STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
By M. H. Segal, Oxford.
Ill
Some Notes on the Text. 1
I. I. 6. BUDDE capriciously deletes this verse, and also
rOD' l J»n p in ver. 7, thereby robbing the story of much of its
humaneness and picturesqueness. As a matter of fact the
provocation by Peninah is intended by the narrator as an
explanation of the excessive grief displayed by Hannah. The
phraseology of this verse is referred to again in ver. 16 b.
7. I would suggest that W is used here as an
impersonal verb in the sense of nTi ' to happen '. This
would enable us to retain Wi{>V of the MT which rightly
makes both clauses of the verse refer to Hannah.
8. The critics accept the addition of LXX in the verse
and read . . . rsan neb nb loan Mix urn )b "lowii run. ' The
clause is . . . according to 3,4, 5, 6, 8, 16 characteristic of the
narrative ' (Budde in his Notes to his Polychrome text in
Haupt's SBOT., p. 5a). But the response yjn is generally
used, as in the examples cited from ch. 3, only in answer
to a call from some distance, and is altogether unsuitable
here, where Elkanah and Hannah sat at the same table
and probably side by side. The addition in LXX is merely
an expansion by the translator similar to the expansion
in vv. 5, 6.
J!T is certainly correct. Cf. the opposite lb 31t3, 25. 36;
1 Cf. vol. IX, pp. 43 ff.
203
204 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
II 13. 28, &c. The reading of LXX "p* (tvttt€i ere), which
H. P. Smith (p. 8) prefers, can only mean : ' why art thou
remorseful?' (cf. 34. 6, and Driver's note here), viz. for
her sins, on account of which God had presumably denied
her children. But whereas Elkanah could see by her sad
looks that she was grieved at heart, how could he have
divined that her grief was due to remorse ?
16. Targum, Rashi, and Kimhi refer byhz r)3 to
Peninah, and interpret fnn ba 'Give me not up for a re-
proach ' (D^an vb). But the narrator would no doubt have
expressed the idea rather differently, or would have at least
added the necessary complement rtaini> (cf. Joel %. 17 ; and
see Driver's note).
18. Budde and others accept the conflate text of LXX :
bwn nrDB^n Nam vavb vms\ ^m. But if Hannah went
only as far as the raw, which must have been attached
to the sanctuary, the narrator would not have described it
as n3Tb lbr\) ' she went away '.
For vn LXX has <rvveire<rev, which is probably a para-
phrase reminiscent of Gen. 4. 5, 6. The phrase in MT,
though without parallel elsewhere, may nevertheless be as
genuine a Hebrew idiom as the very rare expression in
Gen. 4. 6. Klostermann and Budde read n^an, citing
Jer. 3. \%. But there the phrase means 'to display vindic-
tive anger against somebody', a sense quite unsuitable here.
%%. The traditional pointing ns*ui as a NipKal here
and elsewhere, wherever this ritual expression occurs, has
been vindicated by Schorr (Monatschrift filr Geschichte u.
Wissenschaft d. Judentums, 1909, p. 438 f.). The pointing
of this verb as a lzal is here entirely excluded by the fact
that the construction demands the perfect consecutive tense,
like the preceding and following verbs.
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 205
2. 1-10. The Song of Hannah.
1. For Y*?V Targum has sppn, and LXX earepedoOt],
and Peshitta ^x . This points to an original reading f DK,
which seems preferable to the MT pv. For '3? pet? forms a
better parallel to y-lp HDI and <B 3m than »a!> pity. Similarly
in the conclusion of the poem we have the idea of strength
made parallel to the exaltation of the horn : W JM \\ ]~\p DT"i.
Further, »3^ }6y does not form a logical antecedent to
TITOC "O, since the ideas of the two clauses are practically-
identical. Cf. also Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der
rabbinischen Literatur, II, 4. For the second mrpa we
should read T&X3, as in many MSS. LXX and Vulg.
Cf. Aptowitzer, I, 37.
2. I suspect that irra ptf »3 is a gloss. The line is
one word shorter than the other lines of the poem. Further,
the statement is inconsistent with the rest of the verse. For
if there is no existence besides God, it is impossible to
institute a comparison between Him and any other being.
Again, with the exception of "[T\])Wl in ver. 1, God is through-
out the poem spoken of in the third person. The clause
must have been originally an ejaculation of some pious
reader, written in the margin, and directed against the
false inference which might be drawn from the poet's
words that there may be in existence a holy being or
a 'rock', though not of the same exalted holiness or
strength as God Himself.
3. The second nmj should be deleted as a ditto-
graphy, which renders the line too long.
5. Since J. Reifman iy has been rightly joined to the
preceding verb, thus giving the line the same number of
words as most other lines of the poem. This *1J? is usually
emended into "QJ!. I think 351 would be more suitable.
200 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
10. I accept Budde's excellent emendation of DW3 1^J?
Qjn; into Of 1 ' 'V2 Wbv. The last two lines of the poem
IfWD . , . J1V1 are a later liturgical addition, suggested by
the first two lines (ver. I a /3 y. 2 So already Cheyne,
Origin of the Psalter, p. 57. The poem, though almost
wholly of a didactic nature, may have been employed in
the liturgy at an early period, when a prayer was added
to it for the prosperity of the king.
We are now in a position to determine the form and
construction of our poem. The poem consists of four
strophes. Strophe I has two verses, the first a tetrastich
of which the first three lines are synonymous, and the
fourth synthetic (ver. i),and the second a distich of synony-
mous lines (ver. 2). Strophe II has three verses. The first
verse is a tetrastich in which the first line is synonymous
to the second line, the third line synonymous to the fourth
line, the second couplet being synthetic to the first couplet
(ver. 3). The second verse is a tetrastich in which the
first line is antithetical to the second line, the third line
antithetical to the fourth line, the first couplet being
synonymous to the second couplet (vv. 4-5 a). The third
verse is a distich of antithetical lines. Strophe III has
also three verses. The first verse is a tetrastich in which
the first line is synonymous to the second, and the third
synonymous to the fourth line, the first couplet being
synonymous to the second couplet (vv. 6-7). The second
verse is likewise a tetrastich of synonymous lines, but the
second couplet is synthetic to the first couplet (ver. 8 a).
The last verse is, like the last verse in the two previous
strophes, a distich, the lines of which are, however, synthetic
(ver. 8 b). Strophe IV consists, like strophe I, of but two
2 Cf. this Review, vol. VI, p. 557 (§ 34)-
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL
207
verses, with this difference, that both verses are tristichs.
In the first verse the first line is antithetical to the second
line, and both are synthetic to the third line (ver. 9). In
the second verse the first line is synonymous to the second
line, and the third line is recapitulatory (ver. 10 a). The
lines in the poem are throughout trimetric with the excep-
tion of the last line in each of the two verses in strophe IV,
which has four stresses.
We will now set out the whole text of the poem
arranged in accordance with this description :
III. I.
n*noi rv»BD mrp 1.
5>m hw? Trnn
-wj?di ■pnio mm
.Dono *|N ^ytxro
hi isjid a*po 2.
jn» an* nacw
o*a**u av ywb
.nbny maa NDai
pK *pvo nirr6-*a 3-
,i>an onby nw
IV.
■w lTDn br\ 1.
idt 1 nsrna awn
.mt naj* naa K^a
ono inn* mn* 2.
Dp; awa }i*i»j>
•pn 'dsn p* mn*-
la^ob >y in**.]
.[*.rwD pp dti
VOL. X.
nin*a *a^> pes 1.
*n!>&a *np mn
*a*»rS>j» *s am
.•jnjw*a *nn>:t? *3
nin*a tr.-p
[in^a pN *a]
.13-n^Na iix }*ki
II.
(nnaa) nnaa nann mn-^N 1.
aa-SD pnv nv*
itin* mm i«"*a
.m&j? uana ih
a'nn ana: nt?p 2.
^n nm a^aai
nacw an^a a*jne>
.(?)33?-i lhn d*3jtii
nyat? mi>* mpy 3.
,n^DN B'33 nam
p
208 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
2. 29. LXX offers no justification for the curious reading
of some critics : pijjo TV1V . . . noan noi> . The phrase
pj)D B'an has no parallel elsewhere, and is altogether un-
Hebraic. The original Hebrew of the LXX was the same
as in MT, only in some disorder. lByan the translator read
as D'Ofl, and }1))» VMS (*ltJ»K) as the familiar py "V.
36. For ynBD LXX has Trapapi^rov, evidently con-
necting it with rVBD (Lev. 25. 5), 'seed poured out
involuntarily '.
4. 2. For CDD1 many moderns read after LXX (k. ticXivev)
oni. But the expression is not found elsewhere, and it
conveys no intelligible idea. The MT is no doubt correct.
The verb may, perhaps, be taken in an intransitive sense
as suggested by R. Jonah Ibn Janah in his Book of Roots
(Hebrew edition by W. Bacher, p. 303) : ' the battle spread
itself out '. It is better to take it in a transitive sense with
an implicit object, viz. the warriors, as correctly para-
phrased by Targum, Knp nay 1B»0*iK1. Cf. the passive
and reflexive applied to warriors in 30. 16, and II 5. 18, 22 ;
Judges 15. 9 with the Targum ad loc.
7. The original reading seems to have been (lKa=)75
'»n bti nnbx 0>r\b». The word Brr5*t dropped out from
MT through haplography (Drpfo = DVife). The fear of
the Philistines was not due to the mere fact that the Deity
had come to the scene of battle, but rather to the fact that
the Deity had come to the Israelites, and not to them.
The conflate reading which some moderns derive from
LXX : 'on hi* on^K iso nn*rbtt rbx is certainly wrong. The
question of the Philistines was not 'What is the Ark?'
that the answer should be ' These are their gods who have
come unto them.' The question was, ' What is the cause
of the great shout ? ' (ver. 6 a), and to this they have already
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 20Q.
received an answer in ver. 6 b. The reading ttr&K as in MT
is supported by ver. 8. This does not necessarily mean in
the mouth of the Philistines the absolute ' God ', but merely
a god. Further, we have to remember that we are really
dealing with the words of a Hebrew writer, though they
are ascribed to the Philistines. (0 debs) airmv in LXX, L
is probably a scribal addition, while n?N (o$toi or ovros) is
probably merely a dittography of DVita .
8. "mD3 is difficult. Perhaps the narrator put it
deliberately into the mouth of the Philistines to show
their ignorance. The emendation 13131 cannot be right,
since rDD bl2 includes also "131. It is to be noted that
R. Isaiah and Ralbag would read "I31D3T, as in LXX
and Pesh.
13. The correct reading is with all moderns "iJ>B>n t!>
■pin HSSD as in LXX ; cf. also Targum here with Targum
in II 18. 4. See Driver's note ad loc. H. P. Smith
(ibid. 35) asserts that the gate meant is the gate of the
Sanctuary (cf. 1.9): for, if it was the gate of the city,
then Eli would have received the tidings before the people
within the city. But this shows a total misunderstanding
of our passage. The repetition of the verb in this verse
(N3 . . . Wl) indicates that at his entry into the city the
messenger saw Eli sitting and anxiously watching by the
roadside for news (. . . rum N3 ,| l). But the messenger
evidently had not the heart to break the sad news to the
old priest, and so he passed him by and went into the
city (. . . N3 t?wn). Eli, however, had not seen the man
owing to his blindness (ver. 15). But when he had inquired
for the cause of the outcry in the city, then the messenger
hastened back to bring him the tidings. It will thus be
seen that the parenthetical ver. 15 is necessary to the under-
P 2
2IO THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
standing of the narrative, and is therefore an original part
of the text.
16. Wellhausen (Composition*, 371) thinks that ver.i6a
contains a doublet. The truth is that the repetition is an
original part of the narrative, and is intended to indicate
the great excitement of the speaker, who had to repeat his
words in order to make his meaning clear. This shows the
consummate art of our narrator. We may note further the
wonderful vividness of the whole passage, the nervous and
rapid movement of the sentences, the effective use of the
circumstantial clause, the variety and change of the tenses,
and, finally, the artistic gradation of the events, leading
up to a climax at the end of the passage.
18. jrwil. This verb seems to be intended to convey
the idea that the birth throes came on suddenly without
preparation or the aid of a midwife, even like the childbirth
of wild animals ; cf. Job 39. 3.
21. The subject of Nlpni is the mother, as of noxni in
the next verse. Had the subject been, as the moderns
hold, the women around her, the writer would no doubt
have said nj&nprn as in Ruth 4.17 b. To argue from ver. 20 b,
as H. P. Smith (p. 36) does, that the mother had already
become unconscious, is to misapprehend the meaning of the
narrator. What he means to convey is that the mother
was so overwhelmed by the sense of Israel's calamity that
even so joyful an event as the birth of a son could not
distract her mind from the contemplation of the national
catastrophe.
6. 2. Rashi correctly interprets ncn — pjy nwa ' in what
manner?'; so Vulg. : quomodot cf. Judges 16. 3. If the
Philistines had known that they had to send back the Ark
accompanied with a gift, and only asked what the gift
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 311
should be (n»a = ' wherewith ', as the moderns explain it
after Pesh. Uaos), there would have been no need on the
part of the priest to say Bp'n W1K inScn !>N (ver. 3).
19. The absence of the copula before own proves
that trw DWn is a variant reading of wx D^jntP. After
this variant had crept into the text, a scribe inserted ^N
to give the expression some sense, but luckily failed to
supply also the copula to DWn. The Versions, however,
express the copula. So also in some MSS. and old citations.
Cf. Aptowitzer, I, 42.
8. 2. The ancients already noted the difficulty that
Samuel should have placed his sons at the extreme Southern
frontier town of Beersheba. See Babli Shabbat, 56 a,
and Kimhi here ; cf. also Josephus, Antiquities, VI, 3. 2.
But the matter can be explained quite easily. Samuel did
not resign his office to his sons. Had he done so, he
would no doubt have placed them at Ramah or some other
sanctuary in the centre of the land. He appointed his sons
only to relieve him of work in the outlying districts, to
which he could not attend personally owing to his old age.
It may be noted in passing that Beersheba was a famous
sanctuary, cf. Gen. 46. 1 ; Amos 8. 14.
8. The moderns, following LXX, insert "b after 1PJ?
and explain that the comparison is between this v and "£>
at the end of the verse : ' As they have been accustomed
to deal with Me, so are they dealing also with thee.' But
this is a contradiction of the statement in the last verse
that the people's demand for a king is not a rejection of
Samuel. It is better to retain the reading of MT and
to take with Kimhi lb in the sense of "pv, and to interpret
the comparison as being between the people's conduct in
the past and in the present : as they have been accustomed
212 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
to act ever since the Exodus, so they are acting now unto
thee, viz. in thy time.
9. 18. Targum (jnw) seems to have read WiSM for BO') ;
cf. 25. 20. Cf. the remark of R. Tanhum (ed. Haarbriicker,
Leipzig, 1844) on 25. 14.
20. wn ftwbv. The original reading was probably
tW mhw. The n in ffDVi is a dittography of the n (an error
for n) at the end of the last word, or perhaps a correc-
tion of this fi.
34. For "WBOn read, with H. P. Smith and Nowack,
~i$f, 3n being dittographed from the last word run ( = in).
Or, perhaps, we should read lean, the i being a cor-
ruption of 2 and N inserted to make sense. D^ is a
passive participle as in Num. 24. 21. For DJ?n "iDt6
LXX has iraptit. Toi>s dXXovs = D'inN?. Hence I propose
to read "into for "iDt6. 'ntop is a relative clause without
"IB>N (cf. Gesenius-Kautzsch, Heb. Gram., § 155 f seq.).
' Behold the flesh is set before thee, eat thou (first), for
unto (this) appointed time hath it been reserved for thee,
and afterward the people (whom) I have invited.' In
these words Samuel invites Saul, whom he has placed at
the head of the table (ver. 22), to preside at the meal
instead of himself; and he asks him to begin the meal,
probably by pronouncing the formal benediction ; cf. ver.
13 : n»tnpn ibto p nns natn ya> ton ■a. See Babli Berakot,
48 b, with Rashi.
10. 12. DE>» is difficult. LXX reads Dno. It is perhaps
better to read DjmD, mentioned in last verse ; cf. 14. 28.
For Dn»3K Targum has pren, viz. in a spiritual sense; cf.
2 Kings 2. 12, &c.
25. na?on dsb>» is the rights and duties of kingship
in relation to the people, which Samuel settled and sealed
before God, thus giving them the sanctity of a solemn
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 213
covenant. Cf. the covenant made by David on his anoint-
ment, II 5. 3. The critics assert that this rntan oae>D
is identical with 1^»n t2at5>D in 8. 9, 1 1. But it is incredible
that Samuel would solemnly invest the king with pre-
rogatives of such a tyrannical nature as those catalogued
in 8. 11-17. The enumeration of those royal imposts was
only intended to frighten away the people from the institution
of the monarchy; cf. R. Judah in Babli Sanhedrin, 20b:
n^o Drrity n"tb nbti "ir wis nicw t6.
13.3. MT is correct, nnayn are the Israelites who
had permanently attached themselves as vassals to the
Philistine ; see 14. at. This class is also referred to below
in ver. 7, as opposed to bxiw WX of ver. 6. Cf. also
Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews, p. 6.
13. The proposed pointing of *h as *6 = b (cf. Driver's
note) is improbable, as proved by the repetition of the
phrase in ver. 14 b. Further, it is not likely that Samuel
would fail to state categorically at the beginning of his
speech that Saul had broken God's command.
ai. rrvxan means 'sharpening' or 'filing', parallel to
wx$h in the last verse. It is a verbal noun of nxa in its
primary and physical sense of 'to press' (Gen. 19.9),
and hence ' to sharpen ' or ' to file '. ca is an old Hebrew
weight, and like S>pe> probably also a Hebrew coin. For
p^p vhvh\ read, with S. Raffaeli, bpwn wh&\. The meaning
of the verse is that the Philistines exacted from the Israelites
the heavy payment of a B*B for the sharpening or filing of
ploughshares and coulters, and a third of a shekel for the
sharpening of axes and for setting the goad. Cf. further
the writer's paper in the Quarterly Statement of the
Palestine Exploration Fund, 1915, p. 40 f., with the refer-
ences given there ; and E. J. Pilcher, ibid., 1916, pp. 77 ff.
14. 4. njD may be connected with the name of the tree
214 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
riJD. Targum has NXIWIO ' a treading ', possibly connecting
it with 'JNDD ' boots '.
5. pise is absent from LXX, hence the moderns omit
it as a dittography of psso. This finds some support in
the rendering of the Targum : tuiSVD kwidd = paxo nBVD
(cf. also Aptowitzer, op. cit. ai). On the other hand, the
omission in LXX may be due to haplography, and the
rendering of the Targum may be based on a corrupt text.
That the word is not repeated in clause b is no proof of its
spurious character, for neither is "p repeated. As for its
meaning, pl¥D may perhaps be connected, as H. P. Smith
(p. 106) has noted, with the Mishnic pw (Yoma, 6. 5;
B. mesia, 7. 10).
14. For ruj» cf. Mishnah Ohabt, 17. 1.
16. It would be better to omit the article in JlDfin, as
suggested by Smith. The reading of LXX runon, which
some moderns adopt, is incorrect, since, as the last verse
shows, the panic was not confined to the camp. It may
be noted that pen is used in ver. 19 in a slightly different
sense. Here it means 'the crowd', but in ver. 19 it means
the ' tumult ' of the crowd.
25-36 a. The text is here certainly in disorder, but the
emendation of the critics : nan -fan or inn laivi for SW ~frn
is much too ingenious to be correct Further, it is ex-
ceedingly doubtful whether a Hebrew writer would have
used such an expression. I propose to omit, with the
critics, ver. 25 a as a doublet of ver. 26 a (note also fixn
in ver. 29a), to insert "IJP — 'honeycomb' — before EOT in
ver. 25 b, and to point ~\bn in ver. 2,6 as a participle : ^n
' flowing ', instead of =]?n which is only found in the sense
of 'guest' or 'wayfarer' : mvn ^a by EOT "IJC Wl (ver. 25 b).
E>n ijbh rum -ijpn ba nun wi (ver. 26).
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 215
47. For JWT we should perhaps read Bn« or VTfi>.
48. inDC is a synonym to Amalek. It is the Egyptian
Shassu, the marauding Bedawi of the wilderness ; cf.
Sayce, op. cit., pp. 171, 222.
15. 7. nT'ino. There is no need to change the text.
The frontiers do not describe the extent of Saul's campaign.
They only serve to define the defeated foe as one who
habitually roamed about the vast area lying between
Havilah and Shur.
23. For the active form "WBn , we should perhaps point
the word as a passive, either nipKal ivsn or hoptial ">?sn t
which would mean ' to allow oneself to be urged ', to be
persuaded, and hence ' to hesitate in obeying, to disobey ',
parallel to no.
32. ninjttJ. We should perhaps read ninyDii 'in
chains ' ; cf. Kimhi, Ralbag, and R. Isaiah. The omission
of the 2 may have been due to haplography of the
graphically similar 5. The rendering of LXX rpe/icoj/,
according to which many moderns point rwiVtp, is not in
accord with the light-hearted temper of Agag as displayed
by his contemptuous remark in clause b.
16. 5. Targum renders row here and in ver. 3 by
ttfiwe>S>, whereas T\i)b at the end of this verse it renders
NEHlp nD33^. This seems to imply that the elders were
invited only to the sacrificial meal, but not to the sacrifice
itself, which was reserved for Jesse and his sons. This
seems very plausible. The divine revelation came to the
prophet at the performance of the sacrifice, and in his fear
of Saul he did not wish strangers to be present when he
made the choice of the new king.
11. 3D: should be pointed as a hipk'il 3D3 in ac-
2l6 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
cordance with the Mishnic idiom ; cf. Mishnah Berakot
6. 7, &c. See also Driver's note.
13. The emendation of oby for Dy is very improbable.
For thy should have preceded also the first adjective —
■ODIN . Further, it is not likely that the same scribal error
would have been repeated in 17. 42. It is more probable
that ns 1 " is used in a substantival sense. So LXX perk
kuXXovs ; cf. the use of rnj in ver. 7, and Driver's note here.
Targum omits ay both here and in 1 7. 43.
17. 19. This verse is an addition by the narrator. If it
were, as some moderns (cf. Smith, p. 157) assert, part of
Jesse's speech to direct David to the whereabouts of his
brothers, its wording would have been . . . i>31 ^Nt? ay fttJm .
Further, the words Dw6s DJJ D'DrW would be quite super-
fluous in the mouth of Jesse.
34. Driver's remark in his Notes 2 , p. 144, that the
reading n? for W has no manuscript authority, is incorrect.
The reading nr was already before R. Joseph Kaspi (fl. 1380-
1340). Cf. his remark: tin 1 ? nnS ton nr nw mw wn
(spa yi», ed. J. Last, p. 20).
40. The genuineness of ttjnn ^33 is proved con-
clusively by ver. 49, where the receptacle is referred to as
"km, and not as mpfy. Hence, I suspect that D1pi»31 is a
gloss.
48. rDTjmn means here not the ' battle array ', but the
space occupied by the fighting lines. Such is obviously its
meaning also in ver. 30.
19. 34. Targum renders Qiy — |Bn3 = jLaa.^> 'demented';
cf. Rashi. Probably the translator pointed D"^ = WW
' prudent ', and regarded it as a euphemism for ' mad '.
30. 30. The emendation, based on LXX : D^vrD uhm \Jto
mis ri"l2? * And I on the third day will shoot to its side with
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 217
arrows ', can hardly be right. For apart from the question-
able character of the Hebrew of this proposed sentence, the
statement contained therein is not correct. Jonathan shot the
arrows not on the third but on the fourth day, i. e. including,
in accordance with ancient Hebrew usage, the day on
which he was speaking. Cf. ver. 35 : "ip33 Wl, viz. the
third day of the new moon. As the second day of the new
moon is described in ver. 19 by TVth&i, it follows that the
third day could not also be designated by ts^fiPM. It is,
therefore, better to retain the reading of MT, and to
explain n"is, with Rashi and others, as *n£. The accent
should, of course, be shifted backwards to the penultima.
n*sra must be taken literally. For, as a matter of fact,
Jonathan shot more than one arrow, against LXX and the
moderns, as is proved by the verb tip^l in ver. 38, which
would not have been used if only one arrow was to have
been picked up. The form '•vnn in vv. 36, 37 must there-
fore be regarded as a collective = D'wn , or as a contraction
of D H xnn.
ai. unp cannot be addressed to the lad, as the moderns
interpret after LXX and Vulg. ; for it would be quite super-
flous after the command . , . NXD. Again, if unp was
addressed to the lad, it would have been repeated in the
next verse. We must, therefore, conclude that tinp is
addressed to David. The suffix refers, as Kimhi rightly
explains, to the lad. If the suffix referred to the arrows,
as Rashi seems to imply, the form would have been Dnp.
See last note. Further, there is no reason why David
should be charged to pick up an arrow. The meaning is :
You need have no fear to show yourself to anybody, but
you may actually come back to me in the company of
the lad.
2l8 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
21. 8. Cjnn cannot be an error for ffTnn, since, as is
evident from 23. 17, 1 8, Doeg did not belong to that company.
The use of TOX for ")B> or etn may be of foreign origin like
Doeg himself. LXX (vkymv reb ij/uocoi/y) seems to have
read Dmsn njn.
14. W1. The verb fW may, perhaps, be used here
with the Syriac nuance of ' to be demented '. See above
on 19. 24.
22. 1. The moderns assert that mjJD is a scribal error
for fnXD. But it is incredible that this error should have
been repeated in II 23. 13 and copied in 1 Chron. 11. 15
and in all the Ancient Versions. No doubt mjm is right.
As II 23. 14 implies, mj?D and miXD are not synonymous.
The latter seems to include the former. The mwo seems
to have been a fort on the hill, which served as a watch-
tower and also, it would appear, as a residence for the
captain. The mjJD, on the other hand, seems to have
served as a storehouse and as a place of retreat in time of
danger. Thus in 24. 1 we find David dwelling in the
nm». But when Saul comes to search for him, David and
all his men are found in the recesses of the mjjD (24. 4).
On the departure of Saul and the disappearance of the
danger, David and his men return to the miXD (24. 23).
Cf. R. Jonah Ibn Janah, op. cit. s.v. nvo, p. 270 f.
23. 6. The text of this verse is difficult. The rendering
of LXX is only an expanded paraphrase to overcome the
difficulty of MT. The best solution is to omit n^j>p as
a doublet from the previous or following verse, and to read
with Targum (nw)— Tlin for YT.
24. ppo cannot be right, for, as is shown by the next
verse, David went to Ma'on only after Saul had arrived in
Ziph. The reading with LXX, in ver. 25, of 1W for 3W
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 219
will not remove the difficulty. It is better to read here
ft for pj?D. The latter has crept in here from ver. 25,
where it is found twice.
26. D'nny is correct. Cf. the Midrash cited in Yalkut
and in the Hebrew commentaries: vby ifiipn K3K '"1 l»x
moya . So literally in Vulg. : in modnm coronae cingebant.
The emendation Dnay is unlikely. Saul would not have
attempted the more difficult task of crossing the mountain
in order to effect the capture of the elusive David and his
band. Targum renders pea , which may perhaps point to
a reading D'O'iK. Cf. Tanhum's note ad loc.
24. 1. Driver in his Notes (second ed., p. 191) expresses
surprise that David's going from Ziph (=Ma'on)to 'Engedi
should be described as byi, seeing that 'Engedi is situated
some 3,560 ft. below Ziph. But no doubt the verb nbv is
used here idiomatically of going northwards, or, to be more
precise, in a north-easterly direction from Ma'on to 'Engedi.
Conversely *i*V is used of going southwards towards the
Negeb, irrespective of the level of the localities of departure
and arrival. Cf. 23. 19, 20, 25 ; 25. 1 ; 26. 2, &c. Cf.
Ibn Ezra, Genesis 38. 2 : TiV Kin 1D1T6 D^y iw'pBV DKBD Nan ;
and Exod. ^. 1 : wn rb\y bxov n«ai> •ji'inn. In 27. 8 rbv
is used in a military sense, as in Judges 12. 3, &c.
3. Targum seems to have read D'l&Dn (= x^a) for
DvJWT. See also Kimhi ad loc.
4. The phrase vbi*\ T\K larb is well explained in Babli
Berakot, 62 b: naiDa 10X3? 13DP yJ?o "Uj£x 't nDK. As to the
exact meaning of the euphemism, there is general agreement
among the ancients that it describes the action of ventrem
purgare ; so Vulg. ; cf. Mishna Yoma, 3. 2 (cited by Kimhi) :
an ^oon i>ai . . . v5>n nx ^»n i>a. Kimhi, however, explains
it here as D'D pntrnij, connecting lOrb with the root "]Di, and
220 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
tbn with DiT5»n "D'D, i Kings 18. 27 (Kere). So Rashi in
Bdbli Yebamot, 103 a s.v. lorb, but here Rashi gives the
first and, no doubt, more correct interpretation.
25. 14. Should we, perhaps, read *iia»l for Djn?
20. "nnoa is rendered by Targum "IDD3, no doubt
through assonance.
22. JWD is rendered by Targum euphemistically :
jno VT 1 = any one with knowledge, i. e. any human being ;
cf. Rashi and Kimhi. Perhaps, however, Jacob Levy
{Chald. Worterbuch, s.v. jrr) is right in interpreting the
Targumic phrase as any grown up male who knows sexual
intercourse.
23-24. . . . ^sni . . . $>sm . Our text may be right :
first she prostrated herself at a distance as a sign of
respect, and then she threw herself at David's feet as a
suppliant.
29. Oi?J! is correct. It is incorrect to take it, as many
moderns do, as a conditional, and to point &(£] or to read
051, since his being persecuted was not hypothetical, but
a hard fact. For mti cf. 24. 10. With D^nn -in* cf. nao
D^nn in Exod. 32. 32, &c. ... nybp may have been a
popular imprecation based upon some primitive belief. For
ybpn *p cf. Rashi here and in Babli Shabbat, 151 a.
26. 20. 1MD is best explained as equivalent to pimD ;
cf. Ps. 38. 12 ; Amos 9. 3: 'Far away from the Lord's
presence', where it might not attract His attention to
avenge me.
28. 12. The reading i>W instead of boot? found in some
MSS. of LXX and adopted by a number of moderns,
is certainly wrong. The narrator would have said *l3m,
instead of Kim. Further, Saul's question in the next verse
rVNI no "a and the woman's answer prove that the woman's
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 221
detection of Saul's identity was caused by something
extraordinary in the appearance of the ghost. Cf. the well-
known passage in Tanhuma on Lev. ai. i cited here by
Rashi and Kimhi. See also Aptowitzer, II, 61.
13. 0"by . . . Dt6k, cf. Driver's note. The ancient
Rabbis already explained the plural by the supposition that
there appeared more than one spirit ; see Babli Hagigah, 4 b,
and Tanhuma, loc. tit. I conjecture that the woman used
the plural because she was not a believer in monotheism.
She may have belonged to the aboriginal heathens of Endor,
who survived the Israelitish conquest; cf. Joshua 17. 11-12 ;
Judges 1. 27.
30. 5. Budde eliminates this verse, but without cogent
reason. The wives of David were persons of too great
importance to be lumped together with the nameless
women of David's men. Hence they receive special
mention both here and in the account of the rescue
(ver. 18). Further the verse is intended to explain the
cause of the excessive grief which David displayed equally
with his men.
9b-io. The text is in disorder. nop annum is out
of place in ver. 9 ; and the order in ver. 10 should have
been first clause b and then clause a : mean . . . D^DSD HDJW
B"N nisa . . . *n*r sp-Vl, Budde adopts this order, and
deletes ttDP annum as a gloss, but he does not explain the
origin of this gloss. It is possible, however, that the
original text ran like this : nop annum WX niNO . . . e|TW
'131 VUB "IE>N. By some accident nop annum got transposed
to the end of the previous verse, and in order to make
sense the scribe inserted E»N BTiXO noVI, as we have it in
our text. Or, again, it is possible that the scribe had before
him two readings :
222 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
(i) hdjj annum b*k nixo . . , sp-vi (ver. 10) : mean i>ro
'131 rue "ierc; (ii) 'i3i *p*vi (ver. to) : mean S>ra.
The scribe accepted the second, though inferior, reading
because it specifies clearly the number of the laggards, and
relegated n»Jf annum to the margin, whence it eventually
got into the text at the end of ver. 9.
17. For amriD? we should read Trnnoi', i.e. on the
morrow of the day on which he had set out on his ex-
pedition. So Targum : Ttnrm N»V3 ; and apparently LXX
and Vulgate. Cf. also Aptowitzer, op. cit., 65. The 5 is
a scribal error for the waw at the end of this word com-
bined with a dittographed waw from the beginning of the
next word (a = 11). Cf. 15. 3 : nKTanD-inm = nwTintnnni.
31. 11. Instead of ae* the chronicler (1 Chron. 10. 11)
has ^3. "W must have fallen out in his text of Samuel
through haplography of the similar ea\ To make sense
with the plural verb ij»e»l he inserted $>3.
II 1. 1. The construction of this verse is veiy awkward.
The writer evidently wished to combine in logical sequence
the three events of the death of Saul, the return of David
from the expedition against the Amalekites and the arrival
of the bearer of tidings from Gilboa, but he was unequal
to the task. He, therefore, felt obliged to have recourse
to the use of a circumstantial clause : '131 3S5> Till. That this
clause is not a parenthesis is shown by the fact that it
forms the antecedent to the opening words of ver. 2.
H. P. Smith (p. 256) holds that the original form of the
verse was: '131 in 365*1 . . , nunc in 36? nriK vni, and that
the reference to the death of Saul is an editorial adaptation
to the present context. But it is unlikely that the original
narrator would have chosen to begin this section with a
reference to the comparatively unimportant episode of
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 223
David's fight with the Amalekites, instead of connecting
it with the big event of Saul's death, an event which forms
the pivot of the whole succeeding narrative.
6. Wellhausen's explanation of D'enan "b)12 is too
ingenious to be true. No doubt Kimhi is right in explaining
the phrase as arvby Decern fftmBfi Wi. So LXX Imrdp^ai.
For a parallel cf. 331 ^jn in the Zenjirli Inscription. See
G. A. Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, No. 62, 10. ^ja
with the sense of VtO or "IB> is also found in the Punic
phrase 01333/ B>"in in«, ibid., No. 45, 9.
9. The ungrammatical expression U , . . "I1JJ ?3 is most
probably a colloquialism.
1 a. The apparent tautology in btnw TO bw 'n OV by
was already noted by R. Isaiah, who remarks : mn 1 I'Sl,
meaning that i'SW TO i>5J is epexegetical. But there is
really no difficulty at all, for 'n DJf refers to the fighting
men who fell in the battle fighting in the cause of the
Lord (cf. I 25. 28, &c), while i>tOB" TO refers to the non-
combatants, particularly women and children, who were
slain by the Philistines in their invasion of the Israelitish
cities (I 31. 7). DJ? has the meaning of fighting men also
in ver. 4 and frequently elsewhere. For the use of ?K-|B» TO
in this sense cf. the comment of Mekilta on Exod. 19. 3
(cited by Rashi, ibid.) : DTO liw apjp TO.
2. 15. The a/aw in E"n?T is a dittography of the pre-
ceding final nun. So also in '•SMKii in ver. 31 below.
16. The critics, with their usual knack of blundering
over the obvious, are much puzzled over D'nxn. Some
read after LXX EMsn or Cnstn . But these twenty-four men
did neither lie in wait nor hunt one another. Others
propose D'nsn ; but there were no besiegers here. Others,
again, emend B"!?D, which they interpret as a play on the
VOL. X. Q
224 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
preceding 1X3, a most insipid derash. Our text is most
certainly correct. The field was so named originally from
the presence in it, or beside it, of certain sharp flints, but
after the event described in the narrative, the name ffnxn
was connected with the sharp swords of the unfortunate
young men. Cf. Rashi and R. Isaiah.
23. The Versions support the reading of our text :
rvjnn nnsa. The difficulty of the phrase may be removed
by pointing ^hfcta, as in Targum ■HITOO.
25. nriN HjOJ is correct. The emendation nOK nj?3J is
most unlikely. For if the narrator meant to say that they
stood on the hill mentioned in the last verse, he would
have said simply njnan. Cf. also Driver's note.
3. 5. 11T DE>N may be a later amplification of an original
int?X, as in 1 Chron. 3. 3. The names of other two wives
in the list which are prefixed with £ are followed by a
descriptive adjective. In the case of n?jy? the writer was
unable to supply any further description, and he simply
wrote WN, which a later scribe expressed more explicitly
as in our text.
7. I conjecture that navi was of non-Israelitish origin.
Her name is connected with the Semitic divinity S)EH, also
written IV") ; cf. siXimpW', Cooke, op. cit., pp. 56-7 ; and
No. 150, 5. Further, her father's name ITN is only found
among the Horites, Gen ofo. 34.
5. 6. For TVDn Targum has "jnviyxa. Accordingly we
may perhaps emend ITpnH. The omission of the 5 may
have been due to haplography of the graphically similar
final 6 of the preceding word.
6. 3. The pointing of TTIK1 as vnNl is improbable. The
narrator would surely have been able to add the proper
name of Uzza's brother. The name 1'riN may be a caritative
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 225
form of wis. Cf. w — w (I 14. 49) = irw = bviw =
7. 11. The moderns, following LXX, omit the copula
form \ob\ . So already R. Isaiah, who observes , . . "irv l^in
d^bbic wrc "ik'n avn |d ibw it» irmj!i> r6iy ya ibw sh?.
But this is unlikely, since Israel suffered oppression also
before the period of the Judges, viz. in Egypt. And from
D1p» *n»t?1, which refers to the conquest of Canaan, it is
obvious that rmtfini must refer to the period before Israel
had acquired a territory of its own. Hence it is necessary
to retain the copula with p?l ; cf. also Rashi's note.
Toni is a perfect consecutive like the preceding verbs
WMffl , . . VflJJDJI . . . 'rwi . . . TWin : ' The Lord will show thee
by the birth of Solomon that He will make thee a house'. 3
The reading of 1 Chron. 17. 10: tjki, or the modern
emendation TJDl involves too abrupt a change of tense.
19. rnin is perhaps an error for rnin : this, an ex-
pression of gratitude by means of words, is all the thanks
which mortal man can offer to God (ver. 20), but even my
words of gratitude are superfluous, since Thou, O Lord
God, knowest Thy servant and the thoughts of his heart.
a 1. The reading TUj; for -pn, as in LXX and
1 Chron. 17. 19, cannot be right. Such a claim by David
for himself would be a flagrant contradiction of the state-
ment in ver. 18 that he is not worthy of God's favours.
23. The words 1t6ni cu seem to have been lacking
in the original text of Targum, and to have been inserted
in our text of the Targum from the Hebrew original.
Cf. Kimhi's comment. TO8 is lacking also in 1 Chron.
17. 21.
3 Cf. the writer's discussion of this passage in this Review, vol. IX,
P. 47 f- (§ 92).
Q2
226 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
8. i. nDNn should perhaps be pointed noSn ' the nation '
(Gen. 25. 16, &c). Cf., however, Sayce, op. cit., p. 414,
who offers an excellent explanation of the baffling
phrase.
3. Targum (Winn nK3syt6) may have read vonb for
awi> and interpreted IT as a boundary sign.
8. The name W3 may perhaps be connected with
Aramaic m*l3 = Hebrew WO. LXX (kcci e/c to>v e/cAe/C7w)
connects it with the root H13 = ni3 (cf. I 17. 8 : 113).
10. 1 a. The emendation pIN for nj? is unhappy. It
would have been nothing short of blasphemy for Joab to
say that they would by their strength save the Ark of God.
Had the Ark been with them in this battle, Joab would
have looked to the Ark to save the army rather than that
the army should save the Ark.
11. 12. The moderns, following Lucian and thePeshitta,
connect mnooi with the nextverse. Mr. S. A.Cook(American
Journal of Semitic Languages, vol. XVI, p. 156) actually
makes this emendation an argument against the integrity
of the text. But this emendation seems to be quite wrong.
For if David invited Uriah to eat and drink before him mnOD ,
i. e. on the third day since his arrival from the camp, then
Uriah's departure would have been delayed until the fourth
day, or after three nights, whereas David distinctly says
that he would send him back on the third day = "jn^B>R "inoi,
viz. after the second night of Uriah's stay in Jerusalem.
The fact seems to be that Uriah's carousal at David's
order (ver. 13) took place in the evening of his second night
in Jerusalem, and as even in his state of intoxication he
failed to go home to spend the night with his wife, David,
frightened that he might learn in the king's household
of his wife's visit to the king, sent him back on his fatal
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 227
errand immediately on the morning following this second
night (ver. 14 = "lpM, viz. "inci of ver. 12).
1 2. 6. The change of tib into )b is bad. The fact that
the rich man had pity on his own cannot be made a reason
for punishing him. ?Dn may have been suggested by
70m in ver. 4, but is not parallel to it.
31. Targum renders p^m DDIN TQDrn = tppiea linn 11 TU1,
taking pta in the sense in which it is found in Jer. 43. 9.
Cf. Driver's note. The emendation of T3yni for nnyni was
already suggested by R. Joseph Kaspi (op. at., p. 36) : DjJBrt
anib mwk tmxty.
13. 9-10. The critics have met here with various diffi-
culties. The hapax legomenon mK»»n has troubled them,
and some of them resolved to regard it as an old corruption
of ronto. But the occurrence of Ttwa in the Targumim
(Lev. 2. 5 ; 6. 14; 7. 9 ; Ezek. 4. 3 ; 1 Chron. 33. 29) and
in Mishnic Hebrew (Mishnah Hallah 4. 1 ; Yerushalmi
Pesahim 29 b) ought surely to be sufficient to protect it
against this ' critical ' scepticism. The emendation DN Klpfll
rTWDn for niBWi m npni is neither clever nor happy. The
amorous Amnon, who was so eager to see the damsel do all
the work herself and in his presence, would surely not have
allowed the interference of the ft~)Vto. Again, some critics
see an irreconcileable discrepancy between ver. 9 and
ver. 10, and therefore adopt the usual remedy of relegating
the offending ver. 10 to the margin as an interpolation
(cf. Smith, p. 330). They argue, if the food was already
set before him (ver. 9 a) why does he ask her to bring it
into the chamber ? And how could ' the sick man ' move
from one room into another ? The answer is, taking the
second question first, that Amnon had only pretended to
be sick, and that having achieved his object of getting
228 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Tamar into his power, he had no need to continue further
his dissimulation. As to the first question, Amnon asked
her to bring the food into the inner chamber, in order to
be removed as far as possible from the hearing of his
attendants, who were probably standing just outside (ver. 9).
He must have expected some opposition on her part, and
therefore hesitated to carry out his design on her in the
large and accessible room which had just been emptied of
his friends and attendants.
18. The critics object to D^JJO and emend D^iyo
' from eternity ' (!), or D^ljJD ' from babes ' (!). They argue
that the i^JJD was distinct from the TlJrD (Exod. 28. 4).
Exactly so ; therefore the narrator has to explain how it
was that Tamar wore for her upper garment a TfiTO, which
was usually an under garment: 'For so the daughters of
the king were used to dress with a D'DD runs as D'O'yo, or
upper garments.'
14. 14. It is best to emend 3W for KB*: '. . . And we
are like waters poured out to the ground, which cannot be
regathered ; for God will not restore the soul to the body,
therefore one should devise plans, so as not to banish
from oneself him that is banished.' Cf. iWr B»aJ 3bt>,
1 Kings 17. a 1. The meaning is : The dead cannot be re-
stored to life again, and no amount of revenge on Absalom
will bring Amnon back; so why lose Absalom also by
banishment? 3CTI1 refers to David, as already explained
by Rashi and Kimhi. The athnah should accordingly
be moved forward to C23, which should be pointed B*aJ T .
15. 8. The omission of Jliana at the end of the verse,
supplied, however, by Lucian from ver. 7, may have given
rise to the explanation recorded in Babli Temurah, 14 b,
that Absalom's ostensible object in going to Hebron was
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 229
not to sacrifice there, but only to obtain lambs for sacrificing
in Jerusalem.
1 a. It is generally assumed by moderns, and so
already by Kimhi on 17. 3 and Ralbag on 16. 23, that
Ahitophel's enmity towards David was inspired by a desire
to avenge the wrong David had done to Bath-sheba, whose
father Eliam (11. 3) is supposed to be identical with Eliam
son of Ahitophel, mentioned in 23. 34. But is it likely that
an unprincipled and ambitious man like Ahitophel would
have hated David for making his granddaughter the favourite
wife in the royal harem ? Moreover, by assisting Absalom in
his enterprise, Ahitophel was actually endeavouring to rob
Solomon, his alleged great-grandson, of the throne of Israel,
the promise of which must by that time have already been
made to him through Bath-sheba. Nay, it is very likely
that it was this promise to Bath-sheba that drove Absalom
to rebellion. It has always seemed strange that Absalom
should have thought it necessary to take such violent
measures for seizing forcibly what would have been in the
natural course of events his rightful due within a few years.
For it is evident from David's conduct in this narrative that
the rebellion took place towards the end of David's reign,
when he was already nearing his decline (cf. Seder 'Olam,
ch. 14). Why, then, this fatal impatience on the part of
the heir-apparent and his friends? The fact is that
Absalom's conduct was actuated by the same motives as
that of Adonijah a few years later, viz. to prevent the aged
king from making good his promise to the son of his
adulterous parvenue wife. But the crafty grandfather of
that wife would surely not have taken the leading part in
a conspiracy against her young son. We must therefore
conclude that Eliam the father of Bath-sheba was not
230 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Ahitophel's son. It is also probable that the narrator
would not have stopped short in the pedigree of Bath-
sheba at the mention of the comparatively obscure Eliam,
had he been able to trace him further to such a famous
personality as Ahitophel. Cf. also W. Jawitz, i^nE* 1 rvn^in
(1905), vol. II, p. 37, note. Wellhausen {Composition, &c. s ,
p. 258, note), with more than his usual display of
cynical scepticism, remarks : ' Dass Davids Versprechen
1 K. 1, 13, 17 bisher nicht erwahnt ist, kann nicht befrem-
den, da er selber und alle Welt nichts davon weiss.
Vgl. 1, 14 "pm JiN in^DV' But the critic has overlooked
1 Kings 1. 30, where David recalls his solemn oath to
Bath-sheba. Nathan's promise to corroborate or supple-
ment Bath-sheba's words only had reference to her state-
ment about the doings of Adonijah, about which alone
Nathan speaks in vv. 25-7. There is in Nathan's words
no mention whatever of the king's oath to Bath-sheba,
which no doubt was made in private.
19. I venture to express the opinion that the name
WS is a caritative form of njriK, parallel to £>N13»JJ. Similarly
other personal names ending in v — may be caritatives of
corresponding longer forms of theophorous names with the
element fr - , as wn = Win, parallel to nnc = nnrra (23. 28).
But this latter is more likely to be connected with 1PID 'gift';
cf. the Punic byi ino, Cooke, op. cit., p. 108 f.) ; nn (23. 9) =
mn, akin to mnn = innn (2 Chron. 20. 37; cf. Lucian,
ibid., AovSlov), and rvTT ; nn (23. 29) = >y>t (1 Chron.
11. 46) = rvan 11 , parallel to byx-p and f>jnno ; and, perhaps,
also W = TW . So also names ending in *— , like ""IW
(17. 27), cf. *?tJ> (Ezra 2. 42)= nw, parallel to bbtlW (1 Chron.
23. 16, &c.) ; further ^? (23. 36) or '» (Neh. 10. 16) =
mi, parallel to \mi and btiil\ and others.
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 231
17. 14. iJtasy K»N bzt is obviously to be distinguished
from bxiW 'Op? i>3 in ver. 4 above. The mass of the people
were, like Absalom himself, captivated by Hushai's decep-
tive eloquence. The elders, however, with their wider
experience and greater intelligence, preferred AhitophePs
wiser counsel. Hence Hushai's fear lest Absalom should
after all be persuaded by the elders to adopt Ahitophel's
plan, vv. 15-16.
16. Kimhi confesses his inability to explain the
rendering of vby by Targum toW> ''inn' 1 Koin. Cf. also
Levy, Chald. Worterbuch, aoab. It seems to the writer
that Targum takes ybl in its ordinary application of
swallowing food, and interprets it figuratively : ' Lest
Ahitophel's counsel be tasty and savoury to the king ',
referring ita? to Absalom, as does also Rashi.
19. main is rendered by Targum pp* 1 ; similarly
Lucian and Theodotian vaXdOas. Perhaps they read
niisn 'the fruit', spread out for drying in the sun.
18. 26. Most moderns point with LXX and Peshitta:
"i|W'n for "ijfen. This is certainly wrong; for the narrator
would have said "W'n "\to W. Nor is the emendation of
Smith (p. 36c) "ijffiin by more happy. For the narrator
would certainly have expressed it by "Wn bv ~\&x navn.
Further, why should this description of the watchman's
whereabouts be given here at the fourth mention of his
name, and not earlier in ver. 25 ? There is no doubt that
the pointing of MT is correct. The watchman standing on
the roof announced what he saw to the gatekeeper, who
conveyed the news to the king. This latter operation is
not mentioned explicitly by the narrator, either because
its performance is taken for granted, or more likely because
it was unneccessary, seeing that the king himself was
232 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
sitting within hearing of the watchman's voice (ver. 24 a).
We must assume that the first announcement by the watch-
man (ver. 25) was also made through the gatekeeper. So
we also find the four lepers announcing important news to
the gatekeepers of Samaria, 2 Kings 7. 10, 11.
39. The text is, as already observed by Ehrlich, quite
original. The incoherence of the reply of Ahima'as is a
deliberate artifice of the narrator to exhibit the messenger's
great embarrassment.
19. 10. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of
the form JilJ. It is used here alone in a reciprocal sense,
but in a passive sense it is frequent in Mishnic Hebrew.
Cf. Mishna B. Kamma 3. 5 ; Yadaim 4. 3, particularly with
a preformative hirek : Sanhedrin 5. 6, &c. See the writer's
remarks in this REVIEW, First Series, XX, 701-702
(' Mishnaic Hebrew ', pp. 55, $6).
23. W is correct. ' To-day I feel again as King of
Israel, and I must not mar the joy of the day by acts
of vengeance.' Cf. the similar remark of Saul, I xi, 13.
Many moderns, following Lucian, read DnyT : Do you not
know that to-day/am king . . . and notyou ? But this does not
explain the emphasis laid on Dl , n(' i a) ; nor does it suit the
exclamation: I'lai nov DlTt. The narrator would have
made him say simply , . . nov to DlVi.
32-41. This passage has given much trouble to
modern expositors. The apparent discrepancies between
vv. 32 b, 34 b, 37 a, and 40 have forced them to interpret
"oy as ' to pass on ' in vv. 32, 37 and as ' to cross over '
elsewhere in the passage ; further to delete pT'n in ver. 32,
and \l~pn TIN in ver. 37, or to take p"W as fUTVn, and
p"VD riN as \TVn bit ; and, finally, to read with Lucian 10V
for 13JJ in ver. 40. This obviously does violence to the
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 233
text, and is altogether unsatisfactory. The fact, however,
is that, as stated explicitly in ver. 3a, Barzillai did cross
over the Jordan, and his leave-taking of the king must
therefore have taken place on the Western side of the river.
The above-mentioned discrepancies are only apparent and
not real. Ver. 33 tells in a general way that Barzillai
accompanied the king across the Jordan to take leave of
him, and the following verses describe the incident in
detail. While still on the Eastern side of the river, and
before the crossing had begun, the king invited Barzillai
to cross the river not for the purpose of leave-taking, but
in order to go up to Jerusalem, and stay permanently in
the royal court (ver. 34). Barzillai declines to go up to
Jerusalem (vv. 35, 36), and only consents just to cross over
the river but not to go farther (ver. 37 a), but offers to send
with the king his son Kimham (ver. 38), which offer the
king accepts (ver. 39). When this conversation was over,
the crossing of the river began, and first the people went
across, and then the king with Barzillai in his company.
The king then took leave of Barzillai, and the latter returned
across the river to his home in Gilead (ver. 40). Having
finished relating the story of the king's leave-taking of
Barzillai, the narrator proceeds to relate another, more
important, incident in connexion with this royal crossing
of the Jordan. For this purpose he repeats the fact that
the king had crossed over and gone to Gilgal, taking the
opportunity to mention that in accordance with the king's
promise to Barzillai (ver. 39), Kimham accompanied the
king to Gilgal ; but, he goes on to relate, the king had not
waited until the whole of Israel should assemble to escort
him across the river, and had gone across with Judah and
only a portion of Israel (ver. 41). This disregard of David
234 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
for Israel gave rise to an inter-tribal quarrel, which cul-
minated in the rebellion of Sheba'.
41. The Kethib TWI is probably due to the recur-
rence of this form in the next verse. The reading of LXX
(SiafiaivovTes) C-DV, which the moderns adopt, is inad-
missible. For since the king is already represented as
being at Gilgal, the act of crossing with the king must
be conceived as already lying in the past.
20. 3. The pointing after LXX n^n ntoiw cannot be
right. ' Living widows ' cannot by any stretch of imagina-
tion be identical with 'women treated as widows, whose
husband is yet alive '. I conjecture that the right reading
is D^D niJOpN ' widows for the whole term of their life ' —
lifelong widows, or, less likely, '0 rfaD^K 'widows of a
living husband '. The corrupt ending in nw may be due
to the influence of the ending in the preceding word nuc&N.
The whole phrase is perhaps an expression of a proverbial
and colloquial character, in which grammatical niceties are
often disregarded ; cf. note on 1. 9.
8. I propose to read niDSD 3in i^jJi no "iurj 3X1*1.
ItJO? is a gloss on 11D, and "fan is a dittography of "Mp,
since the important fact which the narrator wishes to
convey is not that Joab had on him a girdle, but that he
had a sword over his military cloak. The point in this
description, as already noted by Rashi and Ralbag, is that
the scabbard with the sword in it was not, as usual,
hanging down at his side vertically, but was joined across
his loins horizontally, so as to facilitate its falling out of
the scabbard at the inclination of the body and thus to give
Joab, who would quite naturally stoop to pick it up
from the ground, a naked sword in his hand without
arousing in the mind of Amasa the least suspicion of foul
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL — SEGAL 235
play (ver. 10 a). For NV Nini we must, of course, read
with LXX risy torn, viz. the sword from the scabbard,
which Joab immediately picked up with his left hand
(= hky" t<3, ver. ic), so as not to arouse Amasa's sus-
picions, using his right hand for taking hold of Amasa's
beard (ver. 9 b).
1 a. I propose with Budde to delete *VGV\ . . . ntO -|B>ta
as an expanded doublet of the preceding bl ~\W "3 B"xn am
D5?n. The original of this latter clause may, perhaps, have
been as follows : vbv tan nyn b IDS? '3 B*sn tOV1.
13. Targum renders run by noaN, pointing run=vij1n;
so Pesh. otis^. LXX also takes the verb in an active
sense — e<j>6aa-ev. This is also the view of Hayyuj and Ibn
Janah (cited by Kimhi), and of R. Isaiah.
26. For , ""iton Targum has yipn |DT ntovto, thus
identifying this Hfy with the one mentioned below,
23. 26. It is possible, as Rashi and Kimhi remark, that
the interpretation yipn JDT connects "ntO with TIKD, and
regards it as synonymous with Wn because of the
abundance of oil in Tekoa, to which reference is made
in Babli Menahot 85 b. This, however, shows a confusion
of the Southern Tekoa with the town of that name in
the North.
23. 32. The moderns agree to delete ^3 as a dittography
of the end of the preceding word ; to join fruini to the next
verse, supplying |3 before HOP, and to insert ^n after |B",
in accordance with the reading of Lucian 'Iecraai 6 Tovvi
for "OlTjn of 1 Chron. 11. 34. yun is identified with the
Naphtalite family mentioned in Gen. 46. 24 ; Num. 26. 48.
This identification is, however, improbable, since all the
other heroes are drawn from the South, whereas Naphtali
was settled in the extreme North. Instead of Win in
236 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Chronicles, I would read 'JttDjn, from 1TDJ near Ajalon on
the border of Philistia, 2 Chron. 28. 18. On the same
ground I doubt whether, after all, mVD in ver. 36 is
correct, since Zobah was situated in the far North, and in
addition was inhabited, it would seem, exclusively by
Arameans,
