wrought this great deliverance for 
Lsrael? Jonathan’s bold attack upon the enemy was the beginning 
of the victory, and without it the victory would not have been ob- 
tained. By the life of Vahweh, there shall not fall a hair of his 
head | 1 .א‎ 1”, cf. 2 8. 14". — For he has wrought with God | the 
sense is, apparently, that if God was so well pleased with Jonathan 
as to give him the victory, he cannot now require his death. As this 
is a non sequitur, possibly the text has been obscured. — Zhe people 
ransomed Jonathan] by substituting one of themselves — so Ew. 
and We. suppose. Driver points out that ransom by an animal 
substitute was allowed by comparatively early laws, Ex. 13%" 34”, 
so that we cannot be absolutely certain. — 46. Of further pursuit 
there could be no thought. Hence Saul went up from pursuing 
the Philistines, and the Philistines went to their own country] the 
narrative reaches a pause with this verse, but the same document 
is continued in v.”. 

36. [נבזה‎ on the form, Ges.” § 67 dd; Stade, Gram. § 137 6 584¢. This 
verb, however, is not the one we expect here, as Saul evidently means more 
than plundering, for he does not want to /eave one rema7ning. As 65 renders 
the same word we are thrown upon conjecture; and of the various conjectures 
the simplest is ונכה‎ (Bu.), cf. 1111 Jos. 1114. [נשאר‎ pointed as a jussive (a 
rare instance), Dr., Temses?, § 50, Obs.; )308.% § 48 9, note 2, 100 0; cf. 
2S. 1715. The space after ny, remarked in the Massoretic note, is probably 
a trace of a different verse division. —1) [ויאמר הכהן‎ Bu. proposes to restore 
ויאמר לכהן הקרבה הלם את האפוד‎ (making Saul the subject), constructed after 
the analogy of the restored ץצ‎ But 65 agrees with 39, and the sense is good. 
If any change is needed, the clause might be stricken out, with %. Against 
its originality may be urged קרב‎ (instead of ,נגש‎ used elsewhere in this narra- 
tive). —37. [ענהו‎ 65% adds xvpios. — 88. [גשוּ‎ the form occurs three times; 
recession of the accent on account of the following monosyllable (? cf. Ges.” 
66¢). @ seems to have read [פנות ---.הגישו‎ pudads @,— [במה‎ probably to be 

* Joseph., Antig. VI, VI. 5. 

124 1 SAMUEL 

emended to במי‎ with @, Th., We., Bu., Kl., Dr., Ki.—89. [חידיהוה‎ the dis- 
tinction made by the punctuators between חי‎ and הי‎ in such expressions is arti- 
ficial, and intended to disguise the fact that men swore by the life of Yahweh, 
cf, 208, 2 S. 1521, where the two forms are found side by 8106. -- ישנ‎ is con- 
fessedly a difficult form. It occurs Dt. 294, where the analogy of 1238 in the 
second half of the verse suggests that we should point ,ישנה‎ also 1 5. 2378 
Est. 38. In the present passage Th, proposes to read ,ישנה‎ on the ground 
that the antecedent is ,הטאת‎ and this seems confirmed by 6060407 65, which 
would represent may, But the analogy of the following verses suggests that the 
original was ,יש בי או‎ a combination that might give rise to # if one or two 
letters became illegible. This is the conjecture of K1., and כ‎ is quite in place 
as the 00/7 essentiae.—40. 72y5] els 50vAclay 65 is an obvious error, but shows 
a Hebrew original. —41. 5x] is an erroneous insertion, יהוה‎ being part of the 
vocative, —don הבה‎ [ all attempts to make sense of the words as they stand 
are vain: Give a perfect (Jot) would be impertinent; show the right does vio- 
lence to the words. The text of 65, apparently best preserved by 655, retrans- 
lated into Hebrew gives: יהוה אלהי ישראל למה לא ענית אתהעברך היום אם בי או‎ 
תאמר בעס העון הבה תמיס‎ AD .ביונתן בני העון יהוה אלהי ישראל הבה אורים ואם‎ The 
only difficulty with this is, that the eye of a scribe would not be so likely to 
mistake the second הבה‎ for the first, as if the same word preceded both. The 
reading of B in the second half of the verse is confused, but it supplies ושראל‎ 
before the second ,הבה‎ so that the probable reading was ,בעמי ישראל‎ instead of 
the simple nya given above. After Ewald, who directs in general to ‘ complete 
the text from the LXX’ (GV/Z3 111. p. 51, E. Tr. 111. .כ‎ 36), this reading is 
accepted by Th., We., Dr., Bu., Ki. We. conjectures ואם ישנו בעמך ישראל‎ as the 
opening of the second half of the sentence, and is followed by Dr., Bu., Ki. 
Absolute conformity of the two parts of the prayer is, however, not necessary, 
and כה תאמר‎ ON seems more vivid, and therefore more likely to be original. 
Keil, followed by Erdm., argues against the whole insertion, and so does 141. — 
42. The plus of 65 in this verse is contained, with slight variations, in ABL, 
and is testified by the asterisk of Origen. one of the few cases in which the 
Hexaplar signs have come down to us in the Books of Samuel. The retro- 
version of Bu. needs no correction unless (with 7 and Hex.) we read כדבר הזה‎ 
instead of .הרבר הזה‎ «(For .א‎ kataxpdtynoe 2, Tod Aaod either ויחזק . . . מהעס‎ 
cf. 175°, or בעם‎ pin, Dt. 22%.) Insert therefore after בני‎ the words את אשר‎ 
ולכר יהוה ימות ויאמר העם אל-שאול לא יהיה כרבר הזה ויחזק שאול בעס ויפילו בינו ובין‎ 
.יונתן בנו‎ The resemblance between יונתן בני‎ and יונתן בנו‎ accounts for the 
omission. ‘The emendation, made by Th., is rejected by We., on the ground 
that to interrupt the decision of Yahweh is irreligious and the uncertainty 
intolerable. But the people may well have seen that the result could be only 
the loss either of Jonathan or of Saul, and have been willing rather to bear 
the wrath of Yahweh than to face this certain loss. The emendation is ac- 
cepted by K1., Bu.; not noticed by Dr. and Ki.—43. [טעס טעמתי‎ the adver- 
bial infinitive throws emphasis upon the root idea of the verb ‘I 0 a little 
honey.’ As it is here a confession of transgression, in which there was no 

XIV. 47-51 125 

question of less or more, we should probably understand it to be an out-and- 
out affirmation, and not intended to contrast tasting with eating, as though in 
mitigation. — 337] 655 and 3 read [כה יעשה .44-- .והנני‎ must have after it ,לי‎ 
as indicated by 6538. The omission was probably made from superstitious 
dread on the part of the scribe who would not write an imprecation upon 
himself (We., who cites 2522, where an imprecation upon David has been 
obscured for the same reason). So the Arab writer changes a denunciation 
of the person present (in his narrative) to a denunciation of ‘the remote.’ 
The formula is found in 3!7, At the end of the verse יונהן‎ 19: chuepov GAB; 
onucpov Iwvaday 657. The unusual place of the vocative is an argument 
against 30, and it might also be pleaded that the determination of Saul to 
placate the deity at once is something that should be brought out. But the 
pathos of the sentence is greater as read in 9, and the change to היום‎ more 
likely than the reverse. The case is a difficult one to decide, but on the whole 
#) has the advantage (so We., Bu., Kl.).—45. הישועה‎ [ would be sufficient 
without qualification, as is felt by S, which reads simply: who hath wrought 
deliverance for Israel, -- [חלילה‎ is lacking in 659. The insertion is easily 
accounted for by the context (Kl, Bu.), and superfluous. — ox] is used in 
oaths with the negative sense. —nnrywn] the use of מן‎ is explained by Dr., 
Votes, p. 91. It would not be extravagant hyperbole (to the Oriental mind) 
to take it as partitive: ‘There shall not fall [even a fraction] of a hair.’ — 
[כי עס אלהים עשה‎ should mean in this context: /or on the side of God he wrought. 
The construction is, however, awkward, and 65 had a different text: 87. ש60\)‎ 
0600 érolncey 650: rt 6 Aads Tod 0600 ע6שף)0ח)‎ GAB, One of these is prob- 
ably corrupted from the other, and possibly both go back to the pronunciation 
oy for oy. For God will be gracious this day is nearly what we require: כי‎ 
.ינחס אלהים היום‎ KI. proposes אלהים‎ on} 19 — for the mercy of God hath made 
this day. But it is difficult to justify this by the facts, for 0 day is not the 
day of the battle but the day following. — [ויפרו‎ means chey ransomed: kai 
mpoonvéaro 65 would point to .ויפלל‎ There can scarcely be a doubt that # is 

47-51. Summary of Saul’s activity.—The paragraph is a 
summary such as we find in 2 S. 20%. The latter paragraph 
seems to have been originally the conclusion of one history of 
David. It should be noted that our section does not make any 
chronological attempt, such as we find in the framework of the 
Books of Kings. For this reason we should probably date it early, 
as compared with other redactional insertions. The author’s idea 
of Saul’s conquests also points to a time before the figure of David 
had received the prominence which it has in the greater part of 
the historical books. Not improbably this section was the conclu- 
sion of the life of Saul, from which came chapters g. 0. 13. 14 


in their original form. In this case it may have stood after 16%, 
from which place it was removed by the editor who wished to 
conclude the account of Saul’s successes before going on to relate 
his rejection. 

47-51. As to the character of the section, the critics are agreed; as to its 
age there is some difference of opinion, The similar closing formula for the 
life of Samuel (7!8-) reminds us of those we find in the Book of Judges. In 
regard to David we have like data given 2S, 37% and 5!*16 both which give 
the names of David’s family, as well as 2 ₪. 207*-*6 which originally closed an 
account of David’s life. For Solomon also we can point out a much more 
extended panegyric, but one which is in substance equivalent to our section, 
in 1 K. 41-15. There seems to be no inherent improbability in the supposition 
that such a panegyric was composed by the author who has just given the 
account of Saul’s piety (cf. Kuenen, //6005. .כ‎ 381). The theory of We. 
(Comp. 247) is that the panegyric marks (in the mind of the editor) the close 
of Saul’s rightful reign, and this is adopted by Co., 27/3, p. 100, This is 
probably the reason for the z7ser¢ion of the section in his place. But we can 
hardly suppose that an editor who knew no more of Saul’s successes than is 
contained in what has preceded, and who moreover regarded him as rejected 
of Yahweh, could write such a panegyric. The resemblance to the * prag- 
matic’ sections of the Book of Judges affirmed by Bu. (2S. .כ‎ 206 f.) seems 
less marked than he would make it. Bonk (De Davide, p. 53, and ZATW. 
XI. p. 143) finds here a fragment from a source which has not appeared up to 
this point — a history of the family of Saul. Ki. (GZ. 11. p. 29) declares for 
an independent but late source, cf. also Dr., LOZ". .כ‎ 

Properly there are two paragraphs, — one giving a summary of 
Saul’s wars, the other containing the names of his family.—47. So 
Saul took the kingdom over Israel and fought on all sides against 
all his enemtes| the enemies of /srae? seem to be in the author’s 
mind. ‘The enumeration of them gives the same names which we 
find in the account of David’s wars, 2 S. 5 and elsewhere: A/oaéd 
and the Bné Ammon, and Edom and Beth Rehob| as © author- 
izes us to read. — The king of Soba] seems also natural, as in 6, 
rather than the Rings of Soba 39. Beth Rehob and Soba were 
both Aramaean states in the Lebanon region. Rather curiously 
the Philistines come last in the list.— And wherever he turned 
he was victorious| on the emendation, see the critical note. — 
48. Especial mention of the expedition against Amalek: And he 
gathered an army and smote Amalek] the translation rather forces 
the text. In case it is not accepted, we must join the opening 

XIV. 47-52 127. 

clause with the preceding, making it read: And wherever he turned 
he was victorious and did valiantly, The next sentence will then 
be: And he smote Amalek and delivered Israel from the hand of 
his plunderer| it is evident that the author has present stress 
rather than a historic occasion in mind as furnishing a motive for 
Saul. This shows the difference between his point of view and 
that of chapter 15.—49. The family of Saul is brought before 
us: first, his sons: Jonathan and Jshbaal| so we are authorized 
to correct, the name in 39 having been mutilated for religious 
reasons. The first name means Yahweh gave; the second, Man 
of the Lord, Baal having been used quite innocently for Yahweh 
in this period. The third also contains a name of Yahweh 
(Melek), though the second element is obscure. All three testify 
to the piety of Saul. Of the daughters’ names JZeradé is obscure, 
Michal possibly the same which appears elsewhere as A/tchael.— 
50. His wife was Ahinoam daughter of Ahimaaz| the names occur 
elsewhere. The general of the army was A4dnzer, who plays a more 
prominent part after the death of Saul than before. He was son 
of Ner, uncle of Saul. As the word translated uncle is of some- 
what wide meaning, the author proceeds to define more exactly. 
--51. Kish the father of Saul and Ner the father of Abner were 
sons of Abiel| so we read on conjecture. 

52. The verse joins closely to v.“, and prepares the way for 
16", where David is received into Saul’s staff.— 706 war was 
severe against the Philistines all the days of Saul] the author 
guards against the impression that the late indecisive campaign 
was the only one.— And whenever Saul saw any powerful man 
or any vigorous man, he would attach him to himself | as in the 
case of David which follows. 

47. 725 [ושאול‎ the order of the words indicates the opening of a new sec- 
tion. After Edom @! adds: xa) cis עלד‎ 800020000 evidently intending the 
Beth Rehob mentioned in connexion with Sobah, 2 S. 10%. The name has 
been corrupted in G to 8000667. The text is emended to conform to 6" by 
Kl., and the emendation is adopted by Bu. — במלכי‎ | the singular number was 
found by @ and is doubtless original. — ירשיע‎ | seems to give no proper sense 
in this connexion, though We. compares Syr. .חיב‎ Hebrew usage allows 
only the meanings /2 convict of guilt, or to act wickedly. 65 606676 points to 
pps which was first suggested by Cappellus (Critica Sacra, p. 261), and is 


now generally adopted. —48. yn [ויעש‎ and he wrought mighty deeds as in 
Num. 2415 Dt. 8'8. Both ₪ and @ understand the expression to mean 6 
gathered an army and this is a more appropriate introduction to the mention 
of Amalek. 5»n pap occurs 1 K. 201, and it is possible that ויעש ח'‎ may be 
interpreted in this sense, cf, Ezek. 28+, thow didst acquire might. — \nbw] cf. 
231 Jd. 21+ with Moore’s note. — 49. [ישוי‎ occurs also Gen, 407 and is evi- 
dently a corruption of .איש יהוה = (אשיו) ישיו‎ This is the equivalent of /sh- 
baal which has been altered in the other direction into /shdosheth. The actual 
name was Ish baal — 6 man of the Lord. ‘he identity of the name in the 
text with Ishbosheth was affirmed by Ewald ) 6 73. 111. p. 148, E. Tr. IIL. 
p. 108), who also reconstructed ישיו‎ from @. The exact state of the case was 
demonstrated by We., who is followed by Dr. (with some reserve), Bu., Ki. 
655 adds ral שום'‎ 066 at the end of the list.— yw 90] 166656 669. In- 
stead of three sons, four are ascribed to Saul in 31? (where three are slain) 
and 1 Chr. 8% [מיכל - - ,9יף‎ MeaAxda @ and מלכיל‎ S would point to ,מלכיאל‎ cf. 
G. 4617. — 80. The first two names are compounded with nx (brother) like so 
many which have come down to us. — [אבינר‎ occurs elsewhere in the shorter 
form 7228. — 51. בן-אביאל‎ [ should obviously be read בניהאביאל‎ as is indicated 
by Josephus, and pointed out by Th. (followed by 141., Dr., Ki, Bu.). Only 
thus do we get what belongs here, for that Kish was the father of Saul is 
already known to us, and that Ner was a son of Abiel throws no light on the 
situation unless we know who Abiel is. 

52. [וראה‎ the tense indicates what was repeatedly or habitually done, Dr., 
Tenses*, §§ 120, 148, 1. With ויאספהו‎ the author falis back into the narrative 
tense, having the particular instance in mind rather than the frequent repeti- 

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

129 א 

The first thing that strikes us in reading this account is, that it 
makes no mention of an earlier rejection of Saul. The author 
does not intimate that this is a second test. There is no hint that 
he supposes Saul to have repented of his former sin—a repent- 
ance such as the earlier commentators postulated, in order to 
harmonize the two accounts. ‘This chapter, like 1 377% reads as if 
it were the only account of Saul’s rejection. But the common 
features are striking. Gilgal is the scene of both. In each, Saul 
receives a command from Samuel. In each he disobeys (though 
the exact manner of the disobedience in 1377 is obscure) ; in 
each he is informed that his kingdom is taken from him; in each 
the kingdom is said to have been given to another. The conclu- 
sion is obvious: though the two accounts are taken from two sep- 
arate documents, and though each formed, in the history of which 
it was a part, the sole account of the rejection of Saul, yet they 
are derived from a common tradition, or one is dependent on the 

Of the affiliations of the present section we can have no doubt. 
It belongs with chapters 1-3. 7. 8. 10%”. 12. The position of 
Samuel is the same as in those sections. Although retired, he is 
still the organ of the theocratic administration. Saul is still under 
obligation to obey his commands. Disobedience to Samuel is 
disobedience to God, and is punished by deposition. This iden- 
tity of view is accompanied by resemblance of language. God is 
Yahweh Sabaoth (157, cf. 1°"). There is distinct reference to 
the people’s coming up out of Egypt (15° 8° 10%) ; Samuel ל‎ 
to Vahweh (15" 7° 12°) ; Saul, like the people, is reproached with 
having rejected the word of Yahweh (15” 8"). Other similarities 
will show themselves in the detailed examination of the passage. 
We must suppose the story to belong with the chapters already 
named. ‘Taking them as forming a single history, we see that this 
is really the climax. The document gives a life of Samuel, in 
which Saul has a prominent part to be sure, but a part which 
serves to set off the glory of Samuel. The author reckons Samuel 
as one of the divinely appointed judges. Saul’s election was a 
mistake from the beginning. The real succession passed to David. 
The rebellious demand for a king was acceded to only under a 
protest on the part of Yahweh and his prophet. An unhappy 


130 1 SAMUEL 

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

We night, indeed, suppose that the author originally gave more 
of Saul’s exploits than have been preserved to us. But, as he has 
already ascribed the Philistine victory to Samuel, he probably had 
little else to give. In fact, his interest in Saul was not such as to 
make him give more. As we have already seen, he was probably 

dependent on the other (and earlier) document. His account of 
Saul’s rejection is a free reconstruction and expansion of 13°, 
designed to take the place of that narrative, and to make it teach 

a theocratic lesson. 

XV. The critical questions are treated in the works already frequently 
cited. I confess my inability to see why this chapter should be made ‘ inter- 
mediate between the two streams of narrative already considered’ (We., 
Comp. p. 248, Dr., LOT'S. p. 178, Ki., GH. 11. .כ‎ 25). The character and 
position of Samuel as here portrayed agree closely with his picture as drawn 
in the life of Samuel, chapters 7. 8. 12, unless it is easier to unmake a king 
than to make him, which will hardly be asserted. So far from “occupying a 
position midway between prophets like Elijah or Elisha and those like Amos 
or Hosea” (Ki.), Samuel as here represented is more autocratic than any of 
these. No one of them, even in the stories which are told of them, ever stood 
out so distinctly and frankly the superior of a king of Israel, as is the case 
with Samuel in the section before us. The section agrees fully in this respect 
with 7. 8. and 12. 

The majority of critics draw a sharp line between this and the following 
chapter )1617%(. The reason is not apparent. On the contrary, the logical 
sequence of this chapter is found in that paragraph. Saul is rejected in order 
that David may be anointed. It may be said that Samuel’s fear of Saul in the 
second section is inconsistent with the autocratic position which he here occu- 
pies. But it should be remembered that the motive of the author in making 
Samuel dissimulate is to account for the secresy of the transaction. He knew 
that no hint of an anointing of David appears in any other document. To 
account for this fact, he must make Samuel keep his errand secret. The 
obvious device was to make his concealment motived by fear of Saul. 

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

XV. I-3 131 

was separated from him by the Jebusite fortress, and its loyalty 
could never have been very warm. ‘The claim on Amalek was 
outlawed by some centuries. So far from this people being exter- 
minated by Saul, they were engaged in active feud with David 
very soon after the supposed attack by Saul. Finally, no trace 
of this attack has survived in any passage of the Old Testament 
except the one before us.—1. The command seems to follow 
immediately on the farewell address of Samuel in 12. It begins 
with the statement: Me did Yahweh send to anoint thee| the pro- 
noun is put first for emphasis. The statement is made in order 
to call attention to Samuel’s right to command. — ow hear the 
sound of the words of Yahweh| the circumlocution is chosen to 
avoid anthropomorphism, and shows a comparatively late date. — 
2. Thus saith Yahweh Sebaoth| a standing formula with the 
prophets. ‘This divine name has already been met in the account 
of Samuel’s life, 1°" 4*, cf. also 17°.— Lhave resolved to punish] this 
stems to be the only way in which we can understand the words ; 
the translation 7 remember seems not justified by usage. Amalek 
was a clan of Bedawin inhabiting the Wilderness of the Wander- 
ing. They inhabited also the WVeged, Nu. 13%.— What Amalek 
070 to Israel, in that he opposed him in the way when he came 
up out of Egypt| the construction is difficult, but the historical 
reference is evident. In Ex. 177% we find that Amalek made 
war with Israel in Rephidim. Again, they opposed Israel’s en- 
trance to Canaan from the south, Num. 14". In Deuteronomy 
also (25°) we find Amalek stigmatized as having met Israel zm 
the way and having cut off their weary and faint stragglers. The 
phrase zz ¢he way would indicate that the present account depends 
upon Deuteronomy. Further instances of hostility between Ama- 
lek and Israel are found in Jd. 7” and in David’s life, 1 S. 30. 
The comparatively late text 2 S. 87 speaks of their spoil having 
been consecrated by David, so that the present account can hardly 
have been known to the author of that verse. Had the vow 
recorded in Ex. 17 been in this writer’s mind he would have 
made some reference to it.— 8. Go and smite Amalek and devote 
him and all which belongs to him] such solemn devotion to 
Yahweh (and therefore to destruction) is well known from Dt. 7” 
20", where it is commanded as the duty of Israel in dealing with 

132 1 SAMUEL 

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

1. The verse fits well on to the end of ch. 12, and Bu.’s supposition that it 
has been expanded is unnecessary. ‘The solemn reminder would be especially 
appropriate if the commission were the first with which the new made king 
was charged. — 7x] is emphatic by position.—n>w] is inexact, for in none 
of the documents was Samuel sev¢ to anoint Saul. But we can probably % 
insist on verbal accuracy in our author. — [למלך‎ Jd. 9! 2 5. [עלדעמו---.2%‎ is 
lacking in 655, whereas עלהישראל‎ is not represented in @L,— 25 [לקול‎ Dt. 
412 525.2. [פקדתי‎ this tense is quite justified in the meaning / have deter- 
mined to do thus, Dr., 2/0/65, referring to Jd. 153, and Zenses?, § 13. The attempt 
to make the verb here mean / remember AV. or have [mentally] marked RV. 
Erdm., Keil, is based (as alleged) upon Ex. 315 Jer. 23? Ps. 8°. But examina- 
tion shows that none of the passages sustain the assumed meaning. ‘The 
oldest tradition for this passage is voiced in the rendering vdy 6600/0006 or 
עפע‎ 668/68 65 and is undoubtedly correct. With sound feeling Schm. ren- 
ders: wisitare constitut. —p ny] is connected with Edom in the genealogy, 
Gen. 36! 16, Balaam predicted their destruction, Num. אשרדשם לו---.242%‎ [| is 
supposed to mean how he laid wart for him AV., or how he set himself against 
him RV. But the supposed parallels 1 K. 20! Ezek. 2374 both have על‎ and 
both have an object supplied by @. 2 K. 10% seems similar to our text, but 
there לו‎ is dative of advantage and the verb has an object expressed; nw’, 
which is urged as an analogon, also requires ,על‎ Ps. 37. It is probable that 
arqytnoey 65 points to a different reading, though what it is, is difficult to 
make out. Dt. 251% has ,אשר קרך בררך‎ but this is not sufficiently explicit for 
our passage. For the verb here 141. suggests .שטן‎ If conjectures be in order, 
I would change to ,אשר צר לו‎ the crime being aggravated (as Dt. more ex- 
plicitly states) by the fact that it was committed when 26 (Israel) was in 
trouble, But I have not ventured to introduce this into my translation, as the 
reasons for choosing it are not 060181/6. [בעלתו ממצריס---‎ Gen. 131 (J) Ex. 
17> (E) Num. 215 (J) 3211 (P). The imperative 45 is followed by the per- 
fect consecutive as is customary. —onp nn] the plural is unexpected and we 

XV. 4-8 133 

should probably restore והחרמתו‎ as read by 65, making the next word ואת‎ in- 
stead of את‎ (We.). The verb seems to occur nowhere in Samuel except in 
this chapter. It is used by all the Pentateuchal sources. — [תחמל‎ Dt. 139 
Ex. 2°.—nws [מאיש ער‎ cf. 2219 Jos, 62. For ער‎ (Ginsb.) many editions 
have .ועד‎ 0 

4-9. Saul’s disobedience. — This consists in making important 
exceptions to the completeness of the destruction. — He first 
called out the people and mustered them in Telam] a town in the 
south of Judah, Jos. 15%. The number given, ??00 hundred thou- 
sand footmen, is to be judged like similar data elsewhere. The 
ten thousand, the men of Judah, seem to be an afterthought. — 
5. And he came to the city of Amalek] the absence of a name for 
the city shows the author’s vagueness of geographical knowledge. 
Cities there can hardly have been in that desert region, though a 
fortified village might by courtesy be so denominated. The read- 
ing czéies 65 is plainly incorrect. Only one engagement is thought 
of. — And lay tn wait tn the wadi | a favourite move in Hebrew 
strategy, Jos. 8? Jd. 20%.—6. The Kenzzes whom Saul warned were 
old allies of Israel, represented in one document as the tribe of 
Moses’ father in law, Jd. 4%. After sharing the desert wanderings 
of Israel and entering Palestine, they preferred the nomad life in 
the Negeb, where they dwelt with Amalek according to the origi- 
nal text of Jd. 1. The author does not seem to have questioned 
whether the warning to the Kenites would not frustrate the pur- 
pose of Saul in regard to Amalek. The reason of Saul’s consider- 
ate treatment of the Kenite is given in his message to them in the 
circumstantial clause: cum tu tamen misericordiam feceris cum 
omnibus filiis Israelis (Schm.). The Kenites withdrew as warned. 
--7. And Saul smote Amalek from —] the name of the place is 
now lost; Aavilah, which is given by our documents, is impossi- 
ble. — As far as Shur which ts before Egypt | “Shur is originally 
the wai which ran from Pelusium through Migdol to Hero” 
(We.).* —8. And he took Agag the king of Amalek alive] cf. Jos. 
8%, — But all the people he slew with the sword | \it. consecrated 
according to the mouth of the sword, cf. Moore on Jd. 1%.— 

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

134 1 SAMUEL 

9. Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the small and 
large cattle, the fatlings and the lambs| a slight emendation of the 
received text is necessary. The wealth 01 Amalek must have been 
mainly in cattle. ‘The motive of Saul in sparing Agag (pride, hope 
of ransom, an ill-timed emotion of pity, respect of persons) was 
much discussed by the older commentators (cf. Schm., Quaestio 
VI. ad Cap. XV.). An Agag is mentioned Num. 24’, where he is 
made the symbol of great exaltation, but it is not yet clearly made 
out whether there is a reference to this passage. On “he vile 
and refuse which were destroyed, see the critical note. 

4. yow] the Piel is used only here and 238, where also Saul calls out the 
people to war. In both places it is possible that we should point a Hiphil, 
1 16. 1522 Jer. 5029 5127. בטלאים-‎ [ the name of a place is no doubt intended 
— guast agnos ¥ is, of course, impossible. But év TadydAors 65 is not appro- 
priate. Most recent critics find in the text only an orthographic variation 
of טלס‎ a town mentioned Jos, 1574. For two hundred thousand we find four 
hundred thousand &. ‘The ten thousand of Judah are omitted by 655, but 
increased to thirty thousand by @8.—5, וירב -- .65 עש>\6ח [עיר‎ [ is intended 
for ויארב‎ (évjdpevcey G) as is seen by Kimchi and Schm. Kautzsch (Ges.?6 
§ 682) takes it to be Hiphil, but ארב‎ occurs nowhere else in this stem. — 
6. [לכו פרו רדו.‎ G omits ,רדו‎ perhaps correctly. On the daghesh in ררו‎ cf, 
Ges. 20¢.— pny] as we expect the author to be consistent, it seems best 
to restore pony here, the form which we find at the end of the verse. — ADS | 
should probably be pointed (Lag., Proph. Chald. p. li), cf. Gen, 18%. % 1 =, 
12%, This is much more forcible than the received pointing. —5>] is super- 
fluous and therefore suspicious — lacking in 6595, — [קיני‎ should certainly be 
קין‎ or ,הקיני‎ probably the latter, because that form is elsewhere used in this 
passage; We., Bu., Ki., choose pp. — 7. [חוילה‎ elsewhere the name of some 
point or district in Arabia. It occurs once in a phrase similar to the one in 
the text—jrom Havilah to Shur, Gen. 2518. It there bounds the territory 
of the Ishmaelites, of which Havilah should be the eastern boundary. It 
would consequently be far from the scene of Saul’s exploit. Still there is a 
possibility that our author, whose geography is not very distinct, borrowed the 
whole phrase from Genesis. We. conjectures 7e/am to be the original read- 
ing. But this does not commend itself, because Saul had advanced beyond 
Telam when the attack was made. Glaser (as cited by BDB. 202 voce) pro- 
poses to read הכילה‎ which is mentioned 1 S. 23!9 261-3, But this hill in the 
Desert of Judah was hardly a part of the Amalekite territory. Mon Liguet. 
— בואך שור‎ [ cf. 278 (where מטלס‎ seems to have stood in connexion with it).— 
[עלהפני‎ in front of is frequently used of the east side, and would be appropri- 
ately so understood here. — 8. dyn] may mean the soldiery (Ki.), but as there 
is no record of any human being being spared except Agag, it is better to 

XV. 9-12 135 

make it general. — [החרים לפיהחרב‎ Jos. 62! cf. Dt. 133%. — 9. [מיטב‎ only in 
the Book of the Covenant, Ex. 22%, and P, Gen. 47% 11. [והמשנים--‎ is supposed 
to be the lambs of the second birth. The word is, however, a mistake for 
השמנים‎ (Th., We., Dr., Bu., Ki.), and the adoption of this carries with it the 
erasure of על‎ which follows. השמנים והכרים‎ defines the desz of the cattle. Kl. 
proposes women and children for which there is no support. 0°79, as delica- 
cies, Dt. 321. כרמים‎ 65 is adopted by Ew. x here and אוג‎ in Nu. 247 are 
the same name. From the reference in Numbers we conclude that an Agag 
had been an object of terror or of admiration to the Israelites —it should be 
noted, however, that @4BU has Gog there. — 2x] Ex. 1027 (E), Dt. 220 1010 
1 S. [נמבזה ונמס---31%‎ is impossible. The first word is a monstrum (Dr.) 
caused by the stupidity of a scribe. The second is apparently for ,נמאפת‎ for 
we require a feminine form. Part of this original was wrongly spaced and 
formed part of the word which 39 now reads as ,אה‎ the ה‎ being duplication 
from the following word. The true text is therefore וכל מלאכה נבזה ונמאסת‎ 
with omission of .אתה‎ The word מלאכה‎ is used for property in general, Ex. 
227-10 (E), and for 00/2 Gen. 331%. We may compare פעלה‎ used for flocks 
Is. 4019. Trumbull came to the conclusion (independently of We.) that Shur 
is the frontier fortification of Egypt, and the same is the view of Brugsch, 
as cited by Buhl and Socin (Ges. WB}. sub voce). 

10-23. The prophet’s rebuke. — Samuel, divinely informed of 
Saul’s transgression, goes to seek him, and meets him at Gilgal. 
Saul at first declares that he has carried out the commandment of 
Yahweh. When convicted by circumstantial evidence, he throws 
the blame on the people. The prophet cuts his protestations 
short, and when Saul attempts further argument, pronounces the 
final word of rejection. —10. The word of Yahweh came to Samuel | 
the context implies that it was in a vision 01 the night. —11. 7 
repent that I made Saul king| Gen. 6°" (J). The dogmatic 
attempt to explain the anthropomorphism may be read in Schm., 
Quaestio VII. Yahweh does not explain the nature of his emo- 
tion, but goes on to give its occasion: For he has turned from 
following me and has not carried out my command | lit. my word ; 
the Hebrew has my words, but the reference is to one particular 
revelation. — And Samuel was angry] there seems to be no 
reason for changing the text. The violent emotion of the On- 
ental at the frustration of his hopes must not be judged by our 
standard of propriety. — And cried to Yahweh all night] in pro- 
test and expostulation. Schm. compares Moses’ grief for Israel. 
12. The entreaty fails to change the purpose of Yahweh, and 

136 1 SAMUEL 

Samuel starts in the early morning to deliver his message. He is 
told: Saul came to Carme/| the Carmel in Judah, well known 
from the history of David. It lay nearly south of Hebron, and 
would be in Saul’s path. — And behold he has set up a trophy the 
noun means @ monument in 28,18". The words and turned and 
passed by axe difficult to understand in this connexion, Probably 
there is some confusion in the text.— And went down to Gilgal | 
must conclude the information concerning Saul’s movements. 
The object of going to Gilgal was evidently to offer thank offer- 
ings, as indeed © asserts. —13. Llessed be thou of Yahweh] the 
form of the salutation shows that it was originally a prayer. Saul’s 
sweeping claim —J have fuljilled the word of Vahweh—is in flat 
contradiction to Yahweh’s revelation to Samuel, v.".. The author’s 
purpose is to paint Saul as one hopelessly hardened in sin. The 
older commentators note his hypocrisy, tum in excusando, tum 
in confitendo et poenitendo (Schm.).— 14. Samuel at once con- 
victs him by present phenomena: Zhen what is this bleating of 
sheep in my ears, and this lowing of cattle which 1 hear? ‘The 
inconsistency was palpable. —15. Saul’s confession of the fact -is 
so frank as to be impudent, and equally offensive is his intimation 
that the religious purpose in view was sufficient justification : 
From Amalek I brought them: for the people spared the best of the 
sheep and the oxen to sacrifice to Yahweh thy God | the designa- 
tion may possibly intimate that Samuel was to profit by the sacri- 
fice. Still, as he does not appear to be a priest, much emphasis 
can hardly be laid upon this; and it is more natural to suppose 
that the author betrays here his theory that Yahweh was the God 
of Samuel, but hardly the God of Saul. —16. Samuel cuts the 
speech short: Stop/ and let me tell thee what Vahweh said to me 
this night | in our mode of speaking it would be “ast night — 
17, 18. Receiving permission to proceed, Samuel begins his re- 
buke: Art thou not, though little in thine own eyes, chief of the 
tribes of Israel? The question seems to be a rebuke of Saul’s 
self-confessed subservience to the people. The next clause be- 
longs with v.'*, which should read: And Yahweh anointed thee 
king over Israel and sent thee a journey. The close collocation 
favours the view already advanced that in this document the com- 
mand was given immediately after the coronation. — Go and 

XV, 12-23 137 

exterminate the sinners, Amalek, and fight against them until they 
are completely destroyed | 2S. 22% 1 K. 22". Amalek is called 
sinners because of the ancestral offence against Israel. —19. The 
situation has thus been described: the rebuke follows in the form 
of a question: And why didst thou not obey the voice of Yahweh, 
and didst swoop upon the booty, and didst that which is evil in the 
eyes of Yahweh 2[ Jd. 2" 3’. 21. Saul’s further protest only con- 
victs himself. He now calls what was spared the firstfruits of 
that which was devoted, which is of course an absurdity.— 
22, 23. The reply of Samuel is rhythmical in form: 

Does Vahweh delight in offerings and sacrifices 
As in obedience to the voice of Yahweh ? 

Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice, 

. And to hearken than the fat of rams. 

for rebellion ts the sin of soothsaying, 
Obstinacy ts the iniquity of Teraphim. 

Because thou hast rejected the word of Vahweh, 
fle has rejected thee from ruling over Israel. 

The passage is a summary of later Jewish theology, cf. Ps. 50° % 
The author’s remoteness from the times of Saul is evident from 
the horror with which he views the Teraphim. 1118 verse seems 
to have been trimeter in construction, though transmission has 
obscured the original reading in some cases. 

11. [שב מאחרי--.121 8% [המלכתי‎ Num. 1445 3215 (P) Jos. 221618 (P),— 
[רברי לא הקים‎ Dt. 2726 Jer. [ויחר---.41%‎ is emended to ויצר‎ by Bu, Ki, fol- 
lowing a suggestion of Dr.; @ has ra) 700206 which Dr. supposes to point 
to וימר‎ But it should be noted that in two other passages, 2 S. 68 and its 
parallel* 1 Chr. 134, ויחר‎ is rendered in the same way. In these passages 
David is said to have been angry at Yahweh’s breaking out upon Uzzah, in 
which we find a close analogy to the present experience of Samuel. — [ויזעק‎ of 
crying to God in distress, Ex. 278 (P) Jd. 39 65 (D) 1 ₪. 79 128. —12. [הכרמלה‎ 
252 5 7:49, mentioned as one of the cities of Judah, Jos. 155°, The place would 
lie near Saul’s road from the Negeb to Gilgal. The ruins still bear the name 
Kurmul (GASmith, //ist. Geog. p. 306 note). — והנה מציב‎ [ is wrong, because 
it implies that Saul is still engaged at the work. Read והנה הציב‎ with 6 
(which had even 2311), We., Dr., Bu. — [יד‎ of the pillar of Absalom 2 S. 18)8, 
and of a memorial of some kind Ex. 1716 (if the text is sound), cf. Is. 56°.— 
ויפב‎ [ is in place only if, with 65, we make Samuel the subject — then he turned 

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

138 1 SAMUEL 

about — for Saul certainly did not need to turn, But what the context requires 
is a continuation of the information about Saul, for Samuel wants to know 
where he now is. 3D) has come in by mistake and should be omitted. The 
text of 65 has suffered here from the confusion of the names Saul and Samuel, 
as is evident from 655 which reads: and it was told Saz/ that Samuel came to 
Carmel (corrected in AL), For ויסב ויעבר‎ : Kal 06070606 7d 6206 ]60700[ 6. 
At the end of the verse 65 reads: and he came down to Gilgal to Saul, and 
behold he offered a burnt offering to the Lord, the firstfruits of the spoil which 
he brought from Amalek. But, as remarked by We., this can hardly be origi- 
nal, as Samuel would take some notice of the sacrifice. —18. לי"‎ ANN [ברוך‎ 
2321 2 5. 25 Ruth 2%. --14. [הזה‎ defines the קול‎ of course. —15. [הביאס‎ 
שאץ6ען‎ 65 is more forcible and I have adopted 16.-- [אשר‎ is impossible to 
reproduce except by a causal particle, cf. Davidson, Syzéax, p. 198. Of the 
examples cited there, only Gen. 301% 1 K. 3! 2 K. 17* seem to hold, and it 
should be remembered that even in such cases אשר‎ does not define the cause 
as [ההרמנו--.0[טסשו כי‎ should be corrected to החרמתי‎ according to @.— 
16. [הרף‎ desine garrire multum, Schm. In Dt. 9! it expresses God’s desire 
not to hear entreaty or intercession from Moses. — ויאמרו‎ 47%] is doubtless to 
be corrected to ויאמר‎ with the Q7vé.—1%. The translation of the text as it 
stands is attempted above. As the sentence is somewhat involved (for 
Hebrew) there is room for suspicion as to the correctness of transmission. 
65 seems to have expanded, influenced by Saul’s own confession of his 
humble station in 97!, reading: Art thou not [too] small in thine own eyes to 
be ruler, coming from the tribe of Benjamin, the least of the tribes of Lsrael 2 
Vet Vahweh anointed thee king over all Israel ; where the contrast is between 
Saul’s own tribe and a@// Israel. This, however, is artificial and far-fetched for 
an occasion like this. 655 seems to find a sarcastic question in the words: 
Art thou not small in his eyes, O Ruler of the tribes of Israel? Yet Yahweh 
anointed thee, etc. In the uncertainty, and as 3) might have given rise to the 
other readings, it seems safest to adhere to the received text.—18. [יהוה‎ is 
superfluous if the sentence really begins with [וההרמתה -- .וימשחך‎ confirms the 
text adopted in ההטאים ---.5.ץ‎ [ 65 adds eis éué.—onx [ערהכלותם‎ can hardly be 
correct. @ seems to have had ony ער כלותך‎ which would do. But it seems 
simpler to omit the last word as an erroneous repetition (We., Dr., al.).— 
19. [ותעט‎ see on [והעש הרע וגר---.14%5‎ a standing Deuteronomistic phrase. 
— 20. [אשר‎ as equivalent to כי‎ recifativum, cf. Dr., Notes, and Ges.* 157 6; 
but אכן‎ is conjectured by Bu.—21. [ראשית‎ elsewhere of the firstfruits of 
vegetable products, Ex. 231% 3476 Num, 1579 Dt. 184.—22. [ההפץ‎ 1 S, 185; 
the word is found in late writers. —ynw3] where the comparison would be 
fully expressed by .כבשמע‎ Such an ellipsis needs no justification. ולהקשיב‎ 
= 65. The is lacking in #9. Grammatically speaking there is an ellipsis of 
מוב‎ in the last clause. —nyav [בקול‎ 5 and GE render ,כקולו‎ not being con- 
strained by the metre. —23. The verse is obscure, and the versions do not 
give much help. The writer intends to say, evidently, that Saul’s sin is as bad 
as the soothsaying and idolatry for which the heathen are condemned. His 

XV. 24 139 

sin is מרי‎ — rebellion against the command of God, for which Ezekiel rebukes 
Israel, cf. Num. 17% Dt. 31°", This sin is compared with the soothsaying 
from which (ideally) Israel is free Num, 2323, but which was rife in the time 
of Jeremiah )141%( , Ezek. 2126, cf. Dt. 1819. The second member of the verse 
must be parallel with this. — p17) [ואון‎ cannot therefore be right. Zhe guilt 
of idolatry-is what we require, and this would be ההרפים‎ ny for which we may 
claim Symmachus ( avoula הפצר --.עש\ש6)5 עשז‎ [ pausal form of a Hiphil, 
which, however, occurs nowhere else. The Qal means to wrge one with per- 
sistent entreaty, Gen. 1939 3311 Jd. 1g’. It is difficult to get from this any 
meaning that will fit our passage. A too insistent entreaty of God was not 
Saul’s fault. @ seems to have read .הפיצו‎ The natural parallel to מרי‎ would 
be a derivative of 770 if we may judge by Dt. 2115 Jer. 523. Perhaps we might 
assume 7770, cf. סרה‎ Dt. 13°. Or, on the ground of Jos. 2222, מרר‎ would be in 
place. In fact several words suggest themselves, but none that would easily 
be corrupted to ,הפצר‎ Sym. 7d 67610608, cf. Field. K1. suggests רע‎ pon; but 
this destroys the rhythm. -- >nn] at the end of the verse is abrupt, and as 6 
adds [ח6‎ Iapaya, we should probably restore .על ישראל‎ Ew. suggests ,לו‎ which 
would agree better with the metre ) ₪ V/%. 111. p, 55, E. Tr. III. p. 39). 

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

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

24-31. That the paragraph is an interpolation seems first to have been 
suggested by Stade (GV/?. I. .כ‎ 221). The suggestion is adopted by Bu. both 
in 0.5. and in his edition of the text. The arguments are that the section is 
wholly superfluous and can be left out without disturbing the consistency of 
the narrative, and that it contradicts the assertion of v. that Yahweh repented 
of having made Saul king — contrast the categorical statement that e 7s not a 
man that he should repent (v.?°). 

24. Saul’s confession: 7 have sinned, for I have transgressed 
the command of Yahweh and thy word | is not to be taken as 

140 1 SAMUEL 

hypocritical. The author means to teach that the most sincere 
repentance is of no avail when God has made his final decision. 
Christian commentators (Schm., for example), with New Testa- 
ment ideas of confession and forgiveness, are obliged to suppose 
that the repentance here was feigned or insincere. Saul’s excuse 
that he feared the people is the same already intimated, though it 
has not been explicitly stated. —25. Mow forgive my sin] cf. 
Gen. 50”, where Joseph’s brothers ask his forgiveness for the 
injury done to him, and Ex. 10”, where Moses is asked by 
Pharaoh to forgive his sin against Yahweh. The latter is evidently 
the model for the present writer. Samuel stands quite on the level 
of Moses. It is, perhaps, because the text seems to favour the 
Roman Catholic practice of confession that Schmidt paraphrases : 
aufer, nempe apud Deum deprecando. In Saul’s further petition 
—and turn with me that I may worship Yahweh —it is implied 
that Samuel’s presence is necessary to the validity of the service. 
— 26, 27. The request is refused, and the sentence of rejection 
repeated. As Samuel turns to go away, Saul seizes the skirt of 
his robe to detain him, du¢ zt rends. The 26/1 was the outer 
of the two garments ordinarily worn by the well-to-do. — 28. The 
apparent accident is made the occasion of a renewed sentence: 
Yahweh has rent thy kingdom from thee and given tt to thy neigh- 
bour who ts better than thou] cf. 28". The scene reminds us of 
Ahijah and Jeroboam, 1 K. 11% --89. Moreover the Victor of 
Israel will not le nor repent, for he is not man that he should 
repent| cf. Num. 23”. The contradiction to v." is doubtless re- 
moved by the remark of Clericus that in one case the language is 
anthropopathic, in the other * theoprepic.’ But the Hebrew author 
was hardly so theologically schooled ; and it remains improbable 
that the same writer should express himself anthropopathically in 
v.", and find it necessary to correct the anthropopathism a few 
verses later. — 30, 31. Saul entreats for consideration before the 
elders of the people and before Israel] and the request is granted. 
The author is willing to leave him the semblance of the kingly 
office for the time being. 

24. [פי-יהוה‎ for the command of Yahweh Num. 31% al. The full expres- 
sion עבר אתדפי יהוה‎ Num. 1441, 221% (E),— - רבריך‎ [ the singular, which is repre- 
sented in 65, is more appropriate. It was a single message which Saul had 

XV. 24-35 I4I 

disobeyed. On 135 for a command of God cf. BDB. s.v. IT. 2. —25. [ואשתחוה‎ 
should probably be pointed with the cohortative ending. —26. [מהיות מלך‎ 
would perhaps favour the pointing ממלף‎ in v.28,.—27.  וליעמ-ףנכ[‎ 24+ 5 -- 
(שא [ויקרע‎ diéppntev adréd G. But the scene is more impressive if human 
agency is kept in the background.—28. [ממלכות ישראל‎ for which rhy 
Baotelay cov ard 10000 G. The last two words are later addition to the 
text of 65 (We.), which therefore had ממלכתך‎ in their text, and this is so much 
more forcible, and at the same time so much more likely to be expanded into 
W, that we must think it to be original; cf. also 1 16, 1111, — 29. [וגס נצח ישראל‎ 
was read by @ and Israel shall be rent in two, apparently = יחצה ישראל‎ on, 
and this is accepted by Graetz (Gesch. d. Fuden, 1. p. 187). But a prophecy 
of the division of the kingdom is wholly out of place here. We are obliged 
therefore to retain the text of #9. ny) in one passage apparently means victory 
(SS. referring to 1 Chr. 29!), and in this place Jerome gives “riumphator. 
This tradition is the best within our reach. We. decides for zhe faithful One ; 
Dr. for the Glory ; Ki. leaves a blank in his translation; Kl. emends freely and 
gets: though we two were to protest to him, yet God is upright. 

32-34. The fate of Agag.—The original continuation of the 
narrative, after the prophetic oracle v.”, is found here, if what has 
been advanced concerning vv.** is correct. —382. Samuel orders 
Agag to be brought.— And Agag came to him trembling, and 
Agag said: Surely death is bitter| the rendering is only provi- 
sional, as the meaning of one important word is uncertain, and the 
text has apparently suffered. — 33. The justice of Agag’s fate is 
asserted by Samuel: As thy sword has bereaved women, so shall 
thy mother be bereaved above women] it is scarcely necessary to 
explain the hyperbole by saying (as some have done) that Agag’s 
mother was bereaved of her son and her monarch at one stroke. 
The most bereaved of women may be applied to any one sorely 
bereaved. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before Vahweh in 
Gilgal | in fulfilment of the ban. The act is strictly in line with 
the law, Lev. 27**. It is the evident view of the author that Yah- 
weh was pleased with the completion of the 26/9 at his sanctuary. 
It is somewhat remarkable that nothing further is said of the fat- 
lings and lambs which the people had brought. — 34, 35. Samuel 
goes to his home in Ramah, and Saul to his in Gibeah. — And 
Samuel saw Saul no more until the day of his death] the contra- 
diction to 19” is obvious and shows the difference of the sources. 
— For Samuel grieved over Saul | the reason for not seeing him 
is that the grief would be thereby stirred afresh. The last clause 

142 1 SAMUEL 

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

82. [מעדנת‎ must be an accusative expressing the manner in which Agag 
came. This might be confident or defiant or cringing or cowardly. It is im- 
possible to determine which is intended by the Hebrew word. The root 
occurs in one passage (Neh. 9”) as Hithpael, meaning ¢hey lived luxuriously. 
So we might suppose here that Agag came daintily, as one who had fared 
delicately; 68265 (Sym.), pingutssimus L, and amd tpudepias (Aq.) point to this 
meaning, the latter indicating niqyp; so מפנקא‎ @. Aside from the intrinsic 
improbability of a Bedawy chief being a luxurious liver, we must object to this 
that it is a matter of minor importance. As the last clause of the verse shows, 
the mental state of the captive is the important matter. @ therefore has a 
claim on our attention when it gives rpéuwy which might come from # by a 
change of pointing, first suggested by Lagarde (Proph. Chald. p. li) מעדגנית‎ , 
from 1yn, 20 fotter; he came fotteringly would convey the idea of great fear, 
and, as I am inclined to think, would be in accordance with the mind of this 
writer, to whom Samuel was the imposing and even terrible embodiment of 
the divine will. Others by metathesis make the word equivalent to (מענדת‎ 
in fetters (late Hebrew) —so Kimchi, followed by Gratz (Gesch. d. Fuden, I. 
.ק‎ 187). This is favoured by the curious é& 6060ע4‎ 655, which might well 
represent .מָענדות‎ If this meaning be adopted, it will be better to suppose the 
original .בענדת‎ The meaning cheerfully (Ew.) can scarcely be got from the 
word, nor can the reason he gives—‘“‘the ancients held it to be a bad omen 
when the sacrificial victim held back from the altar’? --- 06 verified in Hebrew 
antiquity. The whole clause is lacking in ₪. Schm. combines two of the 
meanings already considered: virum delicatum et, quod concurrere solet, timi- 
dum mortis. Kl. substitutes אחוז‎ for 238 and makes the clause mean held 
in chains,—n\0n-7D 7D [אכן‎ the versions, except 3/, seem to have omitted 
,סר‎ whose resemblance to מר‎ is such that duplication is easy. For אכן‎ 6 
seems to have had .הכן‎ For the rest of the clause mpds 6 @dvatos 65 and 
similarly ₪ and @. We. objects that this makes of that which is peculiar in 
the narrative something quite trivial. But if it was the author’s design to 
impress the lesson of the Aerem and its awful character, he would quite as 
appropriately make Agag lament his fate, as to make him self-confident or 
defiant. The savage courage of Zebah and Zalmunna in meeting death, and 
the arrogant temper of Adonibezek (Jd. 815 17) would not adorn the tale, 
where such a lesson is to be drawn.— 88. ynx] 657 adds viod ,ףג‎ which is 
confirmed by | fidius doloris (Cod. Leg.). As an 738 is found in the time of 
Esau (Gen, 3671: %), and as Amalek is brought into the same genealogy (Gen. 
364. 16), it does not seem impossible for Agag to be addressed as ‘Son of 
Aser,’ and the reading may be original. — [וישסף‎ occurs in this place only. 
The meaning is agreed upon by the versions and the commentaries. Possibly 
we should read you, cf. Jd. 14%, which, however, signifies 20 ¢eav in pieces with 

XV. 35-XVI. 143 

the hands. The change is advocated by Graetz (Gesch. 0. Juden, 1, 188), 
and suggested, with a query, by Dr.— 84. That Samuel’s home is at Ramah 
is in accord with 11.-- 88. That Samuel mourned for Saul is taken up in the 
next chapter, and the statement here prepares the way for that. But the final 
clause ויהוה נחס וגו"‎ does not fit well in this connexion. It is evidently a 
circumstantial clause, and in 16! is entirely in place. Here it must mean 
though Yahweh had rejected him, which may be justified by analogy, but would 
imply blame of Samuel. The connexion is better if it be stricken out. Budde 
begins the next section with it, but this does not seem natural. 


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

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

144 1 SAMUEL 

1. The word of Yahweh comes to Samuel: How long dost thou 
grieve over Saul, when I have rejected him from ruling over Israel? 
The circumstantial clause is quite in place here.— /7/ thy horn 
with oil| as though the particular horn used in anointing Saul 
were to be used again. Possibly the author is influenced by the 
later conception of an anointing horn as part of the sacred fur- 
niture, as Solomon is anointed with the horn of oil taken from 
Yahweh’s tent, 1 K. 1°.— And come, I will send thee to Jesse the 
Bethlehemite| the name Jesse (Yishshai) belongs to this man alone 
in the Old Testament. Its etymology is obscure. Bethlehem, a 
well-known Judahite town five miles south of Jerusalem, still flour- 
ishes under its old name. — J have looked, me out a king | Gen. 22° 
41% 2 K. 10°,—2. Samuel’s objection is put in the form of a 
question: How shall [ go, since Saul will hear of it and kill me ? 
The older commentators are somewhat exercised by Samuel’s 
timidity in the face of a direct divine command, and extenuate it 
on the ground of natural human infirmity (Schm.). The narrator 
was more concerned to account for the privacy of the transaction. 
Hence the subterfuge: Zake in thy hand a calf and say: To sac- 
rifice to Vahweh am I come] the casuistry of the commentators 
attempts to justify Samuel’s reticence, on the ground that he told 
one of the reasons for which he came.—3. And invite Jesse to 
the sacrifice —TI will tell thee what thou shalt do—and anoint 
whom I shall point out to thee. —4. The command is carried out, 
and at Samuel’s approach, 226 elders of the city came trembling to 
meet him| Samuel had the word of Yahweh, and therefore dis- 
posed of life and death: videtur fuisse consternatio orta ex impro- 
viso adventu tanti viri (Schm.). Hence their question: Does thy 
coming betoken good, O Seer? 1 K. 2. As Samuel’s coming could 
hardly bring war, but might bring calamity, the translation peace 
is not appropriate. — 5. Giving a reassuring answer and stating 
the ostensible object of his coming, he adds: 22/7777 yourselves 
and rejoice with me at the sacrifice| which was of course a feast, 
9. The purification required was removal of ceremonial defile- 
ment. Samuel himself prepared (consecrated) Jesse and his sons, 
and invited them to the sacrifice| the ritual observances necessary 
in such case were, of course, best known to a priest-prophet. 
What follows seems to take place at the lustration, and we hear 

XVI. 1-13 145 

no more of the sacrifice. —-6. When they came in order before 
him (as appears from the later verses), he was pleased with the 
eldest, Eliab, and said to himself: Surely in the presence of Yahweh 
is his anointed| 12°. A dialogue went on in the consciousness 
of the prophet. His own choice was moved by personal attrac- 
tions, but Yahweh looked deeper.— 7. Look not at his person or 
the height of his stature| though this had been emphasized (in 
the other document) in the case of Saul.— For 17 have rejected 
him] so far as the particular question now before us is concerned. 
— For not as man sees doth God see| the text is emended after 
©.— For man looks at the appearance, but Vahweh looks at the 
heart | the contrast is between bodily and mental endowments. — 
8, 9./ A similar sentence is passed on Abinadab and Shammah. — 
10. So Jesse made his seven sons pass before Samuel | namely, the 
seven who were in the house, only to discover that Yahweh had 
not chosen these. —11. To Samuel’s inquiry whether all had come, 
Jesse confesses: Zhere is still the youngest, and he ts a shepherd 
with the flock| 17**. Samuel asks that he be sent for: for we 
will not begin the sacrifice until he come hither| the text is not 
altogether certain. —12. Jesse, in accordance with the command, 
sent and brought him: And he was ruddy, a youth of fine eyes 
and goodly appearance| nearly the same description is repeated 
17”. Samuel receives the command to anoint him.—13. So he 
was anointed, and the Spirit of Yahweh came upon David from 
that day onwards| as had been the case with Saul, 10°". David 
has not been mentioned by name until this point. This is prob- 
ably intentional, to heighten the effect. The narrative ends with- 
out further account of the proposed sacrifice, only adding after 
the anointing: Samuel arose and went to Ramah. 

1. [ולך אשלחך‎ generally we find 7b followed either by another imperative, 
or by a finite verb with .ו‎ But cf. לכה נא אקחך‎ Num. 2327; לכה איעצך‎ Num. 
241%. ישי‎ '16000/ is found also in the form אישי‎ (perhaps man of Vahweh).* 
[ראיתי--‎ in this sense in E (passages are cited above). —2. [ושמע‎ the perfect 
with waw consecutive continues the imperfect in any of its senses, so after 
particles which give a contingent sense, Dr., Tenses’, § 115, Davidson, Syntax, 
§ 53 ,ל‎ and the examples there cited, especially 2 S, 121%. The prsga in the 

% But שי‎ seems to be one element 01 the name ,אבישי‎ 266, etc. Hommel com- 
pares I-shai with I-chabod, I-thamar and I-ezer (Altisrael Ueberlicferung, p. 116). 

146 1 SAMUEL 

middle of the verse indicates (as usual) a different mode of verse division, 
[עגלת בקר--‎ Dt. 21% Is. .ל‎ The expression indicates that עגלה‎ might be 
used of the young of other animals (? the camel).—77:2] cf. 14%4.— 
8. nara] is a mistake for לזבח‎ which is used with ויקרא‎ v.° (erroneous antici- 
pation of the nara in the latter verse). —pbx אשר"אמר‎ [ perhaps whom 1 7 
command thee, cf, לקראתו .4--.1611 .5 2 כי אמר לו יהוח‎ . . . mn] the con- 
structio pregnans as often, Jd. 145 15!4 1 5. 21%.--- ויאמר‎ [ might be justified as 
the indefinite ove sazd, but as the elders are a distinct and limited body, it is 
probable that we should read the plural, with the versions and 30 MSS. (DeR.). 
[שלם--‎ read obwn. At the end of the verse @ adds 6 BAéray, that is ,הראה‎ 
which can be construed here only as a vocative. The insertion by a scribe is 
hardly probable, while the omission by one who thought the title not digni- 
fied enough for Samuel is supposable.— 5. התקרשו‎ | the regular term for pre- 
paring oneself for approaching God, Jos. 35.— nara [ובאתם אתי‎ Kal 60000076 
mer’ 600 onuepov @AB: ef state mecum et jocundimini | (Cod. Leg.). As 9 
is entirely commonplace and @48 is more vigorous, I have followed Th., al., 
in adopting the latter. —w1py] is used of Moses when he consecrated the 
priests, Ex. 284! (P), but also when he prepared the people for the special 
presence of God, Ex. 19!* (E); cf. also 1 5. 7!.—6. The names of the three 
sons here mentioned are repeated 17!8, ו"אמר‎ [ the verb is frequently used 
in the sense of saying to oneself, thinking. — 8] 18 strongly asseverative. — 
7. [מראהו‎ all that appears to the [אשר יראה הארס---.676‎ the ellipsis is too 
harsh and we must suppose a fault in the text. We., Dr., Bu. emend, after G, 
to .כאשר יראה האדס יראה אלהים‎ Th. had proposed the same except that he 
retained .אשר‎ He is now followed by Ki., with the translation: God does not 
regard what man regards. ‘This is defensible, but if part 01 65 is taken, the 
presumption is in favour of the 1016. --- לעיניס‎ [ is difficult, because it does not 
occur elsewhere in this sense —though nearly so in Ley. 135 Num. 117 (?) 
cf. Lev. 13° cited by Dr. It must be contrasted with ;ללכב‎ as the latter 
must mean (Yahweh looks) a¢ the inner man (cf. BDB. s.v.) we need an 
expression meaning af che outer man; cis mpdcwmov 65 may be only an attempt 
to render 38, but invites us to substitute ,לפניס‎ for which, however, there is no 
analogy. —8. [אבינרב‎ the same name occurs 7!.—9. [[שמה‎ is apparently the 
same with שבעת כניו .10 ---.13% .5 2 ,שמעה‎ | means Ais seven sons, not seven 
of his sons, which would be differently expressed. It is therefore inaccurate. 
בהר‎ followed by ב‎ seems to be Deuteronomic, Dt. 78 142 185 1 8. 10%.— 
11. [התמו‎ supply לעבור‎ as in Jos. 3!7 411 (JE).— Kw] seems to be lacking 
in 65 and the sense is good without it (Bu.).— [והנה‎ is probably an abbrevi- 
ated spelling of 137, though, as the subject immediately precedes, it is not 
absolutely necessary that the suffix be expressed. —yxxa רעה‎ [ not pasturing 
the flock but acting as shepherd with the flock.—1d1| katak\Oduev GAB; 
ע06ן8/06400‎ GU; discumbemus %. As avdedArois seems to represent 200 in 
Cant. 17? it is not certain that © had a different reading: karaxAlyouar more- 
over does not anywhere render .ישב‎ As סבב‎ is used of going about the altar 
as a part of the sacrificial worship, Samuel may mean we will mot begin the 

XVI. 14-23 147 


Sacrifice until he come. S$ seems to interpret עס"יפת עיניס .18---.אשוּב‎ [ is im- 
possible in spite of ,עסדיפה מראה‎ 174. In both passages we must restore עלם‎ 
20% as was seen by Graetz and, independently of him, by Krenkel, Z4 7W. 
II. p. 309. Kl. proposes ,אדמוני שער‎ ved-hatred.— x7] for ,מראה‎ here only. 
—18. [ותצלה.‎ perhaps chosen with conscious reference to 1019. The accession 
of the spirit in the case of Saul was, however, spasmodic. The idea of the 
author seems to be that with David it was constant.—‘)] so written in 
Samuel and Kings; in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah 717. The meaning 
of the name is unknown. Cf. BDB. s.v.— [ומעלה‎ of time as 30”, 

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

The affliction of Saul is ascribed to an evil spirit from Yahweh 
in v.14, the remainder of the account has she Spirit of God, twice 
with the adjective 02/7 (vv. *( , once in the current text without 
qualification. The difference in the use of the divine name prob- 
ably shows that v. has been modified by the redaction. ‘The rest 
of the paragraph is homogeneous except a slight insertion in v.™. 

It is difficult to discover the exact idea of the Spirit of God in 
the mind of this author. There seems to be no trace of a belief 
in the existence of evil spirits, in our sense of the word, throughout 
the earlier period of Hebrew literature. And if the belief existed, 
the spirits could hardly be called 62/7 spirits of God. In an instruc- 
tive passage of the later history, 1 K. 22”, we find “he Spirit 
offering to be a spirit of deceit in the mouth of the prophets. 
From this we conclude that the Spirit thought of as the agency 
of evil was the same Spirit which stirred up men to good, and 
it is not improbable that the adjective ev is a later insertion 
in the account before us. The author’s conception is certainly 
very different from that of v.” in which the Spirit seems to be 
viewed as the constant endowment of a consecrated person. 

14-23. In 1455 the author remarks that whenever Saul saw a valiant man 
he attached him to himself. This cannot be the conclusion of the history of 
Saul, and there is every probability that it was intended to introduce the history 
of David. The original connexion with the passage before us, however, has 

148 1 SAMUEL 

been obscured, In the body of the paragraph, Saul’s affliction is ascribed to 
.רוח אלהים‎ The original narrative must have used the same term at the first 
mention of the trouble. But we now find in v.14, מאת יהוה‎ Ayan, and as the 
opening part of that verse expressly declares that the Spirit of Yahweh had 
departed from Saul (with evident reference to his coming upon David, v.1®) 
we conclude that +1.ץ‎ has been composed for its present place. ‘The critics 
are not agreed; Ku. (7CO*. p. 384 cf. p. 388) supposes something cut out for 
the insertion of 151-1618, Bu. (2S. p. 214) and Co. (Zin/3, .כ‎ 102) find 1614 
the direct continuation of 1452, Ki. supposes that this is the beginning of a 
new document —a life of David. 

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

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

XVI. 14-23 149 

--17. Saul assents, saying: Look out for me a man who plays 
well and bring him ¢o me| the king puts the qualification in some- 
what higher terms than the courtiers. —18. One of the attendants 
mentions David as the very man for the place—a musician, a 
man of valour, a soldier, judicious in speech, and a man of pres- 
ence, and Yahweh ts with him] the panegyric is the recommenda- 
tion of a friend at court, and must not be taken too literally. But 
it certainly implies that David had already had some experience 
in war, and had attained to man’s estate. No supposition will 
enable us to harmonize this statement with the earlier part of this 
chapter, and with some parts of 17. —19. The result is that Saul 
sends messengers to Jesse, saying: Send me David thy son] that 
he is described as being wth the flock is probably an afterthought 
of a scribe, though it was not by any means derogatory to a grown 
man to take charge of the flocks, as is seen in the cases of Moses 
and Jacob.—20. Obedient to the message, Jesse took ten loaves 
of bread and a skin of wine and a kid | the modest present of a 
farmer to his king, and sent them by the hand of David his son to 
Saul] it was not good form to approach the king without a pres- 
ent.— 21, 22. David was taken -60ם1‎ Saul’s service and Saul 
loved him and he became one of his armour-bearers| the king 
surrounded himself with a body-guard of these squires. With the 
consent of his father, David was thus a permanent member of the 
court. — 23. And when the spirit of God came upon Saul, David 
would take the lyre and play, and Saul would breathe freely, and 
would be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him. 

14. [ובעתתו‎ the perfect with waw consecutive has frequentative force, — 
[רוחהרעה מאת יהוה‎ the spirit is nowhere else described with so much circum- 
spection. In Samuel we find both רוח יהוה‎ (10%) and אלהים‎ mn. ~The MSS. 
vary in 115. In one instance # has רוח יהוה רעה‎ where 65 found .אלהיס‎ The 
tendency of the scribes to substitute אלהים‎ for the more sacred name makes 
it probable that in this case 65 is secondary. Both רוח אלהים רעה‎ and רוח יהוה‎ 
myn seem to me to be ungrammatical, and I suspect that the original was 
simply רוח אלהים‎ throughout this paragraph.—16. יאמר-נא ארננו עבדיך לפניך‎ 
[יבקשו‎ is hardly possible (as is shown by We., Dr., and acknowledged by Bu.) 
though retained by K1., and Ki., with a slight change. @® has eimdtwoay 00 
of 500A0l cov evdmidv cov Kad (nrnodtwaav which should probably be restored. 
% omits after נא‎ v.15 to בצ יאמר-נא אדננו‎ Probably the translators did not 
have 1358, as the omission then becomes a clear case of homeoteleuton, — 

150 1 SAMUEL 

As there is no reason why the expression should‏ .ירע נגן yw] is in v.!8‏ מנגן 
in both cases, and‏ ירע נגן vary in so short a space we should probably read‏ 
cf. Benzinger, Hebr. Archaol. p. 274.—‏ כנור this is’ favoured by @. On the‏ 
the variant 01 65 (Ae shall play on‏ ,19% 181° [נגן 13 — .655% is lacking in‏ [ אלהים 
Is. 23%‏ [מיטיב לנגן his lyre) is the substitution of a more obvious word.—1%.‏ 
pan] discriminating‏ דרבר v.—18.‏ ראיתי לי cf.‏ [ראוהנא לי--.33% Ez. 33°2 Ps.‏ 
Gen. 39%. But in English‏ ,יפה תאר generally we find‏ [ואיש תאר in speech.—‏ 
we also speak of ₪ man of presence instead of ₪ man of good presence.—‏ 
the meaning is that he is prospered in what he undertakes, 10!‏ [ויהוה yoy‏ 
is regarded as a harmonistic insertion‏ [אשר בצאן .19 --.395 Jd. 12; cf. Gen,‏ 
by Bu. and Co. (Zin/®. p. 102). The objection to it is that Saul has nowhere‏ 
is contrary to analogy.‏ [ חמור לחם .20— been told that David is with the flock.‏ 
Bread is always counted in loaves, and we should doubtless (with We., Dr.)‏ 
was first cor-‏ עשרה ,1717 which is found in the parallel,‏ ,עשרה לחם correct to‏ 
which is represented in @48, and then as that was seen to be‏ עמר rupted to‏ 
was substituted. 65" has expanded the text as has 1--‏ חמור absurdly small‏ 
asinum, et imposuit super gomor pants (Cod. Leg.) —and this has been taken‏ 
But this is one of the‏ .חמור וישס עליו משא by Bu. into his text in the form ond‏ 
-א6 [ויעמר לפניו .21— frequent cases in which the longer text is suspicious.‏ 
presses the fact that David became one of the king’s personal attendants,‏ 
רוח עס רוח רעה is corrected in all the versions to‏ [רוח אלהים .23 — .128 K,‏ 1 
I suppose # to be original, as the more difficult reading, and more‏ .אלהים רעה 
Job 32%, where Elihu declares‏ [ורוח לשאול -- .801106 likely to be emended by a‏ 
that he must relieve himself by speech. The word would therefore favour 6’s‏ 
understanding of Saul’s malady as accompanied by fits of suffocation. But cf.‏ 
can doubtless be justified by parallel instances, cf.‏ [ רוח הרעה---,81 Ex.‏ ,רוחה 
Dr., Votes, p. 45 (on 618). But I suspect the whole last clause to be a late‏ 
addition, the sense being complete without it.‏ 

XVII. 1-XVIII. 5. The single combat of David with Goliath. 
— The familiar story need not here be rehearsed. We may pass 
at once to the critical problems which it presents. The first fact 
which claims attention is that a large family of Greek MSS., rep- 
resented by 65% omit considerable sections of the narrative, to 
wit, 17'>*! 41 17°-18°. The critics are still divided on the question 
which recension is original. Wellhausen in his study of the text 
decided for 69, because harmonistic omissions imply a critical in- 
sight which we cannot suppose in the translators. This argument, 
though afterwards given up by We. himself, is still good. The 
universal rule in such cases is that the presumption is against 
the longer text. The argument is strengthened in this case by 
the phenomena observed in chapter 18, where also some sections 


are omitted by 65%. In that chapter it is generally agreed that 
the omission leaves a continuous, and therefore original, text. 
The probability that the same causes have been at work in the 
two contiguous chapters is very strong. In the present chapter, 
the shorter text is perfectly consistent with itself, and the omis- 
sions do not leave any appreciable hiatus. Whether the omitted 
sections also form a continuous narrative, as is claimed by Cornill, 
may, however, be doubted. Yet they have the appearance of parts 
of an independent document which has lost something in being 
fitted into another text. 

We have had two accounts of David in the preceding chapter. 
Our first thought is that the two documents are continued in the 
present story, and that the lines of cleavage are indicated by the 
differences in the text. In fact, the omitted sections show affin- 
ity with 167. In both, David is the shepherd lad, the youngest 
of his father’s sons. The natural sequence of the anointing by 
Samuel, is an exploit which will bring David to the notice of the 
people. More difficulty is encountered in making 171 8240. #24 
continue 16*. In the account of David’s coming to court, he 
is described as already an experienced warrior, while in our 
chapter he is called by Saul @ youth. This objection is not 
perhaps decisive ; Saul might well call a younger man by this 
term, even though he had already reached years of discretion. 
Nor can we say that David’s inexperience in the use of armour 
of proof is altogether inconsistent with what is said in 16%. Even 
an experienced warrior might not be familiar with that sort of 
armament. And again, the use of the sling is not a sign of youth 
or inexperience. The weapon used by the Benjamites who could 
sling at a hair without missing, Jd. 20% and who are evidently 
regarded as a formidable corps, was not a plaything. 

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

152 1 SAMUEL 

jealousy. The author who makes him Saul’s favourite armour- 
bearer in 16, and then makes Saul plot against him in 18, must 
give a motive for the change of mind. He must, at least, make 
David very successful in battle and so arouse the king’s jealousy. 
The fact that Goliath was slain by Elhanan 2 S. 21 would weigh 
somewhat against the present form of this narrative. The natural 
conclusion is that in place of this chapter there was originally (as 
a continuation of 16”) a brief account 01 David’s prowess against 
the Philistines. ‘This was later replaced by the present circum- 
stantial story, which, however, was first circulated without the addi- 
tions which we find in # as compared with 6. 

On the critical questions the reader may consult, besides the usual authori- 
ties, W. R. Smith, 0 77765. pp. 120-124, 431-433; Cornill in the Kdnzigsberger 
Studien, 1. pp. 25-34; and Bonk, De Davide Israelitarum Rege (Disserta- 
tion, 1891), pp. 17-27. All these authors agree that the recension of 66 8 
not arisen by omissions from that of #, but that a different document has 
been inserted in #7. WRS. argues for the original coherence of the narrative 
of 65 with 164%, which I have not brought myself to assert. Yet there is 
nothing to prevent our supposing that there once stood here a brief account 
of David’s exploit which did continue 1614 

1-11. Fresh attack by the Philistines. — The enemy invade 
Judah. The situation is described, the point of importance being 
the presence of a champion who challenges Israel.—1. The 
Philistines gathered their forces for war| a similar opening is 
found 28'.— And gathered at Shocoh| identified as “a strong 
position isolated from the rest of the 11086 " west of Bethlehem, 
still bearing the name Shuweikeh. An invasion of Judah in order 
to attack Saul is hardly probable, and an early author would make 
the Judahites call upon Saul for help. The invading army camped 
between Shocoh and Azekah| mentioned in Jos. 15” in connexion 
with Shocoh. From its name it seems to have been a stronghold, 
cf. Jer. 34". — In Ephes-Dammim] as the situation is sufficiently 
described by the names of Shocoh and Azekah, this redundant 
statement is suspicious. On the conjecture which emends it to 
on the brink of the waters see the critical note. —2. Saul with his 
army camped in the Vadley of Elah] or of the Oak, cf. 21. The 
present name Wady es-Sant¢ resembles the ancient one in that 
Sant is also a tree. — And arrayed the battle to meet the Philis- 

XVII. 1-8 153 

tines] 4° 2S. 10°".— 3. And the Philistines were standing on the 
hill on this side, and Israel was standing on the hill on that side, 
and the valley was between them] this is evidently meant to de- 
scribe the situation at the time of the duel, and favours the 
shorter text, in which David’s attack follows at once upon the 
challenge ; whereas in the section inserted by #% the challenge 
was repeated morning and evening for forty days. —4. And there 
came out from the ranks of the Philistines a champion] this is the 
only word we can use —the Hebrew term is obscure. — Whose 
name was Goliath of Gath| according to 2 5. 21” he belonged toa 
family of giants. His height —szx 00018 and a span — would be 
at the smallest computation about ten English feet. -- 5-7. He 
was formidable not only by his size, but also by reason of his 
armour. ‘The defensive armour is all of bronze—helmet and 
breastplate of scales| like the scales of a fish, plates overlapping 
each other and allowing free movement; whose weight was five 
thousand shekels of bronze| say a hundred and fifty pounds avoir- 
dupois.— And bronze greaves upon his feet| there seems to be no 
doubt of the meaning, though the word for greaves occurs no- 
where else. — And a bronze javelin between his shoulders| the 
text is somewhat doubtful. A javelin was carried between the 
shoulders, at least sometimes, as Bochart shows from Homer 
(citation in Keil and Dr.). But the 7/0/0256 seems to indicate a 
defensive weapon, and some Rabbinical authorities conjectured 
a back plate.—%. And the shaft of his spear was like ₪60 
beam] in size, 2 5. 21% 1 Chr. 11”; and the head of the spear was 
six hundred shekels of iron. The principal object of the descrip- 
tion is to show how impregnable the man seemed to be. Added 
to the enormous weight of his panoply, was his helper and squire 
—and one carrying the shield went before him.—8. ‘The cham- 
pion, having stepped forward from the ranks, stood and cried out 
to the ranks of Israel it was, and is, the Arab custom for the 
warrior to vaunt his own prowess and to satirize his enemies, as a 
challenge to single combat. In this case the challenge is based 
upon the uselessness of a general engagement when the single 
combat would settle the whole matter; Why do you come out to 
form the line of battle? Am notla Philistine, and you servants 
of Saul? 116 offers himself as a sample of his nation. Choose a 

154 1 SAMUEL 

man and let him come down to me! The Israelites standing on 
the slope were above him. —9. The whole issue will be staked 
on the duel— 77 he be able to fight with me and smite me, then we 
will become your servants| and conversely. —10. In conclusion 
the champion renews the challenge: / have taunted the ranks of 
Israel to-day — give me a man that we may fight together| the 
challenge becomes a taunt, when no one is brave enough to 
accept it. It is possible, however, that some abusive language 
has been left out. —11. The only result in the ranks of Israel is 
fear, amounting almost to a panic. ‘That the situation could not 
last forty days is evident. In the original narrative David, already 
a member of Saul’s body-guard, steps forward at once and accepts 
the challenge — v.” is the immediate continuation of this verse. 

1. The verse continues the preceding narrative as well as it joins to any of 
the preceding 86001088. -- מחניהם‎ ‘b [ויאספו‎ cf. פ" את מחניהס‎ apy, 281. The 
second ויאספו‎ is suspicious and may indicate that the text has been made up 
from two documents. — [שוכה‎ 30x40 65. As Eusebius speaks of ‘wo villages, 
upper and lower, it is possible that the plural is original (We. who refers 
to Euseb. Onom. under Sony). Two separate places with this name are 
mentioned in Joshua 15° 48. One of them was near Hebron, the other in the 
Shephela. Probably the latter is intended here. Ruins still bear the name 
Shuwetkeh (Baed., Palestine,? p. 161, GAS., Geog. pp. 202, 227( [באפס רמים---.‎ 
on the reading of certain MSS. of @, Lagarde (Uedersicht, p. 76) restores 
,בספר המים‎ cf. Buhl, Geog. p. 193 note. The overfulness of the text favours 
this, or something like it, and Buhl ( Geag. p. 90) is inclined to adopt it, though 
it seems doubtful whether there was water enough in the wady to justify the 
language. Las-Dammim occurs 1 Chr. 1115 as the scene of a battle fought by 
David and his men. Possibly the text here is conflate. —2. On the Wadi es- 
Sant, Buhl, Geog. .כ‎ 18.—7 x] ¢eredinth or oak, cf. Moore, Judges, p. 121 f. 
with the references there given. — 8. nx p> ,ערך‎ fo draw up the line of battle, 
usually without .מלחמה‎ The language of the account reminds us of the 
description of Michmash מזה)‎ as 14%(.--4. [ממחנות‎ the army has already 
been described as standing in order of battle, and it is plain that we should 
read ממערכת‎ with 65 (Th., We., Dr., K1., Bu., Ki.). Where 667 got its dupli- 
cate translation 66 705ע0ח‎ Tov ₪00 THs 000701605 is not clear, —o 3N-w»N] 
has not been satisfactorily explained. @ has dvyp Suvards, 35 vir spurius. 
The Hebrew is generally interpreted as 726 man of the interspace between two 
armies. But the space between two armies is not ¢wo spaces —except in the 
probably rare case where a watercourse divides it. There is, therefore, no 
reason for the dual. It is doubtful whether Josephus can be cited for this 
interpretation, though he describes Goliath as standing between the two 
armies, Kimchi in this interpretation (cited by Dr, and also by Schm.) 

XVII. 8-11 155 

voices Jewish conjecture. Earlier Jewish tradition is represented by % and a 
fragmentary Targum (cited by Dr. from Lag.) according to which the words 
mean one born of mixed race — the Targum adds that he was the son of Sam- 
son and of Orpah the Moabitess. KI. conjectures ,חמשי‎ heavy 6760. [גלית---‎ 
names of men have the feminine form not infrequently in Arabic. For six 
cubits 65 has four, which hardly makes the giant large enough to carry his 
armour. — 5. [נהשת‎ some alloy of copper. As remarked by We., # is con- 
sistent in making the defensive armour of this material, and the offensive 
of iron.—6. [קשקשות‎ also of the scales of the ‘great dragon’ Ezek. 29!,— 
נחשת‎ [ bronze and tron 65.--- [ומצחת‎ should be pointed as a plural, cynuides 
65 — Th., We., 81. -- [כידון‎ 80/5 65 everywhere except in this chapter translates 
either מגן‎ or .צנה‎ KI. conjectures 42, which, however, is always a bowl or pan. 
Possibly this clause has been interpolated from v.45, — 7. ym] Xz. is doubtless 
to be corrected to ועץ‎ Qré.— [מנור‎ occurs only in the phrase of the text. Cf. 
Moore, Proc. Am. Or. Soc. 1889, p. 179, and /udges, p. 353.— 738] seems to 
have been the large shield, in distinction from the smaller 37. — 8. [[הפלשתי‎ for 
which 65 has aAAdgvados without the article. The latter seems more vivid, as 
though the champion in assumed modesty said: 7 am one of many, make trial 
of me and judge of the rest by the result.—)\n2] is unintelligible. Restore 
בחרו‎ with the versions, cf. 1 K. 185% (Dr. and Weir). —9. The regular hypo- 
thetical sentence beginning with an imperfect and carried on by a perfect with 
waw consecutive, Davidson, Syztax, § 1300.-- 10. [הרפתי‎ can mean only 
7 have insulted or taunted, and must describe what the giant has already done. 
As the preceding verses contain only the challenge to fight, we must suppose 
that the unaccepted challenge was itself an insult, as indeed it was. But there 
may have been some abusive language in the original document which a 
scribe left out as blasphemous. — 11. ויחתו‎ [ a strong word. They were broken 
in spirit, were dismayed, cf. Dt. 191 318 Jos. 19. 

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

The paragraph is lacking in 655 and is marked with an asterisk 
in some MSS. It is inserted in 4 and in 5 but the differences are 
such as to warrant us in saying that the two translations are made 
by different hands. In the case of “ also, the translator does not 
appear to be the one from whom we have the rest of the Book, 

156 1 SAMUEL 

12-16. The household of Jesse is described so far as is neces- 
sary to the present purpose. Jesse himself is too old to go to the 
war, and David is regarded as too young. ‘Three of the sons are 
in the ranks. What has become of the other four is not told. — 
12. And David was son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah 
whose name was Jesse, and who had eight sons. The man was in 
the days of Saul an old man, advanced tn years [ such is apparently 
the intention of the ungrammatical or corrupt Hebrew. The ad- 
jective Zphrathite as applied to inhabitants of Bethlehem is found 
only here and in Ruth 15 --- 18, 14. The three sons, whose names 
are given, had gone after Saul | the tautology of the verses is in- 
tolerable. — David was the youngest | as already told.—15. The 
verse is a plain attempt to harmonize this account with 16%". As 
it stands it can mean only that David’s custom was to go to and 
fro between his home and the court. The improbability is obvi- 
ous, and the contradiction with 16” is not yet removed. — 
16. Another harmonistic verse, intended to give David time to 
reach the camp. As Bethlehem is only a few miles from Shocoh 
the author has been too generous: Zhe Philistine drew near morn- 
ing and evening and took his stand, forty days. 

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

12. mn] if it be grammatical, the word must qualify David: and this 
David, son of an Ephrathite. But even then the sentence does not give a 
clear construction, The word is omitted by %, and was differently read by 
05% — probably these point to an original הוא‎ which would be in place, — 
[בא באנשים‎ is unmeaning. The synonym of זקן‎ is בא בימים‎ which should 
probably be restored here. 080148 seem to point to בא בשנים‎ against which 
nothing can be said, except that it occurs nowhere else. Dr., following Hitzig, 
strikes out בא‎ as erroneous duplication of the two letters which follow. 1 
conjectures באנשי המלחמה‎ xin 01 which there seems to be a hint in ].— 

18. [וילכו . . . הלכו‎ is redundant and impossible. One of the two verbs must 
be stricken out, and the last one is actually omitted by GUS, 

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

XVII. 12-23 157. 

corn is ears of wheat or barley plucked just before they are ripe, 
and roasted or singed in the fire. It is still eaten in Palestine, 
and is especially fitted for provision for travellers or soldiers, cf. 
2 5. 17% The efha is something over a bushel. The army had 
of course no regular commissariat. To this provision were added 
ten of the round flat loaves of the fellahin. — And bring them in 
haste| 2 Chr. 357. -- 18. David was also to take ten cheeses to 
the captain of the thousand, to ask his brothers of their welfare, 
and to take their pledge. What this means is uncertain, and no 
emendation yet suggested improves upon the text. Possibly some 
token had been agreed upon which they should send home in 
place of a letter. —19. Jesse concludes his command by indi- 
cating the locality in which they were to be found. 

17. הזה‎ ond] read ,הלחס הזה‎ the ה‎ has been lost after עשרה‎ (Dr., Bu.).— 
18. [חרצי החלב‎ although not found elsewhere, plainly means cheeses. Nothing 
else made of milk would be appropriate. Ancient tradition, as represented in 
the versions, agrees with this. —ona yp] 866 dv xph(wow (yvdon) 65+ may 
point to צרכתם‎ = ¢hetr need, as was pointed out by Cappellus, Critica Sacra, 
p- 286, whereas ef cum gquibus ordinati sunt 31, would favour .ערכתם‎ But npn 

would agree with neither of these.—19. That the verse is part of Jesse’s 
speech is seen by Schm, and most of the recent commentators. KI. dissents. 

20-25. David's visit to the camp. — Rising early in the morn- 
ing, he left the flock in the hand of the keeper| cf.v.. After his 
journey of about twelve miles, he came /0 the entrenchment just as 
the army was going forth to line of battle and shouting the war- 
cry| lit. shouting in the battle. But the battle was not joined. 
The picture of the two armies going through this parade forty 
days in succession, only to hear the swelling words of Goliath, is 
ludicrous. — 22. On discovering the situation, David put off the 
vessels| bags or baskets, we may suppose, 2/0 the hand of the 
keeper of the baggage, and ran to the ranks] the eagerness of a 
lad to see the battle needs no comment. The boys among 
Mohammed’s followers at Medina wept when they were pro- 
nounced too young to go to war. As he had been commanded, 
he came and asked his brothers of their welfare] cf.v.°.— 23. The 
champion appears * and speaks according to these words] the words 

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

158 1 SAMUEL 

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

20. [שמר‎ is used of a keeper of sheep nowhere else. — וישא‎ [ without the 
object is not common, and one is tempted to correct 60 [המעגלה ---.ויסץ‎ 6 
same word (without the accusative ending) 26097. @A4 has orpoyyiAwors 
here, which means something round or rounded — an entrenchment around 
the camp? The Hebrew word is usually supposed to mean a wagon-barri- 
cade. But we never hear of wagons in Saul’s army, and the hill country in 
which he marched was exceedingly unfavourable to them, — היצא‎ [ by omitting 
the article we get a good circumstantial clause, as was already seen by Tanchum. 
[במלחמה--‎ may have been originally למלחמה‎ (Th.).—21. ותערך‎ [ the femi- 
nine with a collective subject, cf. ,ותהי מואב‎ 2 S. 82. —22. wor] here in the 
sense of putting off from [כלים---.6מס‎ a word of wide signification — the things 
which he had with him.— nw] the guard left with the camp equipage. — 
[ויבא‎ is lacking in 65783). — 28. rasp [והוא‎ cf. Dr., Zenses?, § 166.  תורעממ‎ 
Xz. is evidently a scribe’s error for ממערכות‎ Qré.— 7 oNA כדברים‎ [ the reference 
is to the words given in v.8. The present account, if once an independent 
document, had a similar speech of Goliath either here or as a part of its intro- 
ductory paragraph. — [וישמע דוד‎ should, perhaps, be joined with v.24, in which 
case 8 ו‎ should be prefixed to ,בראותם‎ so 657 understands. — 24. [וינסו . . . מאר‎ 
the two clauses are in the wrong order (logically), and I have therefore re- 
versed them, with 651. But the whole verse accords ill with v.%, and may be 
a late insertion. — 25. [איש ישראל‎ is to be taken collectively. It was not one 
man who was sent out with the offer of reward, but the reward was a matter 
of common fame. —3nx77] Ges.?6 22 s.—nbyn] is lacking in S and super- 
fluous. — [עלה‎ is better pointed in the perfect tense. 

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

XVII. 24-31 159 

David’s estimate of the champion is manifested in a second ques- 
tion: For who ts this uncircumcised Philistine that he has dared 
to insult the soldiers of a living God? ‘The Philistines alone 
among the neighbours of Israel are stigmatized as uncircumcised, 
Jd. 147 15% 1S. 14%. The language of the question is taken from 
v.°. The people reply according to the word just reported. — 
28. His brother Eliab heard the question, and was angry and 
questioned him: Why ts it that thou hast come down? With 
whom hast thou left that morsel of a flock 2 The questions imply 
blame, which is now directly expressed: / know thy self-will and 
the evil of thy heart, for to see the battle hast thou come] the wil- 
fulness of a headstrong boy.—29. The first half of David’s reply 
is plain enough. The second half is more difficult: Was t¢not but 
a word ?[ which is generally accepted, is not satisfactory. David 
did cherish the intention, for which he was rebuked by his brother ; 
and it would be an evasion for him to plead that as yet he had 
done nothing but ask a question. Js 12 not a matter of impor- 
tance ? seems to be what we need, and probably the Hebrew will 
bear that interpretation. — 80, 31. The earnestness of David is 
shown by his refusing to debate the matter with his brother, and 
turning to another quarter, where his inquiries are answered as 
before. His words— evidently those expressing contempt for the 
Philistine champion — were heard and reported to Saul, who “ok 
him to himself. Perhaps we should read and they took him and 
brought him before Saul. 

26. [הלז‎ may have a somewhat contemptuous force. — חרף‎ [ with the force of 
a subjunctive perfect; I have given a free translation. —own אלהום‎ [ Dt. 528, — 
27. כדבר הזה‎ [ is used to avoid repetition. — 28. מעט הצאן ההנה‎ [ the sense is evi- 
dent, though we cannot say in English he fragment of those 5266/. [זרון---‎ is 
the unrestrained impetuousness of a headstrong boy.— 29. הלא רבר הוא‎ [ 4 
it not but a word (from @ through Kimchi to most modern interpreters) 
would require the limitation in Hebrew as well as in English. Was zt not a 
command of my father? which is Luther’s idea, should also be more distinctly 
expressed. Js 7/ not an affair? would certainly be an allowable translation 
for the passage. Vonne res vera istud (Schm.) is substantially the same, and 
hat es denn heinen grund? )141.( shows 8 similar apprehension. KI. refers to 
Am. 618, — 31, [ויקחהו‎ we should expect another expression, either he called 
him, or they brought him before Saul, @™ has: they took him and brought him 
before Saul. 

160 1 SAMUEL 

32-39. David volunteers to meet the Philistine. — The sec- 
tion joins immediately to v.", as any one may convince himself 
by reading them together: Saul and all Israel heard these words 
of the Philistine and were terrified and feared exceedingly. But 
David said to Saul: Let not my Lord’s courage sink within him! 
I will go and fight this Philistine. It is difficult to conceive a 
better connexion. And although the general tenor of the narra- 
tive is against its direct coherence with 16, this particular open- 
ing is quite in harmony with the picture of David there presented. 
— 32. A slight correction of the text is needed, and the transla- 
tion already given is on this basis. — 33. Saul objects that David 
is a youth and he a man of war from his youth. ‘The language is 
not necessarily inconsistent with 16", for to a seasoned warrior 
like Saul, David’s comparative youth is in evidence. Still, it 
hardly seems likely that the author of 16% would have put the 
objection in just this form.— 84. David gives a chapter from his 
experience: Zhy servant was keeping sheep for his father| this 
again is not inconsistent with 16% because the verb allows us to 
date the experience some distance in the past.— And the. lion 
and also the bear would come, and take a sheep from the flock | 
the occurrence was repeated more than once. The two animals 
mentioned are well-known enemies of the flock. —35. In such a 
case, J would go out after him and smite him and deliver it from 
his mouth. ‘The tenses indicate that this also was a repeated 
experience. And if he rose up against me, then I would seize him 
by the chin and smite him and slay him.—86. The application to 
the case in hand: oth fon and bear did thy servant slay, and this 
uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them. The next clause 
is like the conclusion of v.%.—38%. The concluding sentence of 
David’s speech is a profession of faith: Yahweh who delivered me 
Srom the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear will deliver 
me from the hand of this Philistine. The evidence of confidence 
is sufficient to convince Saul, who gives his consent with a prayer 
that Yahweh will be with David. — 38. Saul’s loan of his armour 
is comprehensible, even if David were already an experienced 
soldier ; for the occasion was no common one, and the king had, 
of course, the best armour. — He clothed David with his garments] 
is the author playing upon David’s coming elevation to the throne? 

XVII. 32-39 161 

Besides the helmet of bronze 31( has a coat of mail, which is not 
confirmed by 6*.—89. David girded his sword over the coat] 
his own sword is the natural meaning, so that in the opinion of 
the author he was already a warrior. Thus armed he made a vain 
attempt to walk, for he had not proved them] that is, these equip- 
ments. In contrast with the heavy-armed Philistine, his strength 
lay in ease and rapidity of movement. The armour was, therefore, 
given up. 

32. 058] G renders ,אדני‎ which is appropriate, especially when we remember 
that David is in Saul’s service (Th., We., al.).— wy] refers to Saul himself, 
ef. Jer. 818. It is difficult to find any other English rendering than 27/7772 him, 
though the conception is, doubtless, that the heart weighs «oz the discour- 
aged man. — 34, [היה‎ might be used if David had just come from the flock, 
but it more naturally applies to a state which he has quitted some time in 
the past.— [ובא‎ must be frequentative. — ואת-הדוב‎ [ is impossible. הדוב‎ 4X), 
suggested by Graetz ( Gesch. d. Juden, I. p. 197) on the ground of G, is appro- 
priate, and probably original. It may indicate that the Syrian bear was a 
more formidable enemy than the Syrian lion—even the bear. mm, found in 
some editions, is only a modern error for .שה‎ — 35. The tenses continue those 
in the preceding verse, except 0p)», which is supposed by Davidson, Syntax, 
54, R. 1, to be chosen to express a vigorous supposition. In fact, a break in 
the consecution is needed because we can hardly suppose that the animal 
always stood against him.—36. [גם-הרוב‎ must be made גם אתההדרב‎ to be 
grammatical.—onp] 65 adds: Shall 1 not go and smite him and remove 
reproach to-day from Israel? For who ts this uncircumcised [that he should 
taunt the ranks of a living God]? The whole is modelled after .לט‎ Possibly 
this verse originally ended with onp.— 37a. [ויאמר רוד‎ superfluous, to our 
notion, but quite in accordance with Hebrew usage, which thus introduces 
concluding sentences of speeches. It is, therefore, original, though omitted 
by 655 (retained by We., Dr., Bu., Ki.). The break in the sense is indicated 
by the space in the middle of the verse. In fact, a new paragraph begins with 
the second half verse. 88. [מדיו‎ a plural in form, but as a singular מדו‎ is 
attested by 2 S. 10% it is possible that this is intended here; so 65 
The garment intended is worn by warriors or officials, Jd. 315 (Ehud), 2 S. 10% 
(David’s ambassadors), 1 S. 184 (Jonathan), 2 5. 20% (Joab). KL, therefore, 
supposes that it was a coat of defence (made of leather?); the pavdvas 65 was 
of sheepskin. But this is not certain, There seems no way of interpreting 
the language except to suppose that the author makes Saul recognize David’s 
superior worth, and virtually abdicate to him by clothing him in the kingly 
garment. A later paragraph has the same idea when it makes Jonathan 
exchange garments with David, thus figuratively putting him in his place. — 
[ונתי‎ is the wrong tense, and is omitted by 65%. KI. supposes the original to 
have been קובע — .119 יונתן‎ [ is written כובע‎ elsewhere, and by a number of MSS. 


162 1 SAMUEL 

is so given here. — [וילבש אתו שריון‎ found in 19 is omitted by 65%, and is prob- 
ably a late interpolation. — 89. [ויאל ללכת‎ is impossible. éxomfacev GB ren- 
ders xb», cf. Gen. 191, they wearied themselves to find the door, that is, they tried 
unsuccessfully to find it. The emendation is suggested by Schleusner, Vovms 
Thesaurus (1820), and independently of him by several others (Dr., /Vo/es). 
With this meaning of the verb, 65 15 consistent in adding Graf nal dfs. How 
@™ came to éydéAave does not appear.— [ויסרם רוד‎ should probably be read 
ויסרוכ‎ with @8, for David had been clothed by others, who would also take 
the garments off )657 omits David’s name, though it has the verb in the 

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

40. David took his club in his hand] avery ancient weapon, 
and still effective among the Bedawin. One of David’s soldiers 
used it successfully against an Egyptian champion, 2 S. 237. — 
And chose five smooth stones from the bed of the stream and put 
them in his scrip| the word is probably a technical term for the 
slinger’s box or bag, in which he carried his ammunition. — And 
[took] Azs sing] a well-known and formidable weapon, Jd. 20". 
— 41. The verse is lacking in 69 ; and as it breaks the connexion, 
we may disregard it.—42. The Philistine looked and saw David 
and despised him, because he was a youth| the rest of the descrip- 
tion is identical with that given in 16”.— 48, 44. The Philis- 
tine’s contempt and self-confidence: Am J a dog, that thou comest 
against me with a club 2[ that he adds imprecations éy Ais gods is 
only what we expect. With the threat to give David’s flesh # the 
birds of heaven and to the beasts of the field, cf. Dt. 28% Is. 18° 
Jer. 15°.— 45-47. David’s reply begins with an allusion to the 
Philistine’s superiority in arms, as compared with the club to 
which he has made scornful allusion. Yet as contrasted with the 
sword and spear and javelin, David feels himself armed wth the 
name of Yahweh Sebaoth, God of the ranks of Israel which thou 
hast insulted this day| the Massoretic division of verses is wrong, 
and the words his day belong here. David’s confidence overtops 
that of the Philistine: And Yahweh will deliver thee into my hand 

XVII. 40-54 163 

and I will cut off thy head, and will give thy carcase and the car- 
cases of the camp of the Philistines to the birds of heaven and to 
the beasts of the earth] the boast of the giant is thrown back at 
him. The result: 007 the earth shall know that Israelhas a God | 
something of which the heathen are not yet convinced. The 
immediate lesson to those present is indicated: al this congrega- 
tion shall know, that not by sword and spear doth Vahweh save, 
Jor the battle is Yahweh's] to dispose of according to his own 
sovereign will.— 48-49. There are indications that one of the 
accounts here made the battle somewhat prolonged, David ad- 
vancing and retreating according as the giant moved about in the 
field. In the recension of 65, however, the intention is to let 
David finish the duel by a single blow, and this is consistently 
carried out in what follows. Read therefore: And the Philistine 
rose and came to meet David | joining immediately to what fol- 
lows: And David put his hand into the bag and took thence a stone 
and slang it | every movement is of importance to the historian 
in a time like this — and smote the Philistine in the forehead| 5 
paraphrases by saying defween the eyes. The force of the blow is 
seen in the fact that “he stone sank into his forehead | so that, 
stunned, he fell on his face to the earth. — 650. The verse is lack- 
ing in 65%, and breaks the connexion. — 51. And David ran and 
stood over the Philistine and took his sword and killed him] in 
this, which is the original form of one text, it was David’s sword 
which he used, and this agrees with the mention of his sword 
above, לט‎ With the cutting off of their champion’s head, the 
Philistines realized the situation and fled. —52. Zhe men of Lsrael © 
and Judah rose and raised the war-cry| the mention of Israel and 
Judah separately has some colour here, because the battle was on 
Judahite territory. The pursuit extended 0 the entrance of Gath] 
so is to be read, and to the gates of Ekron]| so that the corpses 
were strewed all the way from Sharaim] in the vicinity of the 
battlefield 4 Gath and to Ekron. — 58. The pursuit was followed 
by plundering the camp of the enemy.— 54. The conclusion of 
the account is evidently unhistorical. 

40-54. The account is overfull, and is apparently the result of conflation. 

The omissions of 65 show this, but are not as complete 8 guide to the original 
documents as in the early part of the chapter. —40. [מקלו‎ in 2 5. 23?! the 

164 1 SAMUEL 

weapon is called paw. The oxgoad of Shamgar was essentially the same 
weapon, בכלי הרעים אשרלו--‎ [ is evidently a gloss intended to explain wp, a 
word which occurs nowhere else (We., 120.( [ובילקוט---.‎ he would not have 
distributed the stones in two receptacles. The 1 is therefore certainly wrong 
(omitted by SG"). Omission of the preceding clause makes the sense clear. 
It should be remarked however that 65 seems to have read אשר לו לילקוט‎ = 
(the shepherd’s bag) which he had for a yalkut (cartridge box).— 13 [וקלעו‎ 
goes back to the verb at the beginning of the verse. I suspect that the earliest 
text had only .ויקח דוד את מקלו וקלעו בידו‎ ---41. The whole verse is lacking in 
655, the last clause lacking in G48. It reads in 9): and the Philistine kept 
coming nearer to David, and the man bearing the shield was before him. It 
is at least too early in the narrative, for the mention of the man with the shield 
is appropriate only when David is about to sling the stone. It emphasizes the 
difficulty he had in his attack. Probably the verse is a fragment of the same 
document, which is omitted by @ elsewhere. — 42. [וארמני עס"יפה מראה‎ is 
borrowed from the description in 16!%, even to the textual error of oy for .עלם‎ 
That David was ₪ youdh is sufficient reason for the Philistine’s contempt, the 
rest is superfluous. — 48, 44 are duplicates. One of the two speeches is suffi- 
cient to introduce David’s reply, and this is apparently v.48. In the feeling 
that David should reply to both, 655 or its original inserted at the end of 4%, 
kal ש6ח)6‎ Aavld 006, GAN ® xelpw kuvds. אלי--‎ [ takes the place of .עלי‎ The 
plural במקלות‎ is out of place; read בהמת השרה---.במקלת‎ [ is more commonly 
,ב" הארץ‎ which 21 MSS. (DeR.) have here, but cf. Joel 12°, — 46. mn [היום‎ 8 
connected with the preceding by 653, and this involves the reading וסגרך‎ for 
.יסגרך‎ This is obviously correct (Th.), though rejected by We., Bu. That 
the fate of Goliath will be decided 2/2 day is plain without the express state- 
ment, both texts moreover have היום הזה‎ later in the verse.—7inp [פגר‎ is 
defensible, taking פגר‎ collectively. But with @ we should probably read פגרך‎ 
,ופגרי מחנה‎ so Th., We., Bu. — הארץ‎ nn] instead of the בהמת השדה‎ of v.44,— 
[וידעו‎ as pointed, must give the purpose of the victory: 2207 all the earth may 
know. It would be possible, however, to point yp), in which case the verb 
would simply carry on the narrative, cf. Ex. 14418 (P) Is. 49%. [לישראל--‎ 
65/51 seem to have read .47--.בישראל‎ bapa] is a late word, cf. Jd. 202, — 
ליהוה המלחמה‎ [ seems not to occur elsewhere. --48. [והיה כידקם‎ would seem 
to intimate that as often as the giant endeavoured to come to close quarters, 
David gave back, at the same time plying him with stones from the sling. An 
indication of the same view is seen in the המערכה‎ near the end of the verse, 
for this would naturally mean the ranks of Israel. The whole second half of 
the verse from וימהר‎ is lacking in @8, which also reads at the beginning kad 
avéorn. The shorter form thus presented is consistent with what follows, and 
I have adopted it.—49. [אבן‎ is expanded into אבן אחת‎ by Bu., following 651 
but this seems unnecessary. —yaNn [ותטבע‎ 65 adds 806 rhs kepadalas, which is 
favoured by We, and adopted by Bu. It seems doubtful whether one could 
say that the stone 5077 through the helmet, while it is entirely proper to say 
that it sak into the forehead. —50. The verse is evidently the concluding 

XVII. 55 165 

remark of one of the documents. So David was stronger than the Philistine 
with the sling and with the stone, and smote the Philistine and slew him, though 
there was no sword in the hand of David | the last clause is not an introduc- 
tion to what follows (Th.), but emphasizes the simplicity of the shepherd boy’s 
armament. Like the rest of this document, it 18 lacking in 650. -- 51. וושלפה‎ 
[מתערה‎ is lacking in @8, and evidently a redactional insertion intended to 
bring the verse into harmony with the preceding. — 52. את-הפלשתים‎ démlow 
avr@v 655, either form may be an afterthought, as the sense is good without 
either. — [עד-בואך גיא‎ as the name of a town is expected we should read 
ער בואך גת‎ with the original of G84. — [עקרון‎ is doubtless correct as compared 
with Askalon 01 65. -- [שערים‎ is evidently intended to be a proper name; and 
a town of this name is mentioned (Jos. 15°) in immediate connexion with 
Shocoh and Azekah, therefore probably to be found in the vicinity of the 
battlefield, In order to make sense we must emend (with K1.) to (מררך שערים‎ 
or better משערים‎ 3372, —that the wounded fell 0/1 the way from the battlefield 
to the two cities is information which is quite in place. The conjecture of 
We., adopted by Bu., which reads ררך השעריס‎ (with 65( , and understands by it 
the roadway in the gates of the two cities, falls to the ground on considering 
sy), which follows. The wounded might fall in the gateway a¢ the cities, but 
not 0 the cities. — 58. מדלק‎ [ the verb is found with אחרי‎ also, Gen. 3186 (E). — 
54. ירושלים‎ [ is so evidently out of place here that we are forced to consider 
the clause an insertion of a late editor, in which case we shall regard the 
whole verse with suspicion. The mention of David’s tent, however, is per- 
fectly in accord with the narrative, 101+-5 which makes him a member of 
Saul’s staff. 

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

The most ingenious harmonists have not succeeded in reconcil- 
ing this paragraph with 16%”. As it is lacking in the original 
form of 65, it must be judged like vv.” above. 

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

166 1 SAMUEL 

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

XVIII. 1. When David had finished speaking with Saul, 6 
soul of Jonathan was bound up with the soul of David [ cf. Gen. 
44” (J). The manifestation of Jonathan’s love is seen in the 
covenant, v.°. 2. Saul takes David into his service, and did not 
allow him to return to his father’s house| the parallel is 16”.— 
3. And Jonathan made a covenant with David in the following 
Jonathan alone acts, and hence the slight conjectural change here 
adopted is desirable. The covenant between the two is also de- 
scribed (23°), where Jonathan recognizes David as the future king, 
and stipulates that himself shall be prime minister. A covenant 
of brotherhood was made by Mohammed between 1166 
and the He/pers. Each Meccan was made brother to a Medinan, 
and the bond was regarded as closer than blood brotherhood. 
Something of the kind is intended here. —4. In making the cove- 
nant, Jonathan s¢vipped himself of the cloak which he had on] the 
garment mentioned is one worn by the well-to-do ; and gave it to 
David, and his accoutrements also, including his sword and his 
bow and his girdle| the simple shepherd lad is thus fitted to shine 
at court. — 5. Saul gave David a command in the army, in which 
he showed good capacity — such is the order of the clauses in 6. 
So far from the promotion being offensive to the older soldiers, 
at pleased all the people and also the servants of Saul his court 
officials. ‘There seems no reason to dissociate this verse from the 
rest of the paragraph, as is done by Bu. The first clause 01 8 
transitional, as is shown by its being lacking in 65%. The redactor, 
by this clause, returns from the digression concerning David’s pro- 
motion to the main stream of the history. 

XVII. 55-XVIII. 5. The paragraph is facking in @Bete, The attempts to 
harmonize the accounts are numerous, Schmid supposes that 161423 belongs 

XVII. 55-XVIII. 5 167 

chronologically after this. But consideration of that account shows that 
David was there unknown to Saul, which could not have been the case after 
the conflict with Goliath.—55. [וכראות‎ cf. וכשוב‎ at the opening of y.57,— 
בן-מיהזה‎ [ onthe force of זה‎ in such a question, cf. BDB. s.v. (4). — [חיהנפשך‎ 
by the life of thy soul, cf. המלך---20%‎ [ is the vocative with the article—a 
common construction, — ox] after oaths, is negative. —57. [וראש הפלשתי בידו‎ 
a circumstantial clause.— XVIII. 1. There seems to be some confusion in 
this and the following verse. That Sau/ took him seems to belong with ףצ‎ 
and y.? interrupts the account of Jonathan’s friendship, begun in v.!. The 
form of the sentence, 17... ,ונפש‎ also makes a difficulty. As it stands, it 
would naturally mean: When David ceased speaking (since Jonathan’s soul 
was bound up in the soul of David ), then Jonathan loved him. This, of course, 
is impossible. There is reason to suspect, therefore, that the parenthetical 
clause is an interpolation; and the explicitness of the last clause is an argu- 
ment in the same direction. —1298»)] is probably a mistake for ,ויאהבהו‎ the 
regular form, which is substituted by the Q7é.— 3. | ודוד‎ [ is objected to by We., 
and omitted by Ki. (in Kautzsch). Bu., in his text, changes to ,לדור‎ which 
relieves the difficulty. The received text may be due to the tendency to make 
David prominent, which manifests itself in 651, where we find David the king. 
It should be noted, however, that 4 כרת ברית‎ usually means Zo prescribe terms 
as a conqueror does to the conquered, Jd. 22 Dt. 72.1 5. 111, On the meaning 
of the word כרית‎ cf. Moore on Jud. 2” and reff.—4. את-המעיל‎ [ is what would 
be the second accusative in an active form of the verb, cf. Dav., Syntax, 74 6. 
[ומדיו--‎ secms to include the weapons which follow. The 27/7006 is much es- 
teemed among the Orientals.—5. The order of the clauses adopted above 
from @ seems the only natural one. It is possible, however, that there has 
been corruption or interpolation of the verse. KI. proposes to read: And 
David came out, clothed with all that he [Jonathan] had put upon him, and 
brought him back to the men of war, and it pleased all the people and the ser- 
vants of Saul. Something like this may have been the original text, showing 
how fully Jonathan adopted the young warrior. —5»5v%] is justified by Dr., 
Notes, but ,וישכיל‎ suggested by We., certainly makes better sense. After ויצא‎ 
we need to be told whither David went. The theory of Bu. (7S. 219), that 
this verse (as it stands in 3) belongs with 16”, seems to be refuted by the 
fact that there is no reason for Dayid’s promotion, unless it be some feat of 
arms. That he successfully played the harp would be an argument in favour 
of keeping him in the vicinity of the king, instead of giving him a command 
in the field. The verse seems therefore to belong in its present environment. 

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

168 1 SAMUEL 

increases also Saul’s fear. Michal, the younger daughter of Saul, 
falls in love with David, and Saul makes this an occasion for expos- 
ing David to new dangers. David’s success adds to the king’s 
dislike, which now becomes a settled hatred. ‘This is the main 
stream of the narrative, which is preserved to us in the text of 6. 
It is interrupted in % by inconsistent insertions. One of these 
(vv.°”) tells of Saul’s attempt to murder David. Another (vv.7) 
gives the account of an unfulfilled promise of Saul to give his older 
daughter to David. Leaving these out, we find a consistent and 
well-planned story, of whose unity there can be no doubt. It 
belongs with 164%. The 2/5 of consists, in all probability, 
of fragments of another document, though their coherence is not 
so marked as in the case of the sections omitted by 65 in the pre- 
ceding chapter and the early part of this. As already pointed 
out, the consistency of the text of 69 here is an argument for the 
originality of the same text in 17. 

6-30. On the critical questions there is considerable disagreement. We. 
(7BS.) remarks on the consistency of the text of 68. Bu., in his text, assigns 
1219 to E, the rest of the chapter (except minute fragments) to J. I agree 
that the main narrative is connected with 101*%( But I cannot account’ for 

the text of GB, except by supposing that it represents one document and that 
the omissions represent another. 

6-16. The original narrative seems to have consisted of 9* * 
1.1536 for this is all that is represented in one recension — that 
of 65%. The interpolated section tells of Saul’s attempt to transfix 
David with the javelin, an outbreak which comes too early here. 
A similar attempt is related farther on in the narrative. 

6. The first part of the verse has already been remarked upon. 
The paragraph originally began: And the dancing women came 
out from all the cities of Judah | this would appropriately continue 
the account of the death of Goliath or any similar story.— Za 
meet Saul the king| the prominence which David has in the history 
leads 055 to read: # meet David. The women of the Bedawin 
still dance out with singing to meet the warriors returning from a 
foray.* — With timbrels and with rejoicing and with cymbals] the 
zeugma is awkward, and possibly the second word is corrupt. 

* Doughty, Zravels in Arabia Deserta, 1. p. 452. 

XVIII. 6-15 : 169 

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

Saul slew his thousands, 
And David his myriads. 

—8. The incident was unpleasant to Saul] as we can well under- 
stand: Zo David they give the myriads and to me the thousands. 
—9. The result: Saul kept his eye on David from that day on- 
ward | in suspicion and dislike. 

[The interpolation vv.'*" is a duplicate of 19% and is here cer- 
tainly out of place. It tells that on che morrow the evil spirit of 
God came upon Saul and he played the prophet within the house 
while David was playing as was his custom. And Saul had the 
spear in his hand, and he raised the spear, saying to himself: I 
will smite it through David into the wall. But David moved away 
Srom before him thrice. Saul’s murderous impulse manifested itself 
in a similar attempt at a later stage of the history. There it is in 
place, because he had exhausted his indirect means of getting 
David out of the way. ] 

12,13. Originally the verses read: And Saul feared David 
and removed him from being near him, and made him captain of a 
thousand; and he went out and came in at the head of the soldiers | 
the meaning is obvious, and the connexion is good in itself, as 
well as with v.’. Saul’s suspicion grew into fear, and he would no 
longer trust David in personal attendance (as armour-bearer, 16”) 
on himself. But, not wishing to insult the people’s favourite, he 
gave him a post of honour which was also one of danger, keeping 
him on service in the field. The connexion is broken in the 
received text by the insertion of the loss of the Spirit (so we must 
interpret ”?) as a motive for Saul’s fear; such a motive is here 
incongruous and unnecessary.—14. The result of the move was 
only to bring out David’s virtues more conspicuously. — 72 all his 
ways David showed wisdom, and Yahweh was with him] to pros- 
per him; compare the case of Joseph, Gen. 39’.—15. On per- 
ceiving this, Saul’s fear was heightened — he stood in dread of him. 

170 1 SAMUEL 

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

6. [בשוב . . . הפלשתי‎ is coloured by Bu. as belonging to a different document 
from ויהי בבואם‎ In fact, one of the two verbs is superfluous. It would be 
equally easy to suppose בבואםס‎ the insertion of a scribe. The text of 8 
adopted above seems entirely to meet the necessities of the [הנשיס---.0886‎ 
ai xopevouom &— possibly combining הנשים‎ with mibnnm, which comes later. 
But a change from המחללות‎ is explicable, in case of a scribe who thought that 
word applicable to professional dancing women, and who wished to avoid 
making them the subject here, cf. Jd. 219%, -- [לשור‎ (or לשיר‎ Qré)-seems not 
represented in 659. — [[ובשמחה‎ the collocation seems awkward to us. We. cites 
1 Chr. 138 as parallel; but the parallel is not exact. The שליש‎ is mentioned 
nowhere else. —7%. המשחקות‎ [ is lacking in 655, הכה ב'--‎ [ is generally 8 6 
among, 619 Num, 33'. The only exceptions that I find are this verse and the 
citations of it in 2112 באלפיו---.20%‎ [ should be read, with the Q7é.—8. ויחר‎ 
[לשאול מאד וירע בעינין‎ is, doubtless, expanded from the simpler text, which is 
represented in 6 בעיני שאול‎ yr.  תובכר‎ should doubtless be הרבבות‎ 6, to 
correspond with האלפים‎ (We., Bu.). -- [ועור לו אך המלוכה‎ is lacking in 685. — 
9. wy] to be read yy, with the Qrvé. The verb occurs here only. Being a 
denominative, the form is probably intended to be a Poel participle (so Dr.), 
for .מעוין‎ There are a few examples of such shortened forms.—10, 11. The 
verses are lacking in the same MSS. of 65, which are without 17/281, They 
contain another version of 19%", ‘There Saul’s attempt is continued, even after 
David has once escaped. Here the attempt has no noticeable consequences, 
and everything goes on as if it had not been made.— ממחרת‎ [ must refer to 
the day after the triumphal entry. But this was too early for Saul’s jealousy 
to have reached such a height, and David certainly would not have entertained 
thoughts of becoming the king’s son-in-law after such an exhibition of hatred. 
-- [ויתנבא‎ the verb in this form ordinarily means 0 prophesy. The man pos- 
sessed by the evil spirit acts in the same way as the man possessed by the 
good spirit — videtur spiritum hunc malum imitatum esse, ut simiam, Spiritum 
Sanctum, et ex Saule ineptum prophetam fecisse, Schm. p. 621.--- [והחנית‎ 
lance which was the insignium of the chieftain, as is still the case with the 
Arabs. —11. ויטל‎ [ is pointed as though from ,טול‎ which occurs in 2038, with 
the meaning 70 hur/. But here the spear seems not to have been actually 
hurled, and we should probably point 5a») from ,נטל‎ he lifted up — GAT, 
Th., al. —73x] is perhaps to be pointed האכה‎ with ©.—12. GB has only the 
first clause of the verse, and, as in the other cases, represents the original text. 
The other clause — because Vahweh was with him while he had departed 
Jrom Saul—is an insertion on the basis of the verse 161% which is itself an 
editorial construction. Yahweh and the spirit of Vahweh are interchangeable, 
Jd. 169. - 14. $35] read בכל‎ with thé versions (Th.), and read also ררכיו‎ with 
the Qré, 

XVIII. 16-19 וו‎ 

17-19. David and 116280. — Saul offers his older daughter, 
Merab, to David in marriage, on the vague condition that he be 
courageous and fight the enemies of Yahweh. ‘The king was 
really moved in this by the hope that David would fall in battle. 
When this did not prove to be the event, he unscrupulously broke 
his word-and gave his daughter to another. 

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

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

172 1 SAMUEL 

17-19. Budde and Kittel make the paragraph a part of the same document 
which immediately precedes. It seems to me that v.?? continues v.!®, The 
contrast between Saul’s fear of David and the people’s love of him (y.!*) 
is heightened by the fact that even Saul’s daughter loved him ),9( .-- 
17. ,ן הגדולה‎ like. Leah, Gen. 2916, for which we find הבכירה‎ 1 S. 144%. Merab 
is mentioned only in this passage, and in 14%* in #). She is put in place of 
Michal (perhaps correctly) by 657 in 2 5. 21%,-- [אמר--,'2 .5 2 1452 [לבן-חיל‎ 
said 20 himself, as not infrequently. — 18. [ומי חיי משפחת אבי‎ the Zayy עס‎ Arab 
kindred group “was a political and social unity, so far as there was any unity 
in that very loosely organized state of society.” The חי‎ was therefore the same 
as the ,משפחה‎ and @ has only one of the two words here. We. and others 
suppose the original to have been ,חיר‎ which was afterwards explained by the 
insertion of ,משפחת אבי‎ and then misunderstood by the punctuators. I prefer 
to read ומי חי אבי‎ with 651. The mention of one’s fa/her in such a connexion 
is natural, especially to an oriental. —19. nn-nya] a time seems to have been 
set, Schm. 622. עדריאל‎ is an Aramaic equivalent of ,עזריאל‎ Jer. 367, — God 
is my help seems to be the meaning of the word (Nestle, dm. Jour. Sem. 
Lang. XII, .כ‎ 173). In 258. 218 this Adriel is called Son of Barzillat.— 
המחלתי‎ [ a native of Abel Meholah, a place in the Jordan valley, cf. Jd. 722 with 
Moore’s note. 

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

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


20. Michal loved David, and when they told Saul, she matter 
was right in his eyes| 2 ₪. 174.21. The reason was that he 
thought to make use of her as @ snare, or, more properly, as 0 
bait, to lure him on to his destruction, so that 06 hand of the 
Philistine should be upon him] as above, v.".. The remainder of 
the verse is an interpolation. — 22. It would be unbecoming in 

XVIII. 20-30 172 

the king to make advances. He therefore commands his servants : 
Speak to David privately] after giving a favourable account of 
David’s standing with the people, they were to advise: now de- 
come son-in-law to the king| the verb is used elsewhere of ¢n/er- 
marrying with families or tribes, Dt. 7°3.—28. David objects his 
lack of the qualifications: Js 7¢ an easy thing, in your estimation, 
to become son-in-law to the king when I am poor and of no reputa- 
tion ? cf. v.8,— 24, 25. When the reply was reported to Saul, he 
instructed his courtiers to meet the material objection, which was 
that David was too poor to pay the usual price for a king’s daugh- 
ter: Zhe king has no desire for a price | the word is regularly used 
of the price paid by a man for a wife. Our word dowry conveys a 
wrong impression. Marriage by purchase can be traced in many 
regions. For example, coemptio seems to have been one method 
of marriage among the Romans. Old Testament examples are 
familiar, as Jacob, who paid the price in service. A sum of money 
is supposed to be given in the Book of the Covenant, Ex. 22”. 
But the king’s desire is for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. 
If the Philistines alone were uncircumcised among the inhabitants 
of Palestine, the kind of trophy chosen is explicable. The osten- 
sible object was: 0 de avenged on the king’s enemies; the real 
purpose was 20 cause David to fall by the hand of the Philistines. 
— 26, 27. The proposition was acceptable to David, who 7056 and 
went, he and his men, and smote among the Philistines a hundred 
men | which the received text has made two hundred ; and brought 
their foreskins and paid them in full to the king in order to become 
son-in-law to the king. The king had, therefore, no pretext for 
further delay, and gave him Michal, his daughter, to wife. The 
original continuation of this verse seems to be 19". What follows 
here is an account of the mental, or moral, state of Saul, with a 
renewed panegyric of David.—28. And Saul saw that Yahweh 
was with David, and that all Israel loved him] the double favour 
(of Yahweh and of the people) increased Saul’s dread. Vere 
are lacking in @®. See the critical note. —29. The climax of 
the chapter is here reached — So Saul feared David yet more. — 
30. A panegyric of David, such as we have had to superfluity. It 
simply says that as often as the Philistines made their incursions 
David acted wisely above all the servants of Saul, and his name 

174 1 SAMUEL 

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

20. [מיכל‎ the name appears as MeAxdA in 65 and as מלכיאל‎ in ₪. It is 
possible therefore that the form is contracted (or mutilated) from ,מלכאל‎ 
Olshausen (Gr. § 277 f.) supposed it to be another form of 5x27. — 21. [למוקש‎ 
Ex. 107. The second half of the verse is an evident interpolation and is lack- 
ing in @Bal, It breaks the sense, for Saul would not first make the proposition 
to David and afterwards insinuate it by his servants. As it stands, the sentence 
can only be an attempt to harmonize this narrative with the account of Merab. 
But what the editor meant by it is difficult to discover. The important word is 
,בשתים‎ which can only mean o7 ¢wo conditions (shalt thou be my son-in-law), 
Pseudo-Hier Questiones. But what the two conditions are is not told, and this 
moreover would not harmonize the two accounts. We should expect something 
like the Jewish interpretation dy ¢wo (so @4) 7z.e., by a double tie, or dy one 
of the two (so ©). But the former would be ironical, and the latter leaves the 
main word unexpressed. We are forced therefore to leave the problem un- 
solved. KI. supposes בשנתים‎ = zn two years, but this does not help the real 
difficulty. 65 has ע6‎ rats Suvdueoww (22 virtute 1), which probably represents 
only a conjecture. — 22. בלט‎ [ of what is done stealthily, [התחתן---.24%‎ one is 
tempted to translate propose yourself as son-in-law, which the form would 
certainly bear. But this could not be carried through the passage, cf. v.27, — 
[במלך‎ probably shows the real force to be ally yourself by marriage with the 
king. — 23. 19p3] is the exact opposite of 7293, Is. 3°.—25. 7703] cf. Schm. 
p. 623; on Arab customs WRS. A7zship, p. 78. Greek examples are cited by 
Driver and Nestle (A/arginalien, p. 14, citing //. 9, 141 ff. 283 ff.). [כי--‎ some 
good Hebrew MSS. have ox כי‎ in the text —and this is the reading of the 
Babylonian school (Cappellus, Critica Sacra, p. 190; Baer, p. 118( . -- [ערלות‎ 
We. refers to Dillmann, Zev. 22/2/00. s.v. Josephus gives six hundred heads 
as the price, in order not to offend the taste of his Gentile readers. — 26. ולא‎ 
מלאו הימים‎ [ is lacking in @8, inserted in 65% after the first word of the next 
verse, It is an interpolation, intended to magnify David’s zeal (We., Dr.).— 
27. [מאתיס‎ is another change of the same sort. @ has one hundred, which is 
confirmed by 2 S. 344 דור‎ after ויבא‎ is lacking in 65 %.—owbn»] should 
probably be read ,וימלאם‎ David being the subject. He alone could pay in 
full to become the king’s son-in-law. The change to the plural was made to 
avoid the disagreeable picture of David presented by the word, one especially 
offensive to later ritual ideas—for which reason also it was omitted by &® 

Repeated consideration of the natural connexion of the narrative, forces 
me to the conclusion expressed above, that in the original story Saul’s attempt 
to murder David in his house (19!!-) was made on his wedding night. Other- 
wise we have an incident, whose character stamps it as original, which we can- 
not fit into the history. In case this be correct, we should probably join 19} 0 
1827 by taking two words from the end of 191%, and reading .ווהי בלילה ההוא‎ 

XVIII. 20-XIX. 2 175 

28. [וירע‎ lacking in 6695, is superfluous. —wnaAK [ומיכל בתהשאול‎ can be 
translated only parenthetically: ‘Saul saw that Yahweh was with David (while 
Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him) and he feared.’ But the effect is not 
harmonious, and we should doubtless restore the reading of G43 וכי כל ישראל‎ 
אהבו‎ (GE combines the two texts). This gives an additional reason for Saul’s 
fear, which is what we expect.— 29. [ויאסף‎ the Qré substitutes ;ויוסף‎ the 
difference is only one of spelling. — לרא‎ for ,לירא‎ cf. Ges.26, §69n. The latter 
part of 7° and the whole of *f are lacking in 659; they point out, superfluously, 
the contrast between Saul’s attitude and that of David. The original opening 
of 19! may have been: And Saul was hostile to David, which is now read in 

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

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

The connexion of the paragraph is not plain. It appears to be 
another version of the story contained in 207%. Its object is to 
account for David’s continuance at court after Saul’s hatred had 
become so pronounced. 

1-7. The opening of the chapter would follow very well any of the state- 
ments of Saul’s hatred contained in the preceding chapter. If the account is 
secondary, as compared with 201755 we should probably refer it to the later 
of our two documents. Its object here is \ show why David is still found at 
court after Saul’s hatred has become so pronounced. In this view of it, we 
might make פע‎ join immediately to 18%" — Saul feared David yet more, 
and gave orders to kill him. The rest of the section would be an attempt to 
reconcile this command with the following paragraph, in which David is still 
the king’s harper. That v.!* is by a different hand from what follows, is made 
probable by the difference in the form of Jonathan’s name. 

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

176 1 SAMUEL 

8. The proposition of Jonathan is: J 70/07 go out and stand by the 
side of my father in the field where thou art] so that David would 
overhear, and be informed without a direct communication from 
Jonathan, for which there might be no opportunity. The last 
clause of the verse: and whatever [ see I will tell thee| does not 
seem to bear this out, and there may be interpolation.—4. Jona- 
than’s panegyric is little calculated to soothe Saul’s jealousy, and 
represents the author’s view rather than that of Jonathan. The 
first point is: [David] has not been at fault in regard to thee, and 
his actions towards thee are exceeding good | this is appropriate to 
the object. —5. The next is not so certain to make a favourable 
impression: And he risked his hfe| 28 Jd. 12°; and smote the 
Philistine, and Vahweh wrought a great deliverance| by him, as 
®" rightly interprets. The deliverance was in fact a reason for 
Saul’s favour rather than his anger. Whether he was in a frame 
of mind to apprehend this, is not so certain. Still at the time he 
had rejoiced, as Jonathan reminds him.— And why wilt thou sin 
in the matter of innocent blood in slaying David without cause ? 
25°! ; K, 2%.—6. The plea was effectual and Saul gave his oath: 
By the life of Yahweh, he shall not be put to death.—%. There- 
upon Jonathan called David] the evident implication is that he 
was not far away, as was planned in wv.2*.— And Jonathan 
brought David to Saul and he was in his presence as heretofore | 
instead of being obliged to hide from him. 

1. [יונתן‎ in the rest of the chapter we find .יהונתן‎ The form here may be 
due to a scribe. But elsewhere we observe considerable constancy in the 
usage of the different documents. — עבדיו‎ [ of the officers of the king, as else- 
where. — 2. [אבי‎ is lacking in @8. But more probably it alone was expressed 
originally. — בבקר‎ [ is lacking tf 8. -- בפתר‎ naw] belongs after ונחבאת‎ 6 
this order seems to be indicated by 65, as was pointed out by We. The vv.? 3 
are supposed by Co. and Bu. to be an interpolation, In fact the sense is good 
without them. But if the whole paragraph has arisen under the influence of 
201%), these verses belong to it; and if, on the other hand, that chapter is an 
expansion of this paragraph it is probable that the Azazmg here was the feature 
on which the author’s mind took hold. Bu, proposed at first to strike out only 
8b, while Ki. ascribes the whole of v.? to the redactor.—8. The verse seems 
inconsistent with itself, as the only object of Jonathan’s speaking with Saul 
in the field would be to avoid the necessity of communicating with him after- 
wards. And yet this communication is promised in the second half of the 
verse, —D [וראית‎ cf. ווהי מה‎ = whatever it may be, 2 5. 18%5.--4. [מעשיו‎ is 

XIX. 3-10 17 

supposed by Dr. to be a singular. There seems no reason however why 
Jonathan may not make his affirmation genera/—to the effect that all David’s 
actions are blameless. — 5-21] the words seem to be transposed; possibly 
the second is an insertion, as it is not represented in @BL, — 5. בכפו‎ [ 5 trans- 
lates ‘and he put his life in shy hands.’ -- [יהוה‎ GU adds 86 ₪0700, which is at 
least correct sense (represented also in $).—wny [לכלדישראל ראות‎ Kal 5 
"Iopaha eidov al éxdpnoay 65 (with slight variation) = now ראה‎ ‘wy וכל‎ The 
decision between the two is not easily made. On the one side, the statement 
that Israel rejoiced at David’s success seems calculated to stir up Saul’s anger. 
But this is true of nearly all Jonathan’s speech, and the reading of @ is quite 
in line with the rest of the speech. On the other side, the following ולמה‎ is 
more forcible if connected directly with the statement of Saul’s earlier attitude. 
For this reason I retain 39. --- 6. וישמע בקול‎ [ in the sense of hearing favourably 
Num. 21% (J) Dt. 211% Jd. 201%.---7. [ויגד-לו יהונתן‎ the subject is omitted by 
SGPLX. The repetition of Jonathan’s name three times in the same verse 
is in fact surprising, and shows the desire of the author (or perhaps the desire 
of a scribe) to call especial attention to Jonathan’s nobility of character. 

8-10. Saul attempts David’s life. — The incident is a duplicate 
of that related in 18'*, and the two accounts are possibly variants 
of one original. On the other hand, Saul seems there simply to 
have lifted the spear without throwing it, and it may be the idea 
of the author that David was saved by an unintentional turning 
away — led by the Spirit of God. It is possible therefore that the 
two accounts are intended to represent two successive attempts 
of the same kind, separated by the reconciliation 1077. In both 
cases Saul’s hatred is motived by David’s success against the 
Philistines. —8. And there was war again] intimates that such 
had been the case before. As the account stands, the reference 
must be to the war in which Goliath was slain.—9. The evil 
spirit is here called (in #) the evil spirit of Yahweh, contrary to 
the usage of other passages. The emendation suggested by © 
which brings them into conformity, is now generally adopted. 
The circumstances of the attack are given: While he was sitting 
in his house with his spear in his hand, and David was playing 
with his hand.—10. This time the frenzied king sought to pin 
David to the wall with the spear] if the account is by the same 
hand with the earlier parallel, 18", we may say that it was the 
fixed idea recurring to the madman. — But David slipped away 
from Saul’s presence, so that he smote the spear into the wall [ 6 
language is different from that used above. That David fled and 


178 1 SAMUEL 

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

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

9. ayn [רוח יהוה‎ cf. the note on 16!4 (We., Dr., Bu., Ki. agree in the emen- 
dation here), [והוא בביתו--‎ a circumstantial clause. — כיד‎ [ read 17.3 with four 
Hebrew MSS. and 65, so Th., We., al. —10. [ובקיר‎ is lacking in @BY, so that 
the meaning would be vo smite David with the spear. The grotesque idea 
of pinning David to the wall is more likely original, in the account of a man 
possessed. — ויפטר‎ [ apparently dro%e away from what he was doing. — [נס וימלט‎ 
cannot refer to David’s escape from the immediate danger, which is sufficiently 
described by .ויפטר‎ The words evidently mean that he left the court and city 
altogether. — בלילה הוא‎ [ belongs with the next verse. 

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

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

XIX. 10-17 179 

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

11-17. The considerations urged above are perhaps sufficient to show the 
probability of the connexion of this passage with 1827, That the account is 
old is conceded, but which document furnished it is not agreed upon by the 
critics. Co. is uncertain; Bu. puts it with E and makes it continuous with the 
preceding. Ki, also makes it continuous with the preceding. 

11. And it came to pass that night] according to our construc- 
tion the night of taking possession of the bride; that Saul sent 
messengers to the house of David to watch tt, so as to kill him in 
the morning. David was so unsuspicious that he had to be warned 
by his wife: Z/ thou do not deliver thy life to-night, to-morrow 
thou shalt be slain| the fact that David is utterly unprepared for 
the information argues for the connexion suggested above. — 
12. The escape was effected in that she ¢ David down through 
the window | similar instances are Jos. 2”, and the case of Paul in 
the New Testament, Acts 9”. In 21°" we find David coming to 
the priest at Nob without arms and without attendants, which can 
be accounted for only by this verse. -- 18. In order to delay the 
discovery of David’s flight, and so give him an opportunity to get 
away, Michal contrives to deceive the messengers. — She took the 
Leraphim] the household god, which is evidently presented as in 
human form; and placed it on the 060 [ a plain couch, probably 
a rude frame covered with leather ; and a cloth of goat’s hair for 
his pillow) the translation is only a conjecture.— And covered it 
with the garment | which regularly served for that purpose. The 
Israelite probably covered his head with a garment when sleeping, 
as is still done by the Arabs. —14. In the morning * Saw/ sent mes- 
sengers to take David and they thought him to be il the stratagem 
was effective, so far as the first report of the messengers was con- 
cerned. —15. And Saul sent to the house of David [ as we may 
conjecturally restore the reading: saying: bring him on the couch 
to me that I may slay hin. —16,1%7. The ruse is discovered, and 
Saul expostulates with his daughter: Why hast thou deceived me 
thus ? Her answer is a false plea, that her life had been threatened. 

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

180 1 SAMUEL 

11. The verse should begin ויהי בלילה ההוא‎ reading with G, so Th., We., 
al. The two words בלילה הוא‎ are in 3 connected with the preceding verse. 
Although precedents are found for ,בלילה הוא‎ it is better to read ב" ההוא‎ 8 
ה‎ may have easily dropped out on account of the recurrence of the same 
letter. -- ולהמיתו‎ [ is an example of the reverse error. The initial ו‎ has been 
duplicated from the preceding word (omitted by @).— [ממלט את-הנפשך‎ 1K. 
12,13. [התרפים‎ ch. ZW 7. 1881, 170 ff. Kkevordpia 65 seems to imply ances- 
tral images. The word is found always in the plural, but is here quite clearly 
applied to a single image; and this image is apparently of the natural human 
size. On the word cf. Moore on Jd. 17° with the references there; cf. also the 
Lexx. with reff. and Schm. pp. 652, 659. — אלההמטה‎ [ one of the numerous cases 
where על‎ and אל‎ are confused. — כביר‎ | occurs only in this passage and is not yet 
explained satisfactorily. @ read 423, and Josephus expands this into a statement 
that Michal put a goat’s liver into the bed, the palpitation of which (it being 
freshly killed is supposed) made the messengers of Saul think David was gasp- 
ing with his illness. The objection is that Michal could hardly need such a 
device even if she had a freshly killed goat in the house. The reading of # 
might readily be changed to כבר‎ by a scribe unfamiliar with the word .כביר‎ The 
cognate words 1739, ₪ szeve, and ,מכבר‎ 6 metal zefwork, as well as 73D, 2 K. 
$15, seem to indicate for this word something woven of goat’s hair. oxy ,יריעת‎ 
Ex. 267, is the goat’s hair covering of the Tabernacle. The common interpre- 
tation of the present passage is that Michal put a mosquito net over the head 
of the image; so Schm. p. 653, Ew., GV, III. 107f., E. Tr. III. p.77. But is 
a net of this kind ever made of goat’s hair? It seems more probable that she 
put a cushion as a pillow. מראשות‎ is used of the pillow, Gen. 28171% In 1 S, 
26 and 1 K. 105 מראשתיו‎ means 0/ his head, a phrase which would not naturally 
be used of a net put over the head. Whatever Michal used here was therefore 
probably placed as a pillow 5. A living man would not need such, being 
accustomed to sleep on his arm. The Teraphim would lie too flat unless its 
head were supported by something of the kind.* But again, the image would 
be destitute of hair, and there is still a possibility that she took a bundle of 
goat’s hair and made it simulate David’s hair; so some of the Rabbis; cf. 
Schm. p. 653. All this shows the uncertainty that must attach to any transla- 
tion. —14. [ותאמר‎ but if the mere word of Michal was to be taken, there was 
no need of the elaborate precautions already related. We should read ויאמרו‎ 
with @48, making the messengers the subject. They came to take him, but 
seeing the bed thus arranged: ¢hey said to themselves, he is ill. —15. . . . nowy 
[דוד‎ if the messengers had once seen David, as we have just supposed, it was 
superfluous to send them to see him again. Besides, as we learn from the 
latter part of the verse, their object was to fetch him; לראות‎ is therefore cer- 

* From the analogy of ד‎ ₪. 26, we might conjecture that she put a skiz of water 
at the head of the bed, a sick man being feverish and thirsty; so נורא‎ T, and Kim- 
chi, 02/6 Schm, p. 653. But there are several familiar words for waterskin, and we 
can think of no reason why so rare a word should be used in this case. 

XIX. 18-20 11 

tainly wrong, and I propose to change it to ,לבית‎ or .אלדבית‎ GAB has only 
kal amooréAAe em) roy 00605, which also would meet the requirement, — 
17. [למה אמיתך‎ on the idiomatic use of nnd to conyey a threat, cf. Dr., 2/0. 

The original continuation of this account seems to be 212, where David 
comes to Nob to get provisions for further flight. 

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

The section is a late adaptation of 10°, which explains the 
origin of the proverb by Saul’s experience at the outset of his 
career. The present writer adapts the story to David’s life, mak- 
ing its point his miraculous preservation from Saul’s persecution. 
In its emphasis of the divine care, it reminds us of the account 
18"* where we suppose the original meaning to have been that 
David turned from Saul’s attempt decause Vahweh was with him. 
Because of this resemblance, we may conjecture that this para- 
graph Was originally the sequel to the second attempt with the 
spear —109°™. 

18-24. The critics agree that this piece is late, but are at a loss as to its con- 
nexions. The theory advanced above gives its probable antecedent, whereas 
its later continuation may plausibly be assumed to be David’s flight to Achish, 

211% The appearance of Samuel shows the general stream of narrative to 
which the story must be reckoned. 

18. But David fled and escaped | resumes the narrative of 
David’s fortunes, after the diversion made by Michal’s stratagem. 
— And came to Samuel at Ramah] Samuel’s home. The theory 
of the author is that Samuel would be able to protect David. 
After an interview, in which he told Samuel of his experiences 
with Saul, he and Samuel went and dwelt in . . .[ the place in- 
tended can no longer be made out. That it was some special 
building in Ramah is the most probable conjecture — perhaps the 
cloister (coenobium) of the prophets. Such a dwelling or settle- 
ment existed at Gilgal in the time of Elisha, 2 K. 675. In15S. 
10° it is implied that the prophets dwelt in the vicinity of the 
sanctuary, and the sanctuary would be the proper place to seek the 
supernatural protection which is here described. —19, 20. Saul is 

182 1 SAMUEL 

informed of the fugitive’s place of sojourn and sends messengers 
to take him: And they saw the company of prophets prophesying 
with Samuel standing over them| the religious exercises here de- 
scribed are evidently of the enthusiastic character of those in 
10°, And the spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, 
and they also prophesied | the contagion affected them, so that 
they were unable to carry out the king’s command.— 21. This 
was repeated with a second and with a third company of satellites. 
— 22. At last, Saul’s anger was aroused and he also went to 
Ramah] the opening of the verse is supplied from ©.— Jn his 
progress, he came to the cistern of the threshing-floor which ts on 
the height, and asked: Where are Samuel and David 7] the text is 
restored according to 6.— 23. On being told, he went thence, 
and the Spirit of God came upon him also and he marched along 
prophesying until he came to . . .[ the place mentioned is the 
same already named in v."*. — 24. The manifestations in Saul, as 
in the others, are of an extravagant character: He stripped off his 
clothes and prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day 
and all that night. The resemblance to the ecstasy of the der- 
vishes is striking. ‘The proverb to which this gives rise has already 
been mentioned. The surprise which it expresses is far more in 
place in the earlier narrative than here, where Saul’s possession 
has become a fixed fact. 

18. ורוד ברח וימלט‎ [ as it stands may be the original conclusion of the pre- 
ceding narrative (Bu.). -- כנוית‎ AZ: בניות‎ Qré] the word is entirely unknown. 
65 adds here in Ramah, as ¥ does in טט‎ 95, But the addition there is 
necessary; here it is not, and the reading of @ is the result of conformity. 
The Kethib is presumably to be pointed ny, but no such word occurs else- 
where. A word נוה‎ from a root meaning 70 dwell or fo sit quiet is found, and 
in 20! this word is written nn) (by Baer only), which would be the plural of 
.נוה‎ @ seems to have read nya (év *406051 corrected into év Navid in 4). 
As pointed out by Dr. נוה‎ “denotes in particular a pastoral abode,” 2 S. 78, 
That Samuel and David should have taken refuge in the sheepfolds is impos- 
sible to suppose. In 2S. 1525 David says to Zadok: “If I find favour in the 
eyes of Yahweh, he will bring me back and show me 274 dwelling,” where the 
word נוה‎ seems to designate the 7 in which Yahweh dwelt. As the ‘prophets ~ 
in 10° come down from the Bama (which was the sanctuary) it does not seem 
remote to suppose the original here was נות יהוה‎ or נוה יהוה‎ which has been 
purposely obscured to conceal the fact that there was a sanctuary at Ramah 
(a fact which the later time could not rightly estimate). The precarious 

XIX, 20-XX, 183 

nature of the definitions given in this passage is well exposed by Driver in his 
Notes, For completeness I may add that Josephus gives a proper name 
Tad Boudd (Ané. VI. 221 = VI., XI. 5); the early Jewish tradition is represented 
by בית אולפנא‎ 01 ©]; and that S has [וירא 0-- ונת‎ cannot be right and 
must be changed to ויראו‎ with 65.--- [להקת‎ is an unknown word. @% seem 
to have read קהל‎ or קהלה‎ (cf. Hoffmann, 2.4 TW. 111. נבאיס-- -. ( פָ8‎ [ is lacking 
in 655 but is necessary to the sense.— [עמד נצב‎ the two words together are 
impossible, and must be explained as the error of a scribe who wrote עמד‎ from 
memory, and afterwards inserted the correct word 33). K1., followed by Bu., 
proposes מנצח‎ on the basis of מליף‎ @. But it must be remembered that ₪ 
throughout has the idea that Samuel was a rabbinical teacher, and its inter- 
pretation must be taken with allowance; moreover מנצח‎ occurs only in Ezra, 
Chronicles, and the superscriptions to the Psalms (and Hab. 3).—22. וילך‎ 
[גס-הוא‎ Kal מ0₪0ט60‎ dpyh 2000, kal eropevOn kal 00765 65 (with slight varia- 
tion). The touch seems natural, and the loss of a single clause is not difficult 
to account 10%. -- [ער-בור הגדול‎ is ungrammatical. Restore עד בור הגרן‎ with 
6581, and for בשכו‎ read פד ע6) בשפי‎ 2606] G8, ev 560) GL). The שפי‎ or bare- 
topped hill was the proper place for a threshing-floor. KJ. conjectures (with 
slight ground) che threshing-floor on which Samuel was accustomed to sit in 
juagment,— The second ויאמר‎ means one said, as frequently. ברמה--‎ [ is here 
superfluous and probably to be omitted, with Bu. Saul is already in the 
immediate vicinity of Ramah when he makes the inquiry. — 28. ov] error for 
משם‎ (éet0ev GAB lacking in 7( . -- [הלך ויתנבא‎ I have no hesitation in restor- 
ing the regular הלך והתנבא‎ which we should expect here. — 24. [נסההוא‎ is 
omitted in both instances by 6591, in the second instance only by 8. One of 
the two can well be spared, and, if either, the latter. The older commentators 
(Theod.) saw in the stripping off of the clothes a sign of the loss of the 

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

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

184 1 SAMUEL 

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

XX. 1-XXI. 1. On the critical questions consult the usual authorities and 
what is said above in the Introduction, § 5. As to the integrity of the piece 
itself, we may note that vv. contradict the plain implication of what pre- 
cedes—that it was dangerous for David and Jonathan to communicate 
directly. These verses are probably a later insertion. The rest of the chapter 
seems sometimes overfull and may have been interpolated. Budde’s ex- 
cision of vv.+!7 as redactional however has not commanded any large meas- 
ure of assent. Bonk gives a detailed analysis, which also lacks probability, 
Verses 11-77 may be from a different source from the rest of the chapter. 

1-10. The first clause is the redactional suture. According 
to the rest of the verse David came and complained to Jonathan 
of the conduct of Saul. The older commentators, who accepted 
the historicity of the account as it stands, were much puzzled to 
account for David’s behaviour, Why should he expose himself to 
further danger after having such unmistakable evidence of Saul’s 
hostility as the preceding chapter furnishes? And how could 
Jonathan be so ignorant of Saul’s temper after so public an exhi- 
bition? Attempts at conciliation (Schm., al.) are compelled to 
explain away the obvious force of language. David’s complaint 
shows that Saul is not conceived of as having shown open hostil- 
ity: What have I done? What is my guilt, and what my sin 
before thy father, that he ts seeking my life ?—2. Jonathan re- 
assures David (or tries to reassure him): Far be t¢#/ Thou shalt 
not die. My father does not even a small thing without letting me 
know, and why should my father hide this from me? Not so! 
Jonathan’s complete ignorance of Saul’s state of mind could not 
be more strongly expressed. — 8. David’s reply suggests the rea- 

XX, 1-8 185 

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

* Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta, 1. p. 53. 
+ Doughty, Zc., I. pp. 366, 455. 

186 1 SAMUEL 

servant because into a bond sanctioned by Yahweh thou hast brought 
thy servant] an agreement with divine sanctions between the two 
is described 185% and another was made later, 230. Jf there be 
guiltin me, do thou slay me— to thy father why shouldst thou bring 
me? ‘The strength of conviction shows itself in the form of the 
protest. — 9. Jonathan gives renewed assurance of his willingness 
to serve his friend: Far be it! If LT know at all that evil ts deter- 
mined by my father to come upon thee, surely I will tell thee| such 
must be the meaning, although the present text expresses it awk- 
wardly if at all (cf. the note). —10. David asks: Who will tell 
me tf thy father answer thee harshly ?| the question implies that it 
would not be safe for Jonathan to meet David personally. The 
answer is given in v./% What comes between is not a part of the 
earliest narrative. 

1. [ויכרח . . . ברמה‎ is called the redactional suture above. It is possibly 
however the original beginning of the account of David’s flight to Achish, 
where it would fit excellently instead of [ויבא ויאמר לפני יהונתן---,2115%‎ is 
rendered in 65 as though it were ,ויבא לפני יהונהן ויאמר‎ which is logically better. 
Possibly however the division between the two documents is between the two 
verbs, so that the original connexion was --.ודוד נס וימלט ויאמר לפני יהונת]‎ 
2. לוהעשה‎ At: לאהיעשה‎ Oré. The former intends to begin if my father had 
done, but this is not suitable to the present context. We must therefore choose 
the Qré—my father w7// not do.— 8 גדול‎ 725] is lacking in 65% and may 
have fallen out by scribal mistake of the second רבר‎ for the first. As the 
shorter text makes good sense however, 1 have retained 16. [יגלה אזני---‎ 83 
and זאת---.95‎ px] a strong expression — ¢here zs nothing of this.—3. yaw 
[עוד‎ as We. says, David has not sworn as yet, and does not swear now. @ has 
only ,וישב‎ which is all we need; עור‎ is a scribal expansion perhaps duplicate 
of ,דוד‎ and the duplication of its ע‎ gave rise to the reading of #9. The second 
[ויאמר‎ means says to himself, as often.— 2s%yy-y5] the author of this passage 
would seem to make Saul careful lest David should get information, rather 
than lest Jonathan should be grieved, and traces of an original reading with 
this force are found in 655, which has uy לס‎ BotAntrat, which would represent 
פן יעצה‎ (We.). 657 has, with the same idea, חק‎ wh avayyelAnt@® Aavid. It 
is difficult to suppose however that יעץ‎ was the verb here unless we read yp 
wy, Zest they take counsel together, and we are obliged to decide for #9, as 
slightly more probable. —pbyxy] strongly adversative to Jonathan’s assertion 
that there was no reason for David’s suspicion.— [חיהיהוה והי נפשך‎ cf. 14°9 
and BDB. 5. .חי‎ The כי‎ is כו‎ recttativum.—ywo>] the like of a step (Dr.); 
פשע‎ occurs here only —the verb in one passage; @ seems to paraphrase. 
—4, [מההתאמר‎ does not seem the word we need: 7) 67000067 65 points to 
,מה תאוה‎ which exactly fits the place. In that case we should point ,ואעשָה‎ 

XX. 8-10 187 

that 7 may do.—5, wrn] is frequently joined with the Sabbath as a day 
of religious observance, 2 K. 423 Is. 11% Am. 8°. It was adopted by the 
Levitical legislation, Num, 1019 281175: cf, Dillmann, Zxodus und Levit., 
יק‎ 578 f., Benzinger, Hebr. Arch., § 69, Muss-Arnolt, /BZ. 1892, ו‎ Bites 
160 ff.— [ואנכי ישבהאשב‎ is generally rendered 7 should certainly sit, But 
if David had meant that on that day he was confidently expected at the 
king’s table, he would have expressed himself unambiguously to that effect. 
65 inserts a negative and this reading (ואנכי ישב לא אשב)‎ has been gener- 
ally adopted since \\6.--- [השלישית‎ is not expressed in @BL and is, in fact, 
superfluous. David did not know that he must remain in hiding until the 
third day. The word must therefore be dismissed. The only question is 
whether we should not also throw out the whole clause, which might easily be 
inserted by a scribe, in anticipation of what actually followed. — 6. app] first, 
zo inspect in order to see whether any is missing (13! 141"), then Zo discover 
that some one is missing. — [נשאל‎ with the proper Niphal force — asked for 
himself, Ges. 51 ביתהלחס--.6‎ [ for which @ read ער בית-לחס‎ (adopted by 
We., Bu.).—7. [ואם"חרה יחרה לו‎ Kal av oAnpads droxp6f oo 65 (with slight 
variations). The latter seems on the whole more likely to have been substi- 
tuted for the former than the reverse, it being more in conformity with what 
actually took place, v.l2 (We.).— 8. [על‎ should evidently be oy with 8. 
(We., Dr., Bu.).— ברית יהוה‎ [ seems to be used nowhere else of a covenant 
between men, such as is alluded to here, but cf. Ex. 221%, --- למההזה‎ [ is ren- 
dered as a negative (which it is in intention) by S%.—9. The difficulty is 
with the last clause of the verse: .ולא אתה אגיר לך‎ It is possible to make the 
whole verse (from 2s) an oath with the imprecation suppressed —so We. 
But in this passage, where the feeling is so strong, it would be unnatural to 
leave out so important a part of the asseveration. It is also possible to make 
the last clause an interrogation: 7/7 know ... shall I not tell thee? (Dr.) 
The difficulty would be relieved if we had instead of xb an emphatic particle 
like .אכן‎ Such a particle exists in the form of ל‎ in Arabic and it is possible 
that it existed also in Hebrew. ‘There are some traces of it aside from the 
present passage, as Ex. 8??, which is closely parallel to this: /f we sacrifice, 

. surely the Egyptians will slay us. I have mislaid the reference to the 
article (in JAOS, if I remember correctly) in which the identification of this 
לא‎ with the Arabic /2 was made, a few years ago. At the end of the verse @ 
adds eis tas 0605 cov, which is also found, though differently placed, in @48. 
The addition is difficult to account for; perhaps אתה‎ was read 47x and was 
then supplemented by an adverbial clause inserted. 11/5 adoption of the 
reading will hardly command assent.—10. מה‎ 1x] ע66‎ 65 represents ox, which 
is doubtless original. A scribe took ox to be an abbreviation of two words, 
which he therefore restored. The received text might perhaps be justified by 
analogies (We., Dr.) but it seems simpler to correct it. 

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

188 1 SAMUEL 

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

11. The proposition of Jonathan is that they should go out into 
the field, where they would be free from observation. ‘This propo- 
sition contradicts the plain intent of the main narrative, according 
to which it would be dangerous for them to be seen going together 
to the field. —12, 13. By somewhat radical treatment of the text 
we restore Jonathan’s promise as follows: Yahweh, God of Lsrael, 
is witness that I will sound my father about this time to-morrow, 
and tf he be well disposed towards David, then I will send for thee 
to the field; but tf there be evil— God do so to Jonathan and more 
also uf L bring the evil upon thee; but L will uncover thine ear and 
will let thee go, and thou shalt go in peace. The two alternatives 
are plainly put and the imprecation is joined with the appropriate 
one. ‘The consciousness of the author that the latter alternative 
would be realized, shows itself in the concluding clause: And 
Yahweh be with thee as he has been with my father / —14, 15%. The 
mention of David’s future brings a request that his grace may be 
extended to Jonathan and his descendants. The writer has in 
mind the later account of David’s treatment of Jonathan’s son. — 
And of Iam yet alive, thou shalt show me the kindness of Yahweh ; 
But of I should die, thou shalt not withdraw thy compassion from 
my house forever| the two alternatives are completely stated, 
showing that the remainder of the verse belongs with what fol- 
lows. —15, 16. Should David forget the covenant, God would 
be the avenger: But if, in Vahweh’s cutting off the enemies of 
David from the face of the ground, Jonathan should be cut off with 
the house of Saul, then Yahweh will require tt at the hand of David] 
Jonathan is here put for “re house of Jonathan and David for the 
house of David. The emphasis laid upon this matter makes us 
suspect that the house of Jonathan feared the ruling dynasty for a 
long time. —17. Jonathan continued to give assurances to David, 
because with tender love he loved him, cf. 18°. 

189 לד | 

12,18. The text has suffered in transmission, partly because the sentence 
is unusually long. As it stands, it is impossible to call it good Hebrew. 
After דוד‎ we must restore 3y, which has fallen out by reason of its similarity to 
;דוד‎ so 5 ,נסהד‎ while G ע0156‎ points to ,ידע‎ a corruption of the same original. 
Read therefore: Witness is Yahweh, cf. 125,— השלישית‎ [ is superfluous here 
as in v.®, having been put into the text to make the promise conform to the 
event. —737)] should be והן‎ equivalent to os); it is so read in S, while 69 
gives both: kal iSo¥, ולא"אז---.ש66‎ [ the לא‎ must be the same emphatic parti- 
cle used above in y.°, here as there in the 82000888. --- וגלותי את"אזנך‎ [ is lack- 
ing in 65, which substitutes cis aypdy (AB) or eis לד‎ medfov. The latter seems 
more appropriate, for if Saul’s mood was discovered to be good, Jonathan 
could send openly to the field and fetch David. At the beginning of v.83 1 
has kal edy kaxdv 7, which at any rate gives an appropriate meaning. I sup- 
pose the words השדה ואם רעה‎ [ to have become illegible and to have been filled 
out by a scribe with a phrase from y.18, which fits in the context.— כי יוטב אל‎ 
[אבי‎ is unintelligible; 6545 874 dvoicw, GU édy ph avotow. Both point to אביא‎ 
for אבי‎ and with אביא‎ we must here read (in an oath) ox. The original on 
אביא‎ was miswritten ,אלהאבי‎ with which something had to be supplied. The 
original reading of Jonathan’s oath I take therefore to be: והוה אלהו ישראל‎ ap 
כי אחקר את אבי כעת מחר והן טוב אל דור ולָא אז אשלח לך השדה: והן רע לו כה יעשה‎ 
.אלהים ליהונתן וכה יסיף אם אביא את הרע עליך‎ --- 14. The received text is here 
also ולא אם---.6קנתעסס‎ [ is a duplication. xb) was written, and then, to make 
clear that לא‎ was not meant, אכ‎ was added. — [ולאהתעשה‎ is represented by 
kal mornces 655, rornons GY, showing that we should read again the emphatic 
particle in the 82060818. הפר יהוה---‎ [ cf. 2 5.95. The third ולא‎ should be read 
x?) and begin the next verse. —15. The first half of the verse, taken with the 
two preceding words, makes good sense. But the second half must be dis- 
connected, and made the beginning of a third [ולא בהכרית --- .06מ16ת86‎ will 
barely admit of connexion with the preceding (Dr.), but is better in every 
way when read .לא בהכרית‎ & omits ,איש‎ perhaps rightly.—16. noo] ef 
660000604 GY, rightly pointing n>" and connecting with the preceding .ולא‎ 
Where GB gets 64שף66060‎ is difficult to 58. -- לד [יהונתן‎ dvoua Tod ש000ע10*‎ 
655, the latter is adopted by Dr., Bu., but does not seem to improve the sense. 
-- [עס-בית דוד‎ ard Tod ע0760‎ 400608 GAB, on the ground of which We., Dr., 
restore .מעם‎ But what Jonathan requests is not that his house may continue 
with the house of Dayid (as its dependants) but that it may not be cut off dy 
them, which would not be expressed by oyn. 6529 ₪678 Tod ע0160‎ 2000 has 
some claims to be regarded therefore as original. —115 מיר איבי‎ [ cannot be 
right, as is evident; read .מיך דוד‎ In some other cases איבי‎ is inserted to 
avoid an imprecation on 128710. There is also a trace in one MS. of 6 
the word was doubtful. —17. [להשביע את-רוד‎ Jonathan’s love is no reason for 
his adjuring David. We are compelled therefore to read אלדרי‎ yawn? with 6. 
The main object of the interview was that Jonathan might assure David on 
oath that he would not betray him to Saul. — nx באחבתו‎ [ has arisen by dupli- 
cation of the following words. It is lacking in @8, 

190 1 SAMUEL 

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

18. [כי יפקר‎ is suspicious. But no better reading suggests itself. —19. ושלשת‎ 
[תרד מאד‎ gives no appropriate sense. @ substitutes תפקר‎ for ,תרד‎ which is 
adopted by We., Dr., Bu., but does not seem satisfactory. That David 
would be more missed on the third day than on the second is true. But 
there was no reason to suppose that Saul’s mind would not be discovered 
on the day following the interview. David should not wait until the third day 
to come to the place where he was to hide. I suspect that ושלשת‎ at any rate 

(and perhaps the whole clause) is an insertion of the same hand which forced 
the third day into vv; ואז תרד וכאת‎ is what we expect. —7rwynn [ביום‎ the 

1 3 .אא 

day of the deed is wholly unknown to us. There must be a reference to some 
former hiding on the part of David. But the only account of such a hiding 
preserved to us is in 19%, Jonathan’s former intercession for David. On gen- 
eral grounds, we have already decided that that account was not known to the 
author of this narrative. It is difficult moreover to 866 how the day of that 
intercession could be called che day of the deed. We. supposes a reference to 
Saul’s attempt with the spear (and refers to Job 3317). But David did not 
hide himself that day, so far as we know. We are in fact wholly in the dark. 
The versions — ts épyaclas GY, rh epyaciun GAB, gua operari licet 31, רחולא‎ 
©, see in the word a designation of a working day in distinction from the 
festival day of the New Moon. But it is doubtful whether המעשה‎ would be 
used to mark such a distinction — עבודה‎ would be more natural. — [האבן האל‎ 
if correct can be only a proper name. But as pointed out by Th. 660 (7d 
épyaB éxeivo GB, rp AlOw exetvw GY) read both here and in y.4! the word (ארגב‎ 
which would naturally mean @ heap of stones, cf. the proper name 4rgo0b in 
Bashan, Dt. 3 1 K. 41%. We. therefore restores 197 ,אצל הארגב‎ which is gen- 
erally adopted. — 20. ואני שלשת החצים צדה אורה‎ [ would naturally mean: and 
7 will shoot the three arrows by the side of it. But why three arrows? The 
later account speaks of only two, and it was not certain in advance that more 
than one would be needed. The three arrows are spoken of as if already 
mentioned, which is not the case. This half of the verse, moreover, in this 
wording does not fit the remaining words — Zo send for me to a goal. If this 
means anything it makes a complete tautology when taken with the preced- 
ing. @ reads שלשת‎ as a verb —and J will triple the arrows, or and I will use 
three arrows, which does not seem to give any help. We., followed by Dr., 
Bu., reconstructs ואני אשלש בחציס‎ = and T on the third day [will shoot] with 
arrows, which, if we can make שלש‎ mean Zo do on the third day, somewhat re- 
lieves the difficulty, though the sentence is still awkward, and does not fit well 
with he latter part of the verse. 1 cannot help thinking that Kl. is on the 
right track in seeing in אורה‎ 8 corruption of .אראה‎ In that case Jonathan in- 
tended to say: ‘ 7 20/1 choose something near the stone heap as 0 mark at 
which to shoot.’ But the original text is not discoverable.—21. [הנער‎ the 
doy, whom he would naturally have with him in practising archery. — [לך מצא‎ 
the omission of לאמר‎ is unusual. Possibly the original was simply ,למצא‎ which 
has been expanded under the influence of v.3° where we have מצא‎ pr. [החצים---‎ 
should probably be the singular in both instances. —7x3)] must begin the apo- 
dosis, corresponding to 79 in the next verse, But in this case the ו‎ is abnor- 
mal and we should either read nwa), or else with G48 omit the .ו‎ The latter 
alternative is favored by the parallel in the next verse, the ו‎ might readily 
have come from the end of the preceding word.—115] is sufficient of itself 
without the addition of an adjective (evz/) made by the versions. — 22. [החצים‎ 
the singular should be restored here also with 65. ‘The particular arrow which 
should give the sign was the one in Jonathan’s mind all through the speech. 
The mistake of #7 is probably because the form הצי‎ (which occurs as an 
undoubted singular in v.26) was taken for an abbreviated plural, the usual 

192 1 SAMUEL 

singular being yn.—28. It seems necessary to insert עד‎ (udptus 65( 
mm, or else to point the last two words of the verse נְעָדהעולם‎ cf. v.l2 as 
amended above. 

24-34. The discovery of the mind of Saul.— We may sup- 
pose that the interview just described took place in the evening. 
The new moon had already been seen, so that the next day 
(properly, the day had begun with the sunset) was the festival. 
—24. David hid himself, and the festival day came, and the king 
sat at the [sacrificial] meal 0 eat. ‘The time of day is not given. 
But, from the fact that Jonathan waited until the next morning 
(after the second day) to carry his tidings to David, we may sup- 
pose it was late in the day.—25. The king’s table companions 
were only three. Zhe king sat on his seat, as usual, by the wall, 
and Jonathan was opposite,and Abner sat by the side of Saul, and 
David's seat was vacant. ‘The simplicity of the royal table is 
evident. — 26. The absence of David was not remarked upon at 
this time, the king supposing a ritual reason: For he said to him- 
self: It ts an accident: he ts not clean because he has not been 
cleansed | the festival being a religious one, no one could eat of 
the meal without being ritually purified. If David had neg- 
lected the proper rite of preparation, he had a sufficient excuse 
for absence from the table. —27. The second day matters came 
to a crisis. Why has not the son of Jesse come to the table, either 
yesterday or to-day? ‘The known friendship of the two men made 
it probable that Jonathan would be informed.— 28. Jonathan 
makes the excuse agreed upon: David begged of me leave to run 
to Bethlehem.— 29. Specific report of what David said in his 
request: Let me go, [ pray, for we have a clan sacrifice tn the ctty, 
and that was what my brother commanded me. The appearance 
of the brother instead of the father has led to the supposition that 
David’s father was dead. Possibly we should read my brethren 
(with ©), and understand it of the members of the clan in gen- 
eral. Jonathan would then make the impression that David was 
invited by the clan to be present at the festival, undoubtedly a 
reason why he should seek to go, but not one that would conciliate 
Saul. In Jonathan’s further report of David’s words is another 
infelicity: Zet me slip away that I may see my brethren! 6 
words must suggest to Saul that David was trying to escape from 

XX. 24-34 193 

him. — 30. The wrath of Saul flames out upon his son: Son of a 
rebellious slave gird! Universal custom abuses a man by throwing 
opprobrium upon his parents. The son of a slave girl was of 
mean lineage; and in case the mother were rebellious, her son 
might be suspected of being a bastard. Saul’s anger did not 
allow him to reflect on the injustice of his abuse. Do J not know 
that thou arta companion of the son of Jesse, to thine own shame 
and to the shame of thy mother’s nakedness ? To revile a man by 
the nakedness of his mother is still common among the Orientals 
(Doughty, I. p. 269). That a man may disgrace the womb that 
bore him is evident enough. But Saul in his excitement puts the 
thought into coarse language. — 31. The reason for the anger is, 
that David is a rival for the throne: For as long as the son of Jesse 
lives upon the earth, thy kingdom shall not be established | the suc- 
cession would naturally fall to Jonathan as the most capable, and 
probably the oldest of the sons of Saul. In the correct feeling 
that Jonathan will know where David is, Saul orders him to send 
and take him, adding: for he ts doomed to death] cf. 2 5. 12°.— 
32, 88. At Jonathan’s question why this should be, Saul’s rage 
gets beyond control: And Saul raised the spear at him to smite 
him] as he had attacked David.— So Jonathan knew] more evi- 
dence could scarcely be expected, that it was determined by his 
father to put David to death. —34. And Jonathan rose from the 
table in hot wrath and did not eat bread on the second day of the 
month because his father had reviled him| the result of the inquiry 
was not simply the discovery of Saul’s purpose towards David, but 
had brought unexpected insult to himself. 

24. onbn-by] is probably right. The sitter at the low Oriental table is 
decidedly above the food. The Qré recommends ,אל‎ but the change is un- 
necessary. @ seems to have found השלחן‎ by,— 25. אלדמושב הקיר‎ [ is rendered 
by rapa עלד‎ rotxov GY, and אל הקיר‎ is quite sufficient.—op] why Jonathan 
should stand while the others sit is not clear. kat mpoép0acev G8, nal mpoepda- 
cev avtdy 6510 point to ,קדס‎ cf. 2 9. 226 2 K. 1982, which means Zo confront, 
generally in a hostile sense, but not necessarily so, Ps. 21%. The reading 
ויקדם‎ in this place, suggested first (so far as I know) by Ewald, GV/?. III. 
111, E. Tr. III. p. 80, is now generally adopted. — 26. [מקרה‎ various accidents 
might make one ritually unclean. — כיחלא טהור‎ [ is tautological, The pointing 
,טהר‎ suggested by 65 (We.), relieves the difficulty to a certain extent only, 
but seems the best we can do.—27. ממחרת החדש השני‎ [ is impossible. We 


194 1 SAMUEL 

must have either ,ממחרת החדש‎ or else .היוס השני‎ G has both, inserting .היוס‎ 
Probably the original was only הלחם ---.ממחרת החרש‎ [ for che table, as in v.24, — 
98. [נשאל נשאל‎ implies an urgent request.—on> [עד"כית‎ I cannot persuade 
myself that the sentence is complete without a verb such as is supplied by 657 
Spauetv, or GB 06006 or by © ,למיזל‎ though the difference may show 
that the translators did not have either one in the text; pn? seems to be the 
simplest. After Bethlehem 658 add his city.—29. [והוא צוה‎ the unusual 
order is perhaps due to an error. @ seems to have read simply --.ווצוו‎ 
[ואראה‎ expressing the purpose of the request should be pointed --.ואראָה‎ 
80. [נעות המרדות‎ is made up of two words otherwise unheard of. Lagarde 
) 0/7/0675, 1. p. 236 f.) makes the best of the present text, which might mean 
one gone astray from discipline. It seems better however, on the basis of G, 
to restore ny) (or (נערה‎ instead of .נעוה‎ Only, as a man cannot be the son 
of more than one woman, the plural 01 65 is not allowable. The natural 
phrase would be .נערה מרדת‎ A reflection on the chastity of Jonathan’s mother 
is evidently intended, and מרר‎ is used of Israel’s rebellion against Yahweh (and 
adultery with other gods), showing that it would convey such a reflection. If 
נעות‎ 18 original, we might suppose המרדות‎ to be a gloss intended to explain 
its meaning — son of perverseness would fit the sense. — בחר אתה לכן‎ [ the verb 
does not go with the preposition; 65 points to 13h or 73m (adopted by Th. al.). 
— 81. [אתה ומלכותך‎ the אתה‎ does not agree well with the meaning of the verb. 
It is lacking in @48, and has evidently come in by the error of a scribe, who 
in writing תכן‎ took it for the second person, and naturally put down אתה‎ as its 
subject. Saul was not afraid for Jonathan personally, but for his succession to 
the throne.—nv7}2] already he is marked out by death as one of its chil- 
dren, cf. [ויטל .88--.2% .18 1 ,איש מות‎ as in the earlier case )1811( should 
probably be pointed Sian, émfpey GAB.— [כלה היא‎ the lack of agreement is 
obvious. @ reads as in vy.7-%. But the particular ev7/ is here defined in the 
clause .להמית אתהדוד‎ It will be sufficient therefore to correct כלה היא‎ to ands, 
with We. al.—84. [כי נעצב אלהר"‎ is lacking in 655, and is unnecessary. The 
wrath was fully accounted for by Saul’s insulting language. — הכלמו‎ [ cuveré 
Aeoev em adtéy GB has arisen under the influence of ,כלתה‎ above. Here the 
absolute עליו‎ nap seems harsh, and # is to be retained. 

35-39. The warning given. — As already agreed upon, Jonathan 
acquaints David of his danger. On the next morning: Jonathan 
came into the field to the rendezvous with David, and as agreed, he 
brought @ young lad with him.— 36. Jonathan starts the boy to 
find an arrow, and then, while he is running, shoots another ₪ fly 
beyond him. — 87. So when the lad came ¢o the place of the [first] 
arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the lad and 
said: Is not the arrow beyond thee 2[ this is in exact accordance 
with the agreement as worded above.— 88. Jonathan gives an 

XX. 35-41 195 

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

85. [למוער‎ the appointment naturally included both place and time. — 
36. [החצים‎ is to be corrected to the singular as above. Jonathan shot a 
single arrow, and while the lad was running for it, he shot ,אתההחצי‎ the par- 
ticular arrow on which so much depended, so as Zo pass beyond the boy. — 
87. [הלוא‎ the whole line from this word to הנער‎ in the next verse has fallen 
out of G@. Possibly it made just a line in some early manuscript. A part of 
the omission is supplied however after the word ₪705 = מהרה .88--.תעמד‎ 
[חושה‎ cf. Driver’s note.— nn £7] to be read as a plural )0/4(.-- [ויבא‎ 
should be pointed x31) with GAY and the margin of 5 

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

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

196 1 SAMUEL 

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

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

40. [הביא‎ is lacking in GY, and is in fact superfluous. —41. [מאצל הנגב‎ 
from the side of the South Country is of course impossible. Read מאצל הארגב‎ 
corresponding to the emendation in v.19 (so G, and § also has מן לות קיפא‎ 
[ער-רור הגדול---. (6ע16‎ until David exceeded (EV). But why David’s vic- 
tory in so curious a contest should be mentioned is impossible to conceive. 
65 has nothing to represent ,דוד‎ so that We. proposes גְעד הגדל‎ but this 
nowhere means ₪ great deal, which is the only sense we can give it here. 
Kl. rightly remarks that what we expect is a point of time, and proposes 
,עד יום גדול‎ which however does not seem sustained by usage. — 42. [לאמר‎ 
is the erroneous insertion of a scribe who supposed the words of the oath 
were to follow. —XXI. 1. [ויקם‎ the subject seems necessary, and David is 
correctly added by 6. 

XXI-XXVI. David an outlaw captain. 

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

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

XX. 41-XXI. 4 197 

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

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

198 1 SAMUEL 

reason for asking provision: And now tf there be within thy reach 
five loaves of bread, give it me, er whatever may be at hand, — 
5. The priest’s objection to giving what bread he has, is: Zhere 
ts no common bread within my reach, though there ts sacred bread | 
the latter, being consecrated, must be handled by consecrated 
persons only. ‘This did not originally mean that only the priests 
could eat it. Like the sacrifices, it could probably be eaten by 
worshippers duly prepared liturgically. As a safeguard, such per- 
sons usually partook of the consecrated food within or near the 
sanctuary. But there seems to be no reason in the nature of 
things why it should not be taken away, if only proper care was 
exercised. — //f only the young men have kept themselves from 
woman| they might eat tt, is the natural conclusion of the sen- 
tence. As is abundantly clear from the Pentateuchal legislation, 
as well as from Arabic usage, the sexual act renders one unfit for 
any sacred ceremony until the proper purification has been under- 
gone. —6. The obscurity of David’s reply is probably due to our 
ignorance of the author’s conception of holy and profane. In 
any case he gives assurance on the particular point of inquiry: 
But women have been kept from us as always when I go on an 
expedition. As war was a sacred work, abstinence from everything 
profane was David’s habit in all his campaigns. — And the arms 
of the young men were consecrated | at starting, as we suppose 
was the custom in Israel, from the expression consecrate war, 
Jer. 6* Mic. 3°. David makes his assurances so strong that he 
even says (to all appearance) that if the bread were common 
bread, it would become consecrated by contact with the conse- 
crated vessel in which he proposed to carry it. The exact words 
in which he originally embodied this declaration are unfortunately 
lost tous. —7. The plea was effectual, and the priest gave him con- 
secrated [food] for there was no bread there except bread of the 
presence removed from before Yahweh, to place hot bread there, the 
day it was taken away. According to later custom this was done 
once a week, Lev. 24% -- 8. The verse is evidently designed to 
prepare for Doeg’s betrayal of David later, 22°. Some have there- 
fore supposed it to be an interpolation. But the later passage seems 
to presuppose this one. Doeg the Edomite, who is described as 
Sauls muleherd, was kept at the sanctuary by some religious (cere- 

XXI. 4-10 199 

monial) obligation. —9. David asks further for spear or sword 
since he has left his own weapons behind: Fur the king’s business 
was urgent] is his pretext.—10. The priest tells of the sword 
of Goliath, whom thou didst slay in the valley of Elah] the lan- 
guage is used to indicate that David had a better title to the 
sword than had any one else. It had been deposited by David 
in the sanctuary, and was now wrapped in a mantel, behind the 
62/00 | the last phrase is omitted by 65, perhaps because of dis- 
like of the ephod, which here cannot be a garment or a breast- 
plate. At David’s desire, the sword is given him. 

2. [נבה‎ with an unusual form of the (locative) accusative ending, Ges.%, 
goz; Stade, 132 (p. 102). Jerome (according to Buhl, Geog. p. 198) locates 
Nob in the vicinity of Lydda. But there would seem to be no reason why 
David should go westward, and into the country of the Philistines. Perhaps 
Jerome was moved by the following account of David’s coming to Achish. 
But that is from a different document. The same line of argument is followed 
by Schm. (p. 719 f.) to refute those who suppose David to have fled across the 
Jordan to נכה‎ (cf. Jd. 811), — אחימלך‎ [ There seems to be no doubt that the 
second half of the name is one of the names of Yahweh cf. Moore on Jd. $31, 
We find an nx, 143, who officiated as Saul’s priest, and he is probably the 
same with our Ahimelech. G48 has Adimelech here. — לקראת דוד‎ [ G48 reads 
,לקראתו‎ which would be natural — but on that very account. #) must be taken 
to be original. —8. [לאחימלך הכהן‎ G4B has לכהן‎ simply.— 33] @ adds 
onuepov, which is appropriate and forcible. The day began with the evening. 
The command being received at or after sundown, to be carried out at once 
would plausibly explain David’s appearance in the early morning at Nob. — 
[מאומה‎ seems to be omitted by G48. With the negative it has the force of 
at all—here let no man know at all of the matter, Ges.*, 137 6.-- [ואשר צותיך‎ 
is redundant — perhaps a scribe’s expansion.— יודעתי‎ [ might possibly be a 
Poel form (Ges.8, 554; Stade, 465). But the meaning is not so good,as if 
we had ,יעדתי‎ which should probably be restored; 65 S:apeuaprvpnua: points to 
,העדתי‎ which was read as if from Gy.) But the form might equally be from 
.ועד‎ If the original reading were יעדתי‎ it might give rise to both יורעתי‎ and 
.הערתי‎ = KI. proposes ,נועדתי‎ Ex. 2045 Job 211, -- [פלני אלמני‎ 2 K. 68. —4. wrap] 
does not consist with the definite number of loaves asked for. We are 
compelled therefore to read אסדיש‎ with GUA, 6] cicivy (ei has dropped out 
of 655 owing to its resemblance to the beginning of the next word).— 
[או הנמצא‎ is a concise way of saying, or whatever thou canst find.—5. [חל‎ 
is the opposite of .קרש‎ Of course we cannot judge the act of Ahimelech by 
the later legislation which commanded that the bread of the presence should 
be eaten by the priests only, and only in the sanctuary, Ley. 24°. There is no 
evidence in this narrative that the priest did not take all the precautions 

200 1 SAMUEL 

necessary. — אלהתחת‎ [ the אל‎ is probably erroneous duplication of the preced- 
ing bn.—6. Confessedly a difficult verse, and one in which the versions give 
us little help. For the religious ideas which lie at the basis of David’s assur- 
ances, cf, WRS. Religion of the Semites, pp. 365, [כתמל שלשם---.436‎ cannot 
mean that the privation has lasted three days (AV., cf. RV.), nor that it has 
lasted about three days which would have been differently expressed. It 
expresses a comparison: as yesterday and the day before, t.é., as in former 
times. David claims that his custom has always been to take care for ritual 
purity on all his expeditions and that this is no exception.—1n] must carry 
on the description of what took place at the start: Women were taboo . 

and the equipments of the young men were consecrated, ‘This fully meets the 
priest’s scruples, and is emphasized in what follows. —n [והוא ררך‎ 18 unin- 
telligible. David can hardly mean that he is upon a peaceable (and therefore 
common) journey, for this is aside from the main purpose. There seems to be 
no way of fitting the clause into the context, and the text is probably unsound. 
From the clause which follows, we conclude that David meant to say that even 
common bread would become consecrated by contact with the already conse- 
crated vessels of his followers. Possibly the change of 475 to 725 might 
enable us to get this meaning: והוא רבר חל‎ = and were it a common thing, 
nevertheless it would become consecrated in the vessel (in which it will be car- 
ried) 06 657 which favours this construction, though it retains [ואף כי--.ררך‎ 
would probably bear the construction just suggested; @® seems to have read 
כי‎ only, while 65 neglects the words altogether. — 22] 8:4 78 oxedn pov 65 
perhaps gives the original meaning. — ‘7. המופרים‎ [ the plural is probably due to 
the accretion of a כ‎ from the beginning of the next word (We.).—8. נעצר‎ [ as 
the root is used above for that which is religiously forbidden (taboo), we may 
suspect that it means here, sept dy a taboo, or in accordance with later custom, 
kept by a vow (so Schm. who compares the law of the Nazirite, Num. 6, but 
this does not require a sojourn in the sanctuary).—oyrn [אביר‎ véuwy ras 
juidvous 65 is restored by Lagarde (BM. p. 45, note) as ,אביל העורים‎ and as 
אביר‎ is not used of a chief, the latter (which is the more difficult reading) 
should probably be adopted. Graetz suggests אביר הרצים‎ (Gesch. der Juden, 
I. 183), adopted by Dr., Bu., Ki.—9. [ואין ישהפה‎ The form yx occurs 
nowhere else. The punctuators wished to distinguish it from אין‎ and perhaps 
to identify it with ox. @ has 156 ef ori évrad@a, which We. supposes to indi- 
cate ,ראה היש פה‎ though he finds the interchange of ה‎ and נ‎ unusual. As the 
two letters are not unlike in the old alphabet we need not deny the possibility 
of one being mistaken for the other. But if the original were אם‎ we may 
suppose 65 to have avoided the aposiopesis by inserting 75. I had already 
suspected the original to be יש פה‎ »"), and where is there, before I saw Klos- 
termann’s conjecture to the same effect. It is to this question that Ahimelech 
replies. — [נחוץ‎ a supposed passive participle from ym). Kl. conjectures 
yon, 00619206, strict, Dan. 09%. More probable is נאוץ‎ (from (אוץ‎ , or win. 
—10. The Valley of Elah is a reference to 17? or to the original account 
from which that has been expanded.—nwb] is the passive participle. — 

XXI. 11-16 2011 

712] is pointed in many editions mya but this is incorrect. At the end of the 
verse add tad @wkev aithy aitd 6. 

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

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

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

202 1 SAMUEL 

11-16. The opening verse: David rose and fled that day from the presence 
of Saul, points to something earlier than the interview with Ahimelech. This 
verse, if originally following that interview, should read: And David went 
thence. ‘hat the general style of this section is similar to that of 19!%4 is 
indicated by Bu., who prints the two in the same colour. I venture to think 
the point of view the same. In both, David is delivered without the aid of 
his prowess. Providence is his guide in both, and his escape, really miracu- 
lous in one case, is little short of that in the other. And if that account 
shows resemblance to 16174 by the position it gives Samuel, this betrays 8 sim- 
ilar connexion by calling David king of the land.—11. [אכיש‎ “Ayxous 6. 
—12. באלפו‎ and 73373 are written as in 187.—14. [וישנו‎ the form has 
perhaps preserved the original third radical. Else, it is a clerical error for 
וישנה‎ or וישן‎ (Stade, 493 6; Ges.”6, 60d, 75 6b). The verb is used of chang- 
ing one’s clothes, 2 K. 252%, and in the Hithpael, of disguising one’s self, 
1K. 14%, oyw is the taste or flavour of a thing, applied figuratively to the 
character of a nation (Moab), Jer. 4811, and to the understanding of a person, 
15. 2538. The difficulty with the phrase here used (and in the form בשנותו‎ 
אתדטעמו‎ Ps. 341 dependent on this passage) is that one does not change his 
understanding as he does his clothes. ‘This is felt by 65 which renders rat 
ע66ש)ס\גן‎ To mpdcwmrov .00ד₪0‎ It is impossible to prefer this to the more 
difficult reading of #9, but there is reason to suppose the obscurity due to 
early corruption of the text. The exegetical feeling of Schmidt (who adheres, 
of course, to the Massoretic text) leads him to see that the change of one’s 
understanding is attributable to God alone. In fact, it is possible that God 
(or Yahweh) was the original subject here, so that the parallel with the deliy- 
erance at Ramah was once more striking than it now ויתהלל---.18‎ [ either 
feigned himself mad, or raved under the influence of fear, Jer. 2516. The 
next clause has a double translation in 65. [ויהו--‎ wn» Qré, is supposed to 
mean make marks, as we say scribble. But 65 «al éruumayi€eyv renders ,ויתף‎ as 
was pointed out by Cappellus, Crzézca Sacra, p. 261. Possibly ויתו‎ is only 
a phonetic spelling of ,ויתף‎ Ew. GV/®. 111. p. 116, E. Tr. 111. .כ‎ 83. —15. m7] 
one is tempted to restore הן‎ -- 2/ you see a madman, why should you bring 
him to me? —yanwp [איש‎ cannot be che man is mad (AV., cf. RV.), but the 
words must be the object of the verb.—16. [הפר‎ probably originally ההפר‎ 
(K1.).— [אתהזה‎ used in contempt as 1027, by] implies that the experience 
was burdensome to him. 

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

0 203 

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

XXII. 1-5. David collects a troop of followers, and brings his 
father and mother into a place of safety. —1. The opening words 
would connect fairly well with 211 21” or 21%. From the general 
tone of the narrative, they agree better with 21! than with the 
others. After the signal given by Jonathan, therefore, David went, 
as was most natural, to his own clan, where he found safety zz the 
stronghold of Adullam] the cave, which has become traditional, 
originated in the error of a scribe. Adullam is one of the 
Canaanite towns whose kings are said to have been conquered 
by Joshua, Jos. 12". It is mentioned in the Shephela, between 
Jarmuth and Shocoh, Jos. 15”; in 2 Chr. 117 it comes in immedi- 
ate connexion with Shocoh, and in Neh. 11% it is one of the 
towns of Judah. These indications point to a location on the 
western edge of Judah and favour the identification with the pres- 
ent Aid-el-Ma (‘Id-el-Mtje, Buhl), twelve miles west by south from 
Bethlehem. The Judahite warrior probably already had friends 
there, and he was joined by his own clan. With David outlawed 
they would not be safe.—2. In possession of a stronghold, he 
soon became head of a band of soldiers or bandits: Zhere gath- 
ered to him all the oppressed | those rendered desperate by the 
demands of their masters, and every one who had a creditor) a 
brutal exactor of debts who would not hesitate to sell the debtor’s 
family into slavery, 2 K. 4’; and every embittered man| according 
to 30° men who were angry because of some grievance. The case 
of David is similar to that of Jephthah (Jd. 11°). The energetic 
man who is outlawed easily gathers such a force. They numbered, 
in David’s case, four hundred men, at a later stage of the history 
we find six hundred, 30°. — 3, 4. The verses are an interpolation, 
or at least from a different source. They tell how David entrusted 
his father and his mother to the king of Moab. ‘The account has 
been found plausible on the ground that Ruth the Moabitess was 
an ancestress of David. But the fact that a young woman had 
married into the tribe of Judah, renouncing her own gods and 
leaving her father’s house, would constitute a precarious title for 
her great-grandson in claiming protection. The 0/0/60 of Moab 

204 1 SAMUEL 

here mentioned is not named again and cannot be identified. On 
the reading of David’s request — Let my father and my mother 
dwell with thee—see the critical note. —5. The unexpected 
introduction of Gad the prophet shows that the verse is by a 
different hand from the one that wrote }*, and from the one that 
wrote *4, The purpose for which he comes is to warn David not 
to remain in Mizpeh, which being foreign ground is unclean, but 
to come to the land of Judah. In consequence of this advice 
David came to the Wood of Hereth. ‘The location is unknown. 

1. [מערת עדלםס‎ is also found 2 S. 2315 (and 1 Chr. 1115, which is dependent 
upon it). In both cases, the word is followed by a reference not to a מערה‎ 
but to a מצדה‎ (cf. v.4). On this account We.’s correction to מצדת‎ here and in 
2 5. 2315 is now generally accepted, cf. 2315. A cave might also be fortified 
as a stronghold, as were the caves in Galilee in the time of Herod. The 
tradition which identifes the cave of Adullam with the immense cavern of 
Khareitun is traced to the twelfth century of our era only (Baedeker, Pades- 
tine, p. 133). On the name Adullam cf. Lagarde, BV. .כ‎ 54 from ‘adu/a, to 
turn aside).— 2. psn] of the straits of the inhabitants of a besieged city, 
Dt. 2858 Jer. 199. —3, 4. Of the two theories concerning the relation of the 
verses to the Book of Ruth, it seems to me more likely that these are the 
original than the reverse (cf. Nestle, J7arg. p. 14 and reff.). The Rabbinical 
conceit that David’s father, mother, and brothers were slain by the Moabites 
after being entrusted to them (Schm. p. 743) has no foundation in the Biblical 
text. —x>] does not suit the following .אתכם‎ We should probably restore 
ישב‎ as is read by ₪: maneat 30 might be adduced as having the same force, 
but it probably goes back to yiwéc@woay 65 which We. would adopt (appar- 
ently reading (יהי‎ . (Th. prefers either ישב עס יהיו‎ to the reading of #9.) K1.’s 
attempt to retain ,יצא‎ changing אתכם‎ to ox, is opposed by the following .עד‎ 
-- [אתכם‎ mapa cot G8, werd ood G" have the singular, which is to be preferred. 
— מההועשהחלו‎ [ probably in the sense what God will do om my behalf, cf. 148 
2529, on] pointed by the Massorites as though from ,נחה‎ read by @ as 
though from on3, is really intended for ony, from m3 (We. confirmed by 
Dr., who cites $ and @ in favour of the reading). — במצודה‎ ] favours the read- 
ing מצודה‎ above. 5 however has במצפה‎ here and in the following verse. — 
5. Gad the prophet is so called in only one other passage, 2 S. 2411, and there 
the title seems to be a late insertion. Elsewhere he is David’s Seer, 2 0. 1 
(and the parallel 1 Chr. 21°), 2 Chr. 205%. He belongs in the later history but 
not here. We should at least be told how he came to be with David. The 
object of his introduction is to get David by divine command from some place 
outside Judah back into his own country. Abiathar had not yet come down 
with the ephod; the oracle is therefore imported by a prophet. As Adullam 
was reckoned to Judah it is probable that for במצורה‎ here we should read 

XXII. 4-8 205 

a rough region covered with thickets. 6‏ [יער -- . (.141 (Bu. following‏ במצפה 
possibly an Aramaizing form of won, 2315 (We. follow-‏ [ חרת ---,עור reads here‏ 
ing a conjecture of Ewald, GV/%, III. p. 123). @ reads capeli or capix.‏ 

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

6-23. As the section is plainly the sequel of 21°, there is no objection to 
supposing it originally continuous with that. We must however suppose that 
.שי‎ has been fitted to the present connexion. In fact the first half of the verse 
is irrelevant. The fact that David and his men were 00702 has nothing to 
do with Saul’s vengeance on the priests. The paragraph would be sufficiently 
introduced by %. The object of the author is evidently to show how the 
priestly oracle came to be with David instead of with Saul. 

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

206 1 SAMUEL 

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

6  םישנאו[‎ should be corrected to והאנשים‎ on account of the following אשר‎ 
(KL, Bu.).—5Swsn] evidently a tree of some kind. But as the word occurs 
only three times, the species is uncertain. That this was a sacred tree is not 
improbable. KI. conjectures that the enigmatical dpovpa of 65 represents an 
intentional substitution of אררה‎ the cursed for the original name.—7p73 | 
might be 0 the height. But 65 has ע6‎ Baud, which is the word for the village 
sanctuary or high place, cf. 9!2.— 1. [בני ימיני‎ the plural of ימיני‎ 73 as in Jd. 
[וכ--.1916‎ Num etiam dabit quem admodum ego feci? (Schm.) The second 
לכלכם‎ must be an error. Read וכלכס‎ with @8,.—8. Saul says substantially 
the same thing twice over, unless we suppose the two counts to state progres- 
sive degrees of guilt: Jonathan /irs¢ enters into a close agreement with 
David, and Zhen stirs him up to enmity against Saul.— abn] x0 one is sick for 
me sounds strangely, and we shall doubtless read ,חמל‎ cf. 2321; the emenda- 
tion, suggested by Graetz,* is now generally adopted. — הקים‎ [ is generally used 
of Yahweh’s radsing up either helpers or enemies, cf. 1 K. 1123. — [לארב‎ is 
rendered by 65 both here and v.18 as though it were ,לאיב‎ which is probably 
to be restored. ארב‎ would imply that David was dyzng 222 wait for Saul, which 
even Saul’s fancy could hardly find probable. -- [כיום הזה‎ implies that the 
actual state of things was known to the courtiers. —9. [האדמי‎ 6 20205 GB, — 
[נצב על‎ is to be interpreted like the similar phrase in .ל‎ Doeg, in any case, 
could not be said to be placed over the servants of Saul for these עברים‎ were 
the high officials. @ reads here 0 xaderrnkas (6 kabertduevos) emt Tas fpusdvous. 
The question comes whether we should have an explanation of Doeg’s office 
or of his presence at court. The latter seems to be more probable. The 
author informs us that Doeg whose office would not naturally bring him to the 

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

XXII. 8-17 207 

council of state was standing by the officers of Saul. This makes it probable 
that his office had been described before, and favours the originality of 218, 
על‎ 233, it may be remarked, is nearly always used of literal standing, — 
10. [וישאל-לו ביהוה.‎ by means of the sacred oracle. That the consultation of 
the oracle was lawful to the king alone, is a conceit of the Jewish expositors, 
[ואת חרב ג' ה' נתן לו--‎ is suspicious from the repetition of the words לו‎ yn). 
It is therefore marked as secondary by Bu. in his text, and Co. agrees with him. 
The verse is very short however without this clause, and the reference to the 
sword in v.18 protects at least so much here. Not impossibly the original had 
only וחרב נתן לו‎ AWS. 

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

208 1 SAMUEL 

their hand also was with David indicates that he has others in 
mind as well as they—perhaps Jonathan only. The soldiers 
refuse to carry out the command, owing to the sacred character 
of the accused. —18. Doeg was less scrupulous, and at the king’s 
command he éwrned and slew the priests| Jd. 87 15 2 5. 1. The 
victims were ezghty-jive men who wore the linen ephod | the char- 
acteristic garment of the priest 2-19. The verse tells that 
Saul put the city of the priests to the sword in language closely 
similar to the ban pronounced upon Amalek, 15°. For this reason 
it is supposed by some to be an interpolation, and in fact it could 
easily be spared from the narrative. We have no further informa- 
tion concerning the fate of Nob; and there is no parallel to the 
wiping out of an Israelite city by Israelites, except in the very 
late account of the destruction of Benjamin, Jd. 20 and 1. 

18. bx] אליו‎ QOré is doubtless correct.—bixw1] the infinitive absolute 
continuing a finite verb, cf. Dav. Syu¢ax, אלי---.886‎ [ another instance of 
the confusion of אל‎ and .על‎ The latter alone is in place with קוס‎ in the hos- 
tile sense. — לארב‎ [ must correspond with the word adopted in v.8; read there- 
fore xb. A Jier-in-wait does not stand against any one; he lurks for him. 
--14. [וסר אל משמעהן‎ and who turns aside to thine obedience makes no sense 
in this connection. Db is only another spelling for שר‎ as is indicated by apywy 
@; משמעת‎ is the abstract for the concrete — the sudjects of the king, Is. 1114 
2 S. 2355 (where however the text is doubtful). —15. היוס החלתי‎ [ is somewhat 
difficult. It is necessary to read as a question, and the interrogative has prob- 
ably dropped off before ,ה‎ unless we can suppose ההיום‎ to become הוום‎ for 
euphony. But what does the priest mean by asking: Did I begin to-day to 
ask? The only plausible explanation seems to be that he means: 7 have been 
accustomed to consult the oracle for David on his other expeditions, with your 
knowledge and consent, therefore you cannot charge me with it as a crime in 
this instance. — [בכל‎ read bs, 65.--17. 03] is lacking in 6. אזני [אזזו--‎ 
Qré is doubtless correct.—18. The name of the Edomite is here written 315 
instead of .דאג‎ In pronunciation the two were probably alike. — [נשא אפוד בד‎ 
must mean wearing a linen ephod. G omits *.בד‎ -- 19. The similarity of the 
language to 15° is evident. Editorial insertions of this kind are not uncom- 
mon, so that Bu. and Co. are probably right in making the verse to be of 
that class. — [לפי חרב‎ at the end of the verse is lacking in 6 and superfluous. 

* In addition to what was said above (on 218) about linen as the material of 
priestly garments in Egypt, it may be noted that in Babylon also the priests and 
scribes wore linen clothing. This is pointed out by Gunkel, Archiv fir Religions- 
wissenschaft, 1. p. 297. 

XXII. 17-XXIIL 209 

20, 21. One son of Ahimelech escaped, whose name:was Abia- 
thar. His only refuge was with David, and to him he went, and 
told him chat Saul had slain the priests of Yahweh] the commen- 
tators suppose that Abiathar was left in charge of the Oracle, while 
the other priests answered Saul’s summons. There is nothing of 
this in the text however, and it is rather surprising that the Oracle 
is not mentioned in connexion with Abiathar here, and first comes 
into view in 23°.—22. David is not surprised at the news: 7 
knew that day, because Doeg was there, that he would certainly 
tell Saul. 116 therefore accuses himself as accessory: 1 am guilty 
of the tives of thy clan.— 28. He encourages Abiathar to stay with 
him and not fear ; for whoever seeks thy life must also seek my life | 
restoring the probable order of the words. — For thou art a deposit 
with me| the article deposited with one for safekeeping was sacred, 
and, as we know from an Arabic story, it was defended to the last 
by the one to whom it was entrusted. 

20, 21. The evident point of this narrative is to show how the priest came 
to be with David instead of with Saul. But to the older view the priest was 
nothing without the Ephod. There is reason to suspect therefore that the 
original account of the slaughter of the priests inserted here the words: and 
brought the Ephod with him. ‘The scruples of the later writer omitted the ref- 
erence to the Ephod, whereupon it was inserted in 23°. — [אביתר‎ on the name 
cf. BDB. and reff. —22. The somewhat awkward sentence must be rendered 
as above. Omitting ow with GAB, we might also omit the second כי‎ and get 
simply כי דויג הגד וגיד‎ which would be smoother. —»n2b] must be corrected 
to חבתי‎ with 655 Th. and most recent scholars (cf. Dr. 2/0005 .--- [בכלהנפש‎ 83 
omits ,כל‎ whereas 657 inserts it before נפשי .23— .בית‎ and נפשך‎ have become 
transposed in 99. What David should say for the encouragement of Abiathar 
is not: he who seeks my life is also seeking yours, but: whoever seeks your life 
must first take mine. 

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

The original thread of the narrative has been disturbed by the 


210 1 SAMUEL 

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

1. The verse seems to connect well with 225 There David 
was in the stronghold of Adullam with four hundred men. Here 
he begins to use his power for the relief of his own people when 
oppressed by the Philistines. David is told: the Philistines are 
jighting against Ketlah| a town which is reckoned to Judah, 
Jos. 15“, though David’s men had a different notion. If the 
identification with the present A7/a be correct, the place lay only 
three miles south of Adullam. — And they are plundering the thresh- 
ing-floors | a favourite act of robbery in a freebooting society. The 
treasure of the /e//ahin is easiest carried off at the time of thresh- 
ing. Later it is apt to be hid in pits or stored in the strongholds. 
—2. David asked of the Oracle: Shall I go and smite these 
Philistines? The author does not deem it necessary here to 
explain how the Oracle came to be with David, and this is an 
argument against the originality of v.°, at least in the place in 
which it now stands. ‘The answer to the question is an affirma- 
tive. —3. David’s men however object. In other cases we find 
them not easy to control. — Behold we are afraid here in Judah | 
the distinction between /udah and the territory of Kez/ah is per- 
plexing. Possibly Keilah was tributary to the Philistines, so that 
David’s men thought of it as Philistine territory. On the other 
hand Keilah, like Carmel, may have been reckoned to Caleb or 
one of the other clans not yet absorbed in Judah. How much 
more if we go to Keilah against the army of the Philistines! The 
argument is @ fortior’.—4. David therefore repeats his inquiry 
of the Oracle and receives a direct command and a promise: 
ise, go down to Ketlah, for I give the Philistines into thy hand. 
—5. In accordance with the command, David and his men went 
to Keilah and fought against the Philistines, and drove away their 
cattle | which they had brought in order to carry off the plundered 
grain. 65% inserts hey fled before him before the last clause. In 
any case, he delivered the inhabitants of Keilah. 

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


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

1. קעילה‎ [ cf. Buhl, Geog. p. 193, who refers to the Tell-el-Amarna letters, 
ZDPYV. XIII. 142; Guérin, Judée, 111. 341 ff; GAS., Geog. p. 230. —2. [האלך‎ 
the direct question is put to the Oracle as in the cases already noted. — 
8. [אל"מערכת הפ'‎ is perhaps an expansion, The original form of 65 seems to 
have read simply ?0 Kezlah of the Philistines (pointed out by We.). The fact 
that מערכות‎ does not correctly describe a plundering expedition need not 
weigh very heavily. David’s men would naturally state the case strongly. — 
4. [נתן‎ the participle is used of the immediate future, as frequently. — 5. ואנשיו‎ 
Qré, is to be preferred. @ makes the order this: he foughd, they fled, he 
slew, and drove off the cattle. —6. The commentators all remark on the im- 
possibility of .אפר ירד בידו‎ The simplest explanation of it seems to be that 
the first two words have been transposed. By inserting a) we get a fairly 
good sense: ירד ואפור בידו‎ AHyp. This is the actual text of 657 and it calls 
attention to the fact that the place at which Abiathar found David was 
Keilah, and that the Ephod which is commanded a little later is the one from 

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

212 1 SAMUEL 

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

7. [נכר‎ gives no meaning proper to this context: Dezs abalienavit men- 
tem ab eo (Schm., p. 773) is without parallel. @# and the Jewish expositors 
make the word mean 70 deliver over, but without support. @ has wémparev, 
evidently reading ,מכר‎ a verb often used of God’s handing over his own into 
the power of their enemies, Dt. 3229 Jd, 21+ 38 1 S. 129. It is safer to restore 
this word, for which we have direct evidence, than to conjecture something 
else. For 33D Bu. adduces the following 71D), which however, as Dr. points 
out, argues the other way. If מפר‎ were a good Hebrew word it would 
exactly fit the place. —m 2) רלתים‎ [ the two gates locked by one great bar 
across them. Probably small towns had but one entrance. -- 8. yow»] cf. 
15%.-- [לצור‎ 8 few MSS. have .,לצוד‎ But צור‎ is the proper word for besieging 
a fortress. —9. [מחריש‎ the verb occurs in the Qal, Prov. 35% 61%, in the sense 
of planning, as here. Saul was drewing evil is an English equivalent. Still 
it is possible that the text is not sound.—10. לעיר‎ [ for the direct object. Dr. 
cites a few instances, but possibly העיר‎ should be read. —11. [היסגירני ב'ק' בירו‎ 
is in place in v.12 where we find it repeated. A part of it is lacking in @ so 
that the conjecture of We. is probable — that the whole was lacking in 65, but 
that owing to another error of that text היסגרני‎ was inserted later. S&S omits 
all but the one question: 77/7217 the Burghers of Ketlah deliver me and my men 
into the hand of Saul? The reading of We. is adopted by Bu., who however 
inserts nny) from 65. A scribe got the second question in the wrong place, 
and left it there without erasure. From ירד‎ at the end of the verse @® omits 
to the last word of v.12; a clear case of homeoteleuton; the eye of the scribe 
fell upon the second 71m) ויאמר‎ instead of the first. Gl has inserted the miss- 
ing words though retaining the wrong reply to the first question. —18. בשש‎ 
[מאות‎ where 65 has about four hundred. It is difficult to decide between 
them. @ may have been conformed to the statement in 22%, ויתהלכו באשר---‎ 
[יתהלכו‎ a genuine Semitic expression, cf. Koran 5315: “Then covered the 

XXIII. 12-19 213 

Sidra tree that which covered it.” --- 14. [וישב בהר במרבר-זיף‎ is superfluous, 
and in fact contradicts the immediately preceding clause. Without this, the 
verse concludes an account of David’s wandering, The clause originally stood 
at the opening of the next adventure, v.2%. 

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

15. The verse seems based on 263. The author of the secondary account 
took a hint from the second clause of that verse, and built upon it a further 
instance of Jonathan’s fidelity. —s )] is intended (Ew., 6 7% III. p. 127, 
E. Tr. III. p.92). David’s fear is the proper introduction to Jonathan’s con- 
solation.— בחרשה‎ [ other cases of the preposition with the /e /000/6 are cited 
by Dr. In the following verse however חרשה‎ seems quite clearly to be a 
proper name (so 141., Bu., Ki.). Wooded heights do not exist in the Wilderness 
of Judah and probably never did exist there. The identification with Ahorezsa 
seems to be adopted by GASmith and Buhl. KI. supposes it to be the same 
with the [ויחזק אתדידו .16--22 ,יער הרת‎ cf. Jer. 2314 Ezek. 1322 Job 4%,-- 
17. [למשנה‎ cf. 2 Chr. 287 Esth. 103. 

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

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

214 1 SAMUEL 

should read: David dwelt in strongholds in the Wilderness of 
Ziph, and the Ziphites came to Saul and said: Is not David hid- 
ing himself in our region in strongholds? Had they given the 
exact location, as now defined: in the rest of the verse, it would 
have been unnecessary for Saul to urge them to discover David’s 
hiding-place.— 20. And now according to thy heart’s desire to 
come down, O king, come down; and tt shall be our part to deliver 
him into the hand of the king| possibly David’s presence was bur- 
densome, as it was felt to be by Nabal.— 21. Saul expresses his 
gratitude because they have taken compassion on him. —22. He 
exhorts them: Give attention still, and know the place where his 
foot rests! The text cannot be called certain. According to #, 
a reason is added: For 7 am told he is very cunning. —23. The 
exhortation of the preceding verse is repeated in substance and 
Saul concludes: Zhen will go with you, and tf he be in the land, 
Iwill search him out among all the thousands of Judah. —24. The 
Ziphites went in advance of Saul at a time when David and his 
men were in the Wilderness of Maon] the place is mentioned 
along with Carmel and Ziph in Jos. 15°, and still bears the name 
Main. As the next verse tells that David on hearing of Saul’s 
incursion went and dwelt in the Wilderness of Maon, there is 
reason to suspect the integrity of the text. — Zn the Arabah to the 
south of Jeshimon] is in fact sufficiently explicit.—25. David 
went down to the crag which ts in the Wilderness of Maon. The 
idea seems to be that he fled down the mountain side without 
attempting a defence. — 26. Saul was in hot pursuit — David was 
going in hasty flight from Saul, and Saul and his men were about 
to fly upon David and his men, to seize hold of them] the providen- 
tial interference came just at the right moment. — 27, 28. Saul is 
called off by the news of a Philistine invasion, and the place 
receives the name: Rock of Divisions. —29. The verse forms 
the transition to the following. Avzgedi is a well-known oasis in 
the wilderness of Judah, on the west shore of the Dead Sea. 

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

XXIII. 19-29 215 

which is unnatural. We are obliged therefore to strike out as later insertion 
all that follows .במצרות‎ The last clause was put in under the influence 01 1 
and הרשה‎ was inserted to reconcile this with the preceding. The location of 
the Hill of Hachila here however is given as sow¢h of the desert, whereas in 
26! it is apparently east of it; cf. v.!f (We.).—>2nn] occurs only here and 
in 261-8 (Glaser restores it by conjecture in 157 for (חוילה‎ ; some copies have 
mdvan,— הישימן‎ [ is used of the Desert of Judah here and 261 5 cf, Num, 21%, 
For a description cf. GAS., Geog. .כ‎ 313; also Robinson, BA?. 1. p. 500 f. — 
20. לכל-אות‎ [ elsewhere .ככל אות‎ Here we should expect 733. For 115) @ seems 
to have read אלינו‎ connecting it with what precedes. ועלינו‎ would be the regu- 
lar form to express what we need in this context.— 21. חמלתם‎ [ confirms the 
emendation made in 228. — 22. [הכינו‎ supply ,לב‎ 1 Chr. 121%. The ellipsis does ~ 
not occur elsewhere however, and perhaps we should read 3.37, De Rossi, 
with 6 MSS. Some editions prefix וראו--.י‎ wr] one of the two words is 
superfluous, and 655 has only .ידעו‎ The words מי ראהו שס‎ are inappropriate; 
Saul is not concerned with the particular man who shall discover David but 
with the discovery only. Besides, we should at least emend מי‎ to .ומי‎ @ has 
ע6‎ Taxet 666 on the ground of which Th. following a hint of Ew. reads המהרה‎ 
—‘where his fleeting foot may be.’ But the adjective is uncalled for, Ki, 
reads מהרה‎ as an adverb: vow quickly, but the order of the words renders 
this impossible. What the sense requires is a participle defining the condition 
of the subject — where his foot 75 staying. ‘The original may have been רגיה‎ , 
ef, Is. 3414, or ,מהלונן‎ Ps. 011. But there is reason to suspect that the corrup- 
tion is deeper, and that Saul really said: spy out (1917) 205 resteng-place cun- 
ningly, because he is very sly. Something like this seems required by the 
concluding part of the verse. — 128 [כי‎ for one says is perfectly good Hebrew. 
But it is surprising that Saul should give David’s character by hearsay, so that 
this part of the verse also seems to have suffered in transmission. @ reads 
09 etrete (efmare) connecting with what precedes: hasten where you say 
(he is), adding Jest he play you a trick. —23. The verse is so nearly a repeti- 
tion of the preceding, that Kl. takes it to be an insertion from a different 
document. More probably it has been expanded by a scribe. 605 omits 
אלהנכון‎ . . . Soe, and what remains gives a satisfactory sense. —})2-78] prob- 
ably we should read קר‎ (as so often). They were to return resting on a cer- 
tainty. —}\y0] identified by Robinson. The village lies not far south of 
Carmel. In this place 657 has הֶז‎ énnxdm and Houbigant * conjectures there- 
fore .שמעון‎ But as the Ziphites were active in the matter, the Wilderness of 
Maon is appropriate enough. בערכה--‎ [ must mean in the valley of the Dead 
Sea. As the Jordan valley is called the Arabah, and the same valley extends 
south of the Dead Sea, this makes no difficulty. On Jeshimon cf. Num. 21?° 
2378 and Dillmann’s note. — 25. [לבקש‎ read לבקשו‎ with GLE (Th.).— [וישב‎ 
is inappropriate. 65 had אשר‎ which is evidently original (Th.).— 26. [שאול‎ 
add ואנשיו‎ with [נהפז---.65‎ cf. 2 K. 78 Kt. David was pudting himself into a 

* Cf, Josephus, Ans, VI. 280 (Niese, 11. p. 54), ev 779 Bipwvos טוק‎ 

210 1 SAMUEL 

panic in getting away.—o vy] which is used of protecting, Ps. 518, seems 
inappropriate here, so that the conjecture of KI. who reads עטום‎ is acceptable. 
— 28. [מררף‎ on the Daghesh (Baer and Ginsb.) cf. Ges. 22 5. -- [סלע המהלקה‎ 
the expositors are divided between the interpretations Kock of Divisions and 
Rock of Escape. The latter would be more appropriate if pon could mean 
to escape; but this seems not to be the case.—29. The division of chapters 
and verses differs in the different editions, and Baer begins the next chapter 
with this verse —as do the majority of editions in circulation. Engedi still 
bears the name Azz /idi, Robinson, BX. I. p. 504, GAS. Geag. p. 269. For 
the older authorities, Reland, Palaestina, p. 763. 

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

1. As remarked above, the editions vary in the division of chap- 
ters. The only ones which agree with Ginsburg in making the 
dividing line the space which indicates a Parasha, are the very cor- 
rect edition printed at Mantua 1742, and those printed by Plantin. 
I have followed this notation with the idea that Ginsburg’s edition 
is likely to be widely current.—2. The force of three thousand 
men which Saul took with him reminds us of the standing army 
which he recruited at the beginning of his career, 13”. The Widd- 
goat's Crags, on the face of which he sought David, are not yet 
identified, but the ibex (Zed) is still found in the region.— 
3. The sheep folds to which Saul came were possibly caves with a 
rough stone wall about the entrance, such as are still found in the 

XXIV. 1-7 לוכ‎ 

Wilderness of Judah. Into one of these caves Saul went / 
himself, cf. Jd. 3%, where the same euphemism is used as here. 
This cave, however, was the one in which David and his men had 
taken refuge. They would naturally be unseen by Saul as he came 
in from the daylight. We need not insist that the whole of David’s 
force was in the one cave. —4-7. The narrative does not follow 
the natural order, and is perhaps interpolated. —4. David’s men 
remind him of a promise of God: 7704 ts the day of which Yah- 
weh said: Behold I give thine enemy into thy hand, and thou shalt 
do to him as thou pleasest. No such promise is recorded in the 
preceding narrative. The author probably had in mind later pro- 
phetic declarations. According to the present text, David, without 
replying to his men, secretly approached the king, and cut off the 
skirt of his mantle. —5. The feeling that his action was an indig- 
nity gave him a twinge of conscience. —6. The verse continues 
the conversation between David and his men with no reference to 
the skirt. —%. So David restrained his men| the exact verb 
intended is doubtful, see the critical note. 

2. [היעלים‎ cf. Buhl, Geog. p. 97 note. GU has rijs Ofpas trav 60008 
which possibly points to [להפך .8--.צור היעלים‎ Ginsb. gives להסיך‎ as the 
reading of the Massora. The phrase here used is found in only one other 
passage, but the meaning seems clear. A call of nature is the only adequate 
reason for the King’s going alone and unattended into a cave. @ also 
speaks euphemistically, but Aq. rendered amoxev@aa (Theod. Questiones), and 
Josephus describes Saul as émervyduevos tmd עשד‎ xara pdowv, with which com- 
pare wt-purgaret ventrem 31, and למעבר צורכיה‎ T. Only 8 (which makes Saul 
sleep) breaks the consensus of the ancient 8010110165. -- בירכתו‎ indicates 
a caye with branching [ישביכ --.66698868ץ‎ describes the position in which 
David’s men were at Saul’s entrance —they were sitting down in the recesses 
of the cave (Dr.).—4-7. According to the received text the order is as fol- 
lows: (1) David’s men point out his opportunity; (2) David rises and cuts 
off Saul’s skirt; (3) he repents of it; (4) he then replies to his men; (5) he 
restrains them from bloodshed. This is obviously an unnatural order, and Co. 
and Bu. rearrange the clauses in the order 4-6 7. 4b.5.7b, The narrative then 
reads smoothly enough. But it is difficult to see how the dislocation took 
place. It cannot be intentional, for there is no motive for it; the accidents 
of transmission do not generally work in this way. It seems simpler to sup- 
pose that the corruption has come in as so often by interpolation. The earlier 
account made no mention of David’s cutting off Saul’s skirt. The fact that 
Saul had been in David’s power was sufficiently evident by their having been 
in the cave together. A later writer wanted more tangible evidence and so 

218 1 SAMUEL 

introduced the incident of the skirt. Verse 7 joins directly to #4, and what 
is between has been inserted. Verse 31 is inserted by the same hand and is 
as readily spared as 4-6, 4, [היום אשר‎ it would be grammatically correct to 
translate: this is the day when Yahweh says, in which case Yahweh speaks 
by his providential delivery of Saul into David’s hand, and there is no refer- 
ence to a prediction made at an earlier time. But it is unnecessary to de- 
scribe Yahweh as speaking by such a providence, and the following words 
הנה אנכי נהן‎ are in the regular prophetic form. I have therefore supposed 
such a reference here, The other view is defended by Dr., Votes. ax 4 
is correct. — 5. 432-nN] should have the article or be defined by a genitive. 
Th. proposes to insert .המעיל‎ 65 however reads 775 dimAotéos 60700 4 
of לשאול‎ ws, and the latter is suspicious from its conformity to v.4. Restore 
therefore [הלילה לי מיהוה .6--.את כנף מעילו‎ so in 2611 1 8. 213,—7%. yor] 
the verb means to vend or tear, Jd. 14% Even if we suppose a figure of 
speech, the action described by such a figure is too violent for the situation, 
G kal ע76/06?‎ may point to yoy» as conjectured by Cappellus (Crztica Sacra, 
Pp. 330); it might also represent וישקט‎ which would be appropriate here. Bu. 
proposes ,וימנע‎ citing 2576 34 which are not.strictly parallel. 

8. The verse division should be made to include the last clause 
of the preceding: And when Saul rose from the cave and went 
on the road, David arose after him and went out. As Saul turned 
at his call, David did the customary obeisance by prostration. — 
9. David’s expostulation assumes that Saul is under the influence 
of evil advisers who slanderously say: David seeks thy hurt.— 
10. In contrast to this is the present experience: Zo-day thine 
eyes see that Vahweh gave thee into my hand in the cave, but I 
refused to kill thee| and the refusal is motived by his relation to 
Saul as his lord and as the Anointed of Yahweh.—11. David 
calls attention to the skirt as evidence ; 7 have not sinned against 
thee though thou art aiming at my life, to take i¢| repayment of 
evil with good. As already shown the verse must stand or fall 
with *”*.—12. He leaves his cause in the hands of God, reiter- 
ating his refusal to lay his hand upon Saul. —13. The introduction 
of such a proverb as we here find is particularly infelicitous, for it 
intimates that the wickedness of Saul would be his destruction. 
There is good ground therefore for suspecting the verse to be an 
interpolation. —14. The unworthiness of Saul’s effort is seen in 
the insignificance of the object. David compares himself’ to 
a dead dog, cf. 2 S. 9°, or to a flea. —15. A prayer for vindication 
at the hands of Yahweh, 

XXIV. 8-21 219 

8. [אחרי-כן‎ should apparently be wins as read by G48, and we should 
possibly omit ויצא‎ with @8. The reading of 657 is considerably shorter than 
either of the others—al 68006 Aavld 66 tod omndAalov 0₪]ח0‎ Saovd Adywv 
omitting from one 6₪)ח0‎ to the other.—10. ראו עיניך‎ [ Saul’s eyes had not 
seen anything in the caye, but the appearance of David made clear what his 
situation had been. We should retain the text therefore, instead of changing 
to בעיניך‎ O89 with [ואמר---.8‎ is irregular as pointed out by Th., We., Dr. 
The emendation to ואמאן‎ suggested by We. on the ground of tal 006 7BovaAhOnv 
commends itself. Ki. adheres to #) translating man sprach mir zu, but the 
tense is wrong. ¥& reads ואמר‎ = and J thought to kill thee; but it is scarcely 
possible that David would confess an intention of this [וההפ-- .םוא‎ evidently 
requires עיני‎ to be expressed as is actually done by %. On the ground of 6 
however we may restore ואהס‎ (We.); the similarity of א‎ and ת‎ in the old- 
Hebrew alphabet is remarked upon by Ginsburg, /z¢rod. p. 291.—11. [ואבי‎ 
is curiously connected by @" with the preceding: he is the Anointed of 
Yahweh and my father. @¥® reads simply xa) 1500 לד‎ mreptyiov. The diffuse- 
ness of this verse is an argument for its later insertion. What David wished 
to impress was sufficiently evident without so many words.—a7x] only here 
and Ex. 211%. It there means #0 intend a thing.—18. The proverb of the 
ancients here introduced seems to mean that the destruction of the wicked will 
come from themselves —‘ his violence shall come down upon his own head.’ 
A reader might find this appropriate to Saul and insert it in the margin, 
whence it came into the text. We can hardly suppose the original author, 
who makes David show such deep respect for Saul, to put such an intimation 
into David’s mouth. --- הקדפני‎ [ should probably be plural —the following word 
begins with r.— 32] should be בו‎ which form alone is appropriate to the 
proverb.— 14. The exaggerated humility with which David here speaks 
seems to me secondary, as compared with the vigorous language of 26??. 
—15. [וישפטני‎ in the meaning of freeing from one’s enemies, as was done 
by the liberators of Israel in the Book of Judges. 

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

220 1 SAMUEL 

from my clan] the blotting out of one’s name by the destruction 
of his children was the gravest calamity, 2 S. 147.—22. With 
David’s compliance the interview ended; Saul went to his house 
and David and his men went up to the stronghold. 

16. [ויאמר . . . דוד‎ is suspected by Bu. and is in fact doubtful. The same 
words occur in 2617 where they are in place and are followed by David’s 
answer.—18. ואת‎ AZ] [והגדת ---.0/0 ואתה‎ the conjectural emendation of 
Kl. to והגרלת‎ is accepted by Bu., Ki., and gives a much better sense: 70-day 
thou hast done the greatest thing which thou hast done to me in the way of good, 
namely אשר)‎ m8): Yahweh delivered me into thy hand, etc.—19. [ישלחו‎ is 
usually assumed to be a question and Dr. compares Ezek. 15°. It seems easier 
however to emend with K1., reading ומי‎ instead of 15) (cf. 30 quis enim), 
striking out .איש‎ Otherwise we must assume an anacoluthon: When a man 
finds his enemy and sends him on a good path—Vahweh will reward thee. 
The author in this case intended to say: Yahweh will reward him, but 
changec the construction. — תחת היוס הזה‎ [ is possible, but the following clause 
is difficult. We should probably read תחת המוב הזה‎ with Kl.—20, 21. These 
verses with the first three words of 22 are coloured by Bu. as a very late inser- 
tion ‘cf. .א‎ p. 229). The idea of this author however that David was to 
come to the kingdom might readily express itself by the mouth of Saul in 
this way. 

XXV.1. This notice of the death of Samuel has no connexion 
with what precedes or with what follows, but is duplicated in 28%. 
It may have followed immediately on 19 in a life of Samuel. 
The history as thus reconstructed told of David’s preservation by 
the Spirit of Prophecy which fell upon Saul, and added that soon 
after that experience Samuel died, so that David took refuge in 
the Wilderness. Samuel was buried zz his house, cf. 1 K. 2° 
(perhaps also 2 K. 218 originally). Though other specific state- 
ments to this effect are not found, it is possible that burial in one’s 
house was not uncommon. ‘The fact that the sepulchres of the 
kings of Israel were in the palace (Ezek. 43°) would favour this 
view. ‘There is a statement to the effect that the alleged bones 
of Samuel were transferred to Constantinople, 4.0. 406.— Zhe 
wilderness of Paran to which David is said to have gone is the 
extreme southern end of the Arabah. The historical improbability 
of David’s going so far into the wilderness is not a sufficient reason 
for changing the text. 

1. Schmid cites Serarius and Sanctius concerning the translation of Sam- 
uel’s bones to Constantinople. He himself of course rejects that which the 

XXIV. 21-XXV. 3 221 

credulous and superstitious accept. — פארן‎ 7270] known as the seat of Ish- 
mael, Gen. 212! and one of the stations of the Wandering, Nu. 10!? 1216, 
On the ground of Madv &® most editors are disposed to emend to מעון‎ here. 
But the change to this from the other on the ground of the next verse is 
more probable than the reverse. 

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

The story presents a vivid picture of life in the land of Judah. 
It seems to be drawn from the source from which in subsequent 
chapters we have David’s family history. The interest of the 
author is not in David’s method with the wealthy sheep owners, 
but in the way he got a wife, and in the kind of wife he got. The 
connexion with what goes before is not plain, but as there is no 
trace in it of the persecution by Saul, we may suppose that it 
once followed directly on 23", where the author disposes of Saul 
(so far as his history is concerned) by remarking that he sought 
Dayid continually but that God did not deliver him into his hand. 
The close of the narrative joins directly 50 

2-13. The provocation. —The situation is described: There 
was a man in Maon] a locality already mentioned 23%; whose 
business was tn Carmel] the only business which can be carried 
on in the region is that of the shepherd. Carmel, still bearing 
the name Kurmui, is directly south of Ziph. Nabal was wealthy 
in flocks, and at this particular time e was engaged in shearing 
his flocks at Carmel] the sheep shearing was a festival, like the 
harvest and the vintage. At such a time a large hospitality was 
customary ; the Sheikhs of the Bedawin still count on the gener- 
osity of the sheep masters (Robinson, BA’. I. .כ‎ 498).— 3. The 
characters of the man and his wife are contrasted: Zhe woman 
was sensible and comely, but the man was rough and ill behaved | 
as is borne out by the story. By race he was a Cadedite, of the 

222 1 SAMUEL 

clan which possessed Hebron and the surrounding country. Ap- 
parently the clan still counted itself independent of Judah. — 
4,5. David heard in the wilderness — perhaps in Horesha, 23” 
—and sent ten men with a demand for protection money. The 
demand was entirely correct in form, bearing David’s greeting 
—ask him of his welfare in my name.—6. The greeting is set 
forth at large, though the introductory words are obscure. — 
7. The basis of a claim is found in David’s behaviour. He 
had refused to exercise the right of the strongest: Zhy shep- 
herds were with us, and we did not jeer at them] that the soldiers 
in such circumstances should refrain from provoking a conflict 
by biting words was an extraordinary instance of self-control. — 
And nothing of theirs was missing| scarcely less remarkable. — 
8. David’s messengers appeal to the testimony of Nabal’s own 
men, and to the fact that they have come on a feast day, and 
ask a present for thy son David. —9. The messengers deliver the 
message in the name of David.—10. Nabal’s reply is an insult- 
ing one: Whois David? And who is the Son of Jesse? Many 
are the slaves in these days who break away, each from his master] 
the justice of the taunt in relation to many of David’s followers 
gave it its sting. —11. Sarcastic reply to the request: And 7 
must take my bread and my wine and my flesh, which I have slain 
Sor my shearers, and give it to men of whom I do not know whence 
they are! The answer is sufficiently plain. -- 10, 18. David’s 
messengers bring their report, and David prepares to avenge the 
insult. Four hundred men are to go with him and two hundred 
remained with the baggage| an arrangement made also at a later 

2. [ואוש‎ we expect ,ויהי איש‎ and a case analogous to the text is difficult to 
discover. מעשה‎ is used of the flocks and herds, the shepherd’s wor, as it is 
used of the crops— the work of the farmer, Ex. 2319. Similarly nbyp of the 
shepherd’s flock, Is. 4019, -- [כרמל‎ on the site, Robinson, BR2. 1. p. 495 f., GAS., 
Geog. p. 306, Buhl, Geog. p. 163. — 513] of great wealth, like Barzillai 2 S. 193%. 
— 8. גבל‎ [ the word is not quite such a nickname as we think from the transla- 
tion fool. It means reckless (cf. Is. 326), and might be accepted as a compliment 
by a man like Nabal. -- [אביגיל‎ G tries to make the word more euphonious by 
softening it to Adigaia.—nwp] Is. 10% 2 S. 38% כלבו‎ Ke: כלבי‎ Qré. The 
former is possibly an attempt to be witty —he was like or the name was like 
CK1.) ₪25 heart, with an allusion to the well-known proverb ‘as he thinketh in 

XXV. 1 8 22 3 

his heart.’ The Qré is doubtless right. 6 &vOpwros )עטא‎ 05. On the clan 
Caleb cf. Moore, Jzdves, p. 30.—6. [לחי‎ is unintelligible. The punctuators 
intend it to represent לְאְתִי‎ Zo my brethren. But Nabal alone is addressed, so 
that we should at least make it a singular, 0 my brother. Even then the sen- 
tence is awkward and there is reason to suspect corruption, especially as the 
following ) is superfluous. The versions seem to have had no different read- 
ing. I suspect that כה‎ is a corruption of לו‎ (or 7) and that in להי‎ we have 
the חי‎ or clan, to which I would join the ו‎ from the next word, making ואמרתם‎ 
:לו ולהיו‎ and you shall say to him and to his clan. The whole sept would be 
gathered for the shearing. Houbigant suggests: מאמרחס כה לו אחי ארה‎ "1 
Sal. et R. Levi: ste fiat tibt post annum incolumi. D. Kimchi: sic fiat tibt 
per omnem vitam. Et pro se citat Chaldaeum. Magis placet Tremellius, qui 
vertit post Luther: 25% 0200176 et, si incolumis est. Forte sic: Et dicetts sic: 
Vivo (h. e. Deo vivo vitae nostrae Domino te commendo): wt te sit salvus.” 
Schm. p. 827. The embarrassment of the commentators is evident. — 7. [לא‎ 
read ולא‎ with G@S. The at the end of the preceding word is the occasion 
of the error. — הכלמנום‎ [ on the pointing cf. Ges. 53 /.--8. טוב‎ ov] else- 
where of a festival, Esth. 817 and also in post-Biblical Hebrew. Cf. also 
,מוערים טובים‎ Zech. 81%. -- [בנו‎ with loss of the ,א‎ Ges.28, 72.0, — [לעבריך ולכנך‎ 
65 has only 7@ vig cov, which seems most appropriate. —9. [וינוחו‎ most 
naturally means avd rested from their weariness. Undoubtedly a considerable 
journey in the desert is presupposed, so that we may retain the reading. 6 
reads ויקם‎ and connects with the following, 657 giving the right order: kal 
averndinoe 11086 cal arexpién. From the character given to Nabal we might 
expect some manifestation of anger, cf. 208% so that much may be said for this 
reading. — 10. [עבדים‎ the article is necessary and is found in 6. [המתפרציס---‎ 
perhaps, as KI. suggests, who play the robber.—11. [מימי‎ is scarcely possible. 
Water was indeed a scarce commodity in the desert. But David hardly ex- 
pected his men to bring it to him from Nabal. Read with 65 3». Abigail 
did in fact take wine as part of her present. 

14-19. Abigail’s prompt action. —She was informed by one 
of the shepherd lads: David sent messengers from the Wilderness 
to greet our master and he flew at them] with insulting words. — 
15,16. The claim of David as to his forbearance towards Nabal 
and his protection of the flocks is verified. His men had been 
a wall to the flocks against marauders. —1%. The situation is 
critical, for evil is determined upon our master] cf. 20°. All de- 
pends upon Abigail, for it is impossible to approach Nabal: he zs 
such a son of Belial that one cannot speak to him] the evil temper 
of the man makes him a terror to his household. —18. The hint 
was sufficient and the prudent woman took from the abundant 
stores provided for the shearers a substantial present for David. 

224 1 SAMUEL 

Besides bread and wine, there were jive roasted sheep | Gen. 187 °, 
five measures of parched grain| 17", a hundred bunches of raisins 
and two hundred cakes of figs| that the bunches of raisins were 
counted is evident from 2 5. 16 -- 19. The present was sent on 
before, as in the case of Jacob’s meeting with Esau, to make a 
favourable impression. 

14. [הגור‎ Lad 20/0 while the messengers were returning to David. —~ny3 
[אחד מהנערים‎ is redundant. @ omits .נער‎ (@" has a double translation 
of .(מהנערים‎ The conjecture of Kl. adopted by Bu. is attractive (reading 
[ויעט בהם --. (מהרעים‎ means he flew upon them as the bird of prey swoops 
upon its victim. Whether this fits the context is doubtful, for the anger of 
Nabal could scarcely be compared to the eagerness of a rapacious bird. All 
endeavours to correct the text are however unsatisfactory; kal é&€xAwev ₪ 
עשזטם‎ 65 implies ויט מהס‎ But Nabal had used insulting words as well as 
turned from them. %@ seem to render בהם‎ wp, cf. Ps. 951° = and he was 
disgusted at them. But it was Nabal’s expression of his feeling (not the feeling 
itself) that gave offence. Of the conjectures, perhaps the best is ויבעט בהם‎ 
= and he kicked at them, cf. 25% Dt. 32! (Tanch. cited by Th.).—15. בהיותנו‎ 
[בשרה‎ 65 prefixes raf and joins to the next verse. But the close of that verse 
again gives a time determination, so that we must retain the reading of 39. -- 
17. [אל-ארנינור‎ the preposition should evidently be מדבר -- .על‎ [ the מן‎ of com- 
parison; he is more wicked than that one can speak to him ; too wicked to speak 
to, —18. אבוגיל‎ and עשוות‎ may show only the ease with which ) and » are inter- 
changed, but there 1s reason to suppose that both are remains of forms once 
current, cf. Ges.6 24 6 75 v.— סאים‎ | according to Benzinger (Archaev/. p. 183 f.) 
the seah was about twelve litres. The name still survives among the Bedawin 
though the size of the measure has shrunk, Doughty, 11. .כ‎ 113. @ seems to 
have read 62/04 ומאה---.1696[‎ [ cal youop & 65. We might expect raisins to 
be measured rather than counted, but the reading of ® is protected by 2 S. 161. 
We. conjectures that the translators read ומשא‎ here and rendered xa) yéuov 
which is found in one codex (HP 236).—19. [נבל‎ lacking in G8, should 
probably be stricken out. 

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

XXV. 18-29 225 

David as forswearing himself, and so inserted a word which makes 
the imprecation mean just the opposite of what the original narra- 
tor said. A Lapide thinks that David used the language more 
vudgt, as if most men hesitate to utter imprecations on themselves. 
This however is not the case, and the parallel which he urges 
(Dan. 4"°) does not hold. The oath was to the effect that David 
would not leave alive of Nabal’s household @ single male — the 
not very refined description is used also in 1 K. 14 164 217 
2 K. 98. — 23. At the meeting, Abigail aighted hastily in order 
to show respect, cf. Jd. 1%, and fell upon her face before David [ 
the customary obeisance to a superior. —24. And she fell at his 
feet and said: Upon me be the guilt) 2 8. 14°. In dissuading 
David from carrying out his oath, she would take the responsi- 
bility. So Rebecca assumes the curse which Jacob anticipates, 
Gen. 27°. — Let thy maid speak in thine 0075 [ her humility is in 
strong contrast with the arrogance of Nabal.—25. Let not my 
Lord give any attention to that good-for-nothing man! ‘The reason 
is that his depravity has, in a sense, deprived him of judgment: 
fis name ts Reckless, and recklessness dwells with him] as his con- 
stant companion. We might paraphrase: “ His name 15 52 
and he is a éruze.” This is all that can be said—for herself 
she can plead ignorance of David’s embassy. —26. If the verse 
belongs here it is a prediction that David’s enemies shall become 
like Nabal— equally foolhardy we may suppose — and so run into 
destruction.— 27. She prays that her present may be given to 
the young men who accompany David. —28. She asks David’s 
indulgence, on the ground that his future success is assured, since 
he fights the wars of Yahweh. ‘The argument is that the suc- 
cessful man can afford to be magnanimous. ‘The secure house 
promised to David is his dynasty. —29. And should a man rise 
up to pursue thee and to, seek thy life, then shall the life of my 
Lord be bound in the bundle of the living, in the care of Yahweh 
thy God | the precious things are not left loose to be lost or 
destroyed, but are carefully wrapped up and kept together, usu- 
ally in the inner compartment, under the eye of the careful 
housewife. The reader will recall the ten pieces of silver of 
the Gospel parable. The idea is the same expressed later in 
the declaration that the righteous are written in the book of the 

220 1 SAMUEL 

living, that is among those destined by God to long life. The 
exact contrast is in the second half-verse: But the life of thine 
enemies he shall cast away with a sling) a modern Jewish im- 
precation is: may his life be bound in a bag full of holes, and 
thus quickly lost. The older commentators found in the two 
expressions allusions to the future state of the righteous and the 
wicked. But it is misleading to translate mephesh by the word 
soul with our definition of that word. Abigail’s view evidently 
does not reach beyond the present life. —30, 31. The declara- 
tion which follows is to the effect that David will be happier in 
future days, if he now restrains himself from taking vengeance on 
Nabal: When Yahweh shall have done what he has promised... 
then thou wilt not have this as a qualm and as a reproach of heart, 
that thou hast shed blood for nought, and that thine own hand has 
delivered thee| instead of waiting for the deliverance promised by 
God. When that time comes, he will remember Abigail with 
gratitude for her present action. — 32-34. David’s reply is a full 
recognition of the providential nature of her mission, as well as a 
tribute to her discretion. By her action she has 2007 him back 
Jrom walking into blood-guiltiness. Had she not acted, the 
extermination of Nabal’s house would have been complete. 

20. [והיה‎ has arisen erroneously from the following .היא‎ The tense is 
wrong as well as the gender. Read simply והיא‎ (Bu.).— א? בס הר‎ the shade 
of the mountain does not seem satisfactory. 7202 © gives a good meaning — 
on the side —but we have no other trace of a Hebrew word הר‎ in this sense. 
© has ad radices montis.—21. [אך‎ in the restrictive sense: only 70 be de- 
00/0206 have I done this. —15] is used *contemptuously as elsewhere. — 
22. [לאיבי דור‎ makes the whole imprecation nonsense. Kimchi says it is 
a euphemism for 3175. Clericus, following Abarbanel, makes the meaning to 
be: may God give David’s enemies the wealth of Nadal, but this is quite con- 
trary to the uniform sense of .כה יעשה אלהים‎ There seems to be no doubt that 
the alteration was made to save David from false swearing, or possibly to 
save the reader from imprecating a saint. -- בקיר‎ pnwn] has been much dis- 
cussed. The question is whether David means that he will not leave alive 
0 single male, or that he will not leave alive even a dog. The latter is favoured 
by Isaaki, Kimchi, and A Lapide, as it was earlier by Procopius of Gaza, and 
it is adopted by Schm. But it would hardly occur to an oriental to extermi- 
nate the dogs about his enemy’s village, however natural it may be for a 
Roman emperor to threaten the dogs of a besieged city (as was done by 
Aurelian in a case cited by Clericus from Bochart). The other interpretation 

227 4 .אא 

which makes the words describe every made of the threatened family seems to 
agree with the passages where the phrase occurs, in all which it is accom- 
panied by words which apply to men and not to animals. Objections which 
have been based upon oriental customs seem not to have a basis in fact. The 
Targum in translating ירע מרע‎ seems to understand ad who have reached years 
of discretion, while some expositors have taken the phrase in the opposite 
sense of young doys, others interpreting of the lowest slaves. The question is 
discussed at length by Bochart, Mierozoicon, 1. 11. 55.— 28. [לאפי רוד על-פניה‎ 
the phrase has been confused by a scribe; restore m»px-by לפני ד'‎ (We.).— 
24. [ותפל‎ is lacking in 65% which makes the clause begin with the preceding 
wnwni: and she prostrated herself on the ground at his feet. Repeated pros- 
trations are in order however, and I have retained 39 (K1., Bu. read with 6: 
(ותשתחו ארץ על רגליו‎ . -- N73] emphatic repetition of the pronoun, Davidson, 
Syntax, §1.—}yn] at the first blush it seems as if Abigail means to assume 
Nabal’s guilt. But the parallels, 2 S. 149 Gen. 2718, show that the blame 
which might fall upon the person addressed is assumed by the speaker, as 
the Arab still says: may I be thy [ותדבר -- ! נתספמג9ץ‎ the conjunction is omit- 
ted by 6S, and the construction is quite as good without it. ₪ omits the 
last three words of this verse and the opening words of the next, reading 
only: let thy maid speak in thine ears concerning this man Nabal. As it is 
difficult to see why a translator should thus shorten the text, it is possible that 
we have here the earlier form of the sentence. — 25. הבליעל‎ [ lacking in $.— 
[איש הבליעל‎ 2 ₪. 167, cf. 201.— [על-נכל‎ lacking in 658, is more likely to be 
inserted than to be omitted by a scribe. — 26. The verse does not fit in the 
context and is not clear in itself. It contains an oath of Abigail’s, but to what 
does she swear? The most natural connexion would be with what precedes: 
Thy servant did not know .. . by the life of Yahweh! The strong assurance 
that Yahweh had kept David back from bloodshed might perhaps be in place, 
though the same theme is treated again in v.*! where it is more appropriate. 
But even then the concluding part of the verse is enigmatic. Nabal was not 
yet dead or stricken in any way. The wish that David’s enemies should 
become /ize Nadal is entirely premature. Besides this, the use of 12s instead 
of כי‎ is awkward and probably points to interpolation. I suspect the original 
form of the sentence to have been: חי והוה אשר מנעך מבוא כדמים . . . יהיו כנכל‎ 
וגו‎ pax. This was inserted in the text by a scribe who did not find Abigail’s 
language vigorous enough, and was itself interpolated by the insertion of the 
current וחי נפשך‎ which required the second ברכה .27 — .יהוה‎ in the same sense 
Gen. 3311 Jd. 1 1 ₪. 30?.— san] read .88--.הביאה‎ The expressions put 
into Abigail’s mouth are the evident sentiments of one who knew David’s 
later career. It is not improbable that this extended speech is expanded from 
a simpler form. — [בית נאמן‎ 2% 2 5. 716 1 K. 119% (all late passages). — מלחמות‎ 
mm] [מימיך---.18%‎ cf. 1 18. 15 Job 27% --29. [ויקם‎ read op1— hypothetical 
(cf. Dr. Motes). — יהוה‎ nx] the bundle is thought of as containing the pre- 
cious things which the master of the house keeps in his immediate care — 
with him. —yopn 42 [בתוך‎ we should expect the כ‎ of comparison and then .מן‎ 

228 1 SAMUEL 

Still it is possible that the sling is thought of as the means of casting away — 
cast away using the holder of the sling, or sling away with a sling. —80. וצוך‎ 
[לפוקה .81 ---.1314 [לנגיד‎ the general intent of the passage is clear, though 
this word occurs only here. Either לך‎ or לאדני‎ is superfluous, and one must 
be stricken out.— [ולשפך‎ read לשפך‎ with G and five Heb. 1198. -- [ולהושיע‎ 
add וד‎ with 65. That one’s own hand should save him, is a standing phrase, 
Jd. 72.34. [ותבאתי‎ a mongrel form, having both the preformative of the 
imperfect, and the ending of the perfect, cf. Ges.2° 76%, Nestle in ZATW. 
XIV. p. 319. The latter author supposes the form intended to give the reader 
his choice of two forms; Dr. suggests that it has been influenced by the 
following ,לקראתי‎ which seems to me more probable. —85. [ואשא פניך‎ the 
phrase is used in a bad sense, to describe the perversion of justice by favourit- 
ism. It seems to mean to give any one pleasure by granting his request, and 
so to make the downcast face look up. 

86-44. The outcome. — Not long after this, Nabal is smitten by 
an act of God, and Abigail becomes David’s wife. — 36. Abigail 
comes home and finds her husband in no condition to receive an 
important communication — He had a banquet like a king’s and 
Nabal’s heart was merry within him, and he was excessively 
drunken | the effect is heightened by the contrast between his 
hilarity and the danger from which he had just escaped, and also 
by the contrast between the present revelling and the coming blow. 
— 37. In the morning, when he had somewhat recovered from 
his debauch, the news was told him. — At the shock fis heart died 
within him and he became stone| a stroke of paralysis is the natural 
explanation. — 38. Ten days later, Yahweh smote Nabal with a 
second stroke which was fatal. —39. David recognizes that God 
has intervened: Blessed is Yahweh who has pleaded the case of 
my insult received at the hand of Nabal| a quarrel between men 
of the same blood should be referred to an arbitrator. One ele- 
ment of David’s rejoicing is that Yahweh has so promptly assumed 
this office, the other is that he has kept back his servant from evil | 
that is, from violating customary law by shedding Israelitic blood. 
— 40. David woos Abigail. Marriage of a widowed person soon 
after bereavement is still common in the East.— 41. She is will- 
ing to be the lowliest of his servants —a@ maid to wash the feet of 
his slaves.—48. The account of Abigail is finished, but the 
author adds further information concerning David’s family. First, 
David took Ahinoam of Jezreel, not the northern city 01 the name, 

XXV. 36-XXVI. 229 

but one in Judah.—44. In the second place, Michal, his first 
wife, had been given to Pali ben Laish, of 61007700. Saul re- 
garded David’s flight-as a desertion of his wife, which brought her 
back under her father’s power. 

87. Instead of saying when the wine had gone from Nabal, 66 renders 
when Nabal had recovered from the wine. — 88. 0127} should perhaps be 
on’, though the writer may have in mind ¢#e ten days (which actually elapsed 
in this case) as a known period. —389. [מיד נבל‎ is connected with רב‎ by 
Driver. The other construction 92) חרפתי מיד‎ (preferred by Dr. Weir) seems 
to me more vigorous. — השיב יהוה בראשו‎ [ as in the case of Abimelech, Jd. 9°, 
— [וידבר באביגיל‎ seems to be parallel to Cant. 8%. In the latter however it 
evidently means to speak to a maiden’s guardian for her hand. Abigail 
seems to have had the disposal of her own person. — 42. ההלכת‎ [ the first ה‎ 
has arisen by erroneous duplication. She and the ten maids who followed her 
did not ride —she rode and they walked by her side.—48. Ahinoam was 
also the name of Saul’s wife, 149. -- [מיזרעאל‎ a Jezreel in Judah is men- 
tioned Jos. 15°° in the same group with Maon, Carmel, and Ziph.—44. There 
is no intimation that Saul was guilty of aggression in resuming the right to 
give his daughter to another husband.— wp] is פלטיאל‎ in 2 5. 315.-- [ליש‎ 
in 2 S. ,לוש‎ is rendered *Awels in GB and Iwds in 655.- מגלים--‎ [ the only Gal- 
lim mentioned elsewhere, Is. 10, is evidently in Benjamin. 655 has ‘Poupd 
and 65 .גת‎ 

XXVI. Saul in David’s power. — Saul, at the suggestion of the 
Ziphites, again seeks David. When he is in the immediate neigh- 
bourhood, David goes into the camp at night. The whole army is 
overcome by deep sleep, but he refuses to allow his companion, 
Abishai, to slay Saul. ‘To show what the situation has been, he 
carries away the king’s spear and cruse of water. Arrived safely 
at a distance from the camp, he calls to Abner and reproaches 
him with neglect of duty. Saul recognizes David’s voice and at 
David’s expostulation confesses his wrong, after which each goes 
his way. 

The section is obviously parallel to 24. And as there is here no 
reference to David’s repeated acts of magnanimity, there is reason 
to think that both accounts go back to the same original. With 
this agrees the fact that the Ziphites are active in both. We have 
no hesitation, therefore, in assuming that one of them stood in 
one of the two histories of the period, the other in the other. 
Budde assigns this to E, the other (chap. 24) toJ. Of the two, 

230 1 SAMUEL 

the present one seems to me to be nearer the event, and therefore 
to belong to the older of the two documents. ‘The nearest his- 
torical parallel is Gideon’s visit to the camp of the Midianites, 
Jd. 7°, which is assigned by competent authorities to J. 

XXVI. The identification of the narrative with E seems in this instance 
especially precarious. Budde (7S. 228) gives only the following marks: 
מרגלים‎ which he does not allow to be a mark of E in 2S. 1519; מעגל‎ which 
occurs in this sense only once — 179; מראשות‎ 191% but also 1 K. 1% which 
can hardly be attributed to E; David’s standing ov the top of the mountain 
like Jotham, Jd. 9’, in a section whose authorship is doubtful—to say noth- 
ing of the fact that so commonplace a phrase can hardly weigh much in an 
argument; ,אלהיס אהרים‎ which is also common in D; הרע לי‎ which occurs in 

J, Gen. 43° Ex. 5; and, finally, Saul’s confession, which can scarcely be called 

characteristic. The combined force of these indicia cannot be very great. 
They would probably be outweighed by the single word תרדמה‎ which is char- 
acteristic of J, Gen. 274 1619. Cf. also nip בני‎ v.16, found in 20%! 2 5. 12° neither 
one of which is E. 

1. The Ziphites bring Saul knowledge of David’s whereabouts : 
Ls not David hiding himself on the hill of Hachilah on the face of 
the Desert | the eastern front of the Desert, where it breaks down 
towards the Dead Sea is probably intended. The same locality is 
mentioned 23" in our present text.—2. Saul’s force here con- 
sists of three thousand men as in 24”.—3, 4. On discovering that 
an invasion was on foot, David sent out spies, and knew that 
Saul had come to| some particular spot whose name is now lost. 
—5. He was able to make out the place where Saul was lying 
with the people camping about him.—6. David asks his two 
companions: Who will go down with me to Saul, to the camp ?) 
Abishai his nephew volunteers. —7. When they came into the 
camp, Saul was lying asleep in the... and his spear was struck 
into the earth at his head. ‘The lance standing upright is still the 
sign of the Sheikh’s quarters among the Arabs. Doughty, I. p. 221. 
WRSmith, A7zship, p. 271.8. Abishai wishes to avail himself 
of the opportunity: Let me smite him with his spear into the 
earth| meaning to strike the spear through him into the earth. 
There may be a designed reminiscence of Saul’s purpose to pin 
David to the wall, 187 19”. One blow would be all that was 
needed. —9. David forbids him: Aor who can lay his hand on 
the Anointed of Yahweh and be innocent? the reverence for the 

XXVI. I-12 231 

king is the same as in 24°; there more pronounced if anything. 
—10. David’s intention is to leave Saul in the hand of God — 
either Yahweh shall smite him] by a direct stroke, as in the case 
of Nabal, or his day shall come and he shall die] in accordance 
with a decree already fixed, or he shall go down into battle and 
meet his.end, In any case, David refuses to take the matter into 
his own hand.—11. Repeating his refusal, he directs Abishai to 
take the spear and the jug of water.—12. With these trophies, 
David and his lieutenant went their way, and no one saw, and no 
one knew, and no one awoke, for all of them were asleep, for a 
deep sleep from Yahweh had fallen upon them] \ike Adam’s uncon- 
sciousness, Gen. 27. 

1. On reviewing 231% and its relation to the present verse it seems to me 
not unlikely that the two were originally identical. That is: this account was 
originally in direct sequence to 231% and has now been displaced by the 
fuller (double) story contained in 2319-2428, —nbyon] a number 01 Heb. MSS. 
have ,הבילה‎ and 5 seems to have read [אלהנכון .4--.חוילה‎ the name of a 
place is expected, as was already evident to Schm. who translates ad certum 
(Zocum). GAB has 66 KeeiAd, @" eis SexeAdy, neither of which will do. Pos- 
sibly we should read נכהו‎ bs— ‘0 the point just in front of him.—5. GAB 
omits the clause שאול‎ . . . xq by homeoteleuton.— ayn] occurs also 17”, 
but what is meant is unknown. @ has here Aaumhyn, a covered chariot. It is 
perhaps no objection to this that it would not fit 17”. But the fact that 
Abishai wants to pin the king ¢o 226 ground shows that he was not sleeping 
in a chariot or on a couch. סביבתיו <.7א/ סביבתו‎ Qré both here and in yv.’. 
—6. yy] David answers his own thought.— אחימלך‎ [ one of the numerous 
foreigners who joined Dayid’s force —a //z¢tr¢e like Uriah. On the Hittites 
cf. Moore on Jd. [אבישי--.35‎ from the analogy of other proper names, the 
second member of the word should be the name of a god. — [צרויה‎ the sister 
of David, according to 1 Chr. 21°, If this be correct, we can account for the 
designation of her sons by her name (rather than that of their father) only by 
supposing that their father was a foreigner, and the marriage was one of those 
in which the wife remained in her own clan and the children were counted 0 
that clan, cf. 2 S. 1725.—8. איבך‎ Qré is to be preferred.— [בהנית ורארי‎ as 
pointed out by Krenkel ) 2.4 7'W. II. .כ‎ 310) we should read בהנירי ר*ירץ‎ for 
the fact that Saul’s own spear was to be used is important. The conjunction 
is not read by 653, while S renders הזה אשריבארץ‎ nn. — 9. מי שלח‎ [ should be 
followed by the reverse tense, not by ונקה‎ as here. ,\ »seems to have fallen 
out after מי‎ (cf. Dr., Votes) — this is favoured by &.—10. ox [כי‎ cannot be 
the adversative particle, nor can it introduce the substance of the oath after 
חי יהוה‎ for it would give a meaning the reverse of what 128910 intends. The 
כי‎ therefore must introduce the substance of the oath, which is stated in three 

232 1 SAMUEL 


possibilities, of which os indicates the first, the others following with .או‎ - 
19. [מראשתי‎ as suggested by We., a מ‎ has probably fallen out before this 
word, the preceding word ending with the same letter. The unusual termi- 
nation is probably a corruption of the suffix—read ממראשתו‎ striking out בשאול‎ 
The received text seems to be defended in Ges.”® 875. 

13. David went across and stood upon the top of a mountain 
Jar away| the power of the orientals to make their voices heard 
at a long distance has often been remarked by travellers. — 
14. David calls Abner, making the greater impression upon Saul 
by not directly addressing him. The reading of 6® for Abner’s 
answer is, therefore, to be preferred: Who art thou that callest? 
David had not called the king at all.—15. Having got Abner’s 
attention, David reads him a lesson: Art not thou a man? And 
who is like thee in Israel? Why then hast thou not kept guard 
over thy Lord the king? For there came one of the people to 
destroy the king, thy Lord! ‘The sarcastic questions put the state 
of the case with startling vividness. —16. Pronouncing them 
deserving of death for their neglect, he calls attention to the fact 
that the king’s spear and water vessel are missing. ‘This is evi- 
dence enough of the truth of what he is saying. —17. Saul recog- 
nizes David’s voice, and the recollections called up by the sound 
are expressed in his words: Js 77/9 thy voice, my son David ? 
Evidently the old affection has been touched. —18. Having got 
a hearing, David expostulates freely: Why is 17 that my Lord ts 
pursuing his servant? ‘The further questions are in reality asser- 
tions of his innocence. —19. Discussion of the cause of the king’s 
enmity follows. David can account for it only on the theory that 
external influences have wrought upon the mind of the king. 
These may be human or superhuman. On the one hand: /f 
Yahweh has instigated thee against me] as he afterwards instigated 
David against Israel, 2 ₪. 24. The wrath of Yahweh against 
David is conceived of as the cause of Saul’s action. The theolo- 
gians are compelled to explain Yahweh’s causation as permissive, 
Satan being the real instigator, as in ד‎ Chr. 211. Let him inhale 
an offering] the sacrifice ascending in smoke was appropriated by 
the deity through the sense of smell. Thus when angry he was 
placated, as in the time of Noah, Gen. 8% (J.). But if they be 
men, cursed be they before Yahweh] the imprecation will fall upon 

XXVI. 13-25 23 

them and punish them, For they have now driven me from union 
with the inheritance of Yahweh, saying: Go serve other gods! 
The inheritance of Yahweh is the territory of Israel. Yahweh can 
be served only in his own land. The exile is compelled to serve 
the gods of the land in which he sojourns, Jer. 5!.—20. David 
prays that his blood may not be shed away from the presence of 
Yahweh| where it would not be avenged, for Yahweh is the 
avenger of wrong done to his servants. The reason for the 
prayer is that he is helpless against the superior might of Saul: 
for the king of Israel ts come out to seek my life, as the eagle hunts 
the partridge on the mountains]. ‘This emended reading gives a 
sense more in accord with the context than the traditional #9.— 
21. Saul confesses his wrong and invites David to return. J have 
done foolishly and have erred exceedingly. —22. David does not 
notice the invitation, but only says: Behold the spear, O king! 
Let one of the young men come over and take tt. — 28, 24. Final 
repetition of the prayer: May Yahweh reward each one’s right- 
eousness and fidelity] in such a way that David’s life may be 
treated as generously as he had treated Saul’s life. —25. Saul 
prophesies David’s success in general terms. ‘There is no distinct 
allusion to the kingdom like the one גנ‎ 

13. [ההר‎ the particular mountain which was adapted for his purpose. — 
14. עש\שא 6 [קראת אל-המלך‎ GB: 6 עגסא‎ pe; 5)ד‎ ef, cd; GU. The shorter 
form is to be preferred. It was supplemented by a scribe who realized that 
the calling to Abner would affect Saul: gz? clamas et inguietas recem &. — 
15. [שמרת אל‎ we should read על‎ as in the next verse. —16. בנידמות‎ [ cf. 1 
2 5. 12%.-- [ואת-צפחת‎ is corrected by Bu. to nnas .ואי‎ But it seems not un- 
likely that the governing force of the first אי‎ was in the writer’s mind so that 
he could use the accusative particle, Davidson, Syntax, 72, Rem. 4.-- 
17. [קולי‎ 80965 cov GAB, “The more courtly is less original” (We.). 
—19. [מהסתפה‎ the verb is rare, but there seems to be no doubt as to the 
meaning, cf. the Niphal in Is. 141. — 20. [פרעש אחר‎ is the same phrase used 
in 2415. There it is in place after the question after whom, etc. But here the 
thought is not the insignificance of David, but his helplessness. @4B reads 
,נפשי‎ which is also favoured by nx, which is ungrammatical in the present text. 
— [כאשר‎ the conjecture of Kl. who reads כנשר‎ has everything in its favour. 
Only thus is the comparison fully expressed. — הקרא‎ | the partridge is named 
from its loud clear note.*—22. [.7א. החנית‎ the Qvé demands ,חנית‎ making 

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

234 1 SAMUEL 

the vocative‏ המלך the genitive. But the A?d may be retained, making‏ המלך 
with the versions.‏ בידי is doubtless to be corrected to‏ ]72 .28 — 

1 Samuel XXVII.-2 Samuel I. David as Vassal of the Phil- 

XXVII. 1—XXVIII. 2. David enters the service of Achish, 
King of Gath. — Despairing of safety in the way in which he has 
been living, David resorts to Achish and is received by him. 
Finding life in the capital not to his taste, he begs a town for 
himself, which he may hold as an outpost of the kingdom. 6 
receives Ziklag, and when settled there carries on constant warfare 
with the Bedawin. By representing that his raids are carried on 
against the Judahite clans, he gives his chief the impression that 
he has entirely estranged himself from his people. ‘The confi- 
dence of the king is thereby so strengthened that when the Philis- 
tines muster their forces for an invasion of Israel, Achish summons 
David to follow and makes him the guardian of his person. 

The paragraph evidently knows nothing of David’s having once 
attempted to join the court of Gath, 21775. It is remarkable for 
its silence concerning the oracle and the warning given to David 
to remain in the land 01 Judah, 22°. It presupposes the marriage 
with Abigail, unless the mention of her in v.’ be an interpolation. 
It does not seem directly to continue 26, for David’s experience 
there related was calculated to encourage rather than to discourage 
him. ‘The only part of the preceding narrative which would natu- 
rally lead up to this is 237% where David is nearly captured by 
Saul and escapes only because Saul is called away by an invasion 
of the Philistines. 

1. David said to himself: Now I shall be destroyed some day 
by the hand of Saul; the only good thing ts that I should escape to 
the land of the Philistines. There, of course, he would be out of 
his enemy’s reach ; Saul would therefore despair of him and not 
seek him further. Schm. finds this move of David’s a result of 
carnal lack of faith.k—2. He therefore went with his band to 

above in the next line, instead of giving ארצה‎ which belongs here. The new and 
ostensibly most correct edition of the text has thus added a serious blunder to the 

list already known to us—and this in spite of the modern advantages of proof- 

XXVII. 7 235 

Achish ben Maoch, king of Gath] the accession of such a band 
would be welcome to a ruler whose territory was open to inroads 
from the Bedawin. We may readily suppose that David did not 
take this step without previous negotiations. —3. At first they 
resided in Gath itself, each with his house] the band was already 
becoming a clan. The number of people thus brought to Gath 
might be inconvenient to the king.—5. David represents to 
Achish the desirability of his having another residence zy one of the 
towns of the open country| he might readily plead the advantage 
of such a situation in guarding the frontier. His own interest was, 
no doubt, to prevent amalgamation of his men with the Philis- 
tines. His language conveys the impression that it was too high 
an honour to dwell in the immediate vicinity of the king. —6. Z- 
fag is mentioned among the towns of Judah, Jos. 15%, and again 
in the list of Simeon, Jos. 19°. The indications are not sufficiently 
definite to enable us to identify the site. The second half of the 
verse tells us that 2/2/00 has belonged to the kings of Judah until 
this day. As we have no other instance of the phrase &zngs of 
Judah in the Books of Samuel, we may regard this sentence as an 
interpolation. It implies that Ziklag would naturally belong to 
the northern kingdom (as Beersheba did), but was kept by the 
family of David, whose title dated from the donation of Achish. 
--7. The time of David’s sojourn is four months according to 
©, a year and four months according to 3. Both seem too 
short according to Achish’s own statement, 29°. 

The section *” (according to We. 7-5( is in contradiction with 
the preceding, in that Gath is its scene. It is therefore thought 
by some to be an interpolation. On the other hand, the verses *” 
may be the interpolation. Their excision leaves the narrative 
free from difficulty. But they are the necessary preparation for 
30, so that we must suppose them a part of the document from 
which that chapter is taken. 

1. [אספה‎ cf. 261°. — יום-אחד‎ [ seems not to be used in this sense elsewhere, 
but is confirmed by @.—»3] we expect ,כי אס‎ and on the ground 01 @ we may 
assume that the original was כי אם אמלט‎ in which the loss of אם‎ is easily ac- 
counted for.—‘ nn] is not represented in @48 and can well be spared. — 
2. [ושש-מאות‎ 672006000, @B.—8. [הכרמלית‎ better read the masculine form 
to agree with [יוסף .4--.(68) גבל‎ read יסף‎ with the 0/4.--6. [צקלג‎ the 

2 36 1 SAMUEL 

identification proposed by Conder (cited by Buhl, Geag. p. 185) seems to have 
no sufficient ground.—%. The verse is said by Bu. (2S. p. 231) to be mis- 
placed. It is possibly an interpolation like the most of such data. @L read 
four months, and the om» may have arisen by duplication of the two letters 
preceding. @4 renders ,ימי ארבעח ח'‎ which shows how the reading might arise. 
That four months is too short a time for the actual duration of David’s sojourn 
is evident, but so is a year and four months. — [ימים‎ for a year, Jd. 1719 2S, 146. 

Objection to the coherence of *! with the rest of the chapter is raised by 
Stade, GV7. 1. p. 252 and by We., 72.9. p. 140 (who includes y."), cf. Comp. 
p- 253. The defence of the verses is undertaken by Kamphausen, 2.4 7WV. 
VI. p. 85 f., and he is supported by Kiltel. The two parts of the chapter cer- 
tainly do not fit well together, though both seem historically probable. The 
natural supposition is that we have two sources combined. 

8. When settled in his new quarters, David made raids upon 
the Gisrites and the Amalekites | the Geshurites seem to have come 
into the received text by mistake. The Gizrites, being Canaan- 
ites, and the Amalekites, being Bedawin, were legitimate prey for 
both Philistine and Israel. But, owing to the location of Gezer, 
it seems better to substitute the Perizzites for the Gizrites in 
the text.— For these tribes dwell in the land which stretches from 
Telam tn the direction of Shur to the land of Egypt] for justifica- 
tion of the reading, see the critical note. —9. And David would 
smite the land | habitually is implied in the form of the verb; 
and not leave alive man or woman| the method is too well 
known to excite surprise. That he returned to Achish seems 
to make Gath the starting point of the raids. —10. To the ques- 
tion of Achish: Where have you raided to-day? David would 
return a misleading answer: Against the Negeb of Judah, or 
against the Negeb of the Jerachmeelite, or against the Negeb of the 
Kenite| the Negeb is the southern district of Palestine, bordering 
on the desert. David names Judah and two related clans — his 
friendly relations with them are indicated by his gifts, 30”. 
Jerachmeel is, in fact, reckoned as one of the clans of Judah in 
1 Chr. 2*”,—11. The first part of the verse is really a paren- 
thetical remark, explaining how David was not detected. The 
main narrative is taken up in the concluding portion; Zhus aid 
David, and such was his custom all the days which he dwelt in the 
country of the Philistines. —12. The result was that Achish trusted 
David, thinking that he had broken finally with Israel and would 

XXVIT. 3-XXVIIT. 2 27 

be his perpetual vassal. — XXVIII. 1. The previous narrative 
evidently leads up to the expression of confidence given by Achish 
when he commands David: Be sure that thou shalt go out with 
me to the camp, thou and thy men. That the occasion was em- 
barrassing to David we may well believe.—2. His reply is 
designedly ambiguous. The author, who makes him 80 careful 
to spare Israel in his raids, certainly did not suppose that he 
would take part in the battle on the Philistine side. Achish 
understands David to promise great deeds, and says: Zherefore 
[in case the promise is kept] 7 wl make thee keeper of my head 
forever | that is, captain of the bodyguard. 

8. הגשורי והגרזי‎ | the Geshurztes certainly do not belong here, and the 
second word is unheard of elsewhere. The Qré substitutes |הגזרי‎ which 
would perhaps do, as Gezer was Canaanitish down to the time of Solomon, 
1 K.9!6, But I suspect הפרזי‎ (Dt. 3°) to be original—notice the resem- 
blance of ג‎ and 5 in the older alphabet. @B® has only one of the two names. 
Against Gezer is to be urged its location, too far north for David’s forays 
(cf. Moore, Judges, p. 48( . -- הנה‎ [ must refer to the tribes just mentioned. 
The feminine plural in such cases is unusual but not unintelligible— מעולם‎ [ 
does not fit in this context. We., Dr., correct to מטלם‎ following a hint 
given by ten MSS. of 66 (HP.). Telam, as shown above (on 154), was a 
place on the southern border of Judah. —9. והכה‎ [ the tense indicates repeated 
or habitual action, whereas וישב‎ calls attention to what took place in each 
single instance. —10. 78] should apparently be אן‎ which is found in some 
MSS. of 3 and sustained by S@, whereas 653 seem to render אל מי‎ or מי‎ = 
11. [לאמר כה עשה‎ it is highly unnatural to make כה עשה דור‎ the speech of the 
supposed fugitive and what follows the statement of the narrator. This לאמר‎ 
should be stricken out, and the whole half verse made the narrator’s state- 
ment. ‘This is supported by %. KI. supposes the first half of the verse to be 
a gloss, and this is not improbable. —12. הבאיש‎ [ Gen. 3429 Ex. 59%. בישראל---‎ [ 
some MSS. and editions have ---.ישראל‎ XXVIII. 2. 737] lacking in 3, should 
perhaps be emended to ,אכן‎ though David’s thought may be: decause of this 
expression of confidence. For אתה‎ read any with 63. -- [שמר לראש‎ the 
equivalent in 65, 00 ד שחו‎ 00 is the title of the chief of the bodyguard 
at the court of the Ptolemies, cf. Deissmann, Bzdelstudien (1895), p. 93- 

XXVIII. 3-25. Saul’s fate pronounced. — Saul in fear of the 
Philistines seeks divine guidance, but receives none by the ap- 
pointed means of grace. In his despair he seeks out a necro- 
mancer, though he had formerly exterminated such from Israel, so 
far as was in his power. Informed of one, he visits her, and she 

238 1 SAMUEL 

calls up the shade of Samuel. But the spirit only denounces the 
punishment in store for Saul. Overcome by the sentence, Saul 
falls prostrate to the earth, but is roused and induced to break his 
fast by the woman whose guest he is. 

The section breaks the connexion of the narrative and is un- 
doubtedly from another document. What that document is can 
scarcely be doubtful from the position given to Samuel. Although 
dead, he appears as the same instrument of Yahweh’s will who 
appointed and dethroned Saul. The last scene in Saul’s life is the 
last appearance of Samuel. There is no need therefore to suppose 
vy." 18. which allude directly to Saul’s disobedience, to be later 
interpolation. Ina sense, the picture presented by chapter 15 is 
not complete without this sequel. 

3-25. The position of Samuel in this document is sufficient to identify it as 
a part of the history from which chapter 15 is taken. ‘The secondary nature 
of v.17f is indicated by Bu. in his edition of the text, but can hardly be main- 
tained when the connexion with 15 is seen. It is also unfortunate that Bu. 
should displace the section, ranging it between 30 and 31. As part of a dif- 
ferent document it must break the connexion wherever it is placed, and we 
have no evidence that as a part of the Books of Samuel it ever occupied any 
but its Massoretic position. The reason urged is that the geographical situa- 
tion is more advanced here than in chapter 29. But this ignores the fact that 
this account was written with the scene of Saul’s death in mind, and that it 
intended to ignore the history in which it is now imbedded. On the critical 
questions cf. Stade’s review of Bu. ) 722.2. 1896, col. 8). We. calls attention 
to the resemblance to 15 (Comp. p. 254). 

3. The verse prepares for the following narrative by telling, 
first, that Samuel was dead —and so could not be consulted by 
Saul except by calling up his shade. The language — Samuel 
had died and all Israel had mourned for him and had buried him 
in Ramah his city —is in substance a repetition of 25'. The next 
statement explains the difficulty Saul had in finding the means 
of communicating with the shades — he had removed the talismans 
and necromantic charms from the land. This was in accordance 
with the Deuteronomic law, Dt. 18". That the magical or idola- 
trous apparatus is intended, rather than the persons who made use 
of them, will be evident on considering the passages in point. 
That the persons also were not spared is probably true. 

XXVIII. 3 239 

8. [ובעירו‎ is superfluous; בעירו‎ is read by GX and 4 MSS. of #%. The 
word seems to represent בביתו‎ of 251, for which it was substituted in the trans- 
fer, to avoid 508208[.--- האבות‎ [ the word has generally been understood of 
the familiar spirits who are (as alleged) subservient to the soothsayers; the 
derived meaning is supposed to be 6ל/‎ necromancers who make use of such 
spirits. The Hebrew Lexicon of BDB. makes אוב‎ always mean either xecro- 
mancer or necromancy. Neither definition seems to fit all the cases. Not to 
speak of the difficulty in supposing the same word to designate both the spirit 
and the medium, or both the necromancer and his art, I would urge, first, the 
feminine form of the word, which makes it doubtful whether it can be referred 
to necromancers. It can hardly be claimed that these were so uniformly 
women that the gender of the word represents that fact. More significant is 
the fact that in the majority of cases אוב‎ is classed not with persons, but with 
things — objects of idolatrous or superstitious practices. Thus in the familiar 
passage in Isaiah )81%( : and when they say: Seek the אבוה‎ and the ירענים‎ 0 
chirp and mutter, the contrast is drawn between these and God, and the most 
natural interpretation makes them some sort of idol. Again we are told 
(CIs. 19°) that Egypt shall seek the idols (אליליכ)‎ and the אטיס‎ and the אבות‎ 
and the 2397, where it is certainly not violent to interpret all the words as 
designating objects of the same class. The author of Kings (2 K. 23%4) tells 
us that Josiah destroyed the אבות‎ and the ידעניס‎ and the 7eraphim and the 
idols and the abominations —the last three are certainly objects of devotion, 
and the verb used (בער)‎ is more appropriate to the destruction of these than 
to the slaying of men. More significant is the assertion (2 K. 216) that 
Manasseh made (עשה)‎ an אוב‎ and a ידעני‎ which could be said only of a talis- 
man or fetish. There seems to be no passage which is inconsistent with this. 
Dt. 18!f commands: There shall not be in thee... a diviner, a soothsayer 
or an enchanter or a sorcerer or one who binds spells, or one that asks אוב‎ or 
(ירעני‎ or one that inquires of the dead, where the שאל אוב‎ (not the אוב‎ itself) 
is parallel with the soothsayers and enchanters. Should it be objected that 
a fetish cannot speak, we may reply that the Teraphim are declared to speak 
falsehood (Zech. 10*), a case which clearly refutes the objection. Many idols 
and fetishes are supposed to give revelations to their devotees. The prohi- 
bition to go a whoring after the אבוה‎ and the ירעניס‎ (Lev. 20°) is entirely in 
accord with my supposition, and so is the sentence pronounced upon man or 
woman with whom is an אוב‎ (Lev. 2077). Not much stress can be laid upon 
Jewish tradition in this matter, but it is significant that the Talmud makes a 
בעל אוב‎ one who asks the skull of a dead man (the citation is given by Levy, 
NHW 8. s.y. (אוב‎ , and in another place the Teraphim of Laban are said to 
give him knowledge of the future, and to consist of a human head (that of 
Adam) cut off and preserved by means of spices (the citation from Elias Levita 
in Selden, De 22772 Syris, Syntagma I. Cap. 11.( . In the same connexion may 
be mentioned the yy of Rabbinical tradition, which is defined to be an ani- 
mal (or bird) whose bones the soothsayer took in his mouth, and they gave 
responses of themselves (Levy, s.v.). Bearing in mind the widespread use 

240 1 SAMUEL 

of parts of the human body in magical rites, it does not seem too bold to con- 
jecture that the אוב‎ was a human skull (the root possibly means Zo 06 hollow) 
which was prepared by superstitious rites for magical use. The owner of such 
a talisman would be prepared to divine by it. The בעלת אוב‎ of this chapter 
would then be the sister of the בעלת כשפים‎ of Nah. 35; the figurative use of 
the latter phrase does not interfere with the parallel.—oy1n] always men- 
tioned in connexion with ,אוב‎ are something of the same nature. The reader 
may consult Driver on Dt. 1811 with his references; Noldeke in ZDA/G. 
XXVIII. .כ‎ 667; Stade, GVZ. I. pp. 425, 504; Konig, Ofendarungsbegriff des 
Alten Testamentes (1882), 11. p. 150. 

4. The Philistine camp was at Shwnem, at the west foot of the 
ridge now called Jebel Dahi. Saul mustered his forces on Gilboa, 
a ridge running southeast from the eastern end of the great plain. 
The Philistines easily commanded the plain, the Israelites rallied 
on the hills. —5, 6. Saul, terrified at the sight of the enemy’s 
force, asked of Yahweh, but Vahweh did not answer him, either 
by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets| all three are recognized 
methods of divine communication in the Old Testament. The 
Chronicler regards Saul’s recourse to the necromancer as a refusal 
to seek Yahweh, 1 Chr. ro, and therefore a part of the sin for 
which he is slain. But this is not the mind of the present writer, 
to whom Saul is a man driven to desperation by the failure of 
every attempt to ascertain the will of Yahweh. — 7. In this strait 
the king inquires for a woman who possesses a talisman of sufficient 
power to summon the dead. The universality of the belief that 
the shades can be summoned by the one who possesses the means 
needs no comment. dor (the fountain of Dor) still bears its 
ancient name and is a poor village on the slope of Jebel Dahi. A 
description of the locality is given by Stanley.* —8. Saul, for very 
obvious reasons, disguised himself, cf. 1 K. 22%. Coming to the 
woman he makes his request: Divine for me by the talisman and 
bring up for me the one whom I shall say| the power of the 
woman to do what she was asked seems not to be doubted by the 
narrator.— 9,10. In view of Saul’s treatment of the necroman- 
cers, the woman suspects that her guest is daying a snare for her 
//6[ expecting to inform against her. Saul reassures her by an 
oath: no guilt shall come upon thee for this thing. —11,12. Saul 

* Sinai and Palestine, p. 337. 

XXVIIL 4-15 241 

demands Samuel: And the woman saw Samuel and cried out with 
₪ loud voice| the more sober Protestant commentators see that it 
is unreasonable to suppose the souls of the departed subject to 
such calls, and therefore suppose the Devil to assume the form of 
the one invoked. But this is contrary to the assertion that the 
woman saw Samuel. For the method of the necromancer, which 
the narrator probably pictured with fidelity, it may be worth while 
to note that she alone saw the form, while Saul heard the voice. 
The first effect of the apparition on the woman was to reveal the 
identity of her guest: Why hast thou deceived me, when thou 
art Saul? The connexion of Samuel and Saul in earlier life is 
assumed to be known to her.—13. To Saul’s question she 
replies: 7 saw a god coming up out of the earth| the worship 
of the Manes probably survived in Israel to a comparatively late 
date, so that her words must be taken in their literal sense. — 
14. On further inquiry she describes the apparition as an old man 
coming up and he ts wrapped in a cloak| such as Samuel wore in 
his lifetime. Before the spirit, unseen by him, Saul prostrates 
himself in reverence. 

4. Shunem, which is mentioned also Jos. 1015 2 K. 48 (cf. also the Shu- 
nammite, 1 K. 13), still bears the name Sz/em, Buhl, Geog. p. 217, who also 
mentions Hxdor.— mop] on the form, Ges.76 46 6. Methods of divination 
among the heathen Arabs are described by We., Sézzzex, 111. pp. 126 ff., 135 ff. 
--9. [הודעני‎ the plural should be restored; the final letter has been lost in 
the following ».—10. [יקרך‎ the Daghesh is intended to guard the pronun- 
ciation of the emphatic letter, Ges.25 20. -- 18. [אלהים ראיתי עלים‎ the plural 
participle would seem to indicate more than one ghostly figure. But only one 
is described in what follows, and we must suppose the agreement grammatical 
instead of logical. Similar instances of אלהים‎ with a plural adjective are found 
Jos. 2419 (E) Dt. 523 1 S. 1776-88, etc,—14. [זקן‎ 60000 65 seems to represent 
npr (We.). To this reading we may perhaps trace the Rabbinical conceit, 
referred to by Schm., that Samuel appeared standing upright, while in ordi- 
nary cases the shades present themselves feet upwards. The Greek exposi- 
tors, to judge by Nestle’s specimen (MJarginalien, p. 15), saw in the word 
a declaration of Samuel’s vigorous appearance. 

15. The dialogue is begun by Samuel: Why hast thou disturbed 
me in bringing me up? The shades are at rest and prefer to 
remain so. Only on very rare occasions does Sheol itself rouse 
them, Is. 14°. The urgency of his situation is Saul’s excuse: 7 


222 1 SAMUEL 

am in great straits, and the Philistines are warring against me, 
and God has turned from me and does not answer me more, either 
by prophets or by dreams] the absence of Urim here is perhaps a 
sign that it was not originally in v.°.— So J have called thee, to tell 
me what I shall do| consultation of the oracle is in order to right 
action, as we have seen in the case of both Saul and David. — 
16. Samuel refuses to answer the important question: Azad why 
dost thou ask me, when Yahweh has turned from thee and become 
thine enemy ? Reason enough why Samuel should refuse to help. 
--17, 18. The guilt of Saul in the matter of Amalek. The 
account of Saul’s rejection in 6. 15 would not be complete without 
this sequel. The punishment there denounced is here reaffirmed 
and declared to be close at hand. —19. The verse seems over- 
full. The first clause may be omitted with advantage. Correcting 
the remainder by 655 we get: And to-morrow thou and thy sons 
with thee shall fall, and Vahweh will give the camp of Israel into 
the hand of the Philistines. — 20. The message was heart-breaking 
enough; and Saul was overcome, and fell at full length upon the 
earth. The fainting fit was accounted for partly by physical 
exhaustion— he had not eaten bread all the day and all the 
night | it may be supposed that morning was now approaching. 
— 21, 22. The woman, coming to the prostrate Saul, appreciates 
the amount of his mental disturbance. She pleads her obedience 
to his request, even at the risk of her life, as a reason why he 
should now listen to her: and let me set before thee a morsel of 
meat, and eat thou that thou mayest have strength and make thy 
journey | avery sensible proposition. — 28. Saul at first refused, 
but his servants, as well as the woman, urged him. At length he 
rose from the earth and sat upon the couch] one of the four articles 
of furniture in the ordinary house. — 24, 25. Zhe woman had a 
Jatted calf in the house| and she also 00000 unleavened cakes for 
the entertainment of her guests. The similar description of Abra- 
ham’s hospitality will occur to every one. 

15. [ואקְרְאֶה‎ the pointing is anomalous and perhaps designed to allow the 
choice between ואקרָא‎ and ואקרֶה‎ (Nestle, MWarginalien, p. 15(.--16. [ערך‎ 
is misspelled for ,צרך‎ probably by a scribe to whom the Aramaic form was famil- 
iar, or who wished to disguise the unpleasant thought that Yahweh could be 
one’s enemy; 65 peta Tov עס סח‎ cov points to רעך‎ oy which is adopted by Th. 

070 243 

and others, and favoured by S. But Saul’s rival is mentioned later; here we 
expect an allusion to Saul’s complaint that he is in s¢rai¢s. -- 17. 14] may be 
read as a dative of advantage. But it is better to restore לך‎ with five MSS. 
of 33, G48, and %.—19. Either the first clause or the last is superfluous. As 
Samuel would more naturally conclude what he has to say of Saul before pass- 
ing on to the fate of Israel, I have omitted the opening clause of 9 (We., 
Dr.). Stade, on the other hand, retains * and omits עמי--.9‎ [ shall be with 
me would seem to require the verb; 6532 found עמך נפליס‎ which is restored 
by Th.— 20. [וימהר‎ seems to be the wrong verb. Perhaps by pointing 77201 
with 141. we can retain it. Comparison of 65 here and in v.2! shows that it has 
the same verb in both places; We. therefore restores ויבהל‎ here, conforming 
it to the other. But the argument seems precarious. — 28. [ויפרצו‎ the con- 
text requires [אל--.וופצרו‎ should be על‎ with some MSS.—24. [עגל-מרבך‎ 
a calf tied up in the house like the lambs which are stilled “crammed” by the 
women in Syria. — [ותפהו‎ for ,ותאפהו‎ Ges. 68 /. 

XXIX. 1-XXX. 31. David’s homeward march, the capture of 
Ziklag by the Amalekites, and the recovery of the spoil. — 
When the Philistine troops are mustered, the attention of the 
chiefs is drawn to David and his band. They inquire of Achish 
why he is there, and receive assurances of his fidelity. But they 
regard his presence as a danger, so that David, in spite of his 
protestation of fidelity, is sent away. Returning home, he finds 
that the Amalekites have taken revenge for his former incursions 
by attacking the undefended Ziklag and capturing its inhabi- 
tants, whom they have carried off as slaves. ‘The spirit of mutiny 
shows itself among David’s men, but he promptly finds them 
occupation in the pursuit of the enemy. His success is com- 
plete ; besides recovering what has been carried away he takes 
great store of booty. ‘This he uses to secure the attachment of 
the Sheikhs in the neighbouring districts. 

The piece is a unit. Its interest in the fortune of David and in 
his legislative decision is plain. We may ascribe it without hesita- 
tion to the source which later gives us such copious details of 
David’s life. 

1. The camp of the Philistines was at Aphek, a locality uniden- 
tified, but which must have lain in the plain of Esdraelon. ‘The 
Philistines probably wished to secure their possession of the Great 
Plain, and their communication with the Jordan valley, where we 
find them later in possession of Beth-shean, 31”. — 27007 camped 

244 1 SAMUEL 

at the fountain in Jesreel| the phraseology implies that Jezreel is 
not the town, but the valley. It is probable however that Saul 
occupied the town, which lies just at the foot of Gilboa. He 
would thus command the entrance to the valley, and would have 
the high ground in his rear.—2. Zhe Tyrants of the Philistines | 
each with his army, were marching by, by hundreds and by thou- 
sands | referring to the troops in their different companies. There 
seems to have been a review by the generals, in which David 
marched in the rearguard with Achish.—8. The generals ask 
what are these Hebrews ?| discovering their characteristic dress 
or arms. Achish replies in two particulars. David was first an 
escaped servant of Saul, who would not want to return to his 
harsh master. Secondly, he was a tried dependent of Achish: 
who has been with me these two years and I have not found any 
Sault in him from the day he fell to my lot until now. ‘The double 
guarantee would seem to be sufficient.—4. The suspicious fears 
of the generals break out in an angry demand: Send back the 
man to the place where thou hast stationed him] as thy vassal; 
lest he be an enemy tn the camp| who will put hindrances in the 
way of our success, and plot for our ruin. On a former occasion 
the Hebrews in Philistine service had gone over to the enemy, 
14".—With what should this fellow make himself acceptable to his 
Master? Is it not with the heads of these men ?[ pointing to the 
Philistine soldiers. ‘This is their reply to the plea that David is a 
runaway slave. —95. The fact of David’s former success against 
the Philistines is an argument against his fidelity now. The 
absence of any allusion to Goliath shows that the exploit of Chap- 
ter 17 was unknown to the author of this section. 

1. On the locality cf. Miller, Zeast of All Lands, cited by GAS., Geog. p. 401. 
Aphek is apparently the last station of the Philistines before advancing against 
Saul’s position at Jezreel, v.11. This would naturally be somewhere in the 
great plain of Esdraelon. This Aphek cannot therefore be Aphek in Sharon. 
—2. [פרני‎ the native name of the Philistine rulers, 58, of whom Achish was 
one.—8. The שרים‎ I take to have been the military commanders in distinc- 
tion from the 0370, or civil rulers. The latter indeed marched to the war 
and led their troops. But there must have been some sort of general staff, — 
Dw [זה ימים אוהזה‎ 18 extremely indefinite — some days or some years would 
hardly be the reply of a man who knew the situation: fjuépas 70070 Sedrepoy 
eros GAB; H5n Sevtepoy eros oijuepov G" agree in making the time swo years, 

XXIX. I-11 245 

which would be simply זה שנתים‎ (adopted by Bu.).—153] add אלי‎ with 
G@STwW.—4. The second שרי פלשתים‎ is lacking in 6583, -- [במלחמה‎ 4 
במהנה‎ with @. The change was made under the influence of the preceding 
במלחמה‎ (Kl). Nestle (JZarg. p. 15) calls attention to the contrast between 
the Satan here and the angel of God a little later; and also to the former 
experience of the Philistines with the Hebrews in their camp. 

6. Achish breaks the news to David: By the life of Vahweh] 
this oath is not unnatural in the mouth of a Philistine when he is 
speaking to an Israelite. — Zhou art upright and tt ts right in my 
eyes that thou shouldst go out and in in the camp] 1186 any of the 
officers, 18%.-- But thou art not approved by the Tyrants| the 
voice of the majority must be decisive. —7. Achish seems to fear 
David’s anger, as he asks him zot to do evil in the eyes of the 
Tyrants. —8. David utters a suspicion that Achish himself finds 
fault with him: What have I done... that I may not go and fight 
against the enemies of my Lord the king # What David’s real plan 
was is not disclosed. The author probably did not suppose he 
would fight against Israel.—9. He receives renewed assurance 
that he is blameless as an angel of God in the sight of Achish. — 
10. The command to depart at dawn the next day is repeated in 
detail, for we should read with ©: Wow rise early in the morning, 
thou and thy men who came with thee {and go to the place where 
I have stationed thee, and put no evil design in thy heart, for thou 
art good in my sight | but rise early in the morning and you shall 
have light, and go| the clause in brackets has fallen out of #. 
It is assumed by Achish that the high-spirited warrior will feel 
insulted and be tempted to take revenge. —11. David therefore 
rose early 70 return to the land of the Philistines, but the Philistines 
went up to Jezreel. 

6. [צאהך‎ 65 prefixes cat, meaning: 2ot only thou but also thy going out. It 
cannot be denied that 99 would be smoother if it read .ישר בעיני אתה וטוב צאתך‎ 
But G does not seem to have the better reading. —9. [ידעתי‎ probably should 
be כמלאך אלהים---.ירעת‎ | in the two other instances of the comparison, we find 
כמ" האלחים‎ which should perhaps be restored here, 2 S. 1417 198, The words 
are lacking in @® perhaps because they were thought to be incongruous with 
Achish’s nationality. — 10. The Hebrew, as it stands, puts two exhortations to 
rise early in the morning in immediate succession, The clause in 65 which 
stands between them relieves the awkwardness. It is adopted by Th., We., 
Dr., Bu, Kl., Ki. As the cause of its loss, we can only conjecture that it filled 

246 1 SAMUEL 

just a line or just two lines in the archetype. For ועברי אדניך‎ which does not 
seem natural in the mouth of Achish, I restore אתה ונעריך‎ with 667. The same 
recension reads at the end of the omitted clause as dyyeAos 0600, which is 
perhaps original (adopted by K1.). 

XXX. The narrative is continuous with what precedes, follow- 
ing the fortunes of David. —1. When he and his men got home 
they found that the Amalekites had invaded the Negeb and had 
smitten Ziklag and burnt it with fire| the Bedawin had watched 
the departure of David and his men. —2. They had not followed 
David’s method of warfare, for they had killed no one but had 
carried captive the women and all that were in it, from small to 
great | the fighting men were with David. The captives were prob- 
ably destined to the Egyptian slave market.—3, 4. Finding the 
city burned, and their families carried away, David and his men 
wept aloud until there was in them no more power to weep| the 
fountain of tears was exhausted ; consumptis enim lachrymis in- 
fixus tamen pectori haeret dolor.* —5. As it stands, the verse is 
a supplementary notice that should have come in at the end of 
v... Probably it is a gloss. —6. David was in great straits | 
Gen. 32° Jd. 2”; for the people proposed to stone him] popular 
indignation easily turns against the ruler in case of calamity. — 
For the soul of every one was embittered | 2 K. 47, where extreme 
grief is thus described. But the allied phrase dztfer of soul is 
used also of angry men, Jd. 18” 2 S. 17%. In this case, the grief 
turned to anger. — But David took courage in reliance on Yahweh 
his God as is shown by his prompt action. —7, 8. Command- 
ing Abiathar to bring the Ephod, he asks: Shall I pursue thts 
band? Shall I overtake them ?[ the double question is really one ; 
it were vain to pursue unless he could overtake. The answer was 
affirmative: Pursue, for thou shalt surely overtake and shalt surely 

XXX. 1. [ועמלקי‎ cf. v.18, doubtless to be read ועמלק‎ with 65. —2. [אשרדבה‎ 
as it stands, refers to the women. But as we have later the express assertion 
that they had not killed a man, we should probably insert here with 6 5>-ns) 
(Th.) which would include the old men and boys.— 8. [והנה שרופה‎ the same 
construction in v.!°,— 5, The verse is supposed to be a gloss by Bu., and can 

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

XXX. I-17 | 247 

in fact well be spared. —6. ותצר‎ [ Ges.2° 67 2. The masculine form is used 
elsewhere except in Jd. 10% cf. Davidson, Synéax, § 109.—133] read בניו‎ with 
the Qré, cf. v.22. — 1 [ויהחזק‎ the clause reads like a later insertion; it is 
not exactly duplicated anywhere else. — 7. Abiathar occurs 2279 239, probably 
from the same document. — 8. אררף‎ [ might be construed as the hypothetical 
introduction to the real question: 2777 pursue, shall I overtake? But @ reads 
interrogatively, and the answer 47> favours that reading — restore therefore 
האררף‎ (We.).— [הגרור‎ cf. 1 1. 11% 2 K. 5? 65% and elsewhere, of marauding 
banditti as here. 

9. David and his men came to the Wadi Besor. The name 
occurs only in this passage, and, as we have no knowledge of 
David’s objective point, it is impossible now to identify this ravine. 
—10. And there remained behind two hundred men who were too 
exhausted to cross the Wadi Besor, and David and four hundred 
men pursued | the two halves of the verse have been transposed 
by mistake. —11. The party found ax Lgyptian, known by his 
dress or his features, whom they brought to David, and to whom 
they gave food.—12. After giving him water, they gave him a 
cake of figs| cf. 25. For a starving man this would be enough. 
— His spirit returned to him] he had been in appearance lifeless 
from his long fast. — 138. To David’s question concerning himself 
he replies: 7 am an Egyptian lad, servant to an Amalekite, and 
my master abandoned me, because I fell sick, three days ago.— 
14. His account of the expedition: We raided the Negeb of the 
Cherethite| a clan of the Philistines, Zeph. 25. -- 19. The captive 
on being asked to act as guide, consents on condition that David 
will swear not to kill him, or to deliver him to his master. — 
16. Led by the slave, they come upon the enemy sfread over the 
face of the country, eating and drinking and dancing] very possi- 
bly in a religion feast—on account of all the great spoil which 
they had taken.—1%7. And David smote them from twilight to 
evening | the attack was sudden and soon decided, and the success 
was complete: Mone escaped except four hundred young men who 
rode upon the camels and fled. 

9. [הבשור‎ conjecturally identified with Wadi Gazze (by Guérin, Judée, 
II. p. 213) * or with its branch Wadi Sheri'a (by Buhl, Geog: p. 88( . -- והנותרים‎ 
[עמדו‎ can only mean in its present connexion that the rest (besides the six 
hundred) stayed behind at Ziklag. But it is a constant feature of the tradi- 

* I owe the citation 10 BDB. sud voce. 

248 1 SAMUEL 

tion that David had only six hundred men with him, so that there were none 
to stay at Ziklag. We must treat the clause as an intruder (We.). Ew. 
66 7%. IIL. 144, E.Tr. III. .כ‎ 105) proposes to insert a clause — four hundred 
passed over, and the rest stayed. But the next verse is then redundant. — 
10. The order is perverse, and the two halves of the verse should be trans- 
posed (We.).— [פגרו‎ only here and v.21. The context indicates the meaning, 
cf. פגר‎ ₪ corpse from its limpness.—11. s73n-w sx] it would be more logical 
to describe him here as faint or starving, and to leave his race to be discoy- 
ered later (K1.).—anb ויתנוחלו‎ [ it seems superfluous to tell us here that they 
gave him food, and then to add later that they gave him figs. However, we 
may account for the clause as a general statement— chey brought him to 
David and gave him food—to be followed by the details. —12. [ושני צמקים‎ 
lacking in 659, and not improbably the insertion of a scribe. It would not 
do to give a starving man much food at one time.— 18. [היום שלשה‎ 3 MSS. 
of %# add ימים‎ which seems necessary, cf. 9?°,—14. [נגב‎ the verb used is 
followed by אל‎ in v1, and the preposition should be inserted here (We.).— 
[הכרתי‎ the people so named are dwellers on the shore according to Zephaniah, 
who also associates them with the land of the Philistines as does Ezekiel 
(2516). Elsewhere they are mentioned with the פלתים‎ as making up David’s 
body guard, 2 S. 81% Cf. E, Meyer, Gesch, des Alterth. 1. p. 367. G"™ has טא‎ 
here, reminding us of a similar confusion in # in 2 S. 20%: @B --./0\06א‎ 
[ועל-אשר ליהודה‎ the difference in the form of expression indicates that the 
phrase was inserted by a scribe who was surprised that Judah should not be 
mentioned. The Negeb of the Pelethite and the Negeb of Caleb would 
be enough territory for one raid. —15. At the end of the verse 0578 agree in 
adding: and he sware to him.—16. 0.31] the circuit of the sanctuary made 
at the feasts was undoubtedly a dance. That the Bedawin were here dancing 
before their gods, is the most natural interpretation of the scene. Arabic 
parallels are given by We, Sk7zzem, 111. p. 106, with which compare Néldeke’s 
comments in ZDMG. XLI. p. 719. —17. 115 [ויכס‎ @ seems to have had ויבא‎ 
אליהם דוד ויכם‎ which is adopted by Bu. But in such cases the shorter clause 
has the presumption in its favour.— מהנשף‎ | it is still disputed whether the 
morning or evening twilight is intended. In the majority of cases נשף‎ is cer- 
tainly the early evening when the breeze begins to stir, and there seems no 
reason to interpret otherwise here. The enemy were wholly taken by surprise 
and seem to have made no serious resistance. To suppose that David spent 
the whole day in slaughter is difficult. —an-nz>] adds to the difficulty, for 
interpreted in the natural sense it would extend the slaughter over two whole 
days. The form moreover is abnormal. The 5 can hardly be the pronominal 
suffix, and the adverbial ending is equally out of place. The text is probably 
corrupt. 25 seems to have or to conjecture .מאהריהם‎ The Bible Commentary 
suggests למחותם‎ ; We. להחרימס‎ (adopted by Bu.); KI. .בכל מחניהם‎ 

18, 19. David rescued all that had been carried away, nothing 
was missing| 2S. 17%.--- 20. The meaning of the obscure verse 

XXX. 18-25 249 

must have been that, in addition to recovering his own, David 
captured a large amount of other property. — 21. On the return, 
the two hundred who were left behind came to meet them, 
and saluted them.—22. The baser men among those who had 
marched in the pursuit propose to keep all the booty for their own 
company: Lecause they did not go with us| the present text reads 
with me—we will not give them of the booty which we rescued | 
the term dco¢y shows that no previous title was to be recognized. 
All they would give would be: 7 each man his wife and his chil- 
dren that they may lead them away and depart.—23. David 
vetoes the proposition: Do not do so after Yahweh has [wrought [ 
Jor us and preserved us. Injustice is a sin against God, and in 
this case the ingratitude is especially conspicuous.— 24. The 
language of David continues in the couplet : 

As the portion of the one who goes down into battle, 
So is the portion of the one who remains with the baggage. 

Early statutes (enactments or regulations) were put in rhythmical 
form for better retention in memory. ‘The original couplet has 
here been increased by the added words: Zhey shall share alike. 
—25. The author adds that from that time on they made it a 
statute and a precedent in Israel. David's decision in the matter 
became the precedent (משפט)‎ ; it was a sfatute when he made it 
a general rule. Cf. Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch’, 
p. 248 f. , 

18. The two wives seem to be an afterthought, as in [ומשלל .19--..ט‎ 
seems to belong before ,יעדהכניס‎ and this is the order in @. Possibly however 
a word has fallen out; we should expect: נשים ועדהבנים‎ 72. —20. The verse as 
it stands is unintelligible. Its object must be to tell us that in addition to the 
recovery of his own possessions David took a large amount of other booty: 
ante pecus suum quod liberaverant duxerunt greges et armenta quae abstu- 
lerunt Amalekitis, as Kimchi is rendered by Schmid. But this is not ex- 
pressed by the present text. We.’s restoration, accepted by Dr., Bu., Ki., 
makes the people, out of gratitude, resign all the sheep and oxen to David as 
his share. But this is contrary to what follows, where the two hundred share 
in the booty with the others. I suspect the original to have been something 
like this: הצאן והבקר אשר נהגו עמלק לפניהם גם זה שלל דור‎ Doone. — 21. [וישיבֶס‎ 
should probably be paw), David being the natural subject, @L.— bx] on 
the other hand is read as a plural by 6558. The men left behind would be the 
ones to ask for the welfare of those who had gone into the battle (We.); for 

250 1 SAMUEL 

is lacking in $.— ny] the‏ ]53 .22 — .)15 =( לה we should probably read‏ להס 
singular form is no doubt thoroughly idiomatic. But if we retain it we should‏ 
to correspond. It is easier therefore to‏ הצלנו and‏ נהן apparently change both‏ 
undoubt-‏ 60 [אחי את אשר .88 — with 8 MSS. of #, and with GSY.‏ עמנו read‏ 
which is to be preferred, because it makes all that follows‏ אחרי אשר edly reads‏ 
is left without an object and‏ נהן a reason for the dissuasion. But in that case‏ 
of the 7/0 is‏ [הורר .24--.14% must be replaced by another verb, as nwy,‏ 
found in some copies and editions‏ בישראל [ לישראל. .25— only a scribe’s error,‏ 
a frequent phrase, especially in late‏ [ער on‏ הזה — seems a little better here.‏ 
writers. It naturally implies that a considerable time had elapsed since the‏ 
events narrated.‏ 

26. David uses the booty at his disposal to win the hearts of 
Judah. Mohammed’s procedure after the battle of Honein will 
occur to every one.— Le sent of the booty to the elders of Judah 
and to his kinsmen| reading with 65. The enumeration of towns 
follows. All of them seem to have been in the South Country, 
none north of Hebron.—27. Bethel, as pointed out by We., the 
same with the Bethuel of 1 Chr. 4”, there mentioned in connexion 
with Hormah and Ziklag; cf. also Bethul, Jos. 19* (also with 
Hormah). Ramoth-Negeb one of the cities of Simeon, Jos. 19%. 
Jattir, Jos. 15% 21 (with Eshtemoa).— 28. Avoer was originally 
mentioned in Jos. 15”. The name still attaches to a ruin east- 
southeast of Beersheba. Szphamoth seems to be mentioned no- 
where else. shtemoa, Jos. 15° 21 identified by Robinson. — 
29. For the unknown faca/l of % we should probably read 
Carmel on the basis of .— Zhe cities of the Jerachmeelite and 
the cities of the Kenite| 27°.—30. Hormah Jd. 17 Num. 21°. 
For Lor-Ashan we should probably restore the well-known Beer 
Sheba whose absence is inexplicable. — 31. Hedron, the chief 
city of Judah, could not be left out when all the places were re- 
membered where David had sojourned, he and his men. 

26. [לרעהו‎ Kal tots tAnotov abrod 65 seems preferable; 5 ולחברהון‎ has the 
conjunction like @.—27. [בביתאל‎ written as one word by Baer; in Gins- 
burg’s text two words connected by the Maqqeph. The name occurs in 
65% also in Jos. 1539 כסיל)‎ 39) just before Hormah. In our passage & has 
Bai8cotp which is favoured by Ew. and Th. For Ramoth @8U Rama; in 
Jos. 198 where #) has ,רמת‎ 667 has 2600000. -- ביתר‎ [ év 60002 65% goes back 
to .בעתר‎ Both names are found in the lists of Joshua (15% 48 197 2114). Cf. 
ZATW. VI. p. 6.— 28. ry ry is the name of more than one place. The pres- 
ent one should be in the Negeb, and a ruin is pointed out in this region 

XXX. 26-XXXI. 3 251 

called Ar‘ara (Buhl, Geog. p. 183). In Jos. 1522 we now find ערערה‎ for which 
655 has ’Apov7jA. Probably ערער‎ should be restored there (cf. Dillmann’s 
Commentary and Bennett’s text in SBO7Z.). שפמות‎ of Ginsburg and the 
common editions is written שפמות‎ by Baer. In this verse 655 has one name 
more than #), inserting ’Auuadel which may be a corruption of ’Aponp (We.). 
It does not seem to be a sufficient basis on which to restore 27py (Ew.). 
65 seems to have read ערי קין‎ from v.29, For שפמוז‎ : 2606] GB. ,אשתמע‎ cf. 
Buhl, Geog. p. 163.— 29. The verse is extended in 655 perhaps by duplication 
from the preceding. It agrees with 659 in giving the name Carmel, which 
Ewald substitutes for .רכל‎ For the Kenife, 65 has the Kemezite. Kenaz was 
a clan of Judah, Jd. 11% but the parallel 1 S. 2715 seems to decide for the 
Kenite here. — 30. Hormah, cf. Moore on Jd. בבור-עשן---.17‎ in the early 
editions according to Baer; in many recent ones (Jablonski, etc.) .בכור-על‎ In 
65 it is represented by Beersheba. The absence of so prominent a place as 
Beersheba is remarkable and the name is perhaps original. עשן‎ however is 
the name of a town in Judah, Jos. 1542 197. 4ny occurs nowhere else in #9. 
It is suggested by Buhl (Ges. W/V A812.) that it is the same with 7ny noticed 
above, which is twice named in connexion with .עשן‎ I should substitute 
Arad, Jd. 11%. The MSS. of @ differ widely. 

XXXI. The death of Saul.— Two accounts are given of the 
death of Saul. In the one before us he is hard pressed in battle, 
and, in despair, commits suicide. In the other (contained in 
2 Sam. 11”), he begs an Amalekite camp follower to slay him, 
and thus meets his end. The two accounts seem independent, 
and it is natural to suppose that they represent the two different 
streams of tradition. In that case the chapter before us continues 
the narrative of 28. It is, in fact, the natural sequel of that 
chapter. For in that the shadow of the coming defeat already 
falls. As there predicted, Saul sees Israel defeated and his sons 
slain ; and commits suicide in his sense of abandonment by Yah- 
weh. It confirms this to notice that 2 S. 1 naturally continues the 
history we have just followed, culminating in David’s distribution 
of the booty to Judah. Chapter 31 is unnecessary to that narra- 
tive, and in fact breaks the thread. 

1. The account opens abruptly: Zhe Philistines fought against 
Israel, and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines, and fell 
down slain upon Mount Gilboa| Israel was frequently defeated 
in the plains. In this case the battle was fought on their own 
ground —the high places. — 2, 3. Three sons of Saul were slain, 

72 1 SAMUEL 

and the fighting pressed hard upon Saul; the archers got him in 
range and he was wounded | the text is not certain. —4. Saul’s 
command to his armour-bearer: Draw thy sword and run me 
through with t¢| the case of Abimelech Jd. 9” is closely parallel. 
There, it was to escape death at the hands of a woman. Here, it 
is lest these uncircumcised come and make sport of me| amuse 
themselves with the helpless but conscious warrior, Jd. 19”. The 
armoutr-bearer refused because he was much afraid | whether the 
author means that he was in too great a panic to heed the com- 
mand, or that he had too great reverence for his lord cannot be 
made out with certainty. The latter seems more probable. Saul 
then “ook his own sword and fell upon it] one of the very rare 
instances of suicide in the Old Testament. In view of it, the 
older commentators discuss the question of Saul’s final salvation, 
generally with an unfavourable verdict.* —5. The armour-bearer 
would not survive his master. —6. The tragic element is pointed 
out in the fact that Saw/ and his sons and his armour-bearer died 
together.—%. Vhe result was that the inhabitants of the cities 
in the Jordan valley deserted their cities, and the Philistines took 
possession of them. ‘The recovery of the original text is difficult. 

XXXI. The question of the place of the story can be fully considered only 
when we come to the following chapter. For the text we now have an 
additional source in the Chronicler who embodies this chapter in his work 
@ Chr, rob), 

1. [נלחמיס‎ Chr. nb: which should probably be restored. The author of 
Sam. changed to the participle to indicate that while David and his men were 
pursuing the Amalekites, the Philistines were fighting. — וינס אוש [וינסו אנשי‎ ₪ 
which is more idiomatic.— 2. [וידבקו‎ 1472.—ns] אחרי‎ C. It is a question 
whether the original author did not write .אל‎ The verb is generally used with .ב‎ 
The names of Saul’s sons show some variation in 65. --- . bx] read על‎ 4. 
-- המורים אנשים‎ [ seems impossible and C. leaves out .אנשים‎ But המורים בקשת‎ 
is redundant, and בקשת‎ cannot be connected with .וימצאוהו‎ Dr. proposes 
המוריס בקשת‎ Ow Ix meaning some of the archers, comparing Gen. 3778 1 5. 
It seems simpler to strike out אנשים בקשת‎ as a gloss designed to define .המוריס‎ 
-- ויחל מןההיורים [ויחל מאר מהמורים‎ C. The words are generally taken to mean 
he feared the archers exceedingly. But we should expect מפני‎ if that were the 
meaning. @ takes ויהל‎ to be from ,הלל‎ cal erpauuaticbn AB, kal érpavudtiocay Y, 
and this gives a better sense, for the words of Saul to his armour-bearer are 

* Schmid, p. 988. 

XXXI. 3-13 253 

the words of a man sore wounded.— מהמורים‎ [ eis 8ז‎ broxdy8pia 65 would in- 
dicate בחמש‎ or .במתנים‎ ---4. The second ודקרני‎ is lacking in C. doubtless 
rightly. What Saul dreaded was that he should be alive to be mocked, not 
that they should mutilate his body after his death. —5, np] seems impossible 
to reconcile with the following chapter.—6. For ונשא כליו‎ C. has ,וכל ביתו‎ an 
intentional exaggeration, — »w3x-95 D2] lacking in C. 659, is a similar exagger- 
ation. — 7%. [אנשי‎ C. .כל-איש‎ For בעבר העמק ואשר בעבר היררן‎ * has simply 
בעמק‎ ws, and this may be original, though 16 is difficult to see how it could 
give rise to the present text. Probably we should read בערי העמק‎ (K1.).— 
[אנשי ישראל‎ is omitted by C. who was willing to throw the blame upon Saul 
81086. -- הערים‎ [ read עריהם‎ with 6. and 6. 

8. The next day the Philistines came to strip the slain and 
Sound Saul and his three sons fallen on Mount Gilboa] the battle 
had probably lasted until evening. —9. They sent the head of 
Saul through the country of the Philistines 70 bring good news to 
their tdols and the people| perhaps the original author wrote ₪ 
their gods and the people. —10. His armour, as a trophy, came 
naturally into 06 house of Ashtoreth| where this was we are not 
told.— And his corpse they exposed on the walls of Bethshan] a 
city in the Jordan valley at the entrance of the side valley which 
comes down from the Great Plain. It still bears the name Beisan. 
--11. The men of Jabesh Gilead, who had special reasons for 
remembering Saul with gratitude (11'"), undertook to remove 
the disgrace. —12. AZ the men of courage rose up and marched 
all night, and took the corpses of Saul and his sons from the wall 
of Bethshan and brought them to Jabesh and burnt them there] 
although this was not Israelitish custom, there seems to be no 
sufficient reason for departing from the received text.—13. The 
bones were buried under the tamarisk tree| probably one well 
known ; and they fasted seven days | in expression of their grief. 

8. [שלשת‎ omitted by C.—9. C. has a free reproduction of the first clause. 
-- [בית‎ C. has את‎ which is doubtless correct, and which seems also to be im- 
plied by 6. —10. אשתרות‎ [ the singular form alone is in place. C. substitutes 
.אלהיהם‎ For תקעו‎ read הוקיעו‎ (Lag. Anum. zur Griech. Uebersets. d. Proverbien, 
p- lili), cf. 2 S. 218%, The Chronicler, thinking of the head and armour being 
sent to Philistia, changes the last clause to: and they stuck up his skull in the 
house of Dagon. On Bethshan, Moore, Jd. 17 and reff.— 11. [אליו‎ lacking 

% It is impossible to suppose that the Israelites deyond the Fordan deserted theit 
cities. The example 01 Jabesh Gilead is enough to show this. 

24 2 SAMUEL 

in 655 0. -- 19. וילכו כלההלילה‎ [ lacking in C. which also changes the wording 
of the rest of the verse to accord with its own omission of Bethshan, ,10,ץ‎ -- 
ויבאו‎ [ read ויביאוס‎ G C.— ow אתס‎ wavy] is lacking in C. On account of the 
lack of precedent, Bu. proposes to read ov 097 .ויספרו‎ The mourning how- 
ever should be mentioned in connexion with the fasting at the end of the 
next verse. And the separate mention of the bones which follows (note (ויקחו‎ 
is inexplicable with the proposed reading. -- 18. apy . . . [ויקחו‎ C. has only 
.ויקברו‎ For (האשל‎ C. has ,האלה‎ a more general word, or perhaps less ob- 
noxious (if אשל‎ is a sacred tree, as seems probable). The Hebrew name is 
reproduced in the modern Arabic name 0/2/, applied to the Tamarisk, cf. Post. 

Flora of Syria (1896), p. 166. 

2 Sam. I. 1-27. David’s reception of the news of Saul’s 
death. — An Amalekite brings news to Ziklag and gives a circum- 
stantial account of the death of Saul, in which he claims to have 
been instrumental. David and his men mourn for the death of 
Saul and his men, and the messenger is put to death for having 
laid hands on the Anointed of Yahweh. In addition to these 
marks of grief, David composes an Elegy which is inserted in the 
text, having been taken from the Book of Jashar. 

The historical part of the chapter contains a separate and inde- 
pendent account of the death of Saul. In I. 31 we are told ex- 
pressly that Saul met his death by his own hand. Here the 
Amalekite finds him suffering from extreme fatigue, but without 
a wound, v.*. It seems impossible to reconcile the two accounts. 
The easiest hypothesis is that the Amalekite fabricated his story. 
But the whole narrative seems against this. David has no inkling 
that the man is not truthful, nor does the author suggest it. The 
natural conclusion is that we have here a document different from 
the one just preceding. It strengthens our conviction to notice 
that this narrative, with a very slight change in v.’, continues the 
account of David’s experience at Ziklag without a break. It is 
highly dramatic that after David’s severe contest with Amalek, an 
Amalekite should bring him the news of Saul’s death. For this 
writer, whose chief interest was in David, the story contains all 
he cared to tell of the last days of Saul. 

Budde in his text separates v.’ as a late insertion and vs." #6 
as belonging to a different document. He succeeds thus in pro- 
ducing a continuation of 1. 31. But where the exscinded frag- 
ments belong it is impossible to see. They continue nothing that 

I, 1-10 255 

precedes, and they prepare for nothing that follows. They may 
be a mere editorial embellishment, but such a hypothesis should 
not be urged if we can get along without it. 

1. The ambiguity of the data shows that the verse has been 
remodelled to make it connect this chapter with what precedes. 
The original author evidently made David remain in Ziklag two 
days after his return from smiting the Amalekites. The editor 
inserted the reference to the death of Saul.—2. On the third day 
there came a man| the Rabbinical commentators make him to 
have been Doeg, or his son, or the son of Agag. — With his clothes 
rent and earth upon his head | like the other bearer of bad tidings, 
1S. 4°.—38, 4. On hearing that the man has escaped from the 
camp of Israel, David asks him: How was the affair ?| cf. 1 S. % 
The reply is similar to that of the messenger at Shiloh: Zhe people 
fied from the battle, and many of the people fell, and Saul and 
Jonathan his son are dead \ the climax is reached in that in which 
the hearer is most interested. —5. David asks particularly con- 
cerning the death of Saul and Jonathan: How dost thou know 
that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead ?—6. As already pointed 
out, the reply contradicts the account already given of the death 
of Saul: 1 happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and Saul was leaning 
on his spear, and the chariots and horsemen drew near him] in 
31° it was the archers who got him in range. — 7%. And he looked 
behind him and saw me| Saul had been facing the enemy but now 
looked about for help.— 8. After calling the stranger, Saul says: 
Who art thou? ‘To which the stranger makes the reply: 7 am 
an Amalekite. The contradiction has thus become more glaring ; 
Saul instead of appealing to his squire, who must have been near 
his person, finds only one person within call. Instead of shrink- 
ing from the abuse of the Philistine, he is willing to give himself 
to be despatched by an equally despised enemy, an Amalekite. — 
9. Saul’s prayer: Stand over me, I pray, and slay me, for dizat- 
ness has seized me| the exhaustion of a man worn out with fight- 
ing. The following clause is obscure; see the critical note.— 
10. So 1 stood over him and slew him for I knew that he could 
not live after he had fallen] an apology for his deed on the part 
of the murderer. He also took Saul’s crown and his armlet | sev- 

256 2 SAMUEL 

eral such are pictured on the arms of Assyrian monarchs.* For 
the custom of kings to go into battle in their regalia, notice the 
account of Jehoshaphat and Ahab in 1 K. 22” where Ahab’s dis- 
guising himself is an exception to the rule. — And brought them 
to my lord here| does not expressly state that the bearer regarded 
David as the legitimate successor, but seems to imply it.— 
11, 12. David and his men mourn for Saul and Jonathan and for 
the house of Israel, with the customary signs of grief —rending 
the clothes, fasting, and weeping. —13. To David’s question con- 
cerning his origin, the messenger replies: 7 am the son of an 
Amalehite sojourner| one who had taken up his residence in 
Israel where he had the protection accorded to a client, but was 
not in full citizenship. Of prosedyfes as we understand the word, 
7.e., converts to the true religion, there is no trace in this early 
period. —14. David’s question shows his indignation at any one’s 
(we may suppose @ fortiori at a stranger’s) pudting out his hand 
to destroy the anointed of Vahweh| the sanctity of the king made 
such an act sacrilege. The assassins of Ishbaal received similar 
treatment to that recorded here, 4777, and for the reason here indi- 
cated. —15, 16. David has him slain by one of his soldiers and 
justifies the act in the words: Zhy blood be upon thy head because 
thine own mouth testified against thee| the guilt of the man’s 
death rests upon himself because he deserves to die. Otherwise 

it would rest upon David, cf. the case of Abner, 3% and also 1 ₪. 
232. 33. 37 | 

1. The natural construction of the verse as it stands is to make ורוד שב וגו‎ 
a circumstantial clause and therefore parenthetical: ‘It came to pass after the 
death of Saul (David meanwhile had returned from smiting Amalek) that 
David abode two days in Ziklag.’ But it is doubtful whether this expresses 
the sense of the author. What he means is that after returning from Amalek, 
David abode two days in Ziklag before the message came. The infelicity of 
the text shows editorial adaptation to the present context. The original begin- 
ning of the verse was probably ויהי אחרי שב רור‎ simply. In this case, there is 
no reason why it may not have continued 303!,—pbnyn] should be העמלקי‎ 
(so 6 MSS.) with S or pony with GY. -- 2. For Doeg as the messenger, Schm. 
refers to Isaaki, and for the son of Agag to Auctor Antig. Bibl. qui falso 
Philo fuasse dicitur. Doeg is also given by Pseudo-Hieronymus, Qwestiones. 
[מעס--‎ is read by 65 oyn, but # is preferable (We.).—4. אשרדנס‎ [ another 

* Nestle, Marginalien, p. 16. 

I. 10-16 257 

case of אשר‎ in the sense of 15, 1 S. 152°, cf. Davidson, Synxax, § 146, R. 2, — 
[וימתו‎ is omitted by G'S, perhaps rightly; 655 inserts: kal ע6ש07600‎ cad Saova. 
--6. [נקרא נקריתו‎ evidently the two forms are intended to be from the same 
root, cf. 201, — [ובעלי הפרשים‎ we read nowhere else of masters of the horsemen, 
and 65 omits בעלי‎ here, unless 01 fmmdpya: covers both words. Everywhere else 
we find פרשים‎ joined with .רכב‎ Possibly some one started to write בעלי חצים‎ 
(Gen. 4978) and afterwards discovered פרשום‎ in his [הרבקהו-- 6א0‎ strictly 
means that they had already overtaken him. — 8, ויאמר‎ AZ: ואמר‎ 0/0. The 
latter is necessary. —9. »5y] implies that Saul had sunk down — which ought, 
however, to be distinctly expressed. — yawn] occurs nowhere else, and the 
meaning is doubtful: oxdétos devdy 65 possibly a corruption of cxordduv0s = 
dizziness.* The same idea seems to be expressed by צורנא‎ & (cf. Nestle, AZar- 
ginalien, p. 16 and reff.): angustiae 3, רהיהא‎ | suppose Saul overcome by 
terror. Modern interpreters are represented by Th. who renders cramp, and 
Kl. who accepts 2700765. Schmid supposes the sentence to mean my 
armour prevents me, 1.e., from carrying out my purpose to kill myself. This 
interpretation is due to the theory that Saul had attempted suicide, but the 
sword had been turned aside by his coat of mail, so that the blow was not 
fatal. [כיהכל-עוד נפשו--‎ is unusual, It is supposed to be by hypallage for 
נפשי‎ Saya (Ges. WB, s.v. 93). But the only analogies cited are Job 278 
and Hos. 14%, the latter of which has a corrupt text. It is doubtful moreover 
whether the sense supposed — for yet my life 1s whole within me—is appro- 
priate. I think more likely that Saul means to give a reason for his dizziness, 
in which case we might suppose :בי כלתה נפשי‎ for my strength is consumed, 
that is, J am utterly exhausted, cf. Ps. 848, where, to be sure, the soul is con- 
sumed with desire. Graetz (Gesch, 0. Juden, 1. p. 224) proposes to read בל‎ 
for [נפלו .10 --.כל‎ on the pointing cf. Ges.2° 614; the word must mean Saul’s 
falling to the earth, showing that he had sunk down in his exhaustion. — [נזר‎ 
of the royal crown 2 K. 1119,-- [ואצעדה‎ occurs only here and Num. 315), but 
(צערה‎ Is. 32°, is another form of the same word. We. and Dr. propose to read 
הצעדה‎ here also, as the article seems required by the following .אשר‎ Nestle’s 
objection that the king may have worn several bracelets does not remoye the 
difficulty, for ome of his bracelets would not be expressed by the construction 
in the text.—11. בבגדיו‎ Qré, is sustained by the following plural suffix. — 
19. [ועל עס יהוה ועל ב" ושר"‎ is tautology and is relieved by & which reads for 
the first clause and over the people of Judah. But probably even then one 
clause is an interpolation. —13. [גר‎ cf. Bertholet, Die Stellung der [sraeliten 
und der Juden zu den Fremden (1896), pp. 1, 29.—16. For רמוך‎ the Qré 
commands 405 as in ז‎ 14. 237, The .07/// however is justified by 2 5. 378. 
Cf. ,דמיו בו‎ Ley. 20%, etc., and ,רמו בו‎ Ezek. 33°. 

17-27. David’s dirge.— The author here inserts a poem on 
the death of Saul and Jonathan which he ascribes to David, and 

+ Trendelenburg, cited by Schleusner, Vov, Thesaurus, V. p. 62. 

258 2 SAMUEL 

which he avowedly takes from a book older than his own. The 
composition is just what it purports to be —a lament on the death 
of Israel’s heroes. How are the mighty fallen is the refrain at the 
end of the opening tristich, which recurs also within the poem, 
and again at the close. After announcing his theme, the author 
deprecates the spread of news which will cause the enemy to 
rejoice. He then pronounces a curse upon Mount Gilboa, the 
scene of so cruel an event. With v.” he takes up the panegyric 
of the departed warriors — swifter than eagles, stronger than lions. 
He exhorts the daughters of Israel to lament over Saul, whose 
generosity they had often experienced in the distribution of the 
booty. And in conclusion he gives vent to his own personal 
bereavement in the loss of Jonathan. 

There seems to be no reason to doubt the genuineness of the 
poem. One negative reason in its favour seems to be of over- 
whelming force: it has no religious allusion whatever. The strong 
current of tradition which early made David a religious hero, ren- 
ders it improbable that any one should compose for David a poem 
which contains no allusion to Yahweh, to his relation to Israel, or 
to his care for Israel’s king. A similar argument is the absence 
of any allusion to the strained relations which had existed between 
Saul and David. That David should show true magnanimity in 
the case is not surprising. But it would hardly be human nature 
for an imitator not to make at least a veiled allusion to David’s 
experience at the court of Saul and during his forced exile. With 
these negative indications we must put the absence of any positive 
marks of a late date. There seems to be absolutely nothing in 
the poem which is inconsistent with its alleged authorship. 

The text of the poem has unfortunately suffered in transmission, 
and in some parts it cannot be restored with certainty. For the 
most part it is written in verses of four accents. Its logical divi- 
sions are indicated in the outline already given. 

17-27. A translation is given by Herder, Getst der Ebriischen Poeste, 
3 Aufl. (Leipzig, 1825), 11. p. 289 f. Justi inserts also in this edition his 
own translation, with a reference to his Vationaleesange der Hebriéer as well 
as his Blumen althebraischer Dichthunst, neither of which I have seen. 
Translations are given also by E. Meier, Poet. Nationalliteratur d. Hebr. 
.כ‎ 123; Ewald, Dichter des Alten Bundes, 1. p. 149 5; Graetz, Gesch. d. 

1. 8 299 

Juden, 1. p. 224f.; Stade, 0 77. I. p. 259; GASmith, Geog. p. 404f. The 
consensus of recent scholars is in favour of the genuineness of the poem. 

17. David sang this dirge| as he sang a dirge over Abner, 3° ; 
the same phrase Ezek. 32". -- 18. The first half-verse is perfectly 
plain so far as the words are concerned, but in their present place 
they are wholly incongruous: Aznd he said to teach the children of 
Judah the bow. In the first place if the author meant that David 
commanded something he would have said so. Secondly, the 
information that he commanded to teach 06 use of the bow (AV.) 
is irrelevant. Zhe song of the bow (RV.) is equally out of place 
unless it means ל‎ song, which some indeed suppose. But it is 
a strange procedure for the author to tell us that David com- 
manded to teach ¢he song of the bow without letting us know that 
this means the song before us. And why did he not say simply 
this song or this dirge, which would have been perfectly clear? 
We can do nothing with the text as it stands, and the efforts of 
the commentators only bring the difficulty more clearly into relief. 
The versions give only slight help. The word rendered dow is 
omitted by 65. But this does not heal the difficulty. The only 
thing certain seems to be that the half-verse represents the open- 
ing words of the dirge with the introductory phrase: Azd 26 
By a conjecture which will be discussed in the critical note, I 
suppose the next following words to have been: Weep, O Judah / 
The second half of the verse: Behold itis written in the Book of 
Jashar| is a marginal note which has crept into the text. The 
Book of Jashar is mentioned Jos. 10%, and was possibly also cited 
in the original of 1 K. 8% in both cases as authority for a poetical 

18. [ויאמר 3055 132 יהודה קשת‎ there is no reason why the author should 
not say ויצו‎ if he meant that David commanded something. We expect also 
אתההקשת‎ instead of the simple .קשת‎ But the great difficulty is the irrelevancy 
of the passage in this connexion — between the announcement of the dirge 
and the dirge itself. The Jewish expositors do not see the difficulty. Isaaki 
says simply: ‘ David said, now that the mighty men of Israel have fallen, it is 
necessary that the Children of Judah learn war and draw the bow.” Kimchi 
supposes that David encouraged his followers by reminding them that Judah 
was armed with the bow. Among Christian commentators, Grotius interprets 

that the song was to be sung during the martial exercises of the soldiers; 
which of course has no foundation in the text. Schm. translates ויאמר‎ 

200 2 SAMUEL 

inscripsitgue, and makes the rest of the clause a title, similar to the titles of 
the Psalms, These ingenious examples show the impossibility of making any- 
thing of the present text. The versions seem to have had what we have, except 
that 65 omits קשת‎ ; but this leaves us pretty much where we were before. 

Ew. conjectures קשט‎ for nwp translating, he commanded to teach the children 
of Israel accurately, Conceding that this translation is possible, it does not 
relieve the main difficulty, and the same is true of Th,.’s emendation of the 
same word to קשב‎ for which he cites Is. 217. GASmith changes to קינות‎ and 
regards the whole clause as a gloss. But why should a glossator get it into 
his head that David not only sang the קינה‎ but that he had it fawght? Such 
pains is unexampled, and the glossator can have supposed it possible only 
because there was already corruption of the text of which he had to make 
sense. Perles (Analekien sur Texthkritik, .כ‎ 21) thinks קשת‎ the result of 
abbreviation, קינת שאול‎ having been shortened to wp and then read .קשת‎ He 
also supposes these words an insertion, We. has a theory to account for בקשת‎ 
He thinks a glossator explained הפרשים‎ in v.6 by putting in the margin בעלי‎ 
nwp, and that one half of the gloss crept into y.6 and the other half into this 
verse, which may have stood in the corresponding line of the second column 
of the page. This is more ingenious than convincing. 

Of all the authors I have found, Klostermann is the only one who seems to 
have made a start towards the right solution. He sees and says that וואמר‎ 
must introduce the poem; and as soon as this is pointed out, every one must 
recognize the correctness of the observation. Whatever we do with the rest 
of the verse, this must have been the original force of ויאמר‎ -- 6 immediately 
preceded the text of the poem. The second half of the verse is therefore a 
later insertion, which indeed its wording makes very probable, The words 
following ויאמר‎ represent the opening verse of the dirge. KI. (followed by 
Bu. in his text) supposes the original reading to have been ביני יהודה קשות‎ 
which Kl. translates: Recezve, O Judah, cruel tidings. But it is doubtful 
whether this is good Hebrew. 

It is altogether probable that the word now represented by בני‎ was origi- 
nally parallel to the העצבי‎ which (as we shall see) must be restored in the 
next verse. But if so the natural emendation is .בכי‎ An entirely appropriate 

opening of the dirge would be 
בכי והודה‎ 

העצבי ישראל 

After בכי‎ had become corrupted to »33 the other words may have been inserted 
to make some sort of sense. On the other hand, according to the measure 
which prevails throughout the poem, we should expect six words in this couplet 
instead of four, and the two words which we still find there may be corrupt 
representatives of the two which we desire. But, as to their original form, I 
have not any probable conjecture to offer. 

19. The received text has: Zhe Gazelle ts slain, or: The beauty 
zs slain| but either word is inappropriate. The gazelle is a fleet 

I. 19-21 261 

but shy animal, distinguished for a grace and beauty which we 
think of as feminine. Saul and Jonathan are later said to be 
swifler than eagles. But the eagle hastes to the prey, while the 
gazelle flees from the pursuer. One comparison is as inappropri- 
ate as the other is apt. Nor is the abstract deawzy any better, for 
the word here used is never used of the glory which is given by 
strength. © found a verb, and following its hint so far as to 
restore a verb here we may read: Grieve, O Israel! The next 
following words must then be made a clause by themselves: Ox 
thy heights are the slain. It is too long for the metre in the 
present text. The refrain— How are the mighty fallen / — recurs 
below, as has been already pointed out. 

19. [הצבי‎ is defended by Dr., though he finds it a little singular. In fact 
the word is nowhere used with reference to a man, and it would be strange if 
Saul’s beauty were made his characteristic here, when we nowhere else hear 
of it. His manly strength indeed we might find it well to mention, but this 
would not be the term chosen. The flower of Israel’s army might perhaps be 
described as here, though even this is without analogy. The gazelle is, of 
course, out of the question. Asahel is indeed compared to one of the gazelles, 
218, but we are expressly told that the point of the comparison is his swiftness 
of foot. G48 07 עסטש\‎ and 657 62/8006 both seem to render .הציבי‎ On the 
ground of this, Kl. conjectures העָצבי‎ which commends itself; the feminine 
form being chosen because Israel is the mother of the fallen heroes. במתיך‎ 
should be pointed to agree with this. —5n] rendered as a plural by GY, is 

20. Zell it notin Gath, make it not known in the streets of Ash- 
kelon| representative Philistine cities. The paronomasia of the 
first clause is repeated in Mic. 1°.—21. Mountains of Gilboa! 
May no dew descend; and may no rain fall upon you, ye fields of 
death! For the conjecture on which this translation is based see 
the note. The common text is unintelligible.— /or there was 
cast away the shield of heroes, the shield of Saul not anointed 
with oil| the shield instead of being polished and cared for by 
its owner is left to rust or rot in the field. The text however is 
not free from difficulty. 

91. [הרי בגלבעץ‎ is suspicious because Gilboa was the name of the mountain 
ridge itself, not of the district. We should probably read ,הרי הגלבע‎ favoured 
by 657938. KA. proposes to restore חרבי גלבע‎ be desolate, Gilboa /—an extremely 
attractive conjecture, אלדטל‎ seems to require a verb, mi) réoor GY: wh 0700 

202 2 SAMUEL 

6545: insert therefore .ירד‎ The Arab poet also prays that no dew or rain may 
fall on the place where the heroes have fallen (We., Skzzzen, 1. .כ‎ 139). — 
ושרי תרומות‎ [ is unintelligible: fields of offerings have no place in the context, 
the 1 is useless, and the form שדי‎ suspicious. GY dpn @avdrov is probably right 
in reading the last three letters as the word .מות‎ In that case, the simplest 
expedient is to restore the accredited שרות‎ and to put the article for the two 
letters not accounted שדות המות --- עס‎ is not very remote from the text and 
gives a satisfactory sense. Bu. conjectures שרה תָרמות‎ referring to Jd. 9? 
which is however itself corrupt (cf. Moore on the passage). It would be 
better to read הְרְמוּת‎ with Jer. 1414 Kz, fields of decect fit the context fairly 
well, and the same meaning is got by Kl. who proposes רמות‎ now; GASmith 
reads ;ושרי מהומות‎ Graetz makes תרומות‎ nw, equivalent to מרומי שרה‎ Jd. 518. 
The variety of suggestions (and the number might easily be increased) shows 
the difficulty of the reading. —mwp בלי‎ [ is usually understood to apply to the 
shield, in which case we should read משוח‎ which is found in 23 Heb. MSS. 
and some early editions. We. independently conjectured this to be the true 
reading. Graetz proposes משיח‎ v2: “he weapon of the anointed. & makes 
the words refer to Saul guasz non unctus, and this was adopted in AV. The 
reference to the shield was understood by 65, and by some of the Rabbinical 
expositors. Budde makes a new verse begin with this clause, translating: /Vot 
anointed with oil, but with the blood and fat of slain warriors, lies now the 
shield of Saul upon the battlefield. See the note on the next verse. 

22. Saul has been introduced by the mention of his shield in 
the preceding verse. This leads up naturally to a panegyric of 
him and his heroic son. The devouring sword of Saul is paralleled 
with the equally insatiable bow of Jonathan: From the blood of 
the slain, from the fat of heroes, the bow of Jonathan turned not 
back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty] the figure seems 
entirely appropriate; and there seems, moreover, no reason to 
change the order of the clauses. 

22. חללים מחלב גברים‎ DI] as noticed above, Bu. (and similarly Kl.) makes 
these words define the contrast between Saul’s shield as it now lies, and its 
former state — instead of being carefully oiled and polished, it is smeared with 
the blood and fat of the slain. But with בשמן‎ we should certainly expect ,ברס‎ 
and the change to another preposition is inexplicable. While we might allow 
the blood to smear the shield, it is hard to picture the fa¢ of the slain as part 
of the polluting medium. On the other hand, the usual figure of the sword as 
a devouring monster certainly allows us to think of it as satiated with the fat 
as well as the blood of its victims. Retention of the usual connexion and 
order of the clauses therefore seems to be more satisfactory than any change 
yet suggested. — נשוג‎ [ an unusual spelling. The commoner form נסוג‎ is found 
in some MSS, 

1. 5 263 

23. The two heroes shared a common fate: Sau/ and Jona- 
than, the beloved and the lovely] cf. Cant. 1°°.— In life and in death 
they were not divided | this seems to be the natural connexion and 
sense of the passage. — They were swifter than eagles| the speed 
of the bird of prey is noted elsewhere, Hab. 1% The vehemence 
of its attack is the point of the comparison, cf. Jer. 4%. — Zhey 
were stronger than lions] Jd. 14°. 

23. [אריות‎ this seems to be the usual plural for ,ארי‎ and does not mean 
Hionesses as distinguished from Zions, 

24. The women of Israel are reminded of their loss and called 
upon to weep over Saud. As the women took the lead in public 
festivities on joyful occasions, so it was they who lamented the 
fallen when there was ceremonial mourning. They had special 
reason when a warlike prince had fallen, for from his hand they 
had received the spoil of the enemy: who clothed you with scarlet 
and fine linen. The two articles of luxury belong together, 
Luke 16%. For the golden jewels with which he decked them, cf. 
Jer. 4". 

24. בכה‎ with אל‎ is not common, but cf. Ezek. 2731, We should perhaps 
read על‎ with עס ערנים--- .155 סז‎ [ with dainties is the natural meaning of the 
words, but the construction is harsh, and @ is obliged to insert לכם‎ Sy)». It 
seems better to emend with Graetz ) Gesch. 0. Juden, 1. p. 192) reading ,עס סריניס‎ 
cf. Jd. 141? Is. 323. | עדי‎ is collective as in Ex. 33°. 

25. The lament over the fallen is followed by David’s expres- 
sion of personal bereavement. Repeating the refrain: How are 
the mighty fallen in the battle, he makes special mention of Jona- 
than. Unfortunately, this half of the verse is hopelessly corrupt. 
The received text gives: Jonathan on thy heights ts slain. But 
the pronoun must refer to Israel in order to make sense, and 
Israel has not been mentioned since the opening distich. No one 
of the various conjectures which have been brought forward seems 
free from difficulty. 

25. If the first half of fhe verse stood alone we might suppose it to contain 
the lament which the women are to chant. For this reason K]., emends by 
changing the words בתוך המלחמה‎ into ויאברו כלי מחמר‎ a variant of which he 
supposes now to stand at the end of the dirge (where 657 reads emOuunra for 
.(מלחמה‎ But if this be original, it is hard to account for the corruption. 

264 2 SAMUEL 

Graetz corrects יהונתן‎ to ישראל‎ which would give a good sense in itself consid- 
ered, But the opening of v.%° would then be very abrupt. We. points out 
that several Greek codd. read els @dvaroy érpavyariobn(s) (GU adds éuol) 
which would allow us to restore mb3h .למות‎ KI. goes further, suggesting: 
אני‎ mon ,במותך‎ 72 thy death 1 too am wounded, while Bu. reads in his text 
,לבי במותך חלל‎ my heart is wounded in thy death. The last is less remote 
from the received text, but none can be regarded as convincing. 

26. A burst of grief at the recollection of what Jonathan’s 
friendship had been. It seems necessary to disregard the accents 
and arrange the words as a tristich: 

Lam in anguish for thee, my brother, Jonathan ! 
Thou wert delightsome to me— exceedingly wonderful 1 
Thy love for me was beyond the love of women. 

We thus conform to the metre of the rest of the composition. 
The love of women which the poet has in mind may be supposed 
to include both the love of the bride for her husband and the love 
of the mother for her son.—27. The refrain is here completed 
by the additional clause: And the weapons of war perished! 
The parallelism suggests that the weapons of war are Saul and 
Jonathan themselves (Dr. from Ewald). 

26. [נפלאתה‎ on the form as here pointed cf. Ges.26 75.00. The text may 
not be sound, but no acceptable emendation has yet been proposed. 1. 
points out that the termination would cause us to read mond, thou wert 
wonderful, an emphatic repetition of ,נעמת‎ and although this is without 
analogy, so far as I discover, it is probably the best we can do with the 
present text. Bu.’s נפלאת‎ taken adverbially would require the מאר‎ to follow. 
—27. [המלחמה‎ éméuunrd is found in 657 as noted above. It seems to be 
taken from Theodotion (cf. Field, Hex, Origents). 

The following translation is designed simply to embody the results of the 
foregoing inquiry. 
18. Weep, O Judah! 

19. Grieve, O Israel! 
On thy heights are the slain; 
How are the mighty fallen! 

Tell it not in Gath;‏ .20 
Publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon!‏ 
Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice;‏ 
Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised be glad.‏ 

I. 26-11. 1 265 

21. Mountains of Gilboa! May no dew descend 
Nor rain upon you, fields of death! 
For there was cast away the shield of heroes, 
The shield of Saul not anointed with oil. 

22, From the blood of the slain, 
From the fat of heroes, 
The bow of Jonathan turned not back, 
And the sword of Saul returned not empty. 

23. Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the lovely! 
In life and in death they were not divided. 
They were swifter than eagles, 

They were stronger than lions. 

24. Daughters of Israel, weep over Saul! 
Who clothed you with scarlet and fine linen, 
Who put golden jewels upon your clothing. 
25. How are the mighty fallen 
In the midst of the battle! 


26. I am distressed for thee, Jonathan, my brother! 
Thou wert delightsome to me — exceeding wonderful! 
Thy love to me was beyond the love of women. 

27. How are the mighty fallen, 
And the weapons of war perished! 


This is the third part of the Books of Samuel, as now con- 
structed. ‘The composite nature of the history has been indicated 
in the Introduction, as has the fact that the main source continues 
into 1 Kings. 

Chapters II-IV. The Kingdom of Hebron.— The account 
seems to continue immediately the story broken off (for the in- 
sertion of the Dirge) at 1%. 

II. 1-42. David becomes king of Hebron. — A/eer shis, that 
is, after receiving the news of Saul’s death, David asked of 
Vahweh] 1 5. 23” 40% In the account here given, David’s first 

266 2 SAMUEL 

question is in the usual direct form, the second asks for a specific 
name. But probably the name was obtained by a process of 
exclusion like that used in discovering a person by lot. Hebron 
was in fact indicated by its position, and the oracle could hardly 
go astray. It was the well-known chief city of Judah, or rather of 
Caleb, Jd. 1°” Jos. 15%. The writer counts it to Judah, Caleb 
having already become a clan of that tribe. David went up to it 
from Ziklag which lay lower down. — 2, 8. David brought up his 
household and his men with their families, avd they dwelt in the 
citadel of Hebron] the received text has: zm the cities of Hebron, 
which can hardly be correct.—4. And the men of Judah came 
and anointed David there as king over the house of Judah| the 
sovereignty would not. be legitimate unless confirmed by the 
Sheikhs of the clans. How much choice they had in the matter 
is difficult to say. The master of a devoted band of seasoned 
soldiers was a dangerous man to reject. On the other hand, the 
public defence was likely to be well attended to by such a man, 
and David had always been well disposed towards his own people. 
That he continued to acknowledge the suzerainty of Achish seems 
almost certain, from the fact that the Philistines allowed him to 
extend his kingdom so far as he did. 

1. The name הברון‎ possibly means confederacy, and the other name given 
to the city — Kirjath-Arba — may indicate the fact that the town was originally 
settled by various clans who made an alliance; cf. Moore on Jd. 12° with his 
references. The cohabitation of various Arab tribes in Medina is a parallel 
instance. GASmith (Geog. p. 318) thinks the ancient city lay on a hill to the 
northwest of the present site. —8. [ואנשיו‎ the suffix is superfluous; read 
והאנשים‎ with 659. It is possible that the text of 75 was originally shorter. — 
בערי חברון‎ [ is supposed to mean zz ¢he ¢owns in the district of which Hebron 
was the centre. These dependent places however are called elsewhere ,חצרים‎ 
or else the daughters of the chief city, and there is no clear parallel to ערי‎ 
.חברון‎ It seems better therefore to read בעיר הברון‎ and take עיר‎ in its primary 

sense of fort or citadel, cf. יזף‎ % . There is no reason why David’s procedure at 
Hebron should differ from that at Jerusalem. 

45 -7. David's message to the Gileadites.— The fragment ob- 
viously presupposes 1 S. 31, and seems to continue that narrative 
directly, for 31° is abrupt in its ending and requires something 
further. In that case, this document had an account of David’s 
anointing. —4. The Hebrew as it stands does not make sense. 

Il. 1-7 267 

They told David of the men of Jabesh Gilead, which is probably 
the intention of the author, would require a different order. — 
5. David blesses them because “hey had done this kindness to their 
lord. ‘The burial of the dead is an act of piety. —6. In addition 
to invoking Yahweh’s blessing on them, David promises: 7 0 
will do you good because you have done this thing] the text must 
be emended in a single word. — 7%. The times call for courage on 
their part: For your lord Saul is dead and me the house of Judah 
have anointed king over them] so that Iam kept at a distance from 
you for the present, seems to be the implication. 

4b. The sentence, as it stands, is incomplete: They told David, saying : 
The men of Jabesh Gilead who buried Saul, Precisely as in English, a predi- 
cate should follow; but the present text leaves us in the lurch. The English 
version: Zhe men of Jabesh Gilead were they that buried Saul would require 
the insertion of המה‎ at least. GU translates as if it had המה‎ instead of ;אשר‎ 
655 transfers ,אשר‎ making it follow ,לאמר‎ while S$ omits .אשר‎ Bu. does the 
same on conjecture but does not profess to regard the resulting text as origi- 
nal. Kl. proposes to read על-"אדת‎ for ,לאמר‎ cf. Gen. 268%. I should think 
אתדשמות‎ equally appropriate — ¢hey told David the names of the men. But 
the insecurity of our footing is evident. — 5. .wx] 655 has fyoupevous (tryeud- 
vas 1( representing ,בעלי‎ cf. Jd. 9% (GA). For ההפר הזה‎ 65% )2 is lacking 
here) has לד‎ €Aeos tod 0600 which is perhaps original; 657 omits --.הזה‎ 
6. [הטובה הזאת‎ seems difficult. If it refer to the present embassy (perhaps 
with a gift) we should expect the verb to be in the other tense. KI. makes 
אעשה‎ a cohortative: let me show you this friendliness. But a king would 
hardly take this tone. It is best therefore to change הזאת‎ to תחת‎ as is done 
by We. (Dr., Bu.).— 7. 02)] naturally introduces a reason of the same kind 
with that which had preceded, and this can only be that the administration of 
Judah keeps David just now from coming to the assistance of Gilead, 

II. 8-IV. 12. The reign of Ishbaal. — Ishbaal, the only surviv- 
ing son of Saul, becomes king over North Israel. The chief sup- 
port of his throne is Abner, Saul’s general. In the war carried 
on between the two Israelitish powers, David is the gainer. Ish- 
baal hastens his own downfall by his resentment at Abner’s 
encroachments on the prerogative. Abner agrees to deliver the 
kingdom to David, but is murdered in blood revenge by Joab. 
Ishbaal, deprived of his chief officer, falls by the hand of assassins. 
But when these come to David expecting a reward, they are treated 
as the murderer of Saul had been treated. 

208 2 

The piece is homogeneous, except some brief interpolations 
which will be noticed in the course of the exposition. The most 
extensive is 37°. The document from which the section is taken 
seems to be the same from which we have the full account of 
David’s reign in 9-20. 

8-11. Abner places Ishbaal on the throne. — The opening part 
of the paragraph is necessary to the understanding of what follows. 
Not so with ™ and ", two chronological statements such as else- 
where belong to the final redaction of the book.— 8. The verse 
follows 1 S. 417. After the death of Saul, we naturally inquire 
what became of his kingdom. As fitted to the present place it 
tells us that Abner had taken 300007 and brought him over to 
Mahanaim] the name Ishbaal has been mutilated to /shdosheth to 
suit the squeamishness of the scribes. J/ahanaim, an ancient 
sanctuary, was later David’s refuge when driven out of his capital. 
It is mentioned in connexion with Jacob’s wanderings, immediately 
after the treaty with Laban, Gen. 32%. This account brings it into 
connexion with the Jabbok, and from 2 5. 18% we infer that it 
cannot have been far from the Jordan valley. It is not yet clearly 
identified in any modern site.—9. Ishbaal’s kingdom included 
nearly all Israel— all north of Jerusalem and all east of the Jor- 
dan: Gilead, the well-known transjordanic district, and the Ashe- 
rite, north of the Great Plain, Jd. 1°", and Jezrcel, and Ephraim, 
and Benjamin, and [in fact] al? Israel, The original narrative 
continued by adding ™: only the house of Judah followed David. 
The extent of Ishbaal’s kingdom is confirmed by the fact that the 
battle, an account of which follows, was fought at Gibeon, and 
further by the fact that a late writer would have reduced its pro- 
portions and have given more of it to David. The Philistine 
occupation of the country was maintained to an extent sufficient 
to secure their sovereignty, and it is probable that both Ishbaal 
and David were their tributaries.* That their vassals should 
weaken each other by war was, of course, according to the wish 
of the Philistines. —10. The first half-verse is an endeavour to 
introduce a scheme of chronology, like ז‎ 5. 13. The data are 
suspicious. Ishbaal could hardly have been forty years old, and 

* Cf. Kamphausen, ‘“‘ Philister und Hebrder,” in the ZA TW. VI. pp. 43-07. 

II. 8-11 269 

it seems altogether likely that he reigned more than two years. — 
11. Another insertion possibly occasioned by ™, as though the 
redactor in speaking of the length of Ishbaal’s reign felt it neces- 
sary to add something concerning David. It could hardly escape 
notice however that the two verses are inconsistent. ‘The reign of 
Ishbaal virtually coincided in length with David’s reign at Hebron. 
The hypothesis that Abner was five years in reconquering the ter- 
ritory of Saul is untenable, for in any case Ishbaal must count his 
reign from the death of Saul, whose legitimate successor he was. 
On the other hand, that five years elapsed after the death of Ish- 
baal before the tribes acknowledged David, is contrary to all the 
indications of the narrative. The length of David’s Hebron reign, 
as given here, coincides with the datum in 5°, and we have no 
reason to doubt its correctness. 

8. [איש-בשת‎ The man of shame would be no name to give a son, espe- 
cially a king’s son. There can be no doubt that the original name is preserved 
to us in the form 5y22s, 1 Chr. 883 939. We find traces of the original form 
in some MSS. of & and | in this passage also. The reluctance of the later 
Jews to pronounce the name Baal led to the substitution of mwa for it, even 
in proper names. Another method was taken with this name in 1 S. 14%. 
As we see from Jerubbaal, the name Baal was, in the early period of Israel’s 
history, applied without scruple to Yahweh, cf. Moore, /udges, p. 195.— 
Dunn] 66 795 wapeuBorns G: per castra %. That a proper name is intended 
is certain. A number of transjordanic names have the (apparent) dual end- 
ing; Eglaim, Kirjathaim, and others. For the location we may note that 
Jacob passed: Mahanaim before he reached Penuel on his way from Syria to 
Canaan, and that Penuel lay at the fords of the Jabbok. Josh. 13” °° makes 
Mahanaim a point on the boundary line of Gad and the eastern Manasseh. 
But none of these indications are sufficient to identify the exact spot. - 
or Mihne mentioned by Buhl (Geog. p. 257) from Seetzen and Merrill (Across 
the Jordan, p. 433 ff.) seems to lie too far from the Jordan valley to meet the 
requirements of 2 5. 18. —9. [האשורי‎ of a clan of this name we have a trace 
in Gen. 253. But they were evidently Bedawin and not likely to come under 
Ishbaal. The Israelite tribe האשרי‎ seems to fit the case. Th., following Ew., 
adopts 1217, which is supported by S and some MSS. of #. It seems 
doubtful however whether the Geshurites, who had a king of their own at 
about this time, 3%, could have been under Ishbaal. The tribe of Asher is 
found in this verse by Pseudo-Hieronymus, Questiones in Libros Regum. 
Notice the way in which אל‎ and על‎ are used together in this verse. The 
original writer must have used על‎ throughout. — 10, 1. The authorities are 
pretty well united in the supposition that 10a. 11 are redactional insertions. 

220 2 SAMUEL 

12-17. The battle of Gibeon.— One of the battles between 
the soldiers of the two Israelite monarchs is related in detail. 
The reason for the choice of this particular one is its bearing on 
the later history —in its sequel. It is commonly assumed that 
Abner was the aggressor. But as the battle took place on Ben- 
jamite territory, where if anywhere Ishbaal’s claim was valid, it 
seems more probable that David’s men were acting on the offen- 
sive. David was seeking to extend his kingdom to the north of 
Judah.- His piety towards Saul would not necessarily cause him 
to spare his successor. The account of the battle proper is very 

12. Abner and the servants of Ishbaal] that is, the standing 
army whose quarters were at the capital. — 07/0600 was a well- 
known Canaanite city whose inhabitants had a treaty with the 
Israelites until the time of Saul. By the extermination of the 
Canaanite stock, Saul made the city Benjamite. A village on 
the ancient site still bears the name 0/-)02//.-- 18. And Joab the 
son of Zeruiah| who here appears for the first time as David’s 
General, and the servants of David went out| from Hebron as © 
correctly interprets. — And met them at the pool of Gibeon] a large 
reservoir which still exists. —14. Abner’s proposition for a tourna- 
ment is acceded to by Joab. Individual combats frequently pre- 
cede the general engagement in oriental warfare. —15, 16. The 
tournament was held, with twelve champions for each side. Ex- 
actly what took place is not easy to make out, but the result was 
that they fell dead together. As in so many other cases the inci- 
dent was commemorated by naming the place. The field was 
called the Field of the Enemies. —1%7. The battle which was thus 
introduced was exceedingly severe. But the result was in favour 
of David’s men. The king himself does not seem to have been 

12. 836את [גבענה‎ 65%. The place is five miles west of north from Jerusa- 
lem, cf. Robinson, 2/9. I. p. 455 f.—18. axv] Yahweh is father, cf. אביאל‎ 
and [יצאו--.אליאב‎ @ adds 66 XeBpdv, adopted by Bu., but the insertion is 
more likely than the omission, —3)215»)] does not necessarily mean (as 1. 
supposes) that the meeting was unexpected, cf. Ex. 47, יהרו---‎ [ is superfluous, 
and in fact impossible, after the suffix in .ויפגשום‎ Probably it is a corruption 
of some word defining the circumstances — 1. suggests ,חנים‎ camping.— מזה‎ 

II. 12-23 271 

,.. [מזה‎ as in ז‎ S, 144.—14, [וישחקו‎ used nowhere else of fighting, It 
seems plain however that the proposition was to have a combat of picked men 
as a prelude to the main battle. —15. ayy] “of the individuals passing in 
order before the teller” (Dr.).— [ולאיש‎ omit the ו‎ with @S.—16. A difficult 
verse. The interpretation must proceed from ויפלו יחד‎ which most naturally 
means ¢hey fell all together, i.e., the champions fell dead, not the two armies 
came into conflict as is supposed by Kl. The clause וגו"‎ pin») will then describe 
the action of the champions in the tournament: Zach took hold of the head 
of his fellow, But who is meant by zs fellow ? We most naturally suppose 
it to be his next neighbour of his own party. But as this gives no suitable 
sense we are compelled to make רעהו‎ refer to each one’s antagonist. The 
next clause is difficult in either case: and his sword in the side of his fellow. 
A verb seems required, as ויהזקו‎ could not in itself mean that he struck his 
sword into his fellow, 00272 gladium 3. I suspect the corruption to be in 
בראש‎ as is alleged by K1., though I cannot accept his emendation. After איש‎ 
65 inserts r7 )0ו6א‎ probably correctly. —ons7] might be of the sharp knives 
as is perhaps intended by the punctuation. The conjecture that 65 rév 
émiBovAwy goes back to ,הצרים‎ first broached by Schleusner, and accepted by 
Ew. and others, does not seem well founded. °Em{S8ovAos nowhere occurs for 
צר‎ (or (צדה‎ but generally for ,שטן‎ once for .צר‎ There is no question of plotters 
or diers-in-watt, but of determined exemzes, which would be .הצָרים‎ 

18-23. The death 01 Asahel; a single incident of the battle, 
important for the prominence of the actors and for its sequel. — 
18. The three sons of Zeruiah, nephews of David, were foremost 
in the fight. Joab and Abishai have appeared in the earlier narra- 
tive. Asahel seems to have been the youngest. He is described 
as swift of foot like one of the gazelles which are in the field| the 
gazelle lives in the open country. Swiftness was a prime qualifi- 
cation for the ancient warrior, cf. what is said of Saul and Jona- 
than, 1%.—19. Asahel’s ambition was content with no less a prey 
than Abner himself whom he followed steadily.— 20. Abner, 
overtaken by his pursuer, but conscious of his own superiority, 
is unwilling to fight with him. He first assures himself that it is 
Asahel as he supposed. — 21. He then counsels him to be content 
with an antagonist of lesser rank: Seize one of the young men and 
take his spoil| trophy enough, without aspiring to the conquest 
of the general. —22. Abner makes a second attempt to dissuade 
his pursuer: Why should I smite thee to the ground? And how 
[in that case] could I ft up my face to Joab thy brother ?\ Abner 
fears the blood feud which must follow. — 28. The only resource 

272 2 SAMUEL 
was to strike: And Abner smote him with a backward stroke in 
the abdomen, and the spear came out at his back, and he fell there 
and died in his place. The remainder of the verse seems to be 
an erroneous supplement, inserted as a reminiscence from the 
similar passage 20” where alone such a standing still of the people 
is in place. 

18. [עשהאל‎ similar names are עשיאל‎ and .עשיה‎ A similar ה‎ in פרהצור‎ Num. 
110, צבים‎ the plural of 123; the same word is used of the mature gazelle in 
Arabic.—19, [עלדהימין‎ where we should expect .אל‎ But על‎ is repeated in 
v.21, 21, [נטה לך‎ the dative of advantage is frequent in such connexion, as 
in פור לך‎ of the following yerse.— חלצתו‎ [ that which was stripped from the 
slain, It was the natural law of war that the arms of the slain belonged to 
the slayer. Such was Mohammed’s ruling in his campaigns. The arms of 
the hostile general would confer especial renown on their captor. — 22. ואיך‎ 
[אשא פני‎ a duplicate translation of @® goes back to זה פנה‎ 7)x)— obviously 
the poorer text.—23. nnn [באהרי‎ is supposed to mean w7th the butt of the 
spear. It is doubtful however whether אהרים‎ is so used, and it is further 
doubtful whether the butt of the spear was ever so sharp that it would go 
through a man, as here described. We. recognizes the difficulty, but has no 
solution. Kl. proposes to read אחרנית‎ which might describe the blow of 8 
man delivered backward, without turning to face his pursuer, but, of course, 
with the point of the (reversed) spear. This is adopted by Bu, The conclud- 
ing part of the verse disturbs the connexion and is regarded as an interpolation 
by K1., Bu. It also contradicts the account which follows. 

24-IIT. 1. Conclusion of the battle.—A final stand is made 
by the Benjamites, but when the attack is about to be made Abner 
appeals for clemency, so that Joab draws off his men.— 24, The 
pursuit lasted until sundown when the contending parties reached 
the Fill of Ammah, mentioned nowhere else and unidentified. 
The author endeavours to give the exact location, but we are unable 
to follow him.—25. There the Benjamites collected behind Abner 
and made themselves a phalanx| a close knot like the bunch of 
hyssop, Ex. 12”. That this was on the hill already mentioned is 
evident, though not asserted in the present text.— 26. Abner’s 
appeal: Shall the sword devour forever? Dost thou not know 
that the sequel will be bitter ?| is directed to the consciousness of 
common blood in the pursuers. The Bedawin still shrink from 
the extermination of a clan, even in bitter feuds. — How long wilt 
thou refrain from commanding the people to turn from the pursutt 

2-1 273 

of their brethren? ‘The question is in effect a cry for quarter. — 
27. Joab, though ruthless, is not altogether without conscience. 
He would have kept up the pursuit all night unless Abner had 
spoken, but now he will relent. — 28. He therefore gives the sig- 
nal and the fighting is stayed. — 29. Abner and his men marched 
in the Arabah all that night and crossed the Jordan and went 
through the whole Bithron| or Ravine, doubtless the proper name 
of one of the side valleys up which Mahanaim was situated. — 
— 30. At the muster of Joab’s troops, there were missing nineteen 
men besides Asahel| who receives special mention on account of 
his prominence.— 81. The loss on Abner’s side — 360 men— 
shows that the experienced warriors of David were opposed in the 
main by untried men. Saul’s old soldiers (of his body-guard) had 
perished with their master.— 382. The next day was occupied in 
the march to Bethlehem, where Asahel was duly buried 77 che sep- 
ulchre of his father, and Joab continued his march through the 
night so that day dawned upon them in Hebron.—IIl. 1. Con- 
cluding notice of this paragraph: Zhe war was prolonged... 
but David kept growing stronger, while the house of Saul kept 
growing weaker. 

24. The hill is described as גיח דרך‎ 1975p, where גיח‎ is obscure and prob- 
ably corrupt: @® has Pai which might represent .עי עס גיא‎ We. supposes גיח‎ 
to have arisen by the erroneous duplication of the two preceding letters to- 
gether with ה‎ from הדרך‎ so that he restores “37 פני‎ by which is adopted by 
Bu, He also proposes to read 72723 for 1399. He thus locates the hill eas? 
of the road in the wilderness of Gibeon. Nothing better has been proposed, 
but it is remarkable that after so complete a rout, the forces had got no further 
than the wilderness (or pasture land) of Gibeon. The original reading was 
probably different.— 25. [ובעה אחת‎ as the mention of the Hill of Ammah is 
superfluous unless the rally took place upon it, we should probably restore 
here גבעת אמה‎ with Ki., Bu. — 26. [באחרונה‎ I have ventured to read האחרונה‎ 
with 65.--- [ועד‎ the ו‎ is omitted by SU, but not by 65 as We. asserts. //ow 
long dost thou not command, where we should say: How long dost thou refrain 
from cominanding ? —2%. [נעלה‎ the verb is used of giving up the siege of a 
city, Jer. 37> 11, cf. Num, 16% 7, In this place 65 avé8y seems to have read 
;יעלה‎ but the analogy of hypothetical sentences elsewhere favours 19. -- 
28. The plain intimation is that the whole force was within hearing of the 
commander’s horn. —29. 125»)] the same verb with an accusative of the coun- 
try traversed (as here) is found Dt. 119 27,80. [ויפקרו‎ cf. 1 8. 201% -- [|עשחאל‎ 
is connected with the next verse by 655 (or by the editor). It does not seem 


2% 2 SAMUEL 

natural to make Asahel prominent in this way, to the ignoring of Joab and 
Abishai, who must have been equally active in the combat. —81. [ובאנשי‎ is 
difficult to make out whether the author wishes to make, two classes of the 
soldiers of Abner and the men of Benjamin. Probably not, in which case we 
should read without מתו--- .0068 @ 88 ו‎ [ is incomprehensible, perhaps 8 mar- 
ginal gloss which has crept into the text. ©" omits it (so 3 which inserts np 
at the end of v.3°), while @® represents [בית לחם .82 --.מָאתו‎ for which 9 
MSS. (DeR.) have בבית ל"‎ and 65 has év 2.--11. 1. [ארכה‎ cf. Ez. 12” 
Jer. 298. The word seems better than הרבה‎ which was read by 6. 

III. 5-5. David’s family. — Before taking up the event which 
brought Israel into David’s hands, the compiler inserts the names 
of the sons born to him in Hebron. ‘They were six, from as many 
wives. — Amnon the first born, afterwards notorious, was the son 
of Ahinoam mentioned above, 1 S. 25%.-- Chileab, the son of 
Abigail, bears a name which reminds us of his mother’s blood. — 
Absalom’s mother was a daughter of 70/7007 king of Geshur, a 
small Aramaic kingdom, 15°. — Adonijah is well known in the later 
history, whereas Shephatah is not again heard of. ‘The same is 
true of /thream, the son of Eglah, who is curiously described in 
the received text as the wefe of David. This cannot be original, 
as all the others were equally wives of David. From the analogy 
of Abigail, we expect here the name of her former husband, but 
possibly the description was of a different kind. 

2-5. The paragraph is placed by Bu. after 8! and is followed in his text 
immediately by 51°16, It is in fact probable that the notices of David’s family 
belong together. Whether they ever stood at the end of 8! is doubtful. — 
2. [וילדו‎ for which Q7é proposes ויולדו‎ The Az. is probably for mb», cf. 
similar instances in Piel, Ges.26 69 /.---8. [כלאב‎ may have some connexion 
with the tribe 68160. -- לאביגל‎ [ the form varies between אביגל‎ and --.אביגיל‎ 
[גשור‎ is brought into connexion with Aram, not only 158, but also 1 Chr. 28, 
It is contiguous to Bashan Josh. 12%. ---4. m 398 657 has ’Opvia; GB’ Opveta. — 
5. [אשת דוד‎ for which 1 Chr. 33 has ,אשתו‎ is uncalled for. The name of a 
former husband would be in place. It is difficult to see how such a name 
could be replaced by David’s, and it is possible that the woman was David’s 
relative within the degrees afterwards regarded as prohibited, his half-sister 
for example. Such a marriage was regarded as regular so late as the time 
of the Elohistic author of the life of Abraham (Gen. 20!2), and would have 
given no offence in the time of David. Read therefore .אחות רוד‎ The sins 
of Jerusalem as enumerated by Ezekiel (22!) include the humbling of one’s 
sister, showing that such marriages were entered into down to the time of the 

III. 2-8 275 

6-39. Abner’s negotiation with David and his death. — 
Abner quarrels with his king on account of a concubine of Saul. 
He opens negotiations with David looking to the transfer of 
Israel’s allegiance. ‘To this end he visits Hebron. An agreement 
כ‎ reached in the absence of Joab. This officer, on learning of 
what has been done, recalls Abner and puts him to death in 
revenge for the death of Asahel. David shows by his lament for 
Abner, that he has no part in the murder. 

The section seems to be generally regarded as homogeneous ; 
only Bonk characterizes 777 as an interpolation. In fact the story 
is over full and there is reason to suspect that two accounts have 
been wrought into one. Verse ” would join well to v.1. But the 
division comes more naturally after v.” than after v.". One of the 
two accounts made Abner send to David by the hand of messen- 
gers; the other made him come in person. In the former docu- 
ment his motive was simply the conviction that David was the man 
of the future. The other gave the quarrel ‘with Ishbaal as the 

6-11. The quarrel with Ishbaal.— Abner was conscious of 
his own power, and trespassed upon the prerogative of the mon- 
arch. —6. While the war was going on, Adner was overbearing in 
the house of Saul] as is shown by the instance which follows. — 
7%. Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah | cf. 21°. The 
custom of men of wealth and station to take wives of the second 
rank is abundantly illustrated from the time of Abraham down. — 
And Abner took her] missing in #, is necessary to the sense. It 
is preserved in 655. Ishbaal protested: Why didst thou go in to 
my father’s concubine ? He was fully in the right. The son inher- 
ited his father’s wives with the rest of the estate. Abner invaded 
the rights of the king as truly as if he had seduced any one of 
Ishbaal’s wives. To indicate assumption of the throne, Absalom 
takes possession of his father’s concubines, 16”, and the request 
of Adonijah for Abishag rouses the wrath of Solomon on the same 
grounds which provoke Ishbaal here. Arabic custom to the time 
of Mohammed is well known, and the same seems to have pre- 
vailed in Judah down to the Exile, cf. Ezek. 22".— 8. The reply 
of Abner is not a justification of his act but an assertion of his 

276 2 SAMUEL 

merits: Am I a dog’s head, I, who keep showing kindness to the 
house of Saul... and who have not delivered thee into the hand 
of David, that to-day thou findest fault with me about a woman ? 
The text is not altogether sound, but the thought is sufficiently 
clear.—9,10. Abner swears to accomplish what Yahweh has 
sworn to David — # transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, 
and to establish David's throne over Israel and over Judah from 
Dan to Beersheba | 1 S.3%.—11. The weak Ishbaal was not able 
to make any reply. 

6. The first clause is an appropriate introduction to what follows. If it 
immediately followed y.! it would be superfluous, but that it did so follow is 
not certain. —pinnn] the parallel cases of the verb with ב‎ would favour the 
meaning strengthened himself in the house of Saud, that is, fortified his cause 
by dependence upon the house 01 Saul, 1 S. 40% But the weakness of the 
house of Saul is against this rendering. It seems necessary therefore to inter- 
pret the words of Abner’s arrogance towards the king whose throne was sup- 
ported by him — Abner regebat domus Saul 36. --- 7. בת-איה‎ [ an Edomite clan 
bore the name ,איה‎ Gen. 362%, Before ויאמר‎ @" inserts ral ZAaBynv adthv 
עע86 ה י‎ hp, and after the same word @ inserts the name of the king, as do ₪ 
and a few MSS. of #). On the son’s marrying the wife of his father cf. 
W. R. Smith ) 7702072 and Marriage, p. 89 f.), who calls attention to Well- 
hausen’s restoration of 1 Chr. 2%, an emendation adopted by Kittel, in his 
edition of Chronicles (SBO7.). Wellhausen’s emendation is in his disserta- 
tion De Gentibus et Familits Judaets (1870), p. 14, n. 1. Cf. also Driver on 
Dt. 23! (= 229”). —8. [[הראש כלב‎ the expression is not used elsewhere, but 
seems intelligible without supposing a contemptuous reference to the clan 
Caleb, -- אשר ליהודה‎ [ must qualify 253, taking the place of an adjective — Am 
La Judahite dog’s head? But the construction of what follows is thus ren- 
dered more difficult, and there is reason to suspect that ,ליהודה‎ which is not 
represented in 65, 15 not original. Its insertion may be the work of a scribe 
who interpreted the preceding word as referring to the tribe of Caled as 
though Abner asked: dam La Calebite captain, that is, a turbulent freebooter ? 
Omitting ליהודה‎ we get a fairly good sense. [אעשה--‎ in the frequentative 
sense. The house of Saul is defined so as to include 47s brothers and his 
comrades, It is unnecessary to insert ו‎ before »nNx7bx, as is done by some 
MSS. of 30, by Gand #. The guz/t of a woman (genitive of the object) is 
evidently regarded as a trifle. We should read nw» with @, so We., Bu, al. — 
9. [אעשה-לו‎ + ev rH quépa radry 65 is adopted by We. and others, though the 
sense seems good without it. 

12-19. The return of Michal. — Abner sends messengers to 
David to treat for the submission of all Israel. David will enter 

IIL. 8-17 277 

on the negotiation only on the condition of the return of Michal 
his wife. She is therefore brought back, and Abner speaks to the 
elders of Israel with a view to making David king. 

12-19. As remarked above, the section does not altogether agree with 
what follows. In v.?! Abner promises that he will go and gather all Israel, 
and they will make an agreement with David. It looks therefore as if 
Abner’s visit (v.2°) was the opening of negotiations, and there is no room for 
1219, The latter is another representation of Abner’s action, into which the 
narrator inserted the account of the return of Michal. This also presents 
difficulties. In y.18 David stipulates that Abner shall bring her back. In v.14 
he sends for her to Ishbaal. In y.!® Abner accompanies her as far as Bahurim, 
but apparently not to Hebron, It is not unlikely that this account (vy.!16) 
was originally continued in such a form as to make Abner’s visit to David the 
conclusion of the journey with Michal. 

12. Abner sent messengers to David offering % turn all Israel 
to him, if David would make a definite agreement with Abner. 
The contents of the agreement are not told, but we may suppose 
that it included personal advantages to Abner, as well as immunity 
for past opposition. On some difficulties in the text, see the criti- 
cal note. —13. David stipulates first of all that Abner should 
bring Michal when he comes to see him. The prohibition of the 
Law, which forbade a man to take back a wife who had been 
married to another, seems to have been unknown, cf. Deut. 24% 
The scrupulosity of the Jews is shown by the Rabbinical fancy 
that Paltiel had not consummated his marriage with Michal. — 
14. David sends messengers to Ishbaal with the demand: Guve 
me my wife Michal, whom I bought for a hundred foreskins of 
the Philistines| the reference to 1 S. 18”. 7 is obvious, but the pas- 
sage knows nothing of David’s paying double the price demanded 
by Saul.—15. Ishbaal sends and takes her from her husband, 
Paltiel ben Laish| to whom she was given by Saul, 1 S. 25%.-- 
16. Her husband followed her weeping as he went as far as Bahu- 
vim, a place near Jerusalem, 16°. Probably it was the last Ben- 
jamite village on the road they were travelling. Here at Abner’s 
command he turned back.—17. The account should naturally 
tell of the completion of Michal’s return. But it breaks off and 
tells of Abner’s activity among the elders of Israel. In the pres- 
ent connexion we most naturally translate: And Adbner’s word 

278 2 SAMUEL 

had been with the Sheikhs of Israel| the implication is that he 
had taken measures to change the allegiance of Israel before his 
journey. —18. After reminding them that they had already some 
leanings towards David he adds the promise of God: Mow act/ 
For Vahweh has said to David: By the hand of David my servant 
will I deliver my people Israel, It is idle to inquire what particular 
promise is referred to. —19. The prominent mention of Benjamin 
is due to the fact that, as the tribe of Saul, it would be the most 
difficult to move. 

19. [תחתו לאמר למי ארץ לאמר‎ is unintelligible and certainly corrupt. - 1 
has simply eis עשץ6ג עש682<‎ which looks like a conjectural emendation, 
655 has eis @athdu ob Hv mapaxphua Aéywy, but what this represents is difficult 
to say. That David was in 7e/am at the time seems to be the intention, 
though elsewhere 65 renders this name by TeAgu. The other versions seem to 
have had the received text before them. All are compelled (like the modern 
expositors who try to make sense out of this text) to translate as though ארץ‎ 
could stand for הארץ‎ which is not the case. If Abner had meant to ask whose 
25 the land ? insinuating 772 manu mea est terra ut ad te transferam,* he must 
have said .למי הארץ‎ Even if this were the reading, the following לאמר‎ would 
be unaccountable. Of the proposals to emend the text, K1.’s deserves mention. 
He supposes the original to have been כל בית ישראל תחתי לתת למי ארצה לאמר‎ 
all the house of Israel is under my hand to give to whom I please when I 
say. The sentence would be an appropriate introduction to what follows. — 
13. [כי אםהלפני‎ is redundant, and 35> is lacking in 65, which also reads ran, 
adopted by Th., al. On the Rabbinical theory of Paltiel’s self-control cf. 
Schm. The text gives no indication that he was not Michal’s rightful 
husband. David asserts his claim as one who had paid the purchase price, 
and to this extent he had suffered wrong.—15. wx] the reading אישה‎ on the 
basis of @ is now generally adopted. The omission of the suffix may have 
been made intentionally by some legalistic scribe to disguise the fact that 
Paltiel is called her husband.— [פלטיאל‎ the fuller form of the name which 
appears as לוש [לוש ,2544 .5 1 פלטי‎ )2/4 agrees with the form found else- 
where. — 16. בהרים‎ [ elsewhere mentioned as on the road from Jerusalem to 
the Jordan valley, 171%.--17-19. The verses anticipate the account which 
follows. The intimation that the people had already for some time been 
seeking David as king and the reference to the promise of Yahweh, indicate 
a later hand than that to which we owe the main narrative. — [הושיע‎ is to be 
changed to אושיע‎ with 40 MSS. and the versions. — 132-01] must mean that, 
besides sending messages and messengers, Abner went in person to Benja- 
min and to David — wholly superfluous in view of what follows. 

* Sanctius 028 Schm,, p. 111. 

III. 17-25 279 

20, 21. As the narrative now stands, the verses form the con- 
clusion of Abner’s negotiation with David. Abner with a suitable 
escort came to David at Hebron, and David made a feast to Abner 
and to the men who were with him] the feast was an occasion for 
drinking rather than eating and is so named, like הט‎ 
Abner agrees definitely: Zw gather all Israel to my Lord and 
they will make an agreement with thee] by their Sheikhs or heads 
of the clans. The monarchy is established by consent of the 
tribes. So in the time of Rehoboam we find the tribes negotiat- 
ing with the heir to the throne, before acknowledging him.— 
And thou shalt rule over all which thou desirest. The aspiration 
of David could hardly be less than the rule over all Israel. The 
promise of Abner seems to imply no more than that he will set 
about influencing the tribes, with the expectation of bringing them 
into allegiance to David. 

20. [וראנשים‎ there seems no reason why we should not point with the 
article, which is in fact required by the following .אשר‎ Read ow xd) with Bu. 
—21. [אקומה‎ 65 seems to have added נא‎ which however is not called for. — 
אהך ברית‎ 1573] Kal SixOjooma pet avrod 810006 GB: rat 510000004 perc 
gov diadHcny 657. The reading of 3 seems the best, for Abner’s promise 
looked to what afterwards occurred, 53. — 32] can hardly be with all the con- 

ditions that shall please thee (Th.), but over all the people that thou desirest. 
The main thing was that David should be acknowledged as king. 

22-27. The murder of Abner. — Joab, David’s general, was 
absent on an expedition when Abner made his visit. Not improb- 
ably David had so planned it. But che servants of David, that is, 
the mercenaries, and Joab came from the raid | in which they 
were then engaged, and brought with them great spoil. ‘The booty 
of the surrounding tribes makes the revenue of such a monarchy 
to a considerable extent. The renewed assurance that David had 
dismissed Abner and he had gone in peace is intended to bring 
out more distinctly Joab’s vindictiveness. —23. The information 
given to Joab does not indicate that Abner was planning to dis- 
place him. It was simply to the effect that the king had let Abner 
go in peace. By tribal morality, David as kinsman of Asahel was 
bound to take blood revenge as much as Joab himself. — 24. This 
is the first point of Joab’s expostulation with David — that he did 
not smite Abner while he had him in his power. — 25. The second 

200 2 SAMUEL 

ascribes to Abner treacherous motives: Dost thou not know Abney 
the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee| under pretence of 
friendly negotiation ; and to know thy going forth and thy coming 
in, and to know all thou art doing?\| in order to make a later 
attack upon the person of the king. Joab was unable to conceive 
of Abner as anything but an enemy of Judah. ‘The freedom with 
which Joab expostulates shows the position which he occupied 
both as kinsman and as officer of David. —26. Joab, without 
David’s knowledge, promptly sen¢ messengers after Abner and they 
brought him back from the Cistern of Sirah| unknown to us except 
from this passage. —27. Abner turned back, doubtless under the 
impression that the king had sent for him, azd Joab turned him 
aside to the side of the gate to speak to him quietly| the ostensible 
purpose is given without comment.— And he smote him there in 
the abdomen] cf. 2%. So he died for the blood of Asahel the 
brother of Joab. ‘he curious thing is not that Joab should take 
blood revenge, but that Abner should be so unsuspicious. We can 
account for his conduct only by supposing that he had a distinct 
safe conduct from David. 

22. [בא‎ as generally recognized, the true reading is באיס‎ (Ginsb. gives באו‎ 
in the margin) the 0 having disappeared in the מ‎ of the next word. — [רב‎ is 
omitted by 65 and is in fact superfluous; how much booty they brought with 
them does not concern us here. — 24. הלוך‎ [ throws emphasis on the fact that 
Abner had been allowed to go away at all. @ has ש6‎ eiphyn conforming to the 
clause in v.23, —25. 65 and 5 read הלוא‎ at the beginning of the verse and this 
word is probably to be restored את"אבנר ---. (.ג[1")‎ [ thy Kaclay “ABevyhp & is 
attractive (K1.).— מבואך‎ [ is changed by the punctuators to מובאך‎ for the sake 
of the paronomasia. — 26. 707] is called by Josephus Byonpa. The transla- 
tion of Josephus in Bohn’s Library speaks of 170 Sarah near Hebron, of 
which I find no other trace. —27. For תוך‎ read ירך‎ with @ [[החמש -- . (.ם1")‎ 
always elsewhere we find אל החמש‎ which is found here also in 13 MSS. and is 
favoured by אחיו---.65‎ [ is awkward, so that Bu. restores אחי יואב‎ with 4 
I suspect however that וימת‎ is an intrusion. The sense is perfectly good 
without it. 

28-32. David declares his innocence of the crime. —28. 7 
and my kingdom are innocent before Yahweh] who avenges those 
slain without cause, Ps. 9". — 29. Let it come upon Joab and upon 
all his clan] the imprecation strictly interpreted would affect David 
himself, but the following clauses show that David is thinking of 

III. 25-34 281 

Joab’s descendants. Among these he prays that there may 
always be one that has an issue and one that is a leper] two dis- 
eases which involve contiiual defilement ; and one that holds the 
spindle| effeminate and unfit for manly occupations. — 30. An 
editorial note or later interpolation excusing the deed of Joab: 
But Joab and Abishai had lain in watt for Abner because he had 
killed Asahel. Strictly speaking, it contradicts v.”, where Joab 
alone is the slayer. — 81, 82. As further evidence of his innocence, 
David commands all the people to show the customary signs of 
mourning, vending the clothes and putting on haircloth. He him- 
self honoured the dead by following the bier, and by weeping at 
the grave. 

28. [מעם יהוה‎ one is free from an obligation, Gen. 248, or from the guilt 
incurred by violation of it, Nu. 531, or from the one who has a claim based on 
the obligation or the violation, Jud. 153. In this case Yahweh has the claim, 
for innocent blood cries to him for vengeance. The double מן‎ --1 am inno- 
cent fowards Yahweh of the blood— does not seem to occur elsewhere. The 
original reading of 65 was מעהה ו‎ instead of [מדמי --.מעס יהוה‎ G" represents 
רמי‎ which it makes the beginning of v.29. —29. יחלו‎ [ the verb is used twice 
of the tempest, as whirling upon the head of its victims, Jer. 231% 303, and 
once of the sword Hos. 115. It does not seem appropriate to the blood which 
is the subject here; 65 omits the verb altogether and it is possible that it read 
simply יהיה‎ elsewhere used in similar context.— 71] read ועל‎ with 10 MSS. 
and the versions. — בפלך‎ pynn] as shown by Dr,, it is better to adhere to the 
established meaning of ,פלך‎ @ spizdle. In contrast with the warrior Joab, an 
effeminate descendant would be a curse. Still, ש‎ 6/2226 who supports himself 
by a staff or crutch seems more suitable in this context, and it is possible that 
the text has suffered. According to Theodoret, Aquila read one blind, per- 
haps because a blind man feels his way with his staff.— 80. The verse inter- 
rupts the narrative, and can be understood only as a later insertion. For הרגו‎ 
read ארבו‎ as suggested by Ew. )6 79. III. p. 160, Eng. Tr. p. 117) on the 
basis of @.— 81. o pw] the clothing of mourners. Schwally ) 2.4 7777. 1. 
p- 174.) compares the ihrém of the Moslem, which however is not of haircloth. 
-- המטה‎ | the couch on which a man lay was also used as a bier. 

33-39. The burial of Abner. — David expressed his grief in 
an impromptu 01786 : 

83. Must Abner die as dies the fool? 
$4. Thy hands were not bound, 
Thy feet were not brought into fetters : 
As one falls before ruthless men, thou didst fall, 

22 2 SAMUEL 

The fool brings an early death upon himself by his reckless 
conduct, Prov. 7“*. Abner had not even the honour of being 
made a prisoner of war, or of suffering death after being overpow- 
ered in battle. —35. After the burial, the people came 7 cause the 
king to eat bread while it was yet day. David showed that he was 
in earnest in mourning by swearing not to taste anything until 
sundown, when of course a new day began. —86, 37. All the 
people “ook notice and knew that David had no part in the matter 
and were pleased. His relationship to Joab laid him open to sus- 
picion. —88. Axnow you not that a prince and a great man has 
fallen to-day in Israel?] reason enough for mourning. — 39. As 
the verse now stands, it contains David’s confession of his own 
weakness and inability to punish Joab. Such a confession so 
early in his career seems improbable. ‘The original reading, 
which can be restored only conjecturally, seems to have said 
that although Abner was uncle and high official of a king, the sons 
of Zeruiah had treated him as harshly as they would a common 
man. ‘Tribal morality being on their side, David did not attempt 
to punish them, but contented himself with a prayer that Yahweh 
would veguzte the doer of evil according to his evil. 

83. [הכמות‎ the verbal form is infinitive. —a)] the name of Wadal is ren- 
dered by 65. But the death of Abner could not be compared in any way with 
the death of Nabal.— 34. [נהשתים‎ of a pair of bronze fetters as in Jd. 167}. — 
[כנפל‎ is probably to be pointed as a participle )181.( . — 85. [להברות‎ cf. 13°. 
The verb occurs only in the document of which this chapter is a part. — 
36. [ככל‎ 65 reads ,כל‎ making it the subject of the preceding וייטב‎ and omitting 
טוב‎ at the end of the verse. This is favoured also by ₪ and W, and is 
preferred by We., who is obliged, however, to strike out כלההעם‎ »»ya also, 
Would it not be better to strike out the whole half verse as a gloss? — 
88. [וגרול‎ 79; for שר וגדול‎ however, 65% has .שר גרול‎ For בישראל‎ 5 and some 
MSS. of # have --.מישראל‎ 39. 47] the word means Zender in years, or deli- 
cately nurtured, Gen. 331% Dt. 285%, Neither meaning is appropriate to David, 
who was certainly a mature man and who had been brought up in hardship. 
It is moreover difficult to connect the word with what follows: ¢ender though 
anointed king is perhaps possible, but how does it apply to the situation? 
Following a suggestion of We., Bu. emends to ושח ממלך‎ 47, too tender and 
lowly for reigning. But it is not likely that David would openly express this, 
even if it were his thought. 657 makes the clause apply to Abner and trans- 
lates cuyyevyjs Kal nabiotduevos לחט‎ Tod BaciAéws, and with this agree many 
MSS. of @, only reading xaectauéevos, The original would apparently be 

III. 34-IV. 4 283 

though he were relative and officer of a king (yet these sons‏ ,והוא רור ופקיר למלך 
. (ממני for‏ ממנו of Zeruiah were too strong for him is the continuation, reading‏ 
For other conjectures see 1.‏ 

IV. 1-12. The assassination of Ishbaal.— The death of 
Abner removed the main support of the throne at Mahanaim. 
Two of the king’s officers therefore seize an opportunity, when 
the king is unguarded, to murder him. ‘They bring his head 
to Hebron in the hope of reward. But David treats them as he 
had treated the confessed assassin of Saul. 

The piece is an evident continuation of the preceding narrative 
and is homogeneous except for a single (or double) interpola- 
tion, +. 

1. When the son of Saul heard that Abner had died in Hebron, 
his hands were limp] he lost courage ; and all Israel was thrown 
into confuston| showing that Abner was not only the stay of the 
king, but also the administrator of the kingdom. — 2. Ishbaal had 
two captains of guerilla bands whose names were Baana and 
Rechab. The fact that in * they are mentioned in the reverse 
order indicates that the present clause is part of the redactional 
note. They are described as sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of 
the Benjamizes| Beeroth was a city of the Gibeonites, Jos. 9”, but 
is reckoned to Benjamin Jos. 18”. According to Robinson it 
occupied the site of the present H/+Azreh, nine miles north of 
Jerusalem. An editor or scribe now explains why a Beerothite 
should be called a Benjamite. But he does not tell us why 
Beeroth should ot be reckoned to Benjamin. The fact which 
he finds surprising seems natural to us.— 3. The Beerothites fed 
to Gittaim| also a city of Benjamin, Neh. 11”, and have been ch- 
ents there until this day| they did not attain full citizenship. If 
the author means that this is the way in which they came to be 
Benjamites, he has expressed himself obscurely. On the other 
hand, if he means that though Benjamites, they preferred clentage 
in another clan to their blood right, we must suppose this Gittaim 
to be somewhere else than in Benjamin.—4. The verse is another 
interpolation. ‘The design seems to be to show how reduced was 
the house of Saul—the heir to the throne was a cripple. After 
the battle of Gilboa his nurse fled in such trepidation that the 

284 2 SAMUEL 

child fell from her arms and became lame. The correct form of 
his name, preserved in Chronicles, is Meribbaal. In the text of 
Samuel it has been purposely mutilated to Mephibosheth. — 
5. The two assassins came to the house of Ishbaal while he was 
taking his noon sleep — the szes¢a which is general in hot coun- 
tries. —6. As it stands in # the verse is superfluous and perplex- 
ing. The very different reading of © is now generally adopted : 
And the doorkeeper of the palace was cleaning wheat, and she grew 
drowsy and slept; so Rechab and Baanah his brother slipped in| 
the modest establishment of Ishbaal afforded only a maid servant 
as porter, and she was obliged to do other work while keeping the 
door.—%. Ishbaal was Ling upon his bed in his sleeping room| 
and therefore an easy victim. ‘The murderers cut off his head 
and, with this evidence, travelled the road of the Arabah all night. 
—8. They present the head of their murdered king to David 
with the remark: Yahweh has avenged thee on Saul and his seed | 
the apparent hypocrisy which made Yahweh a partner in their 
bloody crime called forth the indignation of the older expositors. 
But such language is second nature to an oriental. —9,10. David’s 
reply is a reference to a precedent: As for the one who told me, 
saying: Saul is dead— though I regarded him as a bringer of 
good tidings —TI seized him and slew him in Ziklag to give him the 
reward of good tidings, The sense is clear: Even though the 
tidings of Saul’s death were welcome to David, that did not hinder 
him from punishing the messenger.—11. How much more when 
wicked men have slain a righteous man in his house and upon his 
bed; shall I not seek his blood at your hand and destroy you from 
the land? Otherwise the land itself would suffer on account of 
unavenged blood.—12. The murderers are put to death, their 
hands and their feet cut off and hung up over the pool at Hebron, 
where they would be seen by all the city, and the head of Ishbaal 
is buried in the tomb of Abner his relative, so that he is joined to 
his kin in his burial. 

1, בן-שאול.‎ [ is proper without the insertion of אשבעל‎ made by 6S. — [אבנר‎ 
the addition of ,בןהנר‎ made by We. and Bu., is not favoured by the best MSS. 
of @.— 2. [בן-שאול‎ is here impossible and we must insert לאשבעל‎ with 6. 
The identification of Beeroth and £/ Bireh is objected to by Buhl (Geog. 
p. 173) on the ground that Jos, 9!’ indicates a place southwest of Gibeon, and 

IV. 4-V. 285 

that Eusebius locates it (OS. p. 233) on the road to Nicopolis. But cf. Rob- 
inson, BX*. I p. 452; Baedeker, Palestine, p. 212.--- [על‎ is evidently for .אל‎ 
—8. ויברחו‎ [ the meaning seems to be that though the Beerothites were reck- 
oned to Benjamin, yet they preferred to become clients at Gittaim rather than 
to retain their blood rights. But as Benjamites could hardly become clients 
of Benjamites (at Gittaim), we suspect the true state of the case to have been 
that the Beerothites, originally Canaanites, sought protection at Gittaim and 
thus were reckoned to Benjamin. LBertholet (Ste//ung d. Israeliten, p. 47) 
supposes the clientage sought because of Saul’s attack on the Gibeonites, in 
which case the murder of Ishbaal was an act of revenge. —4. The second 
half of the verse is removed by Bu. and inserted after 9%, but it is doubtful 
whether it belongs there. — מפיבשת‎ [ the name has been changed like nwa-ws 
to avoid pronouncing the word Baal. We find ,מריב בעל‎ 1 Chr. 8% 94, and 
along with it ,מרי-בעל‎ 94°. From the analogy of Jerubbaal we naturally inter- 
pret בעל‎ ann, Baal is a warrior, This was changed by the ingenuity of the 
scribes to (מפיפשת‎ who puffs at the shameful thing (We. TBS. p. 31; other 
conjectures are cited by Nestle, /sraelitische Eigennamen, p.120f.). @® calls 
him Meu@:Bdcbe, the name which it has also for Ishbaal, whereas 657 has 
Meug:iSaad. This indicates that the name has undergone two transforma- 
tions; first it was made M/ephibaal and then AZephibosheth. —5. [משכב הצהרים‎ 
© has, curiously, 26 sleep of kings. —6. The opening word as pointed in fH 
is unintelligible; the repetition of the subject towards the close of the verse 
is unmotived; and the whole verse anticipates the following account. Wel- 
come relief is given by 65 which introduces an entirely new feature; a) idov 
3 Oupwpds Tod otxov exdPaipey mupors Kal évdatatev Kal exddevdev (al trvwoevl), 
This is adopted as original by Ew., Th., We., and later commentators, though 
they differ somewhat in the retroversion: וחנה שערת הבית סקלת חטים ותנס ותישן‎ 
is given by We. and adopted by Dr., Bu., whereas KI. rejects both texts and 
constructs a new one on conjecture. — נמלטו‎ | generally means Zo slip away, 0 
escape. The only analogy for the sense required here is 1 ₪ 2079, and even 
there it is doubtful whether the writer had not the usual meaning in mind. — 
7%. The second wx nn is omitted by GYH.—10. [כי‎ introduces the sub- 
stance of the oath. — [בעיניו‎ évdémdy pov G is probably original. The point is 
that the Amalekite was punished in spite of the nature of his tidings, — 
[אשר להתי לו‎ can be justified; but (since We.) אשר‎ is generally thought to be 
an erroneous insertion; the clause is then sarcastic. —11. [אתדאיש-צריק‎ is 
unusual though not entirely without parallel, Ex. 2128 Nu. 219, cf. Davidson, 
Syntax, 72 R. 4, Ges.?° 117 d.— הלא‎ [ is lacking in 65, but the question is more 
vigorous than the direct assertion. 

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

V.—VIII. The establishment of the kingdom.— The tribes 
make David king, and he establishes his capital at Jerusalem, 
He is attacked by the Philistines but conquers them. His next 

286 2 SAMUEL 

step is to bring the Ark from Baale-Judah. The progress is inter- 
rupted by an untoward incident, but after some delay the palla- 
dium is safely settled in a tent pitched for it. David proposes to 
build a house for Yahweh but is forbidden, though he receives a 
promise for his own house. ‘The next chapter contains an account 
of several successful wars, closing with a summary which evidently 
marks the conclusion of a section of the narrative. 

In this division of the book various hands are discernible, as 
will appear in the course of the exposition. 

V. 1-5. David is anointed king over all Israel, and the length 
of his reign is given. The anointing is a natural sequel of the 
preceding narrative. But the speech of vv.'? seems later than 
the simple statement of v...—1. AW the tribes of Israel came to 
David | by their representatives, claiming kinship with him. — 
2. Moreover, they recognize that he had been the actual leader 
while Saul was king; and further, Yahweh had promised that 
David should shepherd the people. —38. Ad the Sheikhs came to 
flebron| as they were already there in v.’, it is probable that this 
is a different document. — And the king made an agreement with 
them| cf. 3°. We may conjecture that there was some definite 
understanding of rights and duties on both sides. — And they 
anointed David as king over Israel| the Chronicler adds: accord- 
ing to the word of Yahweh by the hand of Samuel. But this 
agrees with v.” rather than ,4--.ט‎ 5. One of the chrono- 
logical data frequent in the Books of Kings. This seems to 
be late, as it is not copied by the Chronicler who appropriates the 
rest of the chapter. There is, however, no improbability in the 
numbers, as David evidently had a long reign, and the life he led 
would make him an old man at seventy. 

1-5. All that is required by the narrative is v.3 which alone I suppose to 
be from the earlier document. The vv.'8 are repeated substantially in 1 Chr. 
111%.-- 1, כלדשבטי ישראל‎ wan] Chr. has ויקבצו כל ישראל‎ because the people 
were in his view a homogeneous whole. —198*)] is lacking in Chr. and X, 
whereas לאמר‎ is omitted by 65. - 5. wy] lacking in Chr.— [היותה מוציא‎ AY. 
corrected in the margin to המוציא‎ nn, which is of course correct; notice 
המבי (א)‎ which follows. — 4. [ארבעים‎ the versions and 17 MSS. have .וארבעים‎ 
— 5. שלשים ושלש.‎ GL thinks it necessary to make the exact sum of forty years, 
and puts 32 years and six months here. 

V. 1-8 . 287 

Budde removes vy.'* from this position and inserts them in connexion 
with 37°, 51°16 after 815 But it is clear that this does not restore a text that 
ever existed. These verses are a redactional insertion, but they never stood 
in any other connexion than their present one. In fact they are in place at 
the beginning of David’s reign over Israel. 

6-16. The capture of Jerusalem.— David captures the for- 
tress of Jerusalem and makes it his capital. His prosperity is evi- 
denced by the attention of the king of Tyre and by the increase 
of David’s harem. 

The section is an apparent unit, but does not fit well in the 
present context, for the attack of the Philistines, v.” evidently 
came before the capture of Jerusalem. The union of all Israel 
under a single crown was in fact sufficient reason for the Philis- 
tines to bestir themselves. Probably the campaign of the Phil- 
istines made David feel the necessity of possessing Jerusalem. 
While in the hands of the Canaanite, this city really cut his king- 
dom in two. When he took it, it became the natural capital of 
the country, and its strength in the Jebusite period was equally 
marked after David took possession of it. 

6. Zhe king and his men]. his regular soldiers are evidently 
intended, went to Jerusalem against the Jebusite, the inhabitant of 
the land | the same phrase is used elsewhere of the Canaanite 
(Gen. 50") and the Amorite (Jos. 24%). The remainder of the 
verse is obscure. Apparently, the Jebusites say to David: Zhou 
shalt not come in hither for the blind and the lame shall keep thee 
back| but this cannot be got out of the present text, and no 
emendation that is convincing has yet been suggested. There is 
no reason for taking the 64ind and the lame in any but the proper 
sense. In derision, the walls were manned by cripples. The 
explanatory clause: meaning that David cannot come hither, is 
unnecessary and probably a later insertion. —7. David took the 
stronghold of Zion| undoubtedly the eastern ridge of the two now 
covered by the city of Jerusalem.—8. Another case of corrup- 
tion. As it stands, the verse seems to give the reason why the 
blind and the lame are shut out of the sanctuary. But this clause 
is perhaps an afterthought. Two theories are held as to the first 
half of the verse. One makes it give the city over to sack, the 
other makes it a command to spare the lame and the blind. 

208 2 SAMUEL 

Neither is satisfactory. From the form of the introductory phrase, 
the verse should contain a reflection of David on his successful 
capture of the city. —9. David dwelt in the fortress| which he 
had just taken, and built it round about from Millo | the fortifica- 
tion or retaining wall mentioned also among the works of Solomon 
t K. 9%, and rebuilt by Hezekiah, 2 Chr. 32°.—10. Concluding 
remark — David kept on growing great and Yahweh was with him. 

6. Budde ingeniously prefixes 6! to this verse, and thus makes David levy 
thirty thousand troops for the siege of Jerusalem. But there is no reason to 
suppose that any such number was necessary. The Jebusites confided in the 
strength of their citadel, and this was captured by the bravery of a few led by 
Joab. ‘This would indicate that David’s band of trusty veterans did the greater 
part of the work. The Chronicler indeed makes David and all Israel the 
subject, but this can hardly weigh. — ירושלם‎ [ here as elsewhere is made a dual 
by the punctuators, with no apparent reason. The city is named in the Tell- 
el-Amarna tablets which show that it was a dependency of Egypt before the 
Israelite invasion of Palestine; cf. Winckler’s edition, 180%-46 183!4. The 
Jebusites are named as one of the nations of Canaan, but seem to have pos- 
sessed no more territory than the city of Jerusalem. כי אם-הפירך העורים‎ = 
but the blind will have removed thee, is inappropriate. The tense is wrong, 
the verb should be plural, and הפיר‎ is not used of refusing an enemy. We.’s 
emendation, ,דסירְך‎ meets two of the objections but not the third. It has been 
proposed therefore to correct to הפירת‎ --=6 English Version tacitly does so 
—with the meaning except thou have removed )141.( , which is faultless so far 
as the form of the verb is concerned, but would naturally be followed by 
the accusative sign. I suspect that the adversative כי אם‎ is not original and 
that the conjunction is .כי‎ The הפירך‎ ox then represents a verb with the 
object —say ימנעו אתך‎ or ;יקדמונך‎ avtéctnoay G would favour the latter. 
The blind and the lame are taken by some of the Rabbinical expositors to 
mean the gods of the Jebusites, an interpretation suggested by Ps. 115°7 (on 
the theory that it was composed by David). Another conceit of the same 
kind sees in the blind and the lame, images of Isaac and Jacob, on which the 
Jebusites had written the covenant made by Abraham with Abimelech their 
ancestor (?), on which covenant they relied for protection (so Levi ben 
Gerson). Equally forcible is the theory of a modern scholar that the blind 
and the lame “are the dreaded guardian spirits, the protecting deities of Jeru- 
salem, called thus either by the people or by the late scribes of Judea, while 
in fact they were the ‘watchers’ = עירים‎ and the ,פוסחים‎ ‘threshold crossers 
or leapers’ of the Jebusites” (Kohler in Am. Jour. Theol. 1. p. 803). It is 
enough to notice that the words must have the same sense here and in v.8, 
The Chronicler omits all after the first ,הנה‎ perhaps by homeoteleuton. — 
7. [ציון‎ later a poetical name for Jerusalem itself. Robinson’s identification 
of Zion with the southwestern quarter of modern Jerusalem is now generally 

V. 9-16 289 

given up.— [היא עיר דוד‎ is superfluous along with v.%®,—8, [כלדמכה ובפי‎ 
naturally means whoever smites a Jebusite, and we expect as the apodosis either 
a permission to take his spoil, or the promise of a reward for the deed, or the 
threat of punishment. Neither one can be got out of ,ויגע בצנור‎ though the 
form of the verb is correct. “3s occurs in only one other passage and is not 
certain even there. In later Hebrew the word means a canal or Pipe, and so 
it has been interpreted here of the eaves-trough of the citadel, or of the sewer 
under the city, as though David offered a reward for whoever should smite the 
Jebusite and get up to the pinnacle of the castle, or, on the other hand, for 
whoever should climéd up through the sewer or reach the moat, The precarious 
nature of the proposed interpretation is obvious, and is emphasized by the 
fact that the sentence so construed is left incomplete, and that the lame and 
the blind who follow are equally without intelligible connexion. By reading 
ויוע‎ Ewald makes the storming party cast info the moat the lame and the 
blind who defended the walls. The Chronicler departs from the text of this 
verse, perhaps because he found it unintelligible. Conjectures of Th., K1., Bu. 
give no real help. @ sees in צנור‎ ₪ dagger, Aquila a watercourse, and Sym- 
machus @ dattlement.— ש נא‎ ] for which Qré שנאי‎ : GB 60( rods picodvras. — 
man] 65 interprets correctly when it renders ש0160‎ svptov.—9. ya] read 
ויבנה‎ with @ (We.).—sibnn] the word occurs in the name of a fortress (?) 
Beth-Millo, Jd. [וביתה---.%ף‎ may be and inwards, Millo being the external " 
limit of his building, or zowards the house which would naturally be the sanctu- 
ary, as in y.8, 

11. And Hiram king of Tyre] the prominent commercial city 
of the Phoenicians; sent messengers to David | it is altogether 
probable that the Philistines were the common enemy of both 
parties. The superiority of the Phoenicians as builders is well 
known from the history of Solomon.—12. David knew] appar- 
ently by the evidence of the Phoenician embassy. The natural 
conclusion is that the embassy came soon after his occupation of 
Jerusalem, The chronology makes it doubtful whether Hiram 
came so early to the throne, but this may be the fault of the chro- 
nology.—13. The increase of the harem increases the prestige 
of an oriental ruler. —14. From the occurrence of the name So/o- 
mon, who was born some years after the occupation of Jer., we 
conclude that this list gives the name of all David’s sons known 
to the author. —16. Eljada was originally Baaliada, as we discover 
from the parallel in Chronicles, and as is indicated also by 6. 

11. [הירם‎ probably a shortened form of .אחירס‎ According to Josephus 
(Ant. VIII. 3, 1) Hiram’s eleventh year was the year of Solomon’s accession, 

which would of course be inconsistent with an embassy early in David’s reign, 

200 2 SAMUEL 

The artisans sent by Hiram were probably his 818965. --- קיר‎ [ lacking in 6%, is 
in fact superfluous. —12. sw] is active— Yahweh had exalted his kingdom. 
נשאת‎ that is, a Niphal, is read by 66 and Chr.—18. [פלגשיס‎ omitted by Chr. 
The action of David shows no acquaintance with the Deuteronomic law, Dt. 
1717, The Rabbinical ingenuity which interprets the law as forbidding more 
than eighteen wives, and which shows that David had just that number, is set 
forth in Schmid, בירו" [מירושלס --.222 .כ‎ 1 Chr. 143.—14-16. The list of 
David’s sons is repeated in 1 Chr. 3° and 149%. By duplicating אליפלט‎ and 
inserting נוה‎ (duplicate of (נפג‎ the number is there increased to thirteen in- 
stead of eleven. yx is בעלידע‎ in both places in Chr.; Baadcyudd GB and 
BaadtAad 65 show that the same form was once found in the present passage. 

17-25. Two battles with the Philistines. — In two encounters 
David defeats the Philistines. ‘The time is before the capture of 
Jerusalem, so that we have here an insertion from another docu- 
ment.—17. The occasion was that they had anointed David king 
over Israel | the Philistines might readily suppose that David was 
growing too powerful. His behaviour indicates that he had not 
given them direct provocation. — He went down to the stronghold | 
the verb makes it sufficiently plain that the citadel of Zion is not 
intended.-—18. The Philistines came and plundered (Jd. 15°) in 
the Valley of Rephaim] now generally identified with the valley 
that extends southwestward from Jerusalem.—19. David asks 
counsel of the oracle and receives a favourable answer. — 20. Yah- 
weh has broken down my enemies before me lke the breaking of 
waters| through adam. Baal Perazim is possibly referred to as 
Mount Perazim Is. 28°.— 21. They left their gods| as we should 
probably read, and David and his men carried them away. 

17. [וירר אל המצודה‎ although the citadel of Jerusalem has been called a 
מצודה‎ v.2, it cannot be intended here. If this incident were later in time than 
the capture of Jerusalem, David would not have needed to go to that strong- 
hold, for he resided there. Usage does not allow us to say, either, that one 
went down to Jerusalem, ‘The allusion must therefore be to one of his earlier 
resorts, perhaps Adullam.—18,. [ררפאים‎ tév Titdvay 65. Robinson, who 
makes the identification (BA. I. .כ‎ 219), gives no reasons except the declara- 
tion of Josephus. The location however answers the needs of Jos. 158 1816, 
and would be a natural route for the Philistines, cf. Buhl, Geog. p. 91.— 
19. [האעלה‎ confirms what was said about the stronghold. —20. [פרץ‎ of the 
breaking down of a wall, 2 Chr. 247 Ps. 801%. בעל‎ frequent in the names of 
places, the town being named from its patron deity, as modern names are 
often taken from the patron saint or his church.— 21. עצביהם‎ [ for which Chr. 
has .אלהיהם‎ The latter, which was also read by 65 here, is doubtless original. 

V. 17-01. ז‎ 2081 

A late scribe hesitated to call the idols gods. The Chronicler adds that David 
burned them with fire, and a similar addition is made by 657. But this seems 
to have been an addition to accord with the views of later times. 

22. A similar situation, perhaps a part of the same campaign. 
— 23. In answer to his inquiry he is directed not to make a direct 
attack.— Go about to their rear and come upon them opposite the 
Balsams| the word is treated like a proper name.— 24. Specific 
directions giving an omen: And 77 shall be when thou hearest the 
sound of marching in the tops of the balsams, then thou shalt act 
promptly, for then Vahweh will have gone forth before thee to smite 
the camp of the Philistines] it is scarcely possible to suppose that 
the incident is not based upon the sanctity of the trees in ques- 
tion. — 25. David’s obedience was rewarded with a victory and 
he smote the Philistines from Geba] the place is doubtful, 7o Gezer] 
in the border of the Philistine territory. 

23. 207] the Hiphil is uncalled for and we may either read a Niphal, or, 
with Dr., strike out the ה‎ as erroneous duplication from the preceding word. 
הבכאים [בכאים--‎ Chr.: בוכים‎ ₪. Some derivative of בכה‎ is indicated by 0 
kAavOuavos 65, so that the Bochim of Jd. 2° was in the mind of both transla- 
tors. But the location does not seem suitable. — 24. כשמעך [ בשמעך‎ is preferred 
by Q7é.— ys] the article should probably be prefixed with Chr.— [תחרץ‎ 
look sharp is our colloquial equivalent. —25. מגבע‎ [ ard TaBady 65 agrees with 
מגבעון‎ Chr. But both Geba and Gibeon are too far from the valley of Rephaim 
for the pursuit to begin at either one. The mention of Gibeon and Perazim 
together by Isaiah does not prove anything as to these two events. — 733] on 
the location cf. GASmith, Geog. p. 215 f. 

VI. 1-23. The bringing up of the Ark. — David attempts to 
bring the Ark to the citadel, but an untoward incident prevents 
the accomplishment of his purpose for atime. After three months 
a second attempt is made, this time with success. David’s reli- 
gious zeal, or its violent expression, brings upon him a rebuke from 
his wife Michal, and this results in a permanent estrangement. 

There seems no reason to question that the story belongs to the 
main narrative of the life of David. The Chronicler, who borrows 
it, makes considerable changes in the opening section, to accord 
with his point of view. 

1. David gathered the warriors of Israel, thirty thousand in 
number. As Yahweh is a God of War such an escort is appropri- 

292 2 SAMUEL 

ate. Numerical data however are generally open to suspicion. — 
2. They went to Baal Judah] the name indicates that it was a 
seat of the worship of Yahweh. ‘The present narrative does not 
necessarily presuppose the account of the Ark in 1S, The Ark 
is described as that which ts called by the name of Yahweh Sabaoth 
who thrones upon the Cherubim| cf. 1 ₪. 4%. The whole clause 
however looks like a later insertion (We,).—8. They made the 
Ark of God ride on a new cart| a new cart so as to avoid the 
possibility of defilement. The method was evidently the same 
used by the Philistines. The house 01 Abinadab from which they 
took it is described as on the hill, cf. 1 S. 7.— And Uzzah and 
Ahio the sons of Abinadab were driving the cart] the last word 
of the verse, with the first six words of the next verse, is erroneous 
duplication. —4. The verse is confused by the error just noted, 
but seems originally to have said that Uzzah walked by the side of 
the Ark while Ahio went before tt.—5. David and all the house 
of Israel were dancing before the Ark] in religious exaltation, zzth 
all their might; and with songs and with harps and with lyres and 
with drums and with ratiles and with cymbals| the instruments 
intended correspond approximately to those still used.* —6. Zhey 
came to the threshing-floor of Nachon| the location is unknown.— 
And Uszzah stretched out his hand to the Ark of God and took hold 
of it for the oxen stumbled| or shook it (cf. 65 below). The 
stumbling of the oxen would shake the cart and threaten to make 
the Ark fall to the ground.—%. And the wrath of Yahweh was 
kindled against Uzzah| as though he were affronted by the action, 
and God smote him there| there seems to be no reason for the 
change of the divine name, and the text may have been interpo- 
lated. — And he died there in the presence of God | for the reading 
see the note below. The question why Uzzah should be smitten 
was not a puzzle to the older commentators, so much as the ques- 
tion why everybody else was not involved in the same fate. For 
the whole transaction was contrary to the provisions of the Law 
which gives specific instructions for the transport of the Ark. The 
Ark was first to be covered by the priests (Num. 4°) ; it was then 

* Some ancient oriental musical instruments are figured (from the Assyrian 
monuments) in Wellhausen’s translation of the Psalms (SBOT. .א‎ Y., 1808), 
Appendix, entitled “ Music of the Ancient Hebrews.” 

VI. 1-10 293 

to be taken up and carried by the Levites (4%). The palpable 
violation of these provisions would seem to be a reason why the 
whole procession should come to grief. But the fact is, as now 
generally conceded, that the method of David shows his ignorance 
of the Levitical regulation. Uzzah gave offence by his too great 
familiarity in laying hold suddenly of the sacred emblem. ‘This 
is all that is implied in the text. The wrath of Yahweh was but 
momentary, as is evinced by his treatment of Obed-Edom. — 
8. The temper of Yahweh was reciprocated by David who was 
angry that Yahweh had brought destruction upon Uszzah] literally, 
had broken a breach, such as gives a city into the hands of the 
enemy. —9. The unaccountable conduct of Yahweh when David 
was preparing him a new residence and new honours, gave rise to 
fear as well as anger. David’s question: Mow shall the Ark of 
Yahweh come to me ?[ is the expression of his fear to have it come 
at all, not an inquiry as to the best way of bringing it.—10. He 
was not willing to remove the Ark of Yahweh to the city of David | 
to the citadel. It was to all appearance already within the town 
of Jerusalem. — He turned it aside to the house of Obed-Edom the 
Gitte | one of several Philistines in David’s service. 

1. Bu. prefixes this verse to 5°, making the gathering of all Israel to be for 
the purpose of taking Jerusalem. He then makes v.? follow directly on 512, 
as though David’s bringing up of the Ark was because he knew that Yahweh 
had established him as king over Israel. The present section however reads 
well as it stands, the people of v.? referring evidently to the young men of 
Israel of v2. Ap» for (ויאסף‎ cf. Dr. and Schm.—v-)y] is superfluous and 
probably an erroneous insertion. For 30,000 @ has 70,000.—2. yan] 
would naturally define the people with David as 776 burghers of Judah, and 
is so understood by @. But in that case we have no indication of the place 
where they were to find the Ark. That place is called by the Chronicler (בעלה‎ 
so that it is easy to correct here to ,בעל יהודה‎ the י‎ having been duplicated 
(We.), or to .בעלת יהודה‎ Both 1 Chr. 13® and Jos. 15 identify the place with 
Kirjath Jearim.—ow ov] one of the two words is superfluous, lacking also in 
@.— 3. בגבעה‎ ws] is possibly corrupt, as it seems unnecessary to describe 
the location so exactly, and it is omitted by Chr.— [עזא‎ here is for --.עזה‎ 
[ואהיו‎ is naturally read as wns or yoy. But it seems strange that his brother 
should not be named as well as Uzzah. ‘7s, as another form of nw, is a 
possible proper name so that I have retained it.— Awan העגלה‎ [ is an obvious 
case of disagreement, and it seems clear that the eye of the scribe wandered 
from ,העגלה‎ which he had just written, to עגלה‎ early in the verse so that he 

204 2 SAMUEL 

repeated חרשה . . . בגבעה‎ before he discovered his mistake. -- עס ארון האלהיס‎ | 
makes no sense, either with what precedes or without it. We are compelled 
to suppose that in his confusion over his error the scribe omitted something. 
What is needed is simply an affirmation that Uzzah walked by the side of the 
Ark. —5. בכל עצי ברושים‎ is unintelligible — cypress trees certainly have no 
place here, and to make the words mean with all manner of instruments made 
of fir wood (EV.) is to insert the main idea into the text. Nor is it known 
that fir (or cypress) wood was used in the manufacture of musical instruments. 
With most recent editors, therefore, we should correct to the reading of Chr. 
בכל עז ובשירוס--‎ —the first two words occur again in v.!4. @ has a double 
translation, one half of which confirms this restoration, the other half consists 
of the words which represent בכל-עז‎ in v.!#. מנענעים‎ seem to be szstra (the 
word is rendered ceiorpois by Aq. and Sym. according to Field), instruments 
used in the worship of Isis. —6. [נכון‎ evidently a proper name; the endeavour 
of some of the commentators to make it mean indefinitely, 8 cer¢azm threshing- 
floor, is not sustained by usage, nor is Th.’s interpretation fixed or permanent 
in distinction from a temporary floor used only for a particular field or during 
one season. Whether Nachon is the correct name, or whether we should read 
כירון‎ with Chr., or ₪86] with G®, cannot be determined. GP! reads Opva 0 
*IeBuoatov, an evident correction, intended to make the Ark select its perma- 
nent abode thus early.—n>v] requires את ידו‎ which is read by all the 
versions and by Chr. (which however changes the order of what follows) but 
has accidentally dropped out of #9.— שמטו‎ [ is a rare word and the passages 
in which it occurs throw little light upon its meaning here. In 2 >. it is 
used transitively of throwing a person out of a window. It would be natural 
to interpret here therefore ¢he oxen cast it down. But the object would pretty 
certainly be expressed if this were the meaning. Another meaning of the 
verb is to release a debt, and we might conjecture that the oxen s/ipped, losing 
their foothold. Bochart (A/zevozo. I. 11. Cap. 37) cites Arabic analogy which 
would make the verb mean were mired. 65 mepiéomacey ע( דט‎ seems to find 
the object expressed — wpw —and so with © .מרגוהי‎ Calcitrabant 30 seems 
to be a conjecture only. —o.75x5] after the יהוה‎ expressed above is superflu- 
ous. -- [עלההשל‎ is lacking in 655 and therefore suspicious. There is no Hebrew 
word של‎ known to us: [ח6‎ rH mpometeia GU: super temeritate LL: pro igno- 
rantia |: על ראשתלי‎ © seem to go back to a common source which interpreted 
the word by the Aramaic. The present tendency (We., Dr., Bu., Ki.) is to 
regard the phrase as the mutilated remains of the words of the Chronicler: 
.ל אשר שלח ידו על הא'‎ More likely they represent an attempt to give the 
exact location, now unintelligible. KJ. conjectures 2527 על‎ which he supposes 
to mean on the side beam of the cart on which Uzzah sat. But this is pre- 
6811008. --- ארון אלהים‎ ay] for which Chr. has לפני אלהים‎ as has 657 The latter 
is probably original, for it would be more likely to be corrected into the other 
phrase. 655 combines the two readings. — 8. [ויקרא‎ must be ‘impersonal’ 
as in similar instances — ove called the place, etc.—10. עבר-אדם‎ [ the second 
part of the name is probably the name of a god, and the whole corresponds to 

VI. 11-16 205 

maa. That the man was a Gittite, and therefore a Philistine, is purposely 
ignored by the Chronicler, who takes pains to enroll him as a Levite and put 
him among the doorkeepers, Of course, as a follower of David anda resident 
in the land of Israel, he was a worshipper of Yahweh. 

11-19. The second attempt. -- 11. During the three months 
of the Ark’s sojourn, Yahweh blessed Obed-Edom and all his 
house| whether with riches or with children we are not told, 
probably with both.—12. The blessing conferred upon Obed- 
Edom is the reason why David renews his effort. This is con- 
cealed by the Chronicler, who supposes David to have a fixed 
purpose during all the three months. ©” correctly interprets 
when it inserts: and David said: I will turn the blessing to my 
house. —13. When the bearers of the Ark had marched six paces | 
and it was thereby evident that Yahweh was willing to go, 6 
sacrificed an ox and a fatling| David is undoubtedly the subject. 
The change from the cart to the shoulders of men was prompted 
by the fact that the cart had proved unfortunate on the previous 
occasion. ‘This author shows no suspicion that the former was 
the legal, or even the traditional, method. Practical considera- 
tions may also have weighed, for the ascent to the citadel was 
probably steep and possibly winding. ‘There is no indication that 
more than one sacrifice was made during the progress. —14. And 
David was dancing| the word occurs only in this passage and 
seems to mean whirling, like the devotional dancing of the der- 
vishes. — And David was girded with a linen ephod | such as the 
priests wore, 1 S. 2’. We should probably think of this as a strip 
of cloth like the zzar of the Moslem. Religious vestments are 
survivals of earlier costume. ‘The scantiness of this dress, as con- 
trasted with the long robe appropriate to a king, is the ground of 
Michal’s contempt. —15. The procession continued 70/20 shouting 
and the sound of trumpet | as we might say with shouting and 
blare. Making a loud noise was an act of worship as late as the 
time of the Psalmist.—16. The verse is designed to prepare for 
the scene at home, v.”*. As it breaks the thread of the narrative, 
and is introduced awkwardly, it is perhaps a redactional insertion. 
Correcting the opening word, the verse says: And the Ark of 
Yahweh was coming into the city of David when Michal the 
daughter of Saul looked through the window and saw King 

206 2 SAMUEL 

David leaping and whirling, and she despised him in her heart | 
the dignity of a king had been no better observed by Saul when 
he lay down naked in the company of the prophets. But this she 
chose to forget. —17. The successful conclusion: Zhey set the 
Ark in its place, in the tent which David had pitched for it | 
and the rites of sacrifice were observed. —18. At the conclusion 
of the sacrifices David blessed the people in the name of Yahweh | 
that he acted as priest seems evident.— 19. David distributed to 
the people bread, raisins, and (apparently) other victuals. 

11. The conjectures of the Rabbis on the blessing of fruitfulness conferred 
upon Obed-Edom are given by Schm., .כ‎ 277. The Chronicler inserts here 
the account of Hiram’s embassy, of Davyid’s family, and of the preparation 
of the Levites for the coming procession. —12. [האלהים‎ + Kal 6076 85 
*Emotpéyo Thy evroylay eis עלד‎ olkdy wou 657 which is represented also in | 
(Cod. Germ. 7 apud Sabatier, et Cod. Leg. Goth. apud Vercellone). It may 
be original, having been omitted by 39 on account of its frank egoism.— 
13. For the first clause @ has: and there were with him [or with them] seven 
bands. ‘The reading seems to have arisen by corruption of 39. --- 14. מכרכר‎ 
the word occurs only here and y.1®; Chr. omits it in his reproduction of this 
verse and substitutes משחק‎ for it at its second occurrence. It was either obso- 
lete in his time, or he thought it undignified. —15. בית‎ [ is omitted by @LS 
and 3 MSS. of #).—16. [והיה‎ is certainly the wrong tense, as the Chronicler 
shows by correcting it to .ויהי‎ Even with the correction, the verse reads awk- 
wardly; it is unnecessary also, for Michal’s remarks are self-explanatory and 
the situation need not be described in advance. — מפז