THE GIFT OF 
 
 Alfred <ID- Barnes. 
 
 M«M«*aMa 
 
 B.'2.>»v-n 
 
BS1185 .C53"l90r"" '"""'"^ 
 
 olln 
 
 3 1924 029 281 306 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029281306 
 
A FEW BRITISH, AMERICAN, AND FOREIGN OPINIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ENCYCLOP/EDIA BIBLICA 
 
 Guardian.— " It is a mine of curious and out-of-the-way information, and the 
 articles are never commonplace. " 
 
 Churchman.— " It may be said of the entire volume that it is full of intellectual 
 and sometimes of spiritual stimulus, opening up to speculation new points of view 
 for old problems. All honest, earnest thought is recognised and finds opportunity 
 for expression, and this will ultimately make for the final triumph of truth." 
 
 Professor Peake, in Hibbert Journal.— "Ths Encyclopaedia Biblica has 
 been recognised by those most competent to pronounce an opinion as one of the 
 most valuable and stimulating works on the Bible ever published. Brilliantly 
 edited, pressing into its service many of the ablest biblical scholars of our time, 
 packed with information, much of it nowhere so readily accessible, precise and 
 finished in scholarship, beautifully produced, it has proved itself a treasured 
 companion to the worker who keeps it in constant use." 
 
 Rev. James Moffatt, D.D., in Hibbert Journal. — "Edited and printed in 
 splendid style. Clear type, good margins, incessant cross-references, are its 
 material claims to gratitude. The high level of scholarship hitherto displayed is 
 well maintained, and the book forms quite an indispensable equipment for any 
 English reader who addresses himself to the criticism of the New Testament 
 literature. It is a book to work with, and as a scholar's vade-mecum, easily 
 outstrips any theological dictionary before the public. " 
 
 Pilot, — " We have never seen any work of reference in which the material was 
 better arranged, which was more easy to consult, or in which so little space was 
 wasted." 
 
 Rev. Professor Marcus Dods, in the Bookman. — "Certainly it is a work 
 which gives one the best conception of the wide range of bibUcal scholarship and 
 of the scientific character of its methods." 
 
 Rev. Principal A. M. Fairbaim, D.D., in the Speaker. — "To say the 
 Encyclopedia Biblica is a model of laborious and careful editing, a credit 
 alike to printers and publishers, and to all concerned in its production, is but to 
 verify a truism. There is not anywhere in it a careless article, hardly even a 
 careless line. The editors do not seem to have allowed themselves the privilege 
 of Homer and occasionally nodded. Their love of accuracy may be described as 
 almost a passion, and is sure to make this Encyclopaedia pre-eminently the scholar's 
 work of reference." 
 
 Nation (New York). — ",It is more than hard to give any adequate conception 
 of the wealth of learning and ingenuity which this volume displays." 
 
 Professor Lewis B. Paton, in the Atnerican Journal of Theology.— "V^iaXe.vet 
 one may think of the correctness of the critical conclusions reached in this 
 Encyclopaedia, one cannot fail to be impressed with the excellence of the work 
 done, irhe writers are masters of their respective subjects, and have brought 
 to bear upon them a prodigious amount of labour and of learning. . . . The 
 references to literature, which are remarkably complete, alone are worth to the 
 student far more than the cost of the work. . . . This is a work that every 
 student of the Old Testament will need to add at once to his library." 
 
 Professor H. Holtzmann, in the Gott, Gel. Anz. — "This highly important 
 work. . . . The care and the pains taken in the editorial work of arrangement 
 and correlation are everywhere observable. ... In Germany we have no work 
 of the same kind that can take its place by the side of this. " 
 
 PUBLISHED BY ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK • 4 SOHO SQUARE • LONDON, W. 
 
CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
EDITED BY 
 T. K. CHEYNE, D.Litt., D.D., 
 
 AND 
 
 J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D. 
 
 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA 
 
 A Dictionary of the Bible 
 
 Complete in Four Volumes. Super Royal 8vo. 
 
 Cloth, price 20s. net. per Vol. 
 Half-leather, price 25s. net. per Vol. 
 Full-leather, price 30s. net. per Vol. 
 
 The Work may also be obtained in 16 Parts, price 5j. net. 
 each ; in 2 Volumes, price sfis. net. each ; or in 1 Volume, 
 price 8of . net. 
 
 AGENTS IN AMERICA 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 66 Fifth Avenue, New York 
 
CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 OR 
 
 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE 
 TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITINGS 
 
 BY 
 
 T. K. CHEYNE, D.Litt., D.D. 
 
 ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AT OXFORD 
 
 AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE 
 
 CANON OF ROCHESTER 
 
 CO-EDITOR OF THE ' ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA 
 
 LONDON 
 ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 
 
 1904 
 
 s 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PROLOGUE 
 
 PAGE 
 I 
 
 Isaiah 
 Jeremiah 
 
 PART I 
 
 7 
 51 
 
 
 PART 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 EZEKIEL AND 
 
 Minor Prophets ... 87 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 
 89 
 
 HOSEA 
 
 
 
 119 
 
 Joel 
 
 
 
 
 129 
 
 Amos 
 
 
 
 
 133 
 
 Obadiah 
 
 
 
 
 146 
 
 Jonah 
 
 
 
 
 ISO 
 
 MiCAH 
 
 
 
 
 
 153 
 
 Nahum 
 
 
 
 
 
 164 
 
 Habakkuk . 
 
 
 
 
 
 170 
 
 Zephaniah 
 
 
 
 
 174 
 
 Haggai 
 
 
 
 
 179 
 
 Zechariah 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 181 
 
 Malachi 
 
 
 
 
 
 194 
 
 PART III 
 
 First and Second Samuel 
 First Samuel 
 Second Samuel 
 
 199 
 201 
 248 
 
CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 PART IV 
 
 PAGE 
 
 First Kings ...... 313 
 
 Second Kings ...... 353 
 
 PART V 
 
 Joshua ....... 399 
 
 Judges . . .... 436 
 
CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 PROLOGUE 
 
 A GREAT period of Biblical criticism has come to a close. 
 There are now few books published by Old Testament 
 scholars as boldly progressive as Kuenen's Onderzoek, 
 Wellhausen's Der Text Samuelis and Prolegomena, Kloster- 
 mann's Samuel und Kdnige ; and when, by a happy accident, 
 such an able pioneering work as Gunkel's Schdpfung und 
 Chaos is given us, it is to the author's exaggeration of the 
 points in which he appears to differ from Wellhausen that 
 he owes some part of his success. Of the three critics first 
 mentioned, two still remain to us. Klostermann's work, 
 however, has not yet apparently made its public ; and 
 Wellhausen, of whom it was once said, in Schiller's words, 
 ' War' er besonnen, war' er nicht der Tell,' now feels himself 
 ' too old ' to trouble himself about the ' very latest criticism,' 
 and can hardly be said to have put his full strength into his 
 most recent work on the Old Testament. It is no doubt 
 Wellhausen himself who has taught us to apply the highest 
 standard to his books, and he may yet become more 
 manifestly our leader. But so much at least may, without 
 fear of contradiction, be affirmed, that the Old Testament 
 teaching which is now in the ascendant is distinctively cautious, 
 and that scholars generally confine themselves to work in 
 narrow grooves, and use old even if improved methods. 
 The contributions which these teachers and their disciples 
 make to Old Testament study are therefore on the whole, 
 however learned and sensible, not distinguished by originality ; 
 
2 CRITICA BJBLICA 
 
 and when exceptions occur, it must be confessed that the 
 basis of the new results is not always as sound as could be 
 wished. It is, however, on the few scholars who are not 
 afraid to be- original that the hope of any considerable 
 progress in our study depends. These investigators have 
 at any rate an eye for problems, and are not of those who 
 call a result 'wild' because they themselves only know 
 what they have been taught, and who confine the application 
 of the term 'scientific' {wissenschaftlich) to their own 
 inherited processes and conclusions. 
 
 The Encyclopedia Biblica, of which I am one of the 
 editors, is an honest attempt at a brave forward movement 
 in the critical study of the Bible. It appeared to be time 
 for scholars to throw off the fatigue not unnatural at the close 
 of a great period, and to encourage one another to co-operate 
 in the cause of progress. The plan of the work referred 
 to was partly the late Prof Robertson Smith's, partly my 
 own (submitted to him very near the close of his last illness). 
 Co-operation between scholars of different schools was indeed 
 indispensable, and it may be hoped was morally as well as 
 intellectually profitable to all parties ; but, speaking especially 
 for myself, it soon became more and more evident that at 
 least one half of the book ought, if possible, to consist of 
 what is commonly called advanced criticism. The literary, 
 political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, 
 and natural history of the Old Testament presented numerous 
 doubtful points, and a searching examination of the basis 
 of received views seemed' imperatively called for. Holding 
 that the ' truest truth ' was not too good for the best students, 
 and that merely to put forward'' clearly and learnedly the 
 average opinions of scholars would have been to ensure the 
 propagation of countless errors, I carried on (with all the 
 help that I could get) the work of revising the basis of the 
 existing Old Testament science ( Wissenschafi). I seemed to 
 feel that with an expanded point of view, and with new as 
 well as old methods at my command, small indeed would be 
 my merit if I could not discover many fresh facts. 
 
 Both literary and historical criticism claimed my attention, 
 and it appears no presumption to hope that much recon- 
 structive work may be within my reach. Even though the 
 
PROLOGUE 3 
 
 reform of grammars and lexicons (begun by Stade, Siegfried, 
 and Kautzsch) must be left for a company of scholars in 
 another generation, yet the growth of the Israelitisb litera- 
 ture and the external and internal history of Israel, besides 
 textual criticism and exegesis, and some archaeology and 
 geography, may, if health continues, yet occupy my pen. 
 My first result is, I confess, a disappointing one. The study 
 which I have given to textual phenomena leads me to the 
 conclusion that very much of the learning expended on the 
 explanation of the tradition is, so far as that purpose is 
 concerned, thrown away. Grammars and dictionaries 
 abound in words and forms which, though handed down to 
 us by ingenious and skilful editors, have ultimately arisen 
 from errors of the scribes. ' Ingenious and skilful,' not 
 ' wild and rash,' I call these editors, for I judge them to have 
 been able and gifted men, even if narrow in their range, and 
 arbitrary in their emendations and alterations. But to 
 make these words and forms the subject of philological 
 theories, and, after this, to comment upon the texts which 
 contain them, and, last of all, to construct a history of Israel 
 on the basis of the exegetical results of the commentaries, 
 seems to me, I will not be so discourteous as to say ' wild 
 and rash,' but at least an error which cannot but have 
 unfortunate consequences. 
 
 There is happily no occasion to speak sharply of 
 individual scholars. The fault, if fault it be, is common to 
 nearly all the current books on the Old Testament, including 
 my own. Of course, those books are the fullest of critical 
 improbabilities which enjoy the highest reputation for 
 ' caution and moderation,' especially those which are mainly 
 devoted to registering the average opinions of the scholars 
 of yesterday and to-day. But even those who do not take 
 the highest rank in the scale of critical orthodoxy, and who 
 may relatively be called keen critics, are liable to the same 
 errors of judgment when they cease to suspect the traditional 
 text. And to this I must add that there is among some 
 not unprogressive scholars a tendency to hero-worship, and 
 to attach themselves to this or that master (say, Lagarde), 
 who attained eminence in the last quarter of a century. 
 This means that such scholars do not probe the wounds of 
 
4 CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 the text half deeply enough, and lack that wide acquaintance 
 with the textual phenomena, with the habits of the scribes 
 and editors, and with recurring types of corruption which 
 has to be superadded to the rules applied by earlier scholars. 
 There are some critical conjectures of Lagarde and his 
 contemporaries which would, by "not a few scholars, be 
 regarded as virtually certain. Far be it from me to deny 
 that some of these are really so, but I must express the 
 deliberately formed opinion that the number of them is 
 very much smaller than is commonly supposed. That a 
 particular conjecture has met with a comparatively wide 
 acceptance is not a strong argument in its favour. If you 
 train up a sufficient number of scholars in the mechanical 
 application of certain rules, you will, of course, obtain a 
 concurrence of opinions in favour of those conjectures which 
 follow most readily from the mechanical process referred to. 
 But while some of the conjectures which are most generally 
 favoured are doubtless correct, there are others, including 
 some of those counted most plausible, which, if regarded 
 from a wider point of view, fail to satisfy. It is the point 
 of view among scholars which needs changing, needs at any 
 rate a very considerable expansion, so as to admit new 
 methods, leading to correspondingly different results. 
 
 The only way to enable the student to comprehend 
 what is to some extent a new style of criticism is to put 
 before him a sufficient amount of continuous work, in which 
 such criticism is exemplified. It is, proposed to begin with 
 the prophets. Then the reader will see why the present 
 writer has abandoned the theory of prophecies of a Scythian 
 invasion, and why he has come to the conclusion that the 
 prophets often denounce the men of Israel or of Judah for 
 falling away to Jerahmeelite (N. Arabian) religion. That 
 Misrim (on which land and people see Winckler in Schrader's 
 Keilinschriften, i., ed. 3), Jerahmeel and Asshur (Ashhur) 
 recur so frequently in the later prophetic writings will not 
 surprise us when we have more fully grasped the continuity 
 of the literary tradition, and the fondness of the later 
 Hebrew writers for archaism. Very naturally, there is not 
 so much in the prophets, thus critically interpreted, to shock 
 or (maybe) attract as in the narrative books. But it is just 
 
PROLOGUE 5 
 
 for this reason that the prophets have been selected. Before 
 very long the Book of Psalms will be commented upon in 
 print anew by the present writer on the basis of a similarly 
 revised text, and it will be convenient to thoughtful readers 
 to have also by them a summary of the results of a long 
 period of critical study of the prophets. Those who will 
 may prepare themselves for the reading of both works by 
 a study of articles in the Encydopadia Biblica, and, in due 
 time, of a condensed sketch of the history of Israel now 
 ready for press in a comprehensive historical work. He will 
 there see, inter alia, how much light the new Jerahmeel- 
 Musri theory can throw on Hebrew names. New problems 
 in onomatology are opened and partly solved by its help. 
 It is possible, indeed, that some of the geographical passages 
 in the Old Testarhent, which apparently relate to N. Israel, 
 were derived by the ancient compilers (P and the Chronicler) 
 from documents referring to the Negeb. Still, even if this 
 be true (the theory explains many difficulties), enough 
 evidence from names both of places and of persons still 
 remains to suggest that there was a large Jerahmeelite, i.e. 
 N. Arabian, element in the pre-Israelitish population of N. 
 as well as S. Canaan. It will also be seen that except on 
 the theory that there were N. Arabian border-lands called 
 Misrim and Cush (or Cusham) very many passages of the 
 Old Testament hardly admit of a consistent historical ex- 
 planation. And then it will become more probable than 
 ever that the Exodus of Israel was from Misrim. and not 
 from Misraim (Egypt), and a fresh light will also be thrown 
 on the new problems of the migration of the Hebrew tribes, 
 to which Prof. Steuernagel in Germany and Mr. H. W. Hogg 
 in England have given so much attention. The present 
 writer's experience, however, of the difficulty which many 
 persons, preoccupied by the older teaching, have felt in 
 putting themselves at his point of view deters him from any 
 attempt at a premature exposition either of his principles of 
 textual criticism (in so far as they are at all distinctively 
 his own) or of the reconstruction of history, geography, and 
 onomatology to which his researches lead. These principles 
 and that reconstruction require the basis which will shortly 
 be set before the reader. They are not adapted to the 
 
6 CRITIC A BIBLICA 
 
 swift perusal required for examination purposes ; it is 
 indeed to a harder work and a closer personal intercourse 
 than is expected by the ordinary student that the writer, at 
 this stage in his researches, invites his reader. Imperfections, 
 doubtless, abound in the following work, but it is believed 
 confidently that even those errors and imperfections will 
 be found to point towards the truth. And not a few 
 positions are taken up from which it is hardly conceivable 
 that the writer can be dislodged. 
 
 In conclusion, it may not be out of place to make four 
 observations. The first is that the early introducers of the 
 ' higher criticism ' into England and Scotland were accused, 
 just as the present writer (who happens to be also one of 
 that company) is now accused, of a want of caution and 
 common sense. The second, that to judge of the results of 
 one method by canons derived from the application of 
 another method would be unfair. The third, that though 
 the results of the older methods are not often referred to in 
 this work, this is simply for the sake of putting the new 
 points more clearly, and Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old- 
 Testament (Hebrew edition) will enable any reader to supply 
 the deficiency. The fourth, that advanced criticism need 
 not involve the disparagement of the work of a more gently 
 progressive scholarship, nor on the other hand need a 
 specially cautious scholarship hesitate to ' lengthen its cords 
 and 'strengthen its stakes' by the aid of more 'audacious' 
 workers. 
 
PART I 
 ISAIAH 
 
 Chap. i. — The key to the historical problem of this prophecy 
 (apart from, the appendix) is the discovery that the ' Syro- 
 Ephraimitish war ' was really a Jerahmeelite invasion (see on 
 chap. vii.). Ephraimites could not be called Q1^t {v. 7). 
 — Vv. 7^-9 should run thus — 
 
 Here there is one alteration, atOlS for □IDS. It is 
 probable that the original story of Sodom spoke not of 
 mo but of nt013, which was corrupted first of all into amp. 
 The proper phrase for the ruin of the doomed city was 
 therefore not 'd n^sna but Qmi3 'q. The words diti 'snoD 
 at the end of v. 7 should be Qt013 'dhdD ; these words stood 
 in the margin as a correction of mD3 lisn'j (v. 9). nODt&"i, 
 which precedes, is a corruption of D^tolT', which was a 
 marginal gloss on jT'S-nn (v. 8). The words rmsD T'i'5 
 (v. 8, end) probably come from p2T 7NDnT' ; ' Jerahmeeel ' 
 and ' Rezon ' were mentioned in a marginal gloss as the 
 ' foreigners ' (CTl) who ' consumed ' the land. See on vii. i . 
 i. 19 /. The ordinary explanation of z'. 19 is in- 
 evitable as the text stands, but it produces a poor sense, 
 and if the reading of v, 20, suggested in E. Bib., ' Husks,' be 
 adopted, it will compel us to relegate vv. ig/. to the margin 
 as a later insertion. But now that we have the key to 
 
 7 
 
8 CRITICA BIBLICA '• ^^ 
 
 chap, i., it is plain that we should correct thus, keeping the 
 passage for the great prophet — 
 
 Obedience should be rewarded by victory over Beth^- 
 missur ; disobedience should be punished by exile to 
 Jerahmeel. 
 
 i. 29-31. D^S'^N (terebinths? sacred trees?) should 
 be SnohT' ; on the connection of Jerahmeel-worship with 
 gardens or plantations of trees, see Isa. Ixvi. 17, Jer. ii. 20, 
 23. In ?;. 31, Lagarde rightly reads \rhT\r\ ; mi^a should be 
 n^isn, and prD, as Ruben has remarked, should be p2;i?3, 
 ' thorns.' The ]an was probably a pillar devoted to the 
 Jerahmeelite Baal. 
 
 Chap. ii. 6-22 cannot be properly understood without a 
 comprehension of the profound religious influence exercised 
 upon Israel and Judah by the Jerahmeelites. Two passages 
 specially call for mention. — ici) V. 20. ' In that day a man 
 shall cast his silver and his gold n'hh'i^ to the rats (?) or 
 moles (?) and to the bats.' But ( i ) why should any of these 
 animals be mentioned ? and (2) the existence of such a word 
 as mmnn (from sJ'\Xi'n, ' to dig ' ?) cannot be proved. No 
 one familiar with the types of textual corruption can doubt 
 that rms lEJn and D"'Q7b» have both arisen out of corruptions 
 of D"'^NDm\ Either (see E. Bib., ' Mole ') the Jerahmeelites 
 are mentioned as the makers of the idols, or 'm*' is a gloss 
 on tih'h'A. Comparing v. 8 and xxxi. 7, we may pronounce 
 in favour of the second view. We are now enabled (i) to 
 account for the word u^'h\>(, ' idols,' and (2) to confirm afresh 
 the view that popular Israelite religion was largely of Jerah- 
 meelite origin. In all the passages where the word D''f?"'SN 
 occurs in the sense of ' idols,' the writers may be presumed 
 to have a consciousness that the idols of the Israelites were 
 largely images or symbols of the Jerahmeelite Baal and his 
 consort. That very late students of the O.T. connected 
 Q'h'hi^ with 7N (Sym. dvvTrapKTot) is no argument at all. 
 For a parallel to the gloss in v. 20 see Hab. iii. 18, nhtos'? 
 D"'af?N Q'h'bi^, where q^o^n probably represents Qi^Nomi (a 
 
ii. i6 ISAIAH 9 
 
 gloss on tihhvi). It is also highly probable that the abrupt 
 and obscure clause ?|Sn"' hh^ uhhv(Pr\ has arisen out of 
 Di^Nom'^ □"'^■''pNm, a gloss meaning, ' now ha-elilim is 
 yerahme'elim.' Cp. Pjl^nS in xxi. i. In short, sometimes 
 by an error of the scribe (see e.g., on Ps. xcvi. 5, xcvii. 7), 
 sometimes by deference to popular usage, 'elU has taken the 
 place oi yerakm^el. 
 
 (b) V. 6. Every part of this verse is difficult. Con- 
 tinuing the attempt to clear it up made in SBOT, the 
 following solution of the problem may be offered. Read — 
 
 3pi»'^ mionN nnm£23 ■'3 
 
 Line i — n mistaken for s, T for -[. Line 2 — DlpD, as in 
 ix. II, Gen. xi. 2, xiii. ii, from Smdht. 'rtT is here used 
 in the sense of ' soothsayers.' Line 3 — D"'33i> has had no 
 satisfactory syntactic explanation. We need a verb ; cp. 
 Jer. xxiii. 31, and note the reading in a MS. of Kenn. 
 pDN3'' (for pon^"'). Line 4 — n^'-n is impossible ; we might 
 read •'tanf?! (Ex. vii. 11), but Am. viii. 14 suggests i^3Tn. 
 cnaa might conceal D'^^'in. But it is more likely that the 
 most general term would be used for the Negeb where the 
 venerated sanctuaries were. The final h in 7NDrm and 
 f?Nl?DtO-> is sometimes corrupted into 3 (;). IDtOD"' is due to 
 Kohler. 
 
 ii. 13, 16. The 'cedars of Lebanon' need a more 
 complete parallel than the ' oaks of Bashan.' The ' south- 
 land ' is nearer to Isaiah's thoughts than the snows of the 
 northern Lebanon. ]a>3, as often, should be )ffi3. The 
 mountains of Cushan were called, as it appears, sometimes 
 Lebanon (cp. the southern names, Libnah, Libni, Lebanah 
 (Ezra ii. 45 — the 'Nethinim' were Ethanites), sometimes 
 Gebal or Gebalon (see i K. v. 32, and cp. E. Bib., ' Solomon,' 
 § 3). Possibly, indeed, ' Lebanon ' may sometimes have 
 been miswritten for ' Gebalon.' ' Ships of Tarshish ' is far 
 from probable in this context. tCffinn comes by an editorial 
 error from "i^:&n, i.e. the southern Asshur ; nV3N no doubt 
 should be ni^Dnw ; cp. the ' palaces in Asshur', Am. iii. 9. 
 
lo CRITICA BIBLICA i"- ^4 
 
 manrr nV3m, as the parallelism shows, should be m33a?» 
 
 Chap. iii. 24. ^■'ITid. Read ms-'^n ; transposition 
 and corruption of letters (l = n). 
 
 Chap. v. \b. Read hvfsmr •'31 mpl. The mention of 
 the defences of the vineyard now receives a new meaning. 
 ]Dm occasionally {e.g. x. 2^') comes from ^Ni^Dffi"'. Cp. SBOT, 
 p. 83. The reference is not to the Cimmerians (Peiser and 
 Winckler, E. Bib., col. 2 195), but to the N. Arabians. — 26. 
 Read pinno ""la, and cp. on viii. 9, xiii. 5, Jer. viii. 19. 
 
 Chap. vi. 4. Read ninoN, 'posts' (2 K. xviii. 16). 
 
 vi. 13. , The disputes as to the interpretation of MT, 
 and as to the originality of the closing words (which may 
 seem intended to soften what goes before), need not be 
 summed up again. Textual criticism throws a new light on 
 the passage. Read — 
 
 nilNm rrl lhi;'l 'And should there yet be a remnant therein, 
 
 1?!^ nrr^ni niQ)T It shall again be destroyed, 
 
 n"'i>1t3 ]Vpp ■'3 For consumption (shall be) on its plants, 
 
 nnipaj n^SfflO^ And failure of fruits on its sprouts.' 
 
 rhvCi and p^sD both represent jv'?^. nni!5D XSTXp i'TT is 
 a scribe's second attempt to make sense, by transposition and 
 manipulation of letters, of a corrupt passage. 
 
 Chap. vii. The historical difficulties of the story of the . 
 invasion connected with the names of Rezin and Pekah are 
 very considerable. To .remove or even lighten these we 
 must have recourse to textual criticism. Corrections, which, 
 being paralleled elsewhere, are at any rate possible, become 
 probable when they lead to a connected and intelligible view 
 of the events referred to ; see E. Bib., ' Rezin.' — V. i has 
 been taken by the redactor with a small variation from 
 2 K. xvi. 5. Apparently it was substituted for some fuller 
 account, which was either indistinctly written or contained 
 some statements which did not fit in with the redactor's 
 historical theory. The two views may perhaps with 
 advantage be combined, but at any rate the place improbably 
 assigned to Pekah, Israel, Ephraim, and Shomeron (Samaria) 
 in the composite narrative sanctioned by the redactor, 
 justifies one in supposing that here, as elsewhere, the 
 
vii. 3 ISAIAH II 
 
 narrative has beert' editorially manipulated. In Isa. vii. 2-2 5 
 and viii. the names Pekah and Israel do not occur. 
 Shomeron, it is true, does occur twice (vii. 9, viii. 4), but this 
 appears to be due to the redactor. Ephraim occurs four 
 times {vv. 2, S, 8, 9), but one of the four passages must be 
 a later insertion, and in the other passages D"'1DN may be 
 corrupt (see on vv. 5, 8, 9). We need not linger on v. i, 
 but have to mention that 2 K. xvi. 5 (from which v. i is in 
 the main taken) has probably also been manipulated, and 
 that ' Israel ' may have been accidentally miswritten for 
 ' Ishmael,' and ' Pekah ' for some other name such as Pir'am 
 (■= Ephraim ?). Seejosh. x. 3. [Possibly, however, 'Pekah' 
 was arbitrarily inserted.] That Rezin's ally was the prince 
 of a N. Arabian people is suggested by ix. 1 1 (see note). 
 
 In V. 2 XXryi is not a likely word ; 2 S. xxi. 10 is in 
 quite a different style. Nor is ' lighted upon Ephraim ' at 
 all a suitable sense. The easiest correction is TOTi, which 
 with h's means 'to encamp against' If this be adopted, 
 D"'^DN must be the name of a city. A city with this name 
 is mentioned in 2 S. xiii. 23, where, as several scholars have 
 pointed out, D"'1Sn may be a corruption of piai?. It has not, 
 however, been observed that Absalom's Ephron was almost 
 certainly in the Negeb. There, too, the city mentioned 
 probably in Isa. vii. 2 must have been. According to 2 Chr. 
 xiii. 1 9, ' Ephron ' was one of the cities which Abijah took 
 from Jeroboam ; these cities were in the Negeb (cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Rehoboam '). There was, in fact, a constant rivalry between 
 Israel, Judah, and ' Aram ' (the southern Aram), as to which 
 of these peoples should possess the ' holy land ' of the Negeb 
 (cp. E. Bib., ' Prophet/ § 6). Not being opponents of the 
 Chronicler, let us frankly accept his statement that Ephron 
 had passed into the occupation of Judah before the time of 
 Ahazi We can now more clearly understand why Ahaz and 
 his people trembled. Their anxiety was twofold, (i) for their 
 much prized possessions in the Negeb, and (2) for Judah, on 
 the road to which the Arammites now were. 
 
 vii. 3. ' Go forth to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear- 
 jashub thy son.' The phrase l^itD; 1N0 occurs in x. 21, in a 
 passage which recent critics (including Dill. -Kit.) hold to be 
 a later insertion. Here the phrase is supposed to be taken 
 
12 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ^"- S 
 
 from vii. 3, and just afterwards another phrase (Tina 7n) is 
 taken to be borrowed from ix. 5, i.e. from the close of the 
 same section which contains the mention of the boy called 
 Shear-jashub. It is remarkable, however, that mni 7N is not 
 (apparently) used in x. 21 in the same sense as in ix. 5 (see 
 Dill.-Kit.), and we shall see that in reality 'a 'n owes^ its 
 existence in ix. 5 to corruption. We have also recognised 
 that in the true text of chap. vi. there is nothing which 
 favours the idea that the preservation of a ' remnant ' was a 
 part of Isaiah's prophetic teaching. Judging from the 
 analogy of the names Immanu-el and Maher-shalal-hash-baz 
 (we reserve the question as to the correct reading of the 
 names) there ought to be underneath ntO"' nNQ) some other 
 name closely related to the circumstances of the kingdom of 
 Judah at this time. Can we doubt what this name must 
 be ? There is at any rate much probability in the easy 
 correction lito; ni&«, ' Asshur will return.' Isaiah knew or 
 suspected that Ahaz was about to invoke the help of Asshur 
 against Aram. He had also a prophetic certitude that 
 Asshur would not fail to return in a different character — i.e. 
 as Judah's conqueror. That a ' remnant ' would ' return ' or 
 ' turn ' to God was a characteristic post-exilic hope. 
 
 vii. 5. Omit ")n"'^D1-]m Q-'IDN. It is an incorrect 
 variant to 'm jli msT {v. 4). The scribe who first wrote it 
 wrongly supposed that the ally of Rezin was the reigning 
 king of Israel or Ephraim. The mistake would be all the 
 easier if the original reading was either Dnid (cp. Josh. x. 3) 
 or DilDN followed by 'm ]1. 
 
 vii. 6-9. See SBOT. For Sslb read h'y^T\ (see E. Bib., 
 ' Tubal '). The southern Tubal is meant. For "pXSttn 
 read Dm^3, and for mtO ©Dm Qi^m read probably mtO 
 (toon n^t»m represents oms Dms, a dittographed correction of 
 p2)m). What Isaiah means is briefly this, — The anxiety of 
 Ahaz is at present needless. Aram is not strong enough to 
 take Jerusalem, and within a year will itself be plundered by 
 Asshur. The time, however, is at hand when, without faith, 
 Judah too will be exposed to irremediable ruin at the hands 
 of Asshur. Will Ahaz and his people in the short interval 
 obtain faith? Observe that Isaiah is well assured that, 
 quite apart from the meditated request of Ahaz to Asshur 
 
vii. 1 6 ISAIAH 13 
 
 that formidable king nourishes designs against the Negeb 
 and against Judah. — V. ga is an insertion of the redactor. 
 If we point pnoffi, the passage states what is incorrect ; the 
 southern Ephraim did not constitute a kingdom by itself, 
 nor did it belong to ben-Remaliahu. Cp. on viii. 4. (The 
 usual view that 'in D''ffitO ^^m is a misplaced interpretation 
 loses^ its plausibility when textual criticism has been applied.) 
 
 vii. 14 yi The discussions on ;'Nl3Di> still continue 
 (see E. Bib., ' Immanuel '). It may, however, perhaps 
 be doubted whether Isaiah would have approved of such 
 a name as 'God is with us' (cp. Am. v. 14, and Porter's 
 remarks, quoted in E. Bib., col. 2163). That Yahw^ was on 
 the side of the pious community, and would ultimately prove 
 this by a signal interposition, was a characteristic post-exilic 
 faith (cp. Ps. xlvi. 8, 1 2). We do indeed meet with hvk 13ai» 
 in Isa. viii. 8, 10, not as a proper name, but as a statement 
 (see Marti) of the futility of the assault upon Judah made by 
 the assembled peoples (read, in v. 8, 'os "'D). This assault is 
 a part of the theme of the later eschatology. Nothing but 
 a bold and yet methodical conjecture will open the secret of 
 ^M13D:'. Like pai> and Snio: (Num. xxvi. 1 2, i Chr. iv. 24), 
 it is a corruption of '?NDm^ But 'm"' is not the whole name. 
 The rest of the name must be hidden in h'^vc OlTi HNDn. 
 Alas ! how often we suppose that we understand the unin- 
 telligible ! These three words are no doubt grammatical 
 enough, but what is the sense of them here ? A later writer, 
 in V. 22, explains that the land having gone out of cultiva- 
 tion, owing to the invasion, those who are left in it will be 
 reduced to pastoral fare. How far-fetched ! The truth 
 most probably is that rrson and h^vc (cp. on Ixvi. 1 7) are 
 corruptions of SNOm"', and mm represents the verb which 
 has to be combined with "PNDm"'. What that verb is, we 
 learn from v. 16 ; it is ytST). Thus the name becomes 
 ' Jerahmeel will be deserted.' Cp. viii. 4. The result is of 
 much historic interest. But the redactor's transformation of 
 the name is felicitous from the point of view of edification. 
 The rest oi v. 15 is, of course, a late insertion. 
 
 vii. 16 gives the reason for the name. Before the 
 child referred to can distinguish between the wholesome 
 and the harmful, mi3 }>nMT ^NOm"' Iti'ri. This must have 
 
14 CRITIC A BIB Lie A viii. i 
 
 been the original re.ading. nmN for 'rXT, and }>p for E»1D are 
 in accordance with frequently recurring types of corruption. 
 The redactor expanded this in order to make sense -of a 
 dittographed but corruptly written SiNDnT, which intruded at 
 the end of the verse (jv'h'd). — V. 1 8, D'^isp ^N-; (cp. xix. 6, 
 xxxvii. 25). 
 
 Chap. viii. i, 3. Winckler's view of viii. 1-4 {AOF^^^ 
 i. 168^) seems to me impossible; his textual criticism is 
 imperfect. An older critic, Hitzig (Jes., p. 96), has a claim 
 to be heard first. He thinks that the child whose birth is 
 announced is ' evidently the same as the child to be named 
 Immanuel.' At any rate, the essential part of the name in 
 viii. I is liOT 'jNcriT', ' Jerahmeel will be deserted.' It is 
 true, this simple name has received accretions. tDI^M £snn3, 
 ' with a common man's pen,' should almost certainly be 
 ^NDom"' mim. inn^ (in spite of the current learned 
 - explanation of h) comes from ^ndhT' ; hh^ is a dittographed 
 ^Ni?nm"' ; tl comes from ihn. That Isaiah actually put more 
 than one name is improbable. If 'n 'm*' is right in vii. 14, 
 surely it is also right here. In v. 3 the precedence of nno 
 ( = 'm"') favours this conclusion. 
 
 viii. 4^. Read iDsb SNi^otOi riNI CiaJl3 ^NOmi N©-' 
 TimN l^Ki. The redactor, who had a corrupt text before him, 
 inserted Jliom to match pmQ^. 
 
 viii. 6. Read probably — ^Ni>Qm"'D TiHTi Di?n Da"; ■'3 p'^ 
 [in'^^DT jn pan j-in] ©isdi ['?«DnT^]. The meaning of 
 D"'57nrr ion? has never been clearly made out ; the words 
 indeed are corrupt, diddt = mi3pi ; DID for ffii3, as Ixvi. 20, 
 Ezek. xxiii. 6, i 2, etc. 
 
 viii. 23. That this verse belongs to the redactor 
 may be admitted. But he had some literary basis, including 
 probably the words Tins? pNl ^Ni^Qt^-' pN. — V. 23^ appears 
 to have grown, through corrupt repetitions, out of a very 
 simple gloss, ^ndhT' -yrs, 'Jerahmeehte Arabia,' i.e. the 
 districts of the Negeb which were connected with Ishmael 
 ( = Jerahmeel) and the Naphtuhites ; cp. on xxx. 32. (If 
 'Naphtali' is right, it will be a southern Naphtali, but 
 Naphtuhi and Naphtali seem in several places to have been 
 confounded.) 
 
 Chap. ix. 1-6. See SBOT, pp. 89, 195. As to the 
 
X. 4 ISAIAH 15 
 
 royal name, at any rate, we can now get much further. 
 Profiting by experience of typical errors of the scribes, we 
 may venture to hold that in "'IN [lIlJi] 7M {>!> is a corruption 
 of TilN 7N1Q>"', which should of course be 'w "V^ii, ' mighty 
 one ( = protector) of Israel ' ; Tim may be omitted as a 
 variant to T'lN. The n in is, and also that in fs, may have 
 arisen from a dittographed ■< ; S for tD is the substitution of 
 one sibilant for another. T in 7N^tt)■^ fell out. nSq may, in 
 the light of ®'s ayyeXoi;, be corrected into ^n^d ; V of course 
 will mean mri"'. It is now time to look behind and in 
 front. The obscurity of mtOQ appears from Aq. fiirpov, 
 Theod. and Sym. TratSeia (op. Tg. MrriTiM) ; v. 6 shows that 
 a synonym for chw is desirable ; read in both lines rts^tirrt. 
 "iDStO"^!', which is not very happily connected in @ and MT 
 with mmon, should be mrj"' TT'^o-ha. Thus vv. 3, 6 
 become — 
 
 For a child is born to us, | a son is given to us, 
 And salvation comes | on Yahwfe's anointed, 
 And the angel of Yahwfe | calls his name, 
 Protector of Israel, | Prince of prosperity. 
 Abundant is salvation | prosperity has no end, 
 On the throne of David, etc. 
 
 ix. 7-x. 4. The problems arising out of this section 
 can now be much more nearly solved. According to 
 Delitzsch {Isaiah, E.T., i. 251 ff^ the ' first commission ' 
 {^v. 8 f^ of the personified divine oracle ' is directed against 
 Ephraim, which is so little humbled by the misfortunes 
 experienced under Jehu (2 K. x. 32) and Joahaz (2 K. xiii. 3) 
 that they are presumptuous enough to substitute for bricks 
 and sycomores hewn building stones and cedars.' In vv. lof., 
 however, ' the range of vision widens to the whole of Israel ; 
 for the northern kingdom has never had to suffer from the 
 Philistines, whereas an invasion of Philistines into Judah 
 actually belonged to the punitive judgments of the time of 
 Ahaz, 2 Chr. xxviii. i6-ig.' On vv. 18-20, Delitzsch 
 remarks, ' how easily the unbrotherliness of the northern 
 tribes towards each other can turn into united hostility 
 against Judah, has been sufficiently proved by the Syro- 
 Ephraimitish war, whose consequences are still going on, 
 even now when the prophet is prophesying.' On x. 1-4, 
 
1 6 CRITIC A BIBLICA ^■ 
 
 however, he merely assumes that the unjust judges, those 
 least who do not fall in war, will be deported into the lar 
 of exile — Assyria. 
 
 All this, however, needs complete revision. The couri 
 of the prophetic poem is as follows. A N. Arabian invadi 
 has been commissioned against Israel, i.e. against ; 
 Israel, viz. Judah and the Negeb (which was partly occi 
 pied by the northern Israelites, partly by the Judahites 
 More particularly the doomed people is called 'Ephraii 
 and the population of Shimron,' i.e. the inhabitants c 
 districts of the Negeb bearing these names. In v. 20, how 
 ever, we hear of Manasseh and Judah, as well as of Ephrain 
 That Israelites of Manasseh and Ephraim dwelt in the Negeb 
 appears from a thorough criticism of Josh, xvi., xvii., am 
 I Chr. vii., also probably from 2 Chr. xv. 9, xxviii. 1 2, xxx 
 xxxiv. 6, 9 ; the ' Negeb of Judah ' is of course a standinj 
 phrase, which must have had facts to justify it (cp. 2 Chi 
 xxviii. 18), 'Ephraim' indeed virtually = 'Jerahmeer (i S 
 i. i.ix. 4, etc.). That those who uttered the vaingloriou 
 boast in v. 9 dwelt in the neighbourhood of the Shephelah 
 is shown by the reference to the sycomore trees (cp. i K 
 x. 27). We have also seen already that Rezin, who is men 
 tioned by name in v. 10, invaded Judah from the south 
 The reference to Aram and the Pelistim in z^. 1 1 has puzzlec 
 most critics (cp. Del. and Kittel), who naively remarl 
 that we hear nothing of an invasion of N. Israel by the 
 Philistines. The truth, however, is that in its origin Aram = 
 Jerahmeel ; Rezin had one of the Jerahmeelite kingdoms 
 (Isa. X. 10) which owned the suzerainty of the great king ol 
 Melubba. The so-called Pelistim are the Sarephathim, whc 
 oppressed Israel in the days of Saul. From v. 11 we 
 gather that the Arammites lived in the east, and the Sare- 
 phathim in the west of the Negeb, so that the Israelites in 
 the larger sense (Israelites and Judahites), who occupied the 
 greater part of the Negeb, had to be constantly on the alert 
 (hence the repeated references in 2 Chr. [rightly understood] 
 to the fortification of cities in the Negeb). 2 Chr. xxviii. 
 [ 7 f. speaks of a renewed invasion of Judah (cp. 2 Chr. 
 
 ^ ' Manasseh,' as a royal name, probably indicates the annexation of 
 N. Israelitish territory in the Negeb by the later kings of Judah. 
 
X. II ISAIAH 17 
 
 xxviii. 5 a) by the Arammites (read D^'Gi'in) and of the 
 Shephelah and the Negeb of Judah by the Pelistim (but the 
 authority used by the Chronicler must have said 'the 
 Sarephathim'). The reference in z/. 13 to a great defeat is 
 not altogether obscure. It is the king of Asshur (Asshur) 
 who, as Isaiah announces, will return and work ruin not only 
 to N. Israel, but to Judah. Dissension will paralyse the 
 power of the advanced guard of N. and S. Israel in the 
 Negeb to resist this terrible onset. No external aid will this 
 time be attainable, Tubal and Asshur, Maacath and the 
 Hagrim, having already succumbed to their irresistible 
 assailant. 
 
 The necessary corrections appear, thus far, to be as 
 follows — - 
 
 In V. J a, for nn read its = N. Arabia ; 7D3T means 
 'and he shall fall (as an invader).' In v. 8, ^npffl; v. 10, 
 j-'Syns?; v. 11, D'^ns-jX'i ; v. 16, nog-- (Lag.); v. 19, ii>T ; 
 cp. Jer. xix. 9. So Seeker, etc., after ®. 
 
 In X. 4 read, 
 
 ~miA nn »~!| fji^n 
 
 This verse connects well with v. 3, but the combined 
 verses do not cohere well with vv. i, 2. See, however, 
 Kittel, Duhm, Marti, Che. Intr. Is., pp. 24, 46, and cp. SBOT, 
 Heb., p. 85, cp. 194/^, where Lagarde's emendations in v. 4 
 (Beltis and Osiris) are favourably regarded. 
 
 Chap. x. 5-11. The supreme N. Arabian power, here 
 called T^i^M ( = TinWN) and (probably) ^MonT is' represented 
 as having already conquered the cities of the Negeb, and as 
 aiming at the conquest of Jerusalem. This, at least, is the 
 view which we are led to take by applying our methods of 
 criticism to the text. — V. 5 should probably run thus — 
 
 IBM tanm n^i^M ihn 
 : ■'piiT ncsn f?NmT"! 
 
 In vv. 6, 7, which are poetical in form, there is nothing 
 to alter. — In vv. 8-1 1, however, nearer to prose, there is a 
 good deal of corruption. It may be presumed that Isaiah 
 is referring not to the conquests made by the Assyrians in 
 
1 8 CRITIC A BIB Lie A '^- ' 
 
 different campaigns in various northern districts (one of th 
 names, Calno, is at any rate incorrect), but to the cities take; 
 by the N. Arabian potentate in one and the same regioi 
 and in one and the same campaign. The openirig words c 
 V. 8, ^DN■' 13 were probably evolved by the editor out c 
 'pNOnT (D naturally came from n), which stood in the margi; 
 as a gloss on the corrupt D-'S^D. Read probably — 
 
 mDND N^-DN bNonr nm-rps n^h D'^^Nom^ TimT sf^n 
 D-'^NDHT^ 1T1 nN2D nt»N3 N^H jinp^ 0^53 nS-dn np^i 
 
 The ordinary explanation of v. 8 in the MT is thu 
 given by Dillmann-Kittel, ' He gives expression to his proui 
 consciousness of might by recalling that his princes {i.i 
 generals), high officers, governors, resemble kings in th 
 greatness of their authority and in their rank.' Is thi 
 bombastic vaunt in place here ? Just before, we have beei 
 told that the great object of Asshur is to ' cut oif nation 
 not a few.' What we expect to hear next, and what ou 
 criticism appears to bring out, is an appeal to his previou 
 conquests. 
 
 ' Have I not conquered the Jerahmeelites ? Has nc 
 (the city of) Jerahmeel fared like Kidsham, Maacath lik 
 Ephrath, Shimron like Cusham ? As my hand has laid hoL 
 on the Jerahmeelites, the Ishmaelites, and the Shimronite: 
 shall I not, as I have done to Shimron and to Jerahmeel, s 
 do to Jerusalem and to its forts ? ' 
 
 The chief doubt here relates to DTl Nirr {v. 5^). Mos 
 since Hitzig take this to be a gloss, but what a poor gloss 
 and why D"T"'l? Experience of forms like mx and Dn" 
 suggests that '1 may come from S'NDm"'. In this cas 
 '1 N"in becomes 'm"' Nin, 'that is, Jerahmeel,' and we obtai 
 a gloss on the somewhat less known word iiq^m. It is als 
 possible, however, that fjNom"' underlies '1 sin, and is 
 second title of the N. Arabian potentate. This is perhap 
 favoured by w. 27 (see below) and by Jer. li. i, where "iJip'D 
 (Leb-kamai) comes from ^NDriT' (|| ^ni). Observe that th 
 speaker (Asshur) represents the people of Shimron and th 
 other cities mentioned as 'Jerahmeelites,' although th 
 
X. 32 ISAIAH 19 
 
 Israelite and Judahite element in the population appears to 
 have been politically predominant. It should be added that 
 both mafpOD (see on Jer. xxxiv. i) and hh^ (see on ii. 6-22) 
 can be corruptions of [D"'pNDm"'. OffiTp is to be preferred 
 to Qffl3 Tp (city of Cusham) as a correction of ffi'^DDiD for the 
 reason mentioned on Jer. xlvi. i. 
 
 X. 135. See SBOT, Heb., p. 96. — 18. Read perhaps, 
 □"'^NDnT' ^^n^^, and at the close of the verse psMp^ }>b?'i. 
 
 X. 28-32. In its original form, a prophecy of a N. 
 Arabian invasion of the Judahite territory in the Negeb. 
 Probably not Isaiah's work. See Marti, and cp. SBOT. 
 
 X. 27. For SsriT read hirn^ with W. R. Smith, hs 
 p© "'3QD has been corrected by the same lamented 
 scholar into nnm JiDSp rh^. ^^aJ, however, is not definite 
 enough. ]Dt&, in accordance with parallels elsewhere, should 
 be bNSDaji ; render ' Ishmael has gone up from Zaphon ' (see 
 on Jer. i. 1 4, Ezek. i. 4). Possibly ' Ishmael ' is here used 
 as a title of the king of Asshur (cp. on vv. 9- 1 1 ), i.e. refers 
 to a distant part of N. Arabia. It is very probable that vv. 
 28-32 have been recast, just as Mic. i. 10-16 and Jer. vi. i 
 have more than probably been recast, in accordance with a 
 theory that an Assyrian invasion of Judah was referred to. 
 In this case, jT^s iT'l {v. 32 Kt.) may have arisen out of 
 llS'n"'!, which is mentioned in 2 Chr. xi. 5-9 among the 
 cities fortified by Rehoboam. These cities were probably in 
 the Negeb (see E. Bib. ' Rehoboam ') ; the original text has 
 here also been recast. 
 
 x. 32. The confusion between 3 and i is partly re- 
 sponsible for the unfortunate intrusion (as it seems) of an 
 imaginary place called ' Nob ' into the geography of S. 
 Palestine. The discussion in E. Bib., ' Nob,' dispenses us 
 from the obligation of going at length into this here. Let 
 us note, however, that nvrr is, in accordance with parallels 
 elsewhere, a corruption of Qin^N, and that 331 ^^» comes 
 from nsnin. At the end oi v. 32 we find D^^miT' n:»33. 
 This is probably not the original reading ; the original text 
 had (not DTrfpN, as suggested in SBOT, p. 196), but, in 
 accordance with Zech. xiv. 1 4, and other parallels, Sn^dIDi 'x 
 
 This appears to be a gloss on DTT^N nsi3, or rather (in 
 accordance with parallels) 'jNom*' r\^:i'X. A ' Gibeath 
 
CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 XI. ic 
 
 Elohim ' is mentioned in the MT of i S. x. S ; a n-'2i: 
 (' pillar ' ?) of the Philistines (' Zarephathites ' ?) was there 
 the true name of this place was no doubt ' Gibeath-jerah- 
 meel.' Whether in the original form of this narrative the 
 same place was intended as in the original form of the poem 
 in Isa. X. 28-32, cannot here be considered. There may, oi 
 course, very well have been several Gibeahs connected bj 
 tradition with the incursions of the Jerahmeelites 01 
 Ishmaelites. The writer, however, who manipulated 01 
 adapted the poem which underlies Isa. x. 28-32, arid who 
 wrote ir25 n[-']l nn for Tis-n-'l nn, must surely have had ir 
 his mind some hill close to Jerusalem. The hill which h« 
 meant must have been the Qimn rhsp ('ascent of the 
 olives'), 2 S. XV. 30, which in v. 32 is defined as 'the summil 
 where men worship Elohim.' An earlier name of the 
 ' Mount of Olives ' (a phrase only found in O.T; in Zech 
 xiv. 4) appears from this to have been D"'innffinr7 Di^ll (' hil 
 of worshippers '). But still earlier names were probablj 
 D'^'pNOm"' rysiy (whence □Tt'^n 'y) and diSnsd!Ci 'l (whence 
 perhaps, under the influence of theory, arose □"'inntUD 'i) 
 On this, and on the further corruption nTItSan IH, see E. Bib. 
 ' Destruction, Mount of 
 
 Chap. xi. 10. A redactional insertion (Duhm, Marti) 
 But even a redactor would not have spoken of a ' root,' or o: 
 a ' shoot from the root,' as ' standing as a pole.' What th( 
 passage contains is a further development of the idea tha' 
 Mt. Zion, God's glorious resting-place, shall be free, from al 
 that offends. Read ' Yahwe shall root out (tlJltD'^) Aram, anc 
 Ishmael, and Jerahmeel, and Asshur.' In W'CiS D3^, h and I 
 are superfluous ; "iDi;D3 is a very regular corruption o 
 '7«i?om\ □"'11, too, stands elsewhere for f?Nam% of whicl 
 word r^N too can be a mutilated form ("i = n). 
 
 xi. II. Duhm remarks that a verb must be sup 
 plied mentally. But the required verb is hidden unde 
 rT'3tO ; Marti restores riNto (xlix. 22). The awkward ntCi 
 -IN^-; comes from i^£&nd (written twice over incorrectly^ 
 ' Asshur' is the name of a N. Arabian region (cp. on x. 5) 
 so also are ' Misrim ' (point O^yso) and ' Cush.' Dinns is I 
 corruption of nQ-i2, rn-'S of SndHT, iMm probably of Ti?"a 
 non of nssiD, qti ■''^n perhaps of bNomi-na. Cp. E. 
 
xiii. 2 ISAIAH 21 
 
 ' Pathros.' — 1 2. Render ' from the four corners of the 
 land'; cp. Ezek. vii. 2. — 13. Duhm observes, 'The 
 jealousy of Ephraim, for which hardly a single fact or 
 symptom can be produced in the whole pre-exilic period, is 
 intelligible enough after the second temple, and especially 
 after the foundation of the Samaritan community (cp. Ixvi. 5).' 
 But it is the southern ' Ephraim ' ( = ' Jerahmeel ') which is 
 meant, and those who ' oppress Judah ' are not the 
 Samaritans of the north, but the Jerahmeelites. How the 
 disappearance of this 'jealousy' and these oppressors is to 
 be effected, v. 14. shows. The second part oi v. 13 is an 
 incorrect gloss on the first part. In v. 15 ® presupposes 
 l"'inn, but the n■'^^^ of the MT seems to be correct. 
 D"' ptuf? is like D"'DS oaf? (v. 10) ; it represents QifjN^DtD-' (cp. 
 on Ps. cxx. 3), to which D■'^25Q (Misrim) which follows may 
 be a variant. The ' river ' (nrT3 ; omit the article), mentioned 
 next, is the Ephrath, not the Euphrates. For imi Q"'»a 
 read n^'^NOm"' (cp. on vii. 20, viii. 7). Again a gloss. 
 
 Chap. xiii. The prophecy is directed against the great 
 N. Arabian power, sometimes called Asshur (Asshur). Only 
 so can we understand the bitterness of the passage, which 
 very naturally reminds one of our best commentators 
 (Dillm.-Kitt., p. 125) of the painful descriptions in xxv. ioff., 
 xxxiv., passages relating the one to Moab (or rather 
 Missur), the other to Edom. The f?31 spoken of in the 
 heading in z/. 19 is probably a literary corruption of some 
 shortened form of 7Mom"'. The name ' Jerahmeel ' belonged 
 to various branches of the same widely spread race — to the 
 people of the kingdom of Melubba, as well as to the people 
 of the southern border-land. It is also not improbable that 
 the name is sometimes applied incorrectly to peoples not 
 strictly of the old Jerahmeelite stock. No secondary 
 questions must be allowed to divert us from the one perfectly 
 certain point, viz. that both the people to be attacked, and 
 the people to attack, in this and similar prophetic descrip- 
 tions (see Jer. 1. li.) are N. Arabian. 
 
 xiii. 2. Here and in Job xxi. 28, 3^3 seems to mean 
 ' tyrant' But the || fpmo (see on xiv. 5) will not stand 
 examination. In both places read ijia (cp. xxxiii. i, 
 Hab. i. 13. 
 
22 CRITICA BIBLICA =""• " 
 
 xiii. 6. Nll-intBO lffi3 ( = Joel i. 15), 'wie Gewalt vom 
 Allgewaltigen her kommt er' (Dillm. - Kitt). It is diffi- 
 cult to give the supposed meaning of the words as briefly 
 in Engh'sh. RV, ' as destruction from the Almighty.' ^ If 
 ^7U> really comes from ^"nm, we might render, 'like 
 destruction from the destructive.' Even Marti accepts this 
 questionable derivation, but is not free from doubt as to the 
 reference of nffi, which may mean either God or ' one of the 
 class of mighty ones.' Certainly it does not seem a priori 
 likely that the 'day of Yahwe' would be compared to 
 ' destruction from the Almighty ' ; an investigation of the 
 ' Shaddai ' problem leads to the conclusion that textual 
 corruption must inevitably be assumed. I incline to think 
 that ■'"rm, or perhaps here nmo (the prepositional D having 
 dropped out), is a corruption of fpNSom"' (a synonym of 
 fjNnm"'). ' Like a desolating attack from Ishmael,' is not 
 an impossible comparison, and the description in the sequel 
 seems to confirm this. See E. Bib., ' Shaddai.' 
 
 xiii. 16 f., 19. For pn"'^f?i' read Drr"'^3'^rr, and for 
 na^imn nrx^myy read n^i^t&n on-'^Dmrn. Cp. on 2 K. 
 viii. 12, Hos. xiv. i. Am. i. 13. — ni?- Taking all the 
 references to "'To together, it is difficult not to hold that the 
 word is a corrupt fragment of ■?NIDm^ In the present 
 passage, the so-called Amalekites appear to be meant. Cp. 
 the D"Tp "'31 in Ezek. xxv. 4, etc. (see note). — D"'"rt03, as often, 
 should be D"'tl>13. Note the reference to the Jerahmeelite 
 story of Sodom (see E. Bib., ' Sodom '), and ■'ins in v. 20. 
 
 Chap. xiv. 3, 4. See SBOT, p. 199. — 5. uh^. 
 Dillmann, Duhm, Guthe (in Kautzsch's HS), and most, 
 'tyrants'; so xlix. 7, Hi. 5. In all these passages read 
 
 xiv. 12 f. ^^m-;l f?^Tr. The discovery that mn in 
 Judg. i. 35, viii. 13, cp. on Isa. xix. 18 (mn), and (may 
 we not add?) nno) in Ps. cxxxix. 10, represent n^nt&« 
 (the N. Arabian Asshur or Asshur), and that the parallel 
 passage, Ezek. xxviii. 13^. has a Jerahmeelite background, 
 must surely lead to the definite solution of the H^l^l- 
 problem. Read "i^nffiM-lS f?NDmi (see E. Bib., 'Lucifer'), 
 and render pDS; TiaT^l, in the recesses of Zaphon.' See 
 E. Bib., ' Paradise,' S 4. 
 
xvii. II ISAIAH 23 
 
 xiv. 28-32. A prophecy of an invasion of Philistia 
 by Arabians at a time when Judah itself is safe. Note 
 ]iDSQ {v. 31),' from Zaphon ' (N. Arabia). 
 
 Chaps, xv., xvi. On an invasion of Moab, or rather 
 perhaps Missur, by an Arabian foe. On the text see SBOT, 
 pp. iigff., ig?> f. In XV. 9, both ^■'^N and no7N, accord- 
 ing to precedents, represent ^Nom*'. In xvi. i (where 
 pN-7tDQ 13 and m3^D S7DQ seem to correspond), we should 
 possibly read thus — 
 
 The ' remnant of Jerahmeel ' (xv. 9), i.e. the fugitive 
 Misrites, send from the frontier to invoke the hospitality of 
 Mount Zion. The land of Ishmael (or Jerahmeel) is another 
 name for Missur. In xvi. 7 for itoitos read fj^'DN. It is for 
 the fruit-harvest, not for the raisin-cakes, that the people 
 mourn (cp. E. Bib., ' Fruit,' § 5, 2). rrtt>"'tUN is a doubtful 
 word. In xvi. 1 3^ read ni^lo Jiso SnoHT' inDj^. (n^l3 vh = 
 'm*'). As to the place-names, these appear to have been 
 remodelled to suit the view that the Moabites are the 
 people referred to. Bethdibon = Beth-rimmon, Elealeh = 
 Ishmael, Jahaz = Halusah (perhaps), Zoar = Missur, Eglath- 
 shelishiyah = Maaleh- ishmael, Maaleh-halluhith = Maaleh- 
 jerahmeel, Horonaim = Haranim (perhaps), Nimrim = 
 Rimmonim ( = En-rimmon ?), Eglaim = Jerahmeel, Beer-elim 
 = Beer-jerahmeel, Sibmah = Shepham or Shiphamoth (see 
 E. Bib., S.V.), Kir-hareseth = Kir-asshur. On the site of 
 Nebo, see E. Bib., ' Nebo.' In xvi. 1 2,b, read 'pNoriT' "iwrn^ 
 
 Chap. xvii. i - 1 1 . In the light of newer critical results 
 elsewhere, it is doubtful whether the ordinary critical view 
 (see Intr. Is., pp. 92 /!) can be maintained without con- 
 siderable modifications. It seems clear that the ' Aram ' 
 (din) spoken of is the southern or Jerahmeelite Aram, and 
 that 'Dammesek' (ptCOl) is a corruption of Dffi^S. In z^. i, 
 TSG and ■'ro both represent 'jNom"' ; read, ' Behold, Cusham- 
 jerahmeel shall be taken away and shall become a ruin.' In 
 V. 2, ' Aroer ' (isnj;) should probably be ' Aram ' (d^n). 
 So Guthe (doubtfully). In v. 3, Q'^nDNO should be DnND 
 (Gratz), and ^^3^ is not improbably a corruption of ^Nnm"", 
 
24 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ''vu. 12 
 
 written as a gloss on DIN ; the prefixed 3 seems to belong 
 rather to ^31 ; hvc^XSr should probably be ^NSom"' ; such an 
 error is at any rate not unparalleled. Thus we get ' and 
 the remnant of Aram (Jerahmeel) — like the sons of Ishmael 
 shall they fare.' In w. 5, nps^ as in some other passages, 
 should be ^NonT' ; the difficult d^ndt pr3»3 should probably 
 be n-'-iDh?-n3rDa, 'in Maacath of Ephraim' (cp. Ps. Ix. 8, 
 where pes represents n3i>D). Whether the figure of the 
 reaper and the gleaner is not due to a misunderstanding, 
 may be questioned. Most probably we should read in v. $d, 
 'n 'on D-'^MiJom"' n3o3. The allusion is to ' the smiting of 
 Aram ( = Jerahmeel) in the valley (m'^Di) of Melah ( = Jerah- 
 meel),' 2 S. viii. 13. In v. ga read ■'QIMn") ito^sri- As Marti 
 has pointed out, v. ga should be followed immediately by 
 V. lob. On vv. 10 f., see SBOT, Heb., pp. 90, 195. No 
 completely satisfactory result, however, has been attained. 
 Tt is very possible that the closing words referred to the 
 Jerahmeelites and the Ishmaelites. Cp. on Jer. xvii. 6, 
 Hos. iii. I. 
 
 xvii. 12-14, xviii. There are enough traces of a pos- 
 sibly correct text to entice one to undertake a textual 
 revision (cp. SBOT, pp. 108/, ig6 /., E. Bib., col. 2809). 
 Among these we must not neglect those suggested by the 
 Jerahmeelite theory. In xviii. i, 7S7!i may, in accordance 
 with parallels, come from ^NiJDffi"'. In v. 2, aniQl ^ffllDO '^li 
 may come from D'^piMI. Q-'to '^ha, and nN^m N"in-;D from 
 ^NOm"' (twice over). If this is so, the text of chap, xviii. 
 must have been manipulated so as to make it refer to the 
 African Cushites. The original text of v. 2 must have 
 resembled xxx. 6. There may have been originally a 
 reference to an embassy from a N. Arabian king to 
 Hezekiah, to negotiate an alliance against the king of the 
 N. Arabian Asshur, i.e. Melubba (x. 5). 
 
 Chap. xix. Originally this oracle related to Misrim. 
 Probably vv. 5-10 are an interpolation, due to an editor who 
 wished to make the oracle refer to Misraim (Egypt). Who 
 the ' hard lord ' of w. 4 (where read Tnso, cp. Ezek. xxx. 1 2) 
 may be, is uncertain. For \sl {vv. 11, 13), we should read 
 ni?K ( = -i^2p?), and for Jj: {v. 13) perhaps rtinpa (cp. on 
 ' Naphtuhim,' Gen. x. 1 3). In v. 11 ^S^D may come from 
 
xxi. 10 ISAIAH 25 
 
 IMID or "ISIQ, i.e. Pir'u, a common name of N. Arabian kings ; 
 'm.v. 13 n''£3l© should be ri'^^ptO. In v. 18, 'five cities' was 
 suggested by the five lordships of the Sarephathim (i S. 
 vi. 4). p33, as often, should be ^yg ; the language meant is 
 that of Kenaz, i.e. N. Arabia. Dinrr T'i' comes from nii) 
 Tini&N, 'city of Asshur.' It is probable that ®, in the 
 passage, originally had, not aaeSeic, but aaeB, i.e. ^D^, which 
 in turn may be traced to in©, i.e. n^n^N (see E. Bib., ' Heres, 
 City of). Winckler's theory (^ C^^ iii. 2 1 7 /) that Din 
 comes from D"Tn, ' myrtle,' the city meant being Tahpenes = 
 Ad<l)vi], stands in connection with theories on the ' Hadassah ' 
 of the Book of Esther and on Ps. cxxxvii. (see AOF, ii. 
 417 _/!), which seem to the present writer to have no sound 
 basis. 
 
 Chap. xx. The position of chap. xx. suggests the 
 possibility that two sieges of Ashdod may have been. 
 confounded, one conducted by the Assyrians, the other by 
 the Asshurites of N. Arabia. That the section has been 
 redacted, Duhm and Marti have pointed out. At any rate, 
 Winckler {Musri, etc., ii. 1898, pp. 4/, cp. SBOT, p. 98) 
 is right in holding that trnxi and mi3 are the N. Arabian 
 regions so named. The troublesome £3"'3C? ©if?© in v. 3 is 
 probably a corruption of D"'7N:7Ot0"' (3 and h both represent 
 the h in 'd2?"'), which is a gloss on d"'12Q and t»l3. 
 
 Chap. xxi. i-io. The key to this passage is the fact 
 that th'''S and ■>^Q represent fragments of ^Nom"', and that 
 hll is also a popular corruption of the same name, as 
 referring (here, at any rate) to the great sovereign power 
 which was long supreme over the lesser Jerahmeel in the 
 Negeb, and over the kingdom of Missur (Musri). As we see 
 from Jer. 1., Ii., late prophetic writers anticipstted that the 
 great power would be overthrown by a combination of 
 peoples from the N. Arabian border. The editor, however, 
 introduced a troublesome complication, partly rewriting v. 2 
 and inserting a short passage (vv. 3 f.), which presupposes 
 that the object of attack to the Jerahmeelite warriors is Jeru- 
 salem. By this means he thought to link this prophecy to 
 xxii. 1-14, in which a Jerahmeelite siege of Jerusalem really 
 is described (cp. Delitzsch's remarks on the parallelism be- 
 tween the two prophecies, Isaiah, E.T., i. 376). Applying 
 
26 CRITICA BIBLICA xxi. lo 
 
 our methods of textual emendation, which now and then, 
 it is true, only lead to possible results, we may venture with 
 some hesitation after repeated attempts, to restore the text 
 thus — 
 
 ^NnnT imo NIDD -^ Oracle of the wilderness of Jerah- 
 
 meel. 
 Like tempests in the Negeb of 
 
 Jerahmeel 
 It comes from the wilderness, 
 
 from the terrible land. 
 TiffiMI ^i?bl 'n^pnil ^ Gilead and Asshur have banded 
 
 together, 
 Jerahmeel and Missur and Sare- 
 
 phath. 
 ■iJlN "iSn ion Tf2 ■'D ^ For thus the Lord said to me, 
 Go, station a watcher, 
 That which he saw, let him 
 
 declare. 
 And he saw chariots of Missur 
 
 and Sarephath, 
 Chariots of Jerahmeel and 
 
 Cusham. 
 And he cried O Lord, on the 
 
 watchtower, etc. 
 And behold, there come chariots 
 
 of Asshur ; 
 And he began to say, Jerahmeel 
 
 has fallen, has fallen. 
 Her palaces he has ruined, he 
 
 has brought down to the 
 
 ground. 
 
 ! '1:11 nDHa-f?s ■'31N Nip-'T ' 
 11 mN i3T Ni ni HDm ' 
 ^Nam"' nSs3 rhr^i idnit p-'i 
 
 Among the details, note that v. 2 has been editorially 
 expanded, ^m comes from ~\^'x, ^^^to from mms, 'hv 
 th'^'s and 1^Q from fjNDm"', from which nnniM-^a may 
 also ultimately be derived. (The later scribes puzzled 
 greatly over this word, and their miswritings of it equally 
 puzzled the editors.) initorr conceals riEnJJ. — Vv. 3, 4 are 
 purely editorial ; v. 5 (like v. 2) is only so in this sense, that 
 the corrupt material before him was gently manipulated by 
 
xxi. 17 ISAIAH 27 
 
 the editor so as to express his idea of what was fitting or 
 desirable. Underneath z/. 5 is a list of ethnics, bwow "yrvs 
 'jNom"' DtDD D"'n"imN nDi?a f?«i>Da)'' ^MonT' nm^i. In v. 8, 
 aoT^ and n"i'?"'7n"fp3 make the verse drag, and may come from 
 SMOm"' (cp on xxvi. 9), written corruptly ; for rflN read 
 ""^nM. In V. 9, DTiDns msD (which underlies D"'mns ^lD2) may 
 be omitted with some advantage. — V. \o seems to be alto- 
 gether editorial. The effect of the prophecy is heightened 
 by its omission. Let it be added in conclusion that the 
 phrase which opens v. 10 has not as yet yielded up its 
 secret. Cp. Crit. Rev. xi. 18 ( 1 90 1 ). 
 
 xxi. w f. Let the restoration speak for itself. 
 
 Tisa^ ^NOm"' NtDD The oracle of Jerahmeel and 
 
 Missur. 
 7«Dm"' D3^"l ^51 nns! A devastator came, and Jerah- 
 meel fled, 
 : ins33 D'^tppl CI"!? Arabians and Cushites were 
 
 affrighted. 
 
 There must have been a good deal of repetition ; the scribe, 
 as usual, made ' bad shots ' at names, and these the editor 
 manipulated. Thus la© and Tl^ma both come from nso. 
 Probably noiT = mN ( = fjNonT'). vnp ■'f?N = ^NDm\ 
 
 xxi. 13-17. Vv. 13-15 should really be the continuation 
 of the too short oracle just given. Omit Nton, and read 
 (probably) thus — 
 
 5 U^'TVi. nimN Xi^T\ "ivc, "^yst^ On the other side of the stream 
 
 ye must lodge, O ye caravans 
 of Dedanites. 
 
 In Ezek. xxvii. 20 Dedan is expressly mentioned among 
 the peoples which trafficked with Missur (niso, rather than 
 112). The stream must be one of the n!JD ■'^^N■' mentioned 
 in xxxvii. 25. In w. 16, ^^p should probably be B^3 (the 
 N. Arabian Cush). The intermediate reading would be 
 tDlp. The substitution of ' Kedar ' for ' Kadesh ' was no 
 doubt historically justified ; after the fall of the kingdom of 
 Musri, the territory appears to have been occupied, first by 
 the Salmaeans, and next by the Kedarenes (Winckler). But 
 the original writer was presumably consistent in his archaism ; 
 
28 CRITICA BIBLICA ™'- « 
 
 we must therefore read either t»np or ffil3 (cp. on Jer. ii. lo), 
 \x\v.\7 read l£3i?oi tci3-i31 [^NDHT^ ffilD] DTianS nNtOI. nfflp 
 has often supplanted mi3 (see on z'. 15). 
 
 Chap. xxii. 1-14 is usually explained of the blockade of 
 Jerusalem by the general of Sennacherib (cp. Proph. /j. i. 1 3 5 ; 
 Skinner, Isaiah, i. 163). The position of the prophecy, 
 however, among those which distinctly require to be explained 
 on the Jerahmeelite theory compels us to revise this view. 
 The heading should most probably be read J»« '^a^ M^D, 
 ' Oracle of the sons of Cushan ' ; t'. 5 should be corrected 
 accordingly. ^NOm"' certainly underlies UT's (cp, xxi. 2), 
 ^Ni>Dtt>i is latent in i»ltlJ, and it is again ^Nom"' which is 
 covered over by np -\xn^ {v. S) ; cp. on Ezek. xxiii. 23 
 (Shoa and Koa). nmp in v. 3 may represent m^3 (cp. on 
 V. 1 7, and Ps. Ixxvi. 4, Ixxviii. 9 ; T'p, in v. 6, comes from 
 some popular corruption of bNoriT (see on Am. i. 5). 
 Very probably D~rN represents D"in, while □"'ffino comes from 
 DTims. Cp. however, SBOT, pp. 112, 197. 
 
 xxii. 15-25. See E. Bib., ' Shebna,' and cp. American 
 Journal of Theology, 1901, pp. 433 ^. The name ' Shebna ' 
 has passed through more than one stage of corruption ; 
 its ultimate original seems to be Cushani. The person 
 referred to was probably a N. Arabian politician whose 
 presence in Jerusalem was occasioned by an embassy 
 which Hezekiah had sent to Pir'u, king of the N. Arabian 
 Musri. It is very possible that he was popularly styled 
 sometimes the Cushanite, sometimes the Zarephathite ; nsD 
 (commonly rendered ' scribe ') may as well be a corruption 
 of -'XrvL as mSD in Neh. can be a tcorruption of nDn!S. In 
 57. 15 read mn ■'3m3ri-f?s<i. In v. 17, for nil Tthiahti read 
 'pNomi (cp. Ps. Hi. 3(5 in PsP). In w. 18, ns3S 1D3S'' JjlilJ 
 should be n3&§, on which the following words 'pNDriT pN"7M 
 (disfigured terribly) are a gloss. m333D should be m.llp ; 
 what have ' chariots ' to do in this context ? 
 
 Chap, xxiii. The series of prophecies against the 
 nations begins with the most powerful of the Jerahmeelite 
 kingdoms — with that commonly known as Sl3 (but some- 
 times tiiSn) ; it closes with a less powerful but, as being 
 much nearer to Canaan, hardly less formidable kingdom of 
 lisp. The capitals of both were of much commercial im- 
 
xxiii. 12 ISAIAH 29 
 
 portance, but greater stress is laid on this characteristic in 
 the 'case of the city of Missur than in that of the city of 
 Babel. Duhm is of opinion that wherever is occurs in the 
 poem, it is a corruption of ]1T2 ; the truth is, however, that 
 ns and JIT'S are both corruptions of niSD. Omitting glosses 
 and variants the poem {vv. 1-13) should run nearly as 
 follows — 
 
 Dim-in m^ffi -la | n^i&N n'laN 'hhn ^ 
 
 ^Noni"' xh^ [■'3] I naso pNo ^i3» 
 
 fpNOm-' lisp I nON "-S TlSD ■'toil * 
 
 ni>i f?Ni7Dm"' 1 ■h'hn mwN -nns ^ 
 
 nnonp mp-'o-'a | nrf?i?[n] SNom-' n^in ^ 
 
 niif? pimo 1 rph'^i n[3Qo] iSnn-' 
 
 nsii^an | niso-br hni pi-'o ^ 
 
 pN •'TflDD I D'^n© TT^Tno n»N 
 
 * * I nsD'i niNns mn-' * 
 
 pN ni33-f?3 I hpnh -iis-^a 'j^n'? 
 
 T]s nsQ j-'N I ^Nom-i isnN[iD] --nni; ^° 
 
 ma^Do rain | ^NonT'-^i; n£23 iti " 
 
 HTinmN I T'DVinh wp-^N n'lS mn-i 
 
 TiSD-ni nfpina | npmsnn fhsh t\s -isiDin-Nf? ^^ 
 
 1^ ma'i-N^ Dm-Di | iiii? ■'oip nua 
 
 'jMSDffiiT llffiNT I Dffi13 pN jn 
 
 HTiaDiN I "mil; DH-'a-'m Mi^'^pn 
 
 : Dsm-'i mT» •'a | TimN meN i^i^n 
 
 As to the omissions. In v. 2 (end) ini; represents '^is (a 
 correction of •>« ?), and both n"! and llN^D represent ^NonT' 
 (a correction of iDf? ?). In v. 3 the scribe gives a list of the 
 □"'11 ■'ino (virtually = iiSD ■'ino), viz. D-imi? C^PWDHT' 
 mim ^NOnT' »13 nn^«-pN (inrn is a fragment of a ditto- 
 graphed mim). Cp. Ezek. xxvii. In ?;. 4, Qi, dtt, and 
 IDsf? all = f^MDm"'. — V, 5 is by no means a ' prosaic inter- 
 polation ' ; it is a scribe's list of names of peoples, TintON 
 ni2D ^N»D»-' ^NDHT' QilSD ^NrDtO\ In V. 8, H-i^WD comes 
 from D-i^Ma, and this from D'^Wp (like p33 from t^p). In 
 V. 10, mt»M-n3 (so read!) is a scribe's insertion; ^NDm*' 
 (underlying iN^^a) is alone correct. In v. 12, "lON"'"! is 
 
30 CRITICA BJBLICA "xiv. t 
 
 editorial. In v. 13, fpNOHT' Qi'n m (so read!) is a 
 gloss, 'This is the people Jerahmeel.' Either mo"' or 
 Qi-'sS is superfluous, for both these . words are mis- 
 written for 'jNSDter The passage appears to state that a 
 combination of warlike peoples, Cusham {i.e. Jerahmeel), 
 Asshur and Ishmael besieged and overthrew the city of 
 Missur. We have to reconcile this with the statement that 
 Ishmaelites and Arabians (the gloss also includes Cush in 
 the list of merchants) were among those who trafficked with 
 Missur. Commerce, then as now, must have been adverse 
 to merely destructive wars. The appendix {vv. 15-18) is of 
 course later than the preceding poem, ns should of course 
 be njjp, and we can now securely explain the mysterious 
 words ^^N l^o "'D''D, which are miswritten for ij^o "'P')-'?! 
 f?MpnT. Missur was to be under the ban for seventy years, 
 viz. the whole period of the king of Jerahmeel, alluding to 
 anticipations such as those in Jer. xxv. in its present form. 
 \nv. 19 Misrim, and^in v. 22 Missur, mean the same people, 
 i.e. the N. Arabian Musri, which was to be subdued by the 
 king of ^11. The poverty of the appendix suggests a very 
 late date. 
 
 Chaps, xxiv.-xxvii. The great differences of critical 
 opinion relative to this singular literary mosaic (for such at 
 least we must all agree in regarding it) justifies a somewhat 
 close inquiry into the textual basis common to all theories 
 (cp. Duhm, Marti, and SBOT, Heb., ' Isaiah ')■ That a 
 special amount of reserve is necessary, is obvious. The 
 question is whether even here, as probably in the great 
 apocalyptic passages in Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah, we must 
 not assume that the different component parts of this work 
 in their original form had a Jerahmeelite background, i.e. that 
 the typical arch-enemy of the Jews is the N. Arabian 
 oppressor. Certainly we may expect to find some definite 
 references to the people among whom the writer and his 
 companions live, even in the opening description of the 
 decaying condition of the ' earth ' or ' world,' for by the 
 ' earth ' or ' world ' is meant the lands where the main body 
 of the Jews are settled, the lands of their captivity. Such a 
 reference we may plausibly find in xxiv. 4, D"no l^fpQN 
 pMH-Di'. The ordinary view is thus expressed by Skinner, 
 
xxiv. 13 ISAIAH 31 
 
 ' Literally the height of the people, i.e. the noblest of the 
 people. It is the only case where the word is so used, 
 though cp. Eccles. x. 6.' But we do not expect to find the 
 population of the earth referred to here. Gunkel {Schopf. 48) 
 therefore takes Dno in the sense of ' heaven ' (m^D ^7QN 
 'wrr Ds) ; so SBOT, p. 64, and Marti. Gunkel finds in the 
 passage a faint echo of the dragon-myth (see E. Bib., 
 ' Dragon ') ; the tyranny of the mythic dragon was exercised 
 in heaven as well as upon earth. But is such an (uncon- 
 scious) allusion to the ancient myth to be expected here? 
 The writer is absorbed in the present ; is D"no to be less 
 vitally modern than pNn ? Try textual criticism ; there are 
 certainly cases in which 'a comes from 7NDm'' (e.g. PsS^^ on 
 Ps. viii. 8, Ivi. 3). It is very possible that both I'p'pON and 
 Dlia represent ^Nam*', and that ymn Q? 'm"' is a gloss on 
 rr'nto"' in w. 5. 
 
 xxiv. 13. D^p. Presumably, as elsewhere, 'o''Q=]p;;p 
 = '?^?D^■T'D. — 15. For D-insa read aiwa, and for nTl "'■'Nl 
 read 7NBnT'l, a gloss on a^N3. — 16. At a distance the Jews 
 rejoice, but in the land of Judah the writer and his friends 
 are still depressed, "h "''n. Prof W. E. Barnes has very 
 strangely revived the explanation ' secret ' (Dan. ii. 1 8 _/) ; 
 most explain 'leanness to me.' But surely "h "'"in is a 
 remnant of fpN'inN, which is a corruption of fjNam"' (see 
 E. Bill., ' Uriel '). ■'fj-'n also represents this corrupt form 
 of 'm"' ; 1 = ^, so that the reading really is "h'^l = hm. Pro- 
 bably -h ^Mi, i.e. ■'Nam'', represents a correction of ^h"''^. 
 Read, therefore, ' but I say, Jerahmeel, Jerahmeel ! ' The 
 Holy Land is, in fact, still infested with tyrannical Arabians. 
 — 21. The ordinary view is that the prince-angels of earthly 
 sovereignties share the punishment of the human kings, and 
 this is thought to be confirmed by Ps. Iviii. and Ixxxii. 
 Textual criticism, however, does not appear to favour this 
 interpretation of the psalms, and it is in itself, though 
 certainly possible, not very probable here. That the redactor 
 of this part of Isaiah explained the passage in this way is, 
 however, probable. The question is, can we detect under- 
 neath the existing words an earlier reading which gives the 
 passage more actuality and vitality ? There are in vv. 21 /. 
 three words which are possible corruptions of names of N. 
 
32 CRITICA BIBLICA xxv. i 
 
 Arabian peoples ; these are ainiD, nonw, T^DN, to which 
 correspond respectively '?MDm% mN, TltON- By. admitting 
 this, we escape three difficulties, (i) D-non N3S, a vague 
 expression, which may mean either ' prince-angels ' or ' star- 
 deities ' (see Dillm.-Kittel), and which in either case is 
 not to be expected here ; (2) the equally vague phrase 
 nonNn-'D^O ; and (3) the forced expression tidn rrDDN or 
 T'DNH flDN. The original text seems to have had, '1 ^j75'; 
 Tll-Ss Q'^TII&N "|DD«"| D^M ^3^01 ^MDrn.1 Nl^'^S. 
 
 Chap. xxv. The occasion of the song in xxv. i-i,a has 
 been much discussed. Duhm and Marti think of the 
 destruction of Samaria by John Hyrcanus ; in Intr. Is., p. 
 158, the capture and destruction of Tyre by Alexander the 
 Great is suggested. The reference to ' ancient purposes ' 
 (revealed in prophecies) favours the latter view, if Joel iv. 
 4-8 and Zech. ix. 2-4 refer to Tyre. But, as we shall see, 
 nii in both passages is a corruption of •^ta, i.e. the N. Arabian 
 Musri (cp. E. Bib., ' Mizraim,' § 2 b), and v. 10 expressly 
 mentions isia, which, as so often, has supplanted niJiO. See 
 on XV. I. 
 
 xxv. 7. For Bi^n we might read either nhvi or (Duhm ; 
 SBOT; Marti) ja'^^n. But the real difficulty remains un- 
 touched. The poet is not likely to have chosen ish in 
 preference to better known words. Does £217 really exist 
 except as a proper name ? The chapter, according to the 
 true text, refers to the destruction of Missur and Jerahmeel. 
 Now these peoples were traditionally the sons of Lot (iNID 
 == T1HO ; pDl? = ^Nomi). Originally, vv. 7, 8 probably made 
 a single verse, which opened thus, 'im n237 Jaifj-i^a i?^^. 
 For £317 ■'33, however, there was a various reading moT' (one 
 of the corruptions of ^Ncm"'). This got into the text in a 
 mutilated form as mo. The late redactor, who had accepted 
 a high eschatological doctrine, read this as niD, ' death ' (cp. 
 on xxviii. 15), and the way to the reconstruction of the 
 passage was open. Note Pasek after r:s^hr^. That the new 
 form is far better religiously than the old, is willingly 
 granted. — 10. For inIq read i^sp. 
 
 Chap. xxvi. 3. A very oddly expressed maxim ! Read 
 rather (in a), ^Nijpm^Q 13nsn QffiSp 13"i.sn. 
 
 xxvi. 9. rhh'y. Read probably ^ndhT'I (cp. on Ps. 
 
xxviii. i8 ISAIAH 33 
 
 Ixxvii. 3). — 19. For nilN read DnaiN. @, tajia avTol% 
 (cp. Isa. Iviii. 8, Jer. xxx. 14, i'a/ia = n3"lN). 
 
 Chap, xxvii. i. Probably a single power is figuratively 
 referred to, viz. Jerahmeel. On the epithets of the sword 
 and of the Leviathan see Winckler, AOF, iii. 220 f. ^ffiN 
 D"*! is not recognised by @. Possibly it springs out of 
 ^NoriT 1©N, and the whole clause 'lai nm, i.e. ' he shall 
 slay the dragon Asshur Jerahmeel,' is a gloss stating that 
 the two Leviathans are Asshur and Jerahmeel. However 
 this may be, Ninrr DT'l seems to come from fjNam"' (a cor- 
 rection of D"!!?). By a happy instinct the redactor has 
 placed a song on the favour which Yahwe will one day show 
 to his vineyard in Jerahmeel immediately after an eschato- 
 logical prediction of the destruction of the old, hostile 
 Jerahmeel. • See on v. i ff. The fem. suffixes in vv. 2, 3 
 refer to the Jerahmeelite land. 
 
 xxvii. 1 1 . i2Dn"]";"N''> perhaps an allusion to the name 
 'Jerahmeel.' — 12. A description of the limits within which 
 the Israelitish exiles will be gathered. Read ^^3^I ^N1?0Q)''0 
 
 Chap, xxviii. 1-4 has been greatly misunderstood. It 
 is really a prophecy against a city in the Negeb, one of those 
 which would bear the brunt of the expected N. Arabian 
 invasion. Amos utters a ' Woe ' against another Jerah- 
 meelite mountain-city — Shimron (Am. vi. i). In v. 1, for 
 -'TDW read nffilS. It is the Cusham spoken of in Gen. xxxiv. 
 (corr. text) ; see E. Bib., ' Shechem.' The words which 
 describe its situation should be read [^Nom"'] htiSOW^-i^'^l. 
 It is probably the rha 15 (valley of Melah = Jerahmeel) which 
 is meant ; 'm"' is a gloss on 'm\ ^12 is obscure. Can it be 
 bsil, ' blossom ' ? In z/. 5 read rriNDn •^isf?"! niNl mHish. 
 
 xxviii. I o. Remembering SisSs in xviii. i and i?"ip in Ezek. 
 xxiii. 23, it is plausible to read 'nT ^NOm"' '©"' ^Ni;DtD\ 
 In truth, 'Jerahmeel' pervades Isaiah's prophecies. T<si 
 should probably be -ii2tp ; the allusion is to Isaiah's warnings 
 against a Misrite alliance. 
 
 xxviii. 15, 18. In spite of the plausible explanations 
 in the commentaries, it appears certain that the text is 
 wrong. For mo read fpNom"' (mOT') ; see on xxv. 8. 
 fjlNtO comes from fj^rom'' (see on Ps. cxxxix. 8). The alliance 
 
 3 
 
34 CRiriCA BIBLICA xxix. i 
 
 with Misrim seems to be referred to. The invader described 
 in vv. 17-19 is the great king of Asshur. — 21. 'Mount 
 Perazim ' for Baal-perazim ' and ' the valley by Gibeon ' for 
 ' the valley of Rephaim ' are strange. Perhaps we should 
 read Qi^inB "Vs, 'city of liars,' and D^'fia Di>, 'people of 
 traitors.' So E. Bib., ' Perazim, Mount.' 
 
 Chap. xxix. i /, 7. See SBOT, p. 99, where the 
 pointing '^Ni'iN is adopted, ' Uriel ' being assumed to be a 
 modification of D^^^is, the old name of Jerusalem ( = Uru- 
 salim of the Amarna Tablets). It is supposed that this form 
 was adopted to produce a paro;iomasia : in a year or two 
 the slaughter will be so great that the capital will rather 
 deserve the name Arial, ' altar-hearth.' Marti adopts this ; it 
 is at any rate plausible. But taking into account a necessary 
 correction of 2 S. v. 8, where ' the lame and the blind ' 
 should be ' the Jerahmeelites,' and a hardly less necessary 
 correction of 2 S. xxiii. 20, where 'Ariel' should be 'Jerah- 
 meelites ' (see E. Bib., ' Snow,' ' Zion '), it is obvious that we 
 should read ■5Nnm\ which as a name of Jerusalem may, in 
 the popular speech, have become Sn^iin. ' Jerahmeel' was, 
 in fact, inevitably a name of Jerusalem, because in its origin 
 it was Jerahmeelite, and, if one may differ from Prof. Paul 
 Haupt (SBOT, 'Isaiah,' Heb., p. 100, foot), the name 
 ' Jerusalem ' itself most probably came from l^i> ( = Uru) 
 'city' and ^Ni>Dm\ Cp. DiSm misread occasionally for 
 7Ni>oa>"' (see on xxvi. 3, and Gen. xxxiii. 18 [reading njcs 
 fpNTOm-' T'l^]). — In V. 2b, for ^N-'IND •'h read ^NDmi nS, ' and 
 she shall become Lo-jerahmeel.' Precisely parallel to Hos. 
 i. 6 (see note). 
 
 xxix. 22. (g has ov atfxopiaev i^ K^paajx, suggesting nt»N 
 nmo "iriN ms. This seems to be nearly right. Only 
 Dmo should be Dp^D = '7ND^TD (see E. Bib., 'Rekem'). 
 Thus the passage becomes, ' Therefore thus saith Yahwe, the 
 God ('jm) of the house of Jacob, who delivered him from 
 Jerahmeel.' The assumption is that the house of Jacob 
 ( = Israel) was delivered, not from Misraim (Egypt), but 
 from Misrim (nearly = Jerahmeel) in N. Arabia. omiN was 
 miswritten for omo, i.e. Dpio. @'s text was a mixture of 
 the true text and of that which we know from MT. 
 
 Chap. xxx. 1-5. The passage is admittedly difficult. 
 
XXX. s ISAIAH 35 
 
 It has been discussed by the present writer in JQR, x. 5 7 1 /i 
 (1898), in SBOT, 'Isaiah,' Heb. (1899), p. 102, and in 
 E. Bib., ' Hanes,' § 3. If the ordinary view of Isaiah's 
 prophecies on the embassy to cnao is correct, and if the 
 text of vv. 4, 5 requires but slight modification to produce 
 a satisfactory sense, the summing up in E. Bib. (col. 1958, 
 cp. 1956, note 2) appears to be unassailable. ' Vv. 5 and 6 
 thus become parallel, and within v. 5 itself the parallelism 
 between ]ss (Zoan) and Dn3Dnn (Tahpanhes) is as perfect 
 as it could be [assuming Tahpanhes to be Daphnae]).' 
 Ruben (JQR, xi. 448) accepts Dn3Dnn (first suggested in 
 1892 by Gratz). It must, however, be pointed out that in 
 all the passages in which 'n is mentioned, the text is ques- 
 tionable, and the textual phenomena of vv. 4 f. are not such 
 as to set the mind of a scrupulous critic at ease. Certainly 
 this is the case here ; to accept MT. as it stands is beyond 
 the power of any textual critic. If the comparatively slight 
 corrections proposed in SBOT be accepted, it will be 
 necessary to suppose that vv. 4 f. are a later insertion based 
 on vv. 6, ja, which come before us as a separate even if 
 fragmentary NE>D, and which the author of the inserted 
 passage supposed to refer to an embassy sent by Hezekiah 
 into Egypt. In reality, vv. 6, "ja refer either to the flight 
 of Hanunu, king of Gaza, to Pir'u, king of Musri (cp. the 
 description in xvi. 7), or to an embassy sent from Judah to 
 that king (cp. on chap. xx._). Provisionally, caution dictated 
 the forms of these explanations of vv. 6, ja. But a more 
 complete criticism favours, and indeed requires, the latter. 
 We have no sufficient reason for assuming that vv. 6, ya are 
 a separate though fragmentary oracle. Textual criticism 
 throws the greatest doubt upon this, and leads us to the 
 view that the passage is a description of the journey from 
 Judah, and the arrival in Musri of the embassy sent by 
 Hezekiah. Vv. 6, 7« should probably be inserted after v. 
 3. After they had been omitted in error, and restored in 
 the wrong place, it was natural for the redactor to insert 
 t^WO, to account for the abrupt transition from v. 5 to v. 6. 
 The errors of the text are greater than the present writer 
 ventured for a long time to assume, and they can only be 
 corrected as the result of a comparatively large acquaintance 
 
36 CRITICA BIBLICA xxx. 5 
 
 with types of textual corruption. Vv. 1-7 really belong to 
 the same prophecy. Vv. 1-3 present no verses of great 
 moment. What follows should probably be written some- 
 what as follows — 
 
 mi31 TlSiO pNl 
 
 -.•nvi-xnh nn ntei'? 
 
 The original passage was injured partly by transposition, 
 partly by corruption, partly by dittograms and glosses. In 
 V. 4, \s'l should be ni?2 ( = ilEO ?), D3n should probably be D"'3nD 
 (an early corruption of f?NDm"'). Cp. E. Bib., ' Hanes,' and 
 Marti, ad loc. Plainly, Ntea should be omitted, as of the 
 nature of a gloss, and it is hardly doubtful that nioni comes 
 from 'jNonT (cp. on Hab. iii. 17). From vC'h to' ?id"isi3 
 appears to be glossatorial ; dHQ XSi'hy N''!^ represents 
 □"'7N:7am% and each of the three words ?]D"i:>D ^ntOT ni'QM 
 represents DTiQia. D"'Tii> and □rT'S'Tl both represent SNOm\ 
 The non-existent word ntClT, arbitrarily rendered ' hump,' 
 probably comes from nms, on which D"'T'Dl = 7NDnT is a 
 gloss. , l^"'i;V N7 ai;-'?^ may be merely an editor's amplifica- 
 tion ; but more probably it covers over a dittographed 
 ^NOm"' ; this word, together with the following D"'^2^D["l] is 
 glossatorial. piTi ^in is again f?Mom^ a gloss. "nTi^i is a 
 patch due to the same editor who, ingeniously manipulating 
 the accretions of glosses, produced the very poor and yet 
 fairly intelligible passage which lies before us. The closing 
 words of V. 7 are regarded by Duhm, SBOT, and Marti as a 
 gloss, stating that on this ground prophecy gave ' this ' im- 
 potent kingdom (Egypt ?) the name ' Rahab *.' These three 
 do not agree, however, as to the form of the word which 
 should follow ' Rahab.' No wonder. The corruption lies 
 deeper than has been supposed. ' ' Rahab ' is probably not 
 the name of a mythological monster, but a corruption of 
 ^NDHT' ; an which follows is also a fragment of this much 
 
XXX. 31 ISAIAH 37 
 
 misunderstood group of letters. T\1X!i, according to pre- 
 cedents, should be nms. The words rendered ' therefore I 
 call this' are also corrupt. ^TiNIp has a close resemblance 
 to "?Nnp"' (commonly read Joktheel), which is certainly a 
 corruption of '?Nom"'. ]3^ and riNt may, like iTrv"', be an 
 editorial insertion. But it is possible that riNt represents 
 T\xr\1. Parallels for this large accretion of glosses consisting 
 of N. Arabian names abound elsewhere, especially in the 
 Psalms. [It is pleasant to add that Duhm has already 
 noticed that the phrase underlying liD mDm should form 
 part of the oracle, and that Marti has suggested that on 3m 
 may cover over mom. The latter idea, it is true, is only 
 the germ of the theory here regarded as the true one.] 
 
 XXX. 25. ' In the day of the great slaughter, when the 
 towers fall.' But where is the parallelism ? How can 
 ' towers ' be slaughtered ? The final n in D"'bi:iD implies 
 '■hiya, written in error for -hyya = '?[N]Qm\ hxiS^ often 
 has this origin. Read, ' when Jerahmeel falls.' It is less 
 necessary to read l-ji; for in. 
 
 XXX. 27-31. 'Beyond question disfigured by glosses, the 
 removal of which, however, does not leave an entirely 
 satisfactory text' {SBOT, p. 103). In v. 31, TXT isltOl has 
 been found troublesome. Duhm and Marti regard it as a 
 gloss from x. 24. But the object of such a gloss is not 
 obvious. A better sense is produced by reading ns^ rig")^3, 
 ' in Zarephath shall he be smitten ' ; cp. Mic. iv. 1 4, which 
 may perhaps, in the true text, have told how Ishmaelite 
 plunderers shall be defeated at Zarephath. Both tan© and 
 mm elsewhere represent nm!J (see E. Bib., col. 3072, note 
 5)- — V. 32 cannot be justified as it stands. To correct it, 
 presupposes acquaintance with the corrupt forms assumed 
 elsewhere by names of N. Arabian peoples. The original 
 text may have run somewhat as follows, beginning at v. 3 \b — 
 
 That ^^h^3 '■' IT'D"' ItOM is a gloss, was seen by Duhm. 
 That Qipm is wrong, must be clear, nsi^n, which follows 
 presently, is probably mnsa, a place-name or ethnic, whence 
 D"'nnD3 (see on Gen. x. 13, and E. Bib., col. 3164, note i). 
 
38 CRITICA BIBLICA xxxi. 8 
 
 For D-'Sn read therefore 'd3. m33 is one of the corruptions 
 of 'pNOm"' ; cp. the phrase m33 D"', apparently ' the sea of 
 Kinnereth,' but really ' the sea of Jerahmeel.' nn^ with its 
 various prefixes and affixes is frequently a substitute for 
 ^NDm"'. ^loriND probably comes from ^i^Nom"', nriDn (alas 
 for the dear old errors !) from n'inD3 ; both Nin-Ql and ^^o^ 
 from fjNonT''?. 
 
 Chap. xxxi. %b, ga. A late insertion, according to 
 Duhm. But the corrected text does not favour this. Read — 
 
 Chap, xxxiii. y-g. Q^NnN, i.e. DSNDm\ appears to be 
 meant, and QiStt) in the second line, as the parallelism shows, 
 represents bxi'Dtt)"'. But there must be other corruptions as 
 well. ■'Dn'?d may come from ^Nom"', a gloss on d^nin. But v 
 the verbs ? Vv. 8 and g are also not free from corruption. 
 From nan to JD13N is an editorial production, based not im- 
 probably on corrupt ethnics (Rehoboth, Ishmael, Jerahmeel). 
 hnp comes from 'joiD (written too soon). im (shakes off??) 
 should be omitted as a repetition of [m]"ii>3. 
 
 xxxiii. 1 7. It is Jerusalem which is referred to ; for the 
 corrected text, see SBOT, p. 196, and note Marti's assent. 
 
 xxxiii. 18. See SBOT, p. 107; the influence of As- 
 syrian phraseology is noteworthy. 
 
 Chap. xxxv. 8. Read ih nhi^innv n3i>D ■i2nn:>'i ih 
 m 1i>n\ Underneath ^r:h Nim, TiT l^n, and d-'S-'Ini are 
 corrupt forms of Q''f?NDn'i% which record three vain en- 
 deavours of the scribe to give this ethnic, m (see SBOT) 
 must have fallen out of the text. It is required, however, 
 for clearness (so, too, Marti). 
 
 Chaps, xxxvi.-xxxix. (except xxxviii. 9-20). See on 
 2 K. xviii. I 3 -XX. 19. 
 
 Chap. xli. 1-4. Read probably — 
 
 Dmi3 ;i73 t6p3 
 
 ty'yy-), nQi>3 oijp;: 
 
xlii. 4 ISAIAH 39 
 
 ! N^n ■'3M D-'ahriM-nN"! | pmNi ^^^^^^■' ■'3N 
 
 It is doubtful whether the prominent reference generally 
 supplied to the coast-lands of the Mediterranean is probable. 
 In /. 5, rekabim (cp. xli. 21, xliii. 14) may be an archaising 
 term for ' N. Arabians.' 
 
 xli. 8-10 is the continuation. Marti seems to be wrong 
 in excising v. g'^'"^ as a marginal amplification relative to 
 Abraham. The much disputed purr msp both in xli. 5 
 (II D"'''N, i.e. a-'y^^), and in xli. 9, probably means the N. 
 Arabian Negeb, from which, according to the early tradition, 
 both Abraham and the Israelites appear to have come. 
 
 xli. 21. Read probably D"'D5l. inp (cp. xli. 2), and of 
 course D-ipinins^ (see SBOT). — 25. Read pDSp ""nhTil^n 
 amp iniscjpN n'j'iQp | nvna (cp. on xlvi. 1 1 ), and for Cpip 
 read n-itoli (cp. xiv. 2, 4, liii. 11? Ix. 17, Zech. ix. 8). 
 Harith (IJarithath) king of the Nabatseans is perhaps 
 referred to. See on xlv. i , xlvi. 1 1 . ffiom and iDtBl both 
 represent Q©3. 
 
 Chap. xlii. 1-4. On this and on the other passages 
 respecting the ' Servant of Yahwe ' see E. Bib., ' Servant of 
 the Lord.' That the text of xlii. 1-4 is incorrect is sug- 
 gested by the want of unanimity as to the interpretation. 
 Observation of the errors of the scribes elsewhere suggests 
 reading thus — 
 
 •^mos nnsT ■'T'm 
 rhs ■'HIT Tina 
 
 T T • ■ - X 
 
 ni©-; iih pi pgr ^ 
 : D-^^Nprri-'n innhni. 
 
 M Gloss, ose/a k'bv d'dji^' (v. y\. 
 
 W V. 2 probably contains ethnics, illustrative of d"ij. pys' nb, me" t6, 
 and y'DB" k'j, all come from 'jxyoi!" ; pna and i^iip are corrupt fragments of 
 
 W Between nniys (ode') and xhi (nb) axe various early conjectures on 
 the misunderstood no-K^. 
 
40 CRITICA BIBLICA xlii. 6 
 
 xlii. 6, xlix. 8. For QS ni-il^ read probably rriNDnf? 
 D^Qi> (cp. xiii. 1 8, xlvi. 13, Ixii. 2/). Observe that ^, in 
 xlix. 8, has ei? liaQ'r]K.'r]v edv&v.' Duhm (2nd ed.) reads 
 as mns. But 's and -ns are not parallel, nor can rrns very- 
 well have a concrete sense; ni?, moreover, seems to be 
 precluded by ti''^x while TSyn, suggested by Duhm to those 
 who prefer Q^pj;, is not parallel to TIN. 
 
 xlii. 10b. This consists of glosses on a. The persons 
 addressed are n'^fpNOni"' (represented by Q-'H "'nnv and 1n^d"i), 
 b-'mi; (in MT. n^-'s), and D-'^Ni^om-' (in MT. DH'^im^). 
 
 xlii. 1 4. For nbii^D read perhaps ^NOnT'D ('^rT'mnrr), ' I 
 have been heedless of Jerahmeel.' But cp. SBOT, p. 131. 
 
 xlii. 19. A collection of glosses on 7;. 18. The blind 
 and the deaf are really the Jews ; but the framers of the 
 glosses misunderstand, and make them out to be the 
 Jerahmeelites, otherwise called the Ishmaelites and the 
 Arabians. 
 
 ■'SNom'^s mini i 'on^-nn ■'3 n^s ■'o 
 ■■■■■■■-■ I f-- • 
 
 :-':i'n^5.t»i.nT I ■'?Ni>p5)?3 i^s "'P 
 
 n^tDN may be disregarded as a corruption of "'T'Ni'DJD"', which 
 presently follows (MT. oWp ; cp. on xlix. f). 
 
 xlii. 2 2. Read QibNam"'! ■'^Dmi | Tll^ div(2. N^m. 
 
 Chap, xliii. 3 ff. Point D^nsp. The N. Arabian 
 Misrites and Cushites are referred to (so xlv. 14). Then 
 come D'TN and a-'^Nprn.\ — 8, 9. The 'blind people 
 that have eyes ' etc., probably = ' the idols ' (cp. Ps. cxv. J /, 
 cxxxv. 1 6 f.), and the ' nations ' and ' peoples ' are those of 
 N. Arabia. Cp. on xli. i, 21. Read imperatives (so 
 Kittel and SBOT). 
 
 xliii. 14. Read (as an approximation to the truth) — 
 
 Snoht' ■'nnW d?3sd^ 
 
 ! omon niNDSp oiffiiDi. 
 
 Chap. xliv. 28. For ^i)h read ■^i^nt, 'mine arm'; note 
 the improved parallelism. Cp. on ix. 19. 
 
 Chap. xlv. i. For Svr^p read h-fpn (similarly Ps. ii. 2, 
 XX. 7, xxviii. 8, cv. 15, Hab. iii. 13). For mniB (@, Kvpo^) 
 some other name must be substituted. That Cyrus 
 
xlviii. lo ISAIAH 41 
 
 took any interest in the Jews, we have no documentary 
 evidence (see E. Bib., ' Cyrus,' § 6), and even putting aside 
 some of the possible references to N. Arabians, enough 
 remain to show that the atmosphere of the work is N. 
 Arabian. The writer evidently expects some powerful 
 prince to subvert the kingdom of the oppressors of Israel, 
 and what prince is so likely to have been thought of as a 
 chieftain or king of the Nabataeans, t?\e people which in the 
 first half of the second century B.C. became predominant in 
 the territory of the former Misrim ? It is most plausible, 
 therefore, to read, not t0-n3, but miin, ie. Harith ( = Aretas). 
 That the king of the Nabataeans is meant, is further 
 suggested by the most probable correction of nN"'T in xli. 2 5 
 and £a''S in xlvi. 1 1 . 
 
 Chap. xlvi. i. Read probably ^NonT 131 ^^"13 (thus 
 justifying the plur. suffix in DH^'aSi?. Cp. on xli. 21. 113 
 represents 131 ; f?a and Dnp both have come from fragments 
 of ^NDHT'. 
 
 xlvi. II. a"]? (©, ireTeivov) is unsuitable as a descrip- 
 tion of Yahwe's anointed, whose right hand he holds (xlv. i ), 
 and as a parallel to '^nsr ©■'n. Like riN"'! (xli. 25) it may 
 come from nrn? ( = Nabqtaean ?). See on xlviii. 1 6. 
 
 Chap, xlvii. i. Read fpNom"' n? and (so too v. $) 
 D"'tD'i3 ni. These are frequent corruptions. 7D1 probably 
 comes from some popular abbreviated form of ^Nom"', which 
 indeed the writer of chap, xlvii. may very well have given. 
 
 xlvii. 13. Great misunderstanding has been caused here. 
 In spite of Muss-Arnolt's learned and acute attempt to 
 explain from Assyrian, an archaeological catalogue of 
 different kinds of soothsayers seems to me improbable. The 
 underlying text (after "Ti^^'tOVl) appears to be — ^Ni;otD"' illh 
 7Nom"' ■'Opjl, to which is appended (as a gloss ?) Qip'TS! 
 D"'^NnnT'T □■'lirT D'^inmM"!.. The troublesome Ths (see 
 Marti) and itDND are corruptions of 'jNom"' and Q"i^M re- 
 spectively ; the latter perhaps a correction of D"'t07nf?. 
 
 Chap, xlviii. lo. Read amia -h^:^, 'in the crucible (?) of 
 Cusham,' and ^NoriT Ti33, ' in the furnace of Jerahmeel' 
 'm"' is represented by i3DD^ (of which "'31? is a fragment). 
 — 14. Read ^Nom"' and QimiD (for the rest see SBOT 
 and Marti). So v. 20. 
 
42 
 
 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xlviii. 14 
 
 xlviii. 14, 16, 20. Read, instead of M.'s v. 14 — 
 
 12DI7 nto: Tiiin? 
 
 The opening words oi v. 16 nNTlSDm h'A mp (omitted, 
 without adequate justification, in SBOT, after Duhm, and 
 with the assent of Marti) are really a correction of n'h'z 
 liJDffil in z/. 14 ; only "hi^ lllp is a corruption of Qi^NOnT. 
 Now, as to V. 16. The closing words ('in ^iTns^) have also 
 been omitted upon insufficient grounds. They should be 
 taken together with -^jn CitO nnVTi niJD ; both groups of 
 words represent the same underlying original, except that 
 mn"' ■'^nw (like iihn mn"' in v. 14) probably represents 
 ■■nraa, a gloss from the margin. The words of which the 
 traditional text (M@) is a corruption, probably are — nnsi 
 ^Nom"' T'nnStp. The important notice, prepared for by the 
 summons first of the Israelites and then of the Jerahmeelites, 
 is, that ^larith the Nebaiothite has been sent on his way to 
 Jerahmeel. Then, omitting the edifying late insertion in 
 vv. 17-ig, comes the trumpet-call, 'Go out of Jerahmeel, 
 flee from Cushim,' — 
 
 Chap. xHx. 1-6. Read — 
 
 1 
 
 ■'3N-1P jaap mn-' 
 
 
1. 6 ISAIAH 43 
 
 mn'^ noN nni;-! ^'^ 
 
 D''bNj;nffi-;[-nNi DhnSi. 
 
 ipii:: n-inNm-riN o-'prr^ ^^ 
 i-'mn^ '^N-jto': -^-i^sa^ 
 ITS'! npijp ^wh 
 prariM n;;ri-: ^^NonTi. 
 
 xlix. 7. Read Q-'^NSDm-' nn:^^ ;v 3i>np^ ]&s •'^nf?. Cp. 
 xHi. 1 9 (dWo !), 1. 1 2 (iins). 
 
 xlix. 10. MT. tDDffil inm D5: nSv But •n'^ does not 
 suit im Read o^pi HDIS. The danger from N. Arabian 
 ambushes is past. See on Ps. cxxi. 6, and for the cor- 
 rection DtOD see on Ps. Ixxii. 5. 
 
 xlix. 12. Consistently with other emendations, we 
 should read here — 
 
 Plausible as the conjecture D^'P'ip (see SBOT, Marti) may- 
 be, it must be rejected. ' Ishmael ' is here as indispensable 
 as ' Jerahmeel,' and also not less possible (d"'3"'D = ]"'NDtO"' ; cp. 
 Bethel and Bettn). @ has Ik 7^? Hepacbv, where 11. = D^ij;, 
 another corruption of ^Ni?atD"'. 
 
 Chap. 1. 4-6. According to Duhm, ' the Servant of Yahw^ 
 modestly calls himself not a prophet but a prophet's disciple.' 
 Most, however, think that the Servant rather describes 
 himself as a disciple of Yahwe (cp. liv. 1 3), i.e. as a prophet. 
 Kittel is of opinion that the teachings which he is apparently 
 said to receive, are not theoretical revelations, z.e. do not 
 refer to the subject and the manner of his prophetic 
 preaching, but are the unspoken lessons implied in his daily 
 
44 auric A BIBLICA li. 4 
 
 experiences. Evidently there is a want of consecutiveness ' 
 in the passage as it stands ; vv. %b-g does not connect well 
 with vv. 4-S«, and there is a strange obscurity in the 
 references to the u^-vd^. From a textual point of view, 
 D-iTlD^ is very suspicious, as are nn vp^-nt^ r\^h, ItN 'h T'^^ 
 and i^om^. On the analogy of other emendations, we may 
 regard the following as at least possible, and inasmuch as it 
 recognises the presence of ethnics, not altogether improbable — 
 
 , 4 
 
 D^'?Ni?riT vH"? I '5?n3 rv\rv ^j'im ■ 
 
 For the expressions in /. 2, compare xliv. 17 (corr. 
 text), but also v. 6 (this section), where pr\ should certainly 
 be ^NPHT, and li. 7. 
 
 Chap. li. 4-6. @'s ot ySao-tXet?, implies DoSo, which is 
 a perfectly regular corruption of D"''?NDnT'. To correspond, 
 read Q-'ar, or rather Q-'ni; (cp. d'^"'N, xli. i, xlix. i). QiQS at 
 the end of v. 4 should be D-'ll (Klo. ; @, IQv&v) as in xlii. 6, 
 xlix. 6 ; □"'Di; was produced by the initial (corrupt) reading 
 0^027. i'"'3i1N should be iMh? (cp. on v. 15), and should 
 stand at the end of w. S , where read 
 
 {-ii;?N Qi^Nnm-' I ^abffi;' n-'i-ii; ■'i^'n'i^ 
 
 JlSn"'"' and hvf\ represent n'^Ssom"'. See also xlii. 3, end 
 (as corrected). On v. 6 see SBOT. 
 
 H. 7. The colourless tBIDN nBin should be 'jNMt^l 'n 
 (see critical note on Ps. Ivi. 2). 
 
 li. 15. =Jer. xxxi. 35. Read -|i;a with Gunkel, Schopf. 
 u. Chaos, 94, note 8. So also Job xxvi. 1 2 (otherwise 
 Gunkel, p. 36). 
 
 Chap. Hi. 3-6. There may be an earlier underlying text, 
 though even this cannot be assigned to the Second Isaiah, 
 in v. 3 read perhaps ^SN|n DffiDl nSi. Di;n.|p3 hvitirnh} ' to 
 Jerahmeel were ye sold, and not by Cusham will ye be 
 released.' In v. 4, point of course □"'nap ; omit the editorial 
 insertion nffi -\Xih 'xi, and continue ^nipmj? Q^^31 n^2)N"i. In 
 v. 5, omitting corrupt dittograms of ^Nom"', the variant 
 
liii. 12 ISAIAH 45 
 
 l^ffiD, i.e. n-i'jNSQQj^ (see on xlix. 7), and the patches nns") 
 and miT' DN3, read — 
 
 Hi. II. For the unexpected n2)p read Dtpso. 
 
 Hi. 1 3 -liii. 12. The following is a literal translation of a 
 text revised with the help of our key (cp. E. Bib., ' Servant 
 of the Lord ') :^ 
 
 ^* Behold, my Servant will have success ; ^ 
 
 He will rise, be exalted, and be high. 
 
 "" Edom and Asshur will be astonished, 
 
 The Jerahmeelites and the Arabians. 
 
 ^^ The nations will do homage unto him. 
 Kings will shut their mouths, 
 
 For that which has not been told them, do they see. 
 And that which they have not heard, do they perceive. 
 
 ^ But who believed our revelation, 
 And Yahwfe's arm — to whom was it disclosed ? 
 
 ^ He grew up as a sapling before us. 
 As a plant sprouting from a dry ground : 
 
 No form had he that we should see him. 
 No sightliness that we should desire him ; 
 140* YoT his sightliness was marred by Asshur, 
 And his form by the sons of Edom. 
 
 ^ He was despised and shamefully handled. 
 Ulcered from the stripes of Jerahmeel ; ^ 
 He was like a warning before us, 
 Despised, and we accounted him not. 
 
 * But truly our sickness he bore, 
 Our pains — he carried them. 
 Whilst we accounted him stricken, 
 Smitten of God and afflicted. 
 
 * But for our rebellious acts he was profaned. 
 For our guilty deeds he was crushed, 
 
 The chastisement that we merited came upon him 
 And through his stripes we were healed. 
 
 ' Read n'^s: ; MT. h'S'^: ; Budde, ^Nits':. 
 2 Read h^on-f nhiiinp dnb-i. 
 
46 CRITIC A BIBLICA Ivii, 8 
 
 8 All we, like sheep, had gone astray. 
 We had turned, every one to his own way. 
 While Yahwfe made to fall upon him 
 The guilt of us all. 
 
 7 He was treated tyrannically, but as for him — he was mute, 
 And opened not his mouth, 
 As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, 
 And as a sheep before its shearers. 
 
 s And who gave heed to his sufferings. 
 And as for his stripes, who reflected — 
 That he had been cut off out of the land of the living, 
 That for our rebellious acts he had been stricken to death, 
 
 ^ And that he had freed the rebellious from sin by his stripes, 
 And the wicked by his wounds. 
 Because he had done no injustice, 
 And there was no deceit in his mouth? 
 
 1" But Yahwe had pleasure in his servant,i 
 And rescued ^ his soul from the Asshurites, 
 He caused him to see light to the full, 
 A posterity that prolonged its life. 
 
 ^^ The oppressor of his servant was Jerahmeel, 
 
 And his tyrant was Ishmael, 
 12 Therefore should he take possession of Jerahmeel, 
 
 And Ishmael should he distribute ; 
 
 Inasmuch as he was brought down to Deathland, 
 And the Asshurites smote his soul. 
 Whilst it was he who bore our stripes. 
 And interposed for the rebellious. 
 
 Chap. Ivii. 8. ''^D'I ; see on Ezek. xvi. 17. — In v. 9, for 
 •^^a^ read ^NpriT'^. The ' high mountain,' where sacrifice 
 was offered, may be that which seems to be referred to, 
 Jer. ii. 34 and iii. 24, where it is not improbably called 
 Jerahmeel. 
 
 Chap. lix. 18. Read — 
 
 ' ii3y3 = iN|-i and ira (Marti). 
 2 f^n;! = '^.nrr and nSs; ; nntB-ND = dum O'lrn-DN. 
 
ixiii. 19 ISAIAH 47 
 
 The rM:^n of MT. is a fragment of ^snnT' ; vis^ is a late 
 insertion, to provide a parallel for the corrupt VTN7. 
 
 Chap. Ix. 8 / Not ships but hurrying riders; cp. 
 Hos. xi. II. Read, as v. 9 — 
 
 : pncjn-: i^t^w niBN"i | ^^n^ d''^nqi7T: i? 
 
 For the niQ« of Ishmael see Gen. xxv. 16. 
 
 Chap. Ixiii. i. For oinN read not improbably nnsi 
 
 ( = ^NDnT). ' Armageddon ' = f?NnnT' in. For man read 
 Tisp. 
 
 Ixiii. 1 1 / Experience elsewhere (see on Ps. xxii. 1 7b) 
 dissuades us from simply disregarding ^■a^ rrffio as a pair 
 of glosses. Read perhaps — 
 
 The 'days of the Jerahmeelites and Ishmaelites' are de- 
 liverances such as are reported in Judg. vi., vii. nDlNT is due 
 to MaTti. In the next line cm should perhaps be D'^llSD 
 (cp. n;p, xxiv. 1 4 ?). rhi'On, which has been wrongly cor- 
 rected into rhsr:in, is really a corruption, the form of which 
 was suggested by n"'^NDm"' in the preceding line. Parallel- 
 ism is produced by reading — 
 
 In V. 1 2, for i;"iTr read Xs ; an arm does not walk, as 
 Duhm humorously remarks. 
 
 Ixiii. 18. Supplementing the notes in SBOT, pp. 170 
 and especially 202, and the remark in E. Bib., col. 2207, 
 and using the newly discovered key, we may indicate as the 
 most probable form for a correction, 
 
 In MT. nssn = TiSip, on the analogy of Gen. xix. 20, 
 xiii. 10; DS "itDT = ^N»Dm\ parallel to loi? nmo m v. 11; 
 i2ins = tm'sn (13 = o) ; im7p = im7pD. 
 
 Ixiii. I ga. This represents line 4 of the stanza ; it takes 
 up and expands the statement in line 3 {v. 18). Those 
 who trample Yahwe's sanctuary are Jerahmeelites, who have 
 never acknowledged the sovereignty of Yahw^ (cp. xxvi. 13). 
 
48 CRITICA BIBLICA lxv.4 
 
 It is an appositional and relative clause. For Dpl^p 'i3''';n 
 read D-'^NDm\ ' I3"'"'n = Dm\ 
 
 Chap. Ixv. 4. This is a good specimen of editorial 
 ingenuity. The original text seems to have consisted of a 
 number of corrupt forms of names of N. Arabian peoples, 
 one of which (' Jerahmeelites ') occurs again and again. The 
 editor made a brave attempt to get sense from the corruptly 
 written words. The names probably are — Ishmaelites,;| 
 Jerahmeelites, b'ne Missur, Zerah. "'' 
 
 Ixv. 1 1 . ^^l^. Read, perhaps, h'^;h. ' Nergal ' may 
 come from ' Jerahmeel,' i.e. the Baal of Jerahmeel. See on 
 2 K. xvii. 30. 
 
 Chap. Ixvi. i / Read probably D'-rn TiEp^ "'NpS S>^:?DtI}' •] 
 'h'l~[, i.e. ' (the whole of) Ishmael is my throne, and (the whole 
 of) Missur is my footstool.' An allusion to a plan of 
 building a temple to Yahwe in the Negeb — anciently the 
 Holy Land of the Israelites. See on Ezek. xlvii. \'^ff. In 
 V. 2, for n'^N-^a. read perhaps bNoriT'-'^D, and for vniT read 
 
 Ixvi. 3. This should perhaps be attached to Ixv. 5, 
 Read probably — 
 
 mesh iht&rr tanim 
 
 (?) n-]t ]^^^|l^ T\r\ya nSi^o 
 ! pw Ti^nb r\ixh T'3|p 
 
 Chap. Ixvi. i6b. Here as in some other places miT' 
 has come from 'riT' = 'pNQm''. ' And many shall be the ■; 
 slain of Jerahmeel' 
 
 Ixvi. 1 7. Without the key, no perfectly satisfactory ex- 
 planation was possible (see, however, SBOT, pp. 164/i, and 
 Marti). For lini inw "in« read 'pnoht 'i^T\2. ; cp. on ii. 6, ; 
 and on xxvii. 12. Then follow ethnics strangely disguised. '; 
 
 i^DN = SMDn'i\ ntci = r\Ti-\i (perhaps), f^'nn = □■'mT ; ppffi = ' 
 mi3 ; i33i' = '7Mi3m\ 
 
 Ixvi. 1 9. As in xi. 11, the true names are N. Arabian. .• 
 m-'tonn = I^ISn (Ix. 9), b^d (so @) = Perath or Zarephath, -xh 
 = ~[^hy (yhl}), i.e. the southern Gilead, cp. on Jer. xl. i, 5), 
 lamn and nmp = Qm"iD, 'jlin and ;v are uncertain (see on 
 Gen. x. 2), but at any rate are Arabian ethnics. w^m 
 
Ixvi. 23 ISAIAH 49 
 
 n"'prnn consists of corrupt fragments of n"'^Narni (cp. 
 xlix. i). 
 
 Ixvi. 20. The specification of means of transport is now 
 (Duhm, SBOT, Marti) assigned to a glossator. Certainly 
 there is a gloss, but it is rather a fresh list of ethnics, as a 
 comparison of similar passages (e.g. Ezek. xxiii. 5-8) will 
 show. Omitting n"n3n3, which conceals a dittographed 
 bsom"', the names are Cushim, Jerahmeel, Misrim, Sare- 
 phathim. Cp. on Zech. xiv. 15, Ezra ii. 66 f. 
 
 Ixvi. 21. I am afraid that the 'ill-advised theory' 
 (Duhm) that the persons who receive the privilege of priest- 
 ship are non-Jews is most probably right (cp. on Ps. xcix. 6). 
 In preference to excising the first h in D"'"'"i77, I would now 
 propose (taking [on] Dil and w'hh together) to read the 
 clause thus — 
 
 : '-1 1DN wyn^h npN oi^Nnm-'n on 
 Ixvi. 23. For nto"'?! read inm h'\p2. (see on Ps. Ixv. 3). 
 
 ADDENDA 
 
 Chap. xxvi. ib. hr\, as in Ob. 20, i K. xxi. 23, is very 
 doubtful. Read [^NonT'a] ^Nl?om''D i^s-imn. 
 
 Chap, xxxiii. 17. Further progress can be made. In 
 2 S. iv. 6 @'s eKadaupev presupposes n^pD, a corruption of 
 ^N»DtO^ So here, ^p© represents ht^soKcn, and riM nno 
 O'lf^ninrr should almost certainly be nni^'jiT nmii ; rfN is 
 most probably a fragment of ^MDm"'. Thus //. 3 and 4 of 
 stanza 11 (see SBOT, 'Isaiah,' Heb., p. 21) should run 
 thus — 
 
 nn-'N r\irr in^ 
 
 I abandon with much regret the apparent Assyrian loan- 
 word D■'T'^3D (see ib., p. 1 07). 
 
 xxxiii. 21-24. The passage has been recast on a large 
 scale. It is possible that vv. 21b and 23 (as far as d3) may 
 come from a poetic figurative mdshal, on a ship. Putting 
 this aside, we can probably restore something like the true 
 
 4 
 
50 CRITIC A BIBLICA xxxiii.,24 
 
 text. Let it, however, be premised that in v. 20 D^tOITis 
 miswritten for 'jNi^otO'^ (Ishmael = the Jerahmeelite Negeb). 
 Next to Jerusalem, the Negeb enjoyed the affections of the 
 Israelites. 
 
 IT' D'^T' 'jNOnTl 
 
 I3i?-'mv win bwDHT'D 
 
 113 D'''?NDnT' 
 
 ]3t» noN'' hy\ 
 
 :il£&l DSn Tl-'^D 
 
 In w. 2 1 na> alone might, as elsewhere, represent 'jNSDtSi ; 
 the reference to Ishmael is here required by the context, and 
 the preceding on seems to be another fragment of the word 
 "13^ comes from b«a, Dlpo from □m"' ; D"'irr3, D'l^N^ and 
 D"'T' ■'im (cp. on xxii. 15-19) may also be editorial modifica- 
 tions of fragments of SnoHT. In t;. 22 13ppno and yih'Ci 
 both, in accordance with parallels, come from 'jNtariTti (for 
 the former, see on Ps. Ix. 9). In w. 23 in and is both 
 come from pN ; ^s, ' spoil,' does not exist. bbtO (originally 
 xhxn ?) represents bMrDtC ; niTD comes from f7NQm^ D'^noQ 
 (cp. on 2 S. V. 6, 8) represents D"'f?NQm"' ; 11 ITQ should 
 probably be 133. In v. 24 J3t0 refers not to the Jewish 
 population but to the neighbours of Israel (cp. Ps. xliv. 14). 
 The corruption of in"'b3 into TT^bn may have suggested the 
 transformation of the last line, which hardly needs a comment. 
 The prophecy is partly parallel to Pss. xliv., and Ixxiv., but 
 has a strong ' Messianic ' tinge. It is probably this last great 
 conflict with Israel's arch-foe that is referred to. 
 
 Chap. Ivii. 5, 6. pi^T (see on Ps. lii. 10) is probably a 
 corruption of ^NDm"'. The two clauses beginning in MT. 
 with nnn should run, 'nT >s^ •Ji'ing and 'jNi^ott)"' ■'StpB 'n'lna 
 V. 6a is almost or entirely composed out of miswritten forms 
 of fpNoriT. The prophecy relates to Jews who, in post- 
 exilic times, were addicted to N. Arabian religious practices 
 Cp. on Ezra ix. i. 
 
JEREMIAH 
 
 Chap. i. i. — Who was Jeremiah? His name is a popular 
 distortion of ■'f?NDm"', and his prophecies are filled with 
 reference to Jerahmeel. There were half-Jerahmeelites in 
 Israel, and full Jerahmeelites outside Israel. To the former, 
 Jeremiah, like the prophets in general, seems to have be- 
 longed. This would not make him necessarily a dweller in 
 Negeb, but the statement in Jer. i. i favours this hypothesis. 
 For Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah (also, by the way, a Negeb 
 name ; cp. Mt. Halak), was ' of the priests that were in 
 Anathoth in the land of Benjamin.' Where was Anathoth ? 
 There was presumably one where the modern 'Anita stands. 
 But there was also one in the Negeb. The name ' Abiezer 
 the Anathothite ' stands among Negeb names in 2 S. xxiii. 27, 
 I Chr. xxvii. 1 2 ; and one remembers that the clan Abiezer 
 to which Gideon belonged was a southern clan (see on Judg. 
 vi. 11). Abiathar, too, David's priest, who is called son of 
 Ahimelech ( = Jerahmeel), and who officiated as priest at 
 Nob {i.e. probably Gibeon in the Negeb), seems to have 
 been, like David himself, a man of the Negeb ; his family 
 estate was, like Jeremiah's, at Anathoth. We also hear 
 (Judg. iii. 30, true text, see note) of a Shimeah ben Anathoth 
 who smote the Zarephathites, and in i Chr. xxvi. 7 of a 
 person called Othni (""^Di;), a son of Shemaiah ( = a man of 
 Shema), and one of the ' sons ' of Obed-edom (or rather 
 'Arab-'aram ?) ; his brothers are Rephael, Obed ('Arab ?), 
 and Elzabad. The ' land of Benjamin ' spoken of was in 
 the Negeb. ]''D"' itself is a distortion of fjNDm'^ ; Benjamin's 
 other name was Ben-oni — ' On ' is in fact a Negeb clan- 
 name. Cp. on vi. I. 
 
 SI 
 
52 CRITIC A BIBLICA i. lo 
 
 i. 10. The 'nations' and 'kingdoms' are those of the 
 N. Arabian borderland (see on xxv. 15-29- and xlvi.-li. • 
 
 \. \Arff- Duhm is very naturally puzzled by the 
 ' kingdoms in the north.' Neither the Scythians nor the 
 Chaldaeans could be so described. mDf?QD here seems to 
 come from ^NDm% and pas, as in iii. 12, 18, iv. 6 (cp. 
 on V. 15), vi. I, 2 2, X. 22, xvi. 15, xxiii. 8, is the name of 
 the N. Arabian region whence the invaders were to come. 
 Cp. on XV. 1 2 and Ezek. i. 4. ® arbitrarily omits mnsfflD. 
 As to D"'nnN DTt'pn see on vii. 18. 
 
 Chap. ii. 6. For nmto read T[mn ( |[ r\^rhl). — 10. For 
 QvnD 11M read naro ms, ' Maacathite Arabia ' — much more 
 within the prophet's horizon. So in Ezek. xxvii. 6. — 
 14. The questions as here put are unnatural. The key 
 to the passage is Am. ix. 7. Read [■''?] hvnnr n-'l llOT 
 Nin 'pNOm'' DN, ' Is the house ot Israel to me [as] Arabia, 
 or is he [as] Jerahmeel,' i.e. am I as indifferent to the fate 
 of Israel as I am to that of Arabian Jerahmeel ? Cp. xxii. 6. 
 ni? and ^3i; are not unfrequently compounded. T^"' for 
 'm*', as in Gen. xiv. 14. For the metrical arrangement see 
 Duhm ; but read "i^iriD (so Gr.) as iv. 26. 
 
 ' ii. 1 6. Why should Memphis and Daphnae (?) be specially 
 mentioned? The context, as we shall see, refers to N. 
 Arabia. Read 'jnohT' nins? i^l-QX For ' Naphtoah ' see 
 on Isa. xix. 13. DTOD = jons = ^NranT ; cp. pinN. See 
 E. Bib., ' Phinehas,' § i , and, for a confirmation, note on 
 xlvi. 15. AN. Arabian invasion is anticipated (see z'. 18). 
 But cp. E. Bib., ' Hanes ' and ' Tahpanhes,' where W. Max 
 Miiller has done his best for an Egyptian reference. 
 
 ii. 18. The reference is not to Egypt and Assyria but 
 to Misrim and Ashhur. -ymxt cannot mean the Nile ; it is 
 a modification of nintCN. In Gen. xv. 1 8 we hear of a ' river 
 of Misrim ' and a ' river of Jerahmeel, the river Ephrath.' 
 In our passage Tinm and ina should perhaps change places ; 
 perhaps, too, "im has supplanted the name msM. Cp. on 
 2 K. V. 12 and Mic. vii. 1 1-13 ; and see Shihor. 
 
 ii. 34. A reference to the law in Ex. xxii. i [2] is most 
 improbable. Read f?NDmi-'?i> -0 nniQSn Q-'nmni ih, ' not 
 by spears didst thou destroy them, but upon Jerahmeel.' 
 nmn = spear, javelin (Ass. tartahu ; see on Job xli. 21, Ps. 
 
iv. II TEREMJAH 53 
 
 Iv. 22). The mountain shrine of Gibeath-jerahmeel (see on 
 iii. 24) is meant, where the rite of the sacrifice of children 
 was probably still in full force (cp. Gen. xxii. i). That 
 Jerahmeelite sanctuaries were frequented by Israelites, we 
 know from Amos and Hosea. Observe that ®, Pesh., Vg. 
 render n^M (not nW). Also, especially, that onf? {v. 37, 
 end) and noN"? (iii. i, beginning) are both superfluous, and 
 both evidently corrupt. Probably both words are attempts 
 to read an indistinctly written bNDm"', which originally stood 
 in the margin as a correction of n^N 73 in v. 34. 
 
 Chap. iii. ?.. hlXH, ' a verb of obscure origin ' (Ges.-Bu.). 
 Is it not miswritten for tihri, ' to weaken, overthrow ' = n3ii ? 
 — 3. ■'2"j5, here of the predatory Arabians or Bedouins. 
 — 12. na&S, 'towards Saphon' (see on i. 14), because the 
 Israelites had already been carried captive to Ashhur or 
 Jerahmeel. See on 2 K. xvii. 6. Hence in v. 18,' they 
 shall come together out of the land of Saphon.' 
 
 iii. 2^ /. The critics deal too lightly with the a in 
 mr^lD, and quite miss the plain original of D"'irr. The key 
 to the passage is Zech. xii. 1 1 (see note). Read, transposing 
 for a metrical reason, (Vorr; "^wh ^NOnT^ nsrm pN, ' Truly 
 vain is the noisy rite at Gibeath-jerahmeel.' The latter 
 name also occurs in Judg. vii. i , disguised as ' Gibeath- 
 hammoreh ' (see ' Moreh,' E. Bid.). For ntUin read n^sn, 
 'the Cushite goddess ' (see on vii. 18, Hos. ix. 10); in xi. 13 
 II to hsi, ' Baal.' 
 
 Chap. iv. 5. Duhm deletes the opening words ; metrical 
 grounds justify this, but the supposed absurdity in calling 
 on Jerusalemites to flee to Zion is due to transcriptional error. 
 For afjmiT'l min''3 read f?NrOJ»i3 ^Nom^n. Later writers 
 (e.g. psalmists) use ' Jerahmeel ' and ' Ishmael ' as synonyms, 
 and the scribes now and again transform ' Ishmael ' into 
 ' Jerusalem ' (cp. on vi. i ). The Judahites in the country 
 parts of the Negeb exhort one another to take refuge in the 
 fortified places (cp. vi. i ff. and xxxv. i , 11). 
 
 iv. 1 1 / A most improbable text. In particular, v. 1 23 
 is deleted by Duhm as a foolish and prosaic insertion. Most 
 probably, however, it has grown out of a corrupt form of 
 DTIE312 nmo, and this should be restored in z/. iia (for DiQtO 
 inD3). Read, therefore, in v. 11 a, '11 'd mi, after which 
 
54 CRITIC A BIB Lie A iv. 15 
 
 we should perhaps, with Duhm, insert nN3. In v. 1 2a for 
 n^ND N^Q mT read ^Mom"' mn. Thus, ' a wind of the desert 
 of the Zarephathites ' is parallel to ' a wind of Jerahmeel.' 
 
 iv. 15-17. See E. Bib., co\. 3894. Duhm's notes again 
 seem to show that he has hardly realised the true nature of 
 glosses. It is clear from the psalms that glosses often con- 
 sist of a string of ethnics. D-'IDN nHQ, it is true, is a more 
 useful gloss ; ' On ' may not have been generally known in a 
 later age. ii^atn = c^mt; wyh = rr^^y, is-'CiB>n, d^jbit'-Ss, 
 and (in v. 1 7) nm •'•ydW^ = D-'f?N»D»-' ; TIdq = D'>p3. In the 
 genuine portion D''n2i: = D^'iao. Read — 
 
 That vv. 1 7^ and 1 8 are a later insertion need not, how- 
 ever, be questioned. (Winckler [AOF'-^\ ii. 228] unneces- 
 sarily takes offence at Q^ip- The battle-cry of these foes 
 was famous among the Israelites.) 
 
 iv. 20. 'My tent curtains are spoiled' is improbable 
 (x. 20 is quite different). Read ■'^p-'H (see on Ps. xv. i) iand 
 ■'nbplN (see on Hab. iii. 7). 
 
 iv. 29. 'Noise of the horsemen and archers'? Judg. 
 V. II and 22 are corrupt. Read [nms] fjNanTI nma h^pG■. 
 For na>p noT see on Ps. Ixxviii. 9. 
 
 Chap. v. 15. Duhm unintentionally shows the im- 
 probability of MT. Read — 
 
 pmon ■'11 1 DD'^^i; N"'3D ■'33n 
 
 Nin jn-'N (Ethan) and Nin dSii^o (Jerahmeel) are glosses 
 (E. Bib., col. 3894) ; v.i^^b implies that a late editor identified 
 the people with the Chaldseans. @ marks a middle stage 
 of textual corruption and development. ' From far ' means 
 ' from a distant part of N. Arabia.' 
 
 Chap. vi. i ff. See E. Bib., col. 3894. Duhm finds it 
 ' not quite clear ' why the prophet only suggests flight to the 
 Benjamite element in the population of Jerusalem. Geo- 
 graphically, too, he does not understand how Tekoa and 
 Beth-hakkerem come to be introduced since the Scythian 
 invader comes from the north. But the trouble is all due 
 
vi. 12 JEREMIAH 55 
 
 to the redactor. The invader really comes from the land of, 
 Saphon in the N. Arabian border-land, and the persons 
 addressed are the Benjamite inhabitants of the land of 
 Jerahmeel or Ishmael (for the change of ^NSOffi^' into a'^tDIT' 
 see on iv. S). Tekoa, or rather (see E. Bib., ' Tekoa ') 
 Maacath, and Beth-haccerem (a popular distortion of Beth- 
 jerahmeel) are places in the Negeb. It should be observed 
 that the Benjamites did not all move northward. As their 
 name (]D-'31 = jD^an) indicates, they were of Jerahmeelite 
 origin, and they clung (like portions of other tribes) to their 
 old home. Read thus in two-line stanzas — 
 
 Sn^d©^ mpD I iCDi ■'33 ^1sr^ 
 
 jr^i-nn nnn I n:i3snn"i man ^ 
 
 n^'^Nom-'T I Dims int rrha 
 
 nniDi-riM 112? I cms rrhs irpri ^ 
 
 man rT<i3 I nanhD rrhs im^p 
 
 □■■ms itsT I Dvn n3D-'D ^2h iis * 
 
 : rr3-r? nninm:") I tih-h:i n^s3T iQ"ip 
 
 The passage suffers from many accretions, some of which 
 (e.g. that in v. 2, cp. iv. 6) are mere interpolations, others are 
 miswritten glosses. Among the latter note Di^rTN for "?NQnT', 
 and "hhz for ^Ni;Dt&''. The corrections (besides the two 
 already mentioned) are nm for tT'DT (so also Du., following 
 <3), Dims for D^ST (see on xii. 10), Di^NDmi for DHinnsi, 
 DiQJD for T3D (as Ps. xii. 9, etc.), "ns for ^s■^, niTiQi-riN for 
 "ni-nN ffiiM, im-^p for imip, an^n niai for oinnsa, Dims for 
 ms, and rrzm for nimaoiN (so already Du., after (3)- We 
 now obtain a plausible and, in the main, probably correct 
 text The first great success of the N. Arabians is the 
 capture of Beth-haccerem, otherwise called Beth-jerahmeel, 
 in the Negeb ; it was here that they offered the sacrifices 
 which ' consecrated ' the war. The Israelitish inhabitants of 
 the Negeb are therefore once more (see on iv. 5) summoned 
 to take refuge in the fortified cities, and to give warning by 
 signals to their neighbours further north. For the goal of 
 the invaders is the comely and luxurious Jerusalem. Cp. 
 on Hos. V. 8. 
 
 vi. 12= viii. I o. For DinnM read fjMomi (cp. on vii. 
 
S6 CRITICA BIBLICA vi. 25 
 
 18), and for a-'t»3"l, or (as viii. 10 gives) q-^IOtS, read probably 
 
 vi. 25^ should run ^Ni>nm-'1 ^MonT 3T.i>S l-iri ■^3, 'for 
 (there is) the sword of Arabia, of Jerahmeel, of Ishmael.' 
 Cp. XX. 3, 10, xlvi. 5, xlix. 29. Observe that @ nowhere 
 recognises Tiio, which, like -yay, represents 7NDm"', and is 
 therefore supei-fluous here. ' 
 
 vi. 26. QiTnon is suspicious (see on xxxi. 15). Nor 
 does 'n 7Ddq make a satisfactory parallelism with TTT' 73n. 
 A study of Zech. xii. 10 will show that TTT is one of the 
 possible corruptions of 'jnoht, and from Hos. x. 14 (cp. on 
 Am. i. 1 3) we gather that the cruelties attendant on the 
 capture of Beth-jerahmeel by a N. Arabian foe (see E. Bib., 
 ' Salma ') were proverbial in the time of Hosea. Zech. xii. 10 
 also shows that no may possibly be a fragment of 7Nom% and 
 the corrupt Dn3Dnn shows that a prefixed n may possibly 
 represent n"'l in a compound place-name. It is plausible 
 and even, considering the atmosphere of the context, necessary 
 to read here SNom'' n^l 1BDD ~\h "ims bNOnT^ bnx, ' make for 
 thyself a Jerahmeel mourning, a Beth-jerahmeel lamentation.' 
 The idea in the writer's mind may be that the horrors of the 
 famous capture of Beth-jerahmeel were about to be repeated ; 
 he expresses this poetically by summoning the people of 
 Judah to mourn as the Beth-jerahmeelites mourned. Beth-, 
 jerahmeel has already been mentioned in vi. i. 
 
 Chap. vii. 18. o'^atsri n'lhth. Shall we point ns^O ? @ 
 in li. 1 8 _^ gives rrj ^aaiKiaarj tov oipavov, and Pesh. in xliv. 
 1 9 malkat semayya ; also in the inscription of Eshmunazar we 
 find m~rN Dnm mnt»i>, 'Astarte of the great heavens.' The 
 points give np^p = npN^p ; cp. ®, t^ aTpa-Tia, tov ovpavov. 
 So, too, MSS. and (except in xliv. 19) Pesh. See E. Bib., 
 ' Queen of Heaven.' It has escaped notice, however, that 
 the phrase is parallel here to D'^inN QTlfjN, under which lies 
 ^Nom"' Trf?N, ' the gods of Jerameel.' In xliv. 1 7 the Jews 
 say that they and their fathers have constantly performed 
 the rites of this divinity ; and we can hardly doubt that the 
 same deity is referred to in iii. 24 where probably the true 
 text says that ' the Cushite [goddess] has eaten up the wealth ' 
 of the fathers of this generation. The phrase D"'inN D'^n^JN 
 occurs again in xix. 4 in connection with Baal, and in xliv. 
 
ix. 2 JEREMIAH 57 
 
 3, 8, not indeed in the same context as here, but yet in con- 
 nection with 'ten na^o. In i. i6, too, we should probably- 
 read "and have sacrified to JiT' TI^M,' and in vii. i8, xliv. 
 IT ff. For D"'Dn)[n] n3f?D let us accordingly venture to read 
 fjNSDffl"' na'jD, ' the malkah (queen) of Ishmael,' i.e. either the 
 moon or, less probably, Venus ( = the Bab. Istar). See on 
 2 K. xxiii. 5 (mbTo), Ezek. viii. 14, Zeph. i. 5 ; and note 
 that Baal-zebub probably comes from Baal-ishmael (see on 
 2 K. i. 2-16). 
 
 Chap. viii. 13, end. Read perhaps m-\h Xir\hTr\ \r\v(\ 
 (cp. V. 10). 
 
 viii. 16. The southern Dan ( = Halusah?) is meant. 
 See E. Bib., ' Micah,' 2 ; ' Prophecy,' § 40. 
 
 viii. 19. Cpmo pNO should perhaps be ^Nnm"' pNO. 
 The Judahite land of Jerahmeel may be meant. The follow- 
 ing words are inappropriate for exiles (cp. Duhm). 
 
 viii. 22. Did •>nH (mastic) really grow in Gilead? Post 
 could not find it there (Hastings, DB, i. 236 ; but cp. Conder, 
 Heth and Moab, 188). And were there (cp. Duhm) friendly 
 physicians there? Here, as often {e.g. xxii. 6), ^rS'l is a 
 Gilead in the Negeb. The near part of the Jerahmeelite 
 land was still occupied by the Israelites ; medical help might 
 therefore be looked for. This illustrates xlvi. 11,' Go up to 
 Jerahmeel (MT. and ^) and fetch " balm," O virgin people 
 of Misrim.' Cp. Gen. xxxvii. 35 ; the products mentioned 
 together with •>n2 are certainly Arabian. 
 
 Chap. ix. i ff. The passage was manipulated by a 
 redactor after corruption had taken place. The first stanza 
 (cp. Duhm) should close with D"'^l^ msi^o. For QimN pf?i3 
 ® reads araOfiov eo-j^aroz' = JlnriN Jl'jO, which Giesebrecht 
 and Cornill prefer. The word which underlies both cmN 'o 
 and xnni^ 'n is D"'7Nom'', which forms the second part of the 
 line (verse), ' Oh that one would put me in the wilderness | of 
 those of Jerahmeel ! ' Duhm's comment (with his reference to 
 Ps. Iv. 7 f.) now becomes unnecessary. Cp. on isp p^o, 2 K. 
 xix. 23, and the v.l. in Isa. xxxvii. 24, also on 2 S. xxi. 19. 
 
 ix. 2. Omit h before TOIdn (Duhm, after ®), and read 
 stanza 2 (comparing v. 4a) — 
 
 ! li^T-Mf? ^mMT I IMS'' ni»T^N Hi'nD ■'3 
 
S8 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ix. i8 
 
 ontOp is an expansion of nQ>p, a variant to npBJ ; lin: 
 and pMl have both grown out of nm\ p©S> is specially 
 liable to be miswritten (see Psalms).' 
 
 ix. 1 8. Duhm calls pN 13312; ' an unusually foolish in- 
 terpolation.' Hardly. l^lTi; clearly comes from llTi^a. Owing 
 to its partial similarity to 'iddin ( = m^DlN), it has practically 
 expelled that word. The closing words 'Dtuo "iD"'"?tl>rr ''3 are a 
 supplementer's comment on the true text, which doubtless 
 is — 
 
 ! pN mamN I ii'ii>3-'D tno i3t»i 
 
 ix. 24 f. On this singular passage Duhm comments 
 thus, ' At a future time Yahwe will punish those peoples 
 which perform the rite of bodily circumcision but are 
 spiritually uncircumcised.' Like other commentators, he 
 supposes that all the peoples mentioned do perform this rite. 
 ' Singularly enough,' he adds, ' the Jews are placed between 
 the Egyptians and the Edomites ; did the writer live in 
 Egypt?' N. Schmidt {E. Bib., co\. 2385) explains ^ia-^3 
 rT"?lM, ' all who have the sign in their body though they fail 
 to unite with Israel as proselytes,' and calls the ' polling the 
 hair ' of the dwellers in the desert ' a kindred custom.' 
 Singular indeed ! Experience of the ways of the scribes 
 enables us to rectify the miscjiief which has evidently 
 occurred. For nSli?! fjIQ-S^-Ss read nhveony-hrh's ; then 
 continue DTiDi^-'^i;'! ri^fe-Si>i Tieq-'jsi ^NonT'-Si^l Q-'-iaQ-'jJ^ 
 cni^-^si D"'SNi?atO''-'7i?1. The remainder oi v. 25 is an 
 editorial expansion of a gloss consisting of two ethnics, vizi 
 ^NDmi and ^Ni>Qffii Tvyh'i. That wh'\s is constantly substi- 
 tuted for ^NDHT or rshtvam' has been already pointed out ; 
 Ezek. xliv. 7 is specially parallel. Cp. E. Bib., ' Moses,' § 7, 
 with n. 2. The religious contempt of later Jews for the 
 uncircumcised may perhaps be seen in the substitution. 
 
 Chap. x. represents only vv. 1-4, 9 (in a different 
 form), 5^ (from inHJ^), and 11-16. Vv. 12-16 also occur in 
 li. 15-19. Duhm accepts, as the original kernel, vv. i-^a (as 
 far as hiri), 5*5, 10, 12-16 ; z/. 1 1 is a spell to be used against- 
 comets and the like. What Duhm has not noticed is the 
 Jerahmeelite references, V. 2b is evidently e^. gloss; the 
 scribe defends what he feels to be an uncertain reading, viz. 
 
xii. 10 JEREMIAH 59 
 
 innn-7M 't&n mnNO. Parallelism, however, requires asmo 
 inpri'^M "JMSOB?";. This has reference to the increased addiction 
 of the Jews to the Jerahmeelite cultus referred to in vii. 18, 
 Zeph. i. S, etc.; cp. also on 2 K. xxiii. 
 
 X. 3. For D"'D»n read D"'G)"in, ' Arammites ' = ' Jerah- 
 meelites.' 
 
 X. 8. cSnn nmo. The use of nmo, ' discipline,' as a 
 term for 'religion,' says Duhm, suggests that the law must 
 already have had a long period of supremacy. This is too 
 hazardous. Read S'NDm"' s"jip, ' the object of Jerahmeel's 
 veneration ' (cp. Isa. viii. 1 2 /). 'nn = 'mi ; cp. on Ps. 
 xxxi. 7. 
 
 Chap. xi. 15-17 'has suffered much, and in MT. is 
 almost untranslatable' (Duhm). For ■'T'T' we should expect 
 TiT'T, but neither the one nor the other is really probable 
 in this context (xii. 7 is different). In Gen. xiv. 14 (see 
 note) "iri"'! "'T'^"' comes from ^Nomi n^a. Similarly here. 
 Comparing ii. 18, read — 
 
 notan nito?^ i ^Mom-' ninn ij^-no 
 ! insT iT'is-i I tD7p-nmn D-'iirrrr 
 
 ' What hast thou to do in the temple of Jerahmeel — to 
 practise the crimes ? Can spells and consecrated flesh 
 remove thy wickedness ? ' Jerahmeel here may be either a 
 place-name or the name of a god (cp. on ii. 34). We here 
 omit "p^SD and "^"hw^ TN as editorial adjustments of the 
 corruptly written words SmsdEI?'' ^NnnT' (a note on the mis- 
 written ^TtS). — In V. 16 each of the three opening words 
 (f?1pf7, rhyan [see on ix. 25, Ezek. i. 24J, and nf?7l [see on 
 Gen. X. 12]) is a corruption of ^ndht. 'Jerahmeel has 
 kindled fire against thee ' (T-^s as Tg.). Parallels abound. 
 
 xi. \g f. lon^l p cannot be right. But in^n will 
 hardly do ; in Dt. xxxiv. 7 read iStt, cp. Job xxx. 2, where 
 nfja should be h-r\. Read nio'fjn miN, ' the dreamer.' — In 
 V. 20, end, read -rbrj', Tji^Ki --S, ■'l-'l-riN is a scribe's addition 
 (so Du.). Duhm's ''•Th\ will not do ; the || passages are 
 corrupt (see on Ps. xxii. 9). 
 
 Chap. xii. i o. For niai Dii>"i read u-<yv} ; metre and 
 sense gain. Cp. on vi. i ff. (stanza 3 of poem, line i). The 
 ' Scythian shepherds ' disappear. 
 
6o CRITICA BIBLICA xii. 12 
 
 xii. 12. For xvwsh nn read ^jnoht^ 'n (vi. 25). 
 
 Chap. xiii. 1-7. The strangeness of this narrative natur- 
 ally provokes Duhm. It is not the Wady F^rah which is 
 referred to as mD (0 explains Hv^pdTTjv), but the rriDK ITO = 
 Di"!^p in?. A wady in the Negeb is meant — thart: which 
 bordered the district called Ephrath (see on xlvi. 2, arid cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Shihor '). The loin-cloth was to be ' hidden ' there, 
 in a ' cleft of the rock,' as a sign of the N. Arabian captivity 
 of the Israelites. It was held to be just retribution that 
 those who went aside to Jerahmeelite duties (in z;. 10 read 
 SNOnT' TT^n) should be chastised by Jerahmeelites. Cp. on 
 iii. 23/ 
 
 Chap. xiii. 1 2 _^ Again Duhm is sorely tried by the 
 childishness of the ' Midrash writer,' — Thus saith Yahwe, the 
 God of Israel, ' Every bottle is filled with wine,' and of the 
 public which answers, ' Do we not know that every bottle is 
 filled with wine ? ' Experience justifies us in questioning this 
 verdict on supplementers. Is not the key to vv. 12-14 
 supplied by vv. 18, 19, which the supplementer rightly 
 understood to refer to the overwhelming of the Israelitish 
 settlements in the Negeb by the Jerahmeelites or N. Arabians ? 
 Even if this be not the right solution, it is at least not un- 
 worthy to be so. Let us, then, for h^2-b^ read ijan-'jS. 
 The statement then becomes, ' The whole Negeb is filled 
 with wine.' E. H. Palmer mentions the curious fact that — 
 
 ' Among the most striking characteristics of the Negeb are miles 
 of hill-sides and valleys covered with the small stone heaps formed 
 by sweeping together in regular swathes the flints which strew the 
 ground ; along these grapes were trained, and they still retain the 
 name of tekildt el-anab or grape-mounds ' ; ^ 
 
 and it has been already pointed out ^ that ' Eshcpl,' so 
 famous for its grapes, was more than probably in the Negeb- 
 If this new reading is correct, z'. 1 3 must have been rewritten 
 by a redactor, and in its original form must have run simply, 
 ' Behold, I am about to fill all the inhabitants of this land 
 with drunkenness.' The intermediate words are very charac- 
 teristic of the redactors (cp. xvii. 20, xix. 3, xxii. 2). 
 
 xiii. 18/ If it is really a complete national captivity 
 
 1 Desert of the Exodus, p. 352. ^ E. Bib., 'Negeb,' § 7. 
 
xvii. II JEREMIAH 6r 
 
 which is meant, why is it said, ' The cities of the Negeb are 
 shut up ' ? The answer is that the Negeb was a separable 
 part of the Judahite kingdom, and that Jeremiah, if he came 
 from the Negeb (see on i. i), had a special interest in its 
 fate. If so, i.e. if the cities of the Negeb are referred to, not 
 as ' the last Judahite cities,' but as the first which an invader 
 from Zaphon would overpower, we expect to find va v. i% the 
 names of two of those cities. And ' he that seeketh, findeth.' 
 Read rrrQaS"! hvtpry^ ^bN. The two cities are Kirjath- 
 jerahmeel and Chephirah ; the former, it is true, is better 
 known under the corrupt form of name — K.-jearim, which, 
 together with Chephirah, appears in Josh. ix. 17 (see note) 
 among the cities leagued with Gibeon, and situated, accord- 
 ing to the earlier tradition, in the Negeb. The ' crown ' 
 which is upon their heads refers to the battlements of the 
 walls ; if rnaspn is the right reading in Isa. xxiii. 8 (see 
 SBOT, ad loc), we are provided with a splendid parallel. 
 This, however, is not absolutely necessary. l'?"'Sffin reminds 
 us of Isa. XXV. 12, where the ' humiliation ' of the lofty walls 
 of the capital of Missur (for iNlo read n^sp) is expressed by 
 the same verb. Cp. also Isa. xlvii. i ("'ItDl m). I'pD for 
 'm"" is a common corruption. [The ordinary view of xiii. 1 8 
 is opposed to the context. Nor is it clear that, without a 
 parallel, we are justified in supposing that a prophet would 
 have spoken in one breath of the king and the queen- 
 mother.] 
 
 Chap. xv. 12. To alter pDS and nffim (Du.) is too 
 arbitrary ; both pDS and ^^■'^, as Winckler {A T. Untersuch., 
 180) saw, are names of places — only not (as he supposed) 
 of Baal-zephon and Chalcis. What ' Zaphon ' is, we know 
 (see on i. 14); ~^n, as in Ezek. xxvii. 1 1 , is a corruption 
 of ^NDm\ Thus the iron of Zaphon and the copper of 
 Jerahmeel are combined. The ' land whose stones are iron, 
 and out of whose hills thou mayest dig copper ' (Dt. viii. 9) 
 is the Negeb. Observe that Moses made a serpent of copper 
 in the wilderness (Num. xxi. 9). [N. Schmidt {E. Bib., col. 
 2390) omits pS2, which word, however, is decisive for the 
 general reference of vv. 12 /.] 
 
 Chap. xvii. 1 1 . The commentators with one voice sup- 
 pose here a popular superstition. Against this see E. Bib., 
 
62 CRITICA BIBLICA xix. 2 
 
 ' Partridge.' The passage is || to w. 5 /, and should run 
 'ill h^'hl nil nnN, ' Cursed is the pernicious man who 
 acquires riches wrongfully.' — 16. The opening words are 
 impossible, and t2>"i2M DV is hardly less questionable (see 
 SBOT, crit. note on Isa. xvii. 11). Read probably — 
 
 ! DDT' nriN I Ti-'iMnn ih ^Ni>D»iT 
 
 It was his constantly prophesying of the Jerahmeelites that 
 made Jeremiah so unpopular. ^NSOtt)"' often assumes such 
 a disguise as an2N (see on Ps. Ivi. 2, xc. 3, and cp. E. Bib. 
 ' Sinai '). 
 
 Chap. xix. 2. For mmnn read Di"!nQJ«n ' (the gate of) 
 the Ashhurites).' See on Isa. xix. 18, Judg. i. 34. The 
 names of the gates of Jerusalem are often transformed 
 ethnics. Thus, the ' horse-gate ' should be the ' gate of the 
 Cushites'; the ' fish -gate,' the 'gate of the Gadites'; the 
 ' dung-gate,' the ' gate of the Zarephathites.' All these 
 ethnics are, as we shall see, N. Arabian. 
 
 xix. 4. For Q^nnN DTT^N^ read fpNom"' -^rhih. See on 
 vii. 18. 
 
 Chap. xx. i. Pashhur is a distinctly Jerahmeelite name 
 (see, e.g., i Chr. ix. 1 2), just like Zephaniah, the name of the 
 fellow-priest of another Pashhur in xxi. i . The ' father ' of 
 Pashhur i is called Immer, the father of Pashhur 2 is called 
 ' Melchiah ' (both names come from ' Jerahmeel '), while 
 Zephaniah's father is Maaseiah ( = Ishmael). A Pashhur, 
 son of Melchiah, is referred to in i Chr. ix. 1 2 (see E. Bib., 
 ' Pashhur ') with other names which are transparently N. 
 Arabian. Another Zephaniah, father of ' Josiah ' (Shemaiah ?) 
 is also mentioned in a narrative suspected of having a N, 
 Arabian reference (see on Zech. vi. 10), and again another 
 in a list of Kohathite names, which are as evidently N. 
 Arabian as those in i Chr. ix. 10-12. The meaning of 
 ' Zephaniah ' is plain (see on Zeph. i. i ) ; that of ' Pashhur ' 
 is somewhat doubtful. Some of ©"-'s readings (see E. Bib., . 
 col: 3589) suggest as the origin Pedasshur or Pedahzur (0, 
 TraSacraovp). If we restore ' Pedahzur ' for ' Pashhur,' we get 
 a contrast in v. 3 between ' God ("i^s) has redeemed ' and 
 ' Terror on every side.' liioD T)1D is certainly corrupt, but 
 
xxi. 13 JEREMIAH 63 
 
 the corruption existed as early as the time of the late writer 
 of XX. 1-6; for the idiom see Ezek. xxi. 17, and for the 
 true reading of the original phrase see on vi. 25. Siegfr.- 
 Stade, following (g {fikroiKov), omit 1"'3dd, and render ' das 
 Hinwegziehen,' but n"il can hardly mean ' umherziehen,' and 
 'do 'iO occurs in the MT. of v, 10. 
 
 XX. 4-10, xxi. 2, 4, etc. 711 comes from a corruption 
 of bsDnT ; mtUD should be D"'t01D. Both, ordinary textual 
 phenomena. — Vv. 8-10 are very far from correct. The 
 original text had become corrupt, and was recast by the 
 redactor, n^j; {y. 9) (masc. !) may represent a dittographed 
 'D2i>[l]. — V. 10 has probably been rewritten on the basis of 
 corrupt and dittographed ethnics. We may therefore plausibly 
 restore thus — ■ 
 
 TO nnN-N^T I i^naiN-N^ TnoNi 
 ; inD!sj;i msi I mvo rhi rvrv\ 
 
 ! 'h rhy\r\ I man? hy^ 13T33 
 
 The closing words of v. 10, as Duhm has seen, are a gloss. 
 
 Chap. xxi. i . ' Pashhur,' ' Zephaniah.' See on xx. i . 
 
 xxi. i\ f. See next note but one. 
 
 xxi. 13/ Giesebrecht has pointed out that vv. 11, 12 
 and w. 13, 14 are not consecutive, also that m v. 14 from 
 Tnpsi to.mn"' is an insertion. He further doubts whether 
 the city addressed is Jerusalem ; so also does Graf, referring 
 to xlviii. 8. Duhm rightly thinks that v. 1 3 is a quotation 
 from some poem, and that though the person who inserted 
 it, and who also wrote v. 14, applied it to Jerusalem, this 
 was not the original meaning. Comparing xlvii. 5, xlviii. 
 8, 2 1 (corr. text), we may read (in v. 1 3) — 
 
 ! msDT ^NonT raxrn t^n ^yi-n 
 
 It is a prophecy (the work of some late writer) against 
 the Jerahmeelites and Misrites (cp. on ix. 2^f.). The open- 
 ing phrase T^n ■'33n occurs again in 1. 31, li. 25, Nah. ii. 14, 
 iii. 5. In each case the reference seems to be to Israel's 
 great Jerahmeelite or N. Arabian foe. For "i3im3:)Dl read 
 "irm^DlMl (cp. Am. i. 4, etc.). 
 
64 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxi. n 
 
 xxi. 1 1 /, xxii. 1-5. Alternative introductions to the 
 composite work, xxii. 6-30. Both, as will be presently seen, 
 presuppose in v. 6 the corrupt reading rmrr' l^D TVl, which 
 the writers of the introductions understand to mean 'the 
 house of the king of Judah.' xxi. 1 2« and xxii. 4« are equiva- 
 lent ; xxi. 12b = iv. 4b ; xxii. 4 nearly = xvii. 25. Evidently 
 not of the age of Jeremiah. 
 
 Chap. xxii. 6-36. Vv. 8 /, as Duhm has seen, are 
 late; they continue v. 14. But vv. 6 f. may be Jeremiah's. 
 Duhm criticises the heading (in v. 6) as plainly incorrect ; a 
 royal house or palace cannot become ' uninhabited cities.' 
 According to him, vv. 6b, 7 are addressed to Israel ; he 
 inserts 'psntO'' after -h, producing this sense, ' A Gilead art 
 thou unto me, O Israel' But surely, from Duhm's point of 
 view, we should sooner expect o'pt&lT' "h rrriM. We must 
 therefore ask leave to apply our new key to this difficult 
 passage, and by doing so we attain this result, which, how- 
 ever, implies results already gained by the study (in the 
 same fresh light) of 2 K. xxiii. Shallum, son of Josiah, 
 pursued the policy of his father, who annexed certain portions 
 of the Jerahmeelite Negeb which had belonged to Israel. 
 Among the most important places in this region was Beth- 
 jerahmeel, the possession of which was specially coveted 
 by Israelites and N. Arabians alike (cp. on Hos. x. 14). 
 Possibly it was the place associated, as it seems, by Jeremiah 
 (see on ii. 34) with the practice of the sacrifice of children ; 
 and if so, vv. 8 f., which are not Jeremiah's, may have taken 
 the place of a stanza which referred to this sinful custom. 
 On this, however, no stress should be laid. All that it is 
 important to hold is that "['70 in 'a JT'l, as so often in the 
 OT., represents '?Nom^ The heading therefore states that 
 the following prophecy relates to a place (and district?) 
 called Beth-melek (or Beth-jerahmeel) ; rmrr' which follows 
 is probably an editorial expansion of a corruptly written nin. • 
 Read, therefore, in v. 16 — 
 
 : \^y^'^l msn I ■h nriN ^i>^a Tin 
 
 and compare fjonsn Trrr, Isa. xxxv. 2. The meaning is that 
 though Beth-jerahmeel is recognised by Yahwe as being the 
 pride of Gilead and the choicest part of the Lebanon -country. 
 
xxii. 19 JEREMIAH 65 
 
 yet he will make both it and its neighbour-cities a desolation. 
 The southern Lebanon (Gebalon ?) is meant ; cp. on i K. 
 V. 6. A supplementer, however, seems to have imagined a 
 reference to Jerusalem {vv. 8, 9). 
 
 Vv. 10-12 and 13-17 belong apparently to a cycle of 
 poems (of Jeremiah ?) on kings of Judah ; the former passage 
 relates to Shallum ( = Jehoahaz ?), the latter to Jehoiakim. 
 Vv. 12, /■ refer to royal building operations, not, however, 
 at Jerusalem but in the Negeb, certain places in which region 
 needed to be fortified. Such fortifications may perhaps be 
 referred to in i K. ix. i 5-19 (i Chr. viii. 4-6), 2 Chr. xi. 6-10, 
 xxvi. 6. See E. Bib., ' Rehoboam,' ' Solomon.' The supposed 
 description of a palace with its nyhs (combined m v. 14 with 
 D"'n^'ip, masculine ! also Pual, here only), its Hittite archi- 
 tecture (? ''yhfi), its cedar ceiling and vermilion painting, is 
 purely imaginary. The case is similar to that of the descrip- 
 tion of ' the men portrayed upon the wall ' (Ezek. xxiii. 14./.). 
 T\yh^ is most probably from m^niD. This gives us the key 
 to nh^p rca, and consequently to in"'l, both of which should 
 be ni''3"i''a (cp. 2 Chr. xvii. 1 2, xxvii. 4). And if our leading 
 idea is correct we cannot help restoring in v. 14b the names 
 of conquered places. Read, in v. 14, pTS-N^l nV3T'l nai-^irr 
 asffio N^l rm^^aQ^, and in v. 15, omitting the bracketed 
 
 words as glosses, ^Nom"' ^h spT^ m^7aD riTDT'i ■''?"n3nN noNn 
 hlann] otolDT hlSOl] ps^-i. For the idiom 'h sp-Ji, cp. 2 Chr. 
 xxxii. I, Isa. vii. 6. 
 
 F. 1 5 now seems to be clear. lf?onn, ' shall thou con- 
 tinue to reign,' can hardly be right. The contrast is between 
 the father, Josiah, with whom it was well, and the son, 
 Jehoiakim, with whom (we may assume) it was not well ; 
 cp. also V. 30 (rh^ir t<h). Read n^snn, and for nNl mnriD 
 read isDl muno. The poet asks, 'Will going to war 
 (n rrann, Dt. ii. S, 19) with the neighbouring kingdom of 
 Missur (the archaic phrase was too firmly rooted to be given 
 up) be any guarantee of thy prosperity ? How unlike art 
 thou to thy father, who led a peaceable life, and devoted all 
 his energies to administering justice, and who was rewarded 
 by prosperity ' ! ' It is true, Josiah did meddle with warfare at 
 the close, but then, emphatically, it was noi ' well with him.' 
 
 xxii. 19. Those who will may believe that Jeremiah 
 
 5 
 
66 CRITICA BIBLICA xxii. 20 
 
 wrote the phrase ' with the burial of an ass.' y\cm (see 
 E. Bib., ' Shechem,' 2) is one of the regular transformations 
 of ^Nom"' ; the same word also appears as rTN^rrD, as in 
 Am. V. 27. Read 'inimp ^Nsoffi-'i ^?ip■: '?NDnT' m.i2i7[3]. 
 The threat is that Jehoiakim shall die and be buried as a 
 captive in Jerahmeel. Two words in MT., I'jffim and >'ys'^, 
 appear to be editorial insertions. oStOTT' has grown out of 
 'jMi^DtD"' (see on iv. 15-17). 
 
 xxii. 20. An ideal woman, personifying a community, 
 is told to lift up her voice in Lebanon, Bashan, and Abarim. 
 It is supposed that Abarim here denotes the E. range of 
 mountains in its entire extent, so as to cover both Gilead 
 and Moab, and a parallel for this is found in Ezek. xxxix. 11, 
 where Q"'l3i;rT "'I is now generally read ge hd-abdrlin, ' a valley 
 of [Mt.] Abarim ' (so first Hitzig), not in the narrower but 
 in the wider sense. The narrower sense ( = the edge of the 
 Moabite plateau) is supported by the other occurrences of 
 the word. Such is the view endorsed by the lexicons. It 
 urgently needs revision. The supposed double use of tS^'-Os 
 is not in itself likely, and a wide study of the geography of 
 the contexts of the passages shows that N. Arabia is the 
 region referred to ; in short, D■'^3i' should be D"'312; (in Nu. 
 xxxiii. 44, ■'■^N should be i"i.^). We have also seen evidence 
 enough already that the gaze of Jeremiah is fixed upon the 
 Negeb and, beyond this, upon the land of the Jerahmeelites. ; 
 Read in this light the geography of xxii. 20 becomes altered. 
 Here, as perhaps elsewhere, ' Lebanon ' may come from 
 ' Gebalon,' but of this possibility we shall not avail ourselves. 
 At any rate, ' Bashan ' is a corruption of ' Cushan.' The 
 meaning of T^HND is much disputed ; does it mean the 
 rulers of the people of Judah (so @, Vg., Tg.)? This is 
 favoured by i^p'-\ (v. 22), for the pointing Tfjsi is forbidden 
 by ten ^i'^^, but is opposed by usage (see ii. 36, iv. 30, 
 Hos. ii.). Duhm's T^rrNi (Nifal part.) is superficial and 
 unsatisfactory. Read Ty^nhaoi^. Thus the passage becomes— ;| 
 
 And what is the community addressed? F. 23 will 
 tell us. 
 
xxvii. 3 JEREMIAH 67 
 
 xxii. 23. The imaginary woman referred to is the 
 inhabitant of Lebanon, she who dwells among the cedars. 
 The house is in the region whence Solomon obtained the 
 timber for his great buildings (see E. Bib., ' Solomon '). It is 
 that section of the Jewish people which has become settled 
 in the Negeb, and which is by racial though not political 
 connection largely Jerahmeelite, which is addressed in the 
 little poem, w. 20-23. Read in v. 2},a — 
 
 The Jewish people, especially the survivors of the Jewish 
 population, in the Negeb are to ascend the mountain heights, 
 and there raise a dirge (i) for the nation, whose kings have 
 gone into captivity in the more distant Jerahmeelite land 
 {yv. 12, 19); (2) for the Negeb, which had become at least 
 in part Jewish, and which contained the most venerated 
 sanctuaries. 
 
 Chap, xxiii. 1 2. For nhpSp^jri? read nhn^S. 
 
 Chap. xxv. 9. pas, as usual, is the name of a region. 
 On ' Nebuchadrezzar,' etc., see on xxvii. 6, 2 K. xxiv. i. 
 
 xxv. 15-26, greatly misunderstood in the traditional text 
 ((§M). The list of peoples begins with Judah. Next 
 come Misrim, Arabia,^ Zarephathim, Aram, Missur, Jerah- 
 meel, Missur (Tyre and Sidon), Arabian, Dedan, Tema, Bu?, 
 Zarephathim, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Cushanim, Zimri (cp. 
 Zimran, Gen. xxv. 2), Jerahmeel (Elam and Madai), Zaphon, 
 Cush-jerahmeel. The interpolated references to the ' Philis- 
 tine' cities {v. 20) and to the kingdoms of the earth are here 
 omitted. The closing words Dn^iinN nno)-' imm l^DT have 
 grown out of 'jNonT miD mi3 'h•a^ (cp. pmrn from ffilD, I Chr. 
 viii. 14, 25). Much ingenious speculation now disappears. 
 See on li. i. 
 
 xxv. 38. All critics read nn for "^-xn (1°). But on 
 TST^TS they all go wrong. See on xlvi. 16. 
 
 Chap, xxvii. Though it is possible that the Misrites 
 may have made common cause with the Judahites (as in 
 ' Sennacherib's ' time, see on 2 K. xix. 9), we cannot regard 
 this as certain. See on xli. 1 7 /i 
 
 xxvii. 3. As usual, a superfluity of tautologous ethnics. 
 1 pvn seems to be a corruption of pxn, written in error. 
 
68 CRITIC A BIBLICA xxvii. 6; 
 
 First come nny (so, for dTn) and n^ap (so, for aNin), 
 then ^NDHT' "31 (so, for pDi^ "'31) and T12Q (so, for ns and 
 
 xxvii. 6. -^-rya Sij-tiVp ISn?!?''^?- "^^^ *^*^^ "'"^^ ^g^i« 
 in (xxv. 9) xliii. lo (not in @) ; cp. Ezek. xxix. 20, where 
 the land of n"'nSQ is promised to Nebuchadrezzar as a ' wage,' 
 ' because they wrought for me,' in laying siege to ^:s. But 
 this phrase (which destroys the rhythm and is a very late 
 insertion) does not contain the word i"T3i>. In the late 
 period to which chap, xxvii. in its present form belongs (see 
 Duhm), the title i-Tli> was specially appropriated to Israel. 
 It is not applied even to Cyrus, and we cannot easily believe 
 that it was applied to a king who, if he really did all that is 
 ascribed ,to him, gave the Jews no reason to honour him. 
 'TIS and ni> are frequently confounded ; it is probable that 
 this has been the case here. In Hos. v. 1 3, x. 6 the king 
 of Jerahmeel is called 1-ji; ij'^p (so, for 3T 'n). It is probable 
 that we should read '"ini?, i.e. D"'ni', and take this word as an 
 early gloss on 'jll. The latter word is in fact (see on Gen.. 
 X. 10) a corruption of 'jNnriT. There are many other 
 corruptions and distortions of Jerahmeel ; only one of these 
 need be mentioned here, viz. another title of ' Nebuchad- 
 rezzar,' parallel to ' king of Babel,' d"'dSd iSd, i.e. ' king of 
 Jerahmeel ' (see on Ezek. xxvi. 7). As to the name of the 
 king, see on 2 K. xxiv. i. 
 
 Chap. xxix. 22/; Whether the punishment spoken of 
 is probable for these two humble Jewish prophets, we need 
 not inquire. After the statement that the great king would 
 slay them publicly, the writer would certainly not have 
 spoken of their being burned nor, even if he had done so, 
 would he have used the word nSp. The next step is to 
 remedy the corruption iri the text. The parallel description 
 in vv. 30-32 shows us how to do it. The offence of the two 
 prophets must have been described thus, idJDI "ni7 ^ffiN ]»* 
 lp2?. What now comes directly after ntCN |l>'i was suggested;^ 
 by the corrupt phrase jdnI a'pp (cp. Gen. xxxviii. 24). For 
 that phrase we should read Timsl o'piap, ' killed them in 
 Asshur (or Ashhur),' i.e. in N. Arabia. 
 
 xxix. 24. ■'D^TOn. @'s aCKaiJLenr]v points to ''DTn = 
 ■"'pNom"'. See further, E. Bib., ' Shemaiah,' 2. 
 
xxxi. 15 JEREMIAH 69 
 
 Chap. xxx. i83. Read Srh^ryhs || rhvch^. 
 
 XXX. 21. MT. is very strange, especially la^-nsi 3n^. 
 This phrase seems to Duhm to come from a writer who had 
 seen the rise and fall of illegal high-priests — Jason, Menelaus, 
 Alcimus. But h3^ ? By "iSmn, Duhm understands such a 
 ruler as Simon the Maccabee — a near approach to a true 
 priest-king. But the text is corrupt. i^n miDI "i;ni"ipm 
 comes from ■'7NSaa>"' ■'PiD'inrn., where nm is a correction of 
 nTTT (the other part of 'nm is a,bsorbed in IT'In), and 'offii is 
 a correction of 170)0 (cp. Isa. xlii. 1 9, xlix. 7). V. 2 1 should 
 therefore run thus — 
 
 ••ms m-Nirr ■'o ■'3 n^j-' impo •^^Ni^nm-'T ■'SNom"' -^ncnnm 
 
 ' And I will destroy the Jerahmeelite, and the Ishmaelite shall 
 go forth from his midst. For who then is the Arabian and the 
 Jerahmeelite, and the Ishmaelite, is Yahwe's saying.' 
 
 Of course, a late editor may have thought of Asmonsean 
 priest-kings. But the original writer's longing was for the 
 removal of his constant eye-sore, the oppressive Jerahmeelite 
 tyrants (cp. the Psalms passim). 
 
 Chap. xxxi. 7. If this is a quatrain, something must 
 be omitted. Duhm omits yp^h and nnotD ; further, he 
 changes W'xxn into Qinrr. It is true, rrnom does not appear 
 in (g. But this is because it seemed to @ to add nothing 
 to the sense. Duhm also holds it to be useless. But some 
 parallel to vnro. (?) tr\n is wanted. Now as to Duhm's 
 vnn. It is too indefinite ; contrast Isa. xlii. 1 1 , which 
 Duhm rightly refers to as parallel. A closer inspection of 
 various passages in which □■'"lan occurs would have shown 
 this critic that □i1i[n] sometimes covers over ^NDnT' (so, e.g. 
 Gen. xiv. i). This shows us what nJirDB? has grown out of 
 — D»3 (frequently corrupted by transposition of letters). 
 Read,' therefore, ^ndhT' tOMni "i^mi I ntODl Ip^h 131. 
 
 xxxi. 8. Render 'from the land of Zaphon ' (i. 14), 
 * from the far parts of the land.' See on iii. 1 2. 
 
 xxxi. 15. D-'ninon '^31 Tf^. 'n occurs again in vi. 26 
 and Hos. xii. 15, where 'bitterness' is the supposed sense, 
 and in f. 21, where 'it is difficult to believe that the co- 
 incidence [with V. 15] is accidental' (Bennett, Jer. 'Exp. 
 
70 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxxi. i6 
 
 Bible,' ii. 337, note 3), and yet the moderns assume an 
 entirely different meaning. Beyond doubt D"'T)"ion "'31 should 
 be f?NDm"'-n^ni. See on vi. 26. Note that ^m here 
 represents the ancestress of the ' tribe ' of Joseph, which, with 
 the other northern ' tribes ' passed into exile in N. Arabia. 
 The starting-point of the captives was Ramah in the Negeb, 
 i.e. Beth-jerahmeel (see Jer. xl. i). This famous place was 
 doubtless near Mizpah {i.e. Zarephath), and therefore also not 
 far from the southern Bethel ; this will appear by comparing 
 xl. I, 6, xli. 5/ 
 
 xxxi. 16 f. Read ■'l'i§ pND, 'from the Arabian's land.' 
 TIN and ■^mi? are confounded in the Psalter. F. 1 7 originally 
 connected with i^ltO vav. 2.1. 
 
 xxxi. 2 1(2. Critics have been too easy-going. Gies. 
 unsuspectingly remarks that the versions have mostly not 
 understood the passage. But is his own rendering really intelli- 
 gible ? Surely the setting-up of guide-posts belongs not to 
 the travellers, but to friendly persons who prepare the way for 
 them. Surely the command to ' give attention to the high' 
 way ' is not a natural one. Surely the phrase ' the way by 
 which thou hast gone ' is not at all clear. Then as to DT2 
 and D"'Tnon. These words cannot be shown to mean 
 ' guide-posts,' nor can D"'~ion, a reading which Gies. deduces 
 from @'s TifMopLav, mean anything but ' artificial palms ' (as 
 an architectural decoration). Both words have most probably 
 arisen out of corrupt groups of letters representing respectively 
 n-'Swrom"' and Qi^NDm"'. And looking further we see that 
 each of the other groups of letters may easily have arisen 
 out of one or the other of these words — note especially "'DtB 
 T? and nSoD ; the other developments may seem less 
 obvious, but there are numerous parallels for them. Thus,, 
 representing ' Ishmael ' by I, and 'Jerahmeel' hy],v.2ia 
 becomes IIIJIIJ. ' Ishmaelites, Jerahmeelites,' are a gloss 
 on iin^, V. 16 (end). For parallels to this combination of 
 corruptions, see on xlix. 29, 1. 9, Isa. xxii. 5(5. 
 
 xxxi. 22. Neither Duhm's correction, nor Schmidt's 
 {E. Bib., col. 2384, foot), nor Winckler's (AOF^^\ ii. 229/) 
 is at all satisfactory. Nor could the corruption of the text 
 be remedied until the key had been discovered. It is the 
 Negeb which separates the captives from their home. The 
 
XXXV. II JEREMIAH 71 
 
 Jews hesitate to take the troublesome journey from the 
 further part of the land of Jerahmeel. The Second Isaiah, 
 therefore, assures them that creative omnipotence will exalt 
 every valley, make low every mountain and hill (Isa. xl. 4, 
 cp. xlix. 11), and open rivers on the bare heights (xli. 18). 
 And the Second Jeremiah (if we may fitly call him so) 
 points in like manner to the divine creatorship, ever ready 
 to display itself afresh. ' Yahwe will create a new thing in 
 the land — the Negeb shall change as (into) the Arabah,' 
 xrrm ni|n nioi; cp. Zech. xiv. 10, 'All the land shall 
 change as (into) the 'Arabah, from Geba to Rimmon 
 ( = Jerahmeel), the Negeb of Ishmael ' (corrected text). I 
 see that Duhm quotes Zech. xiv. 10, but only for the idiom 
 
 Chap, xxxii. 35. ^i^arr and ffpo are the same deity; 
 n^n = ^NDriT (see on 2 K. xxiii. i o). 
 
 Chap, xxxiv. i . Read fpNom*' ^SD imNnDii^T 'w nn-jn 
 D-'D'tn"! D-'^N:;DtD-'1 lltCNi. iS'-'H-'^D and mafpDO both = 'rw ; 
 cp. on i. \\ff-, xxxix. i. n^moo, according to parallels, 
 should come from D"''7N2;Dt0"' ; ITi and D'^os may represent 
 D"'D^N. On the possible confusion of two distinct invasions 
 of Judah, one Babylonian, and the other N. Arabian, see on 
 xxxvii. 5. Similarly (with a slight difference) in E. Bib., 
 col. 3396. 
 
 xxxiv. 6. ' Lachish and Azekah ' ? But does not this 
 refer to the preliminary N. Arabian invasion of the Negeb 
 (still largely occupied by Israelites) ? We meet with Azekah 
 in the story of David and Goliath, the original scene of which 
 was the valley of Jerahmeel (' Elah ') or Arammim 
 (' -dammim ') ; see i S. xvii. i , corr. text. ' Lachish ' may 
 well be an error for ' Eshcol,' Num. xiii. 23; cp. on 2 K. 
 xviii. 17. 
 
 Chap. XXXV. 2, 11. The Rechabites are mentioned in 
 I Ch. ii. 5 5 in proximity to Kirjath-jearim and Kirjath-sepher 
 (see vv. 50, 5 2, 5 3, and [see E. Bib., ' Jabez'] 55). These places 
 are respectively K.-jerahmeel and K.-sarephath. There is no 
 sufficient evidence that the Rechabites ever left the Negeb 
 where these two places were situated. True, in 2 K. x. 1 5 ^ 
 Jehonadab ben Rekab is mentioned as in plDB. But in 
 that narrative there has been a confusion between Shomeron 
 
72 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxxvi. i8 
 
 and Shimron (in the Negeb). The ordinary supposition (see 
 e.g. Duhm ox\ v. 1 1 ) that the Rechabites (a Calebite tribe, 
 see Wi., GI, i. 84) had been leading a nomad Hfe in the 
 more northerly parts of Palestine is suggested partly by a 
 misunderstanding of 2 K. x. 15 ff., partly by the mention 
 of the 'Chaldaeans and Aramaans' in Jer. xxxv. 11. But 
 the latter passage must be read in the light of 2 K. xxiv. 2, 
 where, however (see E. Bib., col. 3460, with note i), the 
 ' Aramaeans ' are not the N. Aramaeans, who might be 
 supposed to have supplied a large contingent to the Baby- 
 lonian army (cp. E. Bib., ' Aram,' § 7), but the S. Aramaeans, 
 i.e. the Jerahmeelites ; ' Chaldaeans should be ' Cushites,' as 
 also in 2 K. i.e. 
 
 Chap, xxxvi. 18,26. For im read D-innn (E. Bib., col. 
 2170, top), and note that this Snoht is perhaps the same 
 as n^'D^'D (xxxviii. 6). See E. Bib., ' Hammelech.' 
 
 Chap, xxxvii. 5. The question which meets us here is 
 similar to that which arises in 2 K. xviii. 9. Is there here a 
 confusion of traditions, viz. of a tradition relative to a Baby- 
 lonian siege of Jerusalem which was interrupted by a diversion 
 caused by an Egyptian army ? Or may we suppose (cp. xxvii. 
 3, corrected text) that there was an alliance between the king 
 of Judah and the kings of Aram (i.e. Jerahmeel in the 
 narrower sense) and Missur ? Whether Jeremiah's biographer 
 was well informed on this point, we cannot tell, but, until 
 better informed, it is most critical to adopt the second view. 
 See xliii. i o (as read below), ' and shall hold judgment on 
 the traitors of Jerahmeel ' (i.e. as v. 11 shows, on the land of 
 Misrim), and cp. on 2 K. xxiv.-xxv. 
 
 Chap, xxxix. i. A good specimen of editorial recasting 
 (see E. Bib., 'Nergal-sharezer'). "i^in-'pD comes from SsoriT, 
 a correction of ^m. See on xxxiv. i . 
 
 xxxix. 3. Read irmn i^mii 'jNonT ■^hn ■'nto b^2 "inti 
 ^MDHT' Ti£&N iis] d-'t^i3 nb TT2 ~iW ^^p nto ^NonT' lio n3»a 
 ['lai ^NomMn^. For ^^n^ read n3i>D ; cp. on Ps. Ixxii. 14. 
 
 xxxix. 4-7. See on 2 K. xxv. 4-7 — 9. Nebuzaradan (?). 
 See on 2 K. xxv. 20. — 13. Read Qimni-^ns] Hsnl rhw') 
 '^y] [f?NDmi-ni>] i^i&n ito [f?MonT' nWN-n:> ci'im3-n"T5> 
 
 Chap. xl. i, ^ f- The 'Ramah' should be ^Ramath- 
 negeb.' The ' Gedaliah ' ( = Gileadite) spoken of is one of the 
 
xli. 17 JEREMIAH 73 
 
 Jerahmeelite Israelites, as his genealogical names show ; ^ he 
 is appointed governor, not of the whole land of Judah, but 
 of the Negeb, or rather of the ' cities of Judah ' in the Negeb. 
 His seat of government is Mizpah, i.e. probably Zarephath 
 (cp. E. Bib., ' Misrephoth-maim '). Notice in connection with 
 this (i) that Josiah (or rather — see on 2 K. xxi. i — 
 Manasseh) had annexed parts of the Negeb, (2) that Jere- 
 miah probably belonged to that region (see on i. i), (3) 
 that Ishmael and the other captains (see on v. 7 'below) who 
 come to Gedaliah {^. 8) were at least half Jerahmieelites 
 (see on xliii. 2, and on 2 K. xxv. 2 2_^.)> (4) that Cushites 
 {v. 10) are expected to be constantly coming to Gedaliah, 
 (5) that the Jews who place themselves under his rule come 
 from neighbouring parts of N. Arabia (z;. 11), and (6) that 
 the pilgrims who visit the ' house of Yahwe ' at ' Mizpah ' 
 (see on xli. 5) come from Cusham, Shiloh, and Shimron — 
 places in the Negeb. Cp. on i K. xv. 20-22. The sacred- 
 ness of Zarephath dated from ancient times. Probably "into 
 0"'^Ttrr (z'. 7) should be ^NOnT '» (see on xliii. 2). 
 
 xl. II. ' Moab,' ' Ammon,' ' Edom ' ; correct as in 
 xxvii. 3. — 14. ish'sl (like ^nrs) is a corruption of f^NSOffi"'. 
 So this ' etymological problem ' (E. Bib., ' Baalis ') now 
 appears to be solved. 
 
 Chap. xli. I. For TTD'hon I^ntO and the corrupt variant 
 l^DH ■'m (cp. Duhm) read fjNom"' l^Tin (cp. on 2 S. xii. 26. 
 That ' Elishama ' should be ' Ishmael,' Giesebr. has seen. 
 See on xliii. 2. 
 
 xli. 3, 5, 12. For D-'ltDDH read D^ffilDn (so v. 18), and 
 for DDQJ read D»3. Point pnpm. As to the situation of 
 ' Shiloh ' and ' Gibeon,' see on i S. ii. 3 and Josh. ix. 1 7, 
 2 S. ii. 1 3. 
 
 xli. 1 7 / Read ' Gidroth-jerahmeel which is by Beth- 
 jerahmeel.' The party aim at going into Misrim (so read), 
 a large region where they hope to be safe from the Cushites. 
 Probably, however, v. 1 8 is a later insertion by one who read 
 rrySD. Possibly, too, the story of the Jews seeking refuge 
 in a-n'^Q is a perverted echo of the tradition of a Misrite 
 captivity. In Lam. v. 6 the Jews are said to have surrendered 
 
 1 ^S-iy = "ishi. Gilead in the Negeb is meant. Ahikam = Jerahmeel. 
 * Shaphan ' = Saphon. See E. Bib., ' Shaphan.' 
 
74 CRITICA BIBLICA xlii. 
 
 to the Misrites and the Asshurites (see E. Bib., col 
 2700). 
 
 Chap. xlii. ff. Throughout read D'^i^O- 
 
 Chap, xliii. 2. For the impossible d-'IOM read D-'isiNrr, 
 If Ishmael was ' of Jerahmeelite race ' (xli. i, above), we may 
 presume that his fellow-captains (xl. 8) were so too. Their 
 names quite accord with this view. Note also the phrase 
 C^Tin ■'itO ; see on xl. i, 5 (end). 
 
 xliii. 7. See next note. — 8-10. See on chap, xlvi. 
 For Dnannnn read fjNonT' rr^nn, ' in Beth-jerahmeel ' (cp. on 
 ii. 16, xliv. I). The unintelligible Jofpol and pf?ol have also 
 grown out of these two words (not represented in @) written 
 ^NDHT '1 (cp. on 12a^D3, 2 S. iv. 6, and on JD^on, 2 S. 
 xii. 31). ni>"iD rr^l is an attempt to make sense out of a 
 dittographed DTOSnni. For DnDDU and Ti30£3 read Dnsnn, 
 ■^n^Dn. DiT'^:' iv. i o, end), as elsewhere, comes from 7Nam\ 
 To make this doubly sure, the scribe has given two super- 
 fluous T in the preceding word. IDQ) in ininnm represents 
 •'i^ms. riMl, of course, should be jssmai. The scene may be 
 illustrated by xxxix. 3. G. Hoffm. {ZATW, ii. 69) rightly 
 explains @, ev rot? irpoOvpoL<i, but does not account for the 
 presence of jnbai b'jQl in the Hebrew. The whole passage 
 becomes, ' And the word of Yahwe came to Jer. in Beth-> 
 jerahmeel, saying, Take into thy hand great stones, and hold 
 them in the gateway of Beth-jerahmeel before the men of 
 Judah, and say to them. Thus saith Yahwe . . . Behold, I 
 will send and fetch ' Nebuchadrezzar,' king of Jerahmeel 
 [Arabians], I will set his tribunal upon these stones which 
 thou boldest, and he shall hold judgment upon the traitors 
 of Jerahmeel.' iili> = "ins, which is a gloss on 'jll (xxvii. 5); 
 @, however, omits. 
 
 xliii. 13. For ' Beth-shemesh' read 'Beth-cusham.' See 
 E. Bib., ' Shechem,' 2. 
 
 Chap. xliv. ' A discourse of Jer. to all Jews in Upper 
 and Lower Egypt, threatening them with the same fate for 
 their idolatry which overtook Jerusalem and the cities of 
 Judah.' So Duhm, who adds that as the chapter now 
 stands, it is a work of the supplem'enters, but that, especially 
 mvv. I 5-19, 24-26, 28, ' theold document isdiscernible.' On 
 V. I he remarks, ' How Jer. can speak a divine word to all 
 
xliv. 30 JEREMIAH 75 
 
 the Jews in Lower and Upper Egypt, the author does not 
 reveal to us.' Unless v. i has been added later, D"'12D means 
 Lower Egypt. The cities named are Migdol on the N.E., 
 Daphnse, and Memphis. Pathros is Upper Egypt with the 
 capital Thebes. In the time of the writer, the Jews have 
 already spread throughout Egypt. @ has ' in the land of 
 Egypt, and in Migdol, Daphnae, and the land of Pathros ' 
 (Iladovpri). In accordance, however, with our results else- 
 where, it is highly probable that all this is a great mis- 
 understanding, nor has even the learning and acuteness of 
 Prof. W. Max Miiller (see special articles in E. Bil>.) availed 
 to make the received views more plausible. It is the 
 N. Arabian D"'12JQ (so long ago Beke, Ong. Bib., i. 307) 
 which is meant. D^^nD = nons (see on Isa. xi. 11),' Migdol ' 
 might be ' Migdal-cusham,' but the latter is not a suffi- 
 ciently radical correction of ' Migdal-shechem' in Judg. 
 ix. 46 (see E. Bib., ' Shechem, Tower of As often, h~ilo 
 represents 'pNortT^. If so, it is really superfluous here, for 
 onannm, which follows, should certainly be ^Nom"' rTian 
 (see on xliii. 8, 9) For ^311 read probably nhnD311 (see on 
 ii. 16). 
 
 xliv. 3, 8, 15. See on vii. 18. Baal and his consort 
 (the Milcah of Ishmael?) are the 'deities of Jerahmeel.' 
 In z/. 1 5 ' the land of Q-'nSD ' and DTiriD are in apposition. 
 Yet, according to the usual theory, DlinD is Upper Egypt. 
 The truth is that D'^nso is Misrim, and DTinD is Zarephath 
 in N. Arabia (including the Negeb). 
 
 xliv. 30. It is usual to infer from the form of the 
 sentence that the enemies of ' Pharaoh Hophra ' were 
 different from those of Zedekiah, simply because Nebuchad- 
 rezzar is mentioned by name in v. 2>ob, but not in v. 30a. 
 In the MT. of xlvi. 26 (cp. v. 2$), however, it is expressly 
 stated that 'those who seek the life' of 'Pharaoh and 
 Egypt' are 'Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon and his 
 servants.' It is purely arbitrary to assume that the same 
 phrase in xliv. 30 has not the same reference. That this 
 l^ads to the conclusion that Jeremiah was mistaken in his 
 anticipation, will not disturb the historical student. Neverthe- 
 less, the conclusion is in the present case uncalled for, because 
 the original text contained neither ' Pharaoh Hophra ' nor 
 
76 CRITICA BIBLICA xlvi. 
 
 ' Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon.' All the references to 
 ' Egypt ' in Jer. arise out of a great misunderstanding of the 
 editor (see on chap. xlvi.). As to annn ^Ti»^D, the second 
 element in the name is but a corrupt dittogram of the first, 
 and ni^na is merely IniD, the conventional name of the king 
 of Missur. See next note, and observe that ' Pharaoh- 
 hophra ' is nowhere else mentioned in the traditional text. 
 
 Chap. xlvi. According to W. Max Muller {E. Bib., col. 
 2108), 'so much is now certain — that Jeremiah's and 
 Ezekiel's predictions of a conquest of Egypt by Nebuchad- 
 rezzar were not fulfilled' (cp. col. 1246). How far 
 Herodotus's statements respecting Apries (Uah-ab-ra) are to 
 be trusted we do not yet know ; but Herodotus does not say, 
 nor must we, on the ground of suspicious readings of the 
 text of Jer., allow ourselves to say, that he afforded an 
 asylum to Jewish fugitives (cp. on xliv. 30). It is note- 
 worthy that nothing is said about these refugees in Jer. xlvi., 
 nor indeed in Ezekiel. 
 
 xlvi. 2. The original heading was Di"isp7. To this was 
 added Dm-fp5 nnsN "inp-'^j; rr^r^ nrnw D-'-iiip tf^q iniq 'jti-^?, 
 
 " concerning the army of Pir'u, king of Misrim, which was 
 by the river of Ephrath at Kir-cusham.' Cp. below on v. 6, 
 and 2 K. xxiii. 29, xxiv. 7, and on the 'river of Ephrath,' 
 S2e note on xiii. 1-7, and E. Bib., ' Shihor.' The supposed 
 encounter between Nebuchadrezzar and ' Pharaoh-Necoh ' is 
 generally accepted (see e.g. Winckler, GBA, p. 310, Tiele, 
 BAG, p. 425). It has, however, no other basis than a few 
 suspicious words in a passage which the most moderate 
 critics hesitate to receive as Jeremiah's (see Giesebrecht, Jer. 
 p. 229). For another instance of the corruption of Dt!)7p 
 into ©■'DSna see on Isa. x. 8. We might read nm^S. It is, 
 however, against this view that Herodotus (ii. 159) calls the 
 city which o Newtu? took after the battle of Ma7SwXo? 
 (Migdol = the southern Gilead) KaSurty, i.e. Kadesh. In 
 justification of inid for 133 nrnD, see on 2 K. xxiii. 29. 
 
 xlvi. 5. l-ilDa nilD, ' terror all round,' would not be un- 
 suitable. But we cannot take this passage apart from 
 vi. 25, etc. Observe too that it is not connected with the 
 context by 15. Read, therefore, 'jNi^offii ^ndHT (vi. 25). 
 Cp. on xlix. 29. 
 
»Ivi- 24 JEREMIAH jy 
 
 xlvi. 6. Duhm very naturally wonders at the mention 
 of the north here. But is TOIDS ' in the north ' ? psa is the 
 name of a N. Arabian region (see on i. 1 4). ms should be 
 mD^? (v. 2). 
 
 xlvi. 9. The ethnics are ©id, ma (^in), nms OffiDD), 
 Dn3 (jid), Dni'Sa (cm^), nms Oa?Dn), 331, O^tt; cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Ben-deker '), ffi13 (ntop, cp. on Ps. Ixxviii. 9). Marq. 
 {Fund, 27) is on the right track, emending ■'tonn into D-'Dins. 
 Stade and Cornill wrongly read U^yh for rrth. Cp. on 
 Isa. Ixvi. 19. 
 
 xlvi. II. ' Gilead ' is the ' Gilead ' in the Negeb (see on 
 viii. 22). Point Q-'isp, as usual. 
 
 xlvi. 14. See on xliv. i. For T^'lD read ^nddidi (cp. 
 on T3DD, vi. 25). 
 
 xlvi. 15. TT'^N ^nD3 sno. It is grievous to be an 
 iconoclast, but it must be candidly stated that the Apis of 
 @ (?) is purely imaginary. The key is furnished by V\rfD2 = 
 DTVm, which (see E. Bib., ' Phinehas ') is a current corruption 
 of f?NDm\ The proof of this is that the correction Snoht' 
 (miswritten T'T'^n) follows. Indeed, dtoD ( = 'nT) occurs 
 in z^. 14 (as apart of 'nn). S'no should be li^D. Render 
 V. 15, 'Jerahmeel totters, he stands not, for Yahwe has 
 thrust him down.' ' Jerahmeel ' has just been mentioned 
 under the disguises of Migdol and [Tahjpanhes. 
 
 xlvi. 16. Read "hvil Dl l^tDD D-'llsn. — r\T\'n mn. Read 
 ■'3rn Dnn, ' the sword of the Javanite ' ( = Jerahmeelite), cp. 
 on pn, Hab. ii. 5. Correct xxv. 38, 1. 16, Zeph. iii. i, 
 accordingly. Cp. ®, ii,a')(aLpa<s 'EXX7jviKrj<;, i.e. -i^V 't\, which 
 Schmidt adopts in 1. 16. 
 
 xlvi. 17. A list of the different tribes of Arabians, such 
 as we find occasionally in the Psalms, — riDliJ 'jNrom"' f?Nnm"' 
 D"'mN D"'ms □"'Jt&'O Q-'lHO. Later insertion: 
 
 xlvi. 18 should reassert the coming destruction of the 
 Misrite Jerahmeel. ^^D^ = ^ndht, a marginal correction of 
 ^m3D. 'm^ should be the subject to n")!"'. "nina seems to 
 be mam (cp. ninoa, xlvii. 4). 
 
 xlvi. 24 f. pnS'DS clearly = ' the folk of Zaphon.' In 
 w. 25 one must again become an iconoclast. It is not the 
 Egyptian god Amen who is referred to (unless, indeed, most 
 improbably, we suppose the late editor to have inserted the 
 
78 CRITICA BIBLICA xlvii. i 
 
 reference out of his own head, without any corrupt material 
 to work upon) but poi;, one of the current corruptions of 
 f?NDm^ rprrfpN and n"'D^o may also be corruptions of the 
 same word. Render — ' Behold, I will punish [Jerahmeel, 
 and] Pir'u, and Misrim, and Jerahmeel.' The closing words 
 explain the reference to Jerahmeel. Not all the Jerah- 
 meelites, but only those who hold with the king of Missur 
 are meant. For the invader was himself the mightiest of the 
 kings of the Jerahmeelite race. (The writer archais&s, and 
 assumes that the relations of the N. Arabian peoples were 
 still as they were in the time before Esar-haddon.) 
 
 Chap, xlvii. i. The last clause is omitted by critics, 
 but not on the right grounds. The oracle relates to the 
 Zarephathites and the Misrites, not the Philistines and the 
 Tyrians. Now, since "iNia (MT. Hi'lD) is the king of Missur, 
 he cannot be regarded as the fulfiller of the oracle. The 
 invader comes {^. 2) from Zaphon in N. Arabia. 
 
 xlvii. 4/ Read simply TltO ho T&rh rr\'yrh. TIS = 
 ^;JD (a marginal note). See on xxv. 22, Joel iv. 4. — nriM '^N. 
 Read nilhi ini!, ' Rehobothite Arabia.' — rrw is possibly a 
 title of nsis, ' Zarephath.' Observe that rws is mentioned 
 beside pbpQJN, i.e. Eshcol in the Negeb (see on Num. 
 xiii. 23). Thus three out of the five Zarephathite cities are 
 mentioned. — DpDi; rTilNm. @, oi KaTaXoiiroi 'EvaKei/i, i.e. 
 CpDi; 'tC, which most (e.g. Bleecker and Duhm) prefer, com- 
 paring Josh. xi. 22. See E. Bib., ' Anakim.' But what this 
 late writer means is, ' the remnant of Jerahmeel,' correspond- 
 ing to ' the remnant of 'Arab-rehoboth.' DpDi; may come 
 either from D^'pSoi? or directly from □"'^Nnm"'. Cp. on O'lpDJ^, 
 xlix. 4. A ' remnant of Amalek ' is spoken of in i Chr. iv. 43. 
 (Note that ^■'p3i>, like p^iDi>, may come from ^ndht.) 
 
 Chap, xlviii. See on the parallel passages in Isa. xv. /,• 
 Num. xxi., and Isa. xxiv. 
 
 On V. lb, 2, see E. Bib., ' Misgab,' ' Madmen.' In v. f 
 read either TTiTiSlD^I Tli'O^ or '^on alone (following 0, 
 eV 6')(ypd)iJbaai crov). Cp. on xlix. 4. Also, here and in v. 
 1 3, read 01013 (not tOIDD). 
 
 Chap. xlix. referred originally to the b'ne Ammon in the 
 Negeb, i.e. the Jerahmeelites (cp. on vv. 2-4, and see on Am. 
 i. 13). The writer's complaint is that the Negeb is now 
 
xlix. 23 JEREMIAH 79 
 
 exclusively occupied by Jerahmeelites (?.^. probably Edomites). 
 Cp. E. Bib., ' Obadiah, Book of,' § 5. 
 
 xlix. I. DsSta should be SNOmi (as Am. i. 15, Zeph. 
 i. 5), and ^a should possibly be lihlX (so @) ; though 
 there may have been a ~fy as well as a ~[ihy in the Negeb. 
 
 xlix. 2/ For nn read probably ninh (cp. on 2 S. 
 xi. I, xii. 26). — 'What Heshbon has to do with the 
 Ammonites is unintelligible, and Ai is quite unknown,' says 
 Duhm. Read probably 'tj-)-'!; rmtO 13 JffilD "h-hn, and cp. 
 Num. xxi. 28, when pimn seems to be parallel to ;t»13 Vi'^fp, 
 and V. 30, where pnmn seems to be mis written for jmiD. 
 Possibly pimn and nm or mim are designations of the 
 same place. The name Hashabiah, mentioned in genealogies 
 in connection with Malluch, Mahli, Shemaiah, Gedaliah, and 
 other names of the Negeb, shows that the Hashab clan must 
 have been traditionally important. 
 
 xlix. 4 should run thus — ^ndht' i-\s ni -hhrinn na 
 '1:0 rrntann, ' Why boastest thou, O people of ' Arab-jerahmeel, 
 that trustest in thy fortresses (saying), Who can come to 
 me ? ' D'^pni;! = SsonT' ni ; Ipoi; yj represents ^ndhT' n:> ; 
 nintDn ran comes from 'pNsnm"' nn (a variant to 'ttt" ni). 
 3© frequently (e.g. ix. 24) represents the otD in 'dw^. I^n is 
 a corruption of ISID ; fem. term, as Dan. xi. 15. For 
 'm"' ns cp. mnm ns, xlvii. 4 (corr. text). 
 
 xlix. 23. pWQlh. Duhm, '"Of Damascus" has only 
 the character of a catch-word, since Damascus never had 
 supremacy over the district here intended.' Winckler, ' If 
 old, then before 732 ; but perhaps a late archaistic com- 
 position ' (A T Unters. 1 1 6). Duhm and N. Schmidt 
 {E. Bib., col. 2392) suppose it to relate to the Seleucidae. 
 But the passage must be read in connection with Am. 
 i. 3-5. Ben-hadad is a N. Arabian prince, Birdadda. 
 The phrase in v. 27 (end) is, however, used conven- 
 tionally. ptDm undoubtedly comes from DtD13, ' Cusham.' 
 For Hamath and Arpad, see on 2 K. xviii. 34, Isa. x. 9. 
 In V. 2T,b the commentators see an imitation of Isa. Ivii. 20 ; 
 they think the meaning is, ' there is an unrest like that of the 
 ever-heaving ocean,' reading n;3 (so many MSS.). But they 
 have not inspected the text closely enough. The passage 
 is corrupt, and we have the key for its correction. Following 
 
8o CRITICA BIBLICA xlix. 25 
 
 parallels elsewhere, read ^ndHT"! ©13 laMT tr'yys, 'the 
 Arabians despond ; Cush and Jerahmeel.' "i^iNT ; @, ^Qv\m- 
 6rj(7av. nmp for mi3, as in xlvi. 9 (see note). The in- 
 genuity of the editor in transforming the text is undeniable. • 
 
 xlix. 25. A marginal citation from some unknown 
 source, thinks Duhm. He reads rh "^M^ (for ih Tn)- ih, 
 however, as often, is a fragment of f7Nam^ written in the 
 margin as a correction of nf^rrn, which certainly comes from 
 ■'nT ; ■'ffiltOD (vss. tDima) comes from □"'©13 or Qmi3. (Again 
 and again we find ffiim miswritten for 2)13.) — 27. See on v. 23. 
 
 xlix. 28. It makes no difference whether the traditional 
 reading be m3^DQ (MT.) or n3^a (®). Both are quite 
 regular corruptions of bNoriT^.^ ^^p (followed on the first 
 occurrence by Pasek) is probably miswritten for XSnp (cp. on 
 Isa. xxi. 16), and similarly Tisn for nsD. Thus the title 
 becomes, ' Of Kadesh and of the Misrite Jerahmeel, which 
 Nebrod-asshur, king of Jerahmeel, smote.' In v. 2ib 
 ' Kedar ' and ' b'ne Kedem,' i.e. ' Kadesh' and ' b'ne Yarham ' 
 (b'ne Jerahmeel), are parallel. With the correction required 
 in V. 32, we thus obtain a well-connected passage, so far as 
 the people referred to is concerned. 
 
 xlix. 29. This verse has much exercised commentators, 
 Duhm says, ' After the vivacious exclamation of v. 28, 
 comes a cool announcement of what is to take place. The 
 verse refers to the nomad tribes. Tents, sheep, tent-curtains.^ 
 (@ has ' garments '), all vessels, camels : a wonderful medley. 
 Jeremiah's ' terror all around ' gave much pleasure to later 
 writers.' A very low opinion of the common sense of 
 supplementers is revealed here ! In reality, somewhat as in 
 divers passages of the traditional Psalter, the ethnics' 
 [D"']bNDm"' and [D'lj'^NrDffi-' are repeated over and over again 
 in corrupt forms. The first words to awaken suspicion are 
 turrhrM^ a.nd cai'h'ay. SriN pretty often, and htil occasionally, 
 represent ^NDmi (cp. e.g. the personal names Ohel, Gemalli,' 
 Gamliel ; also i Ch. iv. 41, 2 Ch. xiv. 14, Judg. viii. 21, 26). 
 Putting J for Jerahmeel and I for Ishmael, the so-called 
 verse runs thus — JUJJJIJJJJI. The explanation is that 
 the writer of the copy before the editor had been unable to 
 
 ^ Winckler's theory (AOF, ii. 245) that the reference is to a N. 
 Arabian (cp. Zabibi and Samsi) does not produce a good- sense. 
 
1. 2 JEREMIAH 8i 
 
 make out the words fjNam"' and SwDtOi, marginal glosses on 
 rPl^ ""^a in w. 28 ; he therefore made a number of 'bad 
 shots,' which the editor afterwards, with his wonted ingenuity, 
 transformed into a sentence. Similarly, xxxi. 2i«, 1. 9, 
 Isa. xxii. i,b. See on 2 Chr. xiv. 14, and next note. 
 
 xlix. 32/ Again, compare 2 Chr. xiv. 14, which, in 
 its original form, probably stated that the Jews also smote 
 the Jerahmeelites and Kadmonites, and carried away 
 Jerahmeelites and Ishmaelites as captives. So here. Read, 
 as lines i and 2, ^xih camp pom I rh uhvvaxrv T-m. 
 Then, in line 3, HNS "'SI^Jp should be nsn!J mi3, an insertion 
 from ix. 26. — Note that ' Hazor' (Missur) is clearly a city. 
 
 xlix. 34. The improbability of a Jeremianic prophecy 
 against Elam has struck all critics. Israelitish exiles in 
 Elam are indeed (it is held) referred to in Isa. xi. 11, but 
 this passage is plainly not the work of Isaiah. Pointing out 
 that Susa, the chief city of Elam, was also the chief 
 residence of the Persian kings, Schwally, N. Schmidt {E. Bib., 
 2391), and others think that Elam may be here identified 
 with Persia, so that the oracle would probably have been 
 written at the approach of Alexander. A keener textual 
 criticism does not sanction this. As elsewhere, XS7^^ is a 
 corruption of ^Nom"'. The Jerahmeelite atmosphere of the 
 rest of the Book of Jeremiah compels us to adopt this 
 view. 
 
 Chaps. 1., li. 1-58. 'A purely literary production,' says 
 Duhm ; ' for its subject, the fate of Babylon, had no actual 
 interest for the later period.' 733, however, is one of the 
 current distortions of Sl^^Dm^ The king of f?33 is the ruler 
 of the great Jerahmeelite empire, which included the small 
 Jerahmeelite region known as the Negeb. The writer is 
 indeed here archaistic, but it is probable that the N. Arabian 
 oppression of the Jews still continued when this work was 
 composed. On restoring it to its original form, we shall 
 recover a fresh parallel to the Psalter. 
 
 1. 2. In the original work, not ' Bel ' and ' Merodach,' 
 but ' Baal ' and ' Jerahmeel ' must have been mentioned. ^i?3 
 became ^3 ; f?MDrTT' became -YVrd. That the Jerahmeelite 
 god was called by the Israelites Jerahmeel appears from 
 Zeph. i. 5. The name appears sometimes in the corrupt 
 
 6 
 
82 CRJTICA BIBLICA 1. 3 
 
 forms ' Molech,' and 'Milcom'; see e.g. i K. xi. 5, 7, pDi» 
 being a popular corruption of 'jNOm'^. 
 
 1. 3. pDKp. The writer's idea seems to be that the 
 Nabataeans, after establishing themselves in Zaphon (see on 
 i. 14), will succeed in absorbing the whole of the old empire 
 of Jerahmeel or Cusham. He represents them, however, 
 archaistically (see on li. 11,27) by old names, some of which 
 are corruptions of the same widely applied ethnic, Jerahmeel. 
 
 1. 6. D"'intD a''^^ has not yet been satisfactorily ex- 
 plained. It is a gloss on ' all that found them ' (v. 7) ; 
 ^NSOQJ"' fpNom"', ' Jerahmeel, Ishmael.' Cp. E. Bib., ' Shobab.' 
 
 1. 8 / D"'n©D covers over d'>^^3. 
 
 1. 9. All that follows pss is superfluous and full of 
 difficulty (see Gies. and Duhm). It is really due to the 
 ingenious editor, who had before him (cp. on xlix. 29) the 
 ' bad shots ' of a scribe who could not manage to read the 
 words n-'tOS, ^Nrom"', ^NDm"', which originally were a marginal 
 gloss on ti'h'Xy D"'"i:i. Taking J for Jerahmeel, I for Ishmael, 
 and C for Cushim, we may represent the state of the text 
 thus, JIJCJIIJ. nrr'm in z;. 10 connects with pD2 pND in 
 V. ga. (The danger of confusing the two Jerahmeels and 
 the two Cushams was obviated by using different corrupt 
 forms of these names.) 
 
 1. I 5 / n^'TT'im should be nTimotO (@, eVaXfet?), and for 
 rraTTT read i3vn ' (of) the Javanite ' i^ = Jerahmeelite). See 
 on xlvi. 16. 
 
 1. 17. The king of nitON is here distinguished from the 
 king of 711. In reality, however, niffi«, in the books from ' 
 which the writer ultimately derives his information, must 
 mean the same as fpll. Granted that in the historical book 
 which he had read there may have been a confusion between 
 the Assyrian Asshur and the N. Arabian Ashhur, yet his 
 ultimate source spoke of the N. Arabian Ashhur. The writer 
 is therefore only a witness for the continuance of N. Arabian 
 oppression, and of the Jewish desire for vengeance. 
 
 1. 19. As to the geographical names, see on Mic. vii. 14. 
 
 1. 21. Assyriologists and Hebraists have done their 
 best with this verse, but the result is not satisfactory. In 
 particular, the transitive nn (here and in v. 27) is most 
 improbable ; the vss. understand inj^r (in v. 21). The key 
 
li. 3 JEREMIAH 83 
 
 being in our hands, let us follow our rules, and restore thus — 
 '^ DW mnm ■'nmv-^i»T nS» SnoHT' pN-"?!;, 'Against the 
 land of Jerahmeel go up, against the inhabitants of Rehoboth, 
 saith Yahw^.' For lIpD, cp. on Ezek. xxiii. 23. For the 
 corrupt Qimo, cp. QinstOl, Judg. iii. 8, 10 (see E. Bib., 
 ' Cushan-rishathaim '). ''iw might come from f?Ni?Dffl'^, as e.g. 
 ix. 24, Zech. xii. 10, but li. i makes this improbable, nn 
 comes from [n]:in"i, a correction of Tips ; mnm and nrr^nnN 
 are both attempts of scribes to make sense of a miswritten 
 'jNOriT' ; cp. p innN DIT in Gen. vi. 4. Observe that if 
 lips comes from ram, the Rehoboth meant is not the 
 Rehoboth in the Negeb, but some other Rehoboth, just as 
 the Jerahmeel intended is the greater Jerahmeel (Meluhha), 
 not the Jerahmeelite Negeb (cp. li. i). See on li. 13. 
 
 1. 23, 27. WJss should be SoDm ; see Isa. xiv. 5. For 
 inn (@, ava^r/pdvare) read imp. Cp. on z;. 2 1 . 
 
 1. 36. D"'"r3n. Zimmern {Ritualtafeln, p. 85), Haupt, 
 and Muss-Arnolt {AJSL, July 1900, p. 223) connect ■'nnn 
 in Isa. xlvii. 13, with Ass. bdrii, 'a seer' ( = nin, Del.), and 
 Haupt (JBL, 1900, p. 57) makes a similar suggestion for 
 our passage. One would gladly accept these proposals. 
 But Assyriological suggestions seem to me to be often 
 fallacious ; and this may be the case here. Read rather 
 D'^nihn-^s, ' on the enchanters ' ; and cp. on Isa. xlvii. 1 3. 
 
 1. 37. For l-isrr read Q-'3"isn. 
 
 Chap. li. i . ipp 3^ ■'5m-'. Leb-kamai is usually thought 
 to be Kasdim (Chaldaea), written in the cypher called 
 Athbash, just as Sheshach in v. 41 = Babel. (§ has 
 Xa\8at'ou9 in V. 1, but does not express Sheshach in v. 41c 
 (see E. Bib., ' Leb-kamai,' ' Sheshach ') ; Tg. gives ontoa here ; 
 733 for ' Sheshach' in v. 41, xxv. 26. It appears, however, 
 that we should rather read S'MDnT' for ' Leb-kamai.' It is a 
 gloss on Sn^dOT', which word, in accordance with many 
 parallels, may underlie ■'3m"'. ' Babel ' (Jerahmeel ?) and 
 ' Ishmael ' seem here to be parallel. 
 
 li. 3. ' Utterly desperate,' is the verdict of Cornill, who, 
 however, makes a gallant effort to understand it. But the 
 textual phenomena yield up their secret to those who have 
 the key. They are in fact exactly parallel to those of 
 xxxi. 2ia, xHx. 29, 1. 9. Where v. 3 now stands, the 
 
84 CRITIC A BIBLICA li. n 
 
 original text had a gloss consisting of the names of the 
 peoples which the scribe took to be intended by the qitj of 
 V. 2. These names were Jerahmeel, Cusham, Ishmael. 
 Through the ' bad shots ' of the scribe the verse has become 
 JCJIJJJI. The only doubtful word is r\va% ; the editor may 
 have inserted this, but more probably it comes from a much 
 corrupted fjNi^DW. Cp. on v. \ib. 
 
 li. II. no comes from 'pNom'i (2 K. xvii. 6, Isa. xiii. 17, 
 xxi. 2). ' The kings of Jerahmeel' ; cp. v. ■z'j, and note on 
 
 V. I. 
 
 li. 13a. Read "i^55p nhnrn.. This is apparently the 
 second name of the capital of Jerahmeel. Observe that it 
 had water near it, and that, as z^. 25 shows, it was itself 
 situated on a height. — i^b. iji^s? nSN 'qsp Ma. A glance 
 at the divergent explanations of 'i 'n will show how doubtful 
 these two words are. The most probable explanation of the 
 passage is suggested by 2 S. viii. i , where noN is a fragment 
 of n3:;D (the southern Maacah), and by Ezek. vii. 6, where 
 Nl pp probably represents an original Nl t&"iD. Read here — 
 f?Mi>at»-' ^NDnTi mia 1n3. The last word in MT (1SS3) 
 reminds us of HNIS \x\ v. 3 ; it most probably represents 
 7i!tl>D, i.e. 7NSDBJ\ Thus &. 1 3 prepares the way for v. 1 4. 
 
 li. 25. ^^ should clearly be "vs. A mountain cannot 
 be rolled down from the rocks. Burning is the fate constantly 
 threatened to cities {e.g. xxxviii. 23). Gies. and Duhm 
 remark that the description is not in accordance with the 
 situation of Babylon. 
 
 li. 27 / mafpDD, as in i. 14, seems to come from fpNOHT. 
 The later writers delight in lists of ethnics. The peoples 
 formerly subject to the great king of the larger Jerahmeel 
 combine together against him. ' Jerahmeel ' (in the narrower 
 sense) heads the list ; DIM (so read, as in Gen. viii. 4, etc., 
 instead of ^Td) follows ; then pro or D''3irD (so read instead 
 of ■'30) I then either yyp or ]mi3 (so, instead of 13!iBJ«). DIN, 
 of course, is a synonym of 'rtT^, and superfluous. noSJO, 
 according to most, is the Ass. dupsarru, ' tablet-writer.' This 
 suits in Nah. iii. 1 7 ; here, however, we expect the name of 
 a country. And since d^d which follows, occurs elsewhere 
 miswritten for i6*i3, it is reasonable to hold that 'in here is 
 miswritten for hQ"i|. For noo ph'''3 (' like the rough (?) 
 
li. 64 JEREMIAH 85 
 
 locust'), a superfluous comparison just here, read ^MDmi 
 
 li. 28. Read nsT n''»p-'?3-nNT QTnim-nN f?NDm"'-nN 
 
 li. 5 9-64. See E. Bib., ' Seraiah.' The impression 
 which this very late story produces is that the true Babylon 
 is meant. If so, the true background of Jeremiah's pro- 
 phecies had already been forgotten. 
 
PART II 
 
 EZEKIEL AND MINOR PROPHETS 
 
 Sufficient evidence has, it may be hoped, been adduced 
 for the statements relative to the contents of the Books of 
 Isaiah and Jeremiah made in §§ 37, 40, 41, 43, 45 of ' Pro- 
 phetic Literature ' in E. Bib. The justification of the leading 
 corrections of the text will become stronger and stronger as 
 we proceed through the other prophetic writings, and some 
 of the lacumz which must inevitably exist will be filled up 
 by the mind's almost mechanical inference from analogies 
 and parallels. One of the latter may, by way of example, 
 be added here. In re-examining i S. xxvii. 8, which can 
 only be adequately explained by correcting mitC into 
 ^NSDtD"', I had occasion to refer to one of the many 
 passages in which "'ItD"' has come by corruption out of 
 ■JMSDtD"', and at the moment the parallel passage was Isa. 
 X. 1 3, where hitherto I had seen no light (see p. 1 9), but where, 
 as I now saw at once, we have to read ^NSOtD"' Tin5 T'niNl, 
 ' and I brought down the glory of Ishmael.' The supreme 
 N. Arabian king boasts of having overthrown the smaller 
 kings of the Negeb, who had probably renounced their 
 allegiance. ' Ishmael,' as we shall see again and again, is 
 used synonymously with 'Jerahmeel,' so that the close of 
 w. 1 3 is exactly parallel to a clause in v. 8 (p. 1 8), ' as I 
 have done to Shimron and to Jerahmeel,' and we may 
 further illustrate by comparing Hos. x. 14, where the sudden 
 destruction of Beth-jerahmeel by an Asshurite king appears 
 without doubt to be referred to. The force of such an 
 
88 CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 example will, of course, be heightened the more we allow 
 the mind to work freely on the new lines. It is no super- 
 ficial study to which the reader is invited, and all the 
 elucidations that some may desire cannot here be placed 
 before the reader. What space allowed, has been done, and 
 if young and fresh minds should wish for more, it is open to 
 'those to seek it from the living voice of a teacher. No 
 course could be more fruitful of good for progressive study 
 than for such minds to be directed to new problems. 
 
 The relevant passages on Ezekiel and the ' Minor 
 Prophets ' in E. Bib., ' Prophetic Literature,' should be read 
 in connection with the following notes. Many unsought; 
 illustrations of difficult passages, similar to these just 
 mentioned, will quite naturally suggest themselves. It may 
 not be useless to add that no attempt is here made at a 
 conspectus of all admissible corrections of the text. What 
 is here offered is supplementary and original. If any one 
 doubts whether much of it is not only original but sound, 
 let him consult the notes on Hos. iii. and Ezek. xlvii. lo, 13, 
 xlviii. 35, and compare what has been said on those passages 
 by the best-known commentators. The best argument for a 
 new method is always that it brings unforced solutions of 
 problems long regarded as well nigh desperate. 
 
EZEKIEL 
 
 Chap. i. i. — n;© a-^mhrn I irri. Ingenious as the various 
 explanations are, there seems to be room for another. Ezekiel 
 was (temporarily ?) in the land of Jerahmeel ; a synonym 
 for ' Jerahmeel ' is often ' Ishmael ' ; n"'ffi''^m in xxiii. 1 5 is a 
 corruption of n"'^Ni!D£»\ Winckler {Untersuch., 96) would 
 read conjecturally ifij-'^ffin nami in"'"! (or the like). 1 should 
 venture to prefer, in accordance with the gloss in v. 2, TT'I 
 , ■'BDnn rT3t2?3. I conjecture that the third word became 
 illegible, and that U'-xhxHI was transferred from its original 
 place to fill the gap. And where was its original place ? 
 Most probably in the margin ; it was a gloss on the words 
 which underlie n^lin Tin3. That the traditional reading is 
 wrong is surely manifest. The phrase is not to be taken 
 literally, say Bertholet and Kraetzschmar (because of iii. 15); 
 ' in the district of ' is Kraetzschmar's paraphrase. But most 
 probably nfjlin (somewhat as -hro. in Ps. xvi. 5) is a 
 corruption of ^Nom^ and n-'»'?Q?l = ^Mi>oa?in is a gloss 
 either on ^Nom"' or on some form between 'vcv and n^iarr. 
 Ezekiel himself was of a family belonging to the Negeb ; 
 for 'Buzi,' see on Gen. xxii. 21, i S. vii. 14 (@ at,o^). 
 
 i. I, 3 ; iii. 3, 15,23; x. 1 5, 20, 22 ; xliii. 3. inp-nnr'ji^. 
 Plausibly most now identify ' Chebar ' with the large canal 
 a little to the left of Nippur (cp. E. Bib., col. 732, and 
 especially Haupt, 'Ezekiel,' SBOT (Eng.), pp. 93 /, who 
 identifies with the Shatt en -Nil, which cuts in half the 
 mounds of Nippur. It is quite possible, however, on the 
 analogy of ^KDni (see E. Bib., ' Job, Book of,' § 9), that n2D 
 may be a corruption of ^MDm% or perhaps more directly of 
 ^M2n3i (whence perhaps comes the hyy of Gen. x. 10, Mic. 
 
90 CRITJCA BIBLICA i. 4 
 
 iv. 10, Ps. cxxxvii. i, 8, etc.) For favouring evidence see 
 on 2 K. xvii. 5 / (' Habor, the river of Gozan '). nmt&3 in 
 V. 3 should, as often, be Qims. 
 
 i. 4. pssn-JD. ' Jhvh [mn*'] seems to come, not from 
 Jerusalem, but from the remote north, which is apparently 
 thought of as the place of his abode (xxviii. 1 4) ; cp. the 
 Babylonian conception (Isa. xiv. 13).' Toy {SBOT). So 
 Stade. (Gesch. ii. 8), ' It is a heathen idea, which Ezekiel will 
 have learned through a Babylonian medium and probably in 
 Babylonia.' But, as Kraetzschmar remarks, the mountain 
 with which Yahwe was connected was in the south (Dt. 
 xxxiii. 2, etc.) ; he supposes, therefore, that Ezekiel, when he 
 received the vision, accidentally looked towards the north. 
 The true solution of the problem surely is that jlDSn-jn 
 should be ■'2"iD2n"]0, ' from the Sephonite country,' a district 
 which may have included the mountain of Yahwe. See on 
 Isa. xiv. 1 3. "iJIQE as Joel ii. 20. Cp. Elzaphan, Baal- 
 zephon, Zephaniah. — ^^pton, from toip^n, on which see E. Bib., 
 ' Tarshish-stone.' 
 
 i. 24, X. 5. It is to be feared that all the manifold dis-' 
 cussion of these passages has led to nothing. Textual 
 criticism should have preceded this discussion. n'pDn occurs 
 again only in Jer. xi. 16 (n^'iDn). Comparing ^"lon (Gen. 
 xlvi. 12), Sla (Jer. ix. 25), and similar corruptions, we may, 
 in both places, emend ^Nnm"'. The key to •^^^> ^lp3 or (as 
 x. 5) ntD 'pN is to be found in Isa. xiii. 6 (see note), where 
 ntOQ comes from S'NSDffi\ Read in i. 24, ^NOm"' n^no ^1p3 
 nnD^l, and in x. 5 (iTni?) "nni ^NSDtt)'^ ^1p3. For the 
 combination of figures (' great waters ' and ' host of Jerah- 
 meel '), cp. Isa. xvii. i, Jer. vi. 23. 
 
 Chap. iii. 14. ■'nn nonn no i^w. (i) ^'7N^ is im- 
 possible. ' Elsewhere the mi deprives a man of his conscious- 
 ness and free-will ' (Kr.). (2) id is impossible ; see the 
 various explanations in Kr. Hitz., Corn., Toy cancel it ; 
 Kr. objects because suqh a peculiar expression can hardly 
 be a gloss. (3) Tm nom, an unparalleled expression; nor is 
 the mention of Ezekiel's niT in place here. By the com- 
 bined help of ® and the Jerahmeelite theory, we can at last 
 see daylight. Where MT. gives ^D, @ (AQ) has ^erew/jo?, 
 z.e. probably D"] (cp. ®, 2 S. xxii. 28) ; nOw m is one of the 
 
iii. 15 EZEKIEL 91 
 
 many mutilated forms of ^Nom"', and in this case to make 
 the true reading doubly sure id or m is preceded (M@) by 
 ^'?N^, i.e. ^NlT', which exactly completes 'rxv. Next, non is 
 one of the recognised forms of n3»D (so e.g. in Ps. Ixxvi. 11); 
 lastly, TJ^n is possibly, and in this case also probably, a 
 corrupt fragment of 'm"'. Render, ' And spirit had lifted 
 me up and taken me to Maacath of Jerahmeel ' ; Maacath, 
 then, must have been a district of Jerahmeel, separate from 
 that in which Ezekiel was, when he saw the vision. 
 
 iii. 15. Admittedly the text is in disorder. Gratz 
 {Monatsschr., 1886, p. 369) would omit ^^JN^ (from 3Q)Nl) as 
 a 'proleptic dittogram,' and for the rest follows the well- 
 rounded construction of Pesh. Cornill omits nn3 7N D"'ltOTT 
 niD as a gloss, and changes ^tp^>l^ into nffiN, thus producing 
 'and I came to the exiles to Tel-abib where they dwelt.' 
 Both courses are too easy to be right, and we have no reason 
 to give atO"' the specialised sense of ' having one's centre or 
 chief place of abode.' The place-name Tel-abib is also 
 suspicious. The explanation suggested by Frd. Del. {til- 
 dbubi ; cp. E. Bib., 'Tel-abib') is plausible, but not more so 
 than that of nn3 (i. i, 3, etc.). @ gives ^ierew/so? = DT = 
 ■ ^NDm"". But though the equation T3N — DnN = ^MDm"' is 
 not impossible, yet it is easier to see underlying TIM 7n the 
 name ins hv\, and to suppose (5's m to be a remnant of 
 a variant fjnom"' f?n. D^'llOTT, cn©'^, and DtD are all very 
 possible corruptions of fpNi^atD"", while riDn is a corruption of 
 'rrc, -i»N"i probably = ii&n hrsy (and Tel-asshur) ; it corre- 
 sponds to the KoX TrepLTJXdov = noNT of @. The two Hebrew 
 texts of V. 1 5 — z.e. that of M and that underlying — may 
 respectively be rendered thus — 
 
 ' And I went to the company of exiles, to Tel-arab [Ishmael, by 
 the river of Jerahmeel] and Tel-asshur [Jerahmeel, Ishmael], and 
 there for seven days I dwelt among them astonished.' 
 
 'And I went, etc., to Tel-jerahmeel and Tel-asshur [Ishmael, by 
 the river of Jerahmeel, Ishmael].' 
 
 That Asshur ( = Geshur), Jerahmeel, Ishmael, and Arabia 
 were practically synonymous, need not be restated. But it 
 is important to point out that Tel-melah in Ezra ii. 59, Neh. 
 vii. 61, and Tel-harsha in Ezra ii. 59 evidently come from 
 Tel-jerahmeel and Tel-ashhur (cp. Ashhur, i Chr. ii. 24, iv. S) 
 
92 CRITICA BIBLICA iv. 6 
 
 respectively. Also that in Amos we hear of nnrn hrXi, 
 which should probably be read nir hm (see on Am. vi. 14). 
 Cp. E. Bib., ' Tel-abib,' ' Tel-harsha,' ' Tel-melah," where it is 
 further suggested that f?n, wherever it occurs in compound 
 names, may be the short for fjlin (Tubal). 
 
 Chap. iv. 6. dido? is as impossible here as in Isa. xi. 11. 
 In both passages read '7NrDa>\ Here 'tXSr is a variant to 
 ^Nia)i ; the glossator thinks of Israel in the land of Ishraael 
 or Jerahmeel {i.e. the Negeb). In Isa. l.c., where it, i.e. 
 Ssomi follows, it is a gloss on mmN, etc. 
 
 Chap. vii. 5-7. The ingenuity of the proposed correc- 
 tions of this passage (see Kr.) is worthy of all praise. But 
 how colourless are the results ! 2 K. xxiv. 2 — if we can 
 read underneath MT. — suggests the remedy. The names of 
 the peoples which were to attack Jerusalem ought to be 
 found here. Mere possibilities, in the light of the new 
 theory, become probabilities. Remembering the corruptions 
 of the ethnic names in the Psalms, and omitting dittograms, 
 we may probably restore thus — 
 
 rv\rv ■'3^N ion n3 
 
 - It t -: - 
 
 nri probably comes either from non or from m ; nriN from 
 DHN (cp. iJiN or nrtN, Isa. Ixvi. 17). pp, as perhaps in 
 Num. xiii. 25, represents mi3. T^n, like -\'h's in Isa. xlvii. 13 
 (see note), comes from fjNom''. Notice that here as else- 
 where \h represents the final ^n of an ethnic ; n^t nDlHD = 
 7NDn"i'. @ arbitrarily (as it occurs) inserts nS before nDlHD ; 
 it is right, however, in its hhivav. This represents xshyn, , 
 i.e. certainly fjNDHT. (I do not touch }>p in vv. 2, 3 ; 
 possibly vv. 1-4 is a later preface to the song. An editor 
 has certainly been at work on vv. i-io). 
 vii. 10 f. More ethnics. Read — 
 
 Ni r^nTi ^Nom-' r\-::r\ 
 Tij&N D^3 i^ap np 
 
viii- S EZEKIEL 93 
 
 See another list of peoples in xxiii. i^b, 6, and cp. similar lists 
 in the Psalms (e.g. Pss. Iv., Ixxxiii., xciv.). ]M1 = ]hns, one of 
 the current corruptions of lisp («.^. i K. xvii. 9, Joel iv. 4). 
 Don = DWD, as 2 S. xxii. 3, 49 (Ps. xviii. 49). In the gloss 
 (which is encumbered by dittograms) 'ona may either be a 
 corruptly dittographed 'm*' or represent D-'3Dn3 (cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Naham,' ' Nahamani,' ' Nehemiah '). 
 
 vii. 1 2. Read .^ndht' ^-^yn n^sa n3. 
 
 vii. 21-23. Read — 
 
 ; Don hnSd iii^m 
 
 i^ins = (§ T049 Xoi/jLol'i (Corn., Toy). qtidis corresponds 
 (l) to ^21D!i-nN = CnnS-DN, (2) to CTJSinS, (3) to @'s a^u- 
 XaKTtB? = DNna (suggested independently of Hitz.), and (4) 
 to £3DtDD in 2/. 23, which @'s text did not contain. For the 
 equation £2DtDD = S2i, cp. Ps. vii. 7, xciv. 15. '12 had been 
 put in the margin, as a correction perhaps of •'3"iD2-nN, and 
 came into the text. 
 
 Chap. viii. 3, 5. TT2pDn nii2pn hoo, || nN3pn hno. 
 Evidently the editor had the text only in a corrupted form, 
 and did his best to make sense. Gunkel {Schbpf. 141) 
 suggested rraj^n fjop, i.e. an image of the chaos-monster 
 Tiamat (cp. ib., p. 28) ; he quotes ^,rov xTtu/iez'on = n3[l]pn, 
 and T\':ipT\ riTl, Ps. Ixviii. 31. But @ simply makes a poor, 
 superficial correction, and Ps., l.c., is corrupt. If Gunkel's 
 idea that direct Babylonian influence is to be assumed is 
 correct, it is best to read jrg 'jdd (or dd^ = lamassu ?), as 
 proposed in Exp.T, Dec. 1898; ZATW, 1901, p. 201. 
 The position indicated is such as might be given to a 
 protecting sedu or lamassu. Manasseh's image (2 Chr. 
 xxxiii. 7, f?DDrr f?DD) might have been one of Kaivanu. 
 Kaiminu ( = Kaivanu) is a title, not only of Saturn, but of 
 the sun (cp. Jensen, Kosmol. 115). But the amount of 
 evidence for the predominance of N. Arabian influence on 
 
94 CKITICA BIBLICA viii. 5 
 
 the religion of Judah has increased so much that it is now 
 much more probable that HMp and TOpDH (cp. ]5i>, Josh, 
 vii. i) have both grown out of corruptions of ^NDm^ and 
 that ^QD is a distortion (cp. on xhv, xvi. 17) of ^NDaffi\ 
 Cp. on Zeph. i. 5, Mai. ii. 10-16. Another name of this 
 idol was not improbably iffi^S (see on 2 K. xviii. 4). 
 Render, ' . . where was the station of [Ishmael] Jerahmeel.' 
 
 viii. 5. miDn ni^tof?. But @, eVt T7]v irvK'qv t^v tt/jo? 
 avaToXd<; = miOH -\i>wh. The same gate as that mentioned 
 in z/. 3 ? If so, read perhaps Dimtn "^smh, ' (northward) of 
 the gate of the Zarhites.' - Zerah, Cush, and Zaphon may 
 have been used laxly as synonyms. Cp. 2 Chr. xiv. 8 
 (Zerah, king of Cush). 
 
 viii. 7b. Read T'pa '^Momi nsm. The symbol of the god 
 Jerahmeel was on the wall. For the rest see Kraetzschmar. 
 
 viii. 10. Surely it is N. Arabian idolatry that is meant 
 (see E. Bib. ' Shaphan '). Read most probably Trr!lT\ nsri"! 
 ^NSDffi"' IT'S hhyhy^ j>l(?^-'?5. moT comes from fjNl^DQJ"'-; 
 rrnnn from nim. (see on Jon. iv. 11); "hhy means 'Jerah- 
 meelite idols,' i.e. hh'i. is a popular corruption of 7NnnT 
 (see on i K. xv. 1 2). bM~itt?\ as pretty often, comes from 
 f?Ni>ntt>"'. Cp. on xviii. 6. •^■pu h's r\'pnn comes from a 
 dittographed 'm'', as l-'lD I'llD from a dittographed 'db)"' 
 (cp. on xxiii. 14). 
 
 viii. 1 2. in-'StoQ ■'■nni QJ-'N. Hitzig, Comill, and Siegfried 
 omit these enigmatical words. Bertholet and Kraetzschmar 
 emend, but unsuccessfully, not having the key. Read ■'Trni 
 D"'t6l3 ; cp. on xliv. 9«. Chambers of the Cushites were a 
 necessity in the temple. ffiiN is a scribe's conjecture for 
 DifpNi'DtO"' (a gloss). 
 
 viii. 14. wan-riN nisip nhltp-' D"'ffi2n. It is constantly 
 assumed that this reading is correct. Yet nowhere else in 
 the O.T. is Tammuz referred to, and our experience elsewhere 
 (see e.g. on Am. v. 26) is not favourable to the view that 
 Babylonian divine names became naturalised among the 
 Israelites. What we have to look for is some ritual observ- 
 ance of N. Arabian origin in which the women specially 
 took part. We need not look far. Jer. vii. 18, xliv. \^ ff- 
 supply the rite. It is clear from these passages that the 
 women played the chief part in the semi-sacrificial feast 
 
XIV. 19 EZEKIEL 95. 
 
 referred to. The eating of the cakes was accompanied by 
 libations and the utterance of benedictions (cp. Isa. Ixvi. 3). 
 The deity who was to be thus honoured was naturally the 
 great N. Arabian goddess, known probably in Judah as 
 rcBJan (see on Jer. iii. 23/, Hos. ix. 10), but also as rof?a 
 ^M27Dt»'' (see on Jer. vii. 18), and rT'^NDOffii (see on 2 K. 
 xxiii. 5). In the last-mentioned passage the text has ni'p'rD. 
 It seems that TIDD, like mf?7D, has arisen out of ni^NDom\ 
 though the latest editor may have thought of the Bab. 
 Dumuzi (see E. Bib., ' Tammuz '). Read, therefore, D"'tDDn 
 'tC-riN mannn mit6% ' the women sit (at the sacred meal) 
 and bless the Ishmaelite ( = Jerahmeelite) goddess.' 
 
 viii. 17. The culminating horror is described thus — 
 DBN-'jsJ! n"iho^n-nN nin^m D3ri"!. Toy points out that rhm 
 is not the right word for holding a flowering branch to the 
 nose (cp. E. Bib., ' Tammuz '). But no adequate correction 
 has been proposed. It is possible that Ezekiel wrote, 
 n-'QMa-f?N nto-iNtpn-riN (n-'^iiD) a^ahri D2m ; cp. Dt. xxii. 23, 
 and in general Ezek. xxii. 11. hlW (the verb) seems to be 
 miswritten for t&^n. 
 
 Chap. x. 5. See on i. 24. 
 
 Chap. xi. 24. Read notD^S, and for Qin'pM mil nNio:i 
 read bNoriT'l (dittogr.). This is a correct explanatory gloss. 
 Corn., Toy, and Kr. vainly manipulate the unsatisfactory 
 text. 
 
 Chap. xii. 1 3. Read D-imia fiM n^Nom\ 
 
 Chap. xiv. 14, 19. The three righteous men in M@ 
 are Noah, Daniel, and Job. But in xxviii. 3 Daniel is repre- 
 sented, not as specially righteous, but as specially wise, and 
 the person mentioned in connection with Daniel is the king 
 (as criticism compels us to hold) of Missur in N. Arabia. 
 This suggests that hazi (Sn"'37) is probably a corruption, not 
 of lM3n, i.e. Enoch (as the writer, after Haldvy, formerly 
 thought), but of ^NDHT. Cp. I K. V. 3, where Calcol and 
 Mahol, and i Chr. iii. i, 2 S. iii. 3, where Daniel and Chileab, 
 both come from ' Jerahmeel ' ; also Ezra viii. 2, where Daniel 
 corresponds to Gamaliel (ja/j/rjXo'i [B], yafiarjX [A], one of 
 the most regular corruptions of ' Jerahmeel,' in 3 Esd. viii. 29. 
 It has also been already pointed out (E. Bib., 'Noah,' §1) 
 that ' Noah ' (n3) has probably supplanted ' Enoch ' (I3n) in 
 
96 CRITICA BIBLICA xvi. 3 
 
 4;he Hebrew Deluge-story, and it may now be added that 
 'lyyob (Job) probably comes from "Arab (cp. on lN"l^ 2 S. 
 ii. 12 /), i.e. N. Arabia. The three righteous men thus 
 become Enoch, Jerahmeel, and 'Arab. One point more has 
 to be mentioned. All these names belong to First Men. 
 Enoch [' Noah '] is the first man of the new race after the 
 Deluge ; Jerahmeel is the first man in the Paradise-story pre- 
 supposed by Ezek. xxviii., and also in that of Genesis, if 
 ha-adam should, in some passages, be corrected into yera^- 
 me'el (see on Gen. ii. 8, 1 5) ; 'Arab [' Job '] is shown to have 
 been originally a first man by the denial of Eliphaz in Job 
 XV. 7. It seems, then, that in Ezekiel's time a sort of syn- 
 thesis of the three stories may have been made. 
 
 Chap. xvi. 3. The origin of Jerusalem is here traced to , 
 the ' land of Canaan ' ; its ' father ' was ' the Amorite,' and 
 its mother ' a Hittite.' According to Kr. (cp. Jastrow in 
 E. Bib., col. 2096), the leading Canaanite tribes are selected 
 as representatives ; Jerusalem was, in fact, in early times, a 
 Canaanite city. Sayce's view is different. According to 
 him, the Jebusite population of Jerusalem was ' partly Hittite 
 and partly Amorite' {Races of the O.T., p. in ; cp. The 
 Hittites, pp. izf-)- It is remarkable, however, that in v. 29 
 ■]M3 pN is II to D'^nto. To render the former phrase ' a land 
 of merchants ' (so BDB and Ges.-Bu., here and in xvii. 4, 
 comparing Zeph. i. 1 1 , '3 DS, ' the merchant people ') is partly 
 a sign of perplexity, partly a consequence of the faulty read- 
 ing uhTi TS in xvii. 4.^ Also that, as the text stands,' the 
 chief seats of the Hittites in the south were in the neighbour- 
 hood of the b'ne Esau (Gen. xxvi. 34, xxxvi. 2) ; there is 
 indeed a tradition connecting them (if the received text is 
 right, see on Gen. xxiii. 2 f.) with Hebron, but none which 
 •connects them with Jerusalem. The remedy is one which 
 applies to a large group of passages, especially in Genesis. 
 For ■'DDiSn read iMjpn, for i-idn read iQn.N (Arammite = 
 Jerahmeelite), and for riTin read rr^niirn. (so v. 45). See 
 also on 2 S. v. 6, 8 (the early population of Jerusalem, 
 
 1 Cornill remarks, ' In a "riddle" ('iTn;, like that in xvii. 4, Chaldasa 
 could be called iyJD px [assuming that this means " a land of merchants "], 
 but not here, in a plain, simple narrative.' Following @, Corn, omits 
 jy33, but then he has to keep no'iB'D, though we should rather expect onis'a. 
 
xviii. 6 EZEKIEL 
 
 97 
 
 Jerahmeelite), Isa. xxix. i (the early name of Jerusalem, 
 Jerahmeel). 
 
 xvi. 17. nat •>o^s, 'images of *'? Rather {>nn iq^v;, 
 ' images of gold.' Similarly in Isa. Ivii. 8, for iFSil^T (Duhm, 
 ' dein . Phallusbild ') read 'qailS'in. ' Thy golden thing ' 
 (contemptuously) and ' images (Ishmaels) of gold ' refer, not 
 to the worship of Yahwfe under the form of a calf or steer, 
 but to the cultus of the god Jerahmeel (q'js, as in Am. 
 V. 26j corruption of 'dQ)""). The coarseness of the traditional 
 text is, I fear, due to the scribes and editors. 
 
 xvi. 2.^ ff- Read cnsp ■'33. The whole atmosphere is 
 N. Arabian. For nmn ■h'TX (a libel on Ezekiel's taste) 
 read f?NDm"' pN3. Cp. the parallel distortion in xxiii. 14, 
 and ntOl for p^n in Hos. viii. 1 3 (see note). For DTitO^S 
 read DTiQlS (so, too, in v. 57). Cp. on 2 S. i. 20. 
 IIQJM is a form of ninmN = Tim:i. For |W3, see on v. 3. 
 
 xvi. 30. The context suggests T^'ivh n^D« nn. bin 
 Lev. xviii. 23, xx. 12, 'confusio, i.e. contaminatio, nequitia' 
 (Kon. ii. I, p. 98 c). Cp. Jer. v. 7. 
 
 xvi. 46. Point pnptp (Shimron in the Negeb) ; see on 
 I K. xvi. 24, Am. iii. 9, vi. i. D^D is derived from the 
 tradition of ' Sodom and Gomorrah,' but the writer is 
 conscious that ' Sodom ' (? from Kidsham) was in a remote 
 part of the Negeb. Cp. E. Bib., ' Sodom.' 
 
 xvi. 57. D"iN m33. Most, with @, read tiltj. But 
 there was a southern d"in, i.e. ' Jerahmeel,' and this is 
 favoured by ions in v. 3 (see note). — QTim^D (v. 27). 
 
 Chap. xvii. has been greatly misunderstood, even by the 
 acute Winckler (AOF^^^ i. 141 ff.). 
 
 xvii. 3-5. nopin iS-nffiM, 'whose was the variegation'? 
 Read SMpmi ^h-^Wii, ' whose was Jerahmeel,' an early gloss (?). 
 — For JW3 read np, and for □■'f?3T read 'jMom"' (cp. Neh. iii. 
 31 /., Cant. iii. 6). — np comes from np"'"l, and nsSEls from 
 ■nDS""!, both written in the wrong place. Read, ' and he took 
 of the meaner seed,' T'SHn injp. Ezekiel disparages Zedekiah. 
 
 xvii. 1 1 -2 1. Read ^NonT (^«Dn3?) for ^li, li)")B for 
 n^nQ, and point □''nsp. In z/. 13 for •'^im read -hsi. 
 
 Chap, xviii. 6. Read probably ^K^pm;' rT'3. Cp. on 
 viii. 10. (3 ev poa = \eni; '-\ is a corruption of ^Nom"'. 
 Cp. on iima, xxvii. 32. 
 
98 CRITICA BIBLICA xix. ic 
 
 Chap. xix. lo. For '^■ari read ^NQm\ 
 
 Chap. xx. 5 ff. Read perhaps D-'liap, and note the 
 stress laid on the idols {hhz., ' Jerahmeels ' ; see on viii. 10; 
 of D"'nHO, which seems to have an application to the present 
 circumstances of the exiles. 
 
 XX. 29. An editorial insertion, to be explained by the 
 II passage, xxiii. 4, where Jerusalem receives the name 
 AhoHbah, which the editor must have read Aholibamah 
 The divine speaker is supposed to say, speaking of the 
 land of Israel, which is like one great bdmah, ' What is the 
 bdmah into which ye enter ' (read QiNn) ; and the writer con- 
 tinues, ' So its name was called [Aholijbamah unto this day. 
 
 Chap. xxi. i [xx. 45]. Awkward enough. But from 
 our present point of view certain obvious possibilities, here 
 and in v. 7, become probabilities. The king, whose invasion 
 the land of Israel (Judah) has to apprehend, is the king ol 
 Jerahmeel, i.e. the most powerful of the N. Arabian kings 
 who appears to have conquered the Negeb. This king wil 
 approach by way of Teman ; Ezekiel thereupon looks towards 
 Teman as well as towards the region corruptly designated 
 Babel (Barakel ? = Jerahmeel). In the explanatory passage 
 xxi. 7, he calls it — so at least we should read — ' Ishmael 
 (cp. Gen. xxviii. 9, Mahalath bath-Ishmael) and ' Cushim. 
 His prophecy specially concerns the land of Israe 
 (xxi. 7 f^ ; but to strike the attention he does not a1 
 once call this country by its true name, but by an enig 
 matical , title which appears in MT. as 133 mtcn 1i>"' 01 
 ll^n "yr. The current explanations of this phrase seen 
 inadequate. li?^ we can understand ; but why mton and 3i: 
 or i:i3n ? The key to the problem is provided by xvii. 3 
 where the king of Jerahmeel (see on v. 4) is likened to £ 
 great eagle which goes to (the southern) Lebanon, anc 
 takes off the top of a cedar. Let us then, for iyiT\ ii 
 xxi. 3, read pbian (see on Josh. xiii. 5, Ps. Ixviii. 16^ 
 virtually = Ibl^rj, and explain iTrto, as in Judg. v. 4, ai 
 ' highland.' The troublesome 115, at the end of xxi. 2, wil 
 have come from JlSll, and have been meant as a gloss 01 
 mxnr\. For ^m read aan (@ eVtySXei/roz/). Note that ^ 
 gives @aLfj,av, ^aymv (? Aapw/x), and l^^wyejS as proper names 
 
 xxi. 7. Read SNrQtp-:-^N and Dit6l3 (see last note). 
 
xxih. 8 EZEKIEL 99 
 
 xxi. 19. For ■a^n, hhn, and binsn read fjNonT' (cp. 
 on xxxii. 20). 
 
 xxi. 33. For Dnmn read D"'n2'i2J ; n and :j similar in 
 Aramaic scripts. 
 
 xxi. 36. For D'^'^SQ. read a"'l"!i> ; cp. xxv. 4. 
 
 Chap, xxiii. 3, 8, 19, 21 and 27. Point n"'"i!ip. 
 
 xxiii. 4. The names of the two allegorical wives of 
 
 Yahwfe are nSriM and rrT^nN, or perhaps (see on xx. 29) 
 
 noi"'brrN, the one corresponding to Shimron ^ (in the 
 
 Negeb ; see on i K. xvi. 24), the other to Jerusalem. 
 
 It is commonly supposed that fjriN, ' tent,' necessarily 
 
 enters into both names, and Smend has plausibly argued 
 
 that there is a reference to the sacred tents of the 
 
 bamoth (cp. xvi. 16), though Stucken {Astrabnyt/ten, 
 
 251 /i) suggests a connection with Ass. ahuld, ahuldpi, 
 
 ' O that ' (so at least Del.), and regards the words as 
 
 designations of the Assyrian and Hebrew Penates. It is, 
 
 however, important to notice (i) that the second name of 
 
 Jerusalem in Is. xxix. i is a corrupt form of 'Jerahmeel,' 
 
 (2) that the Edomite name norffprrN (cp. on xx. 29) is a 
 
 distortion of ^Nom"', and (3) that the name of Hosea's wife 
 
 (who symbolises the apostate land of Israel) and that of her 
 
 family are corruptions of the same name. It can scarcely 
 
 be doubtful that nwf?nN in Ex. xxxi. 6, etc., and these two 
 
 difficult forms in our text of Ezekiel are also corruptions of 
 
 fjMDm"'. The idea is that of xvi. 8, ' Thy father was an 
 
 Arammite' (read •'QIn), i.e. a Jerahmeelite. Shimron and 
 
 Jerusalem were Jerahmeelite by origin, and justified their 
 
 connection by their impure religion and their craving for a 
 
 Jerahmeelite alliance. And the tragedy is that Jerahmeel 
 
 is to be ruined by Jerahmeel (cp. v. 22). 
 
 xxiii. 5(5-8. A list of the so-called ' lovers,' encumbered 
 with corruption and dittography, has been turned into a 
 curious description of young men, satraps and governors, 
 clothed in purple blue, and riding on horses. The plainest 
 corruptions are •'tunS, ^-•^^r^1, D-'mnn, and ta-'olD. Read — 
 
 [Tiinm] •'i3p Tnim ^NDnT 'jMrom-' niim n"itON-f?N 
 
 ' The pointing jiiDii' {v, 4) is erroneous. See on xvi. 46. 
 
loo CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxiii. 12 
 
 For another such list, see note on vii. 10/. The refer- 
 ence to the idols ("31, ' Jerahmeels ') of the Arabian Asshur 
 is significant (cp. Isa. xxi. 9, 'all the graven images' of 
 f?31 = Jerahmeel, also note on 2 K. xix. 29-33). It is most 
 natural to point D"'"i?p. 
 
 xxiii. 12. Correct as in vv. $ /.; b'h'DQ is a fresh cor- 
 ruption of ^NonT' ; h is dittographed. 
 
 xxiii. 14. Kr.'s commentary is suggestive of the in- 
 correctness of the text. ' The scene of harem-like amative- 
 ness : she falls in love with pictures of foreign men, and 
 sends for them to come to her. Hence the acquaintance 
 of Judah with the Chaldseans came to pass through pictorial 
 representations, frescoes with, pictures of Chaldaean warriors 
 (not deities ; viii. i o is different) which had been imported 
 from Babylon, and stirred up in the Judaeans the wish to 
 form personal relations with those who were thus repre- 
 sented. At least so Ezekiel describes it — but in reality 
 personal contact with the Babylonians no doubt preceded 
 the introduction of their artistic products.' It is all the 
 editor's imaginativeness,; the same editor has already mis- 
 read the same word 'm'' in viii. 10 (dittographed). Cp, 
 -\WW1 Dippn with D"'"non nmn in v. 20. Read — 
 
 xxiii. 15. The only genuine part seems to be pt* 
 omfjia, which is in apposition to fpNom"' pN in z/. 14 (end). 
 The difficulties about ini:in and 'in irmo and the odd intro- 
 duction of D"'t0^7t& disappear ; the list of corrupt ethnics — 
 an ignorant scribe's work— continues. Jerahmeel, Asshur, 
 Rehoboth (noi = nini ? — cp. on rrDm, viii. I o), Jerahmeel, 
 Ishmael, Asshur (?), Jerahmeel, Ishmael, Jerahmeel (two frag- 
 ments), b'ne-' Babel ' (Jerahmeel) and Cushi are successively 
 mentioned. Q sometimes arises from the wrong assumption 
 of an abbreviation of the plural. 
 
 xxiii. 20. No credit here to the editor. Read (com- 
 paring z^. 14, end) — 
 
 xxiii. 23 / s^p^ s^m nipD. Plainly corrupt (cp. Jer. 
 1. 21, and rnp in v. 24). Read.^NonT") Worn"'! mnm. 
 
xxvi. EZEKIEL loi 
 
 The ' b'ne Asshur ' are, of course, the Ashhurites. The rest 
 as in V. 6. CNlip = D-'^McnT (cp. on 'p, 2 S. xv. 11). In. 
 V. 24 ' chariots and wheels, an assembly of peoples, large 
 and small shield and helmet,' is not a natural combination, 
 jsn, too, is an unexplained word which Corn., following @,, 
 and comparing xxvi. 7, would emend into pDJio. This would 
 be plausible, rendering, however, ' from Saphon,' but for the 
 circumstance that )sn {v.l. JJJn) seems clearly identical with 
 TVil, which follows shortly. What we expect, however, is 
 not n32, but the name of a country or district. Let us now 
 compare h'hrs 13T jsn and i?nipi pm n3S;. bl^l certainly 
 and 3DT possibly come from ^NariT' ; po seems to be tap or 
 ■'Wp ; smp (cp. i)lp) = ^Nom"'. It is noticeable that po is 
 wanting in the first triplet. But, just as 'nT^ can be repre- 
 sented both by h'hy and by i^np, so I3p can be represented 
 both by l!in (]Hn) or rvy%, and by ]1d. Read, therefore, prob- 
 ably i;h^ "iQ-'to-'T ^NonT'T l^p T^:; iwn. Or should np here 
 be |tOlD ? TlD, as often, comes from Svk'S'CW (a variant to 
 'm"'). See on xxvi. 7, xxvii. 1 1 , xxxviii. 4 f. 
 
 xxiii. 40-42. Omit the editorial patches rr^n^Pton and 
 ntON^ (partly with Corn.), and read {y. 42), omitting some 
 corrupt dittograms, n^-iap D"'m^Di Q-'SN^om-; JlDii ^hp"). We 
 have been told of the preparations for these ' lovers ' ; now 
 a confused sound of their approach from the ' wilderness ' of 
 the Negeb is heard. 
 
 Chap. xxv. 4, 10. D7I(3-'3j1 is a constant error for 
 D|yi-'3a, i£. those Jerahmeelites (opT = 'm"') who had re- 
 mained on the level of the so-called Amalekites. 
 
 xxv. 8. Most recent critics (after @) rightly omit 
 Ti7in. But how came it here? TJ;m is a corruption of 
 TiKQ, a variant to 3Nln (the two names are liable to be 
 confounded). — 15 / For wvxhn read DTIDIH, and for 
 DTT fjin read ic mm ; DTna is a popular distortion of 
 D'^niirri. Cp. on Jer. xlvii. 7. 
 
 Chap. xxvi. One of the chapters which have been recast 
 the most. I have sought to recover some of the underlying 
 readings. In v. 2 mn^T should be n^^"). — In v. 3 we- 
 should read [D'^^MDnT] D'^1^5 ""li ih^ ^T\-h^rtr\. The last 
 three words of v. 3 are plainly fragments of 'nT^. To 
 change mSsns into m^M (Corn.) is too easy a remedy. — In 
 
102 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxvii. 
 
 vv. \f. words have been corrupted and misplaced, rr^ns 
 i^Sd does not suit ; it implies a wrong interpretation of 
 rrjD?, which should mean 'its rubbish' (see v. 12), but 
 which the redactor took to mean ' its soil ' (see xxiv. 7 /). 
 The key to the passage exists in the appended gloss, 
 '' and it shall be a spoil for the nations/ and in the closing 
 words of V. 12. Read, in v. 46, D'^D lini vnn3^, and in 
 v. 5 -^mn ■'3N •^D rrnn f?NSDto-' riDmn^. she from ht^saw^ 
 as Judg. i. 36, etc. TTTDih and niflmo both represent rtDWah. 
 □■^mn, t.e. bNQ^•^^ is a gloss on ihu or 'dWX — In vv. 6, 8 
 nim meant originally, not the Tyrian mainland, but the 
 Tiap mto, 'the highland of Missur' ; cp. on xxi. i (xx. 45). 
 — In V. 7 the true name of the king (as in the edited pro- 
 phecies in Jer.) is probably Nebrod Asshur. He is called, 
 not ' king of kings ' (D"'Df?D), but ' king of Jerahmeel ' ('m"') ; 
 cp. on Dan. ii. 37, Ezra vi. 12. So, too, paae means 'from 
 Zaphon,' and 'i:!! DIDl should be D-TIDISII 'nT'll D-'ffi'131 
 ^■iS-QSl^. f?np"l is a fragment of a dittographed 'm"', which 
 name is already represented by 131 (cp. on xxiii. 2 3 /). — 
 In z^. II 'strong masseboth' are spoken of; we meet with 
 them again as ' the masseboth of Beth-cusham,' Jer. xliii. 1 3 
 (see note). — -In z'. 12 D'^o may mean the stream near the 
 city. — V. 14 is a doublet to v. 4 (see note). — In vv. 15, 16, 
 17, 18, D11N, ur\, and ]^N represent Qin:;. In v. 17 nit013 
 should be niima (Ew., others i^ilBJa). According to z/. 19 
 Missur is to be swallowed up by a flood of the subterranean 
 waters; cp. Jer. li. 34, where Nebrod is likened to 'the 
 dragon ' {i.e. Tiamat ; cp. Dinn). — In v. 20 read ai>-7N 
 ^NQpT and 'm"' rmipa (so ninnp in Job iii. 14). Cp. on 
 xxxii. 23, etc. 
 
 Chap, xxvii. Still more editorial recasting. As 
 Manchot, Ber., and Kr. have pointed out, there are two 
 distinct compositions here, one of which alone is metrical, 
 viz., the ship-song, vv. i, 2, 31^-9, 25-36 (partly recast). 
 These the editor has put together, to the detriment of both. 
 He also changed n^sp into lii (Tyre), not knowing of the 
 N. Arabian tisq, and supposing that only a maritime city 
 like Tyre could be compared to a ship. It is plain, how- 
 ever, that this is not a necessary supposition ; indeed, in 
 Isa. xxxiii. z^aba (as far as Dj) we find the same figure of 
 
xxvu. EZEKIEL 103 
 
 the ship applied (in imitation of Ezek. xxvii.) to Jerusalem. 
 And underneath the present text of the ship-song, we can 
 still detect references to the geographical situation of Missur. 
 Thus, in v. 4, d'^Q"'! and T'Smi are both corruptions of 
 n-'^NOm-' ; prefixed to this is ^D (M® ^3). So we get 
 rid of the impossible d"'Q^ 1^3. The resulting phrase, 'all 
 the Jerahmeelites,' is a collective expression for the different 
 Jerahmeelite populations (cp. v. gb, below). — In v. 5 'Lebanon' 
 has possibly come from ' Gebalon ' (see on i K. v. 6) ; at any 
 rate, a southern mountain range is meant, so that probably 
 ' Senir ' is an alteration of ' Sinai ' (■'3"'d) ; see on Dt. iii. 9. 
 — In V. 6 ' Bashan ' should be ' Cushan ' (as often), and since 
 in V. 7 'Elishah' is mentioned, and both 'Kittim' and 
 ' Elishah ' are sons of ' Javan ' (i.e. Jaman = Jerahmeel) in 
 Gen. X. 4, we have solid reason for restoring nDso yys, for 
 DT13 ■'■'N (as in Jer. ii. 10), and in v. 7 ^NSDOf ni> for 
 nor^N ■'■'N. Maacathite and Ishmaelite merchants seem to 
 be thus designated. — In v. 8 we should read probably 
 msT 112D fjNSDtO'', ' Ishmael, Missur, and Arabia,' and 
 nsn ""DSn, 'the sages of Hazor' (a popular corruption of 
 Ashhur, cp. on ins, v. 18). @'s oi apxavre^ aov = 
 '■«M-'to3, miswritten (like ■'it&i) for SNi;DtO\ — In v. 9 the 
 Edomite Gebal is meant. It is noticeable that v. gb 
 and V. 2 5« are nearly identical. The former should run, 
 imso ns^ ^a rn fpMom'' niaw-^s ; the latter, nhsN 
 nniJD * * n^l&M. Whether we prefer 'nT' or mtCN is un- 
 important. Oddly enough, no one has noticed that TrmtO 
 in V. 25a comes from a dittographed 0?->»"in. 
 
 We now pass to a later writer's ornamental insertion, 
 w. 10-24. That it is an insertion is shown (i) by the 
 injury to the context which it produces, (2) by its want of 
 metre, and (3) by the fact that it is inclosed on both sides 
 by the same line (v, gb = v. 25 a), which belongs to the ship- 
 song. In V. 10a DID and J31E3 are variants and corruptions 
 of nms ; "vh comes from nshl (the Gilead of the Negeb — 
 see on Jer. viii. 22, xl. i, 5). Read, therefore, nmiil ishx 
 sy\'D^ pD=^NDnT""l np (see on xxiii. 24). That sn3 is 
 rightly explained is shown by ia-"lf?n, z.e. plainly f?«Dm\ 
 Thus the puzzle about the suspended shields disappears. — 
 V. 1 1 should open with 'nT' y^s ■'31, ' the men of Jerahmeelite 
 
 8 
 
I04 CRITICA BIBLICA xxvii. i6 
 
 Arabia.' nnoil {i.e. QinD3l) can now be definitively corrected 
 into D''3hpmi. ; note @'s ^vXa/te? = D"'1oa>l. For less prob- 
 able views -see E. Bib., ' Gammadim.' i^n UXV^XH = 
 'vtvy D'^^NSoa?"' ;_ the whole clause is a variant to the last 
 clause but one. — In v. \2, for m"'tt>nn read i^t&N. — In v. 1 3a 
 the right reading is approximately n^pi Sl^n ]p; (Gen. x. 2). 
 For DTfM ffiD3 (' human persons ' ?) read QiTSin-)© (i K. x. 22). 
 In w. 14 read, connecting with v. 13, Ci'^tl?13"l ^NOnT IT'ao 
 DTiDlH"!. (D'^mna and ams both come from 'ns.) Cp. on i K. 
 iv. 26, v. 29, Neh. vii. (>T f-) see also ' Sepharad,' E. Bib. — 
 In V. i5« keep XV\> ^""^ fo'' ^''^■' ^"''^^ "^^^'^ Ci"'ni'. In b, 
 read probably ij-jlDb n-'tOij nji^l jom nh^lj?, in the main 
 following Pesh. But cp. E. Bib., ' Ebony,' § 2. 
 
 xxvii. 1 6. . Read thvt (@S, Ew., Toy, etc., etc.) ; ' Aram ' 
 would mean ' Jerahmeel,' and this name, under the forms 
 'Javan' and ' Togarmah,' we have in vv. 13/!, 18. The 
 text oi V. 16 is far from correct ; notice the three textile 
 fabrics between the precious stones. Cornill's inferences 
 from ® need revision. Read np-i3"i fjNom"' TD31 ; 'm"" is 
 the country of the ^D3. The next word, according to 
 Cornill, should be tCitDin, i.e. the precious stone so-called ; 
 JQDnN and }>ii, he thinks, were arbitrary insertions suggested 
 by the corrupt reading rropTi (or, as ®, nbpnil). It is 
 probable, however, that pm is a corruption of npll 
 (dittogr.) ; jonN has been already accounted for. 
 
 xxvii. 1 7. ' Judah and the land of Israel ' should 
 probably be 'Judah and the land of Ishmael ' ( = of 
 Jerahmeel). ^NitO'' and ^Ni^ctOi are confounded (as Isa. 
 xvii. 3, Ezek. ix. i); the former name is certainly un- 
 expected here, especially if p^r:n {v. 1 8) should be Da)"iD. — 
 1331 rT'2Jp ■'Jan, ' three desperate words,' according to Cornill, 
 who thinks that o in ni^a belongs to ijan, and that n-': is a 
 mutilation of nN±1, ' and storax ' (cp. E. Bib., ' Storax '). 
 But the phrase nf^SO Q-'tsTl in i K. v. 25, together with 
 m3D 'n in the || 2 Chr. ii. 9, suggests a better remedy. 
 rr'an comes from n30 (2 = 5), and nao is a corruption of 
 HDSO, the name of a district of the N. Arabian border-land, 
 famous for its wheat (cp. on Ruth i. 22). See on Judg. 
 xi. 33. Read, therefore, n3SD ■'isn, ' wheat of Maacath.'' 
 133, too, can be finally disposed of. According to Cornill,. 
 
x^'vii- 22 EZEKIEL 105 
 
 it is a corruption of laJT^, 'wax.' Rather, it is the well- 
 known word |Qi, with one letter transposed. Read jdj »n~ri, 
 ' and grape-honey ' ; grape-syrup is meant, as distinguished 
 from the date-syrup, called in the Mishna rryaT\ mn, and 
 from the honey of bees, called simply miT (so E. Bib., 
 ' Pannag ' ; cp. ' Honey '). 
 
 xxvii. 18/ pni nntON •\CiT\, ' and wool of Ashhur and 
 Dedan ' (these names are combined, as Tarshish and 
 Dodanim in Gen. x. 4).^ The N. Arabian atmosphere 
 proves this to be right. Else we might read jmn nnST (so 
 E. Bib., ' Wool '). Cornill most ingeniously, but wrongly, 
 ' wine of Helbon and Zimin and Arnaban.' This implies too 
 much learning in the writer, and is certainly far-fetched ; 
 the same remark applies to Kraetzschmar's introduction 
 of Izal \pW^, a famous wine-country known to the Baby- 
 lonians as I-za-al-la. S'tlND (w. 19) represents ^NDriT'D (cp. 
 on Gen. x. 27); prefix it to 'in hrd. Jeremiah (Scv. 12; 
 see note) speaks of iron from Zaphon and copper of Jerah- 
 meel, which also illustrates z'. 13. ' Wine of Helbon ' refers, 
 not to the wine of the Syrian Helbon (cp. E. Bib., ' Helbon,' 
 ' Wine,' § 24), but to the wine of the Negeb (see on 2 K. 
 xviii. 32, Gen. xlix. 1 1 /). For ' Helbon ' cp. on ' Helbah,' 
 Judg. i. 3 1 ; see also on Hos. xiv. 7 ff. 
 
 xxvii. 20 f. For ©sh nia read D-'TriD ■'3!13, ' with 
 young suhirs' {JQR x. 543); cp. E. Bib., 'Cloth,' note; 
 'Horse,' § i (5). For ■'N'^toa read fyMi^DW (cp. on v. 8). 
 
 xxvii. 22 f. i^3T (cp. on Neh. iii. 31 /) should certainly 
 be 7NDm''. That different branches of Jerahmeelites are 
 mentioned is intelligible, jnn, of course, means the southern 
 Haran (cp. i Chr. ii. 46). For ]-rsT rrMi. read \i's "'351. So 
 Mez {Gesch. Harran, p. 34), who, however, mistakes the 
 geography of the passage, "hyy, which follows, comes from 
 7NDm"' (on Eden-jerahmeel, see E. Bib., ' Paradise,' § 6). 
 nitDM N1B> may have arisen out of 'm M©. The enigmatical 
 1D^3 is not miswritten for i-iQ, ' Media ' (as E. Bib., 
 ' Chilmad '), nor to be pointed ^B'7^ (as Cornill, too mechani- 
 cally), but a corruption of f?MQnT (letters mixed up). At 
 
 1 It is implied here that ]v[i], i.e. \iy = ' Jerahmeel,' is a variant to 
 i\naK. This may be confirmed by @'s epia sk MlX^/jtov, which pre- 
 supposes a reading nS'o nox, i.e. 'm> tds, ' wool of Jerahmeel.' 
 
io6 CRITICA BIBLICA xxvii. 24 
 
 first sight this may appear a gloss, but it is nothing of the 
 kind. See next note. 
 
 xxvii. 24. 1;hy^ nnn, to which in^3T {v. 23, end) and 
 inb^T nn (so read at end of v. 24) are variants, should 
 close z/. 24 and the whole description. The scribe wrote it 
 too soon, and followed it with three ethnics, viz. (i) ^NOm"', 
 represented by noSa {v. 23), Qifp^aDi, ■'Dif?!!, Titip'^, U^tiTQ., 
 and n^'^nnn (cp. on Zech. xi. 1 3) — a number of ' bad shots ' ; 
 (2) »p, represented by ^31 ; (3) ^N»offi^ represented by 
 n"'»3n (cp. b a>"iin, Jon. ii. 6, and ^la>^ I Chr. iv. 1 7) and 
 cnx ("INDT'). The information of the writer was exhausted ; 
 he winds up with a catalogue of ' all the populations of 
 Jerahmeel' {v. 9) or 'of Asshur' [v. 25) referred to in the 
 poem. So the connection is restored. 
 
 xxvii. 25. See on z^. 9. V. 2^a {^ = v. gb) concludes 
 the first strophe of the kinah, v. 25^ begins the second 
 (so Kr.). 
 
 xxvii. 28. Cornill asks, 'Then is it only the pilots 
 (D'lfpin) who cry out, and not also the other drowning men ? ' 
 Also, with regard to mtcnio, ' Certainly one can say, " All 
 countries tremble," but not, " All suburbs tremble." ' But he 
 has no very plausible suggestion to offer. Analogy, however, 
 suggests that -h^n represents ^Nom*'. mtDllD can only be 
 explained as a ' conflate ' word, wt comes from a ditto- 
 graphed itOi^T', ya from a fragment of a dittographed 'm*' (cp. 
 ya, Jer. xxxix. 3). ia>i)T should probably be ^•^^\!tr (v. 35, 
 xxxii. 10). Read, therefore, Di'?NDnT' I ini^mi inpi^t ^Ipo. 
 
 xxvii. 29, par. to xxvi. 16 (see corrected text). nV^N 
 should be macnU (as Isa. ii. 16). aiteo ■'tDsn has grown out 
 of two fragments of DTiDlS (cp. on Jer. xlvi. 9). urhn (cp. 
 on V. 9), DTT "hyn, and possibly "nD2>i, represent CD^'SNom*', 
 a gloss on 'otD*'. For purr^N the manipulating editor is 
 responsible. Read, therefore, simply — f?D I nnTiiamND 'nT'"i 
 
 xxvii. 32. The two troublesome words arf^a (which is 
 metrically superfluous) and non3 both represent 'jNoriT' ; the 
 former 'jNtariT' was probably a marginal correction. — V. 32^ 
 was no doubt originally a perfect pentameter, but at present 
 the word that should close part i is wanting, having been 
 displaced by nD"r3, .which, equally with D'TT, represents 
 
xxviii. 3 EZEKIEL 107 
 
 f?NDm\ Read fjMonT' nni I * n"i2D3 id, ' Who was like 
 Missur * I in the midst of Jerahmeel ? ' 
 
 xxvii. 35. For Q^iNH ■'!»■' read Q-'lisT ^Ni)Qt»-' (see on 
 V. 8). Cp. on Isa. xxiii. 2. 
 
 Chap, xxviii. Here, as elsewhere in chaps, xxvi.-xxxii., 
 the reference originally was to Missur (see E. Bib., ' Paradise,' 
 § 3). The chapter is a symbolic account of the wickedness 
 and the punishment of the prince or (z/. 1 2) king of Missur, with 
 which Isa. xiv. 12 ff. (see notes) is closely parallel, except that 
 there it is only the tyrannical power of Jerahmeel, son of 
 Ashbur, which is poetically described. In the present case 
 the wisdom of the prince of Missur is as much emphasised (see 
 ^^- 3) 5> 7) 12) as his riches. Now Tyre was famous for its 
 riches rather than for its wisdom, whereas the N. Arabians 
 were famous for both riches and wisdom. The formidable 
 strangers {v. 7), who are the instruments of the ruin of this 
 wise and wealthy prince may be the Nabatseans. See E. 
 Bib., ' Cherub,' § 2 ; ' Paradise,' § 3, and in addition to what 
 is there said note here that the king of Missur is clearly 
 represented as a kind of fallen angel (so also Cornill). The 
 fallen angels are said in Enoch vi. 6 to have descended on 
 the summit of Mount Hermon. More than probably the 
 original writer, whose work is recast, meant Mount Jerahmeel. 
 Of the eighteen names of angels there given, six are certainly 
 corrupt forms of Jerahmeel. Cp. note on ' Influence of chaps, 
 xxxviii. /.' 
 
 xxviii. 2. D''a^ l^a ; see on w. 8. So xxvii. 4, 25, 26, 
 27. In xxvii. 4, however, there is an error in the text. 
 Here, too, there must be an error. Even Tyre could not be 
 said to be ' in the heart of the ocean.' Most probably the 
 editor evolved qid"' if?! (to suit his theory that Tyre was 
 referred to) out of '?Nom'^, which stood in the margin as a 
 correction of ^WT {v. 3). Cp. the clan-name I'pa (from 'm"' ; 
 cp. on I Chr. ii. 9). 
 
 xxviii. 3. 7M3nD Kt. ; 'jN'^'lip Kr. See on xiv. 14. 
 Read ^MonTp. — n'inp-'?!. (3 (yo^oL Cornill, most in- 
 geniously, Qia^in. Kr. keeps 'o^Sa, and thinks the error 
 is in the following verb. The error, in such cases as this, 
 lies in the whole phrase. Cornill is mistaken in assuming 
 that the writer uses a verb DOS with the same sense as in 
 
io8 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxviii. 
 
 xxxi. 8, viz. ' to equal.' The key to 1"1D0S is supplied b; 
 0's ovK iiraLZeva-dv cre, where eTraih. = TlDOr (2 Chr. x. 1 1 
 Schleusner). Certainly llDOS is wrong, but almost as cei 
 tainly it represents ^NSDm% which is || to 'nT^ (^nijt). mm 
 probably = D''QJ3[nn]. Read 'offi-' iQiain ^730, 'than all th 
 magicians of Ishmael ' (d and n confounded). 
 
 xxviii. 812. Cp. Isa. xiv. 1 5 ; also Ezek. xxxii. 1 8. — 8^ 
 Note here first niQ"; 1^3. We should have expected nS: 
 ShN^. Smend explains (and so also in v. 2) 'where tho 
 thinkest thyself so secure.' But this gives no parallel t 
 nn^^, and is also not a just exposition of the Hebrew (se 
 on V. 2). hhrt TnoD is explained ' as those who die by ; 
 sword-thrust often enough remain unburied ' (Kr.). Accord 
 ing to Gunkel, however {Schbpf., p. 33, note 3), f?^n mean; 
 not ' pierced,' but ' dishonoured,' with a suggestion of th 
 outrages to which the unburied corpses of foes were liabk 
 This sense is specially commended here by the expressioi 
 ~\hhr\ti (see on v. 9). And yet it must be wrong. nrT"'^f?r 
 (xxxi. 1 7, and often) cannot mean ' profaned by the sword 
 The remedy is suggested by v. 10. ^bn, like h^, is 1 
 corruption of a shortened form of fjNDriT". Thus we ge 
 'm"' twice over ; the second was originally a correction of 
 scribe's error. The kinah in vv. 12-ig is metrical (see Kr.) 
 
 xxviii. gf. Hitz., and most recent critics, '^hh^TlD (cp 
 Isa. li. 9, Job xxvi. 13). But the phrase in vv. 7 and K 
 points to the reading of MT. — d'his TilD. One might b 
 tempted, both here and in Isa. xxxiii. 7 (ofpNiN), to find 
 reference to the Ass. AraM, (i) the mountain of the gods 
 (2) the region of the dead (Del., Ass. HWB I34«); cj 
 Hal6vy, Rev. Crit., 1883, p. 162. We have seen, howeve 
 (see e.g. E. Bib., ' Moses,' § 2 ; ' Shechem,' § 2), that f?^I? i 
 very apt to be miswritten for bNom^ and this is certainl; 
 the case here, as also in xxxi. 18, xxxii. 19, 21, 24, 25, 2f 
 Read QifjNDnT' TnaD, ' the violent death of the Jerahmeelites 
 See on xxxii. i?> ff. 
 
 xxviii. 12. Corn., Siegfr., Berth., Kr., Toy omit ihx 
 noan as a gloss. Toy also pronounces rT'^^n Dnin ' un 
 intelligible in M and the versions ' ; Haupt and Kr., how 
 ever, regard JV^bn as a loan-word = Ass. taknttu, ' carefu 
 preparation, model.' The former produces the phrase (onr 
 
XXIX- 14 EZEKIEL 109 
 
 'n), ■ model signet-ring ' ; the latter, reading 'n DDn, renders 
 ' a sage of utmost perfection.' There are, however, parallels 
 enough for a different view which seems to do more complete 
 justice to the phenomena than either Haupt's or Kraetz- 
 schmar's. Both nmn and JT^aDn i^l = o) represent r\y:iyr\. The 
 scribe omitted to write n'jd ; he also erroneously repeated 
 noan. He then corrected the former error by writing the 
 phrase r\'C>:n M70 correctly. 
 
 xxviii. 13. For DTT^N-Jl (so xxxi. 8) ]ni>n read perhaps 
 ^NbnT-ps-p:i (cp.£. Bib., ' Paradise,' § 6). The list of precious 
 stones is an interpolation ; see on Ex. xxviii. 1 7 ff. — DVl 
 ^N^lrT. Two fragments of ^Nam"'. The second part of the 
 kinah-verse is f^Nom"' T^p31. The word underlying I33"i3 
 belongs to v. 14. 
 
 xxviii. 1 4a. See E. Bib., ' Paradise,' § 4. 13313 repre- 
 sents 1330)0 ; 3n3 riN comes from TiSTil ; n»OD from Dt&13. 
 Read 'tOD DtC"l3 '3T1, and cp. on Isa. xiv. 1 3. 
 
 xxviii. \dfi. 131DrT (from a) has to be shifted. Read 
 (as the second half of the kinah-verse) TfMp3 rr^'ain"!.— ^nm 
 DTJ^M Q>7p can hardly be right. BTp nrr elsewhere means 
 Mount Zion (Corn.). True, but tDlp is sometimes miswritten 
 for »13, and QTjSn (see on v. 13) for ^ndht. The whole 
 kinah-verse should run qjn '^sin in3pD I nsSrrnn 'nv »"i3nnn. 
 gives e^evri6r]<i (iT'Tl) twice over. 
 
 xxviii. IS f- INlin ai-D T3'n3, three representations 
 of fjNonT' (' O Jerahmeel '), an interpolation (metre). From 
 3n3 to tON is an (incomplete) interpolation from v. 1 4. Tino 
 confirms the view that Tina represents 'in3DD. 
 
 xxviii. 20-26. Another oracle against Ti2iD (so read) ; 
 surely a late addition ! 
 
 Chap. xxix. i f. Pir'u, king of Misrim, is likened to a 
 ' great dragon ' lying in the midst of its streams (those men- 
 tioned in Gen. ii. 10-14 ; see E. Bib., ' Paradise,' § 5). Not 
 the crocodile as Kr. asserts against Gunkel. Read ClN"', 
 CTT'tOS (®, Gunkel) ; so v. 9. 
 
 xxix. 10, XXX. 6. nsiD '7'T3Bp. Read probably 'jNonTD 
 D311&, ' from Jerahmeel of Shunem ' ; ' Migdal-shechem,' i.e. 
 ' Jerahmeel of Cusham ' is parallel. See E. Bib., ' Shechem, 
 Tower of,' and ' Shunem.' 
 
 xxix. 14. Dnns comes from nD"iS, Dm'i3o from ^NnrtT 
 
I lo CRITIC A BIBLICA xxx. 4 
 
 (see E. Bib., ' Pathros ')• Cp. on Gen. xlix. 5. We are thus 
 liberated from the necessity of speculating as to how Ezekiel 
 came to represent pa-to-res as the mother-country of the 
 Egyptians. 
 
 Chap. xxx. 4, 5. Read ts-'nso, nrni, -\^i iyhit), nns 
 (Pesh., Aq., Sym., cp. xxvii. 21), lim., n'linn. These correc- 
 tions (cp. on Nah. iii. 9) represent the original readings ; 
 partly through corruption, partly through deliberate manipu- 
 lation, chap. xxx. has become (like its neighbours) a prophecy 
 on Egypt. IID has been thought to be miswritten for l^f? 
 (® A/ySi/es, Smend, Corn., etc.) or -^3 (Toy), but, having the 
 key, we can hardly doubt that it is nm, i.e. the scribe began 
 to write mim or Tnim too soon. Siegfr., Toy, etc., have 
 already suggested TnDn (for rrilin) ; they have not, however, 
 discovered the true form and origin of ' Cherethite,' nor have 
 they accounted for the pN which, in MT., precedes JT^lirr. 
 Considering that pN sometimes represents nsp, it is possible 
 that 'irv 'n ■'31 comes from 'm*' 12D ■'31. 
 
 xxx. 9. Ill-tidings are sent to Cush — not from Yahwe, 
 but from some place. For D"'2S1 ■'3D"?D read perhaps fpN^'iSO 
 y\1'Q, ' from Peniel of Missur.' Cornill omits njol as an inter- 
 polation suggested by Tinnf?. But n£2l = nn£3 (see E. Bib., 
 ' Betah '), and both come from mim. The messengers are 
 sent to Cush-rehoboth. Cp. on Judg. viii. 11. 
 
 xxx. 1 3. uhh'i. ■^mriNm and u-hhv^ TOmni are doublets. 
 Smend observes that tshhtA is not one of Ezekiel's words, 
 but retains it. Note, however, that both 'hv< and 'h'X are 
 probably popular distortions of n^'^NonT' (cp. on viii. i o) ; 
 the idols were symbols of the god Jerahmeel. ?)3 represents 
 mnD3 (see on Isa. xix. 1 3), a place in the Negeb. For ^■'ffia 
 read ns^to?, 'images carried in procession,' Isa. xlvi. i. For 
 n^T' Tinai nis rrrr^' th read perhaps niatn ~ns rrrrn n^i 
 Tif\, ' and there shall no more be wicked fornication ' (cp. 
 xvi. 26). The last clause in MT. is omitted in @ (as super- 
 fluous ?), but critics have to account for its existence, and, it 
 may be, to correct it, before deciding whether to omit it. 
 
 xxx. 14-16. Read nms, "TiisD, pa:> ( = ^NDnT'), trm 
 (see on xxix. 10), mnD3. It is singular that the third of 
 these should be mentioned thrice, twice as No, and once as 
 Hamon-No. Cp. on Jer. xlvi. 25, Nah. iii. 8. 
 
XXXI. 14 EZEKIEL m 
 
 XXX. 1 7 / ;■;« should be pN (see^E. Bib., ' On ') ; noi-'D 
 probably comes from ^Mi?Dafi-nin (cp. mii = ^msdw). Dnaann 
 springs from fpNOHT'-n'^l (see on Jer. ii. i6). 
 
 Chap. xxxi. ,3. The king of Misrim likened to a cedar, 
 ' Since the similitude relates to Pharaoh, and not to Assyria, 
 ni»N must be due to textual corruption ' (Kr.). But there 
 is abundant evidence to show that "ntON or ninmN is the 
 ancient name of a district in N. Arabia, near Missur and 
 Jerahmeel, and that these three names are sometimes at least 
 used as equivalents. The view of the versions may therefore 
 be correct, i.e. that Asshur is compared to a fair cedar. This 
 is confirmed by the occurrence (in z'. 3) of the words wtn 
 72D, which apparently mean ' a shady thicket,' but which 
 Corn., Toy, Kr. omit (following (§°). The words are in fact 
 superfluous, but how are we to account for them ? In this 
 way. ffiin (cp. on i S. xxiii. 15) comes from nntOM (cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Shihor '), and h^o (cp. on ah^, xvi. 17) from SnsdQ?"', 
 The two words are properly a marginal note on TitDN, to 
 the effect that Ashhur = Ishmael (Ishmael and Jerahmeel 
 are synonyms). — J13lS, if correct (see on Isa. ii. 1 3), is pre- 
 sumably the p337 in the Negeb. — 8 /. See on xxviii. 1 3. — 
 10. See on v. 14. — 11. For D-;ha h» read fpNDnT ; cp. on 
 xxxii. 21. MT.'s phrase is presupposed by © {ap')(^ovTo<; 
 eOv&v), but is surely wrong. Nothing in the context suggests 
 a ' ram of the nations.' Isa. xiv. 9 and Zech. x. 3 are 
 therefore not parallel. As in so many similar cases the two 
 parts of 'nT" were transposed. 
 
 xxxi. 14. onnil nrrhv!: •noj;'' vh\ Toy remarks, ' These 
 words (found in ©) appear to be a gloss.' His criticism on 
 Cornill seems just ; ' even when the suspicious 'f?M is omitted^ 
 no5"' still seems out of place.' Equally sound is his remark 
 on z/. 10; 'the iDl'? mars the well-maintained allegory.' He 
 would therefore omit the whole expression ^^^1'X1 'h 'l as a 
 gloss. But why these glosses ? The truth seems to be that 
 one word (no more) in both the supposed glosses is genuine, 
 viz. innin, onnai. The preceding words, ini^ dit and iS^ 
 arrhi^ yjos'' are corruptions of ^NonT' and cfpNom'' (ditto- 
 graphed) respectively. In v. 10 'm"' was a marginal correc- 
 tion of Q-'ia 'jM ; in f. 1 4 the plur. 'm"" is a gloss on D"1n ■'33, 
 which occurs in the true text near the end of the verse. 
 
ii2 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxxi. 17 
 
 (The awkwardness of the double use of fpNOnT- for the great 
 king of Melubba and for the king of Musri was unavoidable.) 
 A parallel gloss underlies the singular and very improbable 
 phrase D-'D inQJ-'?3 ivv. 14, 16) which comes from D''^«i»Da?''-'?3. 
 The words to be explained by the gloss are Q-'D ■'lii; ^3 (where 
 D-'Q, as in 2 S. xii. 27, represents 'jMonT') and ni;-'2i:>-^D. — 
 .mw ■'31 should of course be XTVA ''31 ( = Ishmaelites = 
 Jerahmeelites). 
 
 xxxi. 17/. For D''"13 and D-'Snv (see on xxviii. 10) read 
 D'^^MOm"'. Both corruptions frequently occur. For D"'13 @ 
 has T^? t,wr\<i avTwv a-n-wXovTO, i.e. TrlN an^TI, which the 
 editor made up on the basis of a corruptly written QibNom"'. 
 
 Chap, xxxii. 1-16. Pir'u is once more likened to a 
 dragon. The khaA begins with a monostich containing the 
 theme, n'^OT? ^N ^NDm^ ' O Jerahmeel ! how art thou un- 
 done ! ' A similar address in v. 6. Cp. xxviii. 3, where the 
 prince of Missur is called ironically, ' wiser than Jerahmeel' 
 Both T'sa and D"!"!! are corrupt fragments of 'ttW Gunkel's 
 attempt {Schiipf. 72) to improve MT. is hardly satisfactory. 
 — In V. 6 read fsNOHT' ?ip^p nai? pM "'""'p^ni- See above. 
 
 xxxii. 17-32. Pir'u's descent to Sheol. \t\ v. 21 ® 
 gives the better text, taking in v. 19 — 
 
 Tin ^T\Tni I D'^^NDHT' "if?-mT 
 
 ! '^NonT'-DN niami I rrn, noM ■'ao ~ 
 
 Ci"'Tll3 hvK = nhvtx^rw (cp. on xxj? i. 1 1 ) ; it is a clever 
 editorial coinage. nriD may be a corruption of TiaT'Q ; @, 
 Iv ^a0ei ^oOpov jivov, where ylvov (TTi'Tj) is an editorial in- 
 sertion. "ii~ni> possibly comes from ^inN — all that remained 
 ■of '?SQm\ nn "hhn has grown out of f?Nan-i"' (ditto- 
 graphed). — In z'. 22 begins a specification and description 
 of other peoples which have descended before the Misrim 
 into Sheol. These are — Asshur ( = Ashhur), Elam ( = Jerah- 
 meel), Meshech ( = Cusham), Tubal, Edom, Zaphon. See 
 E. Bib., ' Meshech,' ' Tubal,' ' Zaphon.' The ' Zidonians ' are 
 not to be added (w. 30). The combination of two ethnic 
 names in v. 26a was dictated by usage. For ■'31H @ read 
 some word which could be rendered crTpaTrjyol [Aaa-ovp']. 
 One MS. de R. (primo) reads •'3"iD. Either this, or "'211 (which 
 is probably the true reading in Judg. for "'aio), should be 
 
xxxviii. EZEKIEL 113 
 
 restored. All these six peoples, together with the Misrim, 
 may be regarded as sections of the Jerahmeelite race. 
 
 xxxii. 27. Qi^nsD D"'f?Q3. The Nephilim are meant. 
 But Cornill, who first saw this, did not notice that qi^ii^d = 
 a'^'?MD^^^ It is a question, however, whether Ezekiel wrote 
 C^Ssa (Nephilim). The word is more probably a (correct) 
 gloss, limiting and defining □''fjNDm"'. See E. Bib., ' Nephilim.' 
 om31l> should of course be Dnh3S (Cornill). 
 
 Chap. XXXV. I o. ' Two nations,' etc. See on xxxvii. 22. 
 
 Chap, xxxvii. 22. By 'Joseph' (cp. on Am. vi. 6) is 
 meant specially Israel in the Negeb. Here, too, there was 
 an Ephraim. 
 
 Chap, xxxviii. Another prophecy of a Jerahmeelite 
 invasion. The older prophecies obscurely referred to in 
 V. 1 7, xxxix. 8 are especially those of Jeremiah (see e.g. Jer. 
 vi. 22 /i). The leader of the invasion is called :i'"i3i, ' Gog.' 
 Who can this be? It is a first step towards a complete 
 answer to identify m with ijn (Agag) or ii» ('Og). That 
 Agag (Nu. xxiv. 7) is called 7(87 in (g"*"- and Sam., and that 
 'Og (Dt. iii. I, 13, iv. 27) becomes 70)7 in ©" iii. i, 13 is 
 pointed out in E. Bib. Agag is traditionally a king of the 
 Amalekites ( = Jerahmeelites), and 'Og a king of Cushan 
 (miswritten ' Bashan '). But we must go farther. It is 
 obvious that ' Og,' ' Agag,' and ' Gog ' are much-worn names. 
 Are we helped by the occurrence of man in Ezek. xxxviii. 2 
 and of niD in xxxix. 6 (where, however, (Si" reads 7(B7)? 
 We are, if we supplement these passages by xxxix. 11,15,16. 
 \t\ V. II the very strange words ntD-QlpQ have baffled the 
 ■commentators. From the point of view, however, established 
 by a wide induction, DIpD must = SNOriT (cp. on Gen. xii. 6, 
 Isa. xxviii. 8), and ato must = bssDtO"' (as, e.g. Isa. Hi. 11). 
 These two ethnics are very early glosses on :ni, and suggest, 
 by the way, the true origin of the late Jewish antichrist, 
 Armilos ^ ( = Jerahmeel). At the end oi v. 11 we find -riNl 
 mion-Sa and (so also v. 15) na pDH n''!. Here porr is 
 certainly wrong. The name ' Valley of Gog's multitude ' is 
 inconceivable, and not less impossible is the name of a city 
 in V. 16, ' Multitude (?)' or, altering a point, ' His multitude.' 
 
 1 Similarly Sammael, the name of a spirit hardly distinguishable 
 from Satan, may come from ' Ishmael.' 
 
114 CRITICA BIBLICA xxxviii. 
 
 Change n into n, however, and all becomes plain. Jlon is 
 a place-name in Josh. xix. 28, which forms part of a passage 
 with names evidently derived from the Negeb ; jlDJl = pom = 
 ^Mom"'.^ In thus accounting for ]"ian, we have also accounted 
 for i*i:iD and mon. The common origin of all these forms 
 is pino, i.e. hvfarxv ; the initial n in nion probably enough 
 has grown out of i. 
 
 In truth, no name is so suitable for the great N. Arabian 
 conqueror as ' Jerahmeel ' ; and Ezekiel has already used it 
 for the king of Missur in xxxii. 2, 6. He is the impersona- 
 tion of his people, just as in Isa. x. 5 the dreaded N. Arabian 
 king is called Asshur or Ashhur. But in the mouth of the 
 people this name was probably worn down into various shorter 
 forms, among which were Migron and probably Hermon. 
 1110 (Magog), however, can scarcely be a popular form ; it 
 has sprung by a scribe's error from ]l[n]lD, Migron (cp. fiw^mv 
 for /jior/eBav in ©", i S. xiv. 2). As evidently, ni; and llM 
 have sprung from jn:i, i.e. jNnio. The result is that niD pw 
 in V. I may in all sobriety be emended into J"n3D piN, ' land 
 of Migron,' which is partly a correction, partly an explanation 
 of 11:1. It belongs to the margin. pilD should also be 
 substituted for mo in Gen. x. 2. 
 
 Gog, or, as we should now say, Migron (Jerahmeel), is 
 described in a gloss inserted in v. 2 and in xxxix. i (the 
 II passage) as ' prince of Asshur (or Ashhur), Cusham, and 
 Tubal ' ; so beyond doubt the text should be emended (cp. on 
 xxvii. 13). And his home is represented as in 'the recesses 
 of Zaphon' (cp. Isa. xiv. 13, same phrase; Jer. vi. 22, 
 XXV. 32, xxxi. 8, 1. 41 piN-Ti^T, 'the recesses of the land'). 
 From D"'mD (v. 4) onwards we have a long list of partly 
 corrupt ethnics. Following the || passages, xxiii. 24, Jer, 
 xlvi. 3, we should read D-iSNonT"! C^Mi^pm^l Q'^nDI^"! D''mi3 
 ['m"'"i 'ott>"'l] CMpl. These ethnics, however, are interpolated. 
 The true, original list is probably very short — Qiffi^ai DTiSIS; 
 J1D2i '^riDTi n"'Dl«-^31 ^Nom"' D^S. did and ms both repre- 
 sent nsi^s (see on xxvii. 10). qpn springs from tDTi the. 
 termination of D'^nEnS. (B"" adds Ti'?, i.e. -\ihl (in Negeb). 
 On i>l"i31 pa, see on xxiii. 24. nm and noinn have come in 
 under the influence of Gen. x. 3 ; both spring from 'jNonT, 
 1 Indeed on (Ham) itself is more than probably a fragment of '^NOnT. 
 
xxxix. 14 EZEKIEL 115 
 
 which is probably the original reading. "T'SaN-^D-[nN]l is 
 superfluous. 
 
 xxxviii. 1 3. tO■'^)^n as usual represents TintON. ■'?3"i 
 IT'TSa, ' and all its young lions ! ' Cornill, rr^^Mi ; Toy, 
 r\hy\ ; Kr., QinEia, ' Cyprians (?).' Rather Qif^Nomi or 
 D'^niirn.. — 20. nm-rsin should be nifj-raan (so already Gratz). 
 Chap, xxxix. 2. jidjs, of course, is not ' the north ' but 
 a district. — 6. ntalS D-'^Mil '^Iffi-'ll lilM. ncslf? is odd. 
 There were surely not many of the men left behind. D''"'Nn 
 is also unexpected ; few words are so untrustworthy as Q"'"'n ! 
 ■'ItD'', too, frequently represents a well-known N. Arabian 
 ethnic. Read [nihn fpNOHT'] '?Nsom-'ni jnaoi. — 9. q^stiji 
 nohl^ "T ^(203^ should be D"'SNQmi ^%T\'y^. The bow of 
 Jerahmeel was proverbial (Hos. ii. 20). 
 
 xxxix. 1 1 . Note Pasek after "nh. On 'm 'd, see above. 
 '?N-im''n should obviously be S>NrD©"'3. Even if we keep the 
 text of the following words, 'imia surely will not do (cp. 
 xlvii. 1 8). The possible confusion of ' Israel ' and ' Ishmael ' 
 must always be borne in mind. — For DTT nmp Q^'lliTi ''l 
 read ['jNom"'] D'^l'ii^n "il, ' the valley of the Arabians,' with a 
 gloss 'Jerahmeel.' Migron's destined burial-place was in 
 the valley miscalled the ' Valley of Salt ' (n^DH is a corruption 
 of fpsom"'). Wi'p is constantly miswritten for DpT = 'xw (cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Rekem ' ; ' Paradise,' § 6). Then follows a further 
 gloss absurdly miswritten in MT. (see AV's rendering !). 
 Read certainly D'in~iSii-f?M N'-n n^pbl, ' and ( = in fact) it 
 adjoins Arabia' (cp. xxiv. 2). The name 'Valley of Jerah- 
 meel ' will now acquire a new shade of meaning. It will 
 mean, not ' valley where the Jerahmeelites dwell,' but ' valley 
 where they are buried.' Read simply pnao n"'1 ( = 'xxy vci) ; 
 see above. 
 
 xxxix. 14. Read of course n"'n»n-nM. — 16. The initial 
 n in mion represents n, the final n. Read pom T'i^ Qm Dll, 
 ' there, too, is the city of Jerahmeel,' the closing part of the 
 marginal gloss which has intruded into v. \\ (see above). 
 Cp. on xlviii. 35. 
 
 Influence of Chaps, xxxviii./ It is not at all im- 
 probable that the famous ap/uiyeSeov of Rev. xvi. 16 was 
 suggested by a reading pniD p« in Ezek. xxxviii. 2 ; cp. 
 (g's /lar/eSScav for pnio in Isa. x. 28 and perhaps i S. xiv. 2. 
 
ii6 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xl, r 
 
 Just as the fallen angels came to earth on Mount Jerahmeel 
 ('Hermon' in Enoch vi. 6 — see on chap, xxviii.), so on Arma- 
 geddon, i.e. the mountains of Jerahmeel, the ' unclean spirits ' 
 gather together to contend with the Almighty in Rev. xvi. 1 6. 
 The authority from whom the Enochian writer drew, knew 
 that the Nephilim of Gen. vi. 4 were Jerahmeelites (cp. on 
 Ezek. xxxii. 27) ; the authority from whom the Johannine 
 writer drew, knew that the mustering of the opponents of 
 Israel's God was to take place on the Jerahmeelite mountains. 
 The explanation given in E. Bib., col. 1 748 f., note 4, is on 
 the right track _(cp. col. 3881, note i), though it has not 
 reached the goal. 
 
 Chap. xl. i, 2. Corn., Toy, Berth., Kr. omit riDtO and 
 ■'Jwarr, which were not in @'s text. But they do not 
 explain how these words came in. The truth is that, as in 
 xlviii. 35, no© represents i?Qt&% i.e. in the present case 
 ^NiiotCi. This was originally a correction of 'jNiB?"'. It was, 
 in fact, on ' one of the mountains ' of Jerahmeel that Ezekiel 
 in his vision stood. The prophet recognises the Negeb as 
 the holiest part of the land, and plans the erection of a new 
 temple and a new holy city. Cp. on xlvii. 13, Isa. xlvi. i f. 
 Ezekiel's permanent residence, then, cannot have been in the 
 Negeb (cp. on i. i). 
 
 Chap, xliii. 26/ Omit t[i]T' InSdi, and also riN 'h'T'y 
 a"'aTr. The former phrase can be used only of priests, the 
 latter is here superfluous. Both phrases represent editorial 
 efforts to make sense of a corruptly written D''f7Nam"'. The 
 'Jerahmeelites' spoken of were of course members of the 
 Israelite community, and not in a religious sense Jerah- 
 meelites (see next note). 
 
 Chap. xliv. Ja. -itol h'W\, a^ -h-a n53-"'33- Most im- 
 probable. The mistake closely resembles that in Jer. ix. 25, 
 Read n^l^NT D-'Snott; IDr^'Jia (see Amer. J. of Theol. v. 437 
 [July 1 901]). Cp. on Zeph. i. 8 /, and note the Jerah- 
 meelite cultus described in Ezek. viii. Similarly in v. 9. 
 
 Chap, xlvii. 8. Read, for niioipn, iT'fjNDnT'n, or at 
 any rate n^lDpnn (npT = nm"'). Then continue lT.l?-^« 'nT'T 
 (cp. on Dt. i. i). In (5 read iN£n3T ifjNDHT'n D;rr-'?M "INIT 
 □"'Sionn Q'^Drr. The original name of the Dead Sea was 
 ' Sea of Jerahmeel ' (see E. Bib., ' Mediterranean '). After- 
 
x'"i. 1 6 EZEKIEL 117 
 
 wards ^noht became (i) rh'a, (2) ■'3^o^p. — In t-. 18 Ezek. 
 is made to use the second of the later forms. Here, how- 
 ever, underlying a corruption, we can detect the earlier form. 
 Cp. on Joel ii. 20, Zech. xiv. 8. 
 
 xlvii. 10. Read ^ndht pi?-7S1 t»i|7 p:;a, 'from En- 
 kadesh to En-jerahmeel. See E. Bib., ' Kadesh,' i., § 3, end. 
 Not only the healing of the Dead Sea but the restoration of 
 the paradisal fertility of the central district of Jerahmeel was 
 at Ezekiel's heart. See E. Bib., ' Paradise,' §§ 6, 9. — All 
 the middle part of z'. 10 is omitted by Cornill as not original. 
 But neither he nor any other critic has accounted for its 
 existence. From our point of view, however, the problem 
 is solved with certainty. Read ^NajiT' ]"'i»D fjNom'' niSDD, 
 'from Succoth-jerahmeel, from En-jerahmeel.' Both D"'OinS 
 (cp. on xxvi. S) and h VTl^ represent ■7Nam^ 
 
 xlvii. 1 3. Here begins the sketch of the boundaries of 
 the new Holy Land. But where is that Holy Land ? The 
 boundaries are these laid down in Nu. xxxiv. Here, how- 
 ever, underlying the present text, we find the assignment, 
 not of the land of Canaan, but of that of Kenaz, i.e. the 
 Negeb, to the tribes of Israel. Was Ezekiel's idea that 
 Canaan had been too much defiled to be the centre of 
 Yahwe's kingdom in the future ? or had the original text 
 underlying Nu. xxxiv. already been transformed, and did 
 Ezekiel blindly take it over ? The latter supposition seems 
 rather improbable. If Paradise were restored, why should 
 not the Israelites (that is, all who could) dwell in its neighbour- 
 hood ? Perhaps two writers have been concerned in the text. 
 See on Nu. xxxiv., and cp. E. Bib., ' Hethlon,' ' Riblah,' 
 ' Shepham,' ' Sibraim,' ' Tamar,' ' Zedad,' ' Ziphron.' — V. i^b. 
 Xshyn ^xiv, ' a gloss pointing out that, Levi being omitted, 
 the number twelve is gained by counting Joseph as two ' 
 (Toy). This involves pointing D^^nn. But © did not so 
 understand the words (irpoa-dea-i'; o-'x^otvLo-fiaTOf). "Pin, ' lot,' 
 is also strange (Cornill). Read perhaps SmdhT' nsnJJ, i.e. the 
 land to be divided is Zarephath or Jerahmeel. D"'f?an is 
 miswritten for 'ni'' in Ps. xvi. 6. 
 
 xlvii. 16. The right names are probably Maacath, 
 Rehoboth, Zarephath, Cusham, Ashhur-maacath (a correction 
 of the preceding Hamath ?), ^laran. To read ' Hagar-enon ' 
 
ii8 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xlviii. i 
 
 (or -enan), with Smend, Corn., Toy, Kr., for ' H.-hattikon ' 
 is harmless but unnecessary. ' Hazar-enon ' probably comes 
 from ' Hazar-,' or perhaps ' Ashhur-jerahmeel,' and ' Hazar- 
 hattikon ' from ' Hazar-,' or perhaps ' Ashhur-maacath.' Cp. 
 tlkon with ' Joktah.' 
 
 Chap, xlviii. i. Cornill, Toy, Kr. change the first -v ^M 
 into DTr-JO (cp. xlvii. 15). But the first step is to correct 
 Nu. xxxiv. 8 f. (see note) ; then we can proceed to correct 
 Ezek. xlviii. i thus — non-N^if? jinNnn ^NonT'-Tr 'ny\xs% mpo. 
 — 35. It is usual to translate DVD 'from this time forth,' 
 comparing Isa. xliii. 1 3 (DVO), xlviii. 7 (dV'3D^). But both 
 these passages are probably corrupt (see SBOT, ' Isaiah '), 
 and DV is frequently a corruption of some longer word. 
 TTDtl? mrr"', too, is improbable. Dtl? is often a mere fragment 
 of fjNDDffii. Probably we should read mri"' [DTlfpN] T'sn DtOT 
 i^DtO'^, ' and the name of the city shall be [elohim] Yahw^ 
 hears,' It is a play on the name of the capital of the 
 Negeb, which should be Ishmael (cp. on xlvii. 13, and on 
 xxxix. 1 6), but which Ezekiel converts into Elohim-yishma', 
 or Yahwe-yishma'. Cp. on Yahwe-yir'eh, Gen. xxii. 14 ; 
 Yahwfe-shalom, Judg. vi. 24. Does not all this strange 
 description in chaps, xl.-xlviii. throw some light on that 
 enigmatical passage, Isa. Ixvi. i, 2 (see note) ? Cp. on xl. i, 2. 
 
HOSEA 
 
 Chap. i. 3-5. — The latest writer (Riedel, Alttest. Untersuch., 
 1902, pp. 10 ff.) confesses that the name 'Gomer' is un- 
 intelligible ; ' bath diblaim,' however, can suitably be ex- 
 plained as ' daughter of cakes,' i.e. one addicted to offering 
 cakes to the Baals. Surely this is altogether unnatural. 
 ' Gomer ' (like Gomer in Gen. x. 2 ; cp. Harnor in Gen. 
 xxxiv.) and Diblaim ( = Riblaim, cp. Diblathaim = Ribla- 
 thaim) must, if the proper methods be applied, reveal 
 themselves as old corruptions of ' Jerahmeel,' which had 
 acquired an independent existence. Hosea's wife then 
 was a Jerahmeelite. See on iii. 2. He himself, as the 
 evidence tends to show, was an Israelite residing in the 
 Jerahmeelite Negeb (see E. Bib., ' Prophet,'. § 36). This 
 N. Arabian matrimonial connection was a symbol of the 
 fact that Israel had addicted itself to the impure religion 
 of the Jerahmeelites (cp. on Jer. ii. 18). There is an 
 allusion to the name 'Jerahmeel' in Lo-ruhamah and 
 Lo-ammi[el] in vv. 6, 9 ; for Lo-ruhamah cp. Isa. xxix. 2^ 
 (Lo-jerahmeel ; see note). It was the southern Jezreel after 
 which the elder son of Hosea was named. Jehu's bloody 
 deed at Jezreel (cp. 2 K. x. 11) was to be avenged in 
 Maacath-yizreel (read fpNi;nr-nDrD ; cp. on pDS, Ps. Ix. 8). 
 See E. Bib., col. 3861, note 4. There the 'bow of Israel' 
 was to be broken, i.e. the Israelites were to sustain a 
 crushing defeat by the N. Arabians. 
 
 i. 7. non^on nnn. Can 'fpoi really mean 'all the 
 other unnamed weapons ' ? Read '?NDm"' nnn. See on 
 ii. 20, Ps. Ixxvi. 4. The ' Jerahmeel-sword ' and the 
 ' Jerahmeel-bow ' were the most destructive (cp. on Jer. vi. 
 25, xii. 12, Ezek. xxxix. 9). 
 
 9 
 
I20 CRITIC A BIB Lie A "• i 
 
 Chap. ii. 1-3 [i. lo-ii. ij. In Jezreel itself cause shall 
 be given for calling ' Lo-ammi ' ' Ammi,' and ' Lo-ruhamah ' 
 ' Ruhamah,' and the people of Israel shall be called ' B'ne 
 Jerahmeel' (read, not 'r\ hv< --11, but ^ndHT ''^n, cp. on 
 Gen. iii. 2oh). Indeed,' the B'ne Jerahmeel of the older 
 stock (for rvr\rv ■'^l read ^ndhT^ ''an — for the correction 
 see on i S. xxx. g ff., 26 — and the B'ne Israel shall, under 
 a common head, enter Canaan on a second and greater day 
 of Jezreel). mpDl (so much disputed over) comes from 
 fpNom"'! ; Jezreel was in the Jerahmeelite Negeb. For the 
 correction see on Gen. xii. 6, Isa. xxviii. 8, Ezek. xxxviii. 
 
 ii. 17, 20. V. 17a describes a territory to be given to 
 restored Israel. Read TiDi>-nDi>D-nN"i ['pNSnmi] ^NDmi-riN 
 iilpn^T mna^f?. For ' Achor,' see; on Josh. xv. 7, and on 
 ' Tekoa ' E. Bib., ' Tekoa.' — Read ^ndht nm. The bow 
 and sword of Jerahmeel were proverbial (see on i. 7). — DtO 
 and DtDQ often represent 'am"' (here a gloss on ' Jerahmeel ') ; 
 see Isa. Hi. 11, Ezek. xxxix. 11. 
 
 Chap. iii. i. ciriN DTi'pn'^n. A great want of 
 definiteness. Read ^NonT TT^N'Sn ; see on Jer. i. 1 6, 
 vii. 6. — Q'':i2S ■'tO"'lDN, ' pressed grape-cakes ? ' It is plausible 
 to compare Jer. vii. 1 8 (xliv. 1 7), where the ' cakes ' for the 
 ' queen of heaven (?),' and the libations offered to the DTT^M 
 □"'nriN are mentioned together. At the same time the word 
 iriN more properly refers to the mutual connection between 
 gods and their worshippers. The existence, moreover, of the 
 word ntl?"'tON, ' fruit-cake,' has in the other places where it 
 occurs (see, e.g., on 2 S. vi. 19, Isa. xvi. 7) been questioned, 
 and even were im"'2)N possible, D''12i>, ' grapes,' would be 
 superfluous. Gratz suggests Diaarn. □■'ncpM. Better, perhaps, 
 ]DS^'\ mntps. ]Qs:i is a title of Baal; cp. Isa. xvii. 10. 
 But parallelism favours Qilis nhtpi>, ' Ashtor of Arabia ' (see 
 on Dt. iii. 17). Cp. Judg. ii. 13, 'They forsook Yahwe, and 
 served Baal and the Ashtaroth.' 
 
 iii. 2. D'ns'm Tin^ D"'li>to ^^?^^ These words, so difficult 
 to make sense of here, appear to be corruptions of the name 
 and description of Hosea's wife, i.e. of 'jMonT'-n^aia [na] ion, 
 ' Hamor (?), a woman of Missur-jerahmeel.' Q^isw may 
 come from man, ^rh (cp. loS) from f?NDm\ @ has yo/j,op 
 KpiO&v KoX ve^eX olvov, — ji"" 7331 D'^li?© non, which, equally 
 
V. I HOSE A 121 
 
 with MT.'s text, may represent 'jNonT'-TiHD [ni] ion 
 (p"'Sn3 = p'pn). A measure called '{rh is surely non- 
 existent in the O.T. 
 
 iii. 4. □"'mm TiDN pN"l. @ ovhe lepaTela's ovSe ZrfKwv. 
 Perhaps lepareia? may be best viewed as a corruption of 
 larpeLa^, i.e. NDID (2 Chr. xxi. 18), which in turn may be a 
 corruption of ^^DN, facilitated by the D in D"'D"in. Sj^X&jv 
 represents n"'Giri (as Dt. xxxiii. 8), which Gratz adopts. 
 
 Chap. iv. 12. That rhabdomancy should be referred 
 to so prominently, seems unlikely. l^pD is surely from 
 fjNDm"' (cp. on T" h'pt^, Ezek. xxxix. 9) ; both Hosea and 
 Amos vehemently denounce the practice of frequenting 
 Jerahmeelite sanctuaries. This makes another correction 
 probable, which otherwise would be only possible, — ^Ni^QtCl 
 for "[^^[l]. Originally, elsewhere, ^21 and i>is do appear 
 to be corrupt fragments of 'otD'^. Probably, too, the mutila- 
 tion of 'affli was facilitated by the fact that the next group 
 of letters is ^nqJ\ ' Ishmael ' and ' Jerahmeel ' may be 
 either the deified patriarchs so called, or substituted for the 
 true name of the god of the Ishmaelites or JerahmeeliteS 
 (Yarham ?). 
 
 iv. 143, 15. tan^i ^II^-nS ns\ The preceding ds (to) 
 suggests DSI. The proper name J'^l"' is probably a cor- 
 ruption of fpNom"', and as if to confirm our application of 
 this parallel the text prefixes n"? ( = 7n). Read probably 
 ^SSian^ (cp. ^in). There is no theoretic necessity to 
 obelise the words referring to Judah (see on v. 10 /.), 
 though the text may nevertheless be wrong. The place- 
 names appear to be generally misunderstood, hx^yn is an 
 early corruption of ~\shy or of ^Nom"'. The least radical 
 correction that is possible for ]']i<rn''3 is to read pN IT'S. But 
 the textual phenomena of Am. i. 5 suggest that pN is really 
 a corruption of \js, which is certainly the name of a 
 Jerahmeelite district. The intermediate form ]^N occurs 
 in the personal name rr^TN, and the place-name ]"tm 
 (Ezra ii. 59). 'Jerahmeel' may be the place which turns 
 out to be rightly called ' Cusham- jerahmeel ' (cp. on 
 Gen. xxxiv. — For miT'-'n read nrnyn (see on Zeph. i. 5, 
 Am. viii. 14). Cp. Paul Ruben, ad loc. (for a different view). 
 
 Chap. v. i. ^Nim"' tT'I being a phrase for 'Israelites,' 
 
122 CRITIC A BIB Lie A v. 2 
 
 we are bound to infer that D-'3rr3n and l^on-rr^n also repre- 
 sent names of peoples, t^d and ^^dH are so often cor- 
 ruptions of ^NQnT' (see E. Bib., ' Hammelech ') that we can 
 hardly hesitate to read fpNomi n"'l, which indeed suits the 
 context admirably. QiarrDn should probably be D^irpn, 
 •ye Kenites.' Is ^Nntt)"' n-'l correct? fjNi^Dtt)'' IT'l is 
 certainly more probable. The divine punishment belongs, 
 first of all, to those who ensnared Israel, i.e. to the 
 Ishmaelites or Jerahmeelites of the Negeb. ' Ye have been 
 a snare at Mizpah.' The place meant is probably that 
 called in Judg. xi. 29, ' Mizpeh of Gilead ' (there was a 
 southern Gilead in the Negeb), and elsewhere called 
 Sarephath and possibly Misrephath (see E. Bib., ' Misrephoth 
 maim '). Hosea continues, ' and a net spread on Tabor.' 
 No southern ' Tabor ' (ihin) is known. Probably we should 
 read ninn~i (see on Ps. Ixxxix. lib'). ' Rehoboth ' was a spot 
 hallowed by the patriarchal story. 
 
 V. 2. Read ch'^h TBiQ ■'D^j'i I ^p"'t?i'i7 D"'aBnn nnm"!. 'ain 
 
 is suggested by the hardly doubtful correction of mno in 
 Ezek. xxviii. 3. QiEstO is a corruption of qibd, and this of 
 D''Qa[in]. The ' magicians ' of Misrim were famous (Gen. 
 xli' 8). Cp. on D-'tflD, Ps. ci. 3. Note @'s iraiSevTrj^. 
 
 V. 7 / tB-jh. Read ^ipn ; @, ipvai^r]. — 8. Tf^nHN. 
 Wellh. 1T^^^ Rather, perhaps, ^Nam\ ' Jerahmeel ' (see 
 on iv. 15) is sometimes a place-name, i.e. it is the short for 
 Beth-jerahmeel. pp;33, which follows, may be the chief 
 centre of the Benjamites in the Negeb (see on Jer. vi, i ). 
 
 V. 10/ Neither here, nor in vv. 12, 13, 14, vi. 4, 11, 
 xii. 3 need we alter ' Judah ' into ' Israel.' Both Israel and 
 Judah appear to have had territory in the Negeb, and 
 consequently to have been seduced by the Jerahmeelite 
 cult. — "iS-'-irtN ^bri 'j-'Nin 13. That 12 is a shortened form of 
 m2D, or the name of a god (Hommel), is very diiificult to 
 make probable, nor is "im ( = mm) an adequate correction. 
 The right solution is suggested by a study of Isa. xxx. 6 
 (see note), which shows that f?ii;")rr may be a corruption of 
 'pNonT, and by Isa. xxviii. 10, which probably shows that 
 12 may be a corruption of f?N^Dm^ In fact, h^ii^n and is 
 represent respectively the variants ' Jerahmeel ' and ' Ishmael.' 
 The threat in z^. 1 1« is explained by the offence of Ephraim 
 
vi. 7 HOSEA 123 
 
 in worshipping the Jerahmeelite or Ishmaelite deity (see 
 on iv. 15). 
 
 V. 12 (x. 6). IT ■qba-'jN. Independently, in 1897, 
 the writer and Prof. W. Max Muller explained ni 'i^d as 
 ' the great king ' (either reading in •^^p, or [WMM] treating 
 ITa'PQ as a proper name. Winckler (Musrt, etc., 1898, 
 p. 22) suggests n[ri]i l^o-^N, 'to the king of Jathrib 
 ( = Medina).' The ' Great King ' theory had already been 
 proposed by M'Curdy, HPM i. (1894), pp. 415/; it is 
 also suggested by Riedel (without reference to predecessors) 
 Alttest. Untersuch. (1902), p. 18. But the N. Arabian 
 interest of Hosea is so manifest that we cannot doubt that 
 IT' is miswritten for ni) or iins ; ini; in Palestine, like 
 Aribu(bi) in Assyria, was already in use as a term for 
 N. Arabia. So E. Bib. ii. ( 1 90 1 ), col. 2331. Independent 
 support is given to this view by Otto Weber {Arabien vor 
 dem Islam, 1901, p. 24). By the 'king of Arabia' the 
 Hebrew prophet may mean the king of Melu^ha, the 
 suzerain of the smaller N. Arabian kings. 
 
 Chap. vi. j ff. For D"rN3 it now becomes obvious to 
 read Diwa (cp. E. Bib., ' Adam '). Wellhausen, at any rate, 
 sees that a locality must be referred to. Dm, as elsewhere, 
 may be a fragment of ^NSOtC ; prefix 3. Thus, ' in Aram ' 
 is parallel (as it ought to be) to ' in Ishmael.' For ~jshl we 
 might read hlby (yaXjaXa, some MSS. of (g) ; Nowack, too, 
 wavers ; for ' Gilgal' see iv. 15, ix. 15, xii. 12. If we take 
 ■il from V. 7, and read ''^l, i.e. Tv:i, we get ' Beth-gilgal ' (on 
 which see E. Bib., ' Gilgal,' § 6) or Beth-gilead (perhaps = 
 Jabesh-gilead). In either case, Beth-jerahmeel may be 
 meant. This is not improbably the Gibeath-jerahmeel, 
 where noisy rites and sacrifices of children seem to have 
 been in vogue (see on v. 10). There is some reason to 
 think that the seat of Saul's clan was at a place called 
 Beth-Jerahmeel, and that this was situated in the southern 
 Gilead (see on 2 S. ii. 8 /., where it is shown that Saul's 
 ' Jerahmeel ' was at any rate near Beth-gilead). Hosea 
 may therefore have had two reasons for denouncing Beth- 
 gilead or Beth-jerahmeel or Gibeath-jerahmeel, viz. (i) the 
 offensive rites there practised, and (2) the rise of the kingly 
 government. For the impossible Qija Tl3.pS read either 
 
124 CRITIC A BIB Lie A vii. i 
 
 D^S-iD fim (so E. Bib., 'Gilead,' 2) or ^MOnT' 'l. The 
 latter is preferable. But if so, either a few words have 
 dropped out, or 'm"' '1 is a variant to the place-name (Beth- 
 gilead ?) in v. 8«.— The difficulties of MT. and of @ in z/. 9 
 are well-known (see Now., and Ruben, Crit. Remarks, p. 12). 
 For an attempt to meet them see E. Bib., col. 1729. With 
 a surer clue, however, we can detect un'^y pN underneath 
 DnTTl ffi"'N, D'^3"'(? under WiXX^ (cp. on v. i), and np©3 under 
 noDm (see E. Bib., ' Shechem,' 2). — In v. 10 for hvnw TCyi 
 read SNi^Qffi"' JT^ll ('tji)"' and 'ntO"' are sometimes confounded). 
 For the ' horrible ' rites of Beth-ishmael ( = B.-jerahmeel) 
 see on Jer. ii. 34. — In v. 1 1 and vii. i note that ■'ntOl (cp* 
 ■'pli) probably comes from f?Ni?nm"'l, b ■'Nm3 from Snoht, 
 and ^Nna?-'^ from ^Ni>QtD"'S. Originally something more 
 was said of the practices in Ishmael or Jerahmeel ; min"' 
 if? Ti^Jp ntO conceals something quite different which has not 
 been recovered. 
 
 Chap. vii. i. The verse, as Wellh. has seen, should 
 probably begin at n'^lD (without S). Point p-it5tp. 
 
 vii. 1 1 . D"'12p (so point) and Til^N are the N. Arabian 
 regions so called. 
 
 vii. 14/ For 'omD-Sl> read ani3p3-f?l; (Joel i. 9), and for 
 ■■l TilD"' read ^NSCim"'-rT'l (see next note). Cancel imD% as 
 a repetition of lllD"' ; wanting in @. So Ruben. 
 
 vii. 1 6. ' Unintelligible and mostly corrupt ' (Wellh.). 
 Note Pasek. Both inm"' and ^i> n'? come from fjNi^nm'' 
 (dittographed), a correction of "il "nTD"' iv. 14). For the 
 two errors, cp. ■'Dl'' = ■'SNi>Dm^ and Si> Sn in xi. 7. The 
 verse should therefore begin with the next words, ntDpD vn 
 '[V1T\, or rather ^nDHT' D^Dp TH, ' they;are become like ( = as 
 indifferent to me as) Cusham-jerahmeel ; for the idea cp. Am. 
 ix. 7, and for the error Ps. Ixxviii. 57. Continue, nni 'i^B^. 
 Di-!2tp pNl Q^■'^a>. Oi^io, 03^2)'?, and uyh ^•\ all appear to 
 come from corrupt forms of D''SNSOa)"' (a gloss on QiniiD ?). 
 
 Chap. viii. i. MT., -FfSn-^tj, which, as Wellh. sees, is 
 corrupt. @, et? koKitov avrcov = d^T'Tl-hi}, a corruption of 
 7NDm"'. This may either be a gloss on Q^ilSD (see on 
 viii. 16), or the subject of a verb such as nS^^ (see Jer. 
 xlix. 22) which would easily fall out after 'jnd. ^D^?, as 
 Gratz pointed out {Monatsschrift, 1886, p. 375), is probably 
 
ix. 6 HOSE A 125 
 
 a dittographed nffii. — 6. It is hard to defend Nim and 
 D-'inm (cp. E. Bib., ' Spider ')• Most probably, v. 6b, when 
 corrected, should stand before 'in "inmi^ ffinn. ^NIICD and 
 wyyva both represent f?NSDm''0 ; Mini and mrr"' both come 
 from bNOm"', a variant to fjNSDffi"'. Read — 
 
 The phrase ' the calf of Shimron ' probably indicates that 
 ' Beth-el ' or ' Beth-on ' was near Shimron. — 9. 'h ^^^l Nno 
 is quite unsuitable in this context. Read ^Nom"' in?, a 
 regular geographical phrase (see on Dt. i. i) ; this is a gloss 
 on'Asshur.' — 12. Read "inmna Ti-ioa inhin I f^NDHTl mpi$. 
 Israel's God ' loathes ' Jerahmeel, because his own religious 
 statutes are despised in the sanctuaries of the Negeb. 
 
 viii. 1 3 should begin thus, ^NOHT' pNl 13nn D"'mi. The 
 insertion of ini'f became necessary after inn had been 
 corrupted into "'imrr. @'s Ova-iacrTripia ra rfyairrjixeva im- 
 plies a derivation of ""Dnin from inw. Most explain ' offer- 
 ings ' {y/in^, 'to give'), ntOl here, as in Ezek. xvi. 26 and 
 elsewhere, represents fml, and ifj^WT represents fpNom"' (cp. 
 'h'2H in Isa. Ixvi. 17). 
 
 Chap. ix. 6. Dl3pn v^a. Usually taken as a Hebrew 
 corruption of Eg. Men-nofer (see E. Bib., col. 3432). The 
 evidence, however, for the preponderant influence of Misrim. 
 is so strong that we are obliged to distrust ' Moph ' not less 
 than ' Noph.' In particular, it is plain from vii. 11 and 
 ix. 3 that "ntO« and D■'^SD are virtually synonymous. Now 
 the only theory which explains how this can be the case is 
 the theory that N. Arabian districts are referred to. The 
 truth is, that this very passage (ix. 6) shows that N. Arabia 
 is the region intended. The opening words in MT. are 
 ^©p 13^n n3n""'3. It is clear that ^mD must represent the 
 name of a country. It cannot be a corruption of niSD = 
 D"'^20, because D■'^2D, which follows, is required as the subject 
 of DSlpn. It must, therefore, be a distortion of Dnt»3 = DtOID. 
 ^D presumably = P]3 ; the initial d may be due to the~ pre- 
 ceding D. ^3 probably represents mnE33, the name of a 
 district on the N. Arabian border (see on Isa. xix. 13, Jer. 
 ii. 16). DiT'fpnMl should be DrT'^3Tl3. Cp. on Ps. xix. 5. 
 Read '3 nono (Wellh.). 
 
126 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ix. lo 
 
 ix. lo, 1 3. nmn^. Probably rTima^. See on Jer. iii. 23 / 
 — V. 13 is composed of two parts, each beginning with 
 □■'~idn[i]. The second part (omitting D"'1DNl) appears to be 
 a variant to the latter portion of the first, i.e. nis^ corre- 
 sponds to hvi vci^rh, rhsTWH to mn, and rv\ii to t^23. 
 hv^ vC'T\rh (whence ^"l2if?) comes from ^Ni^offi'' (cp. is, v. 11, 
 Isa. xxviii. 10, 13), and n'pinffi must be a corruption of some 
 synonym of T\ir. T'31 may be retained. Thus line 2 
 becomes V31 nr?"' SNi>OQ>\ We can now perhaps penetrate 
 the secret of line i, which should probably run thus — D'^lDN 
 insh"" n^nt&N. Render the restored passage, ' As for Ephraim, 
 Ashhur shall bfeak him to pieces ; Ishmael shall slay his sons.' 
 
 Chap. x. 3. It is strange that the weakness of Israel 
 should be accounted for in this way. Hence Marti and 
 Nowack suspect an interpolation. More probably ^^D pN 
 and ifjon represent fpNoni"' ; in this case read "i3Tr^N. ' Then 
 will they say, Jerahmeel is our God, for we do not fear 
 Yahw^ ; and Jerahmeel — what will he do for us ? ' Cp. 
 Isa. viii. 21. 
 
 X. 5-8. Read rhy^, and cp. on viii. 5. — 'yv; see on 
 V. 13. — V. 7 is very hard; but cp. E. Bib., col. 2125, note. 
 — In V. 8 point pN (see on iv. 15), and omit ht>C\rm T\v>xm 
 (rather ^nsdQ)"' naro) as a gloss. 
 
 X. 1 4/ ^■'©$41 pN^ CiN(^"!- Three improbabilities, ( i ) DN|5 
 for Dj7, (2) pMm for ' war-cry ' (Now.), and (3) Vf^ai^a, parallel 
 to ^1^!ino. The third of these has been corrected by Wellh. ; 
 read 'Jfisa. The second, on the analogy of Am. ii. 2, is 
 removed' by reading jffi^s. The first (cp. Dip, Ezek. xxiii. 23) 
 by the correction f?NQm\ This involves supposing that 
 ■^nn^ffi"), or the like, has fallen out, owing to the misreading 
 QNpr — Read Snoht n"'^ JQ^0 nmj. Cp. on Am. i. 3. 
 Winckler's suggestion, that the barbarities of the Arabian 
 tribe called Salmah are referred to, is plausible (see E. Bib., 
 ' Salmah '). But having found out so much relative to the 
 invasions of the Negeb by Cushites, Misrites, and Asshurites, 
 we can hardly hesitate to retain jp^p, and to accept this as 
 the name of one of the N. Arabian tribes who invaded the 
 Negeb. That Salamanu was the name of a Moabite prince 
 in Tiglath-pileser's time we know (see Schr., KAT,'-^'^ p. 441) ; 
 it is very possible that the king of Asshur also bore this 
 
xii. IS HOSE A 127 
 
 name. 'jNnN (cp. Si?lT') is a perfectly regular corruption of 
 ^snm"'. nonfjo □T'l is a corruption of 'm*' VC'I dittographed. 
 See on Nah. iii. 8. — For the impossible nn#S read iiinffiM?. 
 The meaning is that the king of Israel shall be destroyed by 
 the inexorable king of the N. Arabian Asshur. 
 
 Chap. xi. There are many difficulties here. Pioneering 
 work has been done already. The emendations of vv. \-\a 
 in E. Bib., col. 2826, produce a much-improved sense, but 
 are inadequate, as soon as we realise how much Hosea is 
 preoccupied by the danger from N. Arabia. Let us now go 
 over the work again. In vv. 1-3 read ■'31 i^ (I called him 
 my son), Pesh., Theod.; ■'Nnp3, @; •'3Bn, cp. @; nnpN, <B\ 
 ■'ns'i'?. So Ruben, and partly Wl {AT Unt., 182), Wellh. 
 ■'ribna, Pesh., Gr.; D"'n"'"T3, Gr. To this, however, add in 
 V. I Dinsp (cp. on V. 5), and in v. 4« m^N "'^int? (for £3"tn 'm) 
 and fjNom"' (for mnN). Render, ' out of the cords of Aram 
 [the southern Aram = Jerahmeel] I drew them, out of the 
 bands of Jerahmeel.' The complex of words which follows 
 is probably based on a series of an ignorant scribe's attempts 
 to write fjNom"', which the editor, with his usual ingenuity, 
 converted into a sentence, •^cio reminds us of mniD (cp. 
 E. Bib., 'Meremoth'), and of DOIT' {v. 7). For aw, see on 
 Isa. viii. 6. The n^ which opens v. 5 in MT. belongs to 
 this Jerahmeel -passage. — V. 5 should therefore run, 'He 
 shall return to the land of Misrim (cp. on v. i), and Asshur 
 [the southern Asshur or Ashhur] shall be his king,' etc. 
 
 xi. 7- 1 o. For ^i>-^NT read fpsram-'f? ; see on vii. 1 6. 
 ^N ^^"' and nryrv ih both represent the variant ^NDm"'. 
 On ^D^N and dinIS see E. Bib., ' Sodom and Gomorrah.' 
 — d;p from ;p;)p. See on Isa. xxiv. 14. 
 
 Chap. xii. ib. Probably hi^-as should be ^Nom"', and 
 a"'tOT7p comes from Di^13. The verbs are more difficult to 
 restore. Read, perhaps, Qim^3-Di>l. S'NonT'-[nN] mTT rT^'^n■^^ 
 ^33r\ Cp. Isa. ii. 6. 
 
 xii. 10. 'I will cause thee to dwell in tents ? ' Read 
 ^NQJlT'l (cp. on ii. 17, 20), and for la^o read, with Nowack, 
 oh'iS. The exile seems to be presupposed (cp. Mic. vii. 14). 
 
 xii. 15. Read SwonT-rr'n D''1DN D-'Wn. 'Beth-jerah- 
 meel' is the Gilgal of iv. 15, ix. 15, xii. 2. D''11"iDn is 
 suspicious ; see on Jer. vi. 26, xxxi. 15, 21. 
 
128 CRITIC A BIBLICA xiii. 2 
 
 Chap. xiii. 2b. ' Zu dem reden sie, opfernde Menschen 
 kiissen Kalber' (Wellh.) can hardly be right. It is the image 
 of Jerahmeel that is kissed. Read, probably — 
 
 ! lip©-; ^NDm"' Difc? TiiT? niiDM nn oxjh d-'hSn 
 
 Chap. xiv. 7 / For ]l3lS (bis) read (i) njilS, (2) pa^ri 
 (Ezek. xxvii. 1 8). In v. 8 read ' also nintON JD13 ; cp. Isa, 
 xvi. 7, where ' Kir-hareseth ' should be ' Kir-ashhur.' Cp. 
 Wellhausen's and G. A. Smith's notes; the former at any 
 rate sees the problems more clearly. 
 
 xiv. 9. ' We are struck by the perfect beside the im- 
 perfect, by the want of a suffix to TT'^i?, and by the suffix of 
 the third person beside that of the second ' (Nowack). Prob- 
 ably we should read, pi>T t2>"nn3 [Yi2&Nn3] "'iN VyTT'DS i3n- 
 12TitDNT seems to be a conflation of ^^E)Nn and pi;T ; 'n is a 
 variant to mii3. 
 
JOEL 
 
 Joel was a favourite S. Israelitish name, as shown in E. Bib., 
 col. 3686. Bethuel (so we should probably read with @ for 
 ' Pethuel ') is also a place-name of the Negeb ; very possibly, 
 indeed, ^Nini is a corruption of ^lin, ' Tubal,' the name of 
 a N. Arabian district (see E. Bib., ' Tubal '). It is, however, 
 most unlikely that the name of the author of such a literary 
 and artificial prophecy as 'Joel' should have been preserved. 
 We may presume that in some late historical midrash a 
 prophet called ' Joel b. Bethuel ' was mentioned. The con- 
 nection between prophecy and the Negeb is undeniable (see 
 E. Bib., ' Prophet,' §§ 6 _/) ; the name proposed was therefore 
 credible. Elijah and Elisha were men of the Negeb ; but of 
 course, in the post-exilic period, a prophet of the type of ' Joel ' 
 coming from the Negeb would be inconceivable. 
 
 Chap. i. 4, ii. 20. Great obscurity hangs around the 
 description of the locusts in chap. i. and over the prophecy 
 in chap. ii. Is chap. i. 4-19 descriptive of a calamity from 
 which the land of Judah was actually suffering, or predictive 
 of one still future ? And are the locusts in chaps, i. and ii. 
 — or at least in chap. ii. — symbolic of hostile peoples ? How 
 can a swarm of locusts be called 'the northern one' (ii. 20)? 
 And what is the meaning of the statement in i. 4 that what 
 the gazdm, the arbeh, the yelek respectively have left, the 
 arbeh, \h& yelek, the hasll respectively have eaten ? The most 
 different answers are given (see, e.g. Merx, Wunsche, Nowack, 
 Driver on the passages). Can we be content with this un- 
 certainty ? Surely the key to chaps, i. and ii. is the phrase 
 ■lahn^rT. Having discovered that jia^ is the name of a N. 
 Arabian region bordering on the Negeb (see, e.g. Jer. i. 13/, 
 
 129 
 
130 CRITIC A BIB Lie A i. 'S 
 
 Ezek. i. 4), and that the ' Gog ' of Ezekiel's prophecy is the 
 personification of the Jerahmeelite or N. Arabian peoples 
 (see on Ezek. xxxviii. i /, 6), we see that the first and most 
 probable meaning of Sephoni is ' Zaphonite.' The locusts 
 in chaps, i., ii. are symbolic of the N. Arabians, who, in a 
 short time, will verify Ezekiel's prophecy by invading the 
 Holy Land of Palestine, and who will be driven by Yahwe 
 into the desert. The invaders, however, do but repeat what 
 they have done continuously for an indefinite period on a 
 smaller scale. Hence Yahwe promises (ii. 25) to compensate 
 the Jews for the ' years ' which the locusts have eaten. In 
 calling these symbolic locusts Yahwe's 'army' (ii. 11, 25), 
 the writer deviates from Ezekiel. His idea is that the 
 ■calamities brought on the Jews by the N. Arabians are 
 designed to bring the people to repentance. When the 
 pious, though very imperfect, Jewish community, turns heartily 
 to Yahwe, he will, without any effort, remove the troublesome 
 foe. The reason why, in i. 4 and ii. 25, four different names 
 of locusts are used is, that the writer wishes (perhaps follow- 
 ing Amos) to suggest the names of four N. Arabian peoples. 
 This is very clear in the case of nilN and p"'"', which at once 
 suggest ins and pSpj;. What names underlie mi and S"'Dn 
 we cannot venture to say. Cp. on Am. vii. ib, and on ii. 20, 
 E. Bib., col. 2496, note i. — On the singular phrases 'ipT^ DTI 
 and 'rfN WT], see E. Bib., ' Mediterranean.' The two novel 
 terms ' front sea ' and ' back sea ' were a consequence of the 
 recasting of Dt. xi. 24 (see note). 
 
 i. I 5. See on Isa. xiii. 6b. 
 
 Chap. iii. i. nto-Ss-bi;. 'Naturally this can include 
 neither the animal world nor even the heathen ' (Nowack). 
 Yet the expression ought to include at any rate the latter. 
 Since, in Isa. Ixv. 22, Ps. Ixv. 3, the phrase is equally liable 
 to suspicion, let us look out for some suitable and possible 
 correction. iffil must have arisen through the drawing 
 together of fragments of two words, or of an abbreviated 
 word and a corrupt fragment of a word. Cp. Merx, Hiob, 
 Introd. p. Iv. Read, probably, f?N^tB1-n11-'?^-bi^. 
 
 Chap. iv. 2, 12. mmrr, pDi>. 'Valley of judgment' 
 (jaBman) would no doubt suit the context {E. Bib., col. 2353), 
 but does not the corruption lie deeper ? Driver {Joel and 
 
iv. 14 JOEL 131 
 
 Amos, p. 69) thinks that nothing turns upon the identification- 
 of the spot named, the symbolism of the name being alone 
 significant. But the interest of the later writers in the 
 Negeb — the scene of patriarchal narratives in the remote 
 past, and (see ii. 20, Ezek. xxxviii. f.) of great expected 
 events in the not distant future — entitles us to expect a 
 reference to some part of this region. pDi; repeatedly (e.g.- 
 Ps. Ix. 8) represents an original ni^Q ; and ante, as a name, 
 certainly comes from riD^ = nsia. In 2 Chr. xiv. 9 we hear 
 of a nriDS N"'a ; it is not likely that the valley near Zephath 
 or Zarephath was called poi>. Read, therefore, ngs n3i;Q, i.e. 
 the Zarephathite Maacath (in contradistinction to a northern 
 Maacath). The bare possibility, however, remains that in"' 
 in BQOJiri"' comes from JiT, the short for ^«DnT. Cp. ' Arma- 
 geddon ' (Rev. xvi. 1 6) = Har-jerahmeel. Note also that in 
 V. 4 Missur and Zarephath are mentioned, and_ it is very, 
 possible that the ' Shittim ' of t^. 18 ultimately goes back to 
 Zarephathim (see note). 
 
 iv. 4, 6. pTST ns represents ni2p ; the passage has 
 been manipulated. nffiSiD represents nsns. See E. Bib., col. 
 3164, note 3. D"'3Vn represents fjNOm"' (3, as often, comes 
 from h). ]v itself originally was ]d; = pp^ = fjNonT. A 
 distant ' Jerahmeel ' is meant. The phrase itself is archaistic 
 in such a late book. 
 
 iv. [® iii.] II. ^^•)^<3 and ^11pT\ are both difficult. For 
 the former @ has crvvaBpoi^ecrOe, but this does not consist 
 very well with 'np3 afterwards. rrD^ is also unexpected, for 
 the place of meeting is only mentioned in v. 12. nnDrr is 
 also unexpected ; the Hiphil of nn3 is not used else- 
 where. Possibly both iffill; and niatO represent Qif?Ni;oaj"' (for 
 notZ? cp. on Ezek. xlviii. 35), and l23p3T from Ci-'Wpl. Read 
 '3pT 'om^ "INT, omitting l-ilDO D''1OT-7'3 as an editorial inser- 
 tion from V. 12. For nnsn it is obvious to read nron. 
 ' Let the Ishmaelites and the Kenizzites come ; lead thou,- 
 O Yahwe, thy heroes ! ' 
 
 iv. 1 4. pnnTT pp^- If '"in"" pOi? represented an original 
 JoBtDan pDi?, it would be plausible to emend 'r\T\ pDi; into 
 'pl^Vi pD». A preferable correction of '"in"' pDi» has, however, 
 suggested itself to us (see above), and this enforces the re- 
 consideration of Y^ynn par. A place-name of the Negeb' 
 
132 CRITIC A BIB Lie A iv. i8 
 
 i? required, and we can hardly hesitate to make a slight 
 transposition of the letters of pin, reading nisn np^o. For 
 'n cp. Josh. XV. 23, 25. -^ysn is probably a modification of 
 -iinte = nnntON. 
 
 iv. 1 8. Wellh. remarks that the 'valley of Shittim' cannot 
 mean the Q'^taton f?lN beyond the Jordan, because it has to 
 start from Jerusalem. But 'ten Sn3 is most probably a 
 corruption of QiJ3E3tO '3 (see on Num. xxv. i), and the other 
 places mentioned, except Jerusalem, are in the N. Arabian 
 borderland. Zarephath was apparently near the limit of the 
 Negeb, and therefore also of the expanded land of Israel 
 (cp. on Zech. xiv. 10). It had been dignified by the presence 
 of the divine judge of the nations {vv. 2, 12); why, then, 
 should it not partake in the beneficent effects of the stream 
 prophesied originally by Ezekiel, which, as that prophet most 
 probably states, was appointed to go to ' the Jerahmeelite 
 region' (nb"''i?i ; cp. Joel iv. 4), and to flow down to Arabia 
 (read l-ji?) ? 
 
AMOS 
 
 Chap. i. i. — The skilful presentment of his theory by 
 Budde (Kohut, Semitic Studies, io6 ff^ led the present 
 writer for a time to follow him in rendering, ' Amos, who 
 had been among the sheep-breeders, (a man) of Tekoa,' and 
 to suppose that the words D■'^p31 iT^rr TtDN were a gloss 
 inserted from the margin in the wrong place ; i.e. before, 
 instead of after, i?lpno. Cp. E. Bib., col. 147. It must be 
 confessed, however, (i) that no one before Budde had 
 'thought of separating onpai from i^lpno, and (2) that if 
 the object of the supposed gloss were to distinguish the 
 prophet Amos more precisely from other persons of the 
 same name, it is strange that the gloss-maker should not 
 have used the word suggested by the authoritative state- 
 ment in vii. 14, viz ainp")3[5]. The second of these 
 objections is the more important. It is true, Budde thinks 
 it possible that onpiaS may be only a gloss upon the 
 ambiguous word used in vii. 14 ("ip"i3), and Wellhausen and 
 Nowack, following Oort, {Theol. Tydschr., 1880, p. 127), 
 thinks ipll in vii. 14a corruption of lp"i3. This is plausible. 
 Oort supports it by @'s atTrdXo? (vii. 14), but note that in 
 2 K. iii. 4 ® has vmK7i9 (vcoKrjS), and that none of the 
 Gk. versions there gives al!TroXo<;, besides which, in the 
 very passage before us, the first part of v. i is thus rendered 
 in @, \6yot A/i(B? ot eyevovro iv AKKapetfi iv [so B, but 
 A sk] @eicove. AxKapetfj., of course, should be ^aKKapetfi ; 
 the initial v dropped out because of the preceding iv. 
 What, then, is vaKKapetfi, according to @? A place-name. 
 Nor is this to be hastily dismissed. There is strong reason 
 to doubt the correctness of ^p^ in 2 K. iii. 4, and though 
 
 133 
 
134 CRITIC A BIB Lie A i. i 
 
 we can hardly venture to accept the reading iv Kapiadiapetfju 
 found in Am. i. i in Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, 
 and many MSS., yet, as a conjecture, the reading is very 
 suggestive, for we can now safely say that the original of 
 the popular corruption Kirjath-jearim almost certainly is 
 Kirjath-jerahmeel. Now there was certainly a city of 
 Jerahmeel in the Negeb, and considering the many plausible 
 points of contact between the prophets and the Negeb, it is 
 worth seeing whether Am. i. i will not yield up its secret, 
 if we apply the theory that Amos was a child of the Negeb. 
 Let us look more closely at the Hebrew words i>"ipnD D'^"rp3l, 
 That there was a Tekoa in the Negeb, we have seen in 
 studying Jer. vi. i ; we cannot wonder at this, for the most 
 plausible explanation of the name (on the analogy of fjNnp"" 
 and s^p) is ^Nnm\ Difpan should be Qilp^n (cp. aK/capein), 
 and this comes from D'^rrrp, ' son of RahJm,' £.e. of Jerah- 
 meel (cp. mm and Dpn). The sum-total is that Amos was 
 a Jerahmeelite, a citizen of the Tekoa in the Negeb (cp, 
 E. Bib., ' Prophet, § 35, note).^ The words rrTT ^t»N appear 
 superfluous. Possibly they come from mn-nmN, written too 
 soon, and (as in many similar cases) not cancelled. This 
 result throws light on the true text of vii. 1 4 / — and not less 
 important and only slightly less certain correction still 
 waits to be made, MT. has mi?nn ■'jab n-;n5m, with which @ 
 agrees. The Rabbis (but not Ibn Ezra) and the earlier 
 Christian interpreters have tried to fix the period of this 
 earthquake. To defend the historical character of the 
 earthquake is difficult (see E. Bib., 'Amos,' § 4), and 
 from the point of view suggested by the previous note, we 
 may venture to look underneath the present text for some 
 further reference to the Negeb. Read most probably 
 Tinrnw mniil ■'DgS, ' before Asshur was rooted out, i.e. before 
 the events described in 2 K. xiv. 28, 'how he recovered 
 Cusham and Maacath of Jerahmeel for Israel.' In the 
 region referred to there was probably a place called Kir-or 
 Kiryath-asshur (cp.. on 2 K. iii. 25), the Jerahmeelite popula- 
 tion of which was expelled or exterminated. Cp. on 
 Zech. xiv. 5. 
 
 1 Cp. the remark of Smend and Socin, Die Inschrift des Konigs 
 Mesa von Moab (Text), 1886, p. 15, note i. 
 
i. 5 AMOS 135 
 
 i. 2. Surely a later insertion (see E. Bib., ' Amos,' 
 § 8). — V. 2a reminds us of Joel iv. 16. In v. 2b W'■s^^r^ 
 seems to come from ^Nom"^ ; probably, too, ^D^^rT means a 
 Mt. Carmel in the Negeb {E. Bib., col. 3861, end of note 6). 
 See on ix. 3. Whenever this passage was prefixed, the 
 Jerahmeelite references in Amos were still visible. 
 
 i. 4. ' Hazael ' is a N. Arabian name ; ' Ben-hadad ' 
 comes from ' Bir-dadda,' which is another. See E. Bib., 
 col. 3861, note 3. 
 
 i. 5. For ptoaT •^r^1 read Dmi3 l-iTi (cp. Hos. i. 20, 
 ' I will break . . . the sword of Jerahmeel '). ^2;■?l is right, 
 but it is the southern Gilead. The 'threshing with iron 
 sledges,' however, is certainly wrong (cp. the errors in 2 S. 
 viii. 2, xii. 31. Read probably fjNsam"' nhnsnp nnntp-'?i; 
 ["Tsfjl-riM]. Cp. on ■h'TQ., 2 S. xvii. 27. See on Hos. x. 14. 
 ' Ishmael,' like ' Jerahmeel ' and perhaps ' Gilead,' means the 
 Negeb. The Aram-wars, which have been much misunder- 
 stood, will be treated under i and 2 Kings. 
 
 The problems of Bik'ath-aven, Beth-eden, and Kir 
 need to be taken up again from the point of view of 
 textual criticism. ' Aven ' we have met with already in 
 Hos. (iv. 15, V. 8, X. 5, 8) ; it is the ' On' of the .Negeb, if 
 this name itself has not arisen by corruption. The most 
 conservative correction which is provisionally possible is to 
 read Bik'ath-on (cp. ' Bik'ath-ono,' in the MT. of Neh. vi. 2). 
 But the existence of a nspl in the Jerahmeelite Negeb 
 appears to be doubtful; and it is safer, both here and in 
 Zech. xii. 1 1 and in other passages (see on Dt. xxxiv. 3) 
 to read n3i»D (the southern Maacath). It is also safest to 
 correct ]1N, both here and in Hos., into ]~r;>. For this 
 reason, ^aia? TD"in is generally taken as a descriptive title 
 of an independent prince. But ( i ) a principality of Beth- 
 eden is unknown to us in the Negeb, and (2) yssv and 'a> 'n 
 are not parallel. Can 'xn 'n be right ? iDin may very well 
 be a corruption of n3SD ; corruptions based on transpositions 
 are common. VSIXH (as in. Mic. iv. 14) may come from 
 nss = rs^l. It now becomes very plausible to correct 
 Hi' JT^aD into pi> n3i>DQ (intermediate stage, '^ ni^pio). 
 Thus we get three variants (or four if we add (g's ■)(appav) 
 agreeing as to nam, but differing as to the second part 
 
136 CRITICA BIBLICA - i. 6 
 
 of the compound name. We have to choose between 
 ' Maacath-on,' ' Maacath-zephath,' and ' Maacath-eden.' The 
 last-named form is to be preferred, because it enables us to 
 account for the growth of the form pN. There actually 
 exists an intermediate form pN, represented by n"'3"rN and 
 the place-name pN. For ' Eden,' see on 2 K. xix. 1 2. 
 ' Eden ' was the site of the Jerahmeelite Paradise (see 
 E. Bib., ' Paradise,' §§ 7, 9). We now pass on to ' Kir.' 
 This, as Nowack remarks, ' has not yet been discovered. It 
 was hardly in Media, for according to Am. ix. 7 the 
 Aramaeans came from Kir.' From our present point of 
 view, since it is the king of Asshur ( = Meluhba) who is the 
 conqueror of Cusham, we cannot doubt that ' Kir ' lies beyond 
 Cusham towards the centre of the great N. Arabian kingdom. 
 Like 'Koa' (Dip, Ezek. xxvii. 33) ni^p probably comes 
 from one of the popular corruptions of ^NDm\ The name 
 ' Jerahmeel ' under various corrupt forms existed in all the 
 various districts where Jerahmeelites resided. Cp. on ix. 7. 
 
 i. 6. njs seems to be the name of some strong Jerah- 
 meelite city, such as ' Zarephath.' In i Chr. vii. 28, a part 
 of a passage which originally referred to the southern 
 Ephraim, we find mentioned next to Shechem (z.e. Cusham), 
 a place (with dependent towns) called nj». Many of these 
 cities, probably, changed masters from time to time, and 
 Amos speaks of a time when 'Azzah belonged to the 
 Jerahmeelites. It is possible, however (see on v. 9) that 
 Missur may be intended. What, then, was the great offence 
 of 'Azzah ? It was apparently that its people captured 
 the Israelites or Judahites who had settled in the district 
 called Gilead-ishmael (for nahm mSl read fpNi^DtD'' l^h^, 
 cp. on Ob. 20) to a more distant branch of the Jerahmeelite 
 race, called here q-in (so read for mnw), and in Joel iv. 6 
 called the Qiivn '^33. 
 
 i. 8. A late insertion, made when the text of v. 5 had 
 been already corrupted. Whether the writer put inrnw or 
 -nt»N (cp. on iii. 9), pSpm« or ^3t»N, pnps or ^NDm\ 
 DTitoSD or DTIDHS, may be left uncertain. At any rate, 
 the Zarephathites were not reduced to a mere ' remnant ' in 
 the time of Amos. 
 
 i. 9. ns should of course be nso, the capital of Musri 
 
iii. 8 AMOS 137 
 
 (as Winckler first pointed out). The offence of Missur 
 being identical with that of 'Azzah, the question arises 
 whether 'Azzah may not be the name of the capital 
 of Musri, and v. 6 a. variant to v. 9. The ' covenant 
 of brothers ' refers to the kinship between Israel and 
 Jerahmeel, and alludes to the period during which the 
 Israelites dwelt among the Jerahmeelites (see E. Bib., ' Moses,' 
 
 §§4#)- 
 
 i. 13^. The ' Ammonites ' are a branch of the Jerah- 
 meelites. Their offence was ' conquering the cities of 
 Gilead, to enlarge their territory.' Read, for TY\'^T^, Jivip- 
 See on Isa. xiii. 1 6. — njT should perhaps be niirn. ; cp. 
 on 2 S. xi. I, xii. 26, Jer. xlix. 2. — D3f?D is a distortion of 
 ■?NDm^ itself an incorrect form of the name of the deity 
 of the Jerahmeelites. Insert Ti^ilD (®, Jer. xlix. 3). So 
 Nowack. 
 
 Chap. ii. i / For Tto read, jffi'i. Cp. ® Kovta, though 
 elsewhere ]m~\ is in6T7]<;. — iMin pNtDl nm. Most improb- 
 able. Cp. Winckler, AT Unters. 184, who corrects pNtOl 
 into ]ffl3. The original is more probably ]ffi^3 (cp. on 
 Nu. xxiv. 17). nvnpn possibly comes from a corrupted 
 n3SD, and so also nai ; ]tD13 and iNin may be variants to 
 riDSD. This leads up to the supposition that here, as so 
 often, IMID may be miswritten for Tisp. If so, we have 
 three sections of the oracle devoted to Missur. — V. 2 now 
 becomes, ' and I will send fire upon Missur, and it shall 
 devour the castles of Maacath [Cushan, Missur] with battle- 
 cry and sound of horn.' Cp. on pNtO, Hos. x. 1 4. 
 
 ii. 6, viii. 6. ' The pair of shoes ' (d''"?m) is an endless 
 subject for misapplied learning (see Exp.T, xii. 377 f. 
 [1901]). Read ai^m. See on i S. xii. 3, and E. Bib.y 
 ' Shoe.' 
 
 ii. 10. For n"'S5'iN n^iBH read Q-'l'ii? nno!! ; similarly 
 in v, 25. mm is a gloss. 'Forty' for 'Arabians' is an 
 example of a not uncommon type of corruption. See^ 
 E. Bib., col. 3212 (top), and cp. on 2 K. iii. 4. 
 
 Chap. iii. 8 / For nit read nwa";. For n"n»N3 read 
 TI1&M3 (Wi.) or TintCM3 ; cp. on i. 8. @, ev ' k.aavplot's. It 
 is a N. Arabian Asshur (or rather Ashhur) which is meant. 
 Note th,e ,||, Dii^p (so point). Point j-noi^. Of Shomeron 
 
138 CRITIC A BIB Lie A iii- 12 
 
 (Samaria) a native of a southern city is not likely to have 
 had any exact information. ' Shimron ' in the Negeb, as 
 a careful study of the prophets and of i and 2 Kings 
 shows, was a place of historical importance. So in v. 14, 
 it is the southern Beth-el. 
 
 iii. 12. Few passages in Amos have been more 
 misunderstood. Read probably [D-'np'is] (npto D-'^ffi-'n 
 [n^M] am^an^ ('2 and 'm are geographical glosses) ; for another 
 view suggested by vi. 4, see Expositor, 4th series, vi. 366. 
 — 15. Marti's correction, D-i?!)! ■'m, is excellent. 
 
 Chap. iv. i, 3. rms is strange in a personal invective ; 
 Arabic quotations hardly help us. JtC3n, as elsewhere, 
 should be iffi'iS. Possibly ma ( = mas) is a variant to jona. 
 In this case either rmto (princesses) or n"i31 must have 
 dropped out. The passage has been edited from a false 
 point of view. — m'lD'inrr has not yet been explained (cp., 
 however, E. Bib., ' Harmon '). From our present point of 
 view, however, the original is clear ; it is nSisionT. ' to 
 Jerahmeel,' i.e. to captivity in some part of the great N. 
 Arabian dominion. See on v. 27. Before, read ]npbffin'i, 
 ' and ye shall be driven.' 
 
 Chap. v. 25-27. In E. Bib., 'Amos,' § 13, the con- 
 clusion is reached that v. 26 is a later insertion (cp. Wellh., 
 Nowack), which took the place of a passage which had 
 become illegible, and the case of Isa. x. 4a is adduced as 
 parallel. We have, however, been able with much prob- 
 ability to restore the original text of Isa. x. 4«, and by 
 applying the same methods we ought to be able to restore 
 that of Am. v. 26. m3D and ]rD, l^D, xh^, and qihSn are 
 groups of letters which may often arise by corruption out of 
 other groups, and 1513 in one well-known passage (Judg. 
 V. 20) is suspected to have arisen similarly. And the 
 very passage (Ezek. viii. 3, 5) which has not unplausibly 
 been adduced (see E. Bib., col. 749) to confirm the view 
 that JV3 is the name of an adopted Assyrian deity, can also 
 quite regularly be restored without having recourse to 
 Assyriology. Referring the reader, therefore, to the books 
 and articles mentioned in E. Bib., col. 153, and' adding 
 Muss.-Arnolt, Exp^^'^'ii. 414-428 ; Amer. J.of Phil. viii. 270; 
 and Driver, Joel and Amos (Cambr. Bible), 189/, we may 
 
vi. I AMOS 139 
 
 venture with the fullest confidence to propose this as a 
 near approximation to the original text — 
 
 DDfiN Thyrr) :'?NSQffi-'i j-ipi ^NonT'T nso oariN "iNtoa") 
 
 ' Do ye offer to me sacriiices and offerings in the festivals 
 of Arabia ? Then Maacath and Jerahmeel and Kain and 
 Ishmael shall take you away ; and I will carry you into 
 exile to Jerahmeel.' Cp. E, Bid., cols. 321 lyi, and 3860, 
 note 3. The confusion between 'forty' and ' Arabia' has 
 here been fatal to exegesis (see on iii. 10). The sacrifices 
 referred to are those offered in the sanctuaries of the Negeb, 
 where the ritual was either wholly or in part Jerahmeelite. 
 Bethel, Gilgal, Beersheba, Dan, Shimron were the chief of 
 these sanctuaries, and the 'festivals' (cp. vv. 21, 23) there, 
 celebrated must have been of a splendid order. The natural 
 punishment was that the Israelites should be carried into 
 exile to the very centre of Jerahmeelite life, far from the 
 purer cultus maintained in Canaan. Cp. especially iv. 3. 
 nsD for nmc, s and 3, •' and 1 confounded. m3D = n3i>D, 
 as Ps. Ix. 8, etc. -[ho and [qJti^n = Snoht, as very often. 
 pi3 = pp. D^2J = f?Ml?Dm'' (Ezek. xxiii. 14, Ps. Ixxiii. 20). 
 nD1D=7NOm"' (Judg. v. 20, Nah. iii. 16, see notes), imn 
 D:h riTv'ms, a gloss. nN^rro = n^Nom"' (cp. Jer. xxii. 1 9). 
 
 Chap. vi. i. p'^iS. Nowack candidly expresses a 
 doubt of this word. His reason, however, is not quite 
 sound. These was nothing to hinder a prophet of the 
 Negeb (and such Amos is) from referring to Judah as well as 
 Israel, because both sections of the race of Israel occupied 
 parts of the Negeb. The difficulty is in the combination in 
 II lines of Zion and pnoa>, for, as elsewhere, we are bound to 
 point jiiaffi. From our point of view it is plain that JTS 
 must cover over some place-name of the Negeb. It might 
 represent pT2, which (like Tis) is a common disguise of n^sp. 
 But Missur was not in the hands either of Israel or of Judah. 
 Like IN2 (see on vii. 15), pNS (Mic. i. 11), jrs (Ps. 
 Ixxviii. 12, 43), and ps (see E. Bib,, 'Zin'), the piJS of Am. 
 vi. I most probably comes from 'jmsdB)"', which, as by this 
 time the reader will have discovered, is used as a synonym 
 
140 CRITIC A BIB Lie A vi. 2 
 
 of bNom^ i.e. the Jerahmeelite Negeb. See parallel in 
 Ob. 21. — Dalian TT'tDNT 131)73, 'the illustrious of the iirst of 
 the nations ' ? A strained expression ! Read probably 
 (comparing Isa. xlviii. i) Q-'N-jpsn ':in 'n. There may 
 perhaps be an allusion to Num. xxiv. 20, where ' Amalek,' 
 or rather ' Jerahmeel,' is expressly called n"'!! JT'tDNn. The 
 people here called 'in S are the Israelites in Jerahmeel, who 
 have intermarried with the Jerahmeelites, and may not 
 unfairly (like Jerusalem in Isa. xxix. i) be themselves 
 called ' Jerahmeel ' (cp. on Judg. xx. 2). This leads on to a 
 plausible correction of the phrase which even Nowack sees to 
 be corrupt — uvh ^Nll. This may be (cp. DTr^N = ^Nom"'), 
 and surely ought to be, Q-'f^Nom"' ; continue 'm*' n"i3p. Thus 
 we get, ' that call yourselves the first of the nations, Jerah- 
 meelites of the house of Israel.' 
 
 vi. 2. The difficulties of this verse have been fully set 
 forth by Nowack, Driver, and G. A. Smith. They are 
 diminished by admitting that Shimron in the Negeb, not 
 Shomeron or Samaria, is referred to in v. i. The historical 
 difficulties arising out of the history of the Assyrian con- 
 quests then disappear, for it is the conquest of city after ^ ^ 
 city in the Negeb by the Asshurites (of Meluhha) in one of 
 the Asshurite invasions that is referred to. Also the 
 difficulty that both Israel and Judah were greater than 
 any of the cities mentioned in v. 2 disappears, for it is 
 Ishmael and Shimron, not Zion and Shomeron, that are 
 mentioned in v. i. Still the passage does somewhat 
 interrupt the flow of the discourse, and seems to be a later 
 insertion suggested by Isa. x. 9-1 1. For n^l non read 
 probably in? 'n ; non is really a popular corruption of 
 npSD (vi. 13/). rr3f?D="l3^3 in Isa. x. 9 {i.e. 'Jerahmeel'). 
 
 vi. 3. ai'73p and npn nl© are clearly wrong, nor is 
 i?T DT to be expected in this context, 'n 'tO reminds us of 
 the n'ln ND3 of Ps. xciv. 20, which conceals a reference 
 to the Cushites. Elsewhere 'm and 'n represent nDl2 and 
 nms respectively ; ST mh would be a perfectly regular 
 corruption of 7Nam"'. The most difficult word is 0^3 on. 
 @'s ev'xpfi.evoi suggests CTT^p. If this were right, we 
 should have 'ye that vow [to] Jerahmeel.' More suitable 
 would be D"'13inari ; then 'ttv^., and in b oms nni^sa i^tom. 
 
vii. I AMOS 141 
 
 That is, ' Ye that go to war with Jerahmeel, and oppress 
 Zarephath-Cusham.' In v. 13 two other cities recently 
 taken by the Israelites are mentioned by name. 
 
 vi. 5 /. The impossible D-'tans should probably be 
 D^'iaio ) E3 and D may both represent D, t fell out. For 
 'jnan "^B-hs read bl3l f\ri-hs ; and in i> iim VipS UTjh inp?>-;> 
 Cp. V. 23, Isa. V. 12, Job xxi. 12. f?"ip miswritten became 
 [-rj'na. ' But they are not sick (at heart) for the ruin of 
 Joseph.' The context rather suggests ' Ishmael ' (see above, 
 on V. i), i.e. f\DV (.^o^) probably springs from 'oBJ"', the 
 abbreviation of ^NSDOf. So in i K. xi. 28 (Jeroboam), Ps. 
 Ixxvii. 16 (see notes). 
 
 vi. 13/ Gratz, Wellh., etc. read ~\yi ttih and D^Jlp, two 
 names of cities (cp. E. Bib., cols. 2810, 4314, note j). But 
 ' Lodebar ' is a very odd name ; probably it comes from 
 Beth-gilead (nm nS" from nsS[i]-rT^l), see on 2 S. ix. 5. A 
 place in the southern Gilead is meant. In Josh. xiii. 26 we 
 find ' Lidebir.' The same place is meant ; in its original 
 form Josh. xiii. 25-27 appears to have referred to the 
 Negeb. ' Karnaim,' like ' Mahanaim ' (the same place 
 perhaps), seems to be one of the popular distortions of 
 'Jerahmeel' (cp. on Gen. xiv. 5). Possibly the same place 
 is referred to in v. 2 (see note). — non means riDi^D i^. 2), 
 and the hvo referred to is very possibly the ll? 'jnj, a 
 stream regarded as the boundary of non-Israelitish Arabia. 
 Cp. on 2 K. xiv. 25, 28. 
 
 Chap. vii. \c. The supplementary definition of time is 
 surely superfluous ; every Israelite would know when the 
 tops grew (Now.). Hence Now. would assign v. ic to a 
 glossator, and N. Schm. {E. Bib., ' Scythians,' § 4) holds 
 that the original form of the gloss had, not ^^an "'O, but "fho 
 m or "pon y\l ; cp. @, koI ISoD /Spov'^o'; 6t? 70)7 o ^aaCKev^. 
 The former of these alternatives has MT. against it ; I'jan ail 
 can be defended, but hardly aia ^^d. ' Gog the king ' might 
 have originated in a reminiscence of a corrupt form of the 
 text of Ezek. xxxviii. 2. It is more likely, however, that 
 "tf?orr Dill arose out of l^on fl ["'n] than that the reverse 
 process took place. It is also one result of the present 
 researches that the number of glosses in the traditional text 
 has been much exaggerated. The probability is that some- 
 
142 CRITIC A BIB Lie A vii. 9 
 
 thing more was said about the in^. The true reading may- 
 be S-'pni nni n^i-iM-i phi nyny (n and l, o and d may be 
 confounded). The four names of locusts correspond sym- 
 bolically to four N. Arabian ethnics (see on Joel i. 4, and 
 cp. E. Bib., ' Locust,' § 3). The glossator's view was not at 
 all absurd; the so-called 'Gog' was really 'Jerahmeel,' and 
 the Jerahmeelite invasion anticipated in Ezek. xxxviii. / 
 was merely the closing invasion of a series. The fear of 
 Jerahmeel may almost be said to dominate most periods of 
 Israel's history. 
 
 vii. gf. ' The bdmoth of Isaac,' a very suggestive phrase ; 
 Isaac, whose name (pnt»"', vv. 9, 16) may come from Ashhur 
 (nnWN), was the patriarch of Beer-lahai-roi (Beer-jerahmeel) 
 and Beersheba. These are, at any rate, among the ' sanctu- 
 aries of Israel.' The name of Israel reminds us specially of 
 Shechem and Bethel (see E. Bib., ' Jacob,' § 6). Now 
 ' Shechem ' comes from ' Cusham,' and ' Bethel ' is the southern 
 place of that name. So, too, throughout Amos the southern 
 Bethel is meant. The 'house of Israel' {v. 10) means the 
 Israel in the Negeb (cp. on vi. 14^). It is from its territory 
 in the Negeb that Israel is to be led away captive (vii. 1 1 ). 
 Apparently Jeroboam, king of Israel, was at this time at 
 Shimron, which (see on Hos. viii. 6) was probably not far 
 from Beth-el or Beth-on ; Shimron was frequently resorted 
 to by the kings of Israel. Of Bethel, Amaziah says that 
 it was ' a royal sanctuary ' {yf\r\ ^Sa-t0^pD). ' A royal 
 sanctuary ' (Wellh., Now., etc.) is of course grammatically 
 possible, but we shall perhaps see (on i K. xii. 29 _/) that 
 Jeroboam really made only one ' calf of gold,' and placed it 
 at Beth-el or Dan. Amaziah adds, Nin rjD^DD D"'!'). This 
 can hardly be a mere paraphrase of Nirr l^o tDTpo. In i S. 
 xxvii. 5 na^nan "Vs, and in 2 S. xii. 26 TOl'jan "Va are 
 rendered by German translators, ' die Hauptstadt,' or ' die 
 Residenzstadt.' But in the former passage n^^osn and in 
 the latter TOlfpsn seem to be corruptions of fpNOHT' (see 
 notes). And so here, 'lya n"'l adds something fresh to 
 lf?Q tClpO, viz. that Beth-el is 'the house of Jerahmeel.' 
 (This confirms the theory \E. Bib., col. 2619] that 
 'Bethel' is a broken-down form of ' Beth -jerahmeel.') 
 That the worship of Dm"' (Yarham, i.e. rxv ' moon,' with 
 
viii. 8 AMOS 143 
 
 mimmation) was practised at the southern Beth -el, is 
 altogether probable. Ahab built a ' house of Baal ' in 
 Shimron (i K. xvi. 32, see note), which Jehu is said to 
 have destroyed (2 K. x. 27). But is this statement 
 historical ? At any rate, we learn from another record (in 
 2 K. X. 29) that Jehu clung to the cultus reinstituted at 
 Beth-el by the first Jeroboam, so that, even if Ahab's 
 sanctuary at Shimron was destroyed, the older temple at 
 Beth-el remained, and the deity worshipped in both temples 
 was the same. The Baal of Ahab was not even foreign to 
 Canaan ; still less was it foreign to the Negeb. The popular 
 cultus of Baal-jerahmeel could not therefore be destroyed. 
 It had, of course, its own prophets, and Amos, the prophet 
 of Yahwe, was, from Amaziah's point of view, superfluous 
 there. Let him flee to the land where Yahwfe was (theo- 
 retically) the sole acknowledged deity, and ply his trade 
 there ! 
 
 vii. 14/ njjia and oSia are both difficulties. Can "ipll 
 really mean ' herdsman ' (see Ges.-Bu., s.v.) ? And is it likely 
 that a herdsman would also be ' one who nips ^the fruit of 
 the sycomore ? ' Or that Amos would mention these details 
 to Amaziah ? Or indeed that the fine poet whose works lie 
 before us in Amos was either one or the other ? It is a very 
 slight palliative to emend "ipyi into 7pl3 (see on i. i ), though 
 the suggestion is natural, for the words do resemble each 
 other, and have a common origin, both being corruptions of 
 [D"']m']3. (Now we see whence the author of the heading 
 in i. I derived his information.) n"'Opt& d'jii can be similarly 
 accounted for. Read nmiSp f^NSomi.-ja, a gloss on DTn-J^. — 
 ' Yahwe took me from behind the flock ' — like David. But, 
 as in I S. xvi. 11, 19, xvii. 34 and elsewhere, ]ns is a corrup- 
 tion of ^Nsom'i (cp. on JV2, vi. I ), and inns, as very often, of 
 ^Nom"' (cp. on Ps. Ixxviii. 71). The two words ('nT^ and 
 'DtD"") are competing variants. Read, therefore, TTTf '<:i'np^') 
 [^M2;Dtl>'^D]^7Nom"'D, ' and Yahw^ took me from Jerahmeel ' 
 {i.e. from a place so called). The passage does not deny 
 that Amos was an Israelite, but states that before the great 
 national religious interest absorbed him, he had shared the 
 common life of Israelites in the city of Jerahmeel. 
 
 Chap. viii. 8, ix. 5. Nowhere is the confusion between 
 
144 CRITIC A BIBLICA viii. 9 
 
 n-'-iSQ and n-;n5tp more fatal than here. The passage is really 
 a prophecy of captivity (like iv. 3, v. 26/.) ; there is there- 
 fore no temptation to deny that Amos wrote it. Read (com- 
 paring ^bain in Jer. xxii. 28 and the erroneous ini^ in Isa. 
 xxiii. 10), D'^nstp'i 1^13 imiMT n^NonT' ^Sipin> The scribe 
 had a very ill-timed recollection of Jer. xlvi. 7/ ix. 5, of 
 course, is a mere repetition. 
 
 viii. 9. 11^} DV is unparalleled. Read DV nis3 (cp. 
 Jer. XV. 9). 
 
 viii. 10. Tin; hiyvk. T^^ as in Zech. xii. 10 (see note), 
 should be ^ndht. The reference seems to be to some 
 great religious function at the sanctuary of Beth-el or Beth- 
 jerahmeel. Then follows in MT. no DV5 nn-iinNI.. Here 
 no DTO reminds us of mi3Ki £3V in Jer. xvii. 16, which = 
 Qi'^Nl^Offi"'. Both 'd 'd and rrninriN evidently come, partly 
 by corruption, partly by manipulation, from T'Nom"'. Read, 
 therefore, simply ^nohT' ^1n3 n'^nomi. 
 
 viii. 14. pnptB npffiwa. 'Amos never attacks the 
 golden calf, nor indeed any detail of worship. He will have 
 used some harmless name for the Yahwe of Bethel, which 
 was afterwards corrected ' (Wellh.). So much, at least, must 
 be true, that Amos used some divine title which was manipu- 
 lated by a later editor, and in searching for this title we may 
 take a suggestion from 2 K. xvii. 30, where the men of Babel 
 (Jerahmeel) worship Succoth [Benoth], i.e. Cushith ; those 
 of Cuth (Cush) worship Nergal, i.e. Jerahmeel ; and those 
 of Hamath (Maacath) worship Ashima, i.e. presumably, 
 Ismeelith. The first and the third of these deities are the 
 great Cushite or Ishmaelite or Jerahmeelite goddess of whom 
 we seem to hear wherever the MT. brings before us ntDl as 
 the title of a heathen deity, and when Jeremiah is made to 
 speak of a popular deity called the ' queen of heaven ' (see 
 on Jer. iii. 24, vii. 18). Read, therefore, ]"no0 rT'^NrotO"'!, 
 ' by the Ishmaelite goddess of Shimron.' For ^^^, Winckler 
 suggests '^'V\ (cp. E. Bib., col. 157). In illustration of the 
 reference to Shimron and other holy cities cp. Isa. xxviii. 7 /, 
 the true text of which must run nearly thus — 
 
 ;p;i ^r^n? I jiiptpi ^im n-iij-i ]n3 
 
ix. 7 AMOS 145 
 
 ' They even commit error in Jerahmeel, they go astray in 
 Shimron. Priest and prophet commit error in Shimron, they 
 go to ruin in Jaman. They go astray in Shimron, they 
 commit error in all the temple-halls of Jerahmeel. (1N7D, 
 N'^p, and cnpo -h = f?NDnT> ; HM^i = bMrDQ>\ Cp. mpo = 'm^ 
 Gen. xii. 8, 2 K. vi. 8, Hos. ii. i. l!J and 1p = m'> and 'nT 
 respectively, Isa. xxviii. 10.) 
 
 Chap. ix. 7. ' Degenerate Israel is no more in Yahwe's 
 eyes than the despised Ethiopians.' But were the Ethiopians 
 despised ? At any rate, the presumption is that the nearer 
 Cushites — those of N. Arabia — are meant. That the ' Philis- 
 tines ' came from ' Caphtor ' is not proved by Jer. xlvii. 4, 
 and that ' Aram ' came from ' Kir ' certainly does not har- 
 monise very well with the statement in i. 5. And does not 
 the statement that Yahwe has directed the history of other 
 nations just as much as he has directed that of Israel conflict 
 with the assurance given by Yahw^ in iii. 2, ' You alone have 
 I known of all the families of the earth ' ? Must we not 
 correct thus — niinno QTiai^T nanND ■^n-'f?jri ^Nnmi -riM NhSri 
 bNnnTn Q"in"i. The verse thus becomes, ' Are ye more to 
 me than the Cushites, saith Yahw^? Surely I will cause 
 Israel to go into exile from their land, and the Zarephathites 
 from Rehoboth, and Aram from Jerahmeel.' For ' Caphtor,' 
 see on Gen. x. 14 ; for ' Kir.' see on i. 5. 
 
OBADIAH 
 
 It is hoped that the origin and significance of both parts of 
 Obadiah have been correctly set forth in E. Bib., ' Obadiah 
 (Book).' Part i consists of vv. 1-14 and 15^; part 2 of 
 vv. 15a and 16-21. Some further light, however, can be 
 thrown on the textual difficulties. — V. 5. T^ Tlh-h mim-DM 
 niT'ma (not in Jer.) is clearly superfluous. How shall we 
 account for it? The explanation has been suggested by a 
 wider experience of MT.'s errors. For ■'^^"ltD, see note on Ps. 
 V. 9 (■'mia?) ; for nh'h, notes on Ps. Ixxiv. 16, xci. 5. 'ffi-DM 
 has come from f?N»Dmi ; T^N nh'h from ^Nom"' ; nrr^Dna also 
 from 'ttv (d, as often, stands for the final b). 'Asshur, 
 Ishmael, Jerahmeel,' are a scribe's gloss on D"'231, and should 
 be relegated to the margin. 
 
 V. 6. imnna (as B. Bid.) comes from Tf3;;\inipno ; IBJS, 
 not from "nnm3, but from >iNffii3 (Isa. xix. 13). '^d "iri3 (as 
 E. 5/^.) probably represents ?f>pi«n ^n^??. — V. 7. fpinan-nv. 
 No doubt some place-name or ethnic lies hidden here, prob- 
 ably SnohT' T'r, a gloss on '-|1 •'tB3N ^3. Tin^Q) should be 
 n^3D (II TN"'©n). lb l^a'^ represents ^3 (twice over). — 
 V. yd, according to Wellh., Nowack, and Selbie (Hastings, 
 DB), is hopelessly corrupt. Not so. ^'s evehpa (Ti2iQ or 
 rmao, Selbie) should have put the critics on the scent. 
 Read nin'm n^2sa Sni^dQJi SNom% again a gloss (as E. Bib). 
 The scribe pleases himself with enumerating the friends and 
 allies of Edom. Note that does not represent 'iDn^ ; in 
 fact 'tc and 't are synonyms. V. 7 ends with ")! TOlin pN. 
 Most probably the editor wished to provide a link with v. 8, 
 but tried to use up some corrupt material ; underneath 
 D1in3"'N may lie 7NonT, but we cannot be so sure of this as 
 of the correction of Tin rh'h (v. 5) and of hxxxTf {v. 7). 
 
 146 
 
V. 12 OBADIAH 147 
 
 In vv. 8 / again the hand of the editor is visible ; de- 
 scription has been converted into prediction. Here, too, 
 however, old material may have been used up, and strange 
 as it may seem to those unaquainted with the phenomena 
 of scribal error, it is perfectly possible that the opening words 
 of V. 8 are an expansion of two miswritten ■?Nom^ Plainly 
 the scribes knew nothing of the doings of the N. Arabians ; the 
 interest of the Jews was not in history but in religion. After 
 this editorial recast had been made it was natural to alter "niN 
 (which was probably the original reading) into imiNn. One 
 may, however, perhaps ask whether rroDn miN should not 
 be restored, following the suggestion of Jer. xlix. 7. htgpja 
 at the end of the verse is not a gloss on Dpno ; such super- 
 fluous glosses are not to be thought of. Gratz {Gesch. ii. 66^ 
 would read ^Nnp^p, 'from Joktheel'; see 2 K. xiv. 7, 
 where Gratz supposes the city of Petra to be referred to. 
 The identification of ' Joktheel ' with Petra is an error (see 
 E. Bib., ' Joktheel '), but the correction shows insight. There 
 is the strongest probability that both 'p'^ in 2 K. and htsp 
 here are corruptions of ^NDm\ A scribe wrote ^NnriT'O as 
 a gloss on '\WS nHQ. In his own time the old Mount Jerah- 
 meel had become the ' mount of Esau ' ; cp. the gloss ' mount 
 of Esau ' for ' Negeb ' in w. i ga. 
 
 Vv. 10 f. D^li^'? may perhaps, as elsewhere, represent 
 ^NDm^ □T'l comes from D"'11S ; on its second occurrence 
 •h-Ti tra mim follows, i.e. ^nqht' ^^2D f7N:;Dm\ ' Ishmael, 
 Missur, Jerahmeel ' ; this is a gloss on D"'nr. Read, there- 
 fore, 113D nD» □"'ni?. The II line should probably be 
 ?f"i$ IDli: D'^'pNonT'l. On MT.'s n•'^^3, see on Isa. ii. 6. Nil 
 and D11 can be confounded (Isa. xli. 25); besides, the to in 
 yysXQ may represent d. The next line should be, T>'?i'1 
 i:i"'sf7"' □■'fpMSDtO"'. 'iT" and 'attf are now and then confounded 
 {e.g. Z&c!a.. xii. 11); on ^Tii iri?S% see on Ps. xxii. 19. 
 DHD ^^MD nriN'DJi presupposes a false view of v. 11, which 
 describes the calamity briefly referred to in T\'\^y\, (v. 10). 
 nriN-Dl is an editorial insertion (from v. 13); orro inwD 
 represents D"'^MDnT'3 which has come in from the margin. 
 There it not improbably stood as a correction of "n33 (v. 12). 
 
 F. 12, "1133, like D1133, represents Sndht or Di'7NDm% 
 a variant to Dm, le. a'>ni?[D]. Read, T'OmCi] N13Ii-f?M1 
 
148 CRITIC A BIB Lie A v. 13 
 
 D''^NDnT'[3]. Here the writer throws himself back into the 
 time of Edom's great offence, of which the calamity impend- 
 ing over him is the retribution (non debuisses). He sees 
 Edom joining the other, neighbouring peoples in triumphing 
 over unhappy Judah, and deceiving and capturing its fugitives. 
 Those very peoples will now assemble to mock at Edom's 
 distress. For cnriN QTil read D^nw, and for ms QVl read 
 D"'l!5Ci3 (m!J, i.e. T12D, is a correction of DVl, i-e. D"'n:p). For 
 T'S b"r3n-f?Nl read TS^ 3''i?Sri-^NT ('pmn and n-'sSn, often 
 confounded). 
 
 V. i^a (a and b) are variants to v. 12a; they should 
 run, [cnsD] D-'^N^offi-'a Nin-f?M («), and nriN-Di wnn-^N 
 D"'nw insni {b).- — V. i^b continues v. 12. Read 'plpn-'jm 
 D"'ni>D vSmD. MT. is grammatically impossible, and no 
 weak remedy will produce an adequate sense. 
 
 V. 1 4. pl.3ri"f?i7. ' Was 'a bedeute, weiss man nicht ' 
 (Wellh.). BDB gives 'parting of the ways' ; Ges.,^^^^ ' Scheide- 
 weg.' @ 67r^ ta? SteKySoXa? avrov {avTwv). The word is 
 one of the non-existent words still recognised in dictionaries. 
 In Nah. iii. i it is supposed to mean ' Gewaltthat ' (Ges.,^*^ 
 Nowack), 'Gewalt' (Wellh.), 'Mord' (Hitzig), 'die in 
 Sicherheit gebrachte Beute ' (Ges.^^'^), ' plunder, as snatched 
 away ' (BDB). This, however, is a pure assumption. 
 Almost certainly, as in Isa. Ixv. 4, pis should be p^o, 
 i.e. ^NOm"' (cp. E. Bib., ' Rekem '). 
 
 V. 19. Of vv. igb, 20, and 21a Wellh. remarks that 
 ' the text suffers again and again from incurable injuries,' 
 though the general sense of v. 20 can be seen, viz. that the 
 exiles of N. Israel and those of Jerusalem (who are dis- 
 tinguished) shall receive their respective shares of the new 
 provinces of the Messianic kingdom. This, however, is a 
 mistake. It may seem indeed to be supported by z/. 18 in 
 which the ' house of Jacob ' and the ' house of Joseph ' are 
 spoken of, but there is reason to think that ' Joseph ' originally 
 meant one portion of the Israelite population in the Negeb,, 
 The ' Jacob ' and the ' Joseph ■ who are to be brought back, 
 are the Judahites and Israelites who had formerly occupied 
 the region of the south. The Negeb, which had formerly 
 been the ' mountain-land of Jerahmeel ' (a name not obnoxious 
 to the Israelites, who were themselves of the old JerahmeeHte 
 
V. 21 OBADIAH 149 
 
 stock), had become ' the mountain-land of Esau,' and the 
 Shephelah had been occupied by the Philistines. This evil 
 should now be remedied, for the house of Jacob and of 
 Joseph should occupy the Negeb and the Shephelah. (nnTiN 
 IQJS and QintcSiD-nN are glosses; Wellh.) To understand 
 what follows, we must build on results won elsewhere ; i.e. 
 it is the southern Ephraim, Shimron, Benjamin, and Gilead 
 which are spoken of. JQ131 should probably be coupled with 
 pnnffi. 
 
 V. 20. It is tempting to emend nf?!"! into lf?nD1. This 
 would enable us to start a fresh sentence, and "ibriDI would 
 form a perfect parallel to "itOT {yv. 17, 19). But coming 
 just after ii?Si, it is most critical to regard rhl here (as in 
 Am. i. 6) as a corruption of (a dittographed) ^I>f7l, especially 
 as the next group of letters hwn has most probably come 
 from hrwn, a corruptly written ^MDnT" ; cp. ^mriN = ^Nom"', 
 in an Ashhurite genealogy, i Chr. iv. 8. Thus we get the 
 reading ^Nnm"' ^sf?l, ' Gilead of Jerahmeel.' It should be 
 noted that three out of the five occurrences of ^n, viz. Ob. 20, 
 Isa. xxvi. I, I K. xxi. 23, are liable to much doubt. In 
 Isa. xxvi. I, for instance, read ' To be had in reverence (pii>3) 
 is our God ; he has delivered us from Ishmael ' (i3r"'fflrr 
 [^NonT'D] f?M:;Dt»"'o). 'jNim*' ^y:h appears to be superfluous ; 
 perhaps, however, mn, which precedes, comes from nTin. 
 If so, we get the statement, ' And Jerahmeelite Gilead shall 
 belong to the sons of Israel.' oi3i;3D iffiN comes, according 
 to parallels elsewhere, from D^wp p,N, Q^tOIT' rhTi from TD^l 
 bN^Dm^ a variant to fjMomi nra. Similarly nison nffiN = 
 DTisns pN, a variant to 's ^s 'p pM. Cp. 0, 7^ twi/ Xam- 
 vaLiov, and (for 7nDDn) eca? E^pada, and see E. Bib., ' Sepharad.' 
 3l2n ■'^:>-nN it&T^ is a dittographic expansion of lisrr Iton^l 
 (v. 19). 
 
 F; 2 1. Dii^mio, ' unintelligible ' (Now.). Read D''^NrDB?\ 
 The whole clause should run, 'dqii nm 'hs') ; ]V^ represents 
 some popular corruption of ^Nrotl)"'. So in Am. vi. i ; cp, 
 B. Bib., ' Zion.' nsi'^an should, of course, be ^NOriT' 
 (see on Am. vii. 1 2) ; possibly, too, Tr\TTh should be min'^'?. 
 See on Zech. xiv. Sb, and cp. E. Bib., ' Obadiah [Book],' 8 5, 
 
JONAH 
 
 We have little to do here but develop and supplement 
 E. Bib., ' Prophet,' § 44, comparing, however, ' Jonah, 
 Book of.' Our starting-point must, of course, be 2 K. 
 xiv. 25, where it is stated that Jeroboam II. 'recovered the 
 territory of Israel from the entrance of Maacath to the 
 Yaman of Arabia, according to the word of Israel's God, 
 Yahw^, which he spoke through his servant the prophet . . .,' 
 and mv. 28 that he 'recovered Cusham and the Maacath 
 of Jerahmeel for Israel ' (see Crit. Bib.). It was a portion 
 of the Negeb and of the adjoining land of Cusham that 
 Jeroboam ' recovered ' for Israel, and the prophet who 
 announced this was, like most of the prophets, himself a 
 man of the Negeb. n3V, as in Jer. xxv; 38, xlvi. 16, 1. 16, 
 Zech. iii. i, comes from 13V, 'Javanite,' {i.e. Jamanite = 
 Jerahmeelite), and TiON from "'W^SO, ' Maacathite.' ' Gath- 
 hepher ' must have been a southern locality ; ' Hepher ' was 
 a son of Ashhur ( i Chr. iv. 6) ; the land of Hepher was 
 regarded as Cushite (see on i K. iv. 10, and E. Bib., 
 ' Solomon,' § 6). See also E. Bib., ' Eliphelet.' The Gath- 
 hepher of Josh. xix. 1 3, like the other names in the list, 
 was probably drawn from a geographical document relative 
 to the Negeb. All this explains how Jonah came by his 
 name and by his interest in the Negeb ; we presuppose, 
 of course, the correctness of the general view of the course 
 of Israelite history required by our textual criticism, and 
 summed up elsewhere. The story in the Book of Jonah is, 
 in fact, most probably a Midrash on 2 K. xiv. 25, explaining 
 how the capital of Jerahmeel escaped destruction. It states 
 that the prophet Jonah (Yevani) had a mission to the city 
 
 150 
 
JONAH 151 
 
 of Jerahmeel, i.e. the capital of Cusham — a mission such as 
 Elijah or Elisha is elsewhere represented to have had. From 
 Gath-hepher he ' went down ' to ^''D'' (Japhia) — for so we 
 should read in v. 3 for "iD"' (Japho = Joppa !), and joined 
 himself to a caravan (read, not n^3M, but nniN) which 
 happened to be going to Asshur, — not in order to escape 
 from Yahwe's territory, but to fulfil his mission. If so, 
 cn^D was originally D^'^Nom"'. The story of the tempest 
 and the lot-casting may have once had an independent 
 existence, and referred to some other person than Jonah ; it 
 looks much like folk-lore (cp. E. Bib., 'Jonah,' § 5). The 
 ' great fish ' seems an editorial addition in the style of the 
 reference to the dragon in Jer. li. 34, 44 ; it implies the 
 favourite dragon-myth. m3"'3, as in Nah. ii. 9, iii. 7, Gen. 
 X. 11/. comes from 'jMoriT' ; the Jerahmeelite or Cushite 
 capital is meant. In iii. 3 the editor fell into much error. 
 He thinks that the story represents Nineveh as a city of 
 the past (nriTr), and, as it were, supernaturally large 
 {p-'xhih rh^lS) ; it was a ' three days' journey.' Jonah 
 himself only went a single day's journey in it. But, as in 
 Gen. X. 12 (cp. also Judith i. i), n^"TO T'i' comes either from 
 ishy T'S, ' city of Gilead,' or from f?NOnT' T'i>, ' city of Jerah- 
 meel ' ; the latter origin is favoured by DTT^Psf?, which 
 certainly comes from bwonT' (a gloss) ; "j^no and D^'D"' also 
 represent corruptions of that word, and ntcStD (numerals are 
 apt to conceal ethnics !) comes from a variant ^Ni>D©-'. 
 Similarly in iii. 4 -thn or ifjrrn T'i>3 springs from a cor- 
 ruption of fjMonT' T'SX and in iv. S ^••sh mpD = SNOriT' T'i> 
 (a gloss on T^sn ]o). We now understand how it was that 
 ' Jonah ' was so respectfully treated in the foreign city. 
 Yahwe was well-known in Cusham, as the story of Elisha 
 shows (2 K. viii. 7 J^.). See Crtt. Bib., 'Jonah, Book of.' 
 
 We now turn to the inserted psalm. In ii. 6 miin sjlD 
 ""XOvrh is odd and certainly corrupt. Parallel corruptions 
 elsewhere justify us in reading n^j&w Snto©"; np"is ; it is a 
 gloss on the figurative expression ' the waters.' (f? a>l3n 
 represents ^NSDtD'' ; cp. Crit. Bib. on Ezek. xxvii. 24, where 
 D"'t»lin = ^Mrooyi). \viV. 10 read with Gratz matw, and see 
 on Ps. liv. 8. 
 
 In the rest of the book only two new corrections occur. 
 
1 52 CRITIC A BIB Lie A 
 
 In iv. 8 n''t^"''in Dnj? mn is undeniably difficult. Probably 
 we should read [rr^nn'^a?] ^NOnT mn, ' a wind of Jerahmeel 
 [a Shihorite].' A wind of Jerahmeel means a sirocco. 
 ' Shihorite ' ( = Asshurite, ninn^N) is a gloss. Cp. on Jer. 
 iv. 1 1 /, where ' a wind of the desert of the Zarephathites ' 
 is parallel to ' a wind of Jerahmeel.' See also E. Bib., 
 'Wind,' § 4. iv. II, being parallel to iii. 3^, must also be 
 corrupt. The key to it is given, partly by that passage, 
 partly by Gen. x. 1 1 / (see note). Beautiful as the moral 
 sentiment is, we must give half the credit of this to the 
 editor ; the original writer would never have used the 
 strange expression found here for ' young children,' and how 
 improbable a conclusion for the narrative is XVS\ norTll ! 
 The true and highly effective close of the story is, ' And 
 should not 1 have pity on Jerahmeel ' ? The words under- 
 lying the sequel are, first, ^i;bi T'i;. Then come three 
 further definitions, first, DinDlS n'llhn -it»N Snsde^-' ; then, 
 
 D-jN mim iffiN ; then, mimf? [SwsDm-'] pp; pa ^t2?N ^Nnm\ 
 The fullest is the last, ' between Jamin (cp. id"'D"' pN, i S. 
 ix. 4) and Rehoboth.' SMi>DtOi for ni-ffii and mnm for 
 rrain and nn (the latter representing a correction of rroni) 
 are easy corrections. For nam = 'l, cp. Psi^^'^ on Ps. xxxvi. 7. 
 
MICAH 
 
 Chap. i. i. — The heading in its present form gives two 
 alternative definitions of the present ' word of Yahwe,' viz. 
 (i) 'that came to Micah the Morasthite in the days of 
 Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah,' and (2) ' which 
 he saw concerning ]T\UW and Jerusalem.' According to 
 Wellh. and Nowack, the latter is a later insertion, and the 
 former should be shortened by the omission of ' in the days 
 of,' etc. It is also possible, however, that the later editor 
 partly rewrote the heading in order to bring in the chrono- 
 logical statement referred to, and that the original heading 
 was of the type represented, by Isa. ii. i, i.e. that it ran 
 
 thus, — d^miT'i iiiom-^s TituiiDn riTa mn nt»N mn-' nn. 
 
 The title Titonici (cp. Jer. xxvi. 1 8) apparently rests on 
 tradition. But where was Moresheth ? If we are right in 
 holding that the subject most present to the minds of Amos 
 and Hosea was the fate of the Israelites (and Judahites ?) in 
 the Negeb, we may well consider the possibility that the 
 fate of the Judahites in the Negeb (both Israel and Judah 
 seem to have occupied parts of this region) may have shared 
 the interest of Micah with the fate of Zion or Jerusalem. 
 The only way to get a satisfying insight into Micah is to 
 assume that this was indeed the case. Hence in i. i we 
 shall have to read fnow (cp. on Am. iii 9, iv. i), and to 
 look for Moresheth (whence moraiti) in the Negeb. 
 
 i. 5-7. Throughout the prophets we see that the 
 greatest danger to the religion of Israel and of Judah arose 
 from Jerahmeel. Hence 'what is the transgression of 
 Jacob? Is it not Shimron?' Cp. Am. viii. 14, where the 
 true text may have referred to the ' Ishmaelitish ' goddess 
 
 153 
 
154 CRITIC A BIB Lie A i. 8 
 
 worshipped at Shimron. ' And what is the sin of the house 
 of Judah ? Is it not Ishmael ? ' Here we read of course 
 r^•^^^^^' rr'l riNJsn (with Kuenen, Wellh., Now.) ; also we 
 correct ofptOIT into fpNSOm"' (cp. Jer. iv. 15-17; these two 
 names are elsewhere confounded). Still more accurately, 
 however, we might read fjNom"' ; ' Ishmael ' and ' Jerahmeel ' 
 were obviously interchangeable. By ' Jerahmeel ' some great 
 religious centre in the Negeb is meant ; cp. on 2 K. xxiii. 8, 
 Jer. ii. 34, iii. 24, from which passages it is clear how awful 
 the ' sin ' practised at Jerahmeel was. The sin of Shimron, 
 too, was black enough in the eyes of Micah, as v. 7 shows ; 
 it only lacked the added horror of the sacrifice of children. 
 
 i. 8-16. A lament over the fall of the cities (probably) 
 of the Negeb, which is the prelude to the fall of Jerusalem. 
 V. 10 has been much discussed ; see E. Bib., ' Gath,' ' Giloh.' 
 From our present vantage-ground, however, we can perhaps 
 see more clearly than before into some of the obscurities of 
 the text. V. loa has long perplexed interpreters, nor does 
 @ (see Now.) give any real help. Probably we should read 
 thus, — iDin f?Dt»Ni I'j-'in ^N n:in. ]h^in (Elhorst, Wi.) is 
 
 suggested by Pesh. ; T and b are easily confounded. The 
 ni intended may be Gath-hepher, certainly a southern 
 locality (see on Jonah, ad init?). ' Gath ' means ' wine- 
 press ' ; with a bitter humour the prophet says, ' In Winepress- 
 town exult not.' An exact parallel is produced by reading, 
 for Sn 133, Siat&Nl. Eshcol (as if ' grape-cluster ') was in 
 the Negeb (see E. Bib., ' Negeb,' § 7) ; possibly it comes 
 from ' Eshkol,' and this from ' Ishmael ' {p and p con- 
 founded). The mE3:; spoken of was Ophrah, which appears 
 to have been a place in the Negeb within easy distance 
 of the city of Cusham (this depends on the correctness of 
 the view that the scene of the original story of Gideon 
 was in the Negeb ; see on Judg. vi. 11). ' Shaphir ' {y. il) 
 comes either from 'Shamir' (Josh. xv. 48), which the 
 original document used by P very possibly placed in the 
 mountains of the Negeb (see ad loc), or from ' Sepher ' 
 or ' Sopher,' attested by idd TV\'p, which, however, may be 
 a corruption of nQ^K 'p, ' city of Zarephath.' ' Zaanan ' (see 
 E. Bib., ' Zaanan '), according to analogy, should come from 
 ' Ishmael.' The corruption was no doubt very early. 
 
i. 14 MICAH 155 
 
 Another form of the name is 'Zenan'; see Josh. xv. 37, 
 where ' Zenan ' is grouped with ' Hadashah ' (? from ' Ashhur '), 
 Joktheel (from ' Jerahmeel '), and Lachish (? = Eshcol). In 
 z'. 1 2 ' Maroth ' should be ' Jarmuth ' ; cp. Josh. xv. 3 5 , 
 where it is followed by ' Adullam ' (from ' Jerahmeel ' ?) and 
 'Socoh' (rather ' Cushah '?) ; cp. E. Bib., 'Jarmuth. 'Jar- 
 muth ' (cp. ' Jeremoth ') is doubtless connected with ' Jerah- 
 meel.' On z/. 13 c^. JQR, X. 576/".; note, however, that 
 CdS here, as in 2 K. xviii. 14, is probably a popular cor- 
 ruption of fplDtOM (Eshcol). It is true that ' Eshcol ' has 
 already been referred to xn v. 10 (corn text). There, how- 
 ever, it was only mentioned in order to produce a jeu de 
 mots, whereas here there is a much more serious purpose. 
 ' It (Eshcol) is the chief sin for the people of Zion.' How ? 
 Because of the fascination exercised by the sanctuary of 
 Eshcol on Israelite pilgrims. The expression suggests that 
 ' Eshcol ' (Ishmael ?) was closely connected with the southern 
 Bethel (also called Dan ?), where Jeroboam placed the 
 'golden calf (see on i K. xii. 28-30). 
 
 i. 14/ nj nffilho. Possibly na should be na, and ps 
 has dropped out. Because Eshcol was the prime occasion 
 of sin to bath-siyyon, therefore thou, O bath-siyyon, shalt 
 have to bid farewell to Moresheth (see E. Bib., ' Morasthite '). 
 Moresheth, or rather Morashah, appears to be another form 
 of Mareshah, adopted to suggest the meaning ' betrothed.' 
 Read perhaps in v. 15 — 
 
 The writer anticipates that the Israelites (Judahites ?) in the 
 Negeb will be carried captive into N. Arabia (cp. iv. 10, 
 Am. iv. 3, V. 27). That the Mareshah of this passage and 
 of 2 Chr. xiv. 9 / (cp. E. Bib. ' Zephathah ') is in the Negeb, 
 is not a bold supposition. — n-'WM. Cp. Josh. xv. 44, Achzib 
 and Mareshah together ; Gen. xxxviii. 5, nil3 (a place-name) 
 connected with Shelah, b. Judah ; i Chr. iv. 2 1 /, Mareshah 
 and Cozeba (Nljrjj) similarly connected. Cozeba is also con- 
 nected (in I Chr. l.c.) with iMltD, or more probably with nao 
 (cp. ""IW, bath-[Mis]sur, Num. xxv. 15, 18). We may con- 
 clude that Achzib (Chezib), like Mareshah, was in the 
 
156 CRITIC A BIBLICA "• 4 
 
 Negeb. — thnv, most probably = xh^'s or D^IN = ^MOnT or 
 D•lS'NDm^ See on i S. xxii. i. 
 
 Chap. ii. 4-6. I fear the restoration in Nowack will 
 hardly stand ; historical allusions are indispensable, and 
 parallel cases of corruption ought to put us on the right 
 track. In v. 4 Tn 1"'0"' is almost certainly from ^NDnT ; 
 ■h m"'a"' and imtl)'? from f?NSDa)^ Read — 
 
 In V. 6 there are also indications of ethnics, but the passage 
 cannot be restored till we rightly understand v. 8. As- 
 suming the restoration of v. 8 given in the next note, we 
 may read v. 6 thus, yps'' JT'l f?NDnT'-Di> ^amDn iihri, ' do ye 
 not go on raids with Jerahmeel, O house of Jacob ' ? The 
 accusation is that unpatriotic Israelitish nobles in the Negeb 
 join their Jerahmeelite neighbours in making raids on 
 Israelitish territory. IQ'^JD"' . . . lD"'£2n"S'N is made up by 
 the redactor out of a dittographed and corrupt form of 
 IcatCDD thn. nhih, mn^3, and niONn arose quite naturally 
 out of corrupt forms of fpNom*' ; iD"' N7 probably comes 
 from SsiJDKJ''. V. 7 is probably an editorial insertion ; it 
 breaks the connection. 
 
 ii. 8. The current explanations are vague and un- 
 satisfactory. Read probably nearly as follows — ^NpnTI 
 
 lamri rrza XiTos iiamon ^Nspm^or o^p;: i^hsS, ' And . 
 when Jerahmeel arises as a foe, with Ishmael ye make 
 raids, with Arabia of Tebah ye make captives.' From 
 Gen. xxii. 24 we may infer that Tebah (see E. Bib., ' Tebah') 
 was near Maachah. This view of the passage suits v. 9 . 
 perfectly. Note that ^Nom"' has become 'ploriM, as in 
 I S. X. II, Ps. xc. 4. TTN is probably a fragment of ^ndhT, 
 an intrusion from the margin ; rrDnSo is another attempt to 
 make sense of a badly written 'rtT. 
 
 Chap. iii. 1 2. For ni>i mol'? read ^Nom"' n©!^. The 
 meaning is, the mountain of the temple shall indeed retain 
 its sanctity, but the numen of the spot shall be no longer 
 Yahw^ but Jerahmeel (see on Zeph. i. 5). is"', like T'S"' 
 (Jair) and the second part of □"'"ii;'' JTinp, is a corruption of 
 SiNnnT. So in vii. 14. 
 
 Note that the description in iv. 8-io«, v. 9-14 [10-15] 
 
iv. lo MICAH 157 
 
 forms a connected passage (post-exilic) in our revised text. 
 See E. Bib., ' Micah,' col. 3072. 
 
 Chap. iv. 8. ]v:i-rQ Ssr nir-^nao nnNl. The meaning 
 is obscure. According to Wellh., ' it is presupposed that 
 Jerusalem is no longer a city, but only a " tower of flocks " in 
 the desert, or a hill where a city was once situated.' But 
 what an extraordinary way of conveying this idea ! If, 
 however, we take the passage in connection with Gen. 
 XXXV. 2 1 (see ad loc), and with other prophetic passages in 
 which the destruction of the N. Arabian peoples (represent- 
 ing the foes of Israel) is anticipated, we may probably read 
 thus — 
 
 ' And as for thee, O Jerahmeel [Arabian fortress], Zion's 
 people — thy foes will I bring, and the Ishmaelites and the 
 Asshurites shall come to the people of Jerusalem.' 
 
 It is a prophecy of an attack upon Jerusalem by the 
 combined peoples of N. Arabia. Jerusalem is called ' Jerah- 
 meel,' perhaps alluding to Isa. xxix. i /. (see ad loc). To 
 explain his meaning, the writer adds bath-siyyon. The sug- 
 gestion is that Jerusalem is no better than a Jerahmeelite city, 
 or, as the gloss suggests, than an Arabian fortress ; morally 
 as well as historically, ' thy father was an Amorite (Jerah- 
 meelite),' Ezek. xvi. 3. @'s insertion e'« Ba^vX&vo<i (preced- 
 ing ry Bvyarpl lepovaakrjfi) has not yet been adequately 
 accounted for. The underlying 7330 fits perfectly well into 
 the revised text, ' the Ishmaelites, etc. shall come from 731,' 
 i.e. from Jerahmeel. 
 
 iv. I o. Wellh. remarks, ' These two verses (vv. 9 /.) 
 which seem to be antithetical to v. 8 (note rrni;), neverthe- 
 less do not join on to it. For they presuppose that Jeru- 
 salem is still inhabited and that the kingdom still exists ; 
 they prophesy the siege of the city and the exile of its 
 inhabitants.' The revised text of v. 8, however, permits the 
 antithesis which vv. g/. in the MT. seems to Wellh. to dis- 
 allow. Read probably, as v. loa — 
 
158 CRITIC A BIB Lie A iv. 10 
 
 ' Writhe and groan, O people of Zion, for now must thou 
 go out and dwell in the highland of Jerahmeel.' 
 
 The reader may perhaps surmise that rr"'npo (® eV 
 TToXeo)?) has been overlooked. Not so ; it is really a corrup- 
 tion of fpNonT, and should stand after mm^. This is one 
 of those cases in which editorial manipulation has succeeded 
 in producing a text, not, indeed, perfectly satisfactory, but 
 yet plausible enough to escape being suspected. Nowack 
 remarks, ' T\'''\p, although without the article, is of course Jeru- 
 salem, and as opposed to residence in the city, dwelling in 
 the field (mOJl n35tOl) points to the fact that the Jerahmeel- 
 ites are now given up as a prey to the inclemency of the 
 weather, the attacks of wild beasts, and the like.' This, 
 however, puts undue pressure on the words. There is a call 
 for a keener textual criticism. The possibility that rr^ip 
 (like T'p) may come from ^nditT', must be admitted. If, 
 now, we suppose that, after corruption had taken place, the 
 word was transferred by the editor to a different position, 
 and that originally it stood after mtCD, we can dispense with 
 the forced explanation of iT'lpD and rntD3 't& offered by 
 Nowack, and bring the passage into harmony with the con- 
 text {v. 8), as explained above. Whether "'in for TTl is an 
 adequate correction, is an insignificant and subordinate point. 
 The dvSpi^ov (ejyi^e) of @ must be based on a different but 
 not more correct text. — There remain the words, dnI^ 
 '7l3-^?, which Kuenen, Wellh., Nowack, and in 1882 the 
 present writer, have excised as an interpolation. Most prob- 
 ably, indeed, they are so, but like the hxxQ presupposed by 
 @ in z/. 8 (see above), they fit quite well into the context 
 (^ll = 'nT). 
 
 iv. 10 /5-I4, V. 4/ [3 /!] seems to be an editorial inser- 
 tion, telling how the Jews, while on Jerahmeelite soil, will be 
 delivered, and how the Ishmaelite plunderers will suffer a 
 crushing defeat at Zarephath (E. Bib., I.e.). 
 
 iv. 1 4 [v. I J. A much misunderstood passage ! Nowack 
 renders the opening words, ' And now cut thyself, O daughter 
 . . . (?).' As to 'ynr\, it is surely best to read ■'■i|riri ; ^^^3l 
 has not arisen through dittography, but is a corruption of 
 'Mih^ (Gilead in the Negeb). V. i^b, Nowack thinks, refers 
 to the shameful treatment in store for the king. But surely 
 
V. 4 MICAH 159 
 
 the smiting the judge of Israel on the cheek with the stick 
 comes in rather strangely, especially after ' he has laid siege 
 against us.' Read the whole verse thus— 
 
 ' Now stir thyself, O people of Gilead [Missur the Ishmael- 
 ites] ; at Zarephath they shall smite the raiders of Ishmael 
 on the cheek' (cp. Ps. iii. 8). Here, however, the bracketed 
 words are misplaced ; they should stand as marginal glosses 
 on ' the raiders of Ishmael.' 
 
 D^'^N^'DQ)"' for "li-i^S nto is surely not difficult (13 = o). 
 ^s^25 for ma), as in Am. i. 5 ; cp. asto (Shaphat) also from 
 's. ^JNSom"' for fjNiffir Cp. on Isa. xxx. 31. 
 
 Chap. v. i [2]. nnnaN nn^-n"'3. The key to this is 
 supplied by Gen. xxxv. 19, xlviii. 7, Josh. xv. 5g« (®), 
 where the gloss, ' that is, Bethlehem,' attached to ' Ephrath,' 
 is quite correct. Cp. Ruth iv. 1 1 (Ephrathah and ' Bethlehem ' 
 parallel). Both Ephrath and Bethlehem (Beth-jerahmeel) 
 are names of the Negeb (see E. Bib., ' Rachel's Sepulchre,' a). 
 (@, however, has BTjdXeefj, olkos '^(fjpada, i.e. ' Bethlehem, 
 Beth -ephrath,' two alternative readings, of which Beth- 
 ephrath is probably the more original. Read, therefore, 
 mON n""! nriNl, and continue (with Hitz., Wellh., Now.) 
 
 rvr\Tr •'d^ni -vstrs. 
 
 D^hi> ■'O'^P Dli^P T'nM^lo^. It is usual to compare iv. 8, 
 i.e. to parallel the prophecy of the future nfjfflDD by that of 
 the future ^BJhD. The ' ruler ' intended is a new David, who, 
 in ' antiquity,' in ' the days of yore ' proceeded from Beth- 
 lehem. The '210 would be the points from which a genealogy 
 springs. This seems to be right, so far as the new David 
 and his birthplace are concerned, but the closing words of 
 V. I are not explained by comparing iv. 8 (corrupt), but 
 should be read ^NOriTD 'hIOI, ' and ( = in fact) his goings 
 forth ( = his origines) are from Jerahmeel ' ; this is a gloss 
 on NS?, 'h ^ap. Both DTp and xh^a "'D"' are easy corruptions 
 of f?MDm\ 
 
 V. A-f. Ti©M thhxt nt Tl"^,. Does this mean, ' and this 
 one shall be peace,' or ' and of this kind shall be the peace ? ' 
 In either case, mS» m gives no additional fulness to the 
 
i6o CRITIC A BIB Lie A v. 7 
 
 sense ; it reads very awkwardly. The truth is that 'tD m 
 should be f?Ni;at!J"' m (cp. the same error in Isa. xxvi. 3,. 
 xxxiii. 7, Zech. ix. 10), i.e. ' that is, Ishmael ' ; it is a gloss on 
 nitON (note the Pasek after 'n). For issn^l read ^^--l^a ; pN 
 and T» are often confounded. The alternative is to change 
 'dinI into IDnmNl (0 i-n-l TTjv x^P"-^ vficov), which Now. 
 adopts (cp. ■y. S). 
 
 D~iN iD'ip? njbtp^ Q"'i>h ni'?© ; Now. finds here the chiaro- 
 scuro of the apocalyptic style. Better explanations may, 
 however, be offered, (i) Comparing pEJS ■'3''D3, Ezek. xxxii. 
 30, where pDS is certainly the name of a region, one is 
 tempted to read either din 'd, or DT.N '3, and consequently 
 to correct D-'i>T r\'s'ysi into ^Nom"' '^ito ni»lt2> (□"'i'T for 'rw, as 
 Am. i. 3, Zeph. ii. 6). The meaning of vv. 4 f. will be, 
 ' When the king of Ashhur invades the land of Israel, the 
 Israelites will instigate subject leaders of Jerahmeel and 
 Edom to carry war into the Ashhurite land, and so deliver 
 the holy land from the presence of its once dreaded foe.' 
 But why shoiild ' seven ' and ' eight ' be introduced ? Here 
 is a mystery for the critics. (2) More probably both TOntI> 
 and naiDa> are corruptions of ^Ni^offii, while Toa comes from 
 ;miD, and mN from DIN- Read ;mi3T ^Nom-i r^i> 'pm 
 (omitting f?Ni?Dt»'i, twice, and DIN as glosses). — For nTrns 
 read D'^nmn (javelins); see on Ps. Iv. 22. — Read "I3"i^''2rr 
 (cp. Wellh.). 
 
 V. 7. Should we not read rTilNtO h^ XTTXy ? As the 
 drops of fine rain upon the grass, so is the supernatural 
 ' dew ' from Yahwe upon the remnant of Israel. Cp. Isa. 
 xliv. 3. Note Pasek after rvnx and see E. Bib., col. 1095 
 (foot). 
 
 Chap. vi. 1-8. In the rhetorical style of Deut. Cp. 
 Ps. Ixxxi. 6-17 (corn text). Post-exilic. See E. Bib., 
 col. 3073. 
 
 vi. \ f.. Explained in E. Bib., col. 3073, note 2. 
 Improving what is there given in some points, read (for 
 'n, cp. Ex. xvii. 13) — 
 
 Vfi3D^ m'^rtNj ^■'n-'ig dii-is n-'sp^ D^nap pNp Vfn^srr '^3 
 For D'^lli; nil, see E, Bib., ' Moses,' S 1 1. ^Nomi, which 
 
vi. i6 MICAH i6i 
 
 is here enclosed in brackets as a variant, corresponds to 
 pnrrN and Qinn in the text. The first scribe wrote 'nT' twice 
 over, and his successor miswrote the two representations of 
 the word in such a way, or what he wrote became so indis- 
 tinct, that a final editor made out of what he found in his 
 text cnDT pnrrN. — In v. 4 fpa^ni' D'^iamn p is also doubtless 
 due to an editor. The true words, which must originally 
 have stood in the margin as a gloss on fpNi^DtC'TiN or -riM 
 7Nom"', may have been ^s^i^■^i' DTiman-IO (see on Num. 
 XXV. i), and have indicated that the conquests referred to 
 in V. 4 (toSnNi) extended over the country between Zarephath 
 and Gilead, both places or districts in the Negeb. The 
 Negeb, together with Cushan, appears to have been the first 
 region attacked by the Israelites after their departure from 
 Missur or Misrim (see E. Bib., ' Moses,' §§ 1 7 /). 
 
 vi. y f. ' The reference to the most awful kind of sacrifice 
 [cp. on Jer. ii. 34] in vi. 7 seems to be as purely rhetorical 
 as that to " rivers of oil." The writer may have gone on to 
 say that Yahwe took no pleasure in any sacrifice but that 
 of obedience, and that if that had only been rendered, Yahwe 
 would have delivered his people from the Arabians [cp. Ps. 
 Ixxxi. 17],' E. Bib., col. 3073. — In v. 8 tnjA should be dtt'jm. 
 np^ »3?ni. is more difficult to correct. Elsewhere MS only 
 occurs in the passive part, Prov. xi. 2 (corrupt ?). @ renders 
 eroi/Mov elvat rov iropeveadai,. Very strongly must one 
 question i)32rr. Even if purely moral edification were in- 
 tended, yet the uncommon word MS would not be chosen 
 by this rhetorical writer. It would, in this case, be best to 
 read yrht^ TO^hn ?"'pmni (cp. Ps. Ixxiii. 28). But is this a 
 correct view of the intention ? V. 4. f. places us among the 
 N. Arabians ; so also does v. 7, with its reference to child- 
 sacrifice (cp. on Jer. ii. 34). Strongly moral psalms like 
 Pss. xiv., XV. refer to one special religious offence among the 
 post-exilic Jews — that of falling away and blaspheming 
 Yahw^ (see Ps.^^). Surely we must read ^"'rrfpM "'SNap T\%'2\ 
 The person addressed is, not an individual Israelite, but the 
 people. Is this a purely ideal programme ? One can hardly 
 venture to bring this passage down to the early Maccabaean 
 period. 
 
 vi. 1 6. The apparent reference to the ' statutes of Omri ' 
 
1 62 CRITIC A BIB Lie A vii. ii 
 
 and ' all the works of the house of Ahab/ have been held to 
 point with certainty to the pre-exilic period, though it is by 
 no means easy to give a clear explanation of these phrases. 
 There can hardly be a doubt, however, that -^noi* is a corrup- 
 tion either of D"n« or of D-'ai«, and l«nN-nil of 7NDm"'-rT'3. 
 The n'lpn are the laws of a religion, whether that of Yahw^ 
 or of the Jerahmeelite Baal. It is those of the latter which 
 are here meant. The passage points to the time when the 
 Shimronim (not the ' Samaritans ') exercised great religious 
 influence on the post-exilic Jews. 
 
 Chap. vii. 1 1-13. By the old methods very little light 
 can be thrown on this passage (see Wellh., Now.). It would 
 seem, however, that by noticing the habits of the scribes, and 
 by comparing parallel passages already corrected,^ a very 
 probable text can be restored. Omitting words repeated or 
 misplaced (partly in a corrupt form), such as DV NIH DV, 
 
 prrprrv ( = Snoht'), inri ( = •qnits)- '^'^^ "ini ( = ^^3^), we 
 get — 
 
 Tisp ■'2p'7') i^sp n^i TicsN ■^2ph M^rr TTfi- ni3i^ Ninn dvi 
 
 ' In that day they shall come to build thy walls from Asshur 
 (Ashhur) to Missur, and from Missur to the stream of 
 Jerahmeel.' 
 
 Compare Isa. xxvii. 12 f., Zech. ix. 10, Ps. Ixxii. 8. The 
 ' stream of Jerahmeel ' may be that also known as ' the stream 
 of Perath' (Gen. xv. 18, 2 K. xxiii. 29, xxiv. 7, Jer. xlvi. 2, 
 etc.), i.e. 'of Ephrath' (cp. E. Bib., 'Paradise,' col. 3573, 
 note 5). It is the return of the Jewish exiles from the N. 
 Arabian regions on the S. of Palestine which is here foretold. 
 Cp. V. 12, with Joel iv. 19. 
 
 vii. 14. ^cna y\T\1 ^:»■'. It is very probable, says Now., 
 that the territories in Palestine assigned to the exiles on 
 their return were the uncultivated regions which those who 
 had taken the places of the exiles had not cared to occupy. 
 These regions, according to him, are here called ^^^^\ ; he 
 renders the MT., ' who dwell solitarily in the wilderness in 
 the midst of the fruitful land.' Bqt surely if bdshan and 
 
 1 It so happens that this portion of Crit. Bib. was done subse- 
 quently to Isaiah, Zechariah, and Pss. i.-lxxii. 
 
vii. 17 MIC AH 163 
 
 giVdd are names of regions, the presumption is that karmel 
 is so too. Now it can be made (to say the least) extremely 
 probable that SonD is a popular corruption of bNom"', and 
 that in a number of passages ]a>3 (Bashan) is a corruption 
 of ]D3 (Cushan), also that there was a southern as well as 
 a trans-Jordanic Gilead. li?"' still remains to be accounted 
 for. Most probably, as in iii. 12, it is a corruption of 
 SMDm\ If so, we may neglect it as a virtual anticipation 
 of the fpNom"' underlying ^013. 
 
 vii. 17. Correct the text as in Ps. xviii. 46 (2 S. 
 xxii. 46). See Ps.^^ ad loc. 
 
NAHUM 
 
 Prof. Budde {E. Bib., ' Nahum ') remarks that the second 
 part of the heading agrees with the headings of Isaiah and 
 Obadiah, and almost with the true title of Habakkuk, if 
 we regard nSD {sepher) as an editorial insertion. He also 
 holds that ' Elkosh,' the prophet's home, was probably, but 
 not certainly, in S. Palestine. We have, however, already 
 had so much evidence that the chief object of prophetic 
 denunciations (outside of the prophets' own people) was 
 N. Arabia that we can venture upon more definite solutions 
 of the problems of the heading than those of Prof. Budde. 
 m3i3 (ii. 9, iii. 7) comes from mSo=f?NDm["'], the name 
 given by the Jews to the capital of the chief N. Arabian 
 power. Cp. on ii. 9, Jon. i. 2. nSD (as probably in 
 naoTT'np and in mso) comes from rsnt, and ''ffip^N from 
 ■'^DtON {i.e. Elkosh should be Eshcol, see on Mic. i. 8-16). 
 DITO (Nahum) is parallel to aim ; in Neh. vii. 7 ciro 
 corresponds to the Dirn in Ezra ii. 2. Both names are S. 
 Palestinian ; cp. the one with Nahamani ; the other with 
 Qm"' = ^NnnT. Thus the composite heading becomes, 
 ' Oracle of Jerahmeel [Zarephath]. Vision of Nahum the 
 Eshcolite.' 
 
 Chap. i. 4*5. The first ^^on is certainly a corruption of 
 S«mT: (cp. QiSSdn, Neh. iii. 34) ; so also is Sqi3. The 
 opening word was probably "j^ (so G. B Gray, cp. Isa. 
 xix. 6) ; which fell out through its resemblance to the 
 closing letters of ^^dn. jtOl should be jms. Read, there- 
 fore, 5^31 ^Nnm*' h\ ; cp. Am. i. 2b. 
 
 i. gh. @ ovK ixSiK'^aei 8is iiriToavTo ev ffXi'^ei = 
 nnSB nn: Q'^DVP Cipl n'^- Not impossibly M's ms and @'s 
 
 164 
 
ii. I NAHUM i6s 
 
 msi spring from nspS, and @'s nn^ from fjNprn.ia, to which 
 1!501 may be a variant. In fact, the enemy on whom, once 
 for all, Yahw6 will take vengeance may equally well be 
 called Jerahmeel and Missur (both names archaic). 
 
 i. 10/ The latest critic (W. R. Arnold, ZATW, 1901, 
 pp. 225-265) reads mni mp3 ^h^2V< QiNIlD p"! □■'3lp, 'thickets 
 ever so drenched, they are consumed like dry stubble,' i.e. 
 ' though they be as the vegetation of a swamp, the fire of 
 his wrath burns them as straw.' Even the editor did not 
 mean this ; much less the poet. In our sore need @ helps 
 us again. Instead of dn3d3 it presupposes fjlbltO^I, for m? 
 a-fiika^ is a corruption of to? XeLfjia^ = hTf^W'S, which in the 
 present context is almost certainly a corruption of 7Ni'Dm"'3. 
 The particle of comparison, however, seems a dittographic 
 insertion (note 3 in qidid) both here and in a>pD (v. lob). 
 Now as to N^p, for which Wellh. would read N'^n (prefixed 
 to w. 11) and Gunkel ^Sini. As in Gen. xxiii. 9, Jer. iv. [2 
 it seems to have been a fragment of 7NQm"'. t&l"', as else- 
 where, represents SiNraW, 2>p comes from tB13, iSdn from 
 ^^!Om^ D-'TD (but @ mc) from Dilli&N, D-'3lD from 
 D'^lton. In V. II MS; '^ap is very improbable (see Nowack). 
 TOO, like the preceding nSd, represents f^Nom"' ; N2"' seems 
 to be a (preferable) variant to }>s"' ; hs'h':i, both here' and 
 in ii. I and in i S. x. 27, comes from bNDm^ We now 
 get a much more possible text of vv. 10, 11, viz. ^i; 13, 
 ^NonT NS:;.ni>1 mrr"'-^? oiimn Ci'Jt&N 'for the Asshurites 
 still devise evil against Yahw^ ; Jerahmeel has come forth ' 
 (cp. ii. i). ' Ishmael, Jerahmeel, Cush [Ishmael],' is inserted 
 as a gloss on p'^nWM. 
 
 i. 12. @ begins, ToZe X&yei, Kvpio^ Kardp'^aiv vBdrcov 
 iroW&v. A welcome confirmation of our general view, for 
 Kar. vS. TT. = ni3n D'^p hwn. That fptOD in such a context 
 = '?Nl;OtD% we know from Isa. xiv. 5, xlix. 7, Hi. 5 ; that 
 ahw can equally mean this, may be seen from Am. i. 6, 9, 
 Mic. v. 4. Render, ' Even if the Ishmaelites are many, yet 
 shall they be cut off' ("ntJ% see on Hab. iii. 17). 
 
 Chap. ii. i. bs-hl; see on i. 11. — V. 2. Cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Iron,' § 2 ; ' Shoes,' § 3. The extent of the corruption, 
 however, has perhaps been under-estimated. For D"'t&'ni ® 
 gives ol l'jnTei<; = D"'»'iB. Beside "if?nnr, which is surely no 
 
1 66 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ii. 7 
 
 word for the movements of horses, and may perfectly well 
 come from ^NOnT, does it not seem probable that Q-'tB'ni 
 (cp. on ntU in Isa. xlix. lo) or D-'mns (cp. on Isa. xxi. 7) 
 represents nTiQ"i2 ? \yci, too, may represent an ethnic (13)5, 
 see on Ezek. xxiii. 23/), and elsewhere in the same verse 
 there may be corrupt fragments of ^NOriT and 7Nrom'' (note 
 ■■maN, which, Hke iwm, is a current corruption of V, and 
 n"'S^ntD = n"'^NiDnT) ? Lists of hostile peoples are found in 
 the Psalms, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. 
 
 ii. 7. For '?D"'nrr read probably "JNOm"'. 
 
 ii. 8 / Read probably nnbjn ng-i^> Possibly HTinoN 
 comes from D^npSO- The corruption is easy, and the con- 
 nection with ' Zarephath ' natural. For m:iniD read mon^D 
 (cp. Pesh.), see Ezek. xxiv. 23 ; and for jrrniVS? niDQhp 
 read bMonT; ng-jSp (a gloss ; Maacath = Jerahmeel).— M 
 N-'H ■'D^n ; ® TO, vBara avTrj'i. Surely the original had 
 SwDm"', a gloss correcting m3"'3 (see on heading). 
 
 ii. 14. For ]ffi^2 read ffiNa (similarly Isa.- ix. 17). — M 
 HSJn'po, an impossible form. Read perhaps fpNonT. ' The 
 voice of Jerahmeel (cp. Isa. xxxiii. 19) shall be heard no 
 more.' 
 
 Chap. iii. i /. The connection is not satisfactory. At 
 first sight it appears as if the writer were still in the same 
 circle of ideas as in ii. i i-i 3. But who will say that, ' Woe 
 to the city of bloodshed ' is naturally followed by ' Hark, the 
 whip, and the noise of wheels ' ? Surely the name of the 
 city is required. Now D-'Q-r in Ps. v. 5, Ii. 16, Iv. 24 is a 
 mutilated form of D"'Q'7M ; D"'QnN would, of course, also be 
 text-critically possible. What we want kere is □"'Cn.M T'S ; 
 after this a brief statement of its guilt might justifiably 
 follow, such as fUTTD Tih'D, ' it is altogether lying,' with refer- 
 ence to Jerahmeel's disregard of its brotherly relation to 
 Israel. P. Ruben would read after this mSti pQ, cp. 
 Ass. pQ, 'to lie' (Del. Ass. HWB, 5441^), and see on Ps. 
 xvii. 4 (pis), and in v. 3 he regards nbsD ffi"iQ as a gloss 
 on n^fjo pD. Experience, however, suggests a fuller 
 though necessarily a bolder remedy for the difficulties of the 
 text. Xiriy ih certainly comes from f?Ni>aa?i ; it is not , 
 uncommon for the final ^n in words like bMSDtD"' to be 
 corruptly prefixed (as nS) to a corrupt form of i?DtD\ 'ffi"' is 
 
iii. 7 NAHUM 167 
 
 evidently a gloss on D■'Q^^*. But 'w cannot stand alone. 
 Other ethnics or place-names must accompany it. ?]n23 
 (suggested by ii. 1 3) comes from n"iaN, in the southern 
 Ephrath (see on Gen. xxxv. 16). There remains rrsf^D pnD. 
 'q might conceivably mean ' plunder,' but this (see on 
 Ob. 14) is a pure assumption. rrNSo and m^d are both 
 recognised fragments, in a corrupt form, of ^Nom^ As 
 for pns, we have already (Isa. Ixv. 4) found this word 
 miswritten for piD, which existed in an earlier form of the 
 text as a corruption of fpNom"" (see on Ob. 14). Such a 
 combination of two corrupt fragments of the same ethnic is 
 common. 
 
 iii. 7. m3''3, vivewr). See on i. i. — 8. paw N3Q ■'lipTin. 
 The view which has become traditional identifies No-amon 
 with the Egyptian Thebes. Prof. W. M. Muller {E. Bib., 
 col. 3427) considers this to be distinctly indicated by v. ga, 
 though he adds that the description in v. 8 (see his trans- 
 lation) is less favourable to the identification, and suggests 
 that the prophet imagined Thebes to have been like many 
 cities of the Delta, i.e. situated on the plain on an artificial 
 mound, surrounded by canals. Brugsch, feeling the same 
 difficulty, identifies the city with a place in the NE. of 
 the Delta, where the god Amen once had a temple. Both 
 these scholars suppose jiqn to represent the Egyptian Amon 
 or Amen, the name of the local god of Thebes. Elsewhere, 
 however, criticism most unexpectedly discourages the idea 
 that the old Hebrew writers took any special interest in 
 Egypt, and in Jer. xlvi. 25 ' Amon-minno,' and in Ezek. 
 XXX. 15 'Hamon-no' (cp. Hamon, Hamonah, Ezek. 
 xxxix. II, 15 f.), are most probably expansions (due to 
 the editor who manipulated an already corrupt text) df 
 y\BS = fyNOnT^. But then, it will be asked, what is to be 
 made of the description of the watery rampart of No-amon 
 ' that was situate among the Nile-branches ' ? The answer 
 is that the text is, from any critical point of view, not 
 entirely in order, and that, using the experience we have 
 already gained of the habits of the scribes, we can be sure 
 that the present text is an expansion of a very different 
 text which referred to N. Arabia. Nor is it an un- 
 important confirmation of this view that in Am. vi. 2 
 
1 68 CRITIC A BIB Lie A iii. 9 
 
 D'lntarr corresponds exactly to i^JoTirr here. The agreement 
 hardly needs further development ; ' Calneh ' in Am. l.c. 
 (and ' Calno ' in Isa. x. 9) designates the same city which is 
 here called in MT. No-amon. It was, in short, one of those 
 cities whose names ultimately go back to 'Jerahmeel,' not 
 of course the □''anN Tii> oi v. i, the fpNOHT of v. 7. All 
 that is genuine in v. 8 is the opening clause pOM N3Q ■'aJaTirr, 
 or rather (for n2D is dittographic, and inJaTin has acci- 
 dentally expelled a group of similar letters which seems 
 originally to have followed it) ^Nom"' mnmo ■'ItoTirr. It 
 was a Jerahmeelite or N. Arabian city called Rehoboth, 
 whose sad fate is described in v. 10. And there is some 
 probability in the view that the barbarities attending the 
 capture of the same city are referred to in Hos. x. 1 4, where 
 SnN nil should certainly be either ^ndhT' rcn or 'm"' nin[m]. 
 The destruction of Beth-jerahmeel or Rehoboth-jerahmeel by 
 the N. Arabian king Shalman seems to have produced a 
 deep impression on the Israelite mind. Cp. also on Am. 
 i. 13. Now as to the addition to the brief but telling 
 question, .' Art thou better than Rehoboth-jerahmeel ' ? It 
 begins with QiiNil mtBTl. This is almost certainly a cor- 
 ruption of SNom"' f?NSD©i, i.e. ' Ishmael, Jerahmeel,' two 
 glosses on the obscure jidn n3 (or the form which may have 
 preceded this). Then follows a series of conjectural attempts 
 to read the already corrupt groups of letters which came to 
 represent 'm^ 'i3a)\ D^a, ni hr^, D^D, and rrnoin represent 
 fjNOm"' ; rr^ TId represents 'jNsnm"'. We shall find many 
 parallels. 
 
 iii. 9. Point Dinap. BID probably comes from mE3, 
 W-yh from -a-n^-h = Q'^is^l ? See on Gen. x. 6, 1 3. 
 
 iii. 15^16/ ' Delete pS^D ib^Nn.' ' After the || impera- 
 tives read of course ^nn. JstOD?' So Wellhausen ; Nowack, 
 as usual, follows. But this is not at all penetrating criticism ; 
 experience points in quite another direction. The second 
 lf?DNn certainly is dittographic and should be omitted. But 
 the rest of v. 15^, and also v. 16a, are simply an expansion 
 of imi Qinsnsi nnw^ qi^ndht' rvT^rj. It is not denied 
 that p^i is the name of a kind of locust, but its presence 
 here is due to corruption of ^Nom"' (or ,p^Qi?, cp. on Joel 
 i. 4). The other corruptions ought soon to become plain. 
 
iii. 1 8 NAHUM 169 
 
 For San, see on i K. x. 15 ; for 3D13, on Judg. v. 20, Am. 
 V. 26 ; for Q1DQJ, Judg. v. 20, Isa. xlvii. 1 3, etc. ; for tst&D, 
 cp. E. Bib., ' Shaphat ') ; for Tlf^Q, cp. on Isa. xxxiii. 1 3 
 (a'h-iyti) ; for T1DS23. see E. Bib., ' Pathrusim.' ?]i>i"i would 
 not be clear, but for laBJD = nD[n]2J which precedes it. The 
 passage may be restored thus, with all the repetitions, 
 Q-'SNSDm-' 'ht D-'^NonT' n-imn nnwa 'nn 'rw nianrr ^Nom'' 
 ■'11^3 DTim2iT nnM □■'fpNom-' nnns 'rr\\ Paul Ruben, it is 
 true, acutely emends TiTi^n into '?i';"r"r3D, an Ass. loan-word 
 (mindidu, ' measuring-clerk ') parallel to TinDDts. See E. Bib., 
 ' Scribe,' § 4. This is plausible upon a conservative view of 
 the historical reference to the prophecy. Still, it is probable 
 that noata in Jer. li. 27 is corrupt, and the best view of the 
 reference of this prophecy and of Isa. xxxiii. is not the 
 conservative one. (5's 6 avfLfjuiKTo^ <rov may be = ^n», a 
 variant to nnwD. 
 
 iii. 18. According to W. R. Arnold, m^M ^f?Q is a 
 clumsy interpolation, originally a gloss to ys"). Another 
 doubt concerns ^og and laac (@ eKoifiiarev = T^Wn). For 
 the latter Now. reads "ilSffli, Wellh. ^^m^, ' sleep,' thinking of 
 the sleep of death (Now.) or of carelessness (Wellh.). But 
 1D3 (as in Ps. Ixxvi. 6) should be ^d3, 17D represents ^MoriT', 
 T^"'^N 1332)^ comes from Qins") ;»13. The whole verse 
 becomes, ' Thy companions have fled, O Asshur ; thy people 
 are dispersed on all the mountains, and there is none to 
 gather them.' ' Jerahmeel, Cushan, and the Arabians ' is a 
 gloss on T'Sl. The Jerahmeelites have already been referred 
 to as the allies of the besieged people. Asshur, of course, is 
 a N. Arabian people still called by this name archaistically. 
 For a probable allusion to v. lyb see on Ps. cix. 23. 
 
HABAKKUK 
 
 Friedrich Delitzsch {Prol. 84; Ass. HWB 281) 
 connects the name with Ass. jkambakuku, the name of a 
 garden-plant. If, however, the centre of the prophets' was 
 in S. Palestine, where the Jerahmeelite or N. Arabian 
 element was strong, we need not be afraid of the conjecture, 
 supported by the occurrence of ppno for ^Nom*' in Ps. Ix. 9, 
 that p^p^y^, like pllpl and TT'pypi, Ezra ii. 51, Neh. xi. 17, 
 has arisen out of some corruption of fpNoriT^. Whether, 
 however, this was the prophet's real name, is quite uncertain ; 
 his father's name, at any rate, is not given. 
 
 Chap. i. 4. Nowack views the closing words as a late 
 insertion. But 7p2;a is a corruption of ^NoriT. The under- 
 lying text of V. 4 is not otherwise clear. 
 
 i. 6. For mtosn read DitSlsn. The epithet inD3- 
 awakens suspicion. Neither ' rash ' (Isa. xxxii. 4) nor 
 ' anxious ' (Isa. xxxv. 4) will suit here, and there are parallels 
 for the view that both nDH and nno^rr come from some other 
 underlying word. What that word is, can hardly be doubt- 
 ful. Read simply SNOnT ^'^^T\, which is a gloss on Qiffiia. 
 — 8. M 'y^;s. Rather y\s or (as Jer. v. 6) n'Q'TJ?. @ ttjs 
 'Apa^ia<s. Nowack rightly reads T'tCia nr ^iN^a l^pl, but 
 he points y^3, whereas @ should rather be followed. He 
 also regards ^si;; pIlTiQ as an editorial patch, suggested by 
 the dittographed T'^)^D. These words, however, have doubt- 
 less sprung from some corruption of vm33"in (cp. Jer. iv. 17)'. 
 
 Chap. ii. 3. It is usual to suppose that the 'vision' 
 which is to be written down is contained in v. 4. But the 
 truth seems to be that a part of it exists in v. 3. nriN"' N7 
 (like nnw and QinriN elsewhere) comes from f?NO^■^^ ' Though 
 
 170 
 
iii. HABAKKUK 171 
 
 it linger, wait for it ; for Jerahmeel will surely come.' The 
 inscription, thus read, has the historical colouring which the 
 II passage, Isa. viii. i, entitles us to expect. 
 
 ii. 5. For ]^^n Mr. H. W. Robinson suggests ■'3vri, ' the 
 Greek.' The emendation is probably right, but i^vn may 
 be presumed to mean, not ' the Greek,' but ' the Yamanite,' 
 i.e. ' the Jerahmeelite.' All that Wellh. suggests for the 
 ' impossible ' )i'>rT is iirr, but he leaves -^a pjnt unaccounted for. 
 @ KaTOto/ievo? {KaToivovfievo<; or Kar(pvcofievo<;). At i". 4 a 
 fresh section appears to begin. 
 
 W. 16 f. M fjlOT"). ®, however, presupposes ^i»nrn. 
 {koX aeLadrjn) ; so Aq., Vg. Kimhi and some moderns (e.g. 
 Wellh.) prefer this. But experience shows that both Sn»[n] 
 (see E. Bib., ' Shechem ') and hs'iT! (see on Nah. ii. 4) may 
 be corruptions of T'Nnm''. The presumption that here too 
 this is the right reading is overpoweringly strong. Cruelty 
 to the northern Lebanon is only a possible ground of com- 
 plaint, if that Lebanon was occupied at this time by men of 
 Judah, and in no case is it conceivable that the ruthless 
 destruction of animals was represented as the cause of the 
 fall of an empire. It is the cruelties attendant on the 
 capture of a city, or cities, that must be meant, and the 
 event referred to is probably the capture of Rehoboth- 
 jerahmeel ( = Beth-jerahmeel), a place in the Negeb (see on 
 Nah. iii. 8, 10, Jer. xxii. 6 ff., Hos. x. 14). panS will be 
 the southern Lebanon which we have met with elsewhere 
 (see e.g. on Jer. xxii. 20, 23). jnTT' is usually corrected into 
 Tfrirr (cp.- @, ■n-ro'^a-ei as). But the remedy appears too easy, 
 nor is the parallelism produced satisfactory. It is better to 
 read ^Mom"' niirn. lun. The final letter in jDTT"' represents 
 h. For the correction of mDrrD cp. on Jon. iv. 11. 
 
 Chap. iii. A psalm ascribed to Habakkuk. The pious 
 community speaks, pleading for a renewal of the wonders of 
 the Exodus from Misrim. The heading (cp. OP i$6 /.) 
 shows that the piece originally stood in a collection of psalms. 
 It is, however, a mistal^e to suppose that the subscription in 
 V. ig originally belonged to the heading. Surely it is rather 
 either a part or the whole of the heading of the psalm which 
 followed in the collection referred to. Cp. the mD-f?i> in Ps. 
 xlviii. 15, and see Nestle, ZATW xx. 168 [1900]. 
 
172 CRITIC A BIB Lie A iii- 2 
 
 -m2''itt). Probably an error for n-'3-'Dt», i.e. D-'^MSom'' (cp. 
 ;oa>, from 'ami, Isa. x. 27). See E. Bib., ' Shigionoth,' and 
 introduction to Ps?'^ 
 
 In vv. 3, 9, 1 3, we meet with rh^D. The first and third 
 are geographical glosses on jdti and T)2p (disguised as 1N12) 
 respectively. The ^Nom"' in v. 9 was perhaps a variant to 
 the preceding noN = qin. The scenery is Jerahmeelite, N. 
 Arabian ; on a Jerahmeelite Teman, see on Judg. iii. 8. 
 
 iii. 2. caa) npl is variously explained (see Now., who 
 paraphrases ' in the midst of the years of the child who is 
 now gray-haired '), but is surely corrupt. Read '?Ni>Qt&'' np3. 
 The community is in captivity (cp. Ps. Ixxvii. 2 in Ps?^, and 
 see below on w. \o ff^. 
 
 iii. 3. After e^ opov<; ^apav, (3 adds KaracrKiov Saa-eo<;, 
 i.e. perhaps n^s'W h%n, which would come from Tiijto 7Ni>atB"', 
 two glosses (cp. on Ezek. xxxi. 3). n7D = 7NDm"' follows 
 (see h^o, preceding note). 
 
 iii. 4. Read perhaps — 
 
 Cp. V. II. ]~\p does not mean ' a ray of light ' ; as in 
 Ex. xxxiv. 29 we should read pni. See E. Bib., ' Horn.' 
 Ruben (JQR, 1899, p. 452) has already seen that DtS (MT.) 
 or Dto (Hitz., Wellh., after @, Aq., Sym., Pesh.) represents a 
 substantive. But surely DtCI and "i^ must be taken together. 
 
 iii. 7. ' One of the finest expressions in any literature of 
 the passage of evil tidings through the tremulous East ' (G. 
 A. Smith, Exp., Jan. 1903, p. 9). But the text is surely 
 corrupt, and the corrections adopted by Nowack from Perles 
 (Anal. 66) appear to need these three additions, (i) '^^nN 
 should be "hyri (see on Ps. xv. i); (2) mi)"'T should be 
 niapiM (see on Jer. iv. 20) ; (3) piD pnN should be -Tiso (cp. 
 ns beside pTS, Joel iii. 4, both corruptions of Tiso ; also pTO 
 for n>i2n, Ex. ii. i 5 /). Cp. E. Bib., ' On.' 
 
 iii. 8. Qinnai, twice, is a considerable difficulty. Gratz 
 and G. A. Smith would change the first into a'>in3. The 
 only adequate solution, however, is suggested by the phrase 
 D"''in3 mN, where (see on Gen. xxiv. i o) '3 is a corruption of 
 
iii. 17 HABAKKUK 173 
 
 "JMOm"'. The first '3 may have been written by an error for 
 Q»3. D"' in D"'a also represents 'm"', or rather ]D"' ( = 'nT'). 
 ^ml^ £3''l DN seems to be a variant to Idn D"'nn3n DN ; it 
 may therefore be omitted. 
 
 iii. 10 ff. As Nowack remarks, the author of Ps. Ixxvii. 
 probably knew the psalm ascribed to Habakkuk ; the paral- 
 lelism between the two psalms is unmistakeable (see above, 
 on V. 2). Ps. Ixxvii. 1 7-20 probably contains an anticipation 
 of the destruction of the foes of Israel, archaically designated 
 ' Jerahmeelites ' and ' Misrites,' by a second deluge. 
 
 iii. 13. For hJT'tpp and hTpn. Possibly the error may 
 not be altogether accidental. See on Isa. xlv. i. — 13. For 
 ^^^^S-^^ read Ti5jp "i^s (on ' Selah,' see above). 
 
 iii. 1 7. bpM nto n"^ niDltSl. Even the cautious Nowack 
 admits the difficulty of this ; for '^m he suggests TriXb, which 
 is plainly inadequate. See SBOT, ' Isaiah ' (Heb.), pp. 121, 
 198. Read ^DtDN nms nS T[op^, 'and (though) the vine- 
 blossom produces no grape-cluster' ; cp. on Dt. xxxii. 32. 
 
ZEPHANIAH 
 
 The key at our disposal unlocks some of the secrets of this 
 book in the most satisfactory manner. Zephaniah, in spite 
 of his Jerahmeelite name (an expansion of Saphan = Saphon, 
 see on Jer. i. 1 3 f.), and consequently extraction, which is 
 confirmed by the Jerahmeelite names of his ancestors, is 
 vehemently opposed to the reactionary Jerahmeelite Baal- 
 worship which still survives in Judah. His is a ' strong and 
 significant prophecy ' (G. A. Smith), indeed perhaps more so 
 than has been supposed. I have referred here to Schwally 
 as well as Wellhausen for his long and learned article on 
 Zephaniah in ZATW x. 165-240 [1890]. He is certainly 
 right in questioning the supposed reference to the Scythian 
 invasion which Wellhausen {Kl. Pr9^ I54_/;) accepts. See 
 E. Bib., ' Prophet,' § 40. 
 
 Chap. i. 3. Wellh. remarks (i) on the 'intolerable 
 repetition ' at the end of v. 3, which may or may not be 
 due to the author ; and (2) on the self-evident interpolation 
 respecting the ' stumbling-blocks with the wicked.' Hardly 
 adequate criticism. As for (i) D^N^ is almost, or quite, 
 certainly a corruption of ^NDm^ and as for (2) nif?t!J3i2rr is 
 a corruption of D^^nnmDn (cp. on ffiDDon, v. 11), and n^l>t»1 
 of Di"!f N (cp. on z/. 8, ii. 1 3). Render, ' I will consume . . . 
 the fishes of the sea, and those that prostrate themselves 
 with the Asshurites (N. Arabians), and I will cut off Jerah- 
 meel from the face of the land.' 
 
 i. 4. According to Wellh. ' the asyndeton riN . . . iNtC n« 
 DtO is suspicious ; am nx seems to be a variant of in© nw. 
 There is no question of difference between D"'nD3 and DiarrS ; 
 the accumulation of names expresses totality.' Schwally, on 
 
 174 
 
i. 8 ZEPHANIAH 175 
 
 the other hand, on account of @'s to, ovofiara and the 
 parallelism, would read DO) riN twice over ! But surely it is 
 now possible to see that ntD riN is a relic of n"'^N:»otD"' ns 
 (dcJ, like ]Dm, often represents 'omi, cp. E. Bib., ' Shem '), that 
 D"'nOD comes from n"''?NOm"' (cp. on 2 K. xxiii. 5 ), and D'^arrD 
 frpm D'^np (cp. on v. 11, Zech. xiv. 2 1 , Ezek. xliv. go). 
 Render, 'and I will cut off from this place the remnant of 
 Baal, [and] the Jerahmeelites with the Kenizzites.' Omit 
 ' Ishmaelites ' as a gloss. 
 
 i. 5. Wellh. remarks, ' That the prophet lumps together 
 the worshippers of the stars and of Milcom, is surprising.' 
 He regards D^'i'ltoan as a (right) correction of the follow- 
 ing D"'i;lt&3m. Omitting the "1, we get the sense, ' those 
 worshippers of Yahwe who at the same time swear by 
 Milcom' (so Hitz.). This is not quite satisfactory. We 
 expect two classes of offenders to be mentioned. Elsewhere 
 (see on i K. xi. S) we have seen that DD^D (Milcom??) is a 
 corruption of S'NDm'', also that "JNom"' is most probably an 
 expanded form of D^■l^ which is ni^, ' the moon,' with the 
 Arabic ' mimmation.' This gives an increased probability 
 to a conjecture of Nestle that for miT'S' we should read Tfi^ 
 (cp. Dt. xvii. 3, Jer. viii. 2, Job xxxi. 26). Render, ' and those 
 that prostrate themselves before the moon, that swear by 
 Jerahmeel ' ; omit 'ffi^n as a scribe's error. Parallel passages, 
 Hos. iv. 1 5 (end), Isa. xliv. 5 (probably) ; see footnote on 
 Zeph. v. 3. As a contrast, note Elijah's leniency to Naaman, 
 a worshipper of Yahwe at heart but of Rimmon (rather 
 Jerahmeel) outwardly ; see on 2 K. v. 18. 
 
 i. 8 /! Why should the ' princes ' and the ' king's sons ' 
 be mentioned, but not the king? For D"'"i^ri read cn^Nn, 
 and for fhan "'31 read (as usual) ^ndHT' "'33. And why 
 ' foreign apparel ' ? Two ethnics lie concealed under the 
 phrase. Read, as v. ?>b, D"'3"ir7T Q"'f?Mi;om'' f?D ^i?T (cp. on Isa. 
 ii. 6). Again compare Ezek. xliv. ga, ' No Jerahmeelite or 
 Asshurite shall enter my sanctuary,' and see on 2 S. v. 8. 
 It was, according to i S. v. 5, a custom of the N. Arabian 
 devotees of Dagon (Gadon ? cp.) to spring over the threshold 
 of their temple (as specially sacred ; thus the connection 
 between v. 8 and v. 9 is perfect). — V. gb should run, D"'N^dd 
 
176 CRITIC A BIB Lie A i. lo 
 
 i. 10/ For natoan p read n3^;'ri nr©p (see E. Bib.^ 
 ' College '), i-e. SNi^am*' ISWO} Just before, the fish gate is 
 mentioned ; see Neh. xii. 39, and wherever this phrase 
 occurs read ni"r3,n ISW, ' gate of the Gadites ' (see on 2 K. 
 xi. 16). FormnDon read Q-'inntOon nn (see on 2 K. xxiii. 
 1 3) ; for ]S3D read iDjp, and for ?)DD ■''?"'£33 read sqfp ''^■'^9, ' those 
 that work secret enchantments.' Cp. D'^ish, Q'^lonh. 
 
 Chap. ii. 1,2. F. 2 is rightly corrected by Wellh. (after 
 @, save that ® reads p for }>a)'. But v. i remains in its 
 disorder. It is not enough to read 'itcn'j ^mtpianil (Che., 
 Proph. Is., on Isa. xxix. 9 ; more recently Budde) ; v. i 
 must be corrupt throughout (cp. Schwally, pp. 181, 218). 
 Read D-'np if? lOT'i cmia mrrh iirjnmni. Cp. Ps. ii. 1 1 /. 
 (emended text), Zech. xiv. 16. VTinh is required as a || 
 to ^h, though only represented by T in "itOlpi. 
 
 ii. 4- 1 2. (For Winckler's discussion of vv. 5-7 see A OF^^^ 
 ii. 2 3 2 _/! His presuppositions are quite different from 
 mine.) "Tji? may be a name of nDls ; 's '^ = Zarephath the 
 Strong. pSpffiN is a substitute for "j^On, probably an early 
 correction of ^Ni?DtD"' (cp. on i S. xxvii. 6) ; nTrt&N for ninfflM 
 or nima. ; ^ ]']'ips is a popular distortion of ^NDm^ and QimD 
 of DTiim. D"'n 'pin comes from f?Nnm\ ;i>33 (which We. 
 would cancel) from np ; D'^ntC^D from QTiS"!!^. For metre's ' 
 sake read l^p pN, and transfer '•\)L pN to the end of v. 5 (thus 
 we get a kina-verse). In v. 6 rrriTn with h^lTl has been found 
 puzzling. Wellh.'s words (Kl. Proph?^ I53) are, 'Rightly 
 LXX., Koi €<TTai, JLp^TTj vofir) -TToi/jLvimv = £D"'i?T n"i3 to^^ nriTn ; 
 only mD is not the name of the island of Crete, but of the 
 land of the, Philistines. The combination of the Philistines 
 with the Cretans and the explanation of Caphtor by Crete 
 certainly seems to me to lie rather close at hand.' Bohme 
 (ZATW vii. 212) and Winckler (AOF^^^ ii. 232) do not agree 
 with this view of rnD. According to the former m5 is a mere 
 repetition of m3. According to the latter, vv. 5,6 formed 
 
 1 See on 2 Chr. xiii. 19 ; also on 2 K. xxii. 14, where nwD occurs 
 again without njfE', so that possibly maa, i.e. '?NyDE" (cp. on iDiy, Isa. x. 27), 
 may be the name of a part of Jerusalem, possibly the upper part (cp. on 
 ' Millo,' I K. ix. 1 5). 
 
 2 -m^ seems to be required to produce a paronomasia with rct^v. 
 Schwally (p. 182) cannot explain why nnE-N has suggested no parono- 
 masia. But the prophet did not write nniyn. 
 
ii. 3 ZEPHANIAH 177 
 
 originally a separate oracle, addressed to the Cretans ; LXX., 
 :herefore, is right in giving Kprjraiv (v. 5) and Kp^ri) (v. 6). 
 A. most hazardous view, surely! Can we get no further 
 :han this? Experience of the newer critical, methods else- 
 Adhere seems to show that m3 and m3 are bolikfragments 
 if m^mN (constructed with a fem. verb ; cp. Ges.^^^^''§\i45 k), 
 ind that D-<si, like DTT f?3n, is fpNOm"' (cp. Am. i. 2^ 
 f. 4). The T in nmil may be a relic of h. Thus 
 igain have a kina-verse. The opening of zj. 7 is a late in- 
 sertion (We.), but it has not been rightly read. 'jNom"' 
 stands there in two forms — f?nn and DTrhs. Read, therefore, 
 TlMT nin n-'lMtof? 'hT' wm. The original writing had (con- 
 tinuing JN2 nmiS) — 
 
 : psST nnsa I f73tc« tiii ;"i:;t' 
 
 Thus Schwally's difficulty that ' Ashkelon ' in w. 7 has no 
 parallel, is removed. All between v. 7 and w. 12 (We.), or 
 rather v. 1 3, is an interpolation. It is worth approximating 
 to the true text, however. In z;. 8 (end) read il''i;'?i"i (also 
 in v. 10 and in all similar cases). In v. 9 'Moab' and 
 Ammon ' are probably a scribe's explanatory insertions. 
 pmoa (!) represents ams (cp. Gen. xv. 2). f?Tin, m30, n^o, 
 md probably Dh^s-is, represent 'm*'. Read (restoring the 
 paronomasias), nnoM 'ttt' lan TT'Tm mD3 ntOD •^a ; nonm 
 :omes from 'aw, a gloss. In v. iia for niT read nt3, and 
 For fMin ■^nhii-h'2 read probably D-'^NOm"' (pNH is merely an 
 insertion to help out the sense, after corruption had taken 
 place). — In w. 11b, 12 read rrm^Y\ QTi3sm wn^i^ n"'n^"'.> 
 Dittograms are obvious ; iDlpDD and QDN Dl both = DTiDsn. 
 hhn and rftm •'nn both = Di'?NDm% a gloss on DTOSO. 
 
 ii. 1^ f. pD2 is the land of Zaphon, to which Ti©m, i.e. 
 11BJ3, is parallel, ma'^^ = ^Nonil [t's]. — V. i /^a should prob- 
 ibly run — 
 
 □m» TOini ism 
 
 Chap. iii. ib, 3. By way of shaming its citizens, the 
 prophet calls Jerusalem ' city of Jerahmeel ' (cp. on Isa. 
 sxix. I ), its princes, ' Jerahmeelites,' and its judges, ' Arabians.' 
 The corrected readings are ni3Din Trn or ^Mom'' TS (for 
 
178 CRITIC A BIB Lie A m. 
 
 TOrn T'i>n ; see on Jer. xlvi. 1 6), Di^Ntam"' (for nriM, imi"' 
 and npnS), Q'^mi; (for i3Nl and y-iH, both of which come fn 
 '^Ti^.) To these we must add D"'^Ni?Dffi"' (represented 
 O'llNm = D-'3Nm, cp. it03N not unfrequently for fjMSOtO"'), wh 
 is a gloss on D"'^NDm"'. The editor had a corrupt text, a 
 remembered Jer. v. 6, Hab. i. 8, where, however, invad 
 are spoken of 
 
 iii. lo. A locus desperatus till we have found the k 
 ^•\T\)3 and ■'21Q nn are both mutilations of nsns[D]. Read- 
 
 ! Tinao j^^nr nn-iso 
 
 But this is not all. The closing words of v. g receive lig 
 from the N. Arabian theory. Tnt^ Q3tO, ' with one shouldi 
 is grotesque. Read ■pNDm"' fcp, perhaps a marginal corn 
 tion of miD ■'ina^ (v. lo). Cp. on iriN, I S. i. I. 
 
HAGGAI 
 
 This prophet's name, too, evidently represents an ethnic 
 (Haggi or Hagaiah) ; see on Haggith, 2 S. iii. 4. Probably 
 in i. 13 (a gloss from the margin ?) the prophet is called 
 ■'^NOm"', a reading which is concealed under the two corrupt 
 variants mri"' is'pa and mrr"' m3Mf?Dl. The gloss (?) means 
 that Haggai and Malachi are the same person. It may be 
 noticed here that mrf, both in proper names and elsewhere, 
 sometimes represents m*' in "jNom"'. Haggai was early 
 identified with Malachi. See E. Bib., ' Malachi.' 
 
 Chap. i. i , 15. Perhaps the original had, not miim, but 
 ■'nE>N (' the Asshurite king '). 
 
 i. 9. Read perhaps n'%'\r\ (Prov. x. 4) for Qian. See 
 E. Bib., col. 1935, note 4. 
 
 Chap. ii. 5. ® omits the first part of this verse. Was 
 the text illegible or only difficult? Something there must 
 have been between the solemn asseveration '12 '■> DM and 
 irmi- Looking at the text in MT., we are struck by several 
 difficulties, (i) Why imn DN? (2) Why the verb ma? 
 (3) ' My spirit abides in your midst' is synonymous with ' I 
 am with you' {v. 4, end). (4) The sentence, however ex- 
 plained, does not fit into the context. Evidently, the editor 
 must (as so often) have manipulated an imperfect or uncon- 
 genial text, and what we have to do is to read underneath 
 his text. With the key in our hands, we may probably 
 restore thus — nffis D'^^MonTi. Q'^isaiii a"'niniriT nii-i;>ri-nN 
 1MT'ri"f?M Dpp'ina. In these words faithful Jews are directed 
 not to be afraid of the large number of N. Arabians who 
 have settled themselves in Palestine during the captivity of 
 so many of the Jewish people. D3nN is a corrupt and 
 
 179 
 
i8o CRITIC A BIB Lie A ii. 7 
 
 manipulated dittogram of 'im and tsDHNSl of Q"'n:5D. ^n 
 for ni> is a corruption to be found elsewhere, and the ex- 
 panded corruption moi? "Tm, for 'rw, is quite in the style of 
 the editors. 
 
 ii. 7. ® is certainly right in assuming the plur. fern, 
 ending, but both here and in i S. rnon should be nhpp, 
 ' the tributes (of).' 
 
 ii. 22. The colouring becomes much more vivid if we 
 read ^ndht^ for the vague mafpOD, and ^Nom"' ria for 'on 
 □"'"lin. The chariots and horses spoken of are those for 
 which the larger kingdom of Jerahmeel was specially famous 
 among the Israelites. See on i K. x. 28/^ 
 
ZECHARIAH 
 
 The higher criticism of chaps, ix— xiv. will have some day 
 to be reconsidered on the basis of a revised text. It is, e.g., 
 hardly possible to maintain that ' Asshur ' means either 
 ' Assyria ' or the empire of the Seleucids, or that ' Javan ' 
 clearly means ' Greece.' Nor can we safely say, with Prof. 
 G. A. Smith {Twelve Prophets, ii. 464), that ix. 6-8 ' are 
 certainly post-exilic, because of their mention of the half- 
 breeds.' It seems to me that we have been working too 
 contentedly in twilight, and that fresh rays of a brighter 
 light are bursting in upon us. 
 
 Chap. i. 8. — rh%-&% nmij Csirrn ]"'3. Two points should 
 be remarked (i) that no attempt is made to symbolise these 
 ' myrtles ' (contrast Tg. and Kimhi), which therefore pre- 
 sumably owe their origin to corruption of the text ; and (2) 
 that in the eighth and last vision the central point is said 
 to be ' between the two mountains — now the mountains are 
 mountains of Cushan ' (reading jm^3 ; see on vi. i ). As to 
 the diiificult D"'Dnn, MT. in vi. i and @ in i. 8 {ava fikaov rwv 
 opecov) suggest the probably true reading D'^nn ; the d in 
 D''mn possibly comes from □ ; the D actually found is 
 dittographed. As to nf?2Q3, we might at first sight suppose 
 it to be a corruption of l^5Sp3, ' in Missur.' But the 
 following word TinnsT (which, as Wellh. remarks, ' causes 
 difficulties ') is, according to numerous parallel cases, a 
 corruption of ^MDm^ and the case of D^2 in Am. v. 26 (see 
 note) leads one to suppose that nSsoi represents ^NSOtO'^l. 
 Read, therefore, [^NOHT'] ^MSom-'l iWio D^tnn yi. 
 
 i. 8. We are now in a position to explain DID-fji; 35i 
 d'tn, which both Ew. and We. rightly feel to be very 
 
 181 
 
1 82 CRITIC A BIBLICA ii. lo 
 
 awkward. It is simply a corruption of 'D^N 'did ■?MDm% 
 which corresponds to 'D^N 'did VinNl in MT. Render, 
 therefore, ' And behold a man — he stood between the 
 mountains which are in Ishmael [Jerahmeel] — and horses 
 (n-'DlDl),' etc. 
 
 Chap. ii. 10/ Read iDia (first t transposed), l^nNO, and 
 TiSDN (following @, nearly as We.) ; then f?NOnT' na»r, 
 also S'Ni>Dm"'Q, see on Am. vi. i (to take jrs as = ' to Zion ' is 
 unnatural). So w. 10 and 11 become nearly parallel. 
 For the close ol v. 11 see next note. \\Xi%, as usual, means 
 the N. Arabian land of Zaphon ( || Ti2D). 
 
 ii. 12. Wellh. and Nowack have rightly seen that the 
 clause ■'3n^a> ~ni3 inN interrupts the context, but they 
 have not explained its origin. The same combination 
 (^"ln^ iriN) occurs in Ps. Ixxiii. 24, where we might point 
 ^^3^ m.N, ' the path leading to (the final) glory.' The same 
 pointing is suitable here, if we complete the phrase with 
 ijn^B ("T and 3 confounded, and ■> inserted for sense) and 
 attach it to v. 11. Certainly v. 11, as it stands, requires 
 some addition (cp. v. lob). Completed as here proposed, 
 it will run thus, ' Ho ! escape from Ishmael, O people that 
 dwellest in Jerahmeel ; on the path of glory he has sent 
 thee.' Still better we might read '3 {>"in, ' to the land of 
 glory ' ; this is only slightly bolder,^ and gives an easier sense. 
 In V. g the prophet has told us that Yahw^ will be ' glory ' 
 in the midst of Jerusalem. ■'^rt^QJ was miswritten under 
 the influence of the close of w. 13. 
 
 Chap. iii. 8. For nos read perhaps }>nb (see on 
 vi. 9 ff., end). 
 
 Chap. iv. 7, 9. SeWm {Studien, 1901,11. 93/) suggests 
 that the ' mountain ' referred to may very well be the great 
 heap of the ruins of the temple (note N"'2"irr, ' bring out '). 
 In Babylonia the preliminary to the restoration of a ruined 
 temple was the search for the old foundation-stone, to which 
 enormous sanctity attached. The phrase tONnn JlNH (so 
 read, for natUNin ]lNn, V. 7) may at least as well mean the 
 foundation-stone as the top-stone. Adopting this view, 
 it seems best to correct ^llin in into Vt'h'Sj in, ' mountain 
 
 1 Cp. the instances in which, according to Dr. D. H. Weir, px has 
 taken the place of m>. Academy, iv. 251 [Ps. Ixvii. 5, cxvi. 9, cxUii. 10]. 
 
vi. 9 ZECHARIAH 183 
 
 of the heaps (ruins),' and for imp-; (v. 9) to read ^nc)^"' 
 (future). 
 
 iv. 10. The apposition 'jmn pun gives an incorrect 
 explanation of the stone ' in the hand of Zerubbabel.' 
 But 7nin is not a mere gloss (cp. Marti, Stud. Krit. 
 1892, p. 213, note); it is probably a corruption either 
 of Sint Tl or better of f?MDnT', a (correct) variant, pre- 
 served by a good fortune to which we shall find parallels in 
 the text of 2 Samuel, to ^nmi. 
 
 Chap. v. 3 f. Parallel passages {e.g. Isa. Ivii. 3, Mic. 
 v. 1 1, Zech. X. 2, Mai. iii. 5) suggest that sorcery or divina- 
 tion must have been included among the special sins of the 
 Jews. For liir\ read perhaps psan, and for ypXth "'Dffll 
 read '?Nl»Qa)"' Dt»l, ' by the name of (the god) Ishmael.' See 
 on Mai. iii. 5.1 
 
 v. II. nMtD (Shinar?) here, as elsewhere, is suspicious, 
 though firmly rooted in our texts (cp. on ^35, Gen. xiv. 1 3, 
 1 8 ; IM, Gen. xxxvii. 2). See on Gen. x. i o. 
 
 Chap. vi. i. The enigmatical 'mountains of brass' 
 ( = copper-yielding mountains ?) are due to the editor. Read 
 )ffl3, 'Cushan.' See on i. 8, and cp. on ntOTO, Gen. iv. 22. 
 
 vi. 2-7. Wellh. is nearly right, but in v. 6, not having 
 the key, he could not point out that Drr"'inN"7M represents 
 ^NOm"' [pN]"f?N, and that the name of the district to which 
 the red horses (n^'QlNn, not CSONn) were sent underlies 
 "llOpTT ; read D»^3 [H^l- The following words 'l 'h Txhh 
 are superfluous ; they are derived from the words which 
 MT. quite correctly gives after noN"'"!. 
 
 vi. 9 ff. The current explanation is hardly correct. 
 The donors of the silver and gold are not ' Babylonian Jews,' 
 but foreigners such as are referred to in Isa. Ix. 1 3, and 
 their gifts are niTOD such as Haggai probably refers to in 
 Hag. ii. 7. The text of this section has suffered partly by 
 
 1 The difficulties of Isa. xliv. 5 are well known. They can only be 
 fully surmounted by correcting the text in the light of Zeph. i. 5 ; we 
 thus obtain a parallel both for Mai. iii. 5 and for the passage before us. 
 There is no real connection between Isa. xliv. 4 and 5. V. c, describes 
 the divided religious allegiance of many of the Jews, and may originally 
 have stood after v. 8. 
 
 ^»!DnT DB'3 unp' nil I 'jk nwh idk' ni 
 ! ]i}i\ hKvae' nvy\ \ mS it ir\y mi 
 
 13 
 
1 84 CRITIC A BIBLICA vii. 2 
 
 ordinary corruption, partly by editorial, manipulation. Cor, 
 ruptions are n^lJin, n^n, and xhr\ for ^ndhT' (for the 
 ethnic names, see on Neh. ii. 19), rfllta for -'^nn, TTTT for 
 ■•m:) or if?Nam% ^^r^r^ qt^i for ^mdht, rv^mvc for ■^i!D», jn 
 {v. 14) for ^3-in, nriM n^n for hmdi, imd3-^» for i^-'oi-fjs 
 (®), rmtflS for mia:^. The main editorial alteration is the 
 substitution of Joshua ben Jehozadak for Zerubbabel [v. 11), 
 or perhaps the insertion of the whole clause about Joshua. 
 It is usual to suppose, further, that the title nD2, which may 
 have been drawn by the editor from Jer. xxiii. 5 , xxxiii. 1 5 
 (both post-exilic, see Duhm), has supplanted the name Zerub- 
 babel. This, however, is hardly right. The name (as we 
 must call it) nos cannot be due to the editor. Why did 
 he not say tit TKil ? and why did he accompany the bare 
 nos with the strange statement noS'^ TTinnDT? On the 
 other hand, by a slight transposition we obtain a title such 
 as Zechariah might have applied to the Messianic king. 
 For "iDtO nos read lOtD pno. pnb> 'striker, crusher,' is a 
 very fitting title for the Messianic king, at whose right hand 
 Yahwe will be invisibly present, dealing destruction to his 
 enemies. Cp. Num. xxiv. 8, Ps. Ixviii. 22, ex. 5. This 
 applies also, of course, to iii. 8. The following words, 
 nos"' Vnnncn. should probably be pno'^ T^nnaa^ ' and those 
 that shatter him (xi. 6) he will strike (crush).' 
 
 Chap. vii. 2. T'mjf?'! nsw-ito hy<r:% rhxiry More than 
 one view can be taken of this passage (see We., Marti in 
 Kau. HS, and E. Bib., ' Regem-melech.' It is possible that 
 justice has not been done to the reading '^ntT'I of M0, 
 which may with some reason be regarded as a distortion 
 of the N. Arabian ethnic Tubal. Now ' Regem-melech ' 
 being more than probably a distortion of 'Jerahmeel,' it 
 will follow that nSNiffi is not improbably a scribe's corruption 
 of n^M ; the final ^x will be a corruption of a dittographed 
 ^t&. If so, it was three clans of N. Arabian affinities, but 
 of orthodox Jewish religion, that sent to the temple to 
 make certain inquiries. See, however, on 2 K. xix. 37, 
 Jer. xxxix. 3, where another view of nSMltO is recom- 
 mended by the contexts. 
 
 Chap. ix. The whole of this chapter has to do with 
 Jerahmeel ; the names are archaistic. Not having observed 
 
ix. ZECHARIAH 185 
 
 this, interpreters have been involved in almost infinite 
 trouble. In w. 1-8, in particular, the fact that the original 
 prophecy has been worked over and recast has hindered a 
 consistent historical interpretation. For w. ib-ja let the 
 student compare Am. i. 7-10 (and notes). That a^N (v. \h) 
 should be D"iM, was first seen by Klost., who proposes 'n ""ns.^ 
 This is better (cp. on Isa. xvii. 2) than Ball's proposal (in 
 Smith's DB i.^^^ [1893], p. 1261^, 'n Dr. Klost, of course, 
 thinks of the best-known Aram. But it does not follow 
 from combination of ' Hadrach,' Damascus, and (by con- 
 jecture) Aram, that the northern Aram is referred to. 
 Analogy warns us here as elsewhere to look out for signs 
 of editorial recasting, and it is only this course which can 
 clear up the difficulties of the section. It may be admitted 
 to be in itself possible that ^^^^ may be a Hebraised form 
 of the Hatarika of the Assyrian inscriptions. But if on 
 other grounds the prophecy must be held to be late, we 
 may well hesitate to accept this otherwise unknown name. 
 Moreover, the strange prominence given to the 'land of 
 Hadrach ' may well give us pause. The experience which 
 we have by this time had of textual errors ought to suggest 
 the true explanation, -^rxn is a distortion of fpNom"', 
 while pB>0"T, as elsewhere {e.g. Ezek, xxvii. 1 8), is miswritten 
 for DB'ia. Thus V. I becomes, ' Yahwe's oracle is on the 
 land of Jerahmeel, and Cusham is its resting-place ; for 
 Yahwe's are the cities of Aram, and all the tribes of Ishmael.' 
 ^NltD"" and f7Ni?DQ)"' are, as the context shows, confounded ; 
 among other parallels notice Isa. xvii. 3, Ezek. xxvii. 17. 
 For the tribes of Ishmael see Gen. xxv. 13-15, and cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Tribes,' § 3. In z/. 2 for non read rosn ; and for 
 pT^SI ns read TtUD. In v. 3a read n^ nsip Tisp pPtX In 
 V. 4 for r^Ti read probably ri'^Sp"'!! (see on Ps. xlviii. 1 4) ; 
 cp. the II passage. Am. i. 10. In w. 5, 6 the original proper 
 names are f?3mN (l^ps ?), ms ( = Z^rephath ?), f?NDm% n^i&N 
 or n^no?, DTims. In v. 6 iiqq is perhaps a corruption of 
 
 ^ Stade's only objection (ZATIV, 1881, p. 15) to this is that the 
 combination of the names ' Aram ' and ' Israel ' in this passage is not 
 quite intelligible, whereas Israel and the heathen (din) form a natural 
 antithesis. But ' Israel ' also must be corrupt, if a clear and at all 
 points intelligible view is to be obtained. 
 
1 86 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ix. 9 
 
 ^NSDOy, i.e. Bedouin tribes. Cp. Isa. xiii. 20. But cp. E. 
 Bib., ' Scribe,' § 4. 
 
 ix. 9-17. In V. \oa read rr'nDn (Sta., We., after (g), 
 and ^NDHT nmp (for T\i::xh-Q 'p, see on Ps. Ixxvi. 4); 
 probably, too, nfjmiT' should be fpMromi. Ephraim is a 
 southern region. In v. lob n-'xh tihm im and D-'b "l^JBDI 
 D•l-^s are two corrupt forms of the same original, which was 
 ^NDHT'T bxi'Dm'^ Tnim. (m^B> for 'at»% as Isa. xxvi. 3.) 
 Cp. on Ps. Ixxxv. 9. In v. lob the nm spoken of (read 
 ~in3p) is the D'^12D nn3, the stream which bounded Missur 
 on the west ; pN "'DDM, «j usual, means the extreme south 
 of Palestine including the Negeb (cp. on Ps. Ixxii. 8). Vv. 
 11,12 have been hardly less misunderstood than the pre- 
 ceding verses. ' The blood of thy covenant ' — what does this 
 mean ? The sacrifices connected with the ancient covenant 
 of Yahw^ with Israel (Ex. xxiv. 5 ff.) ? The sacrifices which 
 Israel daily offers in virtue of the covenant and to maintain 
 its validity ? And what does ]"nsi mean ? And what is 
 the announcement made for the second time ^ \n v. 1 2b to 
 the so-called ' prisoners of hope ' ? does not help us ; 
 even its seductive ovtI jMid<i ■fjixepa'; irapoLKeaLa's crov (v. 1 2b), 
 which Stade {ZATW i. [1881], p. 17) approves, is but a 
 clever attempt to soften the difficulty of the traditional text. 
 As Nowack truly says, ' The abrupt transition from the 
 prisoners in v. 12a to Zion in v. 12b is very startling, and 
 all the more because Zion is already in existence.' We shall 
 probably get nearer the true text oi vv i\ f.hy reading — 
 
 na D-'D TN lansD •^-'T'dn •^nnW ninn naneo nw-D-i 
 
 The writer turns in w. 11 from the picture of the final result 
 — the extended empire of Israel — to its necessary pre- 
 liminary — the return of the exiles through a waterless desert 
 region (cp. Isa. xlviii. 21, xli. 17, and cp. Isa. xxx. 6). To 
 account for this, he assures his people that a stern destroying 
 word (ni?lN) will be spoken to the enemy by Yahw^. It 
 
 ^ Dvn DJ. ' But where is the quotation taken from,' asks Wellhausen. 
 G. Hoffmann tries to remedy the evil by reading iJO (for Tap), i.e. ' fruit,' 
 hke Syr. magda. But in a case like this such isolated corrections are 
 useless. 
 
X. II ZECHARIAH 187 
 
 should be noticed that both mpnrr (see on 2 K. xxii. 1 4) and 
 DTH £31 appear to have grown out of D^'^NDm"'. 
 
 ix. 1 3 /! ' It is a fight of the sons of Zion against the 
 sons of the Greeks ' (Stade ; so Wellh., Nowack, G. A. Smith). 
 Stade has a right to his opinion, for he has made a very 
 thorough study indeed of the passages referring to p"> 
 (reprinted in Akad. Reden, 1899, pp. 123-142). From the 
 newer point of view, however, adopted in the present work, 
 it is unhappily not possible to adhere to these results (see 
 on Gen. x. 2). jii (]a"') comes from ^Mom'^, and it is more 
 than probable that the 3 at the end of the second T^ai 
 represents the n in fjNOnT, as if to make us doubly sure ; 
 we may note in passing @'s rendering eTrt ra reKva r&v 
 '^XKrivmv, which is at any rate adverse to ii'^aa, ' thy sons.' 
 Note also jOTi in v. 14,' because he comes from Sinai ' ? — 
 asks Wellhausen. Yes ; the whole atmosphere is that of S. 
 Palestine and N. Arabia. 
 
 ix. IS /■ That yarvy should be oars, Klostermann, Stade, 
 etc., have pointed out, following n"^"' '^''AQr. But solutions 
 of other text-critical problems (see e.g. Stade, ZATW i. 19, 
 note I, Nowack's commentary, and the note in JQR x. 
 [1898], pp. 581/;) need to be revised in the light of the 
 ' Jerahmeelite theory.' It will probably be found that that 
 theory supplies the key to all of them. — In w. 1 5 both 173NT 
 and s^p represent fpNom"' ; ""^ix comes from •'ai. — In v. \6 
 lOS ]«23 andTJ3""'33N "'!) both represent the same original, viz. 
 ^SD ■'31 ■'3 (cp. ]M23 from niano, Ps. Ixxix. 21).^ mDD"i3nD 
 may come from D"'Q)m'l3no, but a stronger expression might 
 be fairly expected. [Klo.'s emendation (approved by Stade, 
 p. 18), D1^3;"i, introduces a tautology with itD33. The corrup- 
 tion "if?3NT for 'm"' is one of the most ordinary in the O.T.; 
 cp. on Isa. Ixvi. 17.] 
 
 Chap. x. \o f. The southern ' Asshur,' Gilead, and 
 Lebanon are meant ; point D"'isn. Cp. Isa. xxvii. 1 2 (note), 
 13, Jer, iii. 12 (note), 18. It is in S. Palestine and the 
 Negeb that this writer, like Ezekiel (chaps, xlvii. /!), places 
 the reunited Israelites. 
 
 X. II. An untimely recollection of the story of the 
 
 1 Note that juss \nv. 21 corresponds to yno in the duplicate of the 
 same distich {v. 16). See Ps.^'' ii. 14. 
 
1 88 CRITIC A BIBLICA xi. i 
 
 Exodus has contributed to produce the present text. Read 
 D-'^N^Dtc'^-ba 'iffiinni ns^i p"'i rx^rx). tiud \xin nisi,. 'And 
 he shall pass through Jaman-missur, and shall smite Jaman- 
 gilead, and all the Ishmaelites shall be in consternation.' 
 
 Chap. xi. 1-3. The conclusion of x. 3 ff. According 
 to Wellh. and Nowack ' Lebanon ' and ' Bashan ' represent 
 the kingdom of the Seleucidae (also designated 'Asshur'). 
 But again and again ]a>l is miswritten for, or altered from, 
 ]^3 (Am. iv. I ), and ' Lebanon ' as often means the moun- 
 tainous region of the N. Arabian border. For pTil )1Ni we 
 should in this case read ^ndjiT' ]1«1, ' the pride of (mount) 
 Jerahmeel.' This opens up a question as to the range of 
 meaning of nx and »113, and as to the probability that the 
 trees of the N. Arabian border were more abundant and 
 more varied than at present. — In v. 2 for nisin read perhaps 
 ~\'^sf&% (cp. Duhm on Isa. x. 33). — In v. 3 for Qisirr, which 
 can hardly be right, read ^NDnT" (with imnM) ; Wellh. keeps 
 D"'Snn but omits '^M. So Am. i. 2. For D'^T'SD niMU> read 
 perhaps D'^n"'?? nsim (confusions paralleled in the Psalms). 
 D^^T^lN, of course, means the cedars (cp. SBOT on Isa. x. 34). 
 
 xi. 4-17 and xiii. 7-9 should, as recent scholars (follow- 
 ing Ewald) agree, be taken together. The great difficulty 
 of the section is probably caused, not only by the difficulties 
 necessarily inherent in such symbolic narratives, but also by 
 corruption of the text. It will be most convenient to give 
 at once a view of the narrative which follows naturally from 
 the corrected text. The reader will at once understand 
 that the course actually taken by the present writer was a 
 differerent one ; certain corrections of the text occurred to 
 him as probable (in the light of textual phenomena, explained 
 already elsewhere), and this led to a critical and exegetical 
 re-examination of the whole passage. The prophet (can it 
 be Jeremiah who is dramatically introduced as the speaker ?) 
 has been invested by the God of Israel with what we may 
 call an efficient suzerainty over his land. This suzerainty, 
 he tells us in effect, was recognised even by the pitiless 
 tyrants who had bought their crowns from the greater kings 
 outside ('their buyers . . . their sellers'). Its outward 
 symbols were two pastoral staves, the one called by the 
 prophet Ammon, the other Jerahmeel ; as long as he kept 
 
3U. 7 ZECHARIAH 189 
 
 these staves unbroken, there was no danger to Judah, either 
 from the side of Ammon or from that of Jerahmeel. But 
 the misrule of the tyrants continued. Weary of it, the 
 prophet says that as a judicial act he {i.e. Yahw^, whom he 
 represents) cut off three of them (successively) by the hand 
 of Jerahmeel. He now cut asunder the staff called Ammon 
 as a sign that Judah was henceforth open to destructive in- 
 cursions from all the populations round about. The tyrants 
 of Judah understood this, but so small was their respect for 
 the prophet's office that, symbolically, they gave him as his 
 fee no more than thirty shekels (cp. Ex, xxi. 32) ; this he cast 
 into the temple treasury. His next step was to cut asunder 
 the other staff, called Jerahmeel, as a sign that no sense of 
 kinship was any longer to restrain Jerahmeel from doing its 
 worst upon Judah. But before he passed into the back- 
 ground, the prophet was directed by Yahwe to act dramati- 
 cally the part of a Jerahmeelite tyrant (for D'^pD, cp. Hab, 
 i. 6). All that the native tyrants had wickedly done, the 
 foreign governor would do with greater completeness. But 
 Yahwe is displeased with this excessive rigour. The governor 
 shall be slain, and though for a time the people of Judah 
 will be so sorely tried (by Jerahmeelites) that only a third 
 of it will be left, yet a bright and happy future, through the 
 repentance of the people, is in store for this third. — -The 
 ' three shepherds ' of z;. 8 seem to be Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, 
 and Zedekiah, all of whom, according to the prophet, were 
 set aside, if not killed, by the king of Jerahmeel (fjll). The 
 cutting asunder of the staff Ammon {v. 10) may refer 
 to the tradition in 2 K. xxiv. 2 (read D'^ffi^S, etc.) ; for the 
 ' breaking of the brotherhood between Jerahmeel and Israel ' 
 cp. Am. i. II, Ob. 10. The Jerahmeelite governor (xi. 15, 
 xiii. 7) is perhaps the governor whose story is now inac- 
 curately represented by that of Gedaliah. Cp. on Jer. xl. 
 
 xi. 7. ]«2n ■'!35 pS. Read, probably, not 'n ■'■'3W37 (as 
 Stade, Wellh., etc., following @), but 'n "'jip^ ; cp. v. 5. 
 Similarly in v. 11. — For D?b read pa:», and for tihyn read 
 ^MDriT (see on Ezek. xxvii. 24). So vv. 10, 14. Cp. xii. 2, 
 where a distinction seems to be drawn between ' Jerahmeel ' 
 and ' all the peoples.' 
 
190 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xi. 8 
 
 xi. 8. Read 1y<^'^ (without article) and fpNiDHT' T?- The 
 prophet did not himself cut off the shepherds. 
 
 xi. 13/ For np-' nnN read perhaps D''3JJlTt:? (see E. Bib., 
 col. 1 134, foot); for imp"' read (certainly) TpCyiO, and for 
 rrnrr"' read 'pNom"' (see above, and on xii. 2 ff.). 
 
 xi. 15-17. For i'?"iN (Houb. ^i"im) and h-hviij read 
 i^MpT7T (cp. on Isa. x. i o) ; and for rnsan read msMn. 
 
 Chap. xii. 1-7. The deliverance of Jerusalem from 'all 
 the peoples round about' by the help of converted Jerah-' 
 meel. The idea of the conversion of a people once so hostile 
 to Judah is in accordance with the gentler side of the theology 
 of the Psalms {e.g. Ps. Ixxvi. 11), and underlies Jer. xlix. 39 
 (where UTS comes from 'riT), xlvii. 26b, Ezek. xxix. ,13 f. 
 Isa. xix. 18-25, and indeed Zech. xiv. 18. In some of these 
 passages the Misrites are spoken of. But it is not only the 
 conversion of Jerahmeel, but that of the remnant of the 
 other ' peoples ' which is anticipated ; see xii. 9 (note). 
 
 xii. I f. For f^Nnm^ read either ^nsdQJi, or, with Gratz, 
 afptOlli, and for mini-f?:; read ^NDm\ TH'Sn-' may equally 
 well represent 'm"' and TTV ; here it stands for the latter, and 
 f?» for ^ND. 
 
 xii. 4-7. For miri"' read 'm^, and note that nihl is 
 not to be rendered ' in their heart ' ; it represents ^Noni'', 
 which was presumably written as a correction of rmri"'. In 
 V. 5 note ig^N (or ig'pN) ; cp. the QisibN of Edom, Gen. 
 xxxvi. 1 5 ff. Note also ' Yahw^ . . . their God.' For the 
 equalising of Judah and Jerahmeel, cp. Isa. xix. 24/ 
 
 xii. 9-xiii. I. A strangely altered passage ! It is the 
 repentance of Jerahmeel and the remnant of the other 
 peoples, not of the ' house of David and the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem,' which is here described. 
 
 xii. 9. For TDt&n^ tOplN (' I will seek to destroy ! ') read 
 T^rh amr^ij, ' I plan to bring back (to the true God).' Not 
 only Jerahmeel but all the nations which came against Jeru- 
 salem are to be converted and restored to prosperity. To 
 the references on vv. 1-7 add Jer. xlviii. 47. 
 
 xii. 10a. The scribe had the phrases n^lT nil and 
 n^miT' 12)11 {v. 8) in his mind ; he was also, perhaps, un- 
 equal to following the soaring flight of the prophetic writer. 
 Hence the former phrase supplanted (most probably) ni3 
 
xii. II ZECHARIAH 191 
 
 Tin, and the latter (note the warning Pasek) a dittographed 
 C'PMSDQ)"'. The other distortions are more purely accidental. 
 For 1 jn read n^HN, ' brotherhood ' ; an allusion to xi. 
 143. Also for i^s 1J3'^3m read, certainly, ^f33«nni. The 
 subject of this verb is D"'^NDm% which underlies the mis- 
 placed corruption n"'3"l3nn. The difficulty arising out of 
 DN now disappears. It is not a fragment of some personal 
 name (We.), but a corruption of h^ — h^. The personage 
 who was 'pierced through' by the Jerahmeelites was some 
 member of the Davidic house, possibly Zerubbabel. 
 
 xii. \ob. Tn^n-bs ^^PP^■ Plausible, and seemingly 
 confirmed by TiDirr'S'i; HonD. There is, however, a want of 
 definiteness in this comparison, and a suspicious resemblance 
 in the latter phrase (in which narrD is, on the ground of idiom, 
 disputable) to SNonT. If the reader will courteously read 
 the next note at this point, he will see that there is good 
 reason to admit a Jerahmeelite atmosphere. Returning to 
 V. 10b, he will thus be driven to the conclusion that the 
 contents of xii. lob are, with some variation, what we find 
 m V. II. Read ^NonT-^s nsDOD vhs T[Brr\. 'Because 
 of Jerahmeel ' means ' because of the slaughter at Beth- 
 jerahmeel.' Cp. on Jer. vi. 26, Am. viii. 10. 
 
 xii. II. For a'jmiT'l read, probably, f?MSDtl}i3 ; for 
 pD"mn read ^^^ (]1qt is a variant to Jlllo) ; and for nrpll 
 (pm) \Tfya read ^noHT' n3i?D3. The Jerahmeelites, it is 
 announced, will mourn as bitterly for the scion of the royal 
 Jewish house astheirforefathers did when Hadad,king of Edom 
 [Aram ?], lost his life in the war with David ; see on i K. 
 xi. 1-5-17. The corruptions of ^Mnm'' and nasn here assumed 
 are supported by parallels elsewhere (see e.g. on Am. i. 5). 
 ' En-rimmon ' comes from ' En-jerahmeel,' and m-k-d[ — 1] is 
 one of the possible representatives of Jerahmeel (cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Makkedah '). A different view of this passage is taken in 
 E. Bib., ' Hadadrimmon.' The worship of Tammuz did in 
 fact give occasion for bitter mourning as for an only son. 
 But the Jerahmeelite theory is so generally applicable in 
 II. Zechariah that we cannot be wrong in applying it here. 
 Zech. xii. 11 now supplies the key to Jer. iii. 23. In both 
 passages a great national religious function at the sanctuary 
 of Gibeath- jerahmeel seems to be referred to. 
 
192 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xii. 12 
 
 xii. 1 2 / The ' families ' of the land are the ' families ' 
 of the N. Arabian borderland which the prophetic writers 
 desire to see annexed by the Jews. Note the phrase in v. 14, 
 ' the families that remain,' and cp, xiv. \6 /.,"■ every one that 
 is left of all the nations,' etc., and ' the families 0/ the land.' 
 For TITnil read Tiri-niS ; for ]n3-n"'l read ]D'':^-n''a (or 
 jn-iM '3); for ''•h-T\n read SMonT-rfl ; for i^offln read 
 
 Chap. xiii. 7. Vv. 7-9 (see above) should come after 
 xi. 1 7. For •^n'^ns "i^?"''?1. (truly an extraordinary expres- 
 sion !) read, probably, ^som"' ni^DlM-f??"). Perhaps, too, 
 ■■ST comes from 'tw, i.e. "hiVCttW {i.e. the ' Jerahmeelite 
 shepherd '). 
 
 Chap. xiv. 3. M i-jp ors (so ®). According to Wellh., 
 ' V. 2)b says nothing, and exists solely because of the parallel- 
 ism.' But is this so? The ending ^y^p is several times 
 incorrect; see on Ps. Iv. a2, Ixviii. 31, Ixxviii, 9. Probably 
 as in Ps. Ixxviii. 9 'p should be '7MDm^ The reference is 
 probably to 2 S. v. 17-21 (see note). 
 
 xiv. Sa. M mrnri ijap nnpa ^^M^. We. remarks, ' All 
 interpreters admit that Zech. xiv. was written at least 150 years 
 after the earthquake in the time of Uzziah (Am. i. i).' Like 
 Nowack, he holds that this is archaistic colouring designed 
 to produce the impression that the writer was a contemporary 
 of the event. But considering how the archaistic theory 
 has failed us already, and also considering the amount of 
 admitted corruption in the context, it is more probable that 
 the text is wrong. Read TintSM 'd '3 '3. The reference 
 probably is to some N. Arabian invasion later than- that 
 which comes before us disguised as an invasion of Nebuchad- 
 rezzar. The following words, 'ill iQ-'a, are apparently an 
 incorrect gloss. 
 
 xiv. Sb-g. The original text probably spoke only of the 
 Jerahmeelites and the Cushites. In z*. $b read has a''tB3-f?5> 
 In V. 6, ^NDHT' nn33"i ^'1i' n^n-i.-N^ [n.S]. V. Ja may be 
 largely made up of corrupt forms of ^Mom"', and v. "jb may 
 be a corrupt repetition of v. 6a. In z;. 8 the singular terms 
 ■'amp and ]nnN imply the recasting of Dt. xi. 24 (see note). 
 In V. ga Y^t^iTt means the expanded land of Israel ; in b, read 
 probably [^Mi>D»''"i] ^NDHT' rn^ni^ TT^Tp (cp. on Obad. 2ib). 
 
xiv. 21 ZECHARIAH 193 
 
 xiv. 10. A much misunderstood passage. For a see 
 note on Jer. xxxi. 22 ; xhxiSVC, as often, should be f7MSD»^ 
 The following word nOMTi is generally taken as = nDTi, in 
 support of which QNpl in Hos. x. 14a is quoted. But DNpl 
 is corrupt (see note) ; both in DNpl and in the place-name 
 DDNn, N is an index of ^MDriT. Most probably noMTi repre- 
 sents f7NDm% a gloss on fjusotO"' (MT. ofpffliT^). After nnwi, 
 d'sIO'IT must have dropped out — a consequence of the mis- 
 reading 'yv just before. Cp. xii. 6. 
 
 xiv. 14. For D^tOIT' read fjMSDQT, 'Judah also shall 
 fight against Ishmael.' Only so is there a connection. 
 
 xiv. 15. Corruptions as in Isa. Ixvi. 20 (see note). 
 Read vn- "itOM D'^Qsn-Sai D'^bNonTm □■^nmnn o'^msn nnio. 
 
 xiv. 1^ f; 2/1. Point D"'"!2p. For 13MD read ipp (cp. on 
 Gen. xiii. 12). 
 
MALACHI 
 
 That ■'3n^o is not the writer's real name is obvious. It has 
 not been noticed, however, that 'd is simply a corruption of 
 ■'^ND^^^ Zephaniah is described by his name as a Zaphonite, 
 Haggai (possibly) as a Hagrite ; it is very possible and even 
 probable that the author of the last prophetic writing was 
 called a Jerahmeelite. Bachmann (AT. Untersuch. 1894), 
 according to Cornill (EinlP'^ 207), detects underneath the 
 apparent quotation from Hag. ii. 15, which in @ follows the 
 title of the Book of Malachi, a Hebrew gloss which ran 
 ibi "iDffll. We have already met with so many cleverly dis- 
 guised originals in MT. that we ought not to dismiss this view 
 too hastily ; Torrey's refutation is surely inadequate (see on 
 I K. xxii. 285). The main point to observe is that "'SN'ja, 
 'm*', and 173 are in meaning identical. See on iii. i. 
 
 Chap. i. 3. nisn^. Read perhaps niTJaV- It is usual 
 to quote @ in support of the emendation niN^b or (Torrey) 
 nh?> But Swete's text gives So/iara (gifts ?). 
 
 Chap. ii. 3. Winckler {AOF ii. 533) rightly sees that 
 no superficial emendations (such as those mentioned by 
 Nowack) are of any avail. But his own corrections are 
 inadequate ; he makes dryn ©ID a mere insertion to soften 
 the (corrupt) tons ; he also leaves the closing words un- 
 accounted for. With the key in our hand, we cannot doubt 
 as to the right correction (how familiar to us is tciD !). What 
 we have here is a prediction of the expulsion of the Jerah- 
 meelites or Misrites from Palestine, and of the dismissal of 
 the temple-servants (many of them Jerahmeelites by birth 
 or sympathy) with them. Read — 
 
 194 
 
ii. i6 MALACHI 195 
 
 ■'nNffljT nans -"Sno dS'^^d-'?!? ■'rcip^ [n^sjp-ntj] 'm'' im ■'S^n 
 
 ii. 10-16. This very difficult passage, which has recently- 
 been ably commented upon by. Torrey (^JBL xvii. 4 /, Z ff. ; 
 cp. E. Bib., 'Malachi,' § 4) and Winckler {AOF ii. 537/), 
 should, if my methods can be trusted, be restored thus — 
 
 nniOM nnshm mini nn^a " ; i3TinN n^nji ^rh 'jNom^ pN 
 : 133 ■?« IT'S '73n'i nnw 3»N rwrv' ^~&> rmrr^ b?n 13 7Mi;D»in 
 
 naip-HN n-'p'TNi cms innaj-; inNSto nsn" inhNis mrr^ 
 : DTva jis-j nnp^T nn5isn--JN nhaa ^■ll> jimq ^NQmiis rrnT' 
 nn« nm>? ^s-ii nms ]i3i ^[315 ri-yn mni --s hs m^-hs nmoNi. " 
 'm-' mm'; inN ^jnt " : n-'y^s n^si nifpisipn-i-: n-tt'i na nri732 
 'mi HNii ^Nomii Dnipm?"! QinSM pw fi^3n 'mi nni 
 nisn? mm npN ni^«sp»i app-i wn'? inwgto-is^^ nicji-^M 
 
 '•" ' Has not Jerahmeel another father ? is there not another God 
 in Arabia ? Why commit we treason in the land of Jerahmeel, to 
 profane the covenant of our fathers ? ^^ Judah has become traitorous; 
 an abomination is practised in Ishmael ; for Judah has profaned 
 Yahwb's holy things which he loves, and has eaten in the house of 
 a foreign god. ^^ May Yahwfe cut off every man that deals with a 
 familiar spirit, a wise one, in Jerahmeel, and (also) offers a gift to 
 Yahwfe Sebaoth ! ^ And this do I hate. Cushites and Edomites 
 serve Yahwb's altar as in Jerahmeel, so that he no longer regards 
 the gift or accepts pleasant offerings at your hand. ^* And ye say, 
 Wherefore ? Because Yahwfe has made known a distinction between 
 thee and the woman who has a wise spirit, by whom thou hast 
 committed treason (?), seeing that she is a Jerahmeelite, an Arabian 
 woman. ^^ And Jerahmeel ministers to another god, and why does 
 Jerahmeel practise sorcery in the land of God (Yahwfe) ? Then 
 beware of Jerahmeel, and in the land of Jerahmeel let none commit 
 treason. i^For I hate the spells and the divination of the 
 Ishmaelites, saith Yahwfe Sebaoth, Israel's God. Then beware of 
 Jerahmeel, and commit not treason.' 
 
 Torrey and Winckler have independently pointed out that 
 the rebuke in this section is directed, not against marriage 
 with heathen women and divorce, but against the encroach- 
 
196 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ii. i6 
 
 ment of some foreign cult (so Pesh.). So far I follow 
 them, but in details I have to take another course. Torrey 
 explains the central part of the passage thus : ' Judah has 
 dealt falsely with the wife of his youth, the covenant religion, 
 and is wedding a strange cult. The sanctuary of Yahwe is 
 profaned. The worshippers (who, of course, insist that they 
 are still worshipping Yahwe) lament because their offerings 
 fail to bring a blessing, and are strangely unable to see why 
 ill-fortune has come upon them.' 
 
 Winckler has this advantage over Torrey that he more 
 fully realises the uncertainty of MT., and sees that com- 
 paratively easy, superficial emendations are useless. Among 
 other readings of MT., he rightly questions iT'aaJ {v. 13). 
 According to the ordinary view, ' Malachi ' passes over in 
 V. 1 3 to a second subject ; Torrey denies this, but keeps 
 n"'3DJ. Winckler, on the other hand, follows ®, which gives 
 KoX Tavra a ifiLcrovv eTroieire. Both these scholars retain 
 133 f?N-n5 fjsi^^ (y, 11), though, Winckler suggests the bare 
 possibility of reading hsQ instead of bs'2, and rendering, ' he 
 has built a place of cultus of a foreign god ' ; ' the daughter 
 of a foreign god,' according to them, is a symbolic phrase 
 for a foreign cult. Torrey, however, remarks that (§ Pesh, 
 have nothing that corresponds to na, ' the daughter (of),' and 
 content themselves with general terms for idolatrous worship. 
 According to Winckler (A OF ii. 538 ; cp. ii. 423), it is the 
 Adonis-cult which is referred to. Zeus Epiphanius ( = Me- 
 samm^m-el [Wi.]) was identical with Tammuz or Adonis, 
 the mourning for whom may be referred to by ' Malachi,' 
 z.e. if rr\TT^ in w. 13 is really a substitute for the name of the 
 ' foreign god.' The latter view is also taken by Winckler of 
 the mention of mri"' at the end of v. 12. Winckler and 
 Torrey are agreed in holding that w. 1 5 baffles explanation, 
 but the former thinks that, since the Tammuz-cult is referred 
 to in z;. 13, nStO in v. 16 presumably means the dirge of 
 Tammuz, and the covering of the garment with violence 
 (v. 1 6) means the usual mourning ceremony of rending the 
 garment. Torrey is only on one point bolder than Winckler ; 
 as a correction of the strange reading n3l>"i 3i> (v. 12; AV 
 and RV^s- , ' him that waketh and him that answereth ') he 
 offers P13ST ton© (cp. iii. 1 9). 
 
iii. S MALACHI 197 
 
 Winckler, and somewhat less clearly Torrey, have both 
 seen the problems of the text ; but they have been without 
 the only trustworthy key to their solution, and Torrey is 
 rather too much afraid of touching MT. The rebuke of 
 ' Malachi ' is really directed against some of those heathenish 
 Jerahmeelite usages that are denounced in Ezek. viii. and 
 Isa. Ivi., Ixv., Ixvi. The Jewish bertth or religion came from 
 Yahwe, not from the god and father of Jerahmeel (cp. Num. 
 xxi. 29). What right have Israelites to practise abominable 
 foreign rites, and to hold intercourse with diviners, either in 
 the land of Jerahmeel or among the Jerahmeelites of Jeru- 
 salem? (That .many Jerahmeelites had settled themselves 
 in Palestine, is clear ; see on Ezra ii. 66 f^ And what 
 place have N. Arabians in the temple of Yahw^? They 
 can still be seen (as in Ezekiel's time — Ezek. xliv. 9«) act- 
 ing as sacrificers of Yahwe, as if they were in Jerahmeel 
 serving the god of the land. Yet you wonder at Yahwe's 
 displeasure, and ask a reason. It is because of the broad 
 distinction between the holy Israelite and the unholy diviner 
 by the ^ob. (To have dealings with such contributed to bring 
 about Israel's ruin ; see 2 K. xxi. 6, 10.) To Jerahmeel and 
 all its doings Yahwe has an antipathy ; beware, then, of 
 Jerahmeel. 
 
 Among the corrections here put forward note especially 
 these — f?MSQ»'^3 for ^wnm-'V '?3N"'l fo"" ''»l"> (^- i 0. "'^i'T'"! liM 
 for m■a^ -ya {v. 12), fjNonT'ia for np3«T '^31 {v. 13, cp. on 
 rwapn, Ezek. viii. 3 ; and on p3J7, Num. xiii. 33), "'3ST for 
 TTlW {v. 14), ?i^3D for ffipao (v. 15), and npj? for ddH (v. 
 16). Observe, too, that this is not the only passage in 
 which Ips"! and "hnvt (see v. 12) have supplanted SMDm\ 
 It is possible that in v. 14, for ni nmil we should 
 read n3 nnoDp, since 1 nan generally means 'to be 
 treacherous to.' 
 
 Chap. iii. i. For laN^D read ^Mp'^p-riM (the angelic 
 patron of Israel, Dan. x. 13, 21). Note, just after, -\vht> 
 TV-an. Cp. E. Bib., ' Michael,' §11;' Prophet,' § 28 («). 
 
 iii. 5. Winckler {AOF ii. 539) sees that D'^DM3D and 
 
 1 'iE"3 is followed in MT. by ahvwx, but originally, for 'T31, 
 there stood ^iivdb"3i, a correction of Sm»'3. 'it and 'db" are often con- 
 founded. 
 
198 CRITIC A BIB Lie A iii. 5 
 
 Iptcb D"'i»im2 ought to represent classes of men analogous to 
 the D"'a©Dp or ' sorcerers.' But I doubt his ' nuph-priests ' 
 and ' shaba-priests.' The class-names we want are d"'33JJD, 
 ' diviners ' (see Isa. ii. 6, Ivii. 3) and (bssomil) f?MDnTl O'^Mm;. 
 For the corrupt ipffi'? cp. D"'^ptO, i S. xvii. 5, 7 = f?N2;Dffi\ 
 See on Zech. v. if. 
 
PART III 
 
 FIRST AND SECOND SAMUEL 
 
 The textual difficulties of the Books of Samuel are only 
 too well known. If the present writer often differs from his 
 able predecessors (among whom Wellhausen and Kloster- 
 mann are conspicuous) this will excite no surprise. The 
 surprise would be if one who has a somewhat new point of 
 view should have nothing original to suggest by way of 
 supplementing the existing commentaries and dictionaries. 
 It may only be necessary to add that if the proper names 
 dealt with in some of these notes are generally taken to 
 indicate that the bearers of them resided in S. Palestine or 
 even in the Negeb, this is not merely because of their 
 apparent Jerahmeelite connection, for it is certain that a 
 great Semitic migration from Arabia took place between 
 3000 and 2000 B.C., which has left its traces in early royal 
 Babylonian names, and which cannot have failed to influence 
 the names of Palestine. We might, in fact, expect to find 
 names plainly of North Arabian origin anywhere in Palestine. 
 The inference drawn in these notes from the names in i and 
 2 Samuel is based on the fact that the legends and histories 
 of the Old Testament, when critically examined, are most 
 easily intelligible on the hypothesis that they come from 
 circles closely connected with the N. Arabian border-land, 
 and that it was this region which exercised the most direct 
 and continuous influence on that section of the Hebrew race, 
 from which the Old Testament records appear to proceed. 
 The reader is courteously requested (i) not to form his final 
 judgment till he has worked through the whole of the evidence 
 
 14 
 
200 CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 which will be produced for a greatly modified view of the 
 Israelitish history and literature, and (2) to remember that 
 no one more appreciates the importance of extra-biblical 
 evidence than the present writer, who retracts nothing that 
 he has hitherto said on this subject, and is anxiously waiting 
 for further archaeological and Assyriological suggestions, 
 especially with regard to the history of the northern 
 Israelites. Without a more thorough textual criticism, the 
 archaeological work of Bliss and Sellin and the Assyriological 
 researches of Winckler and Zimmern will only be of half the 
 use that one desires, but with such preliminary work as is 
 here at any rate attempted, most welcome historical surprises 
 may in due time be hoped for. 
 
FIRST SAMUEL 
 
 Chap. i. i f. — Samuel's father is introduced with a word 
 (nriN) which, as Budde [KHC) truly says, only has a clear 
 raison d'etre in the case of a nameless person (cp. Judg. 
 ix. 53, 2 K. iv. I [both times nriN], i K. xiii. ii). The 
 only parallel for njiN ©"'N as here used is Judg. xiii. 2, where, 
 after the prefixed words, comes 'his name was Manoah.' 
 Now Manoah's home, as we shall see, was placed by the 
 original legend in the Negeb, another name for which was 
 Jerahmeel. We also find nns again and again standing, by 
 textual corruption, for ^Nom"' (see e.g. on Gen. iv. 25, i Chr. 
 vii. 12). See also on ^^^?, Zeph. iii. 9 (10). nnN m"'N in 
 Judg., I.C., should therefore probably be 'jMam'' m"'N ; cp. tCN 
 ^^mtO^ Judg. x. i. In all probability Samuel himself — a son 
 of Jerahmeel (see below) — was also connected with the 
 Negeb. If so, we need not hesitate to make the same 
 correction here. 
 
 D^'QIS D";nD"in-]p. The explanation of Wellhausen, 
 adopted by Driver, shows his wonted acuteness. There are, 
 however, cogent objections to it (see E. Bib., col. 401 1), and 
 Wellh. forgets that a clan-name would be just as suitable as 
 a place-name to indicate Elkanah's extraction. The easiest 
 emendation is [or Pj^sp] nBSap ■'iBpn-jp. ■'^^3D, however, like 
 nan and nm, and like nnisD in Gen. xxxvi. 39, comes ulti- 
 mately from [■'jf^MOm"'.^ The ' mount Ephraim ' spoken of 
 was therefore a district in the Negeb ; a view which is 
 
 1 Marq. (Fund. 1 4) is wrong in emending nuD in x. 21 into nro (for 
 nrn). n^D does no doubt exist (i Chr. ix. 8), but both Michri, Bichri, 
 and Matri all have a right to exist as independent popular corruptions 
 of ''jNDm'. 
 
202 CRITICA BIBLICA i. i 
 
 supported by numerous other passages. Saul too, as we 
 shall see, was at any rate of Jerahmeelite extraction, and 
 very probably also belonged to the Negeb. It is true that 
 Elkanah's house was at Ramah {v. 1 9, ii. 11). But there 
 was a Ramah in the Negeb (xxx. 27), and Ramah [i.e. 
 Jerahmeel) and Mizpah {i.e. Zarephath? see on Judg. xx. i) 
 were both frequented by Samuel (vii. 16 _/!). We now 
 understand better how the Chronicler and his authority (?) 
 came to make Elkanah a Levite. He was at any rate con- 
 nected with the southern Zarephath, which was in early 
 times a great centre of the Levites (see E. Bib. ' Moses,' | 
 17). For n">m2 see further on ix. 5. 
 
 According to Marq. {Fund. 12 /) the genealogy in i. i 
 is made up of two reports, viz. Elkanah ben Jerahmeel 
 (Jeroham) and Elihu ben Tahan (Nahath, etc.). Certainly 
 there are two genealogies of Samuel in i Chr. vi. 18-23 and 
 7-13, which Marq. acutely analyses. Who Elihu is, this 
 critic does not expressly say, but he allows us to infer that 
 it was, according to one tradition, the name of Samuel's 
 father (cp. E. Bib., ' Elihu,' 2). He omits v^i (Zuph), how- 
 ever, as being the name of a place, not of a clan. But how 
 does Marq. know that v^, or the name represented by it, 
 was never used as a clan-name, and that Tohu, or its original, 
 never passed as a place-name ? The truth probably is that 
 PJIK = [njms, and that Sarephath, disguised as Resheph 
 (i Chr. vii. 25), could be used as a clan-name. Tohu, 
 Tahath, and Tahan may all spring from Naphtoah (clan- 
 name and place-name) ; see on Naphtuhim, Gen. x. 1 3. The 
 name we could spare best in i. i is Elihu. Omitting this, 
 the description of Elkanah's origin would be ' a Jerahmeelite, 
 having a family connection with Naphtoah and Zarephath.' 
 Another name of Zarephath was probably Mizpah (a modifi- 
 cation of Zephath) ; see above. In truth ' Elihu ' is only 
 an ancient distortion of ' Jerahmeel ' ; here, however, it may 
 have sprung from an early variant to Dm"", i.e. an original 
 reading ^NOm"' was miswritten m"'^N. ' Elkanah ' itself 
 may come from Kinathiel (from rr3"'p, connected with 
 the tribal name pp). After the 'genealogy' comes imSN, 
 ' an Ephrathite ' ; there was, as we have seen (on Gen. 
 XXXV. 16, I Chr. ii. 19), an Ephrath in the Negeb. Cp. 
 
ii. 23 FIRST SAMUEL 203 
 
 E. BH)., ' Jerahmeel,' § 3 (with Cook's conjecture), ' Jeroham,' 
 ' Tahath.' 
 
 n33S ((fievvava), as Bateson Wright suggests (see E. Bib., 
 ' Peninnah '), may be related to Jephunneh (father of Caleb). 
 
 i. 3. nSm. If the most venerated Israelitish sanctuaries 
 were in the Negeb, the presumption is that the Shiloh of 
 this story was also in that region. Shiloh, Shaul, and 
 Shalisha may therefore all be connected. The site of Shiloh 
 is described in Judg. xxi. 12, 19, 21. It was in the land 
 of I3j? (so read) ; it was near the border of the (southern) 
 land of Benjamin ; it was N. of Beth-el and E. of the road 
 from Beth-el to Cushan (so read) ; it was S. of Libnah (so 
 read). Cp., however, E. Bib., ' Shiloh.' 
 
 "hs. Eli has no genealogy (in spite of ii. 27, 30 /.). 
 His sons are called i2Dn and vrtlB, which are obviously the 
 same name (cp. Jabal and Jubal). If Eli was really of the 
 Levi-tribe (see ii. 27 /.), it is possible that his name was 
 originally given as Eleazar or Eliezer, for Eleazar ( = Eliezer) 
 was known as the father of Phinehas. But it is also possible 
 that ' Eli ' comes from "'fjNl^Dm"' or I'^Nom"'. On the origin 
 of Dn3Q see E. Bib., ' Phinehas,' and note the corroboration 
 of the view that Phinehas Comes from ' Jerahmeel,' furnished 
 by Jer. xlvi. 1 5 (see Crii. Bib.). 
 
 i. 6. nosirr mii^n. Read n^n-'-is mhsa. Cp. Wellh. 
 and Klost. on 2 S. xii. 21. 
 
 i. 20. '?Mloi&. Semu'el and Sa'ul (with Ishmael and 
 Shobal) are probably modifications of the southern clan- 
 name Shema' ( = Sheba', (^^ aa/iaa. Josh. xix. 2), with the 
 afformative h or ha. Cp. v. 28, where 7MiotO is expressly 
 made = f?lM2?. For contributions to study see E. Bib., 
 ' Names,' § 39; ' Shemuel,' with references; ' Shem, Names 
 with'; and especially 'Saul,' § ib. Note that aaixovrjX 
 represents f?■|^?t2> in Gen. xlvi. 10 (A), i S. xi. 13 (B*), 15 
 (B A), XV. 1 2 (B), while aaovX represents ^N"iom in xv. 1 2 
 (B). In I S. xxviii. 12 the fjNlDBJ of MT. should be ^lNt» 
 (Perles). See also the two readings in xi. 7. This easy 
 confusion is significant. 
 
 Chap. ii. 23. d-<si DD'^in-nw. H. P. Smith says, 'lack- 
 ing in (3" and difficult to construe. ... It seems better to 
 leave the words out' Similarly, he adds, on n^N DOT, ' im- 
 
204 CRITICA BIBLICA ii- 24 
 
 possible. The nS« has come in by false duplication of the 
 following ^N. @ has Kvpiov, which perhaps represents QTI7N ; 
 but notice the phrase miT' QS at the end of the next verse.' 
 To this Budde can only add the suggestion that D'^s-t 'tt 
 (without hn) may be an alternative reading to v. 24. All 
 this is mere groping in the dark. Just assume the result of 
 criticism of the earlier books, and use experience in the 
 correction of textual errors elsewhere, and all becomes plain. 
 D"'l>1, as in Ps. Ixxviii. 49*^ (see Pj®), has been produced 
 from a miswritten fpMDni"'. 'n-DN has in part a similar 
 origin ; le. 311m represents fpom"', and the whole complex 
 of letters 'ni-nND. Upon this, in the original text, followed 
 the true reading, viz. 't Oi»-^3 nso. 'Jerahmeel' is a 
 synonym for the Negeb, where Shiloh probably was (cp. on 
 V. 28, end). @'s Kvpiov = rr\'iV, which is not unfrequently 
 a corruption of 'nT^ = ^NonT ; thus @ and MT. both point 
 to the proposed reading. n^K was facilitated by the near 
 neighbourhood of this word in the same verse. 
 
 ii. 24. rXW ti^ W^1stl, 'seems unintelligible' (H. P. 
 Sm.). Budde, ' (that I hear) Yahw^'s people spread,' which, 
 he thinks, ' remains a satisfactory rendering.' Driver takes 
 the same view, but adds that the text seems doubtful. 
 gives Tov firj SovXeveiv (ihso) Xabv dew, which seems as un- 
 original as MT. It is probable that the true text stopped 
 at saW, and that miT DS D"'nni>D represents us ^NDHT'D 
 ^NoriT', which got into the margin (from another MS.) as a 
 double variant to Vlba Di>rT"73 riND in v. 23. 
 
 ii. 28, end. bNltC "'31 ; <B, vi&v 'lap. eh 0pa>atv. ek 
 ^p. ' is an extremely weak explanation ' (Wellh.). It pre- 
 supposes fj^N?, and forms of ^3n sometimes (see e.g. on Isa. 
 vii. i^f., Ixvi. 17) represent "JNanT. Possibly there was an 
 early reading 'm"' "'33. Though the term 'itoi "i^l became 
 universal, yet it is possible that the Israelites who dwelt in 
 the Negeb were sometimes denominated 'm"', ' Jerahmeelites.' 
 As opposed to hostile Jerahmeelites (Amalekites, etc.) they 
 may have called themselves ' sons of Israel,' but, as settlers 
 in the land of Jerahmeel, and worshippers at the old Jerah- 
 meelite sanctuaries, they may have thought it natural to style 
 themselves 'sons of Jerahmeel.' See on vv. 23, 29, and on 
 Gen. xxi. 33). 
 
ii. 36 FIRST SAMUEL 205 
 
 ii. 29. iQS^ '»■' nroo-'jD. 'It would be easy to read 
 1DJ7, but h appears also in (g's •'^sb ' (Wellh.). Hitz., Driv. (?), 
 Klost., Bu. accept "i^aS. But is this quite natural ? ' Ye 
 make yourselves fat (?) with the offerings of Israel/ is a good 
 sense, and is only obscured by the addition of the words 
 'before me' (' defying me?' or ' before I receive my portion?'). 
 Surely ■'DS"? is half right ; i.e. it is the disguise of a longer 
 word — 7NDm^ which is a variant to ^Niffli (see on v. 28, 
 end). 
 
 ii. 36. Dn^-n33i ?iD3 rmiNS, onb-na h':ivh. For the 
 
 first group of words @^ has o^okov dpyvpiov, to which @'^ 
 adds Koi iv dprm ev [ej/t] ; @'' iv 6^o\m dpyvptov koI iv apTto 
 evL For the second, (^^"^ (payeiv dprov, <^'' rov (jiayelv aprov 
 Kvpiov. The rendering 6^oX6<s for rTT'lM implies a combina- 
 tion of the word with nna, a Hebrew weight (^th of a 
 shekel). Vg., ' ut offerat nummum,' makes another guess (llN, 
 'to collect'). Frd. Del. (Prol. 149), followed by BDB, 
 explains ' payment ' (Ass. agaru, ' to acquire, hire a person,' 
 Muss-Arnolt). The word is very suspicious. In E. Bib., 
 ' Spelt,' it is suggested to correct ?id3 '"ixh into nOD3 noi?'?, 
 ' for an omer of spelt' But this is too literary a correction. 
 The prophecy in vv. 27-^6 is full of religious-political mean- 
 ing. The first word one can identify is QffiS, which (as in 
 Isa. lii. 3) underlies ^d3. One then sees that milN repre- 
 sents moM^ (ii = d), t.e. ^NonT (cp. bmoN, Gen. xiv. i). 
 n3D and DTih are both among the current disguises of this 
 same ethnic (for 'd, see on Gen. xiii. 10, and for 'b, on Gen. 
 XXXV. 1 9). We now pass to the second group, h'^nh, as in 
 V. 28 (0), represents SNOni"' ; riD probably comes from IT'S ; 
 DTih and miT' (appended in (^'■) have already been explained. 
 The whole verse should be explained thus. Whoever is left 
 of Eli's clan, after the great catastrophe described in vv. 31, 
 33^, shall, with abject humility, beseech the 'faithful priest' 
 (i.e. the Zadokites) to put him into one of the priestly offices 
 in Beth-jerahmeel. Beth-jerahmeel was apparently the 
 name of a city in the Negeb with an important sanctuary 
 (see on X. 5, Jer. ii. 34), in which the few survivors of Eli's 
 clan hoped to receive posts. Read noNT if? ninnmnb Nil"' 
 SMDnT'-n''3 niansn dhk-^n n3 'dd. 'ii 'yxh represents '?NDnT' 
 ^MOnT Dfe, which omit as marginal glosses (It will be 
 
2o6 CRITICA BIBLICA iii. 20 
 
 noticed that (Si'-'s aprov Kvpiov is here explained for the first 
 time. mrT"" is simply 'nT^ = '?NDnT'. @'s omission of riD, 
 however, is adequately accounted for by Budde ; ' a morsel 
 of Yahwe's bread' would be a most inappropriate ex- 
 pression.) 
 
 Chap. iii. 20. ' From Dan to Beersheba/ i.e. in all the 
 sanctuaries where Israelite pilgrims congregated, Samuel's 
 prophetic call had become known. Cp. on 2 S. iii. 10, 
 xxiv. 2. 
 
 Chap. iv. i. There is no sufficient reason to doubt that 
 wherever ' Eben ha-ezer' occurs (iv. i, v. i, vii. 12) the same 
 place is meant. It was near Aphek, according to iv. i, and 
 between Mizpah (Zarephath ?) and Shen (Shunem ?), accord- 
 ing to vii. 1 2. Trs was a clan-name. Cp. Ezer, ( i ) one of the 
 b'ne Plur (Ashhur), i Chr. iv. 4 ; (2) a priest, mentioned with 
 Malchijah and Elam (Jerahmeelite names), Neh. xii. 42 ; (3) 
 one of the b'ne Ephraim, mentioned in a group of Negeb 
 names, i Chr. vii. 21 ; (4) one of eleven Gadites bearing 
 Jerahmeelite names, i Chr. xii. 9. Note also Azariah. 
 Eben-ezer (not ha-ezer, originally) meant ' stone of Ezer.' 
 It is more difficult to reach a safe conclusion as to Aphek. 
 The final redactor of Kings probably knew of an Aphek E. 
 of the Jordan {FiU). But in Josh., Judg., i S., and also in 
 the original form of i K. xx. 26, 30, 2 K. xiii. 17, 25, a 
 place in the Negeb was meant. This place must have had 
 strategic importance. It was near Eben-ezer, also near 
 Jezreel (xxix. i), and in Josh. xiii. 4 it is apparently repre- 
 sented as on the border of the Aram mites (so read), and as 
 near the land of the Misrites (so read), and of the men of 
 (the southern) Gebal. In Josh. xii. 18, too, it is most prob- 
 ably (according to the intention of the original writer) a 
 place of the Negeb. For all the place-names in the text of 
 Kings may be readily explained as Negeb names, and note 
 in particular that the next name to Aphek is jnm^, which 
 is probably a corruption of ^h'XSi, ' Shilon ' = ' Shiloh.' This 
 view would illustrate the sending for the ark mentioned in 
 V. 4. 
 
 iv. 10. @'s Tayfidrcov (MT. •>bn) suggests that, as in 
 XV. 4, ethnics stood in the original text, and that we should 
 read [nshi] hasQ^':! -tno n'jlll HDon ■^nm ; li>f?a may be a 
 
V. 6 FIRST SAMUEL 207 
 
 gloss on 'd»''. This is agreeable to parallels. '?D"'T and Jif?N 
 may both represent fragments of 'oar ; 'hw also may have, 
 come from ^MSDIO'^. Right method leads with some certainty 
 to this result. See on xv. 4. 
 
 iv. 21. Tiaa"-}*, really a distortion of ^NOm"' ; cp. on 
 Ex. vi. 20. Like f?irN from 'aar. This bears on the 
 ' golden mice ' of chap. vi. Cp. E. Bib., ' Ichabod.' 
 
 Chap. v. 1-5. TnmN is here a corruption of nitus (cp. 
 on Am. iii. 9), the N. Arabian Asshur or Ashhur is meant 
 The ' Philistines ' are really the Zarephathites (Gen. x. 1 4). 
 — constant foes of Israel. The god of Asshur is called jin, 
 probably an alteration of 'Gadon' (not so i Mace. x. 83, 
 see on Judg. xvi. 23). Priests and worshippers of this god 
 avoid treading on the threshold of his house ; see on Zeph. 
 i. Syi; I K. xviii. 21. 
 
 v. 6-vi. 20. The difficulties of this portion of the 
 narrative are enormous indeed. The ingenuity of the 
 attempts to overcome them will scarcely be denied by any 
 one ; I have done my own best [valeat quantum) in the 
 article ' Emerods ' {E. Bib.). Further experience, however, 
 of the frequency of the phenomenon of an underlying text, and 
 of certain recurrent types of corruption, together with the 
 enforced correction of Ps. Ixxviii. 66, has enabled me to 
 clear up the passage with an approach to certainty. First, 
 as to wh^s, D''nnJa, and D'^nia:; ; all spring from corruptly 
 written ethnics, d'hus (cp. on 'jsr, Mic. iv. 8) from n'''7Ni»Dm^, 
 cnniB (cp. 'nan) from D-'^NDm\ and w^XiH (cp. on Isa. 
 Ixvi. 17) from D^'^NOm"' or Qip^os. In v. 6 (g" has (after 
 em, 'Af.) Kol i'TTT^'yar^ev avTol<;, Kal e^e^eaev avToi<! et? ra<; vav<;, 
 Kol fiecrov Trji ■)(a)pa<i avTrj'; avetpvTjaav /iue? ; @'' is slightly 
 fuller. Here e^e^eaev seems to Klost. to have come from 
 i^ia-T7](7ev (DEin';i). This may be right (cp. nmrrD, v. 9) ; 
 certainly ek ra? vavf [avr&v, L] represents DnTiipiN^ (cp- 
 on Isa. ii. 16, Ps. xlviii. 8). DOtO''1 in MT. seems to repre- 
 sent D-hiiSOOr. The text of v. 6 must once have run 
 somewhat like this, anhs i^i^'T nQi7''l □"'Tit^Nn-'?? '"'"T' ^n^n'^ 
 
 DSIM mpm DnTI30nN3 DDM IS^ D-'f?N2>Dt&-' [□■^^NonT']. The 
 meaning is that first of all Yahw^ sent a panic among the 
 Asshurites (accompanied by sudden deaths, see v. 1 2), upon 
 which Amalekite or Ishmaelite plunderers set upon them, 
 
2o8 CRITIC A BIBLICA v. 8 
 
 and slew them everywhere, even in their towns or palaces 
 (cp. ' palaces of Asshur,' Am. ii. 9). 
 
 V. 8 /. By the advice of the D'^3'n (see on Josh. xiii. 3) 
 the ark is taken to ' Gath,' or rather ' Rehoboth ' (xxi. i o). 
 The same events ensued. First, the panic. Then the 
 attack of the Amalekites. The closing words Dnf? nn©"*") 
 Q-hBi) represent three fragments of O'ht^SQW'', which is the 
 subject to [i]D''1. 
 
 V. 10-12. Similarly at Ekron, or rather Jarkon =Jerah- 
 meel (see E. Bib., ' Me-jarkon '). First came the panic with 
 the sudden deaths (v. 1 2) ; then the Amalekite raiders. For 
 C^JDi^l read D''p'?Di>l ; the Kr. ninntal represents D-'fpNDHT'n. 
 In V. 10, vi. 16, vii. 14 @ has ' Ascalon,' z.e. Eshcol. Cp. 
 A. Mez, Die Bibel des Josephus (1895), pp. ig f-, who, how- 
 ever, does not go to the root of the matter, and explain the 
 rival readings. 
 
 Chap. vi. \ f. The 'dshdm is to consist — of what? Of 
 ' five golden tumours and five golden mice ? ' Certainly not of 
 ' golden tumours,' ( i ) because D"'7DS is only by a bold con- 
 jecture rendered ' tumours,' (2) because morbid growths like 
 tumours nowhere receive plastic representation (cp. Creighton, 
 E. Bib., ' Emerods '). The ' golden mice ' might pass. It is 
 only in ®, however, that a plague of mice finds express 
 record, and this may well be a late redactional insertion, 
 whije the view that the mouse was anciently a symbol of 
 pestilence cannot be proved (Budde's argument is the re- 
 source of despair). No, the ' mice,' too, have to be abandoned. 
 In vv. 4 / either h^i} ( = iSNi;om-') or •'niDr ( = -i^NDnT' or 
 ^jh^s) is superfluous. The 'dshdm consisted in golden 
 images of Amalekites or Ishmaelites, which were offered as 
 piacula in place of living victims to the offended God of 
 Israel. 
 
 vi. 6. Clearly one expects n"'isp and 'iwiB. — 8. For 
 T:nNl (a doubtful word, for which Lagarde and Klost. offer 
 improbable etymologies) read plN3. jnN is not confined to 
 a single sacred chest. The repository of the sacred offerings 
 could also be called an j"nN ; 1 and t are corruptions of ;. So 
 Exp.T., X. 521. Cp., however, Bennett, Exp.T., xiii. 234, 
 and Budde's comment. 
 
 vi. g. tSo^TT'S. But as mo sometimes represents tB13, 
 
vii. 2 FIRST SAMUEL 209 
 
 SO mom again and again {e.g. Ps. cxxi. 6) represents DmS. 
 Cp. on Judg. i. 33, I K. iv. 9, 2 K. xiv. 1 1, Jer. xliii. 13. 
 
 vi. 18. For nns read inp, i.e. DTims (cp. on Dt. iii. 5). 
 'in "VSIO T'iJO is probably an accretion on the text. 
 
 vi. 19. (5 begins thus, koX ovk ricrfikvuo'av 01 viol 'le-^ovLov 
 iv TOW avhpaaiv Batdaa/MVi. Budde and H. P. Smith approve 
 Klost's view of the underlying text, viz. ' the b'ne Jeconiah 
 did not share the joy of the men of Beth-shemesh when 
 these looked with delight on the ark,' etc. But who are the 
 b'ne Jeconiah ? and why are they brought in here ? The 
 truth probably is that underneath rT'ny "'31 inn lh^ (as Klost. 
 plausibly restores @'s Heb. text) there lies an earlier text, 
 viz. •'Z'^pn ■'31 CD-'fjNDnT'. ' Jerahmeelites ' ( = Amalekites) 
 and 'Kenites' are alternative readings, one or other of which 
 is the subject of the verb [l]3^"i. Further on in the same 
 verse other variants are given, for underneath wn SjfpN D"'t&an 
 (which Budde unsuspiciously describes as an exaggerating 
 gloss) experience teaches us almost certainly to see ciDS 
 whi^SDa^, i.e. ' Cushites, Ishmaelites.' The second T»"i (with 
 QS1, from next clause) may of course be omitted. The 
 inexplicableness of this attack of the Kenites or Ishmaelites 
 was heightened by the fact that the men of Beth-cusham 
 had rejoiced to see the returning ark. It seemed as if 
 their sympathetic interest had stirred up Yahwfe's displeasure 
 against them. Hence the ark is sent to Kirjath-jearim. 
 
 vi. 21, vii. I. ' Kirjath-jearim ' has now to be explained. 
 It was one of the cities of the Gibeonites ; now Gibeon was 
 certainly in the Negeb (see on Josh. ix.). We need not 
 hesitate, therefore, to correct the improbable Qini>i (as well 
 as the Sal in h^l 'p. Josh. xv. 60) into ^ndhT' (see on vii. 2). 
 Another name for Kirjath-jerahmeel was probably Gibeath- 
 jerahmeel (see on 2 S. vi. 3, Josh, xviii. 28). This seems 
 to have been the name of a city in the Negeb with a very 
 popular sanctuary (see on Jer. ii. 34, iii. 23). The rTi?ll is 
 the hill with the citadel, within the precincts of which the 
 ' house of Abinadab ' may have been. Note the N. Arabian 
 affinities of the names Abinadab (? Arab-nadab) and Eleazar 
 (cp. on ' Eben-ezer,' iv. i ). 
 
 Chap. vii. 2. Neither of the two clauses, tyrT'Tf imi'i 
 and '^y^ VTi''\ can be made to connect with what goes before. 
 
210 CRITIC A BIB Lie A vii. ii 
 
 Klost. and Budde point this out, but do not fully account 
 for the insertion. The truth seems to be that both "ini") 
 and DiQTT are corrupt fragments of ^NDm% which is a gloss 
 on the preceding word □■'ni)\ After the corruption had 
 arisen, a redactor inserted the plausible statement 'there 
 elapsed twenty years.' At the end of the verse (g^- appends 
 iv eiprjvri, i.e. Dlf?tt?l = ^NSDQJ"'!. This conveys a correct 
 explanation of ' all the house of Israel ' ; the Israel ' in 
 Ishmael ' ( = in the Negeb) is referred to. 
 
 vii. 11/ n3 rr^a, i.e. '-O n-'l = tna rr-n {E. Bib., ' Beth- 
 car '). ' Beth-kerem ' is a distortion of Beth-jerahmeel (see 
 on Jer. vi. i). — ]2)rr. The article is adventitious as in nDSorr. 
 ;m comes from '30? = 03^ (see on xxviii. 4). Cp. on iv. i, 
 and on ' Jeshanah ' (which We., Dr., H. P. Sm., and Bu., 
 after @, Pesh., substitute for ' Shen ') see on 2 Chr. xiii. 1 9. 
 
 vii. 14. Temporary peace was secured between Israel 
 and the Arammites (read lanMn). The ■ cities in the Negeb 
 which the ' Philistines ' (Zarephathites) had conquered, from 
 ' Ekron ' ( = Jerahmeel ?) as far as ' Gath ' ( = Rehoboth ?), 
 were recovered by Israel. ® has a-jrb ' Aa-KoXcovo^ eo)? Afo/8. 
 A^o/8, according to Wellh., is a witty reference to Zeph. ii. 4 
 (nTrn ^^'y^^s mr), and means Gaza, which, as the most 
 southerly Philistine city, should be opposed to Ekron in the 
 north. But the question is what did the underlying text 
 mean ? @'s ' Ascalon ' represents Eshcol (from ' Ishmael ' ?) ; 
 see on v. 10. A^o/3 may be illustrated by the name Azubah 
 borne by the 'wife' of Caleb (i Chr. ii. 18) and the mother 
 of king Jehoshaphat (i K. xxii. 42). Azubah is of course 
 connected with some clan-name. Azubah in i K. is called 
 bath-shill}i\m'\ ; she was a native of Shilhim. Not improb- 
 ably the Azub (?) clan became fused with that called Shelah, 
 whose centre was at Shilhim. Now Shilhim appears in 
 Josh. XV. 32 between Baalath and En-rimmon (for the text 
 see ad loc), and both these places were in the Negeb. Azub 
 is probably based on a popular corruption of 'jlfN, i.e. 
 SniJDtO"', and may be grouped with ' Buz ' (cp. ' Buzi,' Ezek. 
 i. 3 ; ' Buzite,' Job xxxii. 2) and ' Boaz ' (ti^l) in the story of 
 Ruth, where', as we shall see, ' Bethlehem-judah ' is partly 
 corrupted, partly altered, from Beth-jerahmeel. 
 
 vii. 16 f. The centres of Samuel's judicial activity were 
 
ix. 4 FIRST. SAMUEL 211 
 
 Bethel (perhaps Tubal), Gilgal, Mizpah [i.e. Zarephath ?), and 
 Ramah {i.e. Jerahmeel). 
 
 Chap. viii. 2. ' Joel ' (from ' Jerahmeel ') and ' Abijah ' 
 (from ' Arab -jerahmeel ' ?) are the significant names of 
 Samuel's sons ; inserted by the redactor from a genealogy. 
 
 viii. 8. Read ^NonT inf?« (Dt. vii. 4, etc., Jer. i. 16). 
 
 Chap. ix. i. po-'-po ffi-'«, i.e. '1 }>-3md m-'N {v. 16). The 
 continuation needs keen criticism. Marq. (Fund. 15) has 
 seen that ■'D"'D"' ©""N-p IT'EJN-]! should probably be jc ji [or 
 (n)i;n:i] pSN ]D. Let us add that xrrp represents miD, 7Niin 
 (i Chr. viii. 30, ix. 36, 7Sl) comes from pl^i^-nr (2 S. 
 xxiii. 3 1 ), nils (Chr. ■y\'£) probably from -|S12 = nms, mi3n 
 from ■'iDn (2 S. XX. i). Beyond doubt, Saul's family was of 
 Jerahmeelite, i.e. N. Arabian, origin. See E. Bib., ' Saul,' § i . 
 
 ix. 4. D'^nDN-in. ' Har-ephraim ' has four conceivable 
 senses; it may mean (i) the great mountainous mass from 
 the plain of Megiddo to Beersheba, (2) the northern part of 
 this, i.e. the central highlands of W. Palestine, (3) the part 
 verging towards the south commonly known as Benjamin, 
 and (4) the region in the Negeb otherwise called 'Har- 
 jerahmeel.' See E. Bib., 'Benjamin,' § i /i; ' Ephraim,' § 3. 
 The third of these senses would best suit the ordinary view 
 of the geography of the life of Saul. It is doubtful, how- 
 ever, whether this sense really exists. Buhl, indeed, says 
 (Pal. 89) that the ' Benjaminites dwelt on Mt. Ephraim 
 (Judg. iii. 27, cp. w. 1 5 ; 2 S. xx. i, 21).' But the geography 
 of these passages is in dispute. He adds, ' only in passages 
 like 2 Chr. xix. 4 is the extent of Mt. Ephraim determined 
 by the political boundary.' But it is probable that in this 
 passage the Mt. Ephraim spoken of was not far from Beer- 
 sheba. 
 
 TiKhKH, Ish'SXH, ■'^■'Q"'. Each of these names is attached to 
 plM ; they belong to the districts through which, as well as 
 through Mount Ephraim, Saul and the servant ' passed.' 
 H. P. Sm. combines ' Shaalim ' with the h^^xn pN of xiii. 1 7. 
 In fact, nxhm, nh'sxa, ^Sim, to which we may add f?lNm and 
 l^im or rhxa, seem to be all connected. Very possibly rrffiStD 
 and wh^XH represent the same name which may have been 
 written both n^tO (Shiloh) and D^''l>ffl or D^-'». It is possible 
 that the place intended was the seat of the famous sanctuary 
 
212 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ix. 5 
 
 of the ark, which was destroyed by the ' Philistines.' Cp. 
 also thxa, Gen. xxxiii. 1 8, if we may regard this as the name 
 of a place near ' Shechem ' (rather ' Cusham ') in the Negeb. 
 See further on 2 K. iv. 42. '^^■'D'' should probably be 130"; ; 
 the ' Yemanites ' were the Jerahmeelites. 1^^ taKei/j, ; @'- 
 
 ix. 5. They next reach the land of ^"12. This is a 
 mutilated and corrupt form of some place-name, perhaps of 
 riD^D, but more probably of nms. This involves placing 
 the region in the Negeb. The original story may have 
 meant this. Klost. deserves great credit for seeing this (' cp. 
 nE3!J, Judg. i. 17' are his words). He also explains laiQ"' 
 (v. 4) as a Simeonite district in the S.(Gen. xlvi. 10, Num. 
 xxvi. 12). 
 
 ix. 9, II. In z/. II Saul and the servant ask the 
 maidens, HNhn njj tD?n. This is explained in v. 9 by the 
 gloss, ' Formerly a seeker after oracles said, " Let us go to 
 the roek (' seer ')," roek being an old word for ndbhi' This 
 early gloss is thought to imply forgetfulness of the fact that 
 the ' seer ' and the ' prophet ' were originally distinct. It is 
 also held that the nebi'im originated in the period of the 
 ' Philistine oppression.' The former of these propositions 
 is more plausible than the latter, but unfortunately docu- 
 mentary proofs of it are wanting. The nebi'im are certainly 
 of N. Arabian origin (see E. Bib., ' Prophet,' § 4), and there 
 is no reason to doubt that the seers {hozlrn) were quite as 
 much a N. Arabian as a Canaanitish phenomenon. Samuel 
 himself is described as a prophet in iii. 20, and in xix. 
 18-24 is even said to have taken part in the dervish-like 
 proceedings of a band of prophets. But the latter passage at 
 any rate is probably late. Elsewhere he is called either a 
 ' man of God ' (ix. 6 ff., i o) or r7N^^, EV. ' the seer,' @ d 
 ^k-Kav (ix. II, 18, 19), I Ch. ix. 22, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29). 
 But it is doubtful whether rrNnn really means ' the seer.' In 
 I Chr. ii. 52 Shobal has a son called rTNirr. In iv. 2 this 
 becomes rvvc^. Both names are distortions of^ fpNom"'. 
 Now, we have seen that Samuel was a son of oriT'. It is 
 possible that the earliest tradition gave the ' man of God ' a 
 second name, which was some form of Jarham or Jerahmeel. 
 Thus we are no longer bound to hold that T\vr\ {roeJi) 
 
X. 5 FIRST SAMUEL 213 
 
 was an earlier term for n"'33. True, in 2 Chr. xvi. 7, 10 
 Hanani (elsewhere called njhn) is called nNhn. But these 
 are very late passages. 
 
 ix. 21. ■'bDtO is probably a corruption of a dittographed 
 nTlDtOD (cp. E. Bib., 'Tribes,' col. 5201, note 2). 
 
 Chap. x. 2. ' Thou wilt find two men f?m rmnp-ni>.' If 
 this is correct, Rachel's tomb was pointed out at TiKthw, i.e. 
 Shiloh (see above), as well as at Ephrath. For r\^'% almost 
 certainly comes from ntO^tO (cp. E. Bib., ' Zelzah '). It is 
 more probable, however, that 't 'p is incorrect ; hvn (as well 
 as '?^^) is a possible corruption of ^NOm"', and milp may 
 spring from p^n■>l, where pi represents m in ^m (ditto- 
 graphed), ip-'ll bill will be a correct geographical gloss. 
 The southern Benjamin is meant. Where MT. has n2if?21 
 Aid. and some MSS. of @ (cp. Field's Hex^ give, before 
 aXKofLevav<i /xerfoXa, iv %rfkco iv ^uKoXad. These are render- 
 ings (?) respectively of QiW IT'a Qin^Ji and a-hi n-'DS nhm 
 (cp. E. Bib., ' Gallim,' § 2). 
 
 X. 3. Ti3n pSw. ©'' Trj'i Spvo<; TJjs 6k\6«t^9, i.e. •\^^^1, 
 representing DTiini. 'Bahurim' is generally supposed to 
 have been in the northern Benjamin. It was, however, not 
 far from Gallim (2 S. iii. 16, cp. i S. xxv. 44), i.e. Jerah- 
 meel, and the reference in 2 S. xix. 16 (see note) does not 
 oppose our placing it in the Negeb. The name D"'Tini has 
 not yet been explained (Fiirst, ' low ground ' ? ?). ©'', 2 S. 
 xvii. 1 8, gives ^aid'xpppcov. Possibly 'n = Din JT'l, so that 
 ultimately ' Bahurim ' comes from ' Beth-jerahmeel.' Klost. 
 makes 'n = cisn, i.e. the seat of the Bicrites (Saul's clan). 
 But was not this a Beth-jerahmeel ? 
 
 X. 5. DTT^Nn nr3:i. Does this mean ' Gibeah of the 
 sanctuary ? ' And why the addition, ' where is the li2S3 (so 
 read) of the Pelistim ' ? It so happens that D■'^'7^? is pretty 
 often miswritten for 7MDm'', and that there was a place 
 called Gibeath-jerahmeel (miswritten in Josh. v. 3 Gibeath- 
 ha-araloth, and in 2 S. ii. 24 Gibeath-ammah). If we correct 
 Gibeath-hael5him into Gibeath-jerahmeel, we can account 
 for the addition about the T23 (E.. Bib., col. 4307, note 2). 
 ' Jerahmeelites ' and ' Zarephathites ' (corrupted into DTitO^D) 
 are synonyms. The sacred pillar (see WRS, Rel. Sem.^^^ 
 204) of the Zarephathites ('hs) occasioned the place-name 
 
214 CRITIC A BIB Lie A x. lo 
 
 ' Gibeath-jerahmeel.' There seems to have been a great 
 Jerahmeelite sanctuary of that name (note on Jer. ii. 34). 
 See, however, on Isa. x. 28-32 ; also on i S. xiii. 3. — nMrro. 
 Cp. I K. iii. 4, ' this was the great bdtnak.' Beth-jerahmeel 
 (ii. 36), Gibeath-jerahmeel, and Gibeon may have been the 
 same place (xx. 19). 
 
 ' The second D» is protected by z/. 10' (Wellh.). ' Dt& 
 beside T'OT is suspicious ' (Budde). The truth probably is 
 that both here and in z^. 10 Dt& comes from hi^SQW^ (as e.g. 
 Isa. Hi. 11; cp. E. Bib.^ ' Shem '), and Tii;n from ^NQm\ 
 We saw just now that the spot was called 'm*' 'll — probably 
 a great sanctuary. 
 
 X. 10. Dffi. See preceding note. — ii/i For the textual 
 and exegetical difficulties see H. P. Sm., Bu., Wellh. 'jidhnd 
 Dt&'ptO can hardly mean ' from his youth up,' as Budde thinks. 
 This critic adds, ' It may seem as if there were two parallel 
 openings ; in this case Di^n is not superfluous, as H. P. Sm. 
 supposes (cp. Vg.).' It is, however, unsafe to analyse before 
 textual criticism has been applied. The passage is quite 
 regular, if we take account of the signs of an underlying 
 original text. In xiv. 21, xix. 7, 2 K. xiii. 5, Mic. ii. 8, Ps. 
 xc. 4 SloriN has probably come from 7MonT, in Isa. xxx. 28 
 from ^Ni^DW. DQJ^Q? ( = fjNrnm'^) is a constant gloss on 
 SloriN. It is probable that ^loriNn here comes from 7«Dm"' 
 (d is dittographed), and that a verb of movement preceded 
 it. Read [^Ni^om-'] 'jNonT' nT' '^a '''iVX ' And so it was, that 
 when he came down to Jerahmeel (z.e. from the bamdh), men 
 looked, and behold,' etc. (t became ^, and T became r ; cp. 
 no© and i>DtD confounded in Dt. xi. 22, etc.). 
 
 X. 1 2. Read '?Nl>DtD"' tCN ]S"'l. The following words are 
 not the original reading (see H. P. Sm.). Possibly the speech 
 of the man has been lost, and nrr^'lN ""QT represents 'jNom"', 
 a variant to f?Ni7Qt»"'. ©'s reading irrilN (so, too, Pesh., Vg.) 
 is a guess. 
 
 X. 21. i"iap. See on i. \ f. Emendation would be 
 distortion. 
 
 X. 27. ^S"'^! 131"). Why this strong expression ? Read 
 fpNonT" "'3n (cp. on 2 S. XX. I, Nah. i. 11). This is con- 
 firmed by the corrupt m■'^^o^ inil, which represents ^Nom'' 
 TintCs, probably = the •^^•tr^ f?i;n of 2 S. xiii. 23 (see note). 
 
xi. 8 FIRST SAMUEL 215 
 
 It was the men of a particular district who withheld their 
 allegiance, and the true text gives the name of the district. 
 Most critics follow @, and read ©"rriDp TT";'!. But the com- 
 bination of 3 with a preposition is very uncommon. Gen. 
 xxxviii. 24 (see note) is not a safe passage to quote. 
 
 Chap. xi. i. jias so often represents SsoriT that we 
 have to consider whether this may not be so here. See on 
 Judg. xi. 4. Saul's great foes are the Amalekites or Jerah- 
 meelites, and Jabesh-gilead is a city in the southern Gilead 
 in the Negeb. In 2 S. x. 2 we hear of a Nahash, king of 
 Ammon, who showed kindness to David. Is not this Achish, 
 king of Gath or rather Rehoboth ? Rabbath-ammon is the 
 name which our text gives to the capital of Hanun, ben 
 Nahash (2 S. xi. i, xii. 26), but its true name was probably 
 Rehoboth-jerahmeel. Probably either ' Achish ' is misread 
 for ' Nahash,' or ' Nahash ' for ' Achish ' (see on 2 S. xvii. 
 24 /., and cp. E. Bib., ' Nahash,' ' Saul,' § i /.). Both names 
 come either from ' Cush ' or from ' Ashhur ' (see on xxi. i o). 
 
 nsV? 2)i;. A place which only plays a r61e in the story 
 of Saul and in connected narratives (see on Judg. xxi. 8). 
 Probably the same as Beth-gilgal (is^i and h:hy being 
 liable to confusion) and Beth-jerahmeel (see E. Bib., ' Saul,' 
 § 6). There are, however, also parallels for equating XDT 
 with ^NSOBJ"' ; the original name would then be Ishmael- 
 gilead, i.e. Gileadite Ishmael (or Jerahmeel). 
 
 xi. 2. The text caricatures the cruelty of the foe. The 
 true colouring is restored by reading, for ^^p^^, hypDI. ]ia^ 
 means ]a; = fj^onT^ ; whether the whole Negeb, or only a 
 part of it, bore this name, or whether usage varied at differ- 
 ent times, may be left open. ' Stopping up every fountain 
 in Jaman' was cruel enough, doubtless (cp. 2 K. ii. 25). d 
 and 3 confounded (see E. Bib., col. 4305, note 4). 
 
 xi. 7. ^NlotD nnw. Impossible here. It is a corruption 
 of fjMSDtD"' ^MDm^ a gloss on nonn in the earlier text of w. 8. 
 
 xi. 8. PJ3. See on Judg. i. 5. Read either TQ, a 
 southern clan-name (cp. rVTil, 77313), or iDl (Saul's clan) ; 
 cp. E. Bib., col. 4306. The huge numbers and the division 
 into Israel and Judah indicate a late insertion, remarks 
 Budde. But this is an incomplete view. The true key to 
 the problem is furnished ( i ) by @'s ev ^a/M (cp. Jos. iv ^oKa), 
 
 15 
 
2i6 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xii. 3 
 
 and (2) by the numerous passages in which numbers have 
 arisen out of corruptly written ethnics. As to (i) we may 
 follow B, which recognises both pni and nana, rather than 
 A, which represents only the former, and L which represents 
 only the latter, nnin, however, is a corruption of noni, 
 and this a corruption of ^NonT'l. For the benefit of later 
 readers it is stated that Bezek (?) was situated in Jerahmeel. 
 V. 8b is a redactional expansion of 'jNSomi NTll. This 
 (under the influence of a wrong theory) became ■'33 iTl"'! 
 ^^<^tO■'. All that follows has grown out of the words 
 (corruptly written) ^ndhT' ^Ni^ami ; note that f\hi^ very fre- 
 quently represents ^.so, and see on xv. 4. We can now 
 understand how 'om nriN arose in t;. 7 ; it is a gloss on noni. 
 
 Chap. xii. 3. For ll ■'D"'S D"'Si?N1 read 11 13^ d'hmx (3, 
 /cal vTr6Sr]/j,a ; airoKp'idrjre kut ifiov. Similarly in Sirach 
 xlvi. 19 @ has Kol em? v-n-oBrj/xdTwv, and the Heb. text 
 D"'f?i>3. Pesh. omits. See E. Bib., col. 4493, with note i, 
 and cp. on Am. ii. 6. 
 
 Chap. xiii. i. Possibly the omission of the numbers 
 (■'ritp is clearly inadequate or corrupt) is deliberate. See on 
 xxvii. 7- 
 
 xiii. 2. ^NTTil irr. Here only. The Jerahmeelite 
 highlands are meant. 
 
 xiii. 5. 'In Michmash, E. of Beth-aven'; cp. xiv. 23 
 (note). Beth-on (so we should read) was in the Negeb ; see 
 on Am. i. 5, Hos. iv. 15. Was there really a place called 
 Michmas to the E. of Beth-on ? That there was a Michmas 
 (toD3D) N. of Jerusalem (mod. Mu^jmas), can hardly be 
 denied. The true name of the southern locality referred to 
 was probably Michmash (oJDDD, not JCD3o), and this was a 
 distortion of Cusham (Dffi?). Cp. Am. i. 5 where Cusham 
 (miswritten ptBD"r) and On (miswritten jin) are in close juxta- 
 position. , @'s ^aiOapcav seems to be a corruption of ^aiOeov 
 
 xiii. 7. \TV here, as often {e.g. Gen. xiii. 11, i K. vii. 
 46), represents ^NDm^ or, more particularly, SNOmi nTO, the 
 stream (torrent ?) which flows E. of Asshur ' (Gen. ii. 14; 
 see E. Bib., col. 3573). 
 
 ' The land of Gad and Gilead ' (so, too, 0) may be right. 
 The southern Gad and Gilead were meant in the original 
 
xiii. 22 FIRST SAMUEL 217 
 
 story. For the former see Num. xxxii. 3 3 (' Sihon ' should 
 be 'Cushan'), 2 K. x. 33 (Hazael, of Cusham, smote the 
 Gadites and Reubenites). For the latter, see on 2 S. ii. 9, 
 I K. xvii. I, Jer. viii. 22, Am. i. 3. 
 
 xiii. 17 f. Ophrah, i.e. probably Gideon's Ophrah, which 
 was within easy distance of Shechem, i.e. Cusham (Judg. ix. 
 1-5). Originally Gideon was a hero of the Negeb. A 
 Kenizzite genealogy includes Ophrah ( i Chr. iv. 1 4). — Shual. 
 See on ix. 4. — Beth-horon. Not far from Azekah (see on 
 xiii. I, and on Josh. x. 10). — The Valley of Zeboim (□''i^nsrr "'l). 
 '1 (with s) again in Neh. xi. 34 (see note; the names are 
 Negeb names). Probably, like pi>l!i (Gen. xxxvi. 2) and 
 NTH (2 S. ix. 2), D"'SnK is a corruption of [D"']'7N»cit»i. Per- 
 haps the n^an ""i, i.e. the valley of Jerahmeel, is meant. — 
 Sl31 may come from h'hi. 
 
 xiii. 19-22. Previous critics (except Klost.) agree in 
 supposing that these four verses are an interpolation, and 
 Stade {E. Bib., col. 4275) pronounces the statement "that 
 the smith's craft was suppressed by the Philistines through- 
 out the land of Israel ' incredible.' No doubt it is incredible, 
 but considering that the text is obviously not free from 
 corruption, ought we not to investigate it more thoroughly 
 before we dogmatise as to what the text really says. This 
 thorough criticism is only possible by the application of the 
 methods adopted elsewhere in these researches, and by 
 taking account of the experience already gained by applying 
 these methods. The correction offered in E. Bib., col. 1552 
 (art. ' Forks '), for pto'jp mfjm, viz. n-ifpijaa, ' hatchets,' must 
 therefore be abandoned ; it presupposes the accuracy of the 
 general view suggested by MT., viz. that vv. 20, 21 contain 
 a list of the agricultural implements taken down to Philistia 
 to be ' sharpened.' It so happens that ^■'©a in Ps. Ixxiv. 6 
 is corrupt ; a reference to Ps9^ ad loc, will throw some light 
 on the passage before us. Let us take the points in order, 
 refraining (from want of space) from criticising earlier con- 
 jectures, but premising that earlier commentators are quite 
 right in illustrating z;. 19 by 2 K. xxiv. 14, Jer. xxiv. i. 
 A fatal error of interpretation has been caused by the im- 
 possible reading mitsf?^ {v. 20). Budde remarks that 'it is 
 odd that the Israelites are forced to get Philistine help even 
 
2i8 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xiii. 22 
 
 in sharpening their tools,' and H. P. Smith finds this specially- 
 strange in the case of the ox-goad (which most would place 
 by conjecture at the end of v. 20, and which certainly occurs 
 at the end of v. 2\). To explain mibf?^ it should be enough 
 to refer to Gen. iv. 22 and Gen. xxv. 3, where mi2^, miJa^ 
 undoubtedly springs from a miswritten nt07D. That Qinaj^srr 
 should be 'd HKIM (see ®), has been pointed out by Weir, 
 Driver, Budde, etc. But it has not been noticed that ffiiaf? 
 »■!« springs from a miswritten DTitO^D piN (m"'M for pN, as 
 Hos. vi. 9, etc.). As to the names of tools, the fact that 
 Shamgar's ox-goad ( Judg. iii. 31) and the axes of Ps. Ixxiv. 5 
 have grown out of corruptions of fpMom"' is of fundamental 
 importance. Nor can a practised critic help seeing that 
 CD nT'SDrr may easily have come from D"'nD^2i, and f?T DTi« 
 from ^Ni^Dm-' (see on '^IDDN, r S. x. 11), that X^xh^p mSffi may 
 represent two other attempts to write Sndd©"' (cp. on f?pm, 
 Isa. xxxiii. 1 8), that n"'Cmp may come from Q1^NlDm^ T2 
 in "y^rh from f?Ni>Dm'^ (cp. on NI12, 2 S. ix. 2), and jm from 
 n"'ni> (t for i>, cp. on x. 1 1 /). The only word in the list 
 which is left is [ijnffiino. For this @ gives hpeiravov, i.e. 
 t&D"in. This surely is transparently the representative of 
 mnt&[N], i.e. Ashhurim. 
 
 We have now very nearly explained vv. 20, 21. But 
 one important elucidation remains. We have seen that 
 there were no artisans (tonn) left in Israel (i.e. in the Negeb) 
 because the ' Philistines ' had carried them into captivity. 
 And now that the glamour of the list of names of tools has 
 been dissipated, it is possible to see what follows from this 
 statement, viz. that vv. 20, 2 1 must contain a record of the 
 captivity of the artisans. Beyond doubt we should begin 
 V. 20 thus, DTiffiSs nanw himw -^mn-h^ '^~ft'\, ' and they 
 brought down all the artisans of Israel to the land of the 
 Philistines.' ffiiN IS'whh is explained above. What follows 
 in V. 20 is given somewhat less incorrectly in v. 21. The 
 continuation of the passage on the captivity should run 
 nearly thus, QifjNonT'? D-'Sfr?i;cim"'S D-'inffisb] D-'np'is nnOTT 
 [D^'ni'b, i.e. ' and to Hamath ( = Maacath) of the Zarephath- 
 ites [gloss, to the Asshurites, to the Ishmaelites, to the 
 Jerahmeelites, to the Arabians ']. 
 
 In V. 22 Wellh. hesitates between too3D nonSo DV3 and 
 
xiv. 4 FIRST SAMUEL 219 
 
 ^!23D DVl ; Toy definitely adopts the latter. Surely Toy 
 is right. But 'bo has still to be accounted for. In Hos. 
 ii. 20, Ps. Ixxvi. 4 'f?D has certainly come from ^NOriT. 
 Probably the original reading in our passage was nvi 
 SiNonT, referring to the battle with the Amalekites. After 
 the passage had been transferred, a scribe or editor corrected 
 'rtT into tooDD, but the correction did not find its way into 
 all Hebrew MSS. 
 
 Chap. xiv. 2. Wellh. proposes jniD, ' threshing-floor,' 
 (i) to avoid confusion with the 'Migron' of Isa. x. 28, and 
 (2) because a second place-name is not wanted. But '10, 
 ' threshing7floor ' is not known, and the parallelism of xxii. 6 
 suggests another explanation. There, as here, two place- 
 names are mentioned ; one is Gibeah, the other is Ramah. 
 If the Gibeah in both passages is Gibeah-jerahmeel (' elohlm '), 
 it is possible that the sanctuary bore the name Jerahmeel 
 (or the divine name Jarham). Of this name both Migron 
 and Ramah appear to be popular corruptions (cp. on ' Gomer,' 
 Gen. X. 2 ; E. Bib., ' Ramah '). Saul was apparently sitting 
 as judge under the tree by the sanctuary ; the spot may have 
 been called both Migron and Ramah, i.e. Jerahmeel. See 
 also E. Bib., ' Migron.' 
 
 xiv. 3. Ahijah, Ahitub, Ichabod — all N. Arabian 
 names. The second also .occurs (as Ahi-tabu) in Am. Tab. 
 xi. 14 as the name of a person engaged in political matters 
 in Syria. They are of ethnic origin. Ahijah = Ahi = Jerah- 
 meel. Ahitub = Jerahmeel-tubal. Ichabod (iv. 21) = Jerah- 
 meel. Phinehas and Eli ; see on i. 3. The other occurrences 
 of Ahijah and Ahitub also favour this view. See e.g. on i K. 
 xi. 2 9 (Ahijah the Shilonite), i Chr. viii. 7, ix. 11. 
 
 xiv. 4 f. The narrative may, or may not, have been 
 recast with a view to the physical peculiarites of the northern 
 Michmas (cp. E. Bib., ' Michmash,' § 2). At any rate, )m in 
 the sense of ' craggy side ' (Conder) is impossible, and why 
 should the opposite sides be named at all ? The clause on 
 the names may be a corrupt form of v. 5 (see E. Bib., /.c). 
 pi:jo, like }>213, may be a corruption of jiDSp. DtO, ]ttl, and 
 n3D all possibly represent ^N^0!2)^ an early gloss on D^ntD^n. 
 Remember that in v. 6 the Philistines are called by Jonathan 
 D-fyns = D^'^NOm"' ; cp. also on z'. 2 1 . In its earliest form 
 
220 CRITIC A BIBLICA xiv. 6 
 
 the narrative seems to have represented Saul as warring with 
 the Jerahmeelites or IshmaeHtes. 
 
 xiv. 6. D'^'jnr. A constant error for Qi^NDnT' (see on 
 xvii. 36, xxxi. 4, and preceding note). 
 
 xiv. 14 / xrvsm "rD!5 may represent 32iarr ISO, two 
 readings, of which 'on is the better. See E. Bib., ' Sling.' 
 
 xiv. 2 1 . Read [^ssDffii ^NonT^] n'^nm^Bb vn nms D-'nn»m. 
 'hT' and 'anr are variants to DTitO^S (cp. on vv. 4 /, 6). 
 On 'f?tt) 'hnD see on x. 11. 
 
 xiv. 23. Budde and H. P. Smith prefer the ^aiOeopmv 
 (Beth-horon) of ©"- to the 'Beth-aven' of MT. and (@* 
 (Jdavv = ^aidavv). Cp. xiii. 5. The point is doubtful. 
 
 xiv. 24. Insert from @, with Thenius, Ewald, Wellh., 
 Driver, Budde, H. P. Smith, but instead of D'^nSN nni read 
 'qn li?":? (® irokLv — T^r). It is the same n»i (rocky jungle ?) 
 which was the scene of the battle between Absalom's army 
 and the warriors of David (2 S. xviii. 6 /), and which was 
 really in the Negeb (see notes). Cp. Isa. xxi. 1 3 ni;l ni;"!. 
 
 xiv. 2 5« and 25^ are doublets. The former should run 
 n:i7ir7-^N InI'T ; p^n-Sa is a corruption of ni^Ti f?N (misplaced). 
 V. 2<)b is an interpretation of the genuine original words' 
 tDii; iSn ngni (Tj^rr, Klost, Budde). 
 
 xiv. 31. There is no sufficient ground for altering the 
 text; « corresponds to v. 21b (see Lods in Budde's note). 
 For ' Aijalon ' see on Josh. x. 1 2. 
 
 xiv. 47 f. ' The writer does not scruple to transfer 
 exploits ascribed by tradition to David (2 S. viii. 12) to his 
 neglected predecessor.' The ethnics, etc., need rectification ; 
 partly corruption, partly misunderstanding have produced a 
 most misleading statement (see on 2 S., i.e.). Read — 
 
 We have in fact an introduction to the war against- 
 ' Amalek.' The corruptions in MT. are mostly familiar ones. 
 That nsniJ phas (see on 2 S. viii. 3) should become ''^ha 
 nns is only surprising as long as one has the habit of re- 
 garding MT. as a faithful record of names. @'' inserts after 
 ' Edom ' Koi eh tov Baidpoco^i, i.e. nm n"'3 (cp. 2 S., l.c^. 
 
XV. 4 FIRST SAMUEL 221 
 
 ' Rehob ' was the N. limit of the ' spies ' (see E. Bib., ' Spies '). 
 Probably for nm ('lim) and mm nin we should read 
 nilini (cp. E. Bib., 'Rehoboth')- "inom (end) comes from 
 'jMSOm"' (d = o) ; so does the "irfDl implied by @'s rwv Kara- 
 iraTovvrav avrov. StDV, as Wellh., see ®. 
 
 xiv. 49-51. The names of Saul's sons were probably 
 derived from xxxi. 2. Abinadab has fallen out and his 
 place has been taken by •>im"', which may be a fragment of 
 S1Q)'^3"?D, written too soon (instead of na^N).^ See on 
 xxxi. 2. ' Abner, ben Ner,' should be ' Abinadab, ben 
 Nadab.' Abi-nadab probably comes from l-i3 ins. All 
 these names point to the Negeb. 
 
 Chap. xv. 4. niN^a. It is the Dhts of Josh. xv. 24 
 (so all critics), only it is nearer to the original name, which 
 is Snsdw (cp. on ^loriN, x. 11). Observe that in i Chr. 
 ix. 17 Talmon precedes Ahiman, and that in Num. xiii. 22 
 Talmai, together with Ahiman (Jerahmeel) and Sheshai 
 (Cushi), is a dweller in Hebron (Rehoboth in the Negeb). 
 — V. 4b is subject to the same objections as xi. 8b. It is a 
 half-hearted measure to alter rmn"' tCNTiN into n"'tD"iD to 
 correspond with "hy^ (Noldeke, ap. Wellh. TBS, 96), or 
 again to omit the last words from mffi:>1 (Wellh. ; cp. {^'■), 
 or even from -hyi onwards (Budde). The critics have failed, 
 partly through not having noticed how often numbers have 
 arisen out of misunderstood or corrupt ethnics, and partly 
 through not having looked closely at @'s rayfiaTcov, which 
 certainly comes from chyi (see ®, Num. ii. 2 /., etc.), i.e. 
 from Dni'^l, ' Gileadites.' Of course MT.'s "hjl has a similar 
 origin, i.e. it represents lahx It is now easy to explain the 
 mystery of v. 4b. dtinq, like D"'N^2a, represents fjloriN, i.e. 
 Sni^dco"' ; mtos comes from nintDN (cp. nmin) ; mirr"' comes 
 from ^NDm"' ; f]hii represents ht^o, and D"'qSn comes from 
 D-'f?MD. In fact, V. 4b has grown out of 'm*' TintON isb^ 'aw^, 
 i.e. Ishmael or Jerahmeel (spoken of in a) is Gilead-ashhur. 
 We may infer from 2 S. ii. 9 that the most important parts 
 of the kingdom of the house of Saul were Gilead and Ashhur. 
 
 1 It is also possible that 'Ui", like 'is", may come from ^kvdis". Saul's 
 successor was best known as Ishmael (see on 2 S. ii. 8). Malchishua 
 (rather Jerahmeel ?) may represent the same person. If so, only two 
 sons of Saul are well attested. 
 
222 CRITICA BIBLICA xv. s 
 
 If ' Jabesh-gilead ' means ' Ishmael-gilead ' (a very tenable 
 view), the place so called may be that intended in our 
 narrative. Cp. on iv. lo, 2 S. x. 6. 
 
 XV. 5. Read, perhaps, i"i.s (® ews tSdv irokeav) ; cp. 
 XXX. 29. So Klost. Most take MT.'s ITT as = 3i«ji, ?>. 
 ^l^!"i (see Driver, ad loc.) ; Klost. prefers "iys^y But con- 
 sidering that it is a plundering expedition, it is most natural 
 to read y^TTX The Sn3 is possibly that of f?NDm\ better 
 known as the n^QH ■'|. Winckler, however {Musri, ii. 6), 
 thinks of the QiiSD f?n3. 
 
 XV. 7. n^'^in. Not to be emended into DN^l? (Wellh., 
 Budde), nor into liton hryi (Che., Exp. T, x. 239 [1899]; 
 E. Bib., col. 546), nor into rh'^'^n (Glaser). According to 
 Wellh., ' the misreading arose under the influence of Gen. 
 XXV. 1 8.' Wellh.'s correction is a consequence of an emenda- 
 tion of xxvii. 8 which claims the authority of 0, but on 
 doubtful grounds, and is at any rate not the most probable 
 one. Now that it has been shown that ' Amalek ' is a 
 popular corruption of ' Jerahmeel,' and that ' Ishmael ' and 
 ' Jerahmeel ' are used as synonyms, there is no reason what- 
 ever why the description of the limits of Ishmael in Genesis 
 should not be adopted in our passage with reference to 
 Amalek. In both passages it is apparently the less advanced 
 section of the Ishmaelite or Jerahmeelite race which is re- 
 ferred to. That n'?"'in = ^NOm"' is plain from xxvii. 8, 
 critically examined. — iiaj, as in xxvii. 8 and elsewhere, is 
 shortened from iiJ&N, i.e. n^nffiN. See on Gen. xvi. 7. — Point 
 
 XV: 9. ' Highly corrupt text ' (Budde, cp. Driver). 
 True, but the usual corrections are, I fear, wide of the 
 mark. D"'D£DD is certainly not from D"'3atlj, ' fat ones ' (Then., 
 Wellh., Driv., Bu., etc.), but from □■''jNi^otDi ; again and 
 again ptD represents ^MSDm"' (see, e.g., 2 S. i. 21). Of 
 course, 'otC"' is misplaced ; experience warns us that it is 
 an intrusive marginal gloss on some other word. What 
 word ? No doubt DC)3, which is incorrectly written for 
 IDa? = 'affi\ HDN^D now becomes clear; like Qi^N^D in 
 2 S. xi. I, it represents Qi^NDm"' or tjipfjos. T\^'ya:i is, of 
 course, impossible. The a is intrusive (influence of Di33) ; 
 •n^ll like ^nrw, represents '^N:>Dm^ a variant to 'f?Nam\ 
 
XV. 29 FIRST SAMUEL 223 
 
 It has only to be added that O'lnDrr^sl, which does not 
 recur in w. 1 5 and 2 1 , probably comes from D1f?NDm^ 
 a marginal gloss on the incorrect nasfpon, and that 
 D1isn"75-^i>"l seems to be a gloss on I'a'^tin'hii {^ often 
 introduces glosses). Render, therefore, ' And Saul and 
 the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and 
 of the oxen, but the Jerahmeelites [Ishmaelites] they 
 devoted.' 
 
 XV. 12b. The difficulties have not been met. To 
 read l"'2n for 11550 is not at all less arbitrary because the 
 translation of @ read so, nor can we simply omit the closing 
 words from nS'"! with Budde. Experience of the recurring 
 types of corruption, when ethnic names are concerned, ought 
 to enlighten us. Nothing is more common than for the f?N 
 in ■JNOm"' or ^Ni^Dffii to be separated from the rest of the 
 name (or rather from the fragment which represents it) and 
 prefixed as vh or 17. And it is certainly not uncommon 
 for ■'SNi^OlD"' to survive in the corrupt fragmentary form of 
 DT or lto\ Less common, but not unexampled (see on 
 2 S. viii. 3) is T25 as a representation of ^Nl^Dt!)''. Lastly, 
 Sonr) again and again represents ^NSomi, and '^hs^x again 
 and again is confounded with hy^y. Read, therefore, ^INtO Nl 
 ~\shy -xr^ 'a3■^^ ^nsd©-' [fjNonT' ^Nsom"'] nyn nsni n^Nomi, 
 ' Saul came to Jerahmeel, and behold, he smote [Ishmael, 
 Jerahmeel] Ishmael, and passed on, and went down to 
 Gilead.' "iTzTi fell out after rr3rr. By ' Jerahmeel ' is meant 
 the 'cities of Amalek' (v. 5); 'Ishmael' is a synonym for 
 'Jerahmeel' or 'Amalek'; 'Gilead' (see on v. 4) is Saul's 
 own country in the Negeb. The words in square brackets 
 are a gloss. @'s to apfia, i.e. m3inn, like f?m3, represents 
 fjNOmi. 
 
 XV. 22 ^ 1123 is obviously an editorial makeshift ; 
 D^^iN lf?n represents two fragments of fjNom"' ; nxjsn 
 comes from n3»n (cp. on Ps. cxlvii. 14). m£3 = rT'l (Ps. 
 xxvii. 13). Read ^« nil "'D^ilP and fpNOHT' [ni'?i;]c). 
 Then Dinsnsi n'!?'""'^'' ^NOHT DffiS npsol. Cp. Hos. 
 iv. I 5. 
 
 XV. 29. n23 in several other passages is corrupt ; the 
 presumption is that it is so here, for no one can profess to 
 know what 'iffii nS3 really means. In JQR xi. 400/. an 
 
224 > CRITIC A BIBLICA xv. 32 
 
 attempt was made to heal the text on the basis of Num. 
 xxiii. 19. This was an error. Klost. is right in seeking 
 help from @, but his result is unsatisfactory. Applying 
 our methods, however, @'s text becomes transparent. As it 
 stands, (g presupposes Dn3"' ih\ Tm"' th\ ti^ixh ht'n'W^ mm 
 {jcaX Staiped'^o'eTai, 'lap. et? Svo, Kal ovk airoo'Tpe'^^ei ovSe 
 lieTavorjcrev). Here n-'3tt> (as jam often) and TtC vh (in 
 accordance with many parallels) probably come from ^Ni?Qffi\ 
 T\'^TV^, too, should represent some Negeb name. Can we 
 doubt which? — surely it comes from pTW, which, as in 
 Am. vii. 9, 16, represents the Israelite territory in the 
 Negeb. A light now falls on MT.'s ipffii vh 'vcn n23. m3 
 and iptoi come, the one from pnX', the other from pnffi\ 
 On pns"' or pntC"', ^Nimi or (better) ^Nsom"' is an explanatory 
 gloss, on is right, but hvi has fallen out after it owing to 
 the hi^ and the two ih which follow. Read ih pns"' ^M Oil 
 Dn3"', ' Moreover the God of Isaac will not repent.' 
 
 XV. 32/; n3^27D has been tortured with much ingenuity. 
 @'s rpefimv should, however, furnish a clue ; rpifiav pre- 
 supposes, not Lagarde's n"'31J7a (Propk. Chald., p. li.), but 
 mDi?"i ; cp. noi'l. Job xxxix. 19,© <f)6^ov. In Gen. x. 7 
 riDS-} is a son of Cush (the N. Arabian) ; it represents Dm"' 
 ( = f?NDnT). Read "'noii-in IJM. ' Amalekite' = (i) Jerah- 
 meelite, (2) Raamathite ; the three names mean the same 
 thing. — The speech of Agag should be kingly (cp. Judg. 
 viii. 2 1 a). Budde sees this, but gets no further. Yet ® may 
 again help us ; el ovT(o<i Tn,Kpo<; 6 6dvaro<; may as a whote 
 be inappropriate, and yet el ovra'i may preserve a correct 
 tradition. In Ps. xviii. 5 /• 3.nd elsewhere, niD represents 
 f?NDm"' (cp. niDT') ; it may also, especially when preceded by 
 mo, represent ■'nDsn. Read (or npi?n) TiMT I'm n^iO^ prr, 
 ' Dieth so a prince of Raamath ? ' To this Samuel's words 
 are a fitting reply. — ^iDffi'jl. ' Whether the word has 
 been correctly handed down may be questioned. Etymo- 
 logically PiDtl? stands isolated. . . . Should we read SBiir^. 
 (Judg. xiv. 6 a/.)' ? Driver. So already Gratz (Gesch. i. 188), 
 but SDtl) means ' to rend in pieces ' (of a wild animal). 
 Surely the right reading is plain ; it is £2DJgi;"i (ta and D 
 confounded). Samuel prepared his victim for sacrifice by 
 flaying him (cp. Lev. i. 6, n^i>ri-n« £3"'t6Dn'i ; 2 Chr. xxix. 34, 
 
xvi. 12 FIRST SAMUEL 225 
 
 XXXV. 1 1 ). The actual slaying is not reported, only pre- 
 supposed. 
 
 Chap. xvi. i . "itf*;, ' of uncertain origin, best with Marq. 
 [Fund. 24J as = "iffiinN ' (Budde). This implies that ilN in 
 "'tD'^lN means ' father ' (as the title of a god ?). But neither 
 of the parallels offered for this will hold ; lin3"'N and SnrN 
 can be shown to have come from "?NDm"' and bxi^DJO"' re- 
 spectively. Marq. himself admits that ■'ffi"> may possibly 
 come from hsiXU"^ = f?2;imN. It may at any rate come, and 
 certainly does come, from fjNSDQJ"' (cp. n"'ffi"', son of Harim = 
 Jerahmeel, in Ezra x. 31), and ■'ffii^N ( = ia>"'DN) seems to 
 have the same origin, unless, indeed, 1n = 1"15. — ■'on^n-n"'3. 
 If due weight is to be attached to the evidence which makes 
 David a man of the Negeb, the Bethlehem intended will be 
 not that which in later times was the best known Bethlehem, 
 but one in the Negeb. Marq., speaking of the ' real 
 home of David,' points out that it must have been near 
 the southern Jezreel. This follows from the true text of 
 2 S. xvii. 25 (note) and from the fact that David's first 
 wife, Ahinoam (see on xxv. 43) was a Jezreelite. Marq. 
 further holds that David's city was originally Arad (p. 25 ; 
 cp. B. Bib., col. 1020, note 2). It was, at any rate, near 
 Arad. Note, however, that in 2 S. xxiii. 24 _/;, a Bethle- 
 hemite warrior is put side by side with an Aradite (read, 
 with Marq., "'I'lsn). It is very possible that one of the 
 Bethlehems was near Jezreel and Arad. For this was the 
 Jerahmeelite Negeb, and onS-rT'S comes from ^NanT'"n"'l 
 (cp. on 2 S. xxi. 19). In xvii. 12 (see note) the place is 
 called rvr\xv urh r\n, but rrv\rv here, as in Judg. xvii. 7 
 etc., represents ^NorrT. More specially it was in Ephrath 
 (cp. on xvii. 12). For Marq.'s view of xx. 6, see note on 
 that passage. 
 
 xvi. 8 f. Jesse's three elder sons are ivuhv^ = ''T^s (cp. 
 on ' Abiel,' ix. i), m3i3N = n3 ms (vii. i), and noQ> = n:;Dm 
 (2 S. xiii. 3) = ^Ni?om\ All Negeb names. 
 
 xvi. 1 1 . ]S23 nsi. JM2 is one of the recurrent cor- 
 ruptions of haSDUr. See on xvii. 34, Gen. xxxvii. 2, Ps. 
 xliv. 12, Ixxviii. 71, Am. vii. 15. 
 
 xvi. 12. DS represents CTS, written too soon ; xvii. 42 
 is harmonised with our passage. 
 
226 CRITICA BIBLICA xvi. 19 
 
 xvi. 1 9 / jNSl na>N. Read 'jNi^om"'! ntCN. Harmonised 
 with V. II (cp. Budde, Richter u. Sam., 211), but note the 
 omission of nsi. 'WCTi (v. 20) represents f^NDHT, a gloss 
 on ■'m"' ( = SNi;ot!)"') from the margin. Possibly it displaced 
 mtor (see xvii. 1 7), but rather more probably tivh as well 
 as mon represents 'pNom*', so that (omitting "1) the present 
 consisted of a skin of wine and a kid. The present in 
 xvii. 1 7 has altogether different items. 
 
 Chap xvii. i. The invaders encamped between nSltO 
 and rrpW. Both place-names occur again in Josh. xv. 34, 
 as in the Shephelah of Judah. In i K. iv. 10 n3t0 is 
 mentioned with ' all the land of nDn,' whose eponym, in 
 I Chr. iv. 6, is made a son of Ashhur ; in Josh. xvii. 2 he 
 is made a Gileadite, but the original record referred to the 
 southern Gilead. Soco and Azekah were among the cities 
 'in Judah and in Benjamin' fortiiied by Rehoboam (i Chr. 
 xi. 4). The Judah and Benjamin spoken of are in the 
 Negeb (see E. Bib., ' Rehoboam '), and the question arises 
 whether miri"' both in Chron. I.e. and in our passage (as 
 well as in v. 12) does not represent 'nT = ^«Dm"' (cp. on 
 Judg. xvii. i). In Josh. x. 10 Azekah is named between 
 Beth-horon and Makkedah ; the original story fixes all 
 these places in the Negeb. — caT DDN3. ' This redundant 
 statement is suspicious ' (H. P. Sm.). But the original 
 reading probably was n"'i2'iN n?S03 ', an intermediate reading 
 was Sn pD?ji (cp. E. Bib., ' Ephes-dammim, end of par. i ). 
 Cp. ^^ e^epfie/u., and see next note. 
 
 xvii. 2. iT^Nn posa, not ' in the terebinth- valley,' but 
 corrupted from ^Nom"' pOi'l, or more probably still (cp. on 
 Ps. Ix. 8) 'nT nason, 'in Maacath of Jerahmeel.' 
 
 xvii. 4«. CJ^'jarr {^■'M ' has not been satisfactorily ex- 
 plained ' (see evidence in H. P. Sm.). ©, however, may 
 give us a hint ; avrjp Bvvaro^ may represent '?';n ffi"'M, i.e. 
 ^Nom*' tO-iN (cp. on V. 7). This is confirmed by another 
 Greek translation (©?), introduced into (3'' which has (in 
 V. 2S) 'in ffi"'N, o a/iea-a-aio<;, i.e. ■'tCDi>rr = "'^Ni^omTT (cp. afieacraei, 
 B in 2 S. xix., BA in xx., A in xvii., where MT has NtSDS, 
 ' Amasa).' Clearly, then, Qisirr must be a synonymous 
 ethnic with prefixed article. The solution of the problem 
 is, read pp:;ai-miN. The phrase points to a time when 
 
xvii. 7 FIRST SAMUEL 227 
 
 ' Benjamin ' represented a district in the Negeb — n:;^^. If 
 we are in favour of explaining Hebrew legendary names 
 from Assyrian, g-l-y may be a corruption of g-z-1, and 
 ' Goliath ' be a pale reflection of mythical evil spirits called 
 guzali (see E. Bib., ' Goliath ') ; for another view see Winckler, 
 AOF^^ i. 51, note 3. This involves taking -ath as a mere 
 termination (see E. Bib., ' Ahuzzath '). But if we have 
 found that N. Arabian preponderate over Assyrian elements 
 in Hebrew legends, and if we are aware that -ad in ' Gilead ' 
 has a tendency to become -ath (e.g., I K. iv. 13, •yaXaad 
 [B], Judg. i. I 5 D-'D nSl = SNOmi ^I'^l), we shall prefer to 
 take Tvhl ((3^ yaiXiaS and ryoXiad) as = ^i?'?a, i.e. the Philistine 
 champion could be said to come either from Benjamin or 
 from Gilead (the southern Gilead). See further on 2 S. 
 xxi. I 5 yi, where the giant Gilead is distinctly referred to. 
 
 nao. His origin could also be traced to ' Gath,' or 
 better ' Rehoboth ' (as often). The identification of ' Gath ' 
 with ' Rehoboth ' is placed beyond doubt by the following 
 word. See next note. 
 
 xvii. 4b-y. The redactor has put forth all his skill to 
 make sense of certain (to him) unintelligible glosses. These 
 glosses can still be detected underneath the passages relative 
 to the height of the ' Philistine ' warrior and the weight of 
 his armour ; 2 S. xxi. 1 6 (middle part) is exactly parallel. 
 First comes mn moN mm imi. Here 'a corresponds to the 
 ni in nio (just before), and to the 13, 3:i, and ni of 2 S. 
 xxi. 15-22. mm and Don are well-attested recurring cor- 
 ruptions of vma or rather (here, at least) linmN and 'jNonT' 
 respectively, mn (cp. the names ms and ]m2i) represents 
 riDlS. Thus the verse becomes, ' And there went out a man of 
 Benjamin from the camp of the PeliStim («), named Gilead of 
 Rehoboth (b). [(a) Jerahmeelites, Zarephathites. (b) Rehob- 
 ashhur.] ' For mm ® presupposes yis (jecraapav, mis- 
 understanding) ; ' Rehoboth-arab,' would do quite well, for 
 another name of Rehoboth was Kirjath-'arab (see on 
 Gen. xxiii. 2). — Qimpmp. Read Dffii3. — Spmm mil'? wn. 
 'h comes from ^Ni?om"' (see on Ezek. xxiii. 6). Nin intro- 
 duces a gloss. ' Cusham ' precedes ; then comes ' that is, 
 Ishmael.' hpwa also = ^WI3m^ originally a correction of 
 min'?. The following words (omitting nmn3, which came in 
 
228 CRITIC A BIBLICA xvii. 12 
 
 from V. 6) represent f?NrDtO'' ^NDmi Dffl3 IVntt). In v. 6 omit 
 the second ntona. In v. 7 omit ")rT'3n pm, a corruption of 
 nB>n3 nn2D"i (dittographed), and □"'IIN ni3D3 as a corrupt 
 marginal note on D"'3in-m"'N (v. 4), to be read QTri« QITp, 
 2.e. ^NDnT ]3. See on 2 S. xxi. 19, and note @'s reading 
 in w. 4 (above). Also omit nin^l, a corruption of f^NDHT. 
 The second in"'3n (nmriD) resumes. Then follows (correcting 
 as before) 'diC 'ni'' inmN. bni represents h^ll, i.e. ^MSDffl''. 
 
 xvii. 1 2. The redactor has awkwardly adapted a second 
 account of Jesse, [^NOnT'] m^XV Urh rT'3D TTiDN JB^n TT-'I. 
 (rrnn"' from 'm*', as in Judg. xix. I , etc.). ' Ephrath,' like 
 ' Gilead ' and ' Benjamin/ is a district in the Negeb ; it may 
 have included ' har-jerahmeel.' The reading nnS-rr^l 
 SsDm"' is confirmed by necessary textual corrections in 
 xxix. 3, XXX. 26. David was by origin a Jerahmeelite. 
 
 xvii. 26. ' This uncircumcised Philistine ' ? No ; ' this 
 Philistine [the Jerahmeelite].' See on vv. 4, 7, and on 
 xiv. 6, Judg. xiv. 3. 
 
 xvii. 34 / ;N2n. Read bNi;DtO''3 (xvi. 11). — iii^rr 
 liTn-riNl. Why riN ? and why two animals, when, except 
 m. V. 36 (DiIo, see below), David speaks of but one foe. 
 The key is furnished by 2 S. xxiii. 20 and by Ezek. 
 xxiii. 1 5 (QiS'llla). Read [i^Ni^om^'n] "'Q'lNrT ; for mn-riN 
 ( = SN:;QtOi), cp. ^siriN, i K. xvi. 3 1 . Afterwards, for m, 
 read, not nto, but probably rrjB. Omit lli>rro, a corruption 
 of i^Nom"' (cp. on Jer. vi. 3), a correcting gloss on insn. 
 For VBp read Tiajp. Then continue ^•ha Dj^NX 13pn 
 should probably be hnpTO (cp. 2 S. xxiii. 21). The exploit 
 of David is partly like that of Benaiah's. His foe is a 
 Jerahmeelite robber, whom he slays with the robber's own 
 spear. This heightens the effect of the detail about the 
 slaying of Goliath with his own sword {v. 51). 
 
 xvii. 36. riN has got misplaced (see v. 34). Read 
 [■'SNi?ntO"'n] ■'QiNrr 05, and for onp nriN? read ^nhD|. nnn 
 (a common disguise of 'm"') may have been brought in from 
 the margin, after the single Arammite foe had become, by 
 textual corruption, two wild animals. 
 
 xvii. 37. ■'nNrr to comes from iSNOnTD, and, unless 
 the editor has been more arbitrary than in v. 34, so too does 
 
 mn TO (n = hn = ^nd). 
 
xvii. 40 FIRST SAMUEL 229 
 
 xvii. 40. It is but slowly that the bdst solution has 
 
 been reached, but the result is all the surer. Isa. Ivii. 5 f. 
 
 supplies the right key ; there, too, the text is overlaid with 
 
 corruptions of ^ndht, and one of these corruptions is ^phrt, 
 
 oqe of the words which puzzle us in our passage. Add also 
 
 DlpSiN, Prov. XXX. 3 1 (see ad loc), and ''phn and "'Sma, Ps. 
 
 xvi. 5 (see PsS^^). The words to be omitted are iS^ntDM 
 
 ( = SNsam-'), also ip^n, D-'nn, and £3"ip^-'n (© a^ph-h ?), all 
 
 of which represent 'JMnrrT'. We assume that an early scribe 
 
 wished to explain f?n3D (cp. on vv. 1 /.), and wrote ^NOriT' 
 
 and ht^sovcr in the margin., These words intruded into the 
 
 text, and were miswritten, for which there are many parallels 
 
 (see e.g. on Jer. xlix. 29, 1. 9, li. 3). Qi^nn for 'nT ; see 
 
 on Am. i. 2. Thus we get, ' and he took his staff in his 
 
 hand, and chose him five stones out of the wady [Jerahmeel, 
 
 Ishmael], and put them in a bag, and his sling in his hand, 
 
 and drew near to the Philistine.' Cp. @ in v. 43, eV pa^Bm 
 
 KOI Xidoi<i. 
 
 «■>! is not to be altered into ni ; together with •^:}^ it 
 represents ^^shx This correction is favoured by •nsVH [i.e. 
 'i-ist& = D'^irffi) which follows. Shaaraim is = Sharuhen (the 
 Ass. Shirihana (see E. Bib., s.vv.) ; the former represents 
 Asshurim (cp. on Q-^tsm, Ezra ii. 42 ; rvista, i Chr. viii. 38), 
 the latter Ashhuran. ' Gilead ' and ' the Asshurite ' are 
 brought together in 2 S. i. 9. No doubt the territory was 
 a 'debateable land.' Read Qilt&MT ishl •^t-r\7i.-~fs. V. 52^ 
 is a doublet, and from it J'npl' (@ aaKoXav) penetrated into 
 the text of «. 
 
 ' ofptDIT' is so evidently out of place here that we 
 are forced to consider the clause an insertion of a late 
 editor. . . . The mention of David's tent, however, is 
 perfectly in accord with the narrative, xvi. 14-23, which 
 makes him a member of Saul's staff' (H. P. Sm.). 'The 
 acme of thoughtlessness, that David brings the head of Saul 
 to Jerusalem ' (Bu.). But D^tOITi is often written in error, 
 as Gratz long ago pointed out. In E. Bib., col. 3430, and 
 Exp. T, X. 522, f?lNmf? is read, and "i^nNl is emended into 
 '■> ^HND, ' in the tent of Yahw^.' The latter is certainly 
 right ; the ' tent of Yahw^ ' was at Nob or rather Gibeon 
 {ibid.). But another name for ' Gibeon ' was ' Gibeath- 
 
230 CRITICA BIBLICA xviii. 6 
 
 jerahmeel ' or ' Gibeath-ishmael.' It is probably in this 
 neighbourhood (' Ishmael ') that Saul was, according to the 
 original story. The head of Goliath was presumably to be 
 exposed on the city wall (cp. xxxi. lo), the arms to be laid 
 up in the sanctuary. 
 
 Chap, xviii. 6. Several words in MT. should have 
 awakened critical suspicions. These are, Tiffl"?, m^nom, 
 nnnmi, and especially D"'m"'Smn. 'r\xh (not recognised in ^^) 
 is a corruption of a dittographed ^NntO"'. m7ncin[l] no 
 doubt represents fpNDm"' (see on Ex. xxxii. 19), a gloss on, 
 or correction of, f?«itai ; for it is the Israelite territory in 
 the Negeb which is meant (cp. on 2 S. xvii. 11). nnotCl 
 may represent n^3!l ; D"'tl>''^tcn, for which even the extensive 
 learning of Paul Haupt (' The Heb. term mi^m,' Beitr. zur 
 semit. Sprachwissenschaft, iv. 583 ff^ fails to justify the 
 sense ' triangular harp,' may, with the highest probability, 
 be read ^Ni^QB)"'! (cp. on i K. ix. 22). D"'Dni, as perhaps in 
 Isa. XXX. 32 (see note), may come from □■'nnsja. Thus we 
 get the statement that women came forth out of all the 
 cities of Israel to meet king Saul, and glosses further instruct 
 us that Israel means the Jerahmeelite Negeb, and that the- 
 women belonged to Naphtuhim (see on Gen. x. 13), and to 
 Cusham, and to Ishmael ( = Jerahmeel) — all parts of the 
 Negeb. This throws a new light on 2 S. iii. 5. 
 
 xviii. 17, 19, 20. na and h^'a both probably come 
 from ^MDm"'. That Saul's daughters really bore these 
 names need not of course be aiifirmed. Nor should we be 
 too certain that ' Merab ' and ' Michal ' represent distinct 
 persons ; at any rate, so far as chap, xviii. is concerned, @^ 
 only recognises one daughter of Saul. The respective 
 husbands are called Adriel ben Barzillai the Meholathite 
 (2 S. xxi. 8, but r S. xviii. 19 omits 'ben Barzillai') and 
 Palti ben Laish. Here ' Barzillai ' and ' Laish ' may ulti- 
 mately contain the same place-name (see below). ' Adriel ' 
 and ' Paltiel ' are both clan-names, but the clan-names are 
 very much alike in meaning. As to 'Adriel, it is probably 
 neither the Aramaic form of 'Azriel, nor simply miswritten 
 for 'Azriel (though © in 2 S. xxi. 8 may be taken to support 
 this view), but one of the popular corruptions of Jerahmeel 
 (cp. on -n^yrra, xvii. 34 ; QIT'-ni;"!, Jer. vi. 3, and especially 
 
xviii. 27 FIRST SAMUEL 231 
 
 on the place-name 1:?^^N, Num. xxi. 33). And as to Paltiel 
 it is simply an expansion of Palti = Perathi or Sarephathi. 
 Cp. on Beth-pelet, Josh. xv. 27. The legendary husband of 
 the legendary daughter of Saul may equally well have been 
 called 'Adriel or Palti, and his home have been called 
 Beth - ishmael or Laish (Shalisha ? Shaul ? Ishmael ?). 
 ' Meholathite,' too, comes from a corruption of ' Jerahmeel.' 
 Cp. E. Bib., ' Meholathite,' ' Merab,' ' Palti.' 
 
 xviii. 1 8. •''n, implying, it is said, a a-n: Xej. in, ' clan, 
 family.' So Wellh., Nold., W. R. Smith, Driver, Budde, etc., 
 who then proceed to omit inM nnstDD as a gloss. This 
 omission is very hazardous ; why should a mere glossator 
 have added ilN to 'mo ? The word Tr, it is admitted, must 
 have been ' rare ' in Hebrew. But if only rare, why then is 
 there no second instance in some other plain narrative like 
 the present? Tth in xxv. 6 and ^Trh'D in Gen. iii. 20 will 
 hardly be adduced. The right explanation, however, is 
 close at hand. Remember that Saul has been fighting in 
 'Jerahmeel' (see on xvii. i /., 54); David, too, has come 
 from Beth-lehem, z'.e. Beth-jerahmeel. Read fpNonT'l ^a^N ^d 
 ^Nim^l ilN 'moi, ' what am I in Jerahmeel, and my father's 
 clan in ' Israel ' ? 
 
 xviii. 25-27. m^n» HNQ is suspicious, (i) because in 
 V. 27 ' two hundred men ' (0 harmonises, eKarov) are slain, 
 and (2) because in Ex. iv. 25 and Josh. v. 3 TO'iS has 
 evidently come from n"'"?NDm"' ; mSis here, in fact, pre- 
 supposes the incorrect reading ti'h'^s (for Qi'^Nom"') so often 
 attached in MT. (cp. @) to Dintof?E3. The original story 
 doubtless gave, as the message of Saul to David in v. 25, 
 ' The king desires no dowry, but (desires) to be avenged on 
 the king's enemies' (see E. Bib., col. 3077), on which there 
 was a gloss Q"'f7NDm"'3, ' on the Jerahmeelites ' (hnd ^ and 
 mfji:; [ni^ni?], both being corruptions of 'm^). Then, in 
 V. 27, it told how David and his men ' slew of the Philistines 
 two hundred men,' and how David brought ' the skulls of 
 the Jerahmeelites to the king.' orTTi^nr-riN has probably 
 supplanted □■''jMDnT' mf?af?l-hN (cp. on 2 S. iii. 14). This 
 is required to produce a parallelism with xvii. 54 ; it 
 was not the nSls but the head of ' Goliath ' that David 
 1 For paralells see on Gen. xiv. 14, xv. 13, 2 K. xix. 35, Isa. Ixv. 20. 
 
 16 
 
232 CRITICA BIBLICA xix. 7 
 
 brought to the city of Ishmael or Jerahmeel. That mb:if3a 
 is correct (rather than '^tpN'i) may be presumed from the ease 
 with which it would be extruded by the corrupt tavrh's's. 
 And the correctness of D"'7NDnT' is shown by the distorted ' 
 record of the word which follows, viz. D1N70"'") (a crux to all 
 commentators !).^ In v. 26 (end) we find a similar distortion 
 of the same word (a misplaced gloss on DTito'pD), viz. nSi 
 □"'Crr ^^?70. Remember that Sn in 'm"' is often separated 
 from the main part of the word and prefixed to the corrupted 
 remnant as n7. And note, in conclusion, that the offer 
 reported in xvii. 2 5 is simply that ' to the man that kills 
 him (Goliath) the king will give his daughter.' See, further, 
 on 2 S. iii. 14. 
 
 Chap. xix. 7. After the reconciliation David waited on 
 Saul, mm^ffi ^1Dn>0, or rather (see on x. 11) S'NSDm"'!, ' in 
 Ishmael ' (or ' Jerahmeel '). 
 
 xix. 16. T^na, like ni3D in 2 K. viii. 15, comes from 
 ^3^0. In Prov. vii. 16 we hear of cushions (D"'Tno) of 
 Misrite manufacture. □''tsn probably comes from D1^^M, 
 i.e. hivarrw Cp. also i^icJN vrnt^, 'a mantle of Asshur' 
 (Josh. vii. 2 1 , corrected text). 
 
 xix. 1 8. David and Samuel dwell rT'l^l (Kr. nVDl) ; 
 w. 19 adds nci'13. The older methods having failed, there is 
 a good field for the application of the new. Obviously some 
 compound name is required. Gilead-jerahmeel would be 
 possible (cp. Golath-maim = Gilead-jerahmeel, Judg. i. 15), 
 but Gibeath-jerahmeel is more obvious (see on x. 5, and 
 E. Bib., ' Naioth ')• 
 
 xix. 20. npn^-nw. Budde (S£OT) reads n^np (0 
 iKKKrjcriav), or rather {HK) omits the word as a dittO' 
 graphed "nnph. Perhaps, however, we should read mp'jnn ; 
 cp. I Chr. xxiii. 6. Omit CNai (Klost), and for nai) read 
 Di$. Samuel, too, had naturally thrown off his upper 
 garment (cp. v. 54). Wellh. is content with the note 
 
 xix. 22. Read xpi nil (®'"- ; Wellh., Dr., etc.). For 
 
 1 Kamphausen talks of a ' sense of decorum ' as the cause of the 
 ' omission ' of din'jd'i in @ ; he also ventures on the correction mht\ 
 (' Bemerkungen zur alttest. Textkritik ' in T/ieoI. Arbeiten aus d. Rhein. 
 IViss. Pred.-vereins, vii. 22). 
 
xxi. 2 FIRST SAMUEL 233 
 
 13to, Wellh. and his successors read ■'D^S (JB ev tw o-e^e.)- A 
 more correct reading would be nhSp, which however may- 
 come from npi>0 (cp. PsP on Ps. Ix. 8). ^Nffi'l, which 
 follows, comes from 7Mi?Qa>i. The name of the locality was 
 Maacath-ishmael. 
 
 Chap. xx. 19. The 'stone Ezel' has long been a crux 
 interpretum. We might read l j>n ^i''^s^I hfiv^, ' beside yonder 
 juniper-tree' {E. Bib., col. 1472); ^s^r is at any rate better 
 than !mN (imagined to mean ' cairn '). But this was only 
 possible while the significance of the correction of ' Nob ' 
 into ' Gibeon ' was but imperfectly realised. If, however, we 
 admit that m3 in xxi. 2 comes from njJ?^!, we can hardly 
 fail to see that both pN 'vnv. 19 and 313 in v. 41, and also 
 the 6/37a/3 of 0, come from pi'li, while hw^T^ (cp. ^irw) is 
 little less certainly from hvO'CX!!^. Gibeon or Gibeon-ishmael 
 (otherwise called Gibeath-jerahmeel, see on x. 5) was the most 
 sacred city in the Negeb ; what better place could Jonathan 
 suggest as a temporary refuge for David ? Note in passing 
 that the narrator has no idea that Samuel may be at this 
 place, though, as we have seen (on xix. 18), it was one of 
 the places where Samuel was believed to have resided, also 
 that nail . . . mTT {v. l) is probably a redactional seam 
 (see H. P. Smith). 
 
 XX. 30. niTian niM-p; so Lagarde {Mittkeil. i. 237), 
 but who will accept this as the original ? Adopting mw 
 (not plur., as 0, but sing.) from 0, read ninsp niM (mi>3). 
 Saul regards David as a Misrite (cp. xxii. 3, reading l^sp), 
 and denounces Jonathan as half a Misrite. Jonathan's 
 mother may of course really have been a Misrite. The 2 
 in rcnsD dropped out, and the t was dittographed. 
 
 Chap. xxi. 2 does not fit on to chap. xx. but to xix. 1 7, 
 or rather to a^a"'T in z^. 18. Nevertheless the redactor had 
 a reason for placing xxi. 2 ff. where it now stands, viz. the 
 reference to prDl which is common to chap. xx. and to 
 chap, xxi., assuming that the place-name in the text of 
 XX. 19 and xxi. 2 was not yet corrupted (cp. on xix. 18). 
 Instead of nD3 read njisia, and cp. preceding note. On 
 the certain correction of ' Nob ' into ' Gibeon ' see E. Bib., 
 ' Nob,' and cp. on 2 S. xxi. i . — -f^imi^. No doubt the 
 same as the riTIN of xiv. 3, but not, as the critical tradition 
 
234 CRITICA BIBLICA xxi. 3 
 
 says, because ' the 'tj^o of the one name means the same 
 God as the n; of the other ' (Klost.), but because ■'HN (Gen. 
 xlvi. 21, I Chr. y. 15, vii. 34) represents ^Mom"' (the n in 
 HTrN is formative only), and so also do l^D and I^DTIN. 
 This at any rate is the original meaning. 
 
 xxi. 3. Read, 'and the young men I have ' appointed 
 (inis;:, H. P. Sm.) to meet me at a place in Jerahmeel ' ; 
 2 K. vi. 8 is exactly parallel. As also in Ruth iv. i, ■'D^s 
 comes from d'pd, ''ixht^ from nfjND, and both represent 
 ^Nom"' (d duplicated, cp. D2f?Q = I'jo = ^NOm"'). 
 
 xxi. 6. Without the key no clear explanation can be 
 reached. As so often, DmStO ^DnD (@ k'^Qh koI rpirrjv 
 rjiiepav) comes from 'jNsnm'' ^NOm"' (see on x. 1 1), where '©"i is 
 a gloss or variant to 'm*'. Sn and 'hyi also represent ^Nom"' ; 
 no sense can be made of Sh '=11'^, ' a profane or common 
 way,' or of i^33, ' in (or, by) the vessel.' In the real speech 
 of David, however, ^NOriT only occurred once, i.e. in the 
 phrase '7[D]n[T] in. Cp. b^n,. Gen. x. 23, one of the sons 
 of (the southern) Aram. Read, therefore, li'p-mSi' n££)N-DN ""S 
 !1NT ^Nam"' m Nim mp D'^ni>2n-^3 T'H-'T ■^hnsi ['tei '•v'\ 
 [jMDm"'] Wlp"' DVrr-'3, 'But the prohibition of intercourse 
 with women has been carried out ; when I came forth all 
 the young men were holy. Indeed, it is the usage of Jerah- 
 meel, and how much more will they be holy to-day.' The 
 ' usage of Jerahmeel ' should mean the rule in force in the 
 Jerahmeelite Negeb, a breach of which by David's young 
 men (natives, like himself, of the Negeb) would be incon- 
 ceivable. Budde thinks that iTiSS ' hardly means taboo, for- 
 bidden on religious grounds, but inaccessible.' But why 
 may it not mean that the sexual taboo, which primitive 
 religion imposed, was actually carried out? As to hrt XVi 
 Schwally's conjecture {Sem. Kriegsalterth. i. 64) is only in 
 order if there is sufficient ground for trusting the text. The 
 many conjectures as to ib^ (see H. P. Sm., Bu.) may also be 
 safely neglected. 
 
 xxi. 8. '^p'TMrr. More probably '^•fh'VAr\ (© Svpo?). 
 Doeg was probably a Jerahmeelite of the region in the 
 Negeb occupied by the Israelites. — D"'l>'in T'jIN. Following 
 Gratz, Driver reads QiS-in T^aN, ' the mightiest of Saul's 
 runners (or couriers) ' ; so Budde {SBOT), Kittel. This is 
 
xxi. 12 FIRST SAMUEL 235 
 
 plausible (cp. xxii. 1 7, where the ' servants of the king ' are 
 identified with the n"'S"l, as to whom see note on 2 K. x. 25). 
 Such a use of T'jIM, however, is unexpected, and from @'s 
 vefiav Ta<; rifjii,6vov<; Lag. conjectures CTi^;!! f?''3M (Rev. Luther- 
 bibel, p. 17), to which Budde in KHC inclines. b-'llN is 
 properly ' camel-driver ' (cp. E. Bib., ' Abel '), and is thought 
 to occur in i Chr. xxvii. 30 as the name of the keeper of 
 David's camels. But much more probably S'"'11N is (like 
 Si'lT', etc.) a corruption of fNom"' ; Lag.'s ingenious view is 
 to be rejected. We must not, however, disparage @'s 
 rendering ; it warns us not to acquiesce too readily in the 
 □"'i^in T'lN of MT. Let us next call in the aid of experience. 
 As Jer. xlvi. 1 5 shows, ti3n may represent either in whole 
 or in part an ethnic name, and D"'i»^^r may, as Jer. vi. 3 and 
 other passages show, represent ^Nnm"'. On the whole, it is 
 most probable that cann T'3« in v. 8 comes from ""nj; 
 ■'^Mcm"' ; i.e. ' Arabian ' and ' Jerahmeelite ' are two rival 
 descriptions of Doeg. The words (d'^QIN-'?? 323 ?) which 
 originally stood before fjlsmf? iffiM (cp. xxii. 9) appear to 
 have been supplanted by the two short glosses. See on 
 xxii. 9, and cp. E. Bib., ' Doeg,' ' Saul,' § 2 «. 
 
 xxi. 10. tD''3«, @ ayx^ov;. May we connect this with 
 Ass. akdsu, ' to rush forward,' and suppose the name to have 
 come from a divine title {E. Bib., 'Goliath')? More prob- 
 ably, like ' Nahash ' (see on xi. i), ' Nahshon,' and ' Nehustan ' 
 (a corruption of ' Nahshon '), it comes either from ' Cush ' 
 (cp. ' Shishak ' = ' Cushi,' king of Misrim) or from ' Ashhur.' 
 This harmonises with the representation of Achish in xxvii. 2 
 and I K. ii. 39 as a Maacathite. 'Cush,' 'Ashhur,' and 
 ' Maacath ' all point to the N. Arabian borderland. Achish's 
 city was r\y, a corrupt fragment of niirn. (suggested by @'-'s 
 a')(^ifiaav, xxvii. 2). See on xxvii. 2, 2 S. xxi. iS f., 18. 
 
 xxi. 12. Klost. rightly restores, after TH, SiMffi 1'ys 
 (xxix. 3). H. P. Smith and Budde do not succeed in 
 making the text at all probable. How could the courtiers 
 of Achish have imagined that this Hebrew fugitive was 
 ' king of the land ' ? On the other hand, to have on their 
 side the chief of the warriors of the hostile king, who had 
 so fully shown his capacity at the expense of the ' Philistines,' 
 was the greatest boon that heaven could give them. ' The 
 
236 CRITICA BIBLICA xxii. i 
 
 land ' means the Jerahmeelite Negeb. The phrase ' king of 
 the land ' implies that Saul was not in the eyes of the 
 ' Philistines ' a mere adventurer, but was the embodiment of 
 ancient Israelite claims. 
 
 Chap. xxii. i. n^"72; ri1?P- The words recur in 2 S. 
 xxiii. 13 (II I Chr. xi. 15), and in both passages are followed 
 (see V. 5 here) by miSD. Hence most, after Wellh., correct 
 mi;o into ni^p. This view, however, must be abandoned. 
 Again and again (see on the cave of Machpelah, Gen. xxiii. 9 ; 
 the cave in Makkedah, Josh. x. 1 7 ; the cave of the Zidonians, 
 Josh. xiii. 4, cp. Ges.^^^' and AV^^') mro owes its precarious 
 existence to corruption of the text (see notes), and the word 
 used in the original texts was evidently either ■7h?am"' or 
 some long-established popular corruption of that name (such 
 as r70N^). dSts is also corrupt. It comes immediately 
 from x:rT\s, but ultimately (see on xiv. 6, and cp. on Mic. 
 i. 15) from fjNoriT or a"''?NDnT (as each case may require). 
 Observe that in Josh. xiii. 4 mro is followed by D"'3T2'? IffiN, 
 i.e. probably D'^nsoS nfflN. True, the plausibility of this 
 depends on the correctness of the historical view that N. 
 Arabia was in the closest historical connection with the 
 people of Israel ; but about this there can hardly be the 
 shadow of a doubt. The name of the place, therefore, which 
 David, according to the original tradition, made for a time 
 his headquarters was ' Jerahmeel,' or some corruption of that 
 name (not Adullam). Cp. on Gen. xxxviii. 2. 
 
 xxii. 3 f. ' Mizpeh of Moab ' should probably be 
 Misrephath-missur (n^sci nsnsp) ; so, in accordance with 
 analogies, a seemingly hopeless problem is solved. See 
 especially on Gen. xxxi. 49, Josh. xi. 3, Judg. xi. 29 ; note 
 also that Elijah probably came from Zarephath of Gilead 
 (see on i K. xvii. i). On the connection between w. 3 /. 
 and the genealogy in Ruth iv. 18-22, see E. Bib., col. 4170; 
 3N1D in Ruth, as well as in Sam., represents niap. 
 
 xxii. 4. n"T12i33. Read, probably, i^s^pa ; this was 
 perhaps misread as '"nsol = miSDn. The idea seems to be 
 that David's father and mother were cared for in the palace 
 at Zarephath, while David and his four hundred were in 
 the open country. Pesh., however, in vv, 4 and 5, reads 
 nE3203 (for rmaol). Adopting this, since nsso often repre- 
 
xxii. 5 FIRST SAMUEL 237 
 
 sents nmSD or nE3^2i (see above), we should have to explain 
 "las in V. ^ as = ' with David.' So Budde, except that he 
 retains the enigmatical 1n"id n£3SD. 
 
 xxii. 5. ' Gad the prophet ' is improbable ; ' Gad,' if the 
 name is correct (see on 2 S. xxiv. 11), was David's ' seer ' 
 (nth), 2 S. xxiv. 1 1. According to Budde and H. P. Smith, 
 Gad is simply introduced in order to get David sooner out 
 of a heathen land. But it is a question whether rmrr"' pN 
 is right. In xxiii. 3 the place miscalled ' Adullam ' is 
 apparently referred to as in Judah. This it was not ; it was 
 either Jerahmeelite (see on t/. i) or Misrite (see on v. 3) ; the 
 latter was the view of the writer of vv. 3, 4, and probably 
 also of the writer of v. 5. Probably both in v. 5 and in 
 xxiii. 3 we should read, for miri'', 'pNom"' ; a confusion of 
 the two names is not uncommon (cp. on xvii. 1 2). ' Jerah- 
 meel ' means the Negeb ; a place might therefore be called 
 Jerahmeelite whether, at the time referred to, it belonged to 
 the Israelites or to the Philistines. Possibly Zarephath was 
 just now Israelitish ; the counter-statement of vv. 3 f. (as 
 read by us) would not disprove this. ' Gad the prophet (?),' 
 however, can, by a writer who holds Zarephath to be Misrite, 
 be represented as outside the land of Jerahmeel. He delivers 
 an oracle bidding David remain no longer in Missur, but 
 pass over into the land of Jerahmeel. Accordingly David 
 withdraws, and comes to mn ^S^ 
 
 Where was mn ni^i ? — If in vv. 4./. we read nssaa, and 
 if TiB'^o means a different place from ohis niso (v. i), it 
 will be natural to suppose that mn ni'"' and ^~\s mi>D are 
 equivalent ; i.e. that David returned to his former refuge at 
 ' Adullam ' (see E. Bib., ' Hareth '). It is, however, more 
 critical to suppose that throughout vv. i-c,a the same place 
 is intended, viz. Zarephath. Looking more closely at iii'< 
 mn, and taking account of parallels elsewhere (e.g. "ii;-<, Ps. 
 cxxxii. 6), it would seem that ns"' can most easily be traced 
 to ^NonT. mn may also come from this name, unless it 
 be a fragment of nih"). The latter view is preferable, only 
 we should then transpose the names, and read, ' Then David 
 . . . came to Rehoboth -jerahmeel.' 'Jerahmeel' may be 
 added to ' Rehoboth ' to show that it is not the Rehoboth 
 over which Achish ruled that is meant, but another Rehoboth. 
 
238 CRITICA BIBLICA xxii. 6 
 
 (Ewald, Wellh., Klost., Budde, and H. P. Sm. suggest t6lh, 
 to which i:;;; may, Budde thinks, be a gloss. It would be 
 more plausible to read Din Ti^ ; cp. @ eV iroKu crapiK(_x)', 
 Din = nritpM (see on xxiii. 15). 
 
 xxii. 6-19. Cp. on 2 S. xxi. i, 6. — 6. ' In Gibeah . . . 
 in Ramah.' Since ' Ramah ' is an old corruption of ' Jerah- 
 meel, and Saul is sitting under the sacred tree, we may 
 suppose that the sanctuary of Gibeah bore the name ' Jerah- 
 meel ' (see on xiv. 2). It is premature to correct to noM 
 (Bu., H. P. Sm. ; @ ev ^afia). btDN is probably a deliberate 
 alteration of nntON (see E. Bib., ' Tamarisk '). Cp. xxxi. 1 3. 
 
 xxii. 7. ira-; 133. 'd-' = "^3"'Qi p^tj (ix. 4), a region of 
 the Negeb. 
 
 xxii. 9. ® 6 KaOearriKa)'; 67ri ras fjfiiovovi Saoii\ = 
 'wh TtON D"'T'i7'S'S 32i3 Nim. The passage appears to have 
 been harmonised with @'s rendering of xxi. 8. — 21 
 ' Abiathar.' See on 2 S. viii. 1 7. 
 
 xxii. 1 4. Tf PirotpD hi$ npi. is impossible. ' Captain 
 over thy bodyguard ' ? ? Read, probably, npsp ^NSpm-; Ito"!. 
 This was David's special office — chiefship of that portion 
 of ' Ishmael ' or 'Jerahmeel' (i.e. the Negeb) which was 
 called Maacath.' Cp. on 2 S. xxiii. 23. ® iip'xoBv = '\)!!i. 
 
 Chap, xxiii. 3. David's present headquarters are in 
 rnir7\ or rather (see on xxii. 5) fpNom"", i.e. the Negeb. 
 Keilah, however, is not reckoned to the Negeb. Here 
 David's men say that they have only a moderate anxiety, 
 but far otherwise will it be if they go eU ras KoiXdSa<} ra>v 
 aXXocpvXav (©'' ; in BA et? to. aKvXa, an obvious corruption, 
 not understood by Wellhausen), i.e. 'hs "'pDS-^N (cp. on par, 
 xvii. 2). This suggests the true correction of MT.'s 
 '^D mansQ-^M, ' against the ordered ranks of the Philistines ' 
 ('d hardly suits a mere raid), which should evidently be 
 '^Q naro-^N, ' against Philistian Maacath.' Keilah seems 
 to have been a border city of Jerahmeel. 
 
 xxiii. 15. nffinns. V. i6 shows that a place-name is 
 meant here. Budde inclines to Conder's identification of 
 Horesh with Hureisa, one mile S. of Ziph. But there is no 
 good biblical evidence for a word ttnn meaning ' wood ' (see 
 E. Bib., ' Forest,' ' Horesh '). A doubt is no longer possible 
 that ntOin represents ninfflN, ' Ashhur,' the name of a district 
 
xxiv. 13 FIRST SAMUEL 239 
 
 and of places in the N. Arabian border-land. Cp. Har- 
 heres (Judg. i. 35), Kir-heres (Isa. xvi. 11), 'Ir-haheres (Isa. 
 xix. 18). 
 
 xxiii. 19. Th'':i'n. See on xxvi. i. — 24. 'With nini;3 
 hardly anything can be done ' (Budde). Certainly the 
 Jordan Valley is not referred to here. But read "yrg^ (see 
 on Dt. i. I ). ' In Arabia, south of Jeshimon ' is a possible 
 statement, for ]"»D">m"' is a corruption of ^Nsam"', and 'db^ = 
 ^Nom"' {i.e., here, Jerahmeel mountains ?). Cp. on Num. 
 xxi. 20. @'s Ka6^ kairepav (nsn) seems to have been over- 
 looked. 
 
 xxiii. 28. nip^Tiarr shv. Neither 'rock of divisions' 
 nor ' rock of smoothness ' (Budde) is satisfactory. Probably 
 ni^jnan 'd, ' rock of the (circling) dances ' ; Saul and David 
 seem to have played hide and seek. mSno (n^no), like 
 TXT''2n, probably comes from 'Jerahmeel.' In different parts 
 of the Jerahmeelite highlands the common name 'Jerah- 
 meel ' became differently distorted in the popular speech. 
 See E. Bib., 4346. 
 
 Chap. xxiv. i . '^"rii-]"'?. Probably from toini-j-'i* = 
 C^IR VS- See on Gen. xiv. 7. 
 
 xxiv. 3 / Qi^s^n ■'n^JJ. Rather fpNonT" DDIS. At any 
 rate 'nv for Vn is certainly correct. — jMsn nhTia. 'The 
 sheep-cotes, at present empty, consist in the cave itself with 
 a space in front ' (Bu.). But ' gidroth ' is only a place-name, 
 and for jNsn we should read ^NSOtO"' (see on xvi. 11). Cp. on 
 ' Gidroth Chimham,' Jer. xli. 1 7, a locality beyond Mizpah 
 (J.e. Zarephath ?), on the way to Misrim. 
 
 xxiv. 13. See next note. — 14. H. P. Smith observes, 
 ' The exaggerated humility with which David speaks 
 appears to me secondary.' We may at any rate surmise 
 that the reference to a ' dead (?) dog ' is an interpretation 
 suggested by Mephibosheth's speech in 2 S. ix. 8, and made 
 subsequently to the growth of the corruption iriN tDi^ns. As 
 to the text underlying these latter words, we can only here 
 give a decision without the grounds (for these see on 
 xxvi. 20). The original words probably were njiffiN MIS, ' a 
 wild ass of Ashhur.' This enables us to account for v. 1 3a. 
 Prof. H. P. Smith well remarks on the infelicitousness of the 
 introduction of this mashal. But neither he nor Wellh. nor 
 
240 CRITICA BIBLICA xxv. i 
 
 Budde has been stirred up to account for the passage, except 
 as a ' worthless gloss.' Yet, rightly understood, it is not 
 worthless. It is a gloss, or rather collection of glosses 
 (derived from different MSS. ?), on the name Ashhur which 
 had long become unfamiliar to readers. ' A wild ass of 
 Ashhur ' really meant ' a wild ass of N. Arabia ' ; it may 
 be compared with the phrase ' a wild ass of Aram ' (or 
 ' Jerahmeel ') which, in Gen. xvi. 1 2, is probably applied to 
 Ishmael. Deciphering the overwritten original of v. i^a, 
 we may with probability read thus, ^NSOtC ^NOm"' nntpN 
 nwii ht^sam'' Qi-i^n D'''7NDnT. It will be noticed that in 
 xxvi. 20 the clause with TtDM = (^"|^tDN) comes immediately 
 after "rriNJI? (also = TintON), whereas Aere the parallel clause 
 comes before the reference to Saul's useless persecution of 
 David. Both these clauses consist of glosses on ' Ashhur.' 
 
 Chap. xxv. i . The alteration of pNED into pSD (® fiaav) 
 appears hasty. See E. Bib., ' Paran.' 
 
 xxv. 3. 713 is a most improbable name. The original 
 story may have given some other name, e.g. Nadab (yi 
 became ^l), or Abiel, or (Winckler) Habal (MT. hyn) — 
 properly a tribal name. — '^-'ZiilN, but in v. 32 and 2 S. 
 iii. 3 Kt. is Si-iih?. Probably from n^^a ins. Cp. on 
 xxvii. 6. 
 
 xxv. 4. 11^3. Read ■'^NDm% disguised as "1 inS m 
 (v. 6). ^ib = 'jii = ^No. 3 = nh'']. 
 
 xxv. 6. inf? n3, together with the following 1 (from ^) 
 represents i^NonT, a variant to llS'3 (v. 4, Kt.). The 
 points and accents presuppose ^TliS, ' to my brothers ' ; but 
 this is unnatural, and in Gen xvi. 12 vriN-^^ is a corruption 
 of ^NonT (see ad /oc). Cp. also TrS = 'm\ Judg. xv. 9. 
 
 xxv. 22. Tpl pn©D, a 'not very refined' expression for 
 ' every male ' (H. P. Sm., and most). But elsewhere these 
 more than ' inelegant ' expressions turn out to be due to 
 corruption. Read here fjpDl ]sr\^p. Cp. on 2 S. iii. 29. 
 
 xxv. 25. SiJ-'^nn ©■'N (contrast f?i;if?3-p, t;. 17). Read, 
 perhaps, ^ndhT' ©■'N. Abigail plays on the name 'Jerah- 
 meel,' which suggests the idea of rudeness and violence. 
 The initial n in 'irr represents n in 'm"'. 
 
 xxv. 44. For ijafpQ, in-h, see on xviii. 17, 20. — im 
 Q-hlD. Tc3 Sk pofLfia [B], yaXkeo [A], yoXiaO [L]. In the 
 
xxvii. 2 FIRST SAMUEL 241 
 
 MT. of Isa. X. 30 a place called Gallim is mentioned 
 between Gibeath-shaul and Laishah ( = Shalishah). Prob- 
 ably, however, the true reading here is either Beth-gilgal or 
 Beth-gilead ; the names Gilgal and Gilead are so liable to 
 confusion that it is difficult to say which is the more correct. 
 See also on 2 K. iv. 42. 1^^, in our present passage, points 
 to ' Gilead ' (yoiXtaO may represent ishl, see on xvii. 4). 
 Possibly ' Laish ' represents the place and ' Gallim ' the 
 district (Gilead) to which Palti was traditionally assigned. 
 
 Ghap. xxvi. I, 3. n'?"'3nrr. Probably from ^Mom"'. 
 See on xxiii. 19, 28. 
 
 xxvi. 6. Note ' Ahimelech ' is a ' Hittite,' i.e. either a 
 Maacathite or a Rehobothite. Cp. on 2 S. viii. 17. 
 
 xxvi. 1 9. The contrasted deities are ' Yahweh ' and 
 ^NDHT' Tihii (see on Dt. vii. 4, Jer. i. 16). 'Abishai' or 
 (2 S. x. 10 and in Chr.) ' Abshai,' is probably, like 
 ' Absalom ' (see on 2 S. iii. 3), from 'Arab-ishmael. 
 
 xxvi. 20. ^^^^ tDS")B-nN. Incredible (see E. Bib., 
 ' Flea '). ^^^j Tr)v ■^v^7)v fiov, a mere guess. In E. Bib., 
 IS33)"15"TQ NIP is suggested; compare Gratz's correction of 
 D7N N13 in Gen. xvi. 12. Most probably, however, we 
 should there read DIN vr& ; Ishmael is compared to the 
 untameable wild ass of Edom. Just so, David likens himself 
 to the 'wild ass of Ashhur' (a region explained in an 
 ancient gloss on nim« in Hos. viii. 9 as ' Arab-jerahmeel '), 
 or, as a variant recorded at the end of v. 20 puts it, to the 
 'wild ass of Jerahmeel.' itt>N3 comes from nniDN, as in 
 xxiv. 1 3 [see note] and Ps. Ivi. 7 ; ffW from Nnn ; Nipn 
 from 'riT, as in Judg. xv. 19 [see note]; D'^nn[l] also from 
 'm"", as in Ps. Ixxv. 7. 
 
 Chap, xxvii. 2. tjiso. Rather TTDsp (i K. ii. 39); cp. 
 @^ «/"■/"-«%• <&'', however, axifJ'aav ; cp. jaTiN, Num. 
 xiii. 22, etc., the name of one of the three Anakite tribes 
 dwelling at Hebron, jdtim represents fjNnm"', and pinn 
 probably comes from mim. Another of the tribes was 
 called imt&, a corruption of "'m'lS. ' Achish,' therefore, being 
 a corruption of 'Gush' or 'Ashhur' (see on xxi. 10), and 
 ' Maacah ' being not improbably connected with ' Jerah- 
 meel,' it is all the more likely that the city of Achish was 
 Rehoboth (Hebron). The alternative is to suppose that n:i 
 
242 CRITICA BIBLICA xxvii. s 
 
 is a corruption of nDi)0 ; cp. inn, 2 S. viii. i. But see on 
 2 S. xxi. 15/, 18, where the evidence points decidedly to 
 Rehoboth. See next note, and on 2 S. x. 2, xii. 26, i K. 
 ii. 39-41- 
 
 xxvii. 5. npSpan T-ra. Read 'm*' T'Vn, ' in the city of 
 Jerahmeel' (see on Am. vii. 13). The city was Rehoboth- 
 jerahmeel. See on 2 S. xii. 26. 
 
 xxvii. 6. iSpS. An impossible name. The under- 
 lying name must have been more intelligible. Very possibly 
 pS^J the Ammonite, or Jerahmeelite (2 S. xxiii. 37), came 
 from this place. Another form of the name was possibly 
 naSo (see Dt. iii. 10). Not that the same place need have 
 been meant by both names, for Sp2i and "[Sd (pbo ?) may 
 both represent 'jnsdqJ"' (p=r), a name which, preceded or 
 not by IT'I or "vs, was doubtless borne by several places 
 in the Negeb. Very possibly i'^ps is a modification and 
 contraction of ^ipSa = ^^^I ^Ni^DtO"', ' Ishmael-gilead ' ; cp; 
 ^Pl«, i.e. li?bl ni> (xxv. 3). Marq. (on 2 S. xxiii. 37) 
 supports the reading sSji (for p'ja). It so happens that the 
 place-na.me "^i (2 S. xxi. 14) is cognate with SiNtO or 
 ^Ni?Dm\ Cp. E. Bib., ^ Zela,' ' Ziklag.' 
 
 xxvii. 7. The duration of David's sojourn was ' four 
 months ' (@), or ' a year (?) and four months ' (Heb. text). 
 The frequency, however, with which Qii^ni? is written for 
 Qinr {e.g. on Judg. iii. 1 1, and cp. E. Bib., col. 3573, note 3), 
 and the fact that the phrasing of Achish's reference to time 
 in xxix. 3 is also not quite natural, make it possible that, 
 as in xiii. i, the words expressing duration of time have 
 been omitted. We can easily account for the rest of the 
 verse. It is a misplaced gloss on T^'ds and TitD:i in v. 8, and 
 should be read D''int2>[N] n:)1 '3NDm^ ' Jerahmeel and Arabia 
 of the Ashhurites.' 
 
 xxvii. 8. David makes a raid on the Geshurites, the 
 Girzites, and the Amalekites. TitOl, nntON, or iimN (2 S. 
 ii. 9) was the name of a district in S. Palestine (Glaser and 
 Hommel \^AHT 242], cp. E. Bib., ' Geshur,' 2) or more 
 distinctly in the N. Arabian border-land. The fuller form 
 is Ashhur ; there is also a mutilated form Shur. The so- 
 called ' Girgashites ' were no doubt the same as the 
 Geshurites or Ashhurites. "'m (or •'nu, Judg. i. 29, i K. 
 
xxix. I FIRST SAMUEL 243 
 
 ix. 1 7) also appears in the name D''Jni ^^ ; Mt. Gerizim 
 was originally ' in 'Arab- Jerahmeel, at the entrance of 
 Cusham ' (see on Dt. xi. 29). pf?D» is a popular corruption 
 of SNOnT^, which attached itself to the less advanced portion 
 of the Jerahmeelite races. 
 
 Y^\i'ii^ niim'' r^yn ""a. Most ingeniously and improbably 
 Wellh., Dr., Bu. render, 'for these are the populations that 
 inhabited the land.' This is evidently a case for textual 
 criticism. For n3n @ presupposes H'Sn. "'IW often repre- 
 sents fjMsnaji {e.g. Isa. X. 1 3) ; n and b are also very liable 
 to confusion. D^"i:', too, is not, as Wellh., Budde, Winckler, 
 etc. suppose, from Dp"'?? (many cursives give TeXa/i instead 
 of TeKafj,) but a pretty common corruption of ^Nom"' (see on 
 Gen. vi. 4, Ps. xc. 2). mi© should be m"i©N (see preceding 
 note). Thus the whole passage becomes, ^«i>ot2fi nan "'3 
 trn^'a piN-ni*"! m^!§N ^N!a 'jNom-^D ibn p^n, 'for behold 
 Ishmael is the land which extends from Jerahmeel, in the 
 direction of Asshur, as far as the land of Misrim,' a 
 geographical comment based upon Gen. xxv. 1 8, where 
 the region of Ishmael is described as being ' from Havilah 
 ... in the direction of Asshur,' or more shortly, ' over 
 against Jerahmeel ' n^iin = 'jnohT'). See on the ||, xv. 1 7, 
 and cp. on xv. 4, where it is shown that Q"'N'7£a comes from 
 fjion, i.e. ^NSDQ)"' ; 'w and 'm"* are synonyms. 
 
 xxvii. 10. rmn*' 113 (cp. xxx. 14). Possibly 'ry is 
 miswritten for ^Nom"'. Cp. on xxx. 26, and see E. Bib., 
 ' Negeb,' § 2. 
 
 Chap, xxviii. 4. DDim. Ultimately from ^NDOffii (cp. 
 pt&, Isa. x. 22. Cp. also jm'rr'a or ]N8>-rT'3 and ]»bn \ms. 
 It is a place in the Negeb. Note that for a Shunammite 
 woman it is an easy journey to ' the Philistines ' (see on 
 2 K. viii. 2 / — sia^a, from ^NDnT (see on 2 S. i. 21, and 
 E. Bib., ' Saul,' § 4 c). 
 
 xxviii. 7. nil pi?, perhaps from lirj ]"'2; (Judg. vii. i), 
 or perhaps yis T^s (E. Bib., ' Saul,' § 4 ^. Note Tin in z/. 5, 
 and observe that in 2 S. xxiii. 2^ /. a ' Harodite ' and a 
 ' Paltite ' occur together. 
 
 Chap. xxix. i. For ' Aphek,' see on iv. i. Insert tit after 
 ps. Budde's reference (in comm.) to E. Bib., seems hasty (see 
 cols. 1291,1967). En-dor and En-harod are one and the same. 
 
244 CRITICA BIBLICA xxix. 2 
 
 xxix. 2. ' The alternation between D''3nD and Di"ito is 
 peculiar ' (Budde). Not so, if D'l^nD comes from D''3'n (see 
 on V. 8). 
 
 xxix. 3. D''3m rrriN D''p; T\\. ' Some days or some 
 years,' says H. P. Smith, would hardly be the reply 
 of a man who knew the situation, (g"^^ and i^^ agree in 
 making the period two years, but it is not quite clear that 
 they read DTi^tO nt (Budde's reading). On the analogy of 
 xxvii. 7 (as explained above) I venture to hold that D"'D"' ni 
 represents ^ndhT' Ht, and wysi rx\ represents i^NSOffii XW, 
 ' this Ishmaelite or this Jerahmeelite ' being the original 
 reading, which was ousted by 'laT SiNm THH ^^^'|. According 
 to Achish, David was a Jerahmeelite ; indeed, this may 
 very well have been true. 
 
 Chap. xxx. 9 J\ The niton 'pto is only mentioned 
 here (vv. 9, lo, 21). Apparently a boundary -stream is 
 meant ; we might have expected the Qinsp hnj or the 
 (lina)) ih^mri f?n3. — The slave left behind by an Amalekite 
 was, of course, a Misrite, not an Egyptian (Wi., Musri, 
 ii. 6 ; soon after adopted by the present writer in E. Bib., 
 ' Mizraim ' [only printed in 1 902]). — The MT. speaks in 
 V. 14 of the Negeb of the Cherethites, of ' that which 
 belongs to Judah,' and of the Negeb of Caleb, m"l^^ 
 however, here and in v. 16, and perhaps too in v. 26, may 
 come from ^NDm"' (see on xxvii. I o).^ At any rate ' Caleb ' 
 and ' Jerahmeel ' are somewhat difficult to distinguish. im3 
 is plausibly explained as = inQ>^D (cp. v. 16). This is only 
 correct on the theory that '9D represents DT1Q12. Certainly 
 Rehoboth, the city of Achish (see on xxvii. 2), was, in a 
 large sense, Zarephathite (Philistine) and the name im3 
 is best explained as coming (like rr^is in i K. xvii. 3) 
 from mim. ' Ziklag ' was naturally ' Cherethite,' i.e. 
 ' Rehobothite.' 
 
 1 It is not denied that there may have been a clan called ' Judah ' 
 which had fixed itself in the Negeb (cp. on Judg. i. 16-19), but 
 considering (i) that David was hot a man of Judah, ' Bethlehem- 
 judah ' being certainly miswritten for ' Bethlehem-jerahmeel ' (see also 
 on V. 26), and (2) that the places where the min' ':pi dwelt were 
 certainly not all occupied by a single Israelite or Hebrew clan, it is 
 more probable than not that mi,T in passages of i Sam. where David 
 is referred to is miswritten for ^ixDm'. 
 
xxxi. 2 FIRST SAMUEL 245 
 
 XXX. 16. See preceding note. 
 
 XXX. 26. These ' elders (sheikhs) of Judah ' were rather 
 (see on vv. g ff^ of Jerahmeel, a name for that part of the 
 Negeb which was becoming Israelite. The correction 
 7NDm"' was indeed actually made by an ancient scribe, for 
 insiS, for which (g gives koX Tol<i irXTjcriov avrov (cp. Pesh.). 
 This, however, is not a translation, but an arbitrary altera- 
 tion of the text (^rr^sn^l, which H. P. Sm. reads), ^ns'h is 
 based on a corruption of "?NDm'' ; t.e. we are told to read 
 'm"' ""^plf?. In defence of the ordinary rendering Driver 
 appeals to inptD in xiv. 48. But there, too, the text is 
 corrupt (see note). 
 
 XXX. 28. IS'^S, a corruption of Tis or of 3"ji? (see on 
 Dt. ii. 36). — nhosto (Ginsb.) or ninaw (Baer) is connected 
 with DD», a place in the Negeb (see E. Bib., ' Siphmoth '). — 
 i70ntDN. Arabic resemblances must not lead us astray. 
 ' Eshtemoa ' is related to ' Shema ' (see E. Bib., s.v.) as 
 ' Eshtaol ' is to ' Shaul.' 
 
 XXX. 29. ban. Read bens (see @) = bNom\ 'The 
 cities of the Jerahmeelites ' follows. 
 
 XXX. 30. nmn. See on Num. xxi. 3. — ]ffi^-ni3 
 (Ginsb., Baer). <^^^ gives ' Beer-sheba.' The correction of 
 sito into J©i? is not impossible. But more probably both 
 Sheba (Shema) and Ashan with similar names (cp. on 
 ' Shunem,' xxviii. 4), are independent though mostly dis- 
 torted representatives of the ethnic ' Ishmael ' ()n2, ]"'2, (NQ>, 
 etc. are among the recurrent corruptions of that name). Cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Ir-nahash.' — ijns has been much discussed (see 
 E. Bib., ' Athach ') ; Klost. would read 155, and H. P. Sm. 
 Ti?. But the clue is given by ®'s KifiaO, an insertion in 
 V. 29. Both forms, like nJaon and non, certainly represent 
 nDSD- The voo, vofi^e, and vaye^ of certain MSS. of ® 
 represent pMl (a place in the Negeb). 
 
 Chap. xxxi. 2. 'Abinadab' and 'Malchishua' are 
 suspicious. In i Chr. viii. 33 the names of Saul's sons are 
 given as Jonathan, and Malchishua, and Abinadab, and 
 Eshbaal. Here it is probable that we have doublets, 
 Jonathan and Malchishua corresponding to Abinadab and 
 Eshbaal. ' Malchishua ' is probably an unreal name, pro- 
 duced by a combination of •'^ba = bNoriT', and [f?]lN» — an 
 
246 CRITICA BIBLICA xxxi. 3 
 
 early scribe's error (see E. Bib., ' Saul,' § 6). The real name 
 was 'Jerahmeel,' and an alternative form of name was 
 '?:;imN = SNi;DtD% t.e. Ishmael. ' Abinadab ' is no doubt in 
 itself a plausible name for a son of Saul (' Abner ' comes 
 from ,' Abinadab '). It is possible, however, that, as ®^ 
 reads in our passage, we should rather read ' Jonadab,' which 
 is an easy corruption of ' Jonathan.' It is, of course, an 
 error to say that Jerahmeel (Malchi) or Ishmael (Eshbaal) 
 fell at Gilboa, and the famous dirge in 2 S. i. only laments 
 over Saul and Jonathan. 
 
 xxxi. 3. It was needful to begin by correcting the 
 text on the supposition that v. ^d was, at any rate, a real 
 sentence. But now that we have found so many glosses 
 consisting of synonyms for obscure ethnic terms, we are 
 no longer entitled to assume this. I therefore withdraw 
 the emendation, partly based on Klostermann, given in E. 
 Bib., col. 4312, note 3, because a definitive correction, 
 based on the new assumption, is possible. Read iriNSD'T 
 [DiSNom-' D-'En.N 'nT' d-'icdt Q'^fpNSDmi] D-'^Nom\ 'Jerah- 
 meelites ' might, in fact, be variously explained ; Saul and 
 David themselves were in one sense Jerahmeelites. Hence 
 the glosses ; niQlM and Qit03, at any rate, explicitly declare 
 the enemy to be not Israelites but N. Arabians. Cp. on 
 2 S. i. 6b. 
 
 xxxi. 4. Qi^li?. Read, as usual, Q-'^NDm"'. 
 
 xxxi. 7. For pTirr ^^1^s1 nmNI pOi>n '\ys1 Chron. has 
 simply pDi?3 ItON. This may be original, thinks H. P. 
 Smith, ' though it is difficult to see how it could give rise to 
 the present text.' Budde agrees that the present text is 
 impossible ; how, indeed, could the Israelites ' beyond the 
 Jordan' have' deserted their cities? And what does 
 ' beyond the plain ' mean ? He doubts, however, whether 
 Chron.'s text is more original, but has no definite solution 
 of the problem. H. P. Smith, on the other hand, inclines 
 to adopt Klostermann's conjecture, pDi>n insa. Truly the 
 problem is insoluble from the older point of view. But 
 from our present reforming point of view all becomes clear, 
 not by imagining a new text, but by deciphering the true 
 original, posn yyal and pTTT inri represent two variants, 
 viz. n3SO insa (see on xvii. 2, 2 S. v. 18) and fjNDni"' n?3 
 
xxxi. 13 FIRST SAMUEL 247 
 
 (see on xiii. 7). Let us select the former, omitting ntON, and 
 read blNQ) ■'tD^N iD^-ii n3SQ 3nri nffiN ^Mn»i->m3N inti, i.e. 
 when the Israelites who occupied Maacathite Arabia saw 
 that Saul's army was dispersed, etc., they deserted the cities 
 in the Negeb, and the Zarephathites (Philistines) came and 
 reoccupied them. 
 
 xxxi. 9. DiT'32s n-'a, a gloss on rmntos nn (v. 10), 
 which has inopportunely intruded here and spoiled the 
 construction. Most critics follow Wellh. in reading -fiN for 
 D"'! (so (g, Chron.). But this is a pure guess. To put the 
 ' idols ' (H. P. Sm. and Bu. suggest DiT^rrfpN ' their gods ') on 
 a level with ' the people ' as needing a notice of the victory, 
 is surely absurd. 
 
 xxxi. 10. rmnffi-n-'n. Originally, perhaps, nD^S-n•'a. 
 See on Gen. xiv. 5, Dt. i. 4. 
 
 xxxi. 13. After a suitable dirge had been raised 
 (TrSD""!, Klo., Bu.), the bones of Saul and his sons were 
 honourably buried nnmNrr nnn ' under (at the foot of) 
 the asherah.' On the questionable word 7tOM (cp. xxii. 6) 
 see E. Bib., ' Tamarisk.' 
 
 ADDENDUM 
 
 Chap. xv. 5. Dr. H. Winckler has kindly communicated 
 to me the suggestion that p'jas T^i; may be a gloss, and 
 that IT'Cl] may represent a place-name, viz. DT', and he 
 connects this with IT" ^^D in Hos. v. 1 3, x. 6. fie further 
 holds that xv. 5, thus corrected, belongs to xiv. 47. This is 
 helpful, but the reference must surely be to some well- 
 known place. It would be better to read Di~|i, one of the 
 current popular corruptions (cp. D"'niP rr^np) of ^Mom"'. But 
 ^n31 remains a difficulty. I would therefore propose, neither 
 •yv nor D'^T', but ITS or D^lli;, and read ^MonT^ TS 1^ 
 's ^n33- Cp. Cliyn bm (Isa. XV. 7 ; so point). Such 
 transpositions are not very uncommon. We have thus got 
 rid of the difficulty of the unnamed ^n3. 
 
 17 
 
SECOND SAMUEL 
 
 Chap. i. db. D^'mnarr 'hv'y, ' a singular and suspicious ex- 
 pression for " riders " ' (Wellh.). ' Everywhere else we find 
 's joined with 33n. Possibly, some one started to write 'h'sl 
 D"'Sn (Gen. xlix. 23), and afterwards discovered D'^miD in his 
 text ' (H. P. Sm.). This would accord with the mention of 
 D'^nion in I S. xxxi. 3. So also would Wellh.'s nt»p if?J»a, 
 but both readings are far away from the text, unless we 
 follow Wellh., who finds ntup misplaced in v. 18 (see his 
 note on that verse).. Budde retroverts (g's linrap')(ai into 
 D'^DlD '1, to which 'nDn would be an explanatory gloss. But 
 after restoring the text of i S. xxxi., we can perhaps discover 
 a better remedy. Surely 'h'sl as often is a fragment of 
 D'^^Nom"', and d"'t01Drr is a corruption either of Qinsna, or 
 rather perhaps of DTitO^D, indicating that the ' Jerahmeelites ' 
 spoken of were the same as the ' Philistines ' ( = Zarepha- 
 thites) mentioned above. 33nn is possibly another corrup- 
 tion of Q-'^NOm"'. The passage now agrees with i S. 
 xxxi. 2a, DTitoba IplTI, beside which we have Saul's phrase 
 in V. 4, ' these Jerahmeelites.' 
 
 i. 8. ' It is strange that an Amalekite should get so far 
 north ; even as n3i {v. 13) he can only with difficulty be 
 imagined ' (Budde). Certainly, from the traditional point of 
 view, it is strange. But, for us, ' mount Gilboa' (i S. xxviii. 
 4) is ' the highland of Jerahmeel.' The only real strangenessi i 
 is in the intercourse between David and an Amalekite. 
 Evidently the tradition has been manipulated. The 
 Amalekite must have had good reason to expect a friendly j,, 
 reception, and perhaps he had one. ''•' 
 
 i. 9. All that follows 13 is suspicious, as H. P. Sm. 
 
 248 
 
i. 17 SECOND SAMUEL 249 
 
 admits with regard to ■'ma: IIS-^D "la. }>ltO ought to be an 
 ethnic ; yen often represents "jNi^offi"' ; 2 may have sprung 
 from a. Read probably a'''?Ni;Dffii ■'3jnN-'3 ; 'dQ)"' also under- 
 lies mobiS, presupposed by (^'s o-«oto? ieuvov (hitherto un- 
 explained). What follows is probably a . combination of 
 readings ; Ti3;-'?3-'3 has come from D"'^NDm"'/ and ■'3 iQ)S3 
 either from C^afiS, ' Zephonites,' or more naturally from 
 QibMSQtpi, ' Ishmaelites.' Cp. ' Ishpan,' i Chr. viii. 22. Thus 
 we get ' slay me because the Ishmaelites (are about to) seize 
 me [Jerahmeelites, Ishmaelites].' 
 
 i. 1 2. H. P. Sm. remarks, ' 'ito-- 'l h^^ TXyrv Di» }7il^ is 
 tautology, and is relieved by @, which reads for the first 
 clause " and over the people of Judah." ' He adds that 
 ' probably even this one clause is an interpolation.' Wellh. 
 inclines to read simply mri"' Dl» "?i'T ; Budde assents. But in 
 this case, should we not expect 'nffli hsr\ (without JT'l) to 
 follow ? Cp. I K. ix. 6. It seems better (with Klost.) to 
 read rmH"' D2? hs\ retaining the parallel words. Tradition 
 supposed that Israel and Judah were in alliance under Saul. 
 David would naturally put ' Judah ' first. 
 
 i. I o. 1^53 -"irtN n^ni vh ■'? ''T\p-r •^3, ' an apology for his 
 deed on the part of the murderer' (H. P. Sm.). An apology 
 hardly worth giving ! Read Qi'jMDm'' '^TWTV, vh •'D 't^ 13. 
 So z'. 10 harmonises with the most probable text of v. 9. 
 rpn, 'to save alive,' as i S. xxvii. 9. 
 
 i. 17-27. 'A conjecture as to the period of those 
 collections (the ' Book of Jashar ' and the ' Book of the Wars 
 of Yahw^') depends on our conjectures relative to their 
 contents' (Holzinger, Einl. Hex. ■22'i>). It is, therefore, 
 important to get the best text that we can. The help 
 given by the versions is of doubtful value (see e.g. ®^, vv. 
 25 /i). David's elegy can only be restored to something 
 probably not unlike its original form by using the experience 
 of the habits of the scribes and of recurrent types of corrup- 
 tion gained elsewhere. In E. Bib., col. 2334, a step in 
 advance was taken ; it is hoped that the present restoration 
 is an improvement upon that. The verses are trimeters ; 
 Sievers {Metrisdie Studien, 422 /) seems to me to have 
 attempted more than was possible with the MT. 
 
 1 For a similar corruption see on Ps. Iviii. 3« (/"j.f^'). 
 
250 
 
 CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 iS 
 
 ! i^nt^N naD-f?» naina mn 
 
 Qinmbs m3i mnamn-jD 
 f?NDmi •l^^ inn ^^ 
 
 □■'SNanT' DIG ^^ 
 ^Ni^am"' nmp nnna 
 
 ^i??" the b'ne Jerahmeel. 
 Verily it. is written in the book of 
 
 Ashhur} 
 Upon thy heights, O Jerahmeel, 
 How are the heroes fallen ! 
 
 Report it not in Rehoboth, 
 Declare it not in Eshkol, 
 Lest the Philistine women rejoice. 
 Lest the Archite women triumph. 
 
 Be ye parched, O mountains of 
 
 Jerahmeel ! 
 Let him not rain upon you ; 
 Let the highland of the Chere- 
 
 thites become waste, 
 Let Cusham and Ishmael fade. 
 
 The shield of Saul has been defiled 
 With the blood of Jerahmeelites ; 
 The bow of Ishmael is snapped, 
 The sword of Jerahmeel is broken. 
 
 Saul and Jonathan, the trusty. 
 On Jerahmeel's heights have 
 fallen. 
 
 Ye women of Israel, weep 
 
 For Saul * * 
 
 Who clothed you with linen 
 
 vestures. 
 Who decked your raiment with 
 
 gold. 
 
 How are the heroes fallen 
 Upon thy heights, O Jerahmeel ! 
 
 For thee [do I mourn], my 
 
 brother ! 
 Jonathan, thou wast very dear to 
 
 me, 
 
 ^ According to a probable conjecture of Budde {KHC), v. lib 
 originally; stood at the end of the elegy. 
 
'• 21 SECOND SAMUEL 251 
 
 i"> ^nl^N nnN^D3 Peerless was thy love to me, 
 
 : □"'[03 n:irrND [npno] [Sweeter] than the love of women. 
 
 D'lllXl "iSe33 T'N "^ How are the heroes fallen, 
 : fjNOm"' hTi ^1N■'^ And the host of Jerahmeel 
 
 perished ! 
 
 First, as to the passage {y. 18) under vi^hich, according 
 to the above restoration, lies the heading of the elegy, and 
 perhaps also the editorial postscript {y. 18 (J), stating the 
 source from which the elegy comes. The riddle in v. 1 8« is 
 really not so hard. noN"'T is an innocent-looking word, but 
 really it covers oyer fpNom"', as it may perhaps do in xxii. 2 
 ( = Ps. xviii. 2), where ^Nom"' would be a likely variant to 
 the preceding ^ni^dQJ"' (underlying hy^xa^ ; cp. also Jer. iii. i , 
 where -yath represents a marginal 'rtT' (see note). ^Df?S, as 
 also in Ps. Ix. i, represents ^Nom"'^ ; so does rmn*' (as e.g. 
 in Judg. xvii. 7, etc.). nmp might = Dm3 (cp. on Ps. Ix. 6), 
 but here it more probably represents •'nmn = nintDN, a 
 marginal correction of ntO'^rr. ' The book of hayyasar ' in 
 V. \%b should be ' the book of Ashhur.' The book con- 
 tained songs and perhaps other old records relative to the 
 Negeb. Another name for it may have been 'the book of 
 Jerahmeel ' (see on Num. xxi. 1 4). 
 
 V. 19. ■'3277 is almost certainly a corruption of ■JNi?QtO"> 
 (cp. E. Bib., 'Ziba'). Both this word and the following 
 word Smi are glosses on itUTT. The correct gloss is that in 
 V. i8a ; i.e. n©"'n is to be "read mntON, not 'Clt&^ and not 'iQ)\ 
 ^^n = f?«DnT (see on xxiii. 8) ; so v. 22. 
 
 V. 20. ni comes from nnm (cp. on xxi. 1 8-20 ; 
 p^p»M from 'pptON = f?3t»M (i S. vi. 17). 'f?D and '-ys 
 need hardly be explained again. The corruptions arose 
 early. 
 
 V. 21. On trhy, see on i S. xxxi. i. •'ST.n (Isa. 
 xliv. 27) was suggested by Klost., but this suggestion is 
 incomplete ; '^nn is wanted. On the other hand, "5£3-7M is 
 superfluous ; it comes from 'jNom'^ (£3 from d). IJao"' ; the 
 implied subject is Yahwfe. @"s '6^7] Oavdrov is misleading. 
 We expect a name (DTn3 = Q'^nirn.) ; the 3 in '^a belongs to 
 the preceding group of letters. □"'1131 comes from v. 22. 
 JT'tOD and JOB? are current corruptions of 0013 and ^MDOW 
 
252 CRITICA BIBLICA i. 22 
 
 respectively (see on xxiii. i, Isa. x. 27). ■'Si = "iSt. ^n13 
 is obvious. 
 
 V. 22. The text reading is extraordinary. l^JlD (as 
 well as 'hri) represents [n"']^MDnT^ ; cp. on ^ino, Josh, 
 xix. 29. D'lnini is a gloss, jn^iry is cleverly superimposed 
 on an ill-written nnTO (Ps. xviii. 35). lima Nf? = 'QtO'' (the 
 final 1 comes from 3, dittographed) ; mnM and Dp"'!, of 
 course, = 'rw. vh 'jiNm = 'do?"'. 
 
 F. 23, as it stands, is incoherent. □"'D^'^^am has already 
 been challenged by Sievers (p. 423, but cp. p. 578) as a 
 gloss on cinN^n. It is, however, rather a variant, and 
 putting the two readings side by side we can detect a more 
 probable reading than either, viz. Q"'3DM3n (cp. '3 in Job 
 xii. 20). DiT'Tll, like other expansions of Tt, represents 
 'm"". Dmon has been transposed and manipulated by the 
 editor. iS is to be taken with '^TT2, and Tnaa covers over 
 17D3. D'^^ffl^D has grown out of a corruptly written 'nt&i ; 
 l^p and nvINO both represent 'm"'. inil may represent 
 D"'T111, a gloss on di3DN3. 
 
 V. 24. Transpose '© Sn and rT3"'3n (metre). For a'^^is 
 Gratz {Gesch. i. 192) and Klost. read Q'^ifp, but this is not 
 enough. Did the Israelitish women wear scarlet? Prov. ' 
 xxxi. 21 is probably corrupt. Q» ■'3Q> also springs from 
 □■'3~rp (t and », d and m confounded). So metrical correct^ 
 ness is restored. Omit i-ri>, a relic of a repeated Qi^i:;. 
 
 F. 25. nDnfjorr ysro.. non'po is a frequent corruption 
 of ^NDrrT (cp. e.g. on Hos. i. 7). nrQ = TmQl \h's\ 
 Such abbreviations are common. Perhaps the interior 
 letters had become effaced, and the exterior ones were 
 drawn together. jn^irT^ has. intruded from v. 26 ; 'n 'l'7» 
 is either dittographed or a correction. 
 
 V. 26. h-^l, ® aX7w. But this says too little ; 
 anxiety is precluded by destiny. Klost. ■'sS Ti^, ' my heart 
 was bound (to thee) ' ; cp. Gen. xliv. 30. Rather i-J"1S 
 comes from f?N^tC1 (as ch. ii. 3), and this from ^N»Da>\ a 
 variant to ^Nom"'. After T^^i;, Tifj^N may have fallen 
 out, and, before niriND, rrpno (the latter proposed by. 
 Budde). Resemblances of letters would account for the 
 omissions. 
 
 F. 27. rrDn^D ^fja, i.e. (figuratively) Saul and Jonathan 
 
ii. 8 SECOND SAMUEL 253 
 
 themselves^ (Driver, with Vatablus, Ewald, H. P. Smith, 
 Budde). But such an artificial expression is improbable, 
 and ekewhere 'f?D = ^Nom"'. Possibly 1^3 comes from f?Tf, 
 ' army.' 
 
 Chap. ii. 45-7. ^mN in v. \b is baffling. Read, perhaps, 
 mmsn nnn 'b^NtD-ns ^nDp ; see on i S. xxxi. 1 3. For 
 caNSo read perhaps D'^3bSm,^ 'presents' (Isa. i. 23); a> fell 
 out, 3 became 3. Note riNtn n31£3n, v. 6. See E. Bid., 
 ' Saul,' § 4. 
 
 ii. 8 /. Two points strike us at once as peculiar — ( i ) 
 that Ishbosheth's capital should be at Mahanaim (on the E. 
 of the Jordan ?), and (2) that his kingdom should compre- 
 hend such an extensive territory. Was Saul really king of 
 ' all Israel ? ' Next, we are puzzled by the selection of the 
 names of Israelite districts. Is it really true that ' Ashur- 
 ite ' is miswritten for ' Asherite,' and that the latter name 
 was given to the country N. of the Plain of Jezreel ? Our 
 experience in the legends of the Book of Judges, and still 
 more in those of i Samuel, may induce us to suspect that 
 there has been a great misunderstanding of the original 
 tradition. In fact, the story of David's relations to Ish- 
 bosheth first becomes clear when we assume that Ishbosheth's 
 kingdom, like his father's, was mainly, at any rate, in the 
 Negeb. Every one of the names in v. 9 is found applied 
 elsewhere to districts in the N. Arabian border-land. It 
 may be just possible to understand ' Benjamin ' as meaning 
 the territory which commonly bears that name. But this is 
 not absolutely necessary, for even as late as the time of 
 Jeremiah (see on Jer. vi. i) we find JD133 applied to Israelite 
 clans in the Jerahmeelite Negeb. We cannot deny that 
 ' Israel ' was applied to the tribes of central and northern 
 Palestine, but we must also hold that either the name could 
 be used aTrXw? of the Israelites in the much-prized territory 
 of the Negeb, or that very often hi^im^ has been miswritten 
 for ^NJ^OQJ'' (cp. on xvii. 11). But if so, what does 'Maha- 
 naim ' mean ? For the answer see on Am. vi. 13 /. Maha- 
 naim, like Karnaim (Am., Ic, Gen. xiv. 5), is one of the 
 popular corruptions of 'Jerahmeel.' Whether Ashtor- or 
 
 1 For a similar corruption see PsJ^ on Ps. Iviii. 3a. 
 2 Ass. Sulmanu (see Ges. Z^x'^'). 
 
254 CRITICA BIBLICA "• 12 
 
 Ashhur-jerahmeel (Og's city, see on Dt. i. 4, and cp. on 
 iii. 1 7) is meant, we cannot say. But it is at any rate clear 
 that Mahanaim was in proximity both to the southern 
 Gilead and to the southern Ephraim, and that it was on the 
 further side of the torrent-stream called Jerahmeel ; it was 
 also near an important place called Beth-gilead, the possession 
 of which was equally coveted by the Israelites and the 
 Aramites or Jerahmeelites (see on xvii. 24, Josh. xiii. 26, 
 and Am. vi. 1 3 f!). In harmony with this general view is 
 the true name of Saul's successor, viz. Ishmael. This name 
 was corrupted into Yebosheth (see @ readings, E. Bib., col. 
 2209), Ishbosheth, and Ishbaal. Cp. the ethnic YebusI, 
 which has the same origin, and note that i^tC"' in the traditional 
 text frequently represents ^n:;^©"', also that f?si often repre- 
 sents the latter part either of ^ndHT' or of SiNSDa)"". See, 
 further, on iv. 4. 
 
 ii. \2 f. Note the N. Arabian personal names. Abner 
 (or Abiner) = 'Arab-nadab. Ishbosheth = Ishmael. Joab = 
 'Arabi (cp. on ITn, Ezek. xiv. 14). Zeruiah = Misri. So 
 Abishai = 'Arab-ishmael {v. 18). \BDB, followed by White 
 in Hast. DB i. loa) explains Abishai, 'My father is Jesse'; 
 Lidzbarski {teste Mrs. A. S. Lewis, Exp.T, Nov. 1902, p. 9S), 
 ' a diminutive of Absalom ' ; others, ' my father was some- 
 thing' {ibid.). But Jesse, Abishai, and Absalom all are, or 
 contain, ethnics.] — 18. Abishai. See preceding note. 
 
 ii. 24. The difficulties of the text arise from an in- 
 correct view of the geography and from textual corruption. 
 Ingenuity has been displayed in dealing with the corruptions 
 (see E. Bib., ' Ammah,' ' Gibeah,' § 2, 6 ; and Klost. and 
 Budde, ad loc), but it is only a rectified geography which 
 here, as elsewhere, supplies the right key. First, nON, like 
 nONn in 2 S. viii. i, and nNO pretty often {e.g. 1 K. xviii. 4), 
 represents an original ^NDm\ Next, TT'i is obviously a 
 mutilated form of some well-known place-name in the Negeb. 
 Nothing seems to depend on the right reading of it, but 
 ni3[o] seems not unplausible (cp. E^ Bib., ' Manahethites '). 
 
 ii. 29. The geography has been skilfully adapted to the 
 view that Ishbosheth resided on the E. of the Jordan. The 
 original text probably spoke of Abner as going through 31S 
 {i.e. 'Arab-jerahmeel, cp. on xvi. 14, Dt. i. i), passing over 
 
iii. 2 SECOND SAMUEL 255 
 
 the nN">, i.e. one of the torrent -courses which served as 
 boundaries in the Negeb (cp. on Gen. xH. i, Dan. xii. 5), 
 going through the valley of the botnim (D''3S)3n bns), and so 
 coming to ' Mahanaim ' {v. 8). The botnim are pistachio- 
 trees ; in Josh. xiii. 26 we read of a place in Gad, near 
 ' Mahanaim,' called D"'3£a:i. Now in Josh., l.c., as elsewhere 
 in that part of Joshua, the account is almost certainly based 
 on a geographical record of the Negeb. Before D"'3Jil in 
 Josh, comes the place ' Ramath-mizpeh,' which probably is 
 = Zarephath of Jerahmeel (cp. on Gen. xiv. 5). The super- 
 ficiality with which pinnn has been treated, as if '1 meant 
 ' cleft,' i.e. side-valley, is surprising. 
 
 ii. 3 2. Beth-lehem = Beth-jerahmeel. Another of the 
 places formerly settled by Jerahmeelites, and denominated 
 from this circumstance. 
 
 Chap. iii. 2-5. When David went to Hebron he had 
 but two wives (ii. 2, cp. i S. xxv. 43). In iii. 2-5 four 
 more are mentioned. The names of the six Hebron sons 
 and their mothers prove David's close connection with the 
 Negeb, and the names in the supplementary list (v. 14-16) 
 abundantly confirm this. i. («) p30M or (2 S. xiii. 20) 
 pJ'^ON, or (i Chr. iii. i) pON, probably comes from jon (cp. 
 N3QN) = JK5^ a shorter form of ^ndht. For less probable 
 views, see E. Bib., cols. 3298, 3450. Note that in i Chr. 
 iv. 20 an Amnon is a son of Shimon {i.e. Ishmael). 
 
 ib) DMTIN combines the trib^-name ' Jerahmeel ' and 
 the clan-name ' Naam ' (see E. Bib., ' Naam '). 
 
 iii. 2. (a) n^Sa, but in i Chr. iii. i f3M^.3"T. As to 
 ' Daniyyel,' see on Ezek. xiv. 1 4 where ^n3T (Kt.) or 'jN'^aT 
 (Kr.) is traced to an original f^NDHT. Some prefer one, some 
 the other of these names as the starting-point of an inquiry 
 into the original name of the person. The truth is, however, 
 that both 3n'73 and hi^'^Ti are most probably corruptions of 
 ^Nom\ (Cp. IN^a with anhn, 2 S. x. 1 7 ; l is due to the 
 influence of ^1"'3n'7). But exactly what form the name took 
 in the original tradition we cannot say. 
 
 (b) hT^ti or (i S. xxv. 3) S"'1"'2m probably comes from 
 ish^ yts (cp. Ga'al = (^°* yaTuiaS). Carmel and Gilead both 
 stand for districts of the Jerahmeelite Negeb. Cp. on i S. 
 xxv. 3. 
 
256 CRITICA BIBLICA iii. 3 
 
 iii. 3. («) Q-ifptonM or 'law (i K. xv. 2, 10) probably from 
 'pNSQtOi ni;. Cp. Lidzbarski's connection of Absalom with 
 Abishai (on ii. 1 2 /). {V) riDi'D, the name of a N. Arabian 
 district (see E. Bib., ' Maachah '). ' Talmai,' ' Geshur,' see on 
 xiii. 37. — 4. {a) rf^lN. This is not a religious name, but 
 was originally a simple or more probably compound ethnic. 
 The former view implies that the final n; is simply emphatic ; 
 the latter, that the second part of the name is weakened 
 from TT' = m*' ; XW of course represents ^Nnm\ pi; was 
 probably the name of a part of the N. Arabian border-land 
 (see on Am. i. 4, and cp. E. Bib., col. 3S7S). In spite of 
 the initial n, we may consider ^^N in ^"'3^M to have the same 
 reference. How early the modification TT^^TM arose we 
 cannot say. But David's history forbids us to assume that 
 the name in question had, in his time, ceased to be in the 
 fullest sense a N. Arabian name. Cp. on 2 S. xxiv. 16. 
 The objection drawn from the Phoenician naniies "priDlN, 
 ]DB)N31N (themselves, it may be, of N. Arabian origin), 
 cannot stand against the abundant counter-evidence from 
 the OT. 
 
 {b) n^in. BDB explains 'festal'; Noldeke {E. Bib., 
 ' Names,' § 72), ' born on the feast-day,' comparing Shabbethai 
 (Ezra X. 15, Neh. viii. 7, xi. 16), which = ' one born on the 
 Sabbath.' But this meaning of Shabbethai is very improb- 
 able (see on Ezra x. 15), and in explaining the group of 
 names to which ^laggith belongs (the other names are Haggi, 
 Haggiah) we must start from those which occur in larger 
 groups, i.e. in genealogies. The clan-name Haggi occurs in 
 a list of the clans of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16, Num. xxvi. 15), 
 where it stands beside Ziphion or Zephon (jrB?, pDS). Now 
 pDl^ is the name of a frequently-mentioned district in N. 
 Arabia (see on Jer. i. 14). The presumption is that near 
 or in Zaphon (pDS) was a district originally occupied by the 
 clan Hag. That the Israelitish tribe called Gad (more 
 properly -nt, from ^l■'^l = ^)^p) had a territory in the Negeb 
 we have seen already (e.g. on Num. xxxii. 33), and we 
 shall see again {e.g. on i Chr. v. 11). In particular, it 
 is noteworthy that according to i Chr. xii. 8 David, when 
 a freebooter in the Negeb, was joined by a number of 
 Gadite fighting men. No supposition is more plausible 
 
iii. 3 SECOND SAMUEL 257 
 
 than that David's wife Haggith belonged to the Gadite 
 clan known as Hag or Haggi. Another N. Arabian clan 
 (at least in later times) was called Hagabah or Hagaba (see 
 on Ezra ii. 45). The names may be connected, and if 
 so, Hagab will of course be more original than Hag. The 
 clan may possibly have been thought of as the Locust-tribe, 
 but not improbably ain, like "pypyn, is really a popular dis- 
 tortion of some shorter form of ^Nom"'. At any rate, 
 Haggith is beyond doubt to be included among N. Arabian 
 names. — 5. {a) rfJastO. Again the prevalent view has to be 
 rejected. The name is nothing- but a travesty of TiDS, 
 ' Zephathite.' It should be grouped with issm, the clan of 
 which Elisha was a ' son,' and which, according to Num. 
 xiii. 5, was Simeonite, and according to i Chr. v. 1 1 (original 
 text, see note) was Cushanite, i.e. of the N. Arabian Cushan 
 or Cush. The , other occurrences of ' Shephatiah ' {E. Bib., 
 s.v.) equally point to this view ; notice, e.g., i Chr. xxvii. 1 6, 
 where ' Shephatiahu, son of Maachah,' i.e. the Maachathite 
 tribe of Shephatites, is reckoned to the Simeonites. Cp. 
 also Shabbethai, referred to above, under 4^. (3) SiJ3''3m ; 
 the onomatologists still repeat the absurd explanation, ' my 
 father is dew.' Looking at ^aiDN by itself, we might take 
 it to be miswritten for f?Nini or 'ji^nriM (cp. on Gen. xxii. 22). 
 Right method, however, points rather to the view that b£a"'3« 
 represents bDn-l"]?, 'Arab-tubal, i.e. Tubalite Arabia ; cp. 
 ^B''on = Jerahmeel-tubal, n'jD Sri = Tubal-jerahmeel and f?nn 
 pp i.e. Kenite Tubal (Gen. iv. 22). — 6. («) ai^nn"'. A divine 
 title Di^ is improbable, and the names beginning or ending 
 with QS can be explained on a better theory. Regarded by 
 itself, iai^nrf might be miswritten for mCT^ ; in fact, this error 
 may conceivably have been made in 2 Chr. xi. 1 8 (see E. Bib., 
 col. 2295). Right method, however, requires another view. 
 DS^n■' is compounded of irr' (see on xvii. 25) and od, i.e. on, 
 a fragment of f?Mom^ Cp. n"'Di>"i for rvtm (Neh. vii. 7), 
 and perhaps pBi? for pnn (on Gen. xix. 38). (J?) rhys, 
 'young cow,' according to the onomatologists. Analogy, 
 however, requires some ethnic. If hs'^. (Judg. ix. 26) comes 
 from ^s'?:^, so also may \jnf7ys ; cp. on 2 {b). If, however, 
 we may compare 2 Chr. xi. 1 8, where Jerimoth, son of David, 
 is husband of Abihail (Abihail ?), it is barely possible that 
 
258 • CRITICA BIBLICA iii. 7 
 
 Eglah is a corruption of Abihail, another form of the name 
 generally read (or misread) Michal (see E. Bib., ' Ithream '). 
 The writer of 2 S. iii. 5 may have held that there was no 
 good reason for asserting the childlessness of ' Michal.' 
 ' Wife of David ' is no doubt surprising. Possibly TU arose 
 out of an imperfect S^'^Tri' (see on i S. xviii. 1 9). Wellh., 
 Driver, Budde, etc., are themselves of opinion that TiT here 
 is correct, but what well-known name except ^N^ini; can be 
 thought of as the original of tn ? Cp. E. Bib., ' Ithream,' 
 ' Michal.' 
 
 iii. 7. The name of Saul's concubine (nD!iT ; cp. on V[T[, 
 2 K. xix. 12) marks her out as belonging in some way to 
 Zarephath in the Negeb ; her father's name n"'N (from "tVyyn ?) 
 points to a Zibeonite stock (see on ' Zibeon,' Gen. xxxvi. 
 20, 24). 
 
 iii. 8. Much misunderstood by H. P. Smith and Budde, 
 who keep ' dog's head,' and omit, the one rtllJT'S, the other 
 '"h "itON (reading nfon), and also by Klost., who reads 
 1^3 tC"'N, and renders, ' Am I one of the Calebites, as they 
 are in Judah ' ? ^D^, which occurs in MT after ntOl>N, is a 
 correction of imn"'^ ; nvn = D''nf?N (cp. on Ps. ii. 7, Ixi. 9). 
 Read na?i>N n'rhvt '^D^^ ntON ■'33N 'ry^Ti "itoi7> ' Am I the 
 captain of thine army (xxiv. 2), who show sacred loving- 
 kindness ' (ix. 3). So E. Bib., 3254 ('Nabal'). 
 
 iii. I o. Budde would omit all that follows ' David.' 
 He may be right. Certainly ' Judah ' was not as yet more 
 than a tribe like the ' Cherethites ' or the ' Jerahmeelites ' 
 (using the latter name in its narrower sense). It is also a 
 mistake to suppose that the phrase ' from Dan as far as 
 Beersheba ' is a description of the whole of Palestine with 
 the exception of the Negeb. The truth is that the phrase 
 means the Israelitish Negeb (see on iii. 20, vi. 19). 
 
 iii. 14. Read [DTite^Q] n''f?NDm'' Trh:h^ nNon, 'for a 
 hundred skulls of the Jerahmeelites [Philistines].' ':if?a was 
 displaced by ni^li; (originally from D"'SNDm"'). Cp. on i S. 
 xviii. 27. 
 
 iii. 15/ ' Paltiel, b. Laish.' See on i S. xviii. 1 9. 
 D''irT3. If Saul's clan resided in the Negeb, it follows that 
 Bahurim, like Laish and Gallim (see on i S. xxv. 44), was 
 also in the Negeb. Possibly Qinni represents □"'in = JT'a 
 
iv. 2 SECOND SAMUEL 259 
 
 f7NDm^ unless D'^nn^ is a modification of D^iiai ; cp. 2 S. 
 xvi. 5. 
 
 iii. 26. rncjp ni3. Presumably mon covers over some 
 ethnic. If ' Hebron ' in these narratives should really be 
 ' Rehoboth,' it will be natural to think of nnmw (one corrup- 
 tion of which is Din; see on Judg. i. 35). According to 
 ii. 9, Ishbosheth reigned over the Asshurites ; the well of 
 Ashhur would be within his territory. Cp. on ' Hareth,' 
 I S. xxii. 5. 
 
 iii. 29. ^f?31 pnno. The difficulty of this is generally 
 recognised. Driver learnedly defends the sense of ' spindle ' 
 for 's, but does not go on to draw the necessary exegetical 
 inference that the text is corrupt. The sense required is ' on 
 a crutch ' ; @, KpaT&v <TKVTaKrj<;. An easy correction is 
 Sji?D3 (d became a, p -d). 
 
 iii. 38 y; F. 38 in the text is too vague for the occasion, 
 and apart from this, it does not connect well with v. 39. It 
 is true v. 39 is also suspicious, so that we must begin by 
 examining the text of v. 39. Here we notice ^^ and mtOD ; 
 IT may be a fragment of '?NanT' (cp. ^^^^, Zech. ix. i ; ]ipi. 
 Josh. xix. 46), and mtDQ (cp. DtOin, i Chr. i. 45) may come 
 from amis. In v. 38, hy\T\ ntO (@ omits i) agrees with these 
 ethnic references if hyri (as e.g. in G6n. xv. 18, and cp. 
 Tf'h'Tl^'nshy) may be taken to represent li)^x That, 
 probably, none of the hitherto proposed corrections hits the 
 mark, is frankly admitted by Budde. Certainly we want a 
 less sentimental speech for David, one- which connects itself 
 with his circumstances. It is very possible to read in v. 38, 
 ^s^l i», and as v. 39, n^NH Qm3Nm 'jNom'^ i'jd nrn ■'33NT 
 '^T\ '^IDD D'^tDp ilJiO ■'2D. David points out to his ' servants ' 
 that the man who has fallen is virtually prince of Gilead, 
 and that his death makes David the hardly disputed 
 sovereign of the whole of the Negeb (' Jerahmeel and 
 Cusham '). But not' for this would he have lifted his hand 
 against Abner ; these men, children of a Misrite, are too 
 cruel for me ; let the doer of the deed suffer Yahwe's 
 vengeance. It was, in fact, the death of Abner which made 
 Ishbosheth'^ position untenable, and virtually placed David 
 on the throne of Israel (cp. xix. 22, end). 
 
 Chap. iv. 2 f. ' Ba'anah ' (cp. Bani, Benaiah), ' Rechab,' 
 
26o CRITIC A BIBLICA iv. .4 
 
 and ' Rimmon ' ( = Jerahmeel) are all Negeb names (see the 
 occurrences, E. Bib., s.vv.). ' Beeroth ' (possibly from mim; 
 was a Gibeonite city, but is reckoned to Benjamin (so, too, 
 Josh, xviii. 25). It is certainly the Benjamin in the Negeb 
 that is meant (cp. on Jer. vi. i ) ; this suits the mention of 
 Gibeon (see on Josh. ix.). ' Gittaim ' is generally identified 
 with Gath-rimmon, which in Josh. xix. 45 is a Danite city. 
 ' Gath-rimmon ' may nevertheless have been in the Negeb 
 (see on Josh. I.e.), and the list in Neh. xi. 25-35, which in- 
 cludes Gittaim (v. 32), is most probably based on a list of 
 places in the Negeb. Gittaim, too, was the city of one of 
 the old Edomite or Arammite kings (Gen. xxxvi. 35, (g). 
 Rechab and Baana are of the old Gibeonite or Jerahmeelite 
 stock. 
 
 iv. 4. According to Budde, v. 4^ should be placed 
 after ix. 3 (not v. 4a, because it is only a slight modification 
 of ix. 3«). The reason is that v. 4b gives the cause of the 
 lameness of Mephibosheth referred to by Ziba. This is 
 plausible ; but how shall we account for the misplacement ? 
 Budde answers. The glossator thought it of importance, 
 in mentioning the death of Ishbosheth, to show that the 
 house of Saul was not thereby annihilated. A better ex- 
 planation can be obtained by examining the names. The 
 apparent confusion between Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth 
 in ® of chaps, ii. and iii. has often been remarked. It is 
 possible, however, that in the original story there was no 
 confusion, and that both Saul's younger son and his elder 
 son's son bore the same name. This name may have been 
 either Ishmael or Jerahmeel (the two names are equivalent). 
 We have seen already (on ii. 8) that Ishbosheth (niDl-m'^N) is 
 an expansion of am*' ortOli, a fragment of SNi?Qm% ' Ishmael.' 
 It is probable that he was also called ' Jerahmeel ' ; he may 
 very well be the [rw]''370 mentioned in i S. xxxi. 2, for 
 which form we should, on critical grounds, substitute f?MDnT. 
 'Mephibosheth' is also called Meribbaal (i Chr. viii. 34, 
 ix. 40«) and Meribaal (i Chr. ix; 401^). On grounds of 
 analogy, ' Meribaal ' represents ' Jerahmeel.' What ' Mephi ' 
 in ' Mephibosheth ' means, the older textual criticism was 
 unable to explain ; ' bosheth,' of course, it represented as a 
 later substitute for ' baal.' ' Mephi,' however, can very easily I 
 
iv. 4 SECOND SAMUEL 261 
 
 be explained. If we may suppose that here, as elsewhere, 
 S is miswritten for "'n, there is no difference between the first 
 part of ntBlDD and the first part of fpi^Tno. nmi'^ID (a 
 preferable reading) represents a combination of riT ( = Jerah- 
 meel) and ntOl"' ( = Ishmael, see on ii. 8), and so attests the 
 fact that a grandson, as well as a son of Saul, bore the two 
 alternative names Jerahmeel and Ishmael, It would there- 
 fore not be surprising if a story relative to the birth of Saul's 
 son was wrongly transferred to the birth of his grandson. 
 And this, as we shall presently see, was quite possibly the 
 case. 
 
 As the story of Ishbosheth stands in the ordinary text, 
 we can only afford him a somewhat contemptuous pity. 
 Never does he strike a blow for himself, and he meets his 
 death while taking his siesta. The original narrative, how- 
 ever, must have been fuller, and if we assume that v. 4 in 
 its original form referred to the first Jerahmeel, i.e. Saul's 
 son, and not to the second, i.e. Saul's grandson, we account 
 both for his not having fallen on ' Gilboa,' and for his 
 physical incapacity when placed on a tottering throne. On 
 this supposition, the passage would originally have begun 
 with the words ' Now Saul's son was " smitten in his feet." ' 
 How his lameness was accounted for, we do not know ; 
 a later writer must have changed the circumstances to 
 suit the son of ' Ishbosheth.' But the closing words, ' and 
 he became lame' (nppn) are no doubt original, and, ac- 
 cording to analogy, we may presume that they accounted 
 for the name of the son of Saul, which must have been 
 given in this narrative as noD. What nos is, we know. 
 It occurs as a personal name in i Chr. iv. 12, and Ezra 
 ii. 49 (Neh. vii. 51), and is no doubt, like dTOD, a corruption 
 of fpNOnT (a =^^^^, d = a) ; cp. on Isa. xxxiii. 2 1 , Jer. xlvi. 1 5 . 
 The story of Ishbosheth's lameness, therefore, is simply due 
 to the circumstance that in certain records his name was 
 corruptly given as nos. A later writer, interested in the 
 son of ' Ishbosheth,' altered the story of the lame child, 
 but did not take the trouble to transfer the altered story 
 to its natural place after ix. 3. 
 
 To some the substitution of the name of Saul's son for 
 that of Saul's grandson may appear too bold. Let it, 
 
262 CRITICA BIBLICA iv. < 
 
 however, at least be granted that no other adequate ex- 
 planation of the presence of the story of the lame child in 
 chap. iv. is forthcoming. Let it also be admitted that the 
 anecdote accounting for the lameness of ' Mephibosheth ' 
 (if ' Mephibosheth ' is really to be the subject) can only have 
 arisen in such a way as has been suggested, viz. by the 
 attribution to ' Mephibosheth ' of another name which 
 appeared to mean ' lame.' As Winckler {GI ii. 203) re- 
 marks, 'the lameness on both feet (ix. 13) gives food for 
 thought.' See, further, on v. 8. 
 
 iv. 5 -7. ' What a strange medley of carelessness, of 
 fatalism, or of blind confidence, to be found in a king 
 threatened with desertion, surrounded by traitors, but still 
 powerful because he possesses a kindgom, and is in com- 
 mand of an army ! It is to the maid-servant who every 
 day prepares his bread that the monarch entrusts the charge 
 of watching over his life.' ' Instead of guards and officers, 
 of an army of serving-men, they find one slave. This 
 woman, leaning against the wall, is winnowing wheat, and 
 she top has fallen asleep over her work.' ^ 
 
 ' A scene from quiet home-life which, in contrast to the 
 shameful assassination, produces the impression of great 
 faithfulness in the report' ^ 
 
 ' A king of purest petit bourgeois type ! From what 
 legend has this little genre-picture been brought ? ' ^ 
 
 Dieulafoy and Budde appear to be too easily satisfied, 
 while Winckler sees how improbable this anecdote is, but 
 omits to test the readings of the text, — indeed, had he 
 attempted it, the want of a clue would have condemned him 
 to failure. Budde and (in one important detail) Dieulafoy 
 put their faith in ®, which gives (for v. 6), kuI ISov ^ 
 6vpa)po<; Tov oXkov eKadaipev 'jrvpov'; koL ivvcrra^ev km 
 iicdOevBev (L, koI virvaaev), koX P. koX B. oi aSeXipol SieXaOov 
 (Kal eicTrj\6ov ek tov oIkov), i.e. W-tm ri^J7b n^Sn JTlStD T\'Sr\, 
 jm^rn. Djrn. (so Wellh., Driv., H. P. Sm., Bu.). Klost. does 
 not care to retrovert, for his opinion is that the idyll of the 
 portress cleaning wheat and nodding over her task, has been 
 
 1 Dieulafoy, David the King, E.T. 128. 
 2 Budde, Samuel, on iv. 6. 
 ^ Winckler, Gesch. Isr. ii. 196. 
 
iv. 7 SECOND SAMUEL 263 
 
 invented by @ on the basis of the two words Qiian and rT'l. 
 He himself ventures on a reconstruction, not without some 
 plausibility, but falling short of complete verisimilitude. 
 We need not give it here, because we have a clue, and can 
 provide a better remedy, and one which enables us to 
 account both for the (doubtless impossible) traditional text 
 and for the ' schone Wortlaut ' (Budde) or the ' Genre- 
 bildchen ' (Winckler) of ®. Let us remember that, as we 
 have seen already, ' Ishbosheth ' resides in the Negeb, at a 
 place popularly called ' Mahanaim,' but more correctly ' Jerah- 
 meel,' and Rechab and Baana are of the old Jerahmeelite 
 stock (see on ii. 8 f., iv. 2 f.). We shall then not think it 
 unplausible in v. 6 to read thus, utilising our experience of 
 many similarly corrupt passages, which editors have done 
 their best to embroider with the help of the imagination, — 
 
 yyr\, [dbj3 SNom-' riDro] ^ndht' rT'3 n?]?p-^i; ins n^rr\, 
 
 T^rs^^ (not nini, nor njrnj connects with v. 2a ; vv. 2b 
 and 3 are glosses, ». 4 is a digression, and v. 5 is an early 
 editorial insertion (in which, perhaps, the superfluous Qvrr Dn3 
 is a corruption of ^Nomi = CDno). T" for n3J;D, cp. on 
 Ps. Iv. 12, Ixxii. 14. inpf? = fjMDm'' (cp. on phn, Josh, 
 xi. 1 7). a"'Jan for non = ri3SD (cp. on nzan, Ps. Ixxxi. 1 7). 
 rr hvi inyi, based on a miswritten 'm''. fflon = 003 (cp. on 
 mtDO, iii. 39). "123^03 comes from Dif?03, i.e. crhH'On'V (cp. 
 on Judg. viii. 21, 26, Ezra ii. 67, also on vhiyi, Jer. xliii. 7). 
 The sense of vv. 6, 7 is. The persons spoken of in v. 2 
 reached Beth-jerahmeel in Maacath without hindrance, and 
 proceeded to the house of ' Ishbosheth.' To understand 
 this action, be it remembered that Rechab and his brother 
 Baanah were of the Jerahmeelite race, with which Saul was 
 at war. Upon entering the house, they found the king on 
 his couch, taking his siesta. The assassins fell upon him, slew 
 him, and beheaded him, and then returned by the route of 
 'Arab, i.e. 'Arab-jerahmeel (cp. on Dt. i. i). In v. 7 for TVTin 
 read nmi m"'N (or ^N^otDi = fjMonT'), and for nni^n read l-jjj. 
 
 But we have still to refer in detail to @. Applying our 
 clue, we can discern the underlying Hebrew text. The text 
 was, of course, badly written, and the translator had to form 
 
 18 
 
264 CRJTICA BIBLICA v, 
 
 imaginative conjectures, leaving out those groups of lette 
 which were hopelessly illegible. This is what the won 
 still partly legible represent, n3i!D ^N»D©''-rT'l n3i?D rro; 
 D3im-7T'3. For most of the alterations no one, I thin 
 could possibly account unaided. For ' Beth-shunem ' v 
 might almost as easily, and perhaps rather more probabl 
 read Dm^3-n"'3. f?NSDtO"'-nil is, of course, the equivalent 
 Beth-jerahmeel, i.e., not certainly but possibly, Mahanaii 
 For the corrupt nSpD (Wellh., rrf?pD) cp. ^ptu, Isa. xxxiii. i 
 which certainly comes from ^Msom"' (see ' Addenda,' pt. 
 p. 49). ®'s SiiXadov is no justiiication of the renderir 
 ' slipped through ' (for IJaSoa) ; it represents rather "hsa (c 
 Lev. V. I S, \av6dva) = Si>o), i.e. ^Nom''. 
 
 Chap. v. i . ' All the tribes of Israel,' i.e. perhaps tl 
 Israel in the Negeb and in Caleb (Hebron). 
 
 V. 6-8. One of the most difficult passages in the O.' 
 The general sense, however, can be settled with a far nean 
 approach to certainty than before. First, Tii> and noD ca 
 be explained with confidence, lis, like NT^r (2 S. xx. 2f 
 and T'N'' (Judg. x. 3), is a fragment of 'pNoriT ; noEJ, tc 
 (see on iv. 4), is a corrupt distortion of the same ethn 
 name. That the early population of Jerusalem was Jeral 
 meehte ( = Ishmaelite) appears from Ezek. xvi. 3, 45, 'Th 
 father was an Arammite (so read, for ' Amorite '), and th 
 mother a Rehobothite (so read, for ' Hittite '). Cp. ah 
 Isa. xxix. I /, 7, where S'N'^IN probably comes from hi^on 
 (see note, ad loc). We can now see the true meaning ( 
 ■'Dl"' (' Jebusite '), which, in accordance with many paralli 
 corruptions, comes from 'hiiSD\l}\ Thus, here again it : 
 clear that the early population of ' Jerusalem ' was Jshmaelit 
 or Jerahmeelite ; in fact, the true (though doubtless, i 
 course of time, forgotten) meaning of Urusalimmu an 
 a'?B>1T', not only can be, but is, ' city of Ishmael ' ; )V: 
 too, like ]i25, most probably comes from the ethnic 7N2DD 
 (see E. Bib., ' Zion '). But let us at once put forward our re 
 construction (not always equally near certainty) of vv. 6l>, 8- 
 
 DVi TIT Dn^;! ! rT:irf Ninn-N^ in^ ^^^a)N'^ fpNom-' "noN"''! 
 [vn] ja-'fjs Tiir mas D-'^Morri'^-nN"! p'ss wr>^ ■'on-' nsp-f?? Nini 
 
 ! mn"' nil'? nms^ D-'^won' 
 
V. 8 SECOND SAMUEL 265 
 
 Jerahmeel and Ashhur are here represented as the lords 
 of Jerusalem. They defy David to make good his entrance. 
 (But David succeeds in taking the fortress of Zion.) It was 
 a great triumph for David — this heavy blow to the Jebusites. 
 From Zion as his centre he subdued the Jerahmeelites. 
 This, the narrator adds, is the reason why the temple- 
 servants are Jerahmeelites. 
 
 Now as to the textual details, without repeating what 
 all the commentaries accurately and convincingly tell us. 
 Note first inowi of Chron. ; also that noMf? is wanting both 
 in Chron. and in @. noN^ would, in fact, be superfluous, 
 but surely underneath it is fjNom"' (similarly, Jer. iii. i). 
 The scribe, however, omitted one important ethnic. To 
 repair this error, he wrote the two subjects of noN-'l after 
 iT2n, viz. TntDNl ■JMom"', which unhappily became corrupted 
 into -yvDTi dm --a (cp. mo for Tin»N, iii. 26, and -iid in Ps. 
 Ix. 10). The enigmatical DTiDEJm D"'Til»n, as we have seen, 
 comes from DibwDm"', originally an alternative subject to 
 "nowi. In V. 8 the first serious trouble is caused by Ti3S. 
 This word occurs again with plur.-suff. in Ps. xlii. 8, where, 
 however, if genuine, it cannot (if Wellh. will allow me to 
 say so) have any meaning that would also be suitable in the 
 account of the capture of a fortress. Chron. has, instead of 
 TI3S3 Wl, n3"i©Nni. But this cannot be right ; it would 
 require, not 'laSl, but 'n'3l^ri. If 'D-f?3 is right, Budde's 
 ingenious correction "n^Sji sa'^l. seems the only possibility. 
 The sense, however, is not satisfactory. Why is there no 
 mention of a TVXl in connection with this strong statement ? 
 and why ' touches his own neck ' ? Try some other course, 
 then, h^ and fja are frequently confounded, and idn"'"i is at 
 least sometimes miswritten {e.g. Gen. iv. 8). Do we not 
 expect to hear something of the greatness of David's 
 achievement in conquering Zion ? Read ]V^3, and we 
 shall then (with the revised text) have a suitable sense, viz. 
 ' David was triumphant that day because of the blow to the 
 " Jebusites," and held sway in Zion.' Then comes that 
 obviously impossible phrase, ' and the lame and the blind 
 that are hated of David's soul ' (or, ' that hate David's soul '). 
 Budde, at his wits' end, proposes, 'the lame and the blind 
 David's soul hateth [not] ' ; i.e. David forbids slaughter after 
 
266 CRITICA BIBLICA v. 
 
 the conquest. But these diseased people are mere moon 
 shine ; ms and noD represent 'jMonT, and n3» (like JNS, p; 
 ^Va) is one of the current corruptions of f?Ni;Qt»i ; D-i^MSDa 
 is, in fact, a gloss on □■'S'NonT'. TTl ffiD3 should perhaps b 
 emended into Tn m:i3. 
 
 This is followed (apparently) by a reference to the ex 
 elusion of the blind and the lame from the sanctuary (cj 
 Lev. xxi. 1 8). According to Budde, it is a gloss, and owe 
 its existence entirely to the unintelligibleness of the precedin 
 words. Surely there ought, from our point of view, to be 
 better explanation. Nor are we disappointed. "noN"' ma; 
 be, and in this context must be, a corruption of D'^^NOm 
 originally perhaps a gloss on noDI mr. rr^nn-'pN Nlli nS cai 
 hardly be right. The context suggests and ® presuppose 
 mri"' TV1, which is a gain. nIT vh may have come fron 
 D■'^3»f7, and by prefixing "XTi and reading at the end Trd 
 mn"' we get a completely satisfactory text. In fact, evei 
 down to the times of Ezra, the temple-servants were of th 
 N. Arabian race (see E. Bib., ' Solomon's servants '). 
 
 Observe that TTi Tl? NTI is a gloss. In David's lifetim 
 the term ' city of David ' also belonged to Kirjath-jearin^ 
 where in fact he chiefly resided. See on vi. i . 
 
 v. 9. Mh^Bn is, from our point of view, beyond doubt ; 
 corruption of 7NDnT'. It may represent the oldest part 
 the fortifications (perhaps the citadel). For parallels see 01 
 Judg. ix. 6, 2 K. xii. 20, and cp. E. Bib., ' Millo.' At tb 
 same time, it is very possible that nhoTJ represents a part 
 the original name of Jerusalem. Budde seems right ii 
 favouring the text of 2 Chr. xi. 8 (ad init.) ; only we shoul( 
 perhaps go further, and read fjN^DtDi n'^s p^l (Tlv being oftei 
 a corruption of 'otB"'), after which one might continue (trans 
 posing), -m T-i? nh Nipil. nrr'n N^on-JO may be a corrup 
 tion of ^NOnT TVX a variant to 'ow" Tl>. Cp. on i K. v. '25 
 
 V. 1 1 . min comes from Dm"', as dttin from "JNOm 
 (see on Num. xxvi. 38). David could not have rejectet 
 the help of the neighbouring king of Missur. Accordini 
 to the most probable text of viii. 2 / David had conquere( 
 Missur, and received tribute from the Misrites. If so, i 
 would be natural that timber and carpenters, stone anc 
 masons should be sent from the highlands of Missur to th( 
 
V. 14 SECOND SAMUEL 267 
 
 suzerain at Jerusalem. See, however, E. Bib., ' Solomon,' 
 
 § 3*- 
 
 V. 14. David's sons at Jerusalem have Negeb names 
 (cp. on iii. 2-5). (i) siDffi ; cp. ^NlDtD and TT'Stia. (2) 
 niim, like l-'3D and oil"", ultimately goes back to '?Ni?DQ>"'. 
 See on cnnm, Jer. 1. 6, and E. Bib., ' Shobab.' In i Chr. 
 ii. 18 Shobab is a son of Caleb. (3) ]n3. The other 
 occurrences mark this out as a N. Arabian name (see e.g. 
 I Chr. ii. 36). Like □■'3TI3, it may be connected with ]n"'N. 
 (4) nobffi, probably connected with HD^to, ]lo'?to (see E. Bib., 
 ' Solomon,' § I ). (5) irQr Cp. the clan-name niji (Kenite, 
 Asherite, Judahite, Benjamite). By all these connections 
 (including even Asher = Ashhur) it is a true Negeb name. 
 
 (6) sw^N. Cp. the Kenizzite name i»w (see on Gen. 
 xxxviii. 2). Jeshua and Joshua may also, be Negeb names. 
 
 (7) 1D3. Cp. Ex. vi. 21, where Nepheg is a son of Izhar (a 
 Levite clan-name). (8) i?"'D'^. Cp. Josh. x. 3, 'Japhia king 
 of Eshcol ' (so read). (9) i^naffpx. Cp. the place-name and 
 clan-name Shema ; also 2 K. xxv. 2 5 (see note), where 
 ' Elishama ' is distinctly a Jerahmeelite name. ( i o) ^TiSiM. 
 But for the form 27T'"?I>1, sanctioned even by the pious 
 Chronicler ( i Chr. xiv. 7), we might regard i?T^N as = ^si'T', 
 i.e. ' one belonging to the clan ST' ' ; si"^ is a Jerahmeelite 
 name (i Chr. ii. 28, 32), and the mother of Jada' was 'Atarah 
 {i.e. Ephrath in the Negeb). We also find the distinctly 
 Negeb names f^MS^'T' and rT'T. ' Jediael ' is a Gibeonite 
 (i Chr. vii. 6), and Gibeon (see on Josh. ix. 3) was in the 
 Negeb. ' Jedaiah ' occurs, nominally, in a Simeonite, but 
 really (as the names show) a Jerahmeelite genealogy ; in 
 fact, the tribe of Simeon was, if names count for anything, 
 of Jerahmeelite origin. Cp. also Jaddua, mentioned (Neh. 
 X. 21) with Meshezabel (Ishmael) and Zadok (a southern 
 clan-name) ; also Iddo and related names, and further the 
 N. Arabian name 'Adah (see on Gen. iv. 19, xxxvi. 2). 
 But though it seems to be clear that there was a clan-name 
 or tribe-name of the Negeb in which the letters li> were 
 prominent (cp. J^s), we must allow for the possibility that 
 in some of the above names there has been a confusion 
 between ~\ and n, and in the case of i^T^^M this view is forced 
 upon us by the existence of a second form i>Tif?r2. Now 
 
268 CRITICA BIBLICA v. i 
 
 bri and '?m3, as an element of personal names, can be show 
 to represent htva in '?Nnm\ Hence on the analogy of rr 
 SnIIn (Hos. X. 14), and probably xh'i'S ( = '?D"in) and ^nit 
 from f?Nom"', it is probable that st'?!'! comes from ^ND[n]T' 
 cp. Smd'^T = f?NDnT, as suggested by the Palmyrene nam 
 7nr"'T' (Cook, Aram. Gloss.). This certainly suggests tha 
 rn^ in I Chr. ii. 28 comes from rT ( = '3NDnT). ms an 
 "iTi, however, will belong to another group. i^T^M, to( 
 must ultimately come from 'm"'. For ' Jehoiada ' see o 
 2 S. viii. 18. (11) ta'jDi'jN. 'pN here is a transposed forma 
 tive affix ; in other words, the name comes from ^N'^tobn (se 
 on iii. 15). 
 
 V. 1 7 / David ' goes down ' (from Rehoboth ?) to th 
 fortress (' Adullam ' ?). The 'Philistines' (Zarephathites 
 had ' spread themselves out ' — where ? In the plain 
 Rephaim ? Rather ' in Maacath-ephraim.' Ephraim (i 
 Negeb name) defines the portion of Maacath which is re 
 ferred to (par often corrupted from riDl^D, e.g. Josh. x. 12 
 Ps. Ix. 8). Cp. £■. 52<J., ' Rephaim.' 
 
 V. 20. D''!iin"7i'D, an ancient popular distortion 
 QTiEnJS 'jMQnT (see on st^m, v. 16). Cp. E. Bib., 'Mul 
 berry,' ' Perez,' ' Perazim.' 
 
 V. 23/ Read Snoht JT'l ^ISD, 'opposite Beth-jerah- 
 meel'. (written nm"' 'l). See on Judg. ii. i. So in v. 24 
 ' when thou hearest the sound of steps in the gate of Beth- 
 jerahmeel ' ('hT' rc:! nstOl). 
 
 V. 25. ® presupposes pi?lno (so, too, text of Chron.) 
 Both Gibeon and Gezer were in the Negeb ; that places ol 
 the same names (or should ' Gezer ' here . and in i K, 
 ix. I 5 ^ be ' Geshur ' ?) existed elsewhere does not affect 
 this. 
 
 Chap. vi. The proceedings with the ark (cp. Kosters, 
 Theol. Tijdschr., 1 893, pp. 36 1-378 ; £. Bib., ' Ark of the Cove- 
 nant' ; also Winckler, Gesch. Isr. i. 70 ff.). — The connection 
 of this narrative with that in i S. vi. i— vii. 2b is undeniable; 
 it has been discussed with much acuteness by Kosters (cp. 
 E. Bib.), but without an in all respects certain result, partly 
 because Kosters omitted to criticise the text, and accepted 
 e.g. the name ' Obed-edom the Gittite ' unquestioningly. A 
 new hypothesis must therefore be offered, based upon the 
 
vi. SECOND SAMUEL 269 
 
 facts disclosed by textual criticism. It is most improbable 
 that the ark was taken to Jerusalem by David ; all that 
 this king can have done was to take it to ' Kirjath-jearim,' 
 or rather (see on i S. viii. i f.) Kirjath-jerahmeel, where 
 (see on xi. i , xv. 1 1 ) he appears to have chiefly resided, and 
 which was therefore called ' the city of David.' The narrative 
 in chap. vi. cannot be in all respects restored to its original 
 form. Some important corrections, however, can be made. 
 I mention first that which relates to v. 2. We know from 
 I S. vi. 21, vii. I that the ark was conveyed from Beth- 
 shemesh, or rather (see note) Beth-cusham, to Kirjath-jearim, 
 or rather Kirjath-jerahmeel. It was not, however, 'the 
 men ' of the latter place who brought up the ark but David, 
 who probably planned to have Kirjath-jerahmeel as the 
 capital of the Negeb, and wished it to be consecrated by 
 the presence of the ark. Hence the large muster of the 
 young warriors of Ishmael (so read in v. i), even though the 
 number ' thirty thousand ' may have to be resigned. David's 
 object was, as described in (probably) the true text of v. 2, 
 fpNOHT' n-inp noB Nip3 ntON T^-hvi wrhiurf xovt ns nh^rh. 
 The corrections are, no doubt, suggested by a hypothesis, 
 but they are text-critically possible, and the hypothesis is a 
 necessary one. We are now relieved of the difficulties aris- 
 ing from the prolix description of the ark and from the 
 impossible position of yhs, and — what is much more im- 
 portant — of the grave difficulties attendant on the ordinary 
 view of David's action— difficulties which will become more 
 and more pressing as we go through the narrative of the 
 life of David and the accession of Solomon. The prolix 
 description of the ark is due to the redactor, who had before 
 him a corrupt text ; note especially how a mutilated and 
 corruptly written ^Nom"' suggested v^s O'lma, while an ill- 
 written TVyp became mrr"'. N3S and ntO"' are both familiar 
 corruptions of ^N»nm'^, which is a variant to ^Nom"'. I have 
 put this first, in consideration of its extreme importance, and 
 now resume the natural order of the notes. — D^'B^B f^NntCl 
 p]^N. To understand this we must presuppose the result of 
 criticism of i Chr. xiii. 5, which should, as I contend, run 
 thus — 'And David assembled all Israel from Ashhur-misrim 
 to the entrance of Maacath.' This means that the persons 
 
270 CRITICA BIBLICA vi. 2 
 
 assembled were all the male Israelitish inhabitants of the 
 Negeb, and suggests that there may be something under- 
 neath ?)Sn '^tt>, viz. ^Nsom'^ (Ishmael = Jerahmeel = the Israel- 
 itish Negeb). The mention of the number of the men of 
 Israel (or Ishmael) is quite superfluous, whereas the due 
 comprehension of the narrative partly depends on our 
 knowing that those who accompanied David were Israelites 
 of the Negeb. Cp. on v. 1 9. 
 
 vi. 2. myrv -h'sl-a. Chr. calls the place rh's% and 
 identifies it with Kirjath-jearim (cp. Josh, xviii. 14). Dozy, 
 Kuenen, Wellh., Driver, etc., propose to read TVUXV ^'sl, ex- 
 plaining the ■> in MT. as dittographed and the D as implying 
 a false view of •'^rl as ' citizens.' This is plausible, but the 
 whole truth has not been seen. How is it that Kirjath-baal 
 (Josh, xviii. 14) and Baalath (i Chr. xiii. 6) can be identified 
 with Kirjath-jearim ? Simply because h^l, vh^l, and u^^ys^ 
 are all popular corruptions of 7Nom"' (cp. on i S. vi. 21, 
 viii. I ). And why is min"' appended here to [■']f?s>l ? Why, 
 too, in Josh, xviii. 1 4, does the name ' Kirjath-jearim ' receive 
 the gloss rmn"' ■'DI T'^; ? Simply because here, as elsewhere 
 {e.g. Judg. xix. I, I S. xvii. i, 12), rmn"' represents an 
 original 'vr\\ i.e. h^XiXXV. 
 
 vi. 5. ■'21; 7D2 should of course be ts"731 (as Chr. ; cp. 
 V. 1 4). But D"'te'ni and Diwr33 should give us pause. Com- 
 paring 1 S. xviii. 6 (see note), read D'^^MOriT'n cnww 
 ^Nl^Offi"'!"! DinriD31"i ; it is the Israel in these regions of the 
 Negeb which is meant, according to the gloss. 
 
 vi. 4. For rriN read, not "iiriN (Wellh.) nor VHij ((§), 
 but rtNV. This is a popular distortion of ^NDm\ The 
 latter name was naturally suggested by SNism'' IT^np. mi>, 
 on the other hand, may have a more interesting history. 
 From v. 17-25, xxi. 15-22, xxiv. 8 j^ we gather that David 
 won a great victory over the Zarephathites and the Reho- 
 bothites. It is probable that mi' nms (the name in the 
 earlier tradition) became nts pQ (cp. E. Bib., 'Perez,' 
 ' Uzzah '), and by a misunderstanding nts was taken to be 
 a personal name. 
 
 vi. 6. The p33 of MT. here and the pT3 of i Chr. 
 xiii. 9 may both be corruptions of ma (©"^ in Sam.). 
 Nodab and Nadab are Jerahmeelite or Ishmaelite names. 
 
vi. 19 SECOND SAMUEL 271 
 
 — 1£2D». Perhaps the residuum of itsJabnn, 'wavered 
 violently.' 
 
 vi. 8. ' Perez-uzzah.' See on v. 4. — ' Obed-edom the 
 Gittite.' The original name was probably QiN ins (cp. 
 rTpQ)":n from a)l3 ns). His true description probably is, 
 not 'the Gittite,' but 'the Rehobothite.' Between ' Reho- 
 bothite ' and ' Jebusite ' there is no great difference, for 
 ' Jebusite ' = ' Ishmaelite ' {i.e. ' Jerahmeelite '). It was the 
 more natural that the Chronicler should make this man a 
 Levite, because the Levites, like the Rehobothites, belonged 
 originally to the Negeb. 
 
 v. 16. For n3n3oi nsD read nj^-itol riDDO^. On noQ see 
 Toy, JBL xvi. lyZf.; for ipT see i Chr. xv. 29. Cp. E. 
 Bib., ' Dance,' § 4. 
 
 vi. 19. This passage was seriously misunderstood even 
 in early times. («) ^^M■^^'! ffl"'ND^. The prefix h, though 
 not usual, is perfectly possible (see Driver), and the presence 
 of women at sacrificial feasts is sufficiently proved (see Peritz, 
 JBL xvii. 122 f. [1898]). Still, there is no apparent reason 
 for the stress laid on the presence of the women just now, 
 and in itself, assuming the story to be either historical or 
 well-contrived, such presence is improbable (cp. lini'bs, v. i ). 
 The words must be corrupt, and @ {v. 19J gives us the clue 
 to the true text. No critic has noticed this, but so it is. 
 airo Aai/ ews Br]pa-a^66 is no mere interpolation, but an 
 alternative reading to a.7rb avSpog eax; ywaiKoi;. It shows 
 that there was a second view of the original, according to 
 which the people who received David's gifts belonged to the 
 Negeb (cp. on v. i). But i7ltO iNl TS'] jno cannot be the 
 original reading ; it must be a substitute for some earlier 
 reading capable of becoming corrupted into nt2>N IS') WND^. 
 And one word in this reading is supplied by @. 'Ea-'^api,Tr]v, 
 which @ gives for MT.'s isfflN, certainly represents n^ffiN, 
 and this word must be a corruption of inffiM. This suggests 
 to us what W^i^th must be, viz. ^Ni?citO"'D. (d) From the 
 same source we obtain the key to DTlh n^n, to rrtCtDM, and 
 to nn« and nnN. onh rhrt represents onb ohn (both well- 
 attested abridgements of ^ndhT'). ntD^mN comes from 'na>M, 
 t.e. nnms. IHn and nnw (from nnw) represent f^NoriT' (cp. 
 on I S. i. r, Isa. Ixvi. 17). ^«DnT was a gloss on '7Ni»DDJ\ 
 
272 CRITICA BIBLICA vii. 8 
 
 Thus the whole passage becomes [fpNOnT^] '7Nroa>"'D . . . p^rfT 
 'w iS'^T "inmN-ns"), ' and David gave portions (of the sacri- 
 ficial meat) to all the people . . . from Ishmael [Jerahmeel] 
 as far as Ashhur.' It should once more be noted that the 
 Chronicler makes the two extreme points between which 
 ' all Israel ' was settled Ashhur-misrim and Maacath. Also 
 that the help of ® is not, strictly speaking, necessary, for 
 any experienced critic would suspect ■?N:;Dt»"' to lie under 
 m^fvch and P]tOT {i.e. nms) under the unintelligible idiBn. 
 (nntON, however, is better than V\\in, because of the Chronicler.) 
 
 Chap. vii. 8. ]Nsn •\rym niirr-ip (Chron., i-inN-p man-jo 
 \v(iri). Here jMSn "inNa is transparent ; it covers ^NomiQ 
 [^NiJDtO'']. See on i S.xvi. ii, Ps. Ixxviii. 71, Am. vii. 15. 
 m3n"]D, however, is quite correct. The allusion is to i S. 
 xvi. 1 1 , where read ^N^^Dte"'! ni>1 rT2rn. 
 
 vii. \6 f. Bethel, Gilgal ( = Gilead), Mizpah ( = Zephath 
 or Zarephath), Ramah ( = Jerahmeel) are all Negeb names. 
 
 Chap. viii. i. rrONn ino. Budde (1902) is as much 
 at a loss as H. P. Smith before him (1899). Yet the key 
 had been offered him in E. Bib., vol. iii., cols. 3065, 3179. 
 One cannot, it is true, treat this passage by itself; the right 
 view could only be obtained after a fuller study of related 
 textual phenomena over large spaces of the Hebrew Bible 
 and also of the rise of David, ino undoubtedly comes from 
 n3i;D, and nnM[rr] from SNom"'. For the former cp. pDS, 
 often for n3i>o {e.g. i S. xxxi. 7) ; for the latter, see on 
 ii. 24. For the current purely conjectural views, see E. Bib., 
 ' Metheg-ammah.' We have still to explain riTiSm niTiN 
 in the || passage, i Chr. xviii. i. Here ni represents jno 
 (in the document on which Chron., l.c., is based), and riDll 
 represents riDro, originally meant as a correction of ino. 
 H"' should be taken together with Tua which follows. The 
 resulting group of letters T'on"' represents 'jNoriT', corre- 
 sponding to rrOMn in our text of i S. As to DTiffl'jD we 
 must either prefix ^p, or excise the word as redactional. 
 The latter course is preferable. After the notice of the sub- 
 duing of the Philistines, we do not expect to be told that 
 David took something ' out of the hand of the Philistines.' 
 We can now give a still clearer view of 2 S. viii. i. The 
 explanation of ' Metheg-ha'ammah ' offered above has been 
 
viii. 3 SECOND SAMUEL 273 
 
 confirmed by Chron., and in addition to this we have learned 
 that TO represents ^MDm"', and that DTitof?Q in b is intrusive. 
 And the sense of v. i becomes, ' after this David smote the 
 Zarephathites, and took Maacath-jerahmeel.' See on v. 9. 
 [We can but briefly refer to Winckler, GI ii. 206. Under- 
 neath noNn he suspects the name of a maritime city, not 
 having noticed Exp.T, Oct. 1899, pp. 47/, where it is pro- 
 posed to read, 'and he took Ashdod the city of the sea 
 (D^n t'inp n'T^m«-ni^ nj^^l) out of the hand of the Philistines.' 
 Cp. also E. Bib., cols. 1027, 3065.] 
 
 viii. 2. The only critics who have shown any insight here 
 are Budde and Winckler. The former questions the correct- 
 ness of 3N1D (cp. I S. xxii. 3), and suggests that a late editor 
 may have substituted nNiD for ]1qs "'31. The latter (G/ii. 206) 
 that the excerpter misunderstood his document, the true 
 text of which spoke of the measuring, not of the Moabites, 
 but of the land of Moab, a proceeding which usually gave a 
 third as the domain of the conqueror, while two thirds re- 
 mained for the vanquished. But there is no room to doubt 
 that the text has grown up out of the mistakes of the 
 scribes ; the recurrent types of corruption are manifest. 
 INID, as so often, has arisen out of i^ap ; the right reading 
 was known to the writer of Num. xxiv. 17. Passing on, it 
 may be stated that textual criticism dissipates the descrip- 
 tion of David's supposed barbarity into thinnest air. D^^D■'^ 
 represents xihvt.'^VCV ; so ^^Q■'^ = ^NQm\ ^3n[l] also, as 
 often, represents the same name (cp. i K. iv. 13, Zeph. ii. 5). 
 'y\ lamn represents DTimij-nM xtxr\- nrnrrS . , . 'rv:r\ is 
 nothing but T'MDm"' over and over again, except that ""^Q) 
 (cp. p2S, ]i>2) is a corrupt fragment of a gloss or variant 
 fjNSOtD"'. Such repetitions of this name, so ill understood by 
 the later scribes, are of common occurrence. It is remark- 
 able that I Chr. xviii. 2 omits nvnrr . . . DniD"'"i, which 
 suggests that the brief text represented by these words was 
 a later insertion. However, the text which underlies both 
 MT. and (in the main) @'s Hebrew text probably runs thus, 
 '^T\ isD rn""! DTiEn2;-nM miD''"! D"''?NDnT' m^so-riN -\>\ ' and 
 he smote Missur of the Jerahmeelites, and subdued the 
 Zarephathites, and those of Moab became,' etc. 
 
 viii. 3. The difficulties attending the translation of b 
 
274 CRITICA BIBLICA viii. 3 
 
 are well-known. Winckler 'finds himself compelled to alter 
 the text. On the historical and text-critical questions com- 
 pare Winckler, GI ii. 203 ff., but note that Winckler does 
 not go deep enough into textual criticism, nor has he the 
 most tenable views on the history of David. We must 
 start from the fact that David was in the closest possible 
 connection with N. Arabia, and had, as his most pressing 
 duty, to secure the hold of the Israelites on the Negeb. 
 The name Hadad-ezer is in harmony with this fact, for it is 
 not probable that a king of the N. Aram would bear a name 
 which was half Hebrew.-^ As a matter of fact, 'Ezer (np) 
 appears in Gen. xxxvi. 2 1 as a son of Seir the Horite (the 
 Ashhurite), and in i Chr. iv. 46 as a son of Hur (Ashhur), 
 the firstborn of Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem (Beth- 
 jerahmeel). Hadad, too, in Gen. xxv. 15, is the name of the 
 eighth son of Ishmael. Nils has been learnedly and acutely 
 discussed by Delitzsch and Winckler on the supposition that 
 a N. Aramaean district was meant (see E. Bib., ' David,' § 9, 
 and note 2, with the references) ; two Aramaean Zobahs 
 have been thought to be confounded. The view seems to 
 be untenable. Credit, however, is due to Winckler for 
 conjecturing that Zobah and Beth-rehob are designations 
 of one and the same place (GI i. 141 y.). Reheboth was, 
 in fact, Hadadezer's capital (see on v. 8). This realm was 
 called rtT\)L or wms. Of this name two explanations are 
 possible, ns may ultimately come from fjNSDtO"' ; the inter- 
 mediate form would be pi;l2 = pl>atO = ^NrDffl\ This is 
 probably the explanation of the name NTS (see on ix. 2), 
 and lis = 'Qt»"' may lie underneath T2D in xv. 12. Of 
 course, Nns, even if ultimately from 'aw^, may early have 
 become regarded as an independent name. But there is a 
 second theory, which at any rate deserves mention, viz. 
 that Nils, like fi^s, comes from nm!J. Thus for n312 ^l?D 
 in I S. xiv. 47 would be read, not f^MrntO'^ 'pNonT, but 
 DDia 'm'' (phaai ?). 
 
 We can now return to the question of the reading 
 
 'in IT' TffinS. Budde prefers Chron.'s reading T'^'nh, but 
 
 admits that the expression is obscure. The true reading, 
 
 however, is, from our point of view, obvious, "in^a in 
 
 1 Cp. Winckler, Alttest. Untersuch. (1892), p. 73. 
 
viii. 9 SECOND SAMUEL 275 
 
 Chron. is followed by mD. This is very plausible/ for 
 some supplement to in: is required. What we expect 
 lies concealed under iTi nifflnf?, which should be 'm"" ^MSOtO"'. 
 These are variants ; bia)"* = ^Nl^DtO"' ; IT = 'tw (see on 2 S. 
 xxiv. 16). We may, therefore, read either 'oa>"' nn^l or 
 'm'' nriDl. But a small insertion has still to be made. 
 I Chr. xviii. 3 reads inif?! nnon, as if ' Zobah in the 
 direction of Hamath ' were meant. Read rather nnDn ina^l. 
 Thus we get a.s v. 3, ' And David smote Hadadezer, a man 
 of Rehob(oth), king of Zarephath (?), when he went to 
 Hamath (i.e. Maacath) by the river of Jerahmeel.' We 
 have already heard (v. i) of David's conquest of Maacath. 
 On his way thither he would seem to have defeated 
 Hadadezer. 
 
 viii. 4 f. ^^■J■'^. Budde insists on reading nn"""! (cp. 
 X. 18), because such a host of prisoners would have been 
 unmanageable. But the change is too great. The truth, 
 probably, is that ^^'?•'^ was educed by an editor out of an 
 ill-written SNOm"" (to be taken with nrran in v. 3). As a 
 consequence he had to omit the illegible remains of nn"'"l 
 (or perhaps y^^). — Read Dt013 wr^. We hear of a Cushite 
 in David's army, 3 S. xviii. 2 1 . — 6. □■'^■'JJ3. The ' officers ' 
 in Aram-cusham are || to those in the Israelite Negeb (see 
 on I K. iv. 7, ix. 23). 
 
 viii. 8. Hadadezer's city (not cities), ntal, but Chr. 
 nrtlJO ; in Gen. xxii. 24 (see note), nita. The underlying 
 name is niirn. ; note that Tebah is a son of Nahor by 
 Reumah ( = Jerahmeel). — Tn!!. Another corruption of 
 mim. Chr. gives p5Q ; this is a corruption of pon = 
 ^MDm"" (cp. ]lDp, Judg. x. 5). — ^Thus the name of the royal 
 city was Rehoboth-jerahmeel (see E. Bib., ' Tebah '). This 
 agrees with the description of Hadadezer as ' ben Rehob(oth).' 
 It is the place called Rehoboth-hamahar in Gen. xxxvi. 37. 
 Note also that in x. 16 Hadadezer and his allies are said to 
 come to chTi; now 'n is a distortion of f?NDm\ As a 
 consequence read, not "^^s, but Ts. 
 
 viii. 9. In what sense David ' took Maacath-jerahmeel ' 
 (v. i). On his way thither David had vanquished Hadad- 
 
 1 If ms were correct, it would mean (in the original narrative) man, 
 ' Ephrath.' 
 
276 CRITICA BIBLICA -viii. 13 
 
 ezer ; so To'i hastened to send tribute. To'i (Chr., To'u), 
 however, is hardly right. Possibly we should read ig^ri ; 
 cp. iii. 3 (Maacah, bath Talmai). 
 
 viii. 13 / Dtp Tp{ to!"i. Kittel, in Kautzsch's O.T., 
 gives up in despair, and represents the original by five dots. 
 The next word is lltOl, corresponding to which in i Chr. 
 xviii. 12 is imiNl. Since the proper name 'Abshai' or 
 ' Abishai,' and iBf or mT very frequently, represent f?NStlt&^ 
 and since the scene of David's best attested military opera- 
 tions is the Negeb, also having regard to i K. v. 27, 
 f?NSDtCi-'?3D DO (so read), it is justifiable to read (for 
 yaffil Dt2> 't ffii;"'l) 'offi-'l DO 't Dto'l, ' and David imposed a 
 corvie upon Ishmael' (i.e. the now fully conquered Jerah- 
 meelite Negeb). "im^rrn, which follows, means ' after he had 
 smitten.' The 'Aram mites' are the Jerahmeelites (i Chr. 
 and Ps. Ix., title, wrongly ' Edomites '). nfjon, as usual, 
 = ^NDm"' ; the famous ' valley of Jerahmeel ' was the scene 
 of the battle. The closing words are probably a gloss on 
 'Ishmael.' TOiam comes from jom = fpNi^Dmi ; ■iaJr = Tli0N; 
 Jlb« = 'nT. In Ps. Ix. I, D''3t0, like miom, comes from jattj; 
 there is no discrepancy. See on 2 S. xxiv. 1-9, i K. 
 xi. 1 5 f. — V. 14 is a doublet of v. 6, but not badly 
 placed. 
 
 viii. 10. mv, (B leBSovpav. i Chr. xviii. 10, mnn 
 (® iSovpafi). 'Joram' represents only 'Jerahmeel.' 
 ' Hadoram,' however, comes from ' Hadad-jerahmeel ' (cp. 
 ' Hadad-ezer,' and see on Gen. x. 27), and is probably the 
 original. — Chr. rightly omits ii>n (li»n), an insertion which 
 implies the false reading non "q^D, for non^o. — ^Note the 
 abundance of silver, gold, and copper in N. Arabia. Cp. 
 Jer. X. 9, XV. 12. 
 
 viii. 12. A conglomerate of names, due to an early 
 redactor ; some of them (e.g. Aram [not, Edom], Ammon, 
 Amalek ; and perhaps Pelistim and Zobah) ultimately have 
 the same origin. 
 
 viii. 16-18. David's officers. nNTi (from >yjs ?) was a 
 Misrite ; rrins is a corruption of TT'l^Q ; cp. on nanS, 
 I K. xi. 26, and see E. Bib., ' Zeruiah,' also on 2 S. iii. 39. — 
 BDmiiT' comes from na2i-7Nom"', ' Jerahmeel-sarephath ' (cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Shaphat '). His father's name is Ti'?inN, i-e. 
 
X. 6 SECOND SAMUEL 277 
 
 ^i;Sl-'m^ ' Jerahmeel-gilead.' pT\1, a N. Arabian clan-name 
 (cp. E. Bib^ ' Zadok ') ; llJa'-nN from 'jlin-'nT' (for other 
 details of the text, see Wellh.). It'DTiN combines two 
 representatives of 'jMom'". nrrinN comes from nn^ 115 
 ' Ithrite Arabia.' Tm\0. An examination of the occurrences 
 shows that this, too, is a N. Arabian name. Cp. •'nto, but see 
 on I K. iv. 3 (Nfflim). in"'21 ; see on xxiii. 20. im3 (cp. 
 on ninD, I K. xvii. 3) comes from "'HlinT ; cp. on xv. 1 8, 
 I S. XXX. 14. tiSq represents ims, i.e. either TnDN (i S. 
 i. I ; xvii. 12) or TimS. The analogy of imD gives 
 plausibility to the latter view. The closing words of v. 1 8, 
 and of the paragraph, are not only evidently incomplete but 
 also under the suspicion of corruptness. The true text gave 
 the name of the chief administrator of the Negeb. See on 
 XX. 26. 
 
 Chap. ix. 2. nI'^^- Probably a worn-down form of 
 ps32 (Gen. xxxvi. 2) = pj;offi = f^NSom^' ; cp. on Nils, viii. 3. 
 Ziba, like Doeg (i S. xxi. 8), was a N. Arabian. 
 
 ix. 4 ff'. Was ' Mephibosheth ' really in the house of a 
 private individual in an obscure trans- Jordanic town ? See 
 on xvii. 27. The place was, at any rate, in the Negeb ; 
 in "1^ represents tshl rrin (11 for nin, and misplaced). 
 n-iDD and hi^-^os represent Dm"' and ^Nnn[n]"' respectively. 
 Possibly the text has grown out of two contending variants 
 'jNonT' IT'I and ~[sb:x rr^a. . ' Beth-jerahmeel ' or ' Beth- 
 gilead ' ( = Gibeath-jerahmeel) appears to have been the 
 centre of Saul's clan. See E. Bib., ' Saul,' § i ; ' Mephi- 
 bosheth.' See on iv. 4. 
 
 ix. 8. nan 3^3n. See E. Bib., ' Dog,' and cp. on xxiv. 
 14. — 12. nD->o, an ancient popular distortion of fjNDriT. 
 
 Chap. x. i. Read fjNonT' 133. \^as and pfjos ('m*') 
 are often confounded. So throughout. Cp. on xi. i, 
 xii. 26. — 2. ' Hanun,' or ' Hanan ' (cp. the @ readings). 
 Hanan (see occurrences, especially i Chr. xi. 43) is a N. 
 Arabian name. ' Nahash ' ; see on i S. xi. i . 
 
 X. 5. 'Jericho.' See on Josh. iii. i. 
 
 x. 6. nm Ti'l, see on Judg. xviii. 28. mzs QfN, not 
 ' the people of Tob ' (so now Winckler, KA 7^^^ 231), but a 
 compound name like Aram-cusham (viii. 6). ' Tob ' comes 
 from Tubal (Sain); see on Judg. xi. 3. ' Ish ' probably 
 
278 CRITICA BIBLICA x. ^ 
 
 represents Ashhur (mntON). For earlier explanations see 
 E. Bib., ' Ish-tob.' 
 
 X. 7, 9. DiTinin N32irr-f?3. Budde points out that 
 Nl!i and D"'n"Ql represent different bodies — the one, all the 
 fighting men ; the other, the veterans. True ; but the text 
 is wrong. NlS, like i?n!J and SISM (xxi. 20), comes, here at 
 least, from ^NSDffli ; 'll (as xxiii. 22) from Dif?Ni3m\ If so, 
 in V. 9 read ^Ni^DtB"' ( = the Negeb). Cp. on 'iw f?3, xi. i, 
 and on Nisn fjTi-riN, i Chr. xxi. i. 
 
 x. 16 /. ohTi or DN^n (better Qnhri) should be 
 'jNonT' ; see on v. 8, and on Ezek. xlvii. 16. The irra 
 is that of Jerahmeel (see on viii. 3) not the Jordan. But 
 cp. E. Bid., 'Helam'; Winckler, GI ii. 215. ijiim (Chr. 
 1310?) may either be grouped with Ishbah (i Chr. iv. 17), 
 Ishbak (Gen. xxv. 2), and perhaps Shobek (Neh. x. 25), or 
 be read ina? = fjNi^Dffi'' (see on v. 14). In either case the 
 original narrator had a clear consciousness that the scene of 
 his story was the N. Arabian border-land.- — pT^n, as often, 
 comes from ;m■' = ^NDm^ The 'riT ITO (viii. 3), in x. 16 
 called the nn3, is meant. 
 
 Chap. xi. i. id-'3n^d (Kt.) or c^a^o (Kr. ; so Chr. and 
 the vss.) ? The former is preferred by Hitzig (the 
 messengers sent out to announce the new moon) and by 
 H. P. Smith (the messengers who had been sent by 
 David to Hanun) ; the latter by Wellh., Klost., Driver. 
 Budde, etc. Neither reading, however, is quite satisfactory, 
 □"'Sn^d is a corruption of c^p^oi? or D'ht^DTTV. Jerah- 
 meelite raids on the Israelitish territory in the Negeb were 
 almost the rule (2 K. v. 2). They had probably begun 
 again after the insult described in x. 4. Hence at the 
 return of the season for such raids David seijt his fighting 
 men under Joab to waste the territory of the b'ne Amalek 
 (Jerahmeel). This they did ; and the raid led up to the 
 siege of the capital, named here and in xii. 27, 29 mn, but 
 in xii. 26 jias 133 mn (see on vv. 26/). The traditional 
 reading may be correct. But it is very possible that Ttn or 
 nm should be nhirn.. Thus, since ]')Di>. represents 7MDnT, 
 the full name of the city would be ' Rehoboth of the b'ne- 
 Jerahmeel.' This slightly confirms the supposition that 
 ' Nahash ' and ' Achish ' are distortions of the same original, 
 
xi. 21 SECOND SAMUEL 279 
 
 for ' Achish ' was the king, probably, not of Gath, but of 
 Rehoboth (see on i S. xxi. 10). We must, of course, 
 distinguish this ' Rehoboth ' from that referred to in viii. 8 
 (see note). — o'jQJ'iTn. Read, probably, ^NroQ)''! ( = 'm-'l). 
 The place meant may be Kirjath-jearim {i.e. Kirjath-jerah- 
 meel), where the ark apparently still was. It is, at any 
 rate, in the Negeb. For Joab (xii. 28) urges the king to 
 collect ' the rest of the people ' and finish the capture of 
 Rabbah (Rehoboth). Now it is the Israelites in the Negeb who 
 are specially concerned in the overthrow of Rabbah ; indeed, 
 'ntD"* ^D should probably rather be fpNStat!?'' 73 (cp. on x. 7, 9). 
 To be able at once to collect ' the rest ' of Israel in the Negeb 
 implies that David too was in the Negeb. Cp. on xv. 1 1 . 
 
 xi. 3. The true name of Uriah's wife is not given. 
 This was probably Abigail, whose son in iii. 3 is named 
 Chileab, and in i Chr. iii. i Daniel — names which probably 
 come from 'Jerahmeel.' Something in the nature of a 
 designation is given to Uriah's wife ; she is snOJ-ni = 
 i^DCni = f?NSDffl"'TQ, i.e. Ishmaelitess, and D"'27bN"ni = 
 '^Nomi-rQ, i.e. Jerahmeelitess. Just so, as criticism shows, 
 the son of David and ' Bathsheba ' is called noStO, which 
 suggests Ishmaelite or Salmaean affinities, and ^NOriT (MT. 
 rPT'T), i£. Jerahmeel. See E. Bib., ' Solomon,' § 2. — ' Uriah 
 the Hittite.' Tin, as elsewhere, probably comes from Tinm. 
 Uriah was a Rehobothite in the wider gense ; i.e. he was 
 not a native of the Rehoboth of Nahash, but a member of 
 the wide-spread race called sometimes Rehobothite, some- 
 times Zarephathite. n^'TiM is an expansion of itim, i.e. 
 probably ■'in? (see E. Bib., col. 5228). David's warriors 
 all came from the N. Arabian border-land. 
 
 xi. 21. Abimelech nmaT-)3, but @ lepojBoaX [L], 
 lepo^oa/j, [BA]. nmi here is supposed to be a con- 
 temptuous substitute for hs:i. Our experience with Ish- 
 bosheth and Mephibosheth, however, may warn us against 
 accepting this view. ntOlTi is a scribe's arbitrary correction 
 of nmT, which, as Ps. Ixvi. 6, xcv. 5 show, can be a corrup- 
 tion of ^«i;Dffi\ The true name of Abimelech's father, 
 according to tradition, no doubt was hsil'' = hi^CTlT. But 
 'm"" and 'otDi were used as synonyms, so that Abi'melech 
 could be said to have been the son of Ishmael. 
 
 19 
 
28o CRITICA BIBLICA xii. s 
 
 Chap. xii. 24. Various explanations have been give 
 of this difficult passage ; see E. Bib., ' Jedidiah.' But th 
 true key has been missed, nnhw being obviously connecte 
 either with riDh'a or with '7NiiDm\ it may be presumed the 
 the child's second name had a similar origin. Now iT'T" 
 certainly can be a corruption of ^NDm"', and so too ca 
 "lirrM mn"'1 and nirr' Tilsn. The circumstances of the cas 
 render it extremely probable that these corruptions actuall 
 took place. This leads to the conclusion that w. 24 ^ 
 originally ran thus, nthts lom-riN N"ipi"i p. ~ibr\\ and tha 
 there was a various reading, fjNonT' lOffi-nN Nnp''"i. In th 
 latter reading SNom"', written 'm"', became corrupted int 
 TT'T', and this into iT'T'T' (by dittography). The seconi 
 Nip"'! clause found its way into the text, and had to b 
 connected by some intermediate words with the first. Thi 
 the editor effected by manipulating another corrupt margins 
 reading (producing iinN nirpl), and by modifying a claus 
 relative to Nathan ; the corrupt mrp Ti3i>l was added. Th 
 Nathan-clause originally ran Ninsn )n3 Tl ^rro^^il"! (s 
 Wellh., Budde), preparing the way for the prominent positio 
 of Nathan in i K. i. 
 
 xii. 26/ TOI^QH TS, Q-'an Ti?. As Wellh. saw, th 
 two phrases must be synonymous ; he himself would reai 
 D"'an T'S in both verses. This, however, is an improbabl 
 phrase ; hence in Exp.T, Dec. 1897, pp. 143 /i, I propose 
 DJjfpp Til for both verses. This was a step in the righ 
 direction. If ' Milcom ' was the god of the Ammonitei 
 what more natural as the second name of the capital tha: 
 ' city of Milcom ' ? But it now appears (see on i K. xi. 5 
 that n3^0 is but a corruption of ^NOm"', which name th 
 Israelites applied both to a people and to its god. And th 
 analogy of the corrupt phrase n3"if?arr i'Tr, 2 K. xxv. 25, Jei 
 xii. I, from ^nqht rit, and of D^io in 2 Chr. xvi. 4, and Pi 
 Ixv. 10, from '?NDm\ justifies us in reading in both verse 
 
 xii. 30. No explanation of the text is very satisfactorj 
 Chron. makes things easier, but the meaning that only th 
 ' precious stone ' in the ' crown ' was put upon David's heac 
 is not clearly conveyed. Budde remarks, ' one must suspec 
 either deep corruption or intentional distortion,' and add 
 
xiii. I SECOND SAMUEL 281- 
 
 that ' this is most easily explained if such a statement as 
 that of an idol's crown had to be got rid of.' I think that 
 experience of the ways of the scribes elsewhere enables us 
 to explain this strange passage. A very different text 
 underlies it. Xi'h'O-rrws comes from ^NDnT mSN, ' Ephrath- 
 jerahmeel ' ; cp. Atroth [Ephrath]-beth-joab, mentioned in 
 I Chr. ii. 54 in a Calebite connection. ^i>D, which follows, 
 comes from f7NDm% a correction of D3"?D. Under TtONT 
 nfjpQJDl should lie the names of other places (note ' all the 
 cities,' V. 31) ; read ^nsdO)"'! •n»M"1 (cp. mpf?N and f?3mN from 
 'atD"'). IDD and mp"' naturally represent 7NDnT' (cp. on Gen. 
 xiii. 10), and ]1N comes from •'33. 3ni probably represents 
 ^«SDtD"' (see on Dt. i. i ). The statement, ' and it was 
 (placed) on David's head,' is editorial expansion. The 
 Chronicler is less trustworthy. We must of course suppose 
 that V. 30 comes from another place in the original docu- 
 ment, for w. 30^ and 31 refer to the Jerahmeelite 
 capital. 
 
 xii. 31. A difficult passage. Yet if we take due 
 account of the three verbs N-'Sirr, Dt»"'1, and T^lsm, the general 
 sense should be clear. The people of ' Rabbah ' were 
 ' brought out ' from their city and ' placed ' in other parts 
 of David's realm ; so he ' made them to pass (cp. Ti^i^n, Gen. 
 xlvii. 21) from [Rehobothj-jerahmeel.' mno, ■'2"'"in, and 
 rmilDD ought to represent place-names. Nor is it difficult 
 to find these, ■'ijinn and rmno (the initial D is due to the 
 influence of mio) both represent mnsn ; miD, like iniD, 
 has come from pnM (ultimately = S'NonT). f?m (cp. on 
 ' Barzillai,' xvii. 21 ; also Isa. x. 34 where f?n3, i.e. hvQiyas^, 
 is a variant to niJTl = ^Nom"') comes from 'jn^oB'^. For 
 p^D3 read SnohT'O (cp. on nDlf?Q, v. 26). Render, ' and 
 the 'people that were there he brought out, and placed in 
 Migron and in Hazeroth-ishmael ; he transferred them from 
 [Rehoboth-Jjerahmeel.' Note that Kt. p^o is a compromise 
 between nafjD and jlfjD. 
 
 Chap. xiii. Note va. vv. i, 3, 4 the strictly Jerahmeelite 
 names. Tamar = Ramath ; Amnon or (z^. 20) Aminon (see 
 on iii. 3 ; Jonadab, or {v. S ) Jehonadab, or (as ©'•) Jonathan, 
 containing the N. Arabian clan-names Nadab and Nathan 
 ( = Ethan ?) respectively ; Shimeah (see on i S. xvi. 8 /) ; 
 
282 CRITICA BIBLICA xiii. i8 
 
 Absalom (see on iii. 3). Note the Jerahmeelite name of 
 Absalom's daughter (xiv. 27). 
 
 xiii. 18/ CDB nShS ; again in Gen. xxxvii. 3. @ 
 here, ^tjcav KupTrmro^ (with sleeves to the wrist), or rather 
 aa-rpcvyaXcoTo^ (reaching to the ankles ; so 1^^ ; Aq. t^. «.) ; 
 but in Gen. •^ltwv ttookiXoi; (Aq. dcrTpaydXcov ; Sym. veipi- 
 8(BTo? [sleeved] or Kapirwro';). The most interesting render- ■ 
 ing is y^. ttoiklXo^, not for Lagrange's reason {Atudes, 1903, 
 p. 403), but because, using the analogy of @'s -^ChJi) iroiKiki) 
 for "iMtD nmN in Josh. vii. 21, we are permitted to detect 
 underneath itoik. the nanie of some one of the countries 
 famous for embroidery. One of these countries was Egypt 
 {E. Bib., col. 1286). If, therefore, there is any Hebrew 
 name recognised in (^ as a name of Egypt, or of a part of 
 Egypt, which could become corrupted into qidd, we may 
 suppose that the translator of Gen. and 2 S. in (g read this 
 word instead of □''ds. One • such name there is — D'^ping, 
 the name of a son of Mizraim [Egypt], according to Gen. 
 X. 1 4 ; for it is clear that @ agrees with MT. in pronoun- 
 cing Mizraim. I conclude that it is very probable that the 
 tunic of honour worn by Joseph and by Tamar was, accord- 
 ing to the original text, a tunic from Pathrusim, or from 
 some other region whose name may underlie Pathrusim. 
 And since the region which had the closest relations with 
 S. Palestine (including at present the Negeb) was N. Arabia, 
 and in fact the scene both of the Joseph-story and of the 
 Tamar-story was in N. Arabia, I conceive that we have a 
 right to restore both in Gen. and in 2 S. the reading riDHD 
 DTID12, ' a tunic of the Zarephathites,' i.e. a N. Arabian tunic, 
 embroidered in various colours, and analogous to the mantle 
 of Achan in Josh. vii. 2 1 . This suggests a correction of the 
 difficult IM in Gen. xxxvii. 2. See next note. 
 
 ' For so the king's daughters that were virgins were 
 apparelled D"''?"'i>D,' @ Tov'i evrevSuTa? avTwv. Wellh. emends, 
 nVli^a. But even, if this be a gloss, we do not expect D71SD 
 (from antiquity) in such a connection ; the right word would 
 be D"'3pS ( I S. ix. 9). Even then, however, the gloss would 
 be inadequate, for the reader would surely desiderate some 
 hint as to the reason for such an exceptional dress. And if 
 we turn to the only other passage in which the term Q 3 
 
xiii. 23 SECOND SAMUEL 283 
 
 occurs (Gen. xxxvii. 3), we are astonished that the gift of a 
 ' mere tunic with sleeves ' (so most render) should lead to 
 envy and murder. Gunkel {ad loc^ thinks it enough to say 
 that this effect of such a modest distinction is ' characteristic 
 of the simplicity of the circumstances presupposed.' But 
 Joseph's father was at any rate not in the meanest circum- 
 stances. The true explanation is very different. Joseph's 
 brethren envied him because his tunic was beautiful and 
 expensive, and put him in a class apart from the rough 
 shepherd life — the class to which the women of the family 
 belonged. But if so, how is it that in 2 S. xiii. 1 8 the robe 
 in question is appropriated to ' the king's daughters ' ? The 
 answer is that the text is corrupt, and that the clue to the 
 true reading is furnished by that impossible word n"'7"'i>o 
 which Wellh. attempted to correct. D"'f?"'»D (like Qfjiso in 
 Gen. vi. 4, Ezek. xxxii. 27) should be fpNoriT, and that this 
 word is a correction of the corrupt ^'7D^ in 'dH m33, which, 
 as in the || phrase, "j^nn p in i K. xxii. 26, Jer. xxxvi. 26, 
 xxxviii. 6, Zeph. i. 8, should be 7Nom"'. The point of the 
 gloss before us is that ' this robe was worn by women of 
 Jerahmeel while they were virgins,' so that Tamar was 
 reckoned as at once an Israelitess and a Jerahmeelitess, i.e. 
 she belonged to a Jerahmeelite family — that of David, but 
 also to the larger folk of Israel. As a Jerahmeelitess she 
 wore a richly embroidered Zarephathite robe. Note in this 
 connection the fondness of the later kings of Israel for a 
 residence in the Negeb (Shimron, Jezreel) disclosed by the 
 criticism of the Books of Kings. It is possible, too, that 
 David himself, and his family, sometimes resided in the 
 Negeb (see on xv. 11). 
 
 xiii. 23. ' Baal-hazor which is beside Ephraim.' Ab- 
 salom's close connection with the south (see on vv. 2)7 /•) 
 makes it practically certain that it is a southern Ephraim 
 which is meant ; cp. ' Har-ephraim,' i S. i. i . This is quite 
 consistent with holding that the place here (and in Isa. vii. 2) 
 called D'^IDN is that called in 2 Chr. xiii. 19 jnar, and men- 
 tioned with Bethel and Jeshanah (i.e. Shunem), both places 
 in the Negeb. Baal-hazor has probably come through a 
 misunderstanding from Hazor-baal, a distortion of Ashhur- 
 jerahmeel (see on i S. x. 27). It is the Hazor or rather 
 
284 CRITICA BIBLICA xiii. 
 
 Ashhur of Solomon (see on i K. ix. 15) which is mear 
 If our view of Ephraim is correct, Absalom's esta 
 was at no very great distance from the residence 
 David. At any rate ' Mount Ephron ' was not far fro 
 Kirjath-jearim ( = Kirjath-jerahmeel) according to Jos 
 XV. 9. 
 
 xiii. 34. See Wellh., p. 189 ; Rothstein, ZDMG Ivi. 19 
 Neither critic has seen that '\T\T\ l^o comes from n^ntps 
 II D-':in TiQ. 
 
 xiii. 37. The improbability of a flight of Absalom 1 
 Geshur in the NE. of Palestine has been pointed out i 
 E. Bib., col. lyii f. His chief supporters, Ahithophel (s{ 
 on XV. 12) and Amasa (see on xvii. 25), belonged to tl 
 Negeb ; where the scene of his warfare against David wa 
 we cannot yet consider. Turning to the names in v. 3 
 and in iii. 3 we find that Talmai (^thrt) elsewhere is the nam 
 of the eponym of one of the three clans of Kirjath-arba, i. 
 Kirjath-'arab = Rehoboth (see on Num. xiii. 22), and the 
 Maacah is elsewhere the name of a concubine of Cale 
 (i Chr. ii. 48). Note also how easy a journey it would b 
 from Geshur in the Negeb to Jerusalem (cp. xiv. 23), assuir 
 ing that the reading ' Jerusalem ' in z'. 3 7 is correct. It i 
 true that in xv. 8 Absalom speaks of his temporary home ' i 
 Geshur in Aram,' but ' Aram,' as we find again and agaii 
 is the short for 'Jerahmeel,' and as a rule designates th 
 Jerahmeelites of the Negeb (cp. on Gen. xxii. 21 wher 
 fjNlDp comes from ^NQnT^). How convenient a flight to th 
 S. Geshur ( = Ashhur) for an intending revolter would b 
 need hardly be pointed out. The name Talmai (like th 
 place-name Telem or Telam, see on i S. xv. 4) comes fror 
 Temul = Ishmael. For Ammihur @ reads Ammihud. Bot 
 names are possible. ' Ammihur ' = Jerahmeel-ashhur ; ' Am 
 mihud' = Jerahmeel -jehud. Both Ashhur and Jehud (s,e 
 on Josh. xix. 45, and note Jehudi, the descendant of Cush 
 Jer. xxxvi. 14) were Negeb names. And there is at leas 
 some probability in the view that Q^lOITi is miswritten fo 
 ^NSDtO"', ' Ishmael ' = Kirjath-jerahmeer(see on i S. xvii. 54, 
 
 Chap. xiv. 2. ' Tekoa ' (cp. on ' Koa,' Ezek. xxiii. 2; 
 see the evidence in E. Bib., ' Tekoa ') was in the Negel 
 Perhaps we should read ' Maacath ' ; ' Maacath ' and ' Geshur 
 
xiv. 26 SECOND SAMUEL 285 
 
 were evidently connected. Absalom was a son of Maacah 
 (iii. 3). - Cp. on xx. 14. 
 
 xiv. 13. Read probably fpNOHT Di> = f?i; (cp. on Judg. 
 XX. 2, where, however, it is '^nh). The Israelites in the 
 Negeb might be called ' the people of Jerahmeel,' just as 
 an individual might be called ViT'-ja or 'm*' ni (see on xiii. 
 1 8 f.). This correction may supply the key to the trouble- 
 some intermediate clause which so grievously interrupts 
 the sense. 
 
 For ntOND Hitzig {Hiob, 299) suggested D"if?mnM3. More 
 probably tJCON should be f?Ni)Dffi\ Omit ^l-rD^ as redactional, 
 and read following words thus, 'Dtca mn nnrr fpNOriT. 
 n7D[rr], as often (cp. on v. 26), is a corruption of ^NDm"', 
 which was originally a correction of DTi^N. The next 
 words are, ' this word is like Ishmael ' ; i.e. Jerahmeel and 
 Ishmael are synonymous. Cp. the parallel glosses in Ps. 
 Ixxv. 7 (see Che., Ps.j-^^ ad loc). 
 
 xiv. 25. ^ND hhirh. Budde remarks on the imperfect 
 connection, and would have preferred ^^np. But the remedy 
 is plain. Read ^Nom"', a gloss on, or correction of, f?N^t2)^ 
 To the original narrator, as well as to the wise woman of 
 Tekoa, Absalom belongs to the ' people of Jerahmeel.' 
 
 xiv. 26. Driver (ad loc.) has shown that the Hebrew 
 of this verse as a whole is possible, but not that it is probable, 
 and though late post-exilic writers were capable of gross 
 exaggerations, yet I hesitate to account for the present text 
 on the hypothesis that v. 26 is a late interpolation. Ex- 
 perience elsewhere warns us to look for an underlying text. 
 That text is probably neither more nor less than ^jNoni"; "iJ^ 
 TijaN"!, a correction of 7NntD"' in v. 25. Remembering that 
 "^rh in Judg. XV. 9 (see note) represents 7NDm"', we see that 
 in^in may have come from ^MDriT "'31. That itDNT and 
 ~\SW may represent TitTs (the southern Asshur = Ashhur), and 
 that 7ptD and uhpXI} may have come from fjNrDBT' (a gloss 
 on f?NDnT), and dtind from ^ndJIT', is evident, l^en ]3Nl 
 finally sums up the various emendations, for it doubtless 
 represents fpNonT "'311 (cp. on xiii. 1 8 /). The editor who, 
 on the basis of corrupt glosses and corrections, produced the 
 present Midrash-like passage, was under the influence of a 
 wrong interpretation of xviii. 9. (The ordinary explanation 
 
286 CRITICA BIBLICA xv. 
 
 of ^ba^ ]nN3, ' after the king's weight ' [see E. Bib., ' Weights,' 
 § 4, end], must at any rate be abandoned ; ' the king ' should 
 be ' Jerahmeel.') 
 
 Chap, xv.— xix. The revolt of Absalom. The geography 
 has been throughout manipulated, but there are traces of 
 the original representation which confirms the view suggested 
 by the story of David thus far that the Negeb is the true 
 scene of the narrative. 
 
 XV. 2. ' I am from this or . that tribe of Israel.' The 
 region meant is the Negeb together with Judah (including 
 Hebron and Jerusalem); cp. on ii. 8 /., xv'n. ii. 'All. the 
 tribes of Israel ' (v. i o) has the same meaning. 
 
 XV. II. ' From Jerusalem.' Was David really residing 
 at Jerusalem ? The kings of Judah (see on Kings) dwelt 
 very often in the Negeb. David's own children (e.g. Tamar) 
 called themselves Jerahmeelites. We also often find 'Jeru- 
 salem ' and ' Ishmael ' ( = ' Jerahmeel ') confounded ; see e.g. 
 Zech. xiii; i. It would not be very surprising if there were 
 such a confusion in many parts of David's story. There 
 may be a trace of it kere in the word aarh (and in xxiv. 24, 
 end). Is it at all probable that these two hundred men (of 
 the best families, we may presume) knew nothing of Absalom's 
 ambitious programme. Can the reading be correct? In 
 I K. xxii. 34, almost beyond doubt, lon^ comes from ^inn, 
 and this (as usual) from ^NSOffii or ^NDriT^. Most probably 
 then [ojonf? has the same origin here ; probably, too, □''Nip, 
 if not also D"'3^m, has come from a miswritten f?NDm\ 
 David's true home at this period was probably at a place 
 called Beth- or Kirjath-jerahmeel, i.e. perhaps 'Kirjath-jearira.' 
 Cp. on vv. 17, 24, 27, 2 S. xxiv. 8, 24. The closing 
 words of the verse may be put down to the late redactor. 
 
 XV. 12. SsnTrN, i.e. Jerahmeel-peleth. Cp. Eliphalet, 
 V. 16, and cp. Num. xvi. i (Peleth). — For □■'mtn-riN MlTt:! 
 read perhaps, with Klost., nip"'^n-f?N iniM (see i S. xxiii. 19). 
 This is connected with a plausible correction of the former 
 part of the passage, ' Absalom had made a league (D7ffi!"!) 
 with Ahithophel the Keilathite (Ti^-'^'pn, or ? i^'j-'i^pn), the 
 counsellor of David, who caused him to escape (in^so) ^oi" 
 Keilah.' Should ' Giloh ' be ' Keilah ' in Josh. xv. 5 1 ? See 
 E. Bib., ' Giloh.' 
 
XV. 23 SECOND SAMUEL 287 
 
 XV. 17. pnnQn rcja, eV oLkw tS fiaxpav. Read prob- 
 ably ^NDHT'-rr'n, in the Negeb. See on Jer. vi. i / Prob- 
 ably this is the name of the place where the king and his 
 family resided. Was it the same as Kirjath-jearim, z.e. 
 Kirjath-jerahmeel, which was in the Negeb, and for a time 
 the seat of the ark ? Cp. on i S. vi. 21. 
 
 XV. ig /. nmpD^, 'jion. The former of these words 
 the versions arbitrarily change into -q. The latter they, 
 and the moderns, render ' yesterday.' Yet there is a group 
 of passages (see on i S. iv. 7) in which 'n and 'riN are 
 certainly corruptions of hi^SQ^H'^ (or fjNom"'), and DlpQ has 
 sometimes sprung from "jNariT (see e.g. Isa. xxviii. 8). lios 
 and nabS are also somewhat suspicious ; the former with h 
 may represent 7MDnT (see on Isa. vii. 14), and the same 
 origin is possible for roh (cp. bsnp''). INll is a dittogram 
 of TS13«, which also may conceivably come from 'm"" ; the 
 scribes often accumulated bad attempts to reproduce this 
 word, and the editors made what sense they could out of them. 
 David's speech to Ittai therefore was, ' Return and tarry with 
 the king, for thou art a foreigner and an exile in Jerahmeel 
 [read 7MDnTl], and as for me I go whither I can go.' 
 
 XV. 23. p"i"rp ^ro. If 'Jerusalem' really covers over 
 ' Ishmael ' (see on &. 11 ), what can we make of the torrent 
 'Kidron'? In i Mace. xv. 39, 41, cp. xvi. 6, a Kedron is 
 spoken of, with a '^eifiappovv eastward. This is not in the 
 Negeb, but near Jamnia and Azotus. Note, however, (i) 
 that in 2 Chr. xxviii. 1 8 a Gederoth is mentioned with Beth- 
 shemesh, Aijalon, and Soco, all of which turn out to be most 
 probably Negeb names (cp. also on Josh. xv. 3 3 ff.). Kirjath- 
 jearim (Kirjath-jerahmeel) was near Beth-shemesh (Beth- 
 cusham) ; see on i S. vii. i. (2) Also in Jer. xli. 18 (see 
 note), we can detect, underneath ' Geruth-chimham which is 
 by Beth-lehem,' ' Gidroth-jerahmeel which is by Beth-jerah- 
 meel.' Both these places were in the Negeb on the road to 
 Misrim. Lastly, in Judg. v. 19 (see note) we find a torrent- 
 stream called ' the waters of ^IJO ' ; now ^^aD, like inio (see 
 on I K. xiv. 2), probably comes from bNQm^ It is most 
 plausible to identify the torrent of jmp with the ' waters of 
 Tr3D.' If so, we must of course distinguish this stream from 
 that called Jerahmeel (see on xvii. 22). 
 
288 CRITICA BIBLICA xv. 2 
 
 For inon-HN Tni, ®- presupposes 'on TV\ ^^^. Bu 
 nil, or rather Dim (written 'nit), in a place-name like thii 
 represents 'jNSDffli (see on v. 30). Probably we should rea^ 
 'ami 'no ~\T\, ' toward the wilderness of Ishmael.' Cp. 0: 
 xvi. 14. 
 
 XV. 24. Perhaps one of the most striking gains fror 
 new methods is the explanation of aTro BaiOap in ® and c 
 the equally strange nnilN Si'i"! in MT. Wellh., Klost., H 
 P. Smith, and Budde agree that the original text mention© 
 Abiathar, and that (g's Baidap represents this name. Thi 
 is incorrect. Baidap is a mutilated form of ^ai,6iapeifi ; on 
 proof of this — for those accustomed to scribal errors — is hi' 
 nnilN, z.e. Ninil^ro = ^Nomi nil ; for another, see on v. 2; 
 We should therefore restore 'mi niin, ' from Beth-jerahmeel 
 after Qirr'^Nrr ]inN-nN. Possibly th's Beth-jerahmeel i 
 equivalent to Kirjath-jerahmeel, where the ark was at th 
 accession of David. See further on vv. 11, 27, 29. 
 
 XV. 27. HNnn ]nlin. 'Unintelligible. Read mNnn 'sn 
 (Wellh.). Budde prefers to read n«"i ; cp. @, ifSere. Thi 
 remedy, however, is clear. rTNin occurs again in i Chi 
 ii. 5 2, where one of the sons of Shobal, ' the father of Kirjath 
 jearim,' is Haroeh. Another form of this name is Reaial 
 and both (like ' jearim ') are corruptions of bNomi. Th 
 same scribal errors recur in different places. Read ]n 
 'mi, in apposition to pina ; ' and the king said to Zadol 
 the priest of Jerahmeel.' ' Jerahmeel ' may stand eithe 
 for Kirjath - jerahmeel or for Beth - jerahmeel. See 01 
 V. 24. 
 
 XV. 28. mnisi (Kr. mmsi). Read probably lis- 
 For the complete phrase, see on xvi. 14. Neither 'th 
 plains ' nor ' the fords of the wilderness ' is a natural phrasf 
 Cp. E. Bib., col. 1550. 
 
 XV. 29. nnilMV Rightly bracketed, but not understooc 
 by Klosterniann. As in v. 24, 'nw represents 'pNDmi'n'': 
 originally either a marginal correction of D"?lD"ni, or a variar 
 to 'pNi^omi. 
 
 XV. 30. £3initn nfproi. The original name of th 
 ' ascent' was ^NSOttJi nf?2>0 (see on Isa. x. 32), but the nam 
 by whifch it was known in the writer's time may have bee 
 QiinnffiDn 'o. This is suggested by z'. 32. See on 2 E 
 
xvii. 17 SECOND SAMUEL 289 
 
 xxiii. 1 3, on Zeph. i. 1 1 (Bnaon), and on Neh. xiii. 1 5 ; also 
 E. Bib., ' Destruction, Mount of.' 
 
 ' David's friend.' Rather (in spite of xvi. 1 7) ' David's ■ 
 courtier.' Cp. rukt, 'officer,' in Am. Tab. 181, 7. Cp. on 
 
 1 K. i. 8. 
 
 ' Hushai ' = ' Cushi,' which ® {^ovaeC) may perhaps 
 intend. "'SlMn. The Archites were probably a clan of the 
 Negeb ; their chief seat was at Ataroth, i.e. perhaps Ephrath 
 (see on Josh. xvi. 2). According to @, two of David's heroes 
 were Archites (2 S. xxiii. 11, 35), which would confirm the 
 Negeb connection. Cp. also on ' Erech,' Gen. x. 10. 
 
 Chap. xvi. 5. 'Bahurim.' See on iii. isf- — 14- Q"'Q"'S 
 has puzzled all critics (cp. Judg. viii. 4), but om Xt^T has 
 been left unquestioned. Yet we can hardly deny that ■'tDD3 
 in the Psalter sometimes covers over fjNSDtO"' ; cp. also JStC, 
 a son of Shashak (from Kish = Cush), hjidj, a son of Ishmael, 
 n"'D33, in Ezra ii. 50. nm, too, may be a fragment of ^Ni^Offii 
 (as Isa. Hi. 11, etc.). Read D"'^NSaQ)"' mr, 'Arab of the 
 Ishmaelites' ; the name is that of a city (see on Dt. ii. 36, 
 
 2 S. xxiv. 5). The iT't of IB^ in xv. 23, etc. (see note) 
 doubtless = ^nsd©"', the full phrase may have been nno ni> 
 'do?"'. This explanation gives the key to n-imnT D"'D"'S, Judg. 
 viii. 4 (see note). 
 
 Chap. xvii. 11. 'As the sand,' etc. An inopportune 
 hyperbole ! But, in accordance with parallels, hynl (cp. h^T\, 
 Dt. xxxiii. 1 9), xsn h^, and irh (cp. ^nN, Hos. x. 1 4) probably 
 come from T'NDm''. Here, as elsewhere, the editor seems to 
 have constructed a clause out of a group of scribal errors. 
 Considering the accumulating evidence that the chief object 
 of the Israelites in the regal period was to secure their hold 
 on the Negeb, we can hardly doubt that ' Jerahmeel ' is a 
 gloss on ' Israel,' or perhaps rather on ' Ishmael ' (reading 
 'qw^ for 'iw). Cp. on iii. 5, xiv. 13, i S. xviii. 6, Judg. 
 XX. 2, and for 'from Dan,' etc., on iii. 10, 15, xxiv. 2, i S. 
 iii. 20. 
 
 xvii. 17. ^^ih-ps. Cp. 'Rogelim,' v. 27. The original 
 name was En-jerahmeel (' En-gilead ' is less probable). Since 
 the original form of ' Jerusalem ' was probably 'Ir-ishmael or 
 'Ir-jerahmeel (see on v. 6), it would not be surprising if there 
 were one En-rogel near Jerusalem and another near Kirjath- 
 
290 CRITICA BIBLICA xvii. u 
 
 jearim. This affects i K. i., but it is a grave questior 
 whether in i K. i. the original narrative did not mean 
 ' Ishmael,' i.e. Beth- or Kirjath-jerahmeel, rather than ' Jeru- 
 salem.' See on i K. i. 9. And a close inspection of Josh, 
 XV. 7 favours the view that, the true En-rogel was in the 
 Negeb (see note). 
 
 xvii. 19. niain ; cp. 2 S. xxvii. 22 nisiin. No 
 amount of learning avails to save these readings. See E. 
 Bib., col. 3202, notes 2 and 4. Read here niiai, 'cushions.' 
 A pretence of preparation for a family meal. 
 
 xvii. 20. D";an S'^^'p. The critics naturally despair over 
 bD"'D. It is, however, one of the current corruptions of 
 'jNDnT (cp. on ' Michal,' i S. xiv. 49). D'lan (as v. 21) is a 
 gloss on hT^ (cp. Gen. vi. 1 7 ?). 
 
 xvii. 22, 24, 26. David, and after him Absalom, crosses 
 a stream called by the redactor pTTl, but by the original 
 narrator ^NOriT (as elsewhere). David rests at Mahanaim, 
 which is not far from Beth-gilead (Lodebar ; see on vv. 27 jf. 
 and on ii. Z f., 29) ; Israel under Absalom in Arab-ishmael, 
 or, more precisely, in the land of Gilead (see on v. 26). 
 Close by was the qiisn ir"' (see on xviii. 6). 
 
 xvii. 25. MtoOi; ; or perhaps "'NQJQI? (@ afieaa-aei some- 
 times), probably from ^Ni^DtO^'. In i Chr. ii. 1 7 his father is 
 ' Jether the Ishmaelite,' which seems correct. (But cp. E. 
 Bib., ' Jether,' § 3.) — What follows is very puzzling. If 
 Abigail, like Zeruiah, was David's sister, her father ought to 
 have been, not Nahash, but Jesse. The truth perhaps is 
 that Joab was not really the grandson of Jesse, but of a 
 Misrite named Achish. mnD (cp. on i S. xi. i) seems to 
 be miswritten for WTii^ or m"'3«. mriN may represent ffiinN, 
 a correction of ajn3 ; rr'^Tii; may come from i"iSD (cp. nsns, 
 the name of Jeroboam's mother, as explained in E. Bib., col. 
 2404, note 2). If so, Abigail is described as ' the daughter 
 of Ahish ( = Ashhur?), a Misrite.' (The final r^ in H'^nSD 
 would be simply formative.) ' Joab's mother ' is an incorrect 
 gloss. See E. Bib., ' Zeruiah.' 
 
 xvii. 26. Klost. and Budde (?) would omit DI^PttJaNl, but 
 wrongly. It is a corruption ht^SK^W in^a, ' in Ishmaelite 
 Arabia.' David had lodged there (see on xvi. 1 4). ' In the 
 land of Gilead ' is a gloss or variant. 
 
xvii. 27 SECOND SAMUEL 291 
 
 xvii. 2y ff. Budde's supposition that Nahash the ex- 
 king of ' Ammon ' is here referred to as a private individual 
 because he was now simply David's viceroy, is plainly an 
 improbable makeshift. S. A. Cook's ingenious supposition 
 (adopted by Stenning in Hastings, DE) that we should read 
 'w torii "IN"*!""!, has against it, apart from the chronological 
 inferences which it involves, the absence of ^'30^r before B?n3, 
 nor can we safely get rid of i^oj, which is, according to rule, 
 a fragment of TWT = hastiW^. There is also difficulty in 
 ' Machir, ben Ammiel, of Lo-debar.' In ix. 4 this person is 
 referred, to again, but we have found reason there to attribute 
 the mention of him to the editorial working-up of a corrupt 
 text. And who is this mysterious Barzillai? We hear of 
 him again in xix. 31 ff., but we shall there find reason to 
 doubt the accuracy of the present text. We have next to 
 remark upon the singular parallelism between xix. 33 and 
 ix. yd. This suggests that according to one form of the 
 tradition it was neither Ziba (xvi. 1-4) nor Barzillai who 
 brought provisions to David but Mephibosheth. It is indeed 
 quite conceivable, and in accordance with similar phenomena 
 elsewhere, that an admirer of David would not have his hero 
 accused of having ill-treated the son of his friend Jonathan, 
 and provided a more satisfactory form of narrative. Of 
 course, we can have no documentary proof of this, but a 
 plausible reconstruction of the text of xvii. 27 can be offered 
 on this assumption. The task before us is to undo the work 
 of a harmonising redactor, who having already admitted the 
 narrative of Ziba's contribution to the provisioning of David's 
 army, could not also recognise that Mephibosheth had given 
 to David a similar proof of loyalty. For ffiro-p ■'3© read 
 jn3V"|l hi^soW (see on iv. 4, where the true name of Jonathan's 
 son is shown to have been Ishmael or Jerahmeel). For 
 pQS-'33 nmo read ^ndht n'^n. For T3m read ^ndht^ 
 (correction). For f?NiD:>-p read, again, 'm*' TV':i. For tSo 
 nn read ishl rr^ao (see on Am. vi. 13). For i^nil read 
 ^MSDBT nil (for •h^ cp. fjirs = '■'om-'), a synonym for 'nT nin. 
 For Qifpno ®\ in its original form (i.e. omitting the inter- 
 polated T]veyKav), represents D^lplO (o e'/e paka^eiv). B, A, 
 and L (as we have them) agree in giving TjvejKav, which corre- 
 sponds to DillpD. This Hebrew reading is in fact correct. 
 
292 CRITIC A BIBLICA xviii. 5 
 
 except that we should read the sing. 3"ipD. And ' D''f?nD 
 also may cover over a correct reading, viz. either Qi^j-rr'aD 
 (see E. Bib., ' Gallim ') or fpsDHT (cp. ' Rogel'). These 
 restorations, put together, produce this result, jnav ]1 'pNiott)"'') 
 \ph-x rr^ao ^n^dq)-' rr-aD -[■hi rr-no] f^Nom"' n-'2D ni^^in 
 !l'''!pO = ' and Ishmael, son of Jonathan, the Gileadite, of 
 Beth-jerahmeel, presented . . .' Cp. E. Bib., ' Rogelim,' and 
 ' Saul,' § 4. 
 
 ' Mephibosheth, then, or rather Ishmael (I-bosheth), was 
 known , at this time as ' the Gileadite.' He was a man of 
 wealth, and proved his loyalty to David by bringing supplies 
 for the army. 
 
 Chap, xviii. 5. Read, with Klost., -h "han (see @) ; cp. 
 iSiS from T'NDm'^ in Isa. viii. 6 (see note). 
 
 xviii. 6. D'^nDM ''\S\ The phrase ' might naturally be 
 expected to mean the great forest covering the highlands 
 of central Palestine in which the tribe of Ephraim settled 
 (Josh. xvii. 15-18). But all the circumstances are in favour 
 of supposing the battle to have been fought on the eastern 
 side of Jordan. . . . These considerations make it all but 
 certain that " the wood of Ephraim " was some part of the 
 great forests of Gilead ' (Kirkpatr. ad ioc). G. A. Smith is 
 more positive. ' Ephraim gave its name, not only to the 
 western mountains, but to a " wood " or " jungle " on the 
 eastern side' (Hisi. Geogr. 335 ; for arguments, see ib., 
 note 2). It should be clear, however, by this time that 
 there was a southern Gilead and a southern Ephraim (cp. 
 on ii. 9), and we know that Samuel of ' Mount Ephraim ' 
 (i S. i. i) — i.e. of the southern Mt. Ephraim — was often 
 seen at Gilgal or Gilead (see on vii. 16). ' In Judg. xii. 14 
 (revised text) ' Gilead ' is represented as ' in the midst of 
 Aram or Ishmael' See on Josh. vii. 15-18. The reading 
 ' Mahanaim ' for ' Ephraim ' (@^ Klost.) is surely a guessi 
 
 The story of the destructive 1S% and of Absalom's 
 getting his head caught in a terebinth is very improbable, 
 even after Budde's ingenious explanations. Nor will Budde 
 himself deny the patent improbabilities. It would seem 
 that the original story was very short, and that the editor 
 made up for this by the free use of his imagination. He 
 did not, however, invent without a basis. Just as the thirty 
 
xviii. 21 SECOND SAMUEL 293 
 
 ass-colts of Jair's sons have a textual basis (see on Judg. 
 X. 4), so the forest or jungle or field of rocks (Budde), and 
 one or two phrases in the Absalom-story; before us seem to 
 have a textual basis, ns"', again and again elsewhere {e.g. 
 1 S. xxii. 5), is a corrupt fragment of Jerahmeel ; the re- 
 sulting phrase (v. 6), ' in Jerahmeel-ephraim ' corresponds to 
 that in v. 18, 22 'in Maacath-ephraim.' Similarly nnn 
 n'j'nin rr^Nn into may represent '^sh^ fpNom*' ^N2;Daji n3i>a, 
 where two district- names, viz. Maacath-ishmael (variant, 
 -jerahmeel) and Gilead are combined. Probably, too, the 
 words rrfj^l '^'i^n, which contain the essence of the strange 
 story of Absalom, may come from ^NOn ivhx i.e. ^s'?l 
 fjMDrtT, 'Gilead -jerahmeel.' Less plausibly Winckler 
 {AOF^^ i- 51) accounts for the 'hanging' of Absalom by 
 this hero's supposed connection with the myth of Orion. 
 
 xviii. 17. ns"*!. See next note. — 18. See Klostermann 
 and Budde. I do not agree with Budde that Xa^eiv (a 
 corruption of Ba^ecS) corresponds to TTf^, nor do I see that 
 either Klost. or Budde has explained the nph Dl^ajlMI of 
 MT. These critics also seem to me to be in error in 
 locating the "y^OTJ-pos near Jerusalem. The latter phrase 
 (see on Gen. xiv. 17) is a corruption of '?NDm"' riDro ; so 
 also nr-'n in w. 17 and mi (not, as Kr., Vtry) in z;. 18 
 represent fpNOriT'l ; and nph Dl'ptonNT comes from mri 
 ['^MOm"'] 'pNi'Dm'^ (cp. on xvii. 26). Klost. and Budde seem 
 quite right in considering David to be the subject of the 
 verb ; all that they have left unnoticed is the Negeb 
 geography. In putting forward my own result (which 
 owes so much to these two critics), let me first of all put 
 aside the two glosses on, or variants to, the original phrase 
 stating the locality of the monument. These glosses or 
 variants came in from the margin, and are 'jNonT'l ('^s^^^, 
 V. 17 ; rnn, v. i8), and ^NOnT' Itsi (Xfph Dl'pmiNl, v. i8). 
 The text itself of v. 18 should be, ntON n32JD-nN "m ^h 1^T'^ 
 
 xviii. 21. ' The Cushite.' The N. Arabian Cush. — 
 23. nssn. Apparently the short for f?Nom"' 133 (see on 
 Gen. xiii. 10). It was probably either coincident with, 
 or formed part of, ^NOm"' nso, Maacath-jerahmeel (see 
 on Dt. xxxiv. 3). 133 is evidently a corruption of 
 
294 CRITICA BIBLICA xix. i8 
 
 f?NDm^, but an early one, which obtained an independent 
 existence. 
 
 Chap. xix. 18/ Cp. E. Bib., 'Food.' — 21. Nowhere 
 else is Benjamin reckoned to ' Joseph.' For S]Dp read 
 fpNi'om"' (see on Am, vi. 6). ' Ishmael ' = ' Jerahmeel,' U. 
 the Israelites in the Negeb. 
 
 l\ ff. The story of Barzillai's last colloquy with David 
 possesses great beauty, even if it be due to the imagination 
 of the writer, and even if it be based on misunderstandings 
 of the text both of xvii. 27 and of a document which lay 
 before him and which related to ' Mephibosheth.' On 
 xvii. 27 I have made some suggestions (see note); it is 
 now possible to clear up two further points, viz. (i) the 
 reason why in xix. 32^' Barzillai ' is represented as a 
 very aged man, and (2) why ' Chimham ' is brought into 
 the story. As to (i), TOffi Diaom, as in Judg. iii. 30 (see 
 note), comes from ^Ni;atO"'. Probably z'. 32 has been ex- 
 panded out of an explanatory marginal gloss on 'hiTQ., viz. 
 fpNOHT' Nin fpNSDtrJ''-]! ■'^rai, ' Barzillai (was) an Ishmaelite, 
 i.e. a Jerahmeelite.' "pafja, as in i K. xviii. 4, covers over 
 ^Nom"'. inTt&l is also mysterious. It is not to be altered 
 into initei, and probably covers over ^N^DtO"' nia. Origin- 
 ally this 'm-i rri^ was a gloss on Qi^no {v. 32), which, as 
 we have seen (on xvii. 27), probably represents D"'^! n"'l = 
 'tw JT^a. Another gloss on the same word exists in two 
 forms in the text of w. 32; these are ipr\T\ = f^NOm"' (nn 
 has fallen out) and \v\'''2. (altered by Klost. and Budde into 
 ni33) = ''nT r\n. (2) nnoa (or amoa, Jer.), who is to 
 go over the river instead of ' Barzillai,' owes his name, not 
 to his weak sight (Nestle), but to his N. Arabian ancestry;; 
 DHOD comes from JOTT (cp. Jos. a-)(iixavo<i), i.e. 7NDm"'. The 
 name may be derived from a lost narrative of Mephi- 
 bosheth's second interview with David, at which the king 
 offered him a fixed position and income [v. 34 ; cp. ix. ^h, 
 which may be misplaced ; cp. E. Bib., col. 3024). 
 
 Chap. xx. i. For h^ihl m-'N read f?NonT ; cp. on 
 I S. X. 27. This is supported by the addition in &■, avrjp 
 apaxei = ^3"iN ©■'M. "iSIN is probably an early modification of 
 ■'7NQm\ 
 
 XX. 2. pl"'!^"!'^- Read, not [D'^JisD f?n3 (Winckler, 
 
XX. 1 8 SECOND SAMUEL 295 
 
 GI i. 174; KAT'^^'^ 148; and Cook, 166, note 47), but 
 7N0m"'-|0, i.e. from the southern to the northern capital. 
 
 XX. 3. nvn ni30^« ino nli ^i>. We should expect 
 Inb all 7». But even this is not required after DiT'fjNT 
 Nl vh, and the style of the narrative is so energetic that 
 the writer cannot afford superfluous words to the ten 
 concubines. So much is clear — the two parts of the 
 above quoted passage represent the same original, and 
 that original is a gloss. Can we doubt what DV ~\s repre- 
 sents ? Surely uh^S (cp. thn^), while jn (the initial D is 
 dittographed) represents m. The whole becomes nl^fponT- 
 If David had two residences, one at Jerusalem, and another 
 at Beth- or Kirjath-jerahmeel, it was not superfluous to 
 remark that the ten concubines were Jerahmeelites (ofjlOlT', 
 here as elsewhere [see on xv. 1 1 j, represents ^NSDtO"'). It is 
 hardly necessary to remark that ]dSm is one of the current 
 distortions of fpNOHT (see on i K. vii. 14, xi. 26, xvii, 
 9 f.), and that nvn may obviously be a fragment of 
 
 XX. 8. Gibeon was certainly in the Negeb, and perhaps 
 in the Negeb of Judah. Otherwise Budde. 
 
 XX. 14/ ' Abel-beth-maacah.' ' Abel ' from ' [Jerah]- 
 meel,' but the origin was no doubt early forgotten. Cp. on 
 I K. XV. 20, 2 K. XV. 29. In 2 Chr. xvi. 4, Abel-maim, 
 where ' maim ' (cp. on 2 S. xii. 27) represents ' Jerahmeel.' 
 The mysterious f?ni Tosm (v. 15) is best explained as a 
 corruption of hlTt n3SD, i.e. 'a hlTl (Jerahmeel-maacath) ; 
 l^sn precedes. 
 
 XX. 18 /: Two weighty corrections are suggested by 
 <3, viz. j-jll for pi, and IDnn (which prefix to v. 19) for 
 iQnn. For the rest experience of the habits of the scribes 
 must guide us. The second iDnh should be 7NQn'T'[3] ; cp. 
 on Jer. ii. .34 (iii. i). Thus the wise woman's speech 
 becomes, ' Formerly men used to say in Jerahmeel {i.e. in 
 the Negeb), Let them ask (counsel) in Abel and in Dan.' 
 ''obw (cp. E. Bib., ' Shelumiel ') certainly comes from 
 f?NrDffi\ ht^nm^ is a doubtful variant ; •>33n is dissimilated 
 from ■'3DM. Thus we get, ' Are the trustworthy ones of 
 Ishmael (or, Israel) come to an end that (supply "iD) thou 
 seekest, etc' The moral wisdom of Jerahmeel was con- 
 
296 CRITICA BIBLICA xx. 24 
 
 centrated in ' Abel ' and in Dan. Has this ceased to be 
 the case, that Joab indulges such destructive tendencies ? 
 
 XX. 24 / DmN (so I K. xii. 1 8) and n"!© are incomplete 
 names. See on i K. iv. 6 and 3. 
 
 XX. 26. The text is corrupt, but can be corrected with 
 some precision. Unfortunately some illusions of critical 
 predecessors have to be dissipated. I begin by giving the 
 text of the three parallel passages, i S. viii. i83, xx. 26, 
 and I Chr. xviii. 17 — 
 
 ! ^■'n D-'Drra tit ■'35^ 
 
 That the sons of David (unnamed) should be called 
 priests, as well as Zadok and Abiathar, remains highly 
 improbable, even after all the clever arguments of the critics 
 have been heard. In i K. iv. 5 (on the text, see note) pj 
 is followed by the gloss T\T\,, i.e. high officer. We must not, 
 however, infer from this that jn3 is susceptible of the 
 meaning 'high officer,' for experience in textual criticism 
 assures us that ]n3 can be a corruption of pb. Now in 
 Isa. xxii. 1 5 we meet with a governor of the palace who 
 was also known as pb. That a governor of the palace was 
 not the only pD, is obvious. It is plausible, therefore, to 
 hold that sons of David belonged to the class of sokMm, 
 but not that they were regarded as ' priests.' But is nn ^3 
 right ? The second of the three passages puts ' Ira the 
 Jairite' in the place of 'the sons of David.' Klost. and 
 Budde suppose that in the original writing both Ira and the 
 sons of David were mentioned as among David's priests. 
 But this is to miss the mark completely. TIT "'31 must be 
 miswritten for T'N'' p. We may suppose that NT'S fell out 
 owing to its resemblance to T'N-'. Thus, working upon the 
 first and second forms of text, we get this result— 
 Trh ]n3 n-Tf [or •'TiNin] T'N"' ]1 NT^i; nX] ; D1, of course, refers 
 to the whole clause (as ii. 7). A study of the third will, 
 however, carry us a step farther. D-'3tON"in is not merely 
 an uncomprehending paraphrase of D"'3n3 ; it is based on an 
 ill-written D-'aan VH. I^OH I'h^ is also corrupt. The case 
 is exactly parallel to that of Neh. xi. 24 (see note), where 
 
xxi. 6 SECOND SAMUEL 297 
 
 ^'?D^ Tif? comes from ^Mom"'"^r. We should therefore 
 read in i" Chr. xviii. 1 7, '?NDm"'-^s ]3D rvr\ T's'^-Jl'i, and to 
 the restored text of the original writing we should attach as 
 the closing words ^Nom"'"'?r. David had now two capitals 
 and an expanded and expanding empire. It was necessary 
 for him to have a viceroy in the Negeb, and that viceroy 
 was himself a Jerahmeelite (t'ni is an early mutilation of 
 
 Chap. xxi. i. The famine, like the pestilence after- 
 wards (xxiv. 15), is in the Negeb (cp. on Gen. xii. i o, 
 Ruth i. i\ It is caused by Saul's slaughter of the 
 Gibeonites. Thenius (with whom his successors agree) 
 remarks that this slaughter ' is nowhere to be found re- 
 corded.' Yet the fact is narrated and explained in i S. 
 xxii. 6-19; ' Nob ' (see E. Bib., ' Nob ') is a corruption of 
 ' Gibeon.' It is true, the narrative is somewhat unjust to 
 Saul. It was not altogether in passion that the king acted. 
 The fact that Gibeonite priests aided and abetted David was 
 probably the reason why Saul thought it necessary to make 
 an example of the whole population of Gibeon (see E. Bib., 
 ' Gibeon '). 
 
 xxi. 2. ■'IbNil. 'A comprehensive name for the early 
 inhabitants of Canaan ' (H. P. Smith). Rather, read 
 ■"Gn.NTj ; see on Gen. xv. 1 6. — miiT'l ' has here just as much 
 worth as in i S. xv. 4,' says Wellh., who deletes miiT' and 
 what belongs to it in that passage. But the step is doubtful. 
 In both passages it is possible that miiT^ may be correct. 
 The b'ne Israel and the b'ne Judah were, as the traditional 
 narratives rightly or wrongly give us to understand, in 
 alliance in the time of Saul. 
 
 xxi. 6. mn"' T'm SinQ? nsll^. Recent critics, after 
 Wellh., read mrr -\ni y\s1Xl, and refer to v. 9. @ agrees 
 so far as ' Gibeon ' is concerned, but in other respects reads 
 as MT. Both and the moderns, however, appear to be 
 mistaken. There was^n important sanctuary at a place called 
 Gibeath-jerahmeel or Gibeath-ishmael where human sacrifices 
 were offered (see on Gen. xxii. i, Jer. ii. 34, iii. 24). It is 
 very possible that this was sometimes called Gibeon (see on 
 I K. iii. 4), but that the true Gibeon, ' the city of the priests ' 
 (i S. xxii. 19), was separate, though probably not very 
 
298 CRITICA BIBLICA xxi. 8 
 
 distant, from Gibeath-jerahmeel. At any rate, the extant 
 evidence (apart from i K. iii. 4) suggests that the great 
 sanctuary was at Giheak and not at Giheon. And when 
 we inspect the closing words of v. 6 we see that nrail must 
 be the right reading. For mrr"' T'm is by no means a 
 probable corruption of mrr"' -\TT2. ; on the other hand ttq 
 and Tr\TV are both possible corruptions of fjNDm"' (for the 
 former see Isa. xxvi. i. Job xxvi. 13, and perhaps Isa. 
 xliii. 14, where mn = ''nT). ^"IN©, too, can easily have 
 come, and in the present case must have come, from Sssate'' 
 (a synonym of 'm"'). Read, therefore [SnohT'] ^NSDffii ni>3n. 
 
 xxi. 8. 13 mN. From fj^DHT^ ; the final h in such names 
 often becomes j. Or from n3"'3N (as E. Bib., ' Saul,' 8 6). 
 
 xxi. 9. ' The mountain ' ; cp. ' one of the mountains ' 
 (Gen. xxii. 2). — For i^q-'T read "hrvx So Klost. E. Bib., 
 col. 1959. 
 
 xxi. 1 4. i)f?s. Probably the same place as nffi"'f?tl> or vi'h 
 (modifications of SiNtO or 'jNi^DQ?'^). From i S. xxv. 44 it 
 appears that Laish was either identical with, or at least near, 
 Gallim, i.e. Beth-gilgal or Beth-jerahmeel, which was the 
 centre of Saul's clan. If Beth-jerahmeel is the same as 
 Gibeath-jerahmeel, Budde's remark that it is strange that 
 the family-grave of Kish is not in Gibeah loses its force. 
 Cp. also Josh, xviii. 28, where Zela appears in close 
 proximity to ^Ni?DtOi ni?ll (so read for nrni afpffilT-). As to 
 ' Zela,' see further on i S. xxvii. 6, Josh. I.e., and cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Zela.' 
 
 xxi. 1$ /. One of the most baffling passages, as long 
 as new methods remain untried. In E. Bib., ' Ishbibenob,' . 
 the only step in advance is the suggestion that IX (cp. 
 vv. i?i f.) as Wellh., Kittel, and Budde read for 3D, should 
 perhaps be [rn]inh] ; cp. r\l {v. 20) which (cp. E. Bib., 
 col. 4028 foot) probably comes from nhirn.. Looking at 
 the whole passage without regard to recent criticism, and 
 using the newer methods, it is plain that lltC"' {v. 16) 
 represents ^^lm^ i.e. f?NSOt»'' ; so also Kr., in©'' (cp. Isa. x. 13). 
 Ishmael, however, is not the name of the giant referred to, 
 but a part of the name of the battle-field. It will be noticed 
 that V. 1 5 in MT. and ^ differs from yv. 1 8-30 in that the 
 scene of the contest is not mentioned. Underlying the 
 
xxi. IS SECOND SAMUEL 299 
 
 text, however, we can discern the missing name. It is 
 represented by 131 "ilffii (misplaced) and ^n^'^^\ niin. The 
 latter phrase is introduced by Nim ; it is a gloss, and 
 should run, 'That is (Nim), Rehob-ashhur (inmN).' niin 
 comes from niin, which is presumably an error for nm 
 ( = mnm); nm-rn, like nmnn (Judg. iv. 2, etc.), Nmnn 
 (Ezra ii. 52, Neh. vii. 54), onn (Judg. i. 34, viii. 13), comes 
 from TintON, the name of a district or districts in N. Arabia. 
 The former phrase is only less transparent because 131 
 (i.e. Ill) has been wrongly placed after 110)"' or iltC. The 
 battle referred to in vv. i^ ff. took place 'jNi^DtO'' nmi, for 
 which in the margin there was a gloss, ' that is, Rehob- 
 ashhur ' ; Ishmael, then, was synonymous, not only with 
 ' Jerahmeel,' but with ' Ashhur.' It should be added, how- 
 ever, that itDN (which Klost. alters into ffiiN) is, equally with 
 ntonn, a corruption of nntON (through nE>N). The next 
 problem to solve is that of TiT ^s''\ Wellh.'s note here is 
 good ; ' in iiT f\■s''^ there lurks the name of the Philistine, 
 and perhaps, too, a verb such as Dp"'"), to which iqn"''i might 
 attach itself up^\ however, is not quite near enough to 
 V\'3'^ ; it is nearer to @'s ']h^^ {eiropevOri). The analogy of 
 V\'^'^^^ (v. 21 ; cp. i S. xvii. i o, etc.) suggests the synonymous 
 word ^h-'\ out of which (g's ^S■'^ and MT.'s f\s''^ (a corrup- 
 tion of 1S11 ?) may have developed. The name of the 
 Philistine appears to have suffered through the similarity 
 of its opening letters to the middle and closing letters of 
 yah^X It was probably ^2?^:^, and the final letter "r was prob- 
 ably taken to be an abbreviation of ^^^. This is confirmed by 
 iT'^il (MT.), which is preceded by a warning Pasek, and is 
 not to be ' corrected ' into iti'?''D (cp. i Chr. xx. 4), but most 
 probably represents -[shx On the ' unusual •n'h' ' (Driver) 
 see, further, note on Num. xiii. 22, 28, Josh. xv. 14. 
 Then follow ^ glosses (in MT. note the non-existent pp, 
 rendered 'spear, lance') ^MSDm"' ^NDHT 'dQ)"' lap 'nm*' (see 
 on I S. xvii. 4^-7, whence, too, comes the inserted nmn^). 
 
 1 Winckler's theory (AOF^^ i- 5 that niND is to be omitted, and 
 that the three talents which the spear (?) weighs have a mythological 
 connection, also that in u'p there is an allusion to the tribe pp in the 
 Negeb — the land of Caleb and Orion (G/ ii. 189, 285) is not well 
 founded. 
 
300 CRITICA BIBLICA xxi. i8 
 
 The original passage ran, ' And there was again ... in 
 Rehob-ishmael (-ashhur), and Gilead the Rephaite mocked, 
 and threatened to slay David.' 
 
 xxi. 1 8. liQ. Read mimi. There is a 'confusion' 
 of readings, says H. P. Sm., but this is a mistake. In 
 I Chr. XX. 4 TI13. There was a southern ' Gezer ' (see on 
 1 K. XX. 4); the name is evidently a corruption of ^tBl or 
 intCN. The place meant is Rehoboth-ashhur (see above). — 
 '33D. Cp. "irT'^DD (i Chr. xxvi. 7), of the family of Obed- 
 edom ( = 'Arab-edom or -aram) ; E. Bib., 4361. ' Husha- 
 thite,' from Hushah ( i Chr. iv. 4) = Cushah. f]p ; i Chr. 
 XX. 4, iQD. Klost. "'BDN ; (§'' Toii? einavvrpffievovii. Cp. 
 Asaph.' Rather from '^rysi- In i S. xvii. 4 Gilead 
 'Goliath 1) is very probably called ^nans. The ' Philistine ' 
 slain by ' Sibbecai ' appears to have been known as ' Gilead 
 the Rephaite ' (nsin "^"xh'^. ; emend as above). itDN, which 
 precedes the name, comes from nn^N, the second part of 
 the name of the place of battle (Rehob-ashhur). 
 
 xxi. 1 9. QijnM 1^s■' p. The received critical view (see 
 Wellh., H. P. Sm., etc.) is that ini;-' should be lli>i or TS'' 
 'Chr.), and that '"in has crept in from the line below. Cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Elhanan.' This, however, is an error. The line 
 below ' crept in ' from i S. xvii. 7, but □"'inN, or some similar 
 form, was already in existence. Both in i S. l.c. and here 
 D"'3nN ( = CT'TW, Jer. ix. I ) represents Dm*', i.e. fpNoriT ; this 
 ivas a gloss on Ti;"" (cp. on TN% Num. xxxii. 41, Judg. x. 3). 
 Budde hesitates between T'S"' and Klostermann's nhT (cp. 
 sxiii. 24). ®'' here gives vto? laSSeiv, and this, Budde 
 ihinks, 'approaches the ITlT of MT. in xxiii. 24.' Most 
 arobably, however, "mT or (see (g) mT has come from IW ; 
 m old Hebrew T and s might easily be confounded. .But 
 ve must not jump to the conclusion that Elhanan was 
 :raditionally represented as the son of Jair. In i S. xvii. 7, 
 JNOnT' jn (underlying D'^nN 1"l3ii) is probably an intrusive 
 jloss on ]Di33 m-'N (underlying D"':"'! ©■'«). The probability 
 s that here, too, it is the ' Philistine ' warrior who is called 
 HT' p ; the father of Elhanan is probably Ahihur= 
 \hiashhur (see on xxiii. 9). Note that in (g"- of our 
 )assage vlb<; laBSeiv is followed by viov tov eXefu = HT p- 
 This is to be preferred to the reading •^orhfl n-ia. The 
 
xxiii. I SECOND SAMUEL 301 
 
 passage now becomes, ' and Elhanan slew Gilead the 
 Rehobothite [son of Jerahmeel].' Cp. on i S. xvii. 4, 7. 
 We have yet to speak of the second part of i Chr. xx. 5, 
 the text of which, if correct, speaks badly for the Chronicler's 
 capacities. But from our point of view the text is certainly 
 not correct, "^vrh (not 'fpn IT'l) comes from 7NDm"', which 
 is a correct gloss on Tis"' or T'S"' ; riN is redactional. Nor 
 did the text originally say that the ' Philistine ' slain by 
 Elhanan was ' the brother of Goliath ' ; TIN, as often, repre- 
 sents a fragment of '7NDm\ In fact, the text agrees with 
 2 S. ; the absence of \1 before ^NDnT' being unimportant. 
 
 xxi. 20. njj. ' A change of place ' (Budde). See, 
 however, on vv. 1 5 / — ]■'^D ; but Kr. j-no ; @ fiaSmv. 
 ' Midian ' is unsuitable, but ilTD (jno) in Josh. xi. i is a 
 corruption of f?NDnT. I Chr. xx. 6 has mp ; mo (mo) 
 too, like nnn in Num. xiii. 32 (see note), and like mo in 
 Isa. Ixv. 14, comes from that ethnic. (^^, however, has 
 e/c paa^r]<;, which points to a misunderstood inao ; cp. 
 xxiii. 2 1 , where (in the true text) '^120 m"'N and bwom"' ©"'n 
 stand side by side. What follows is corrupt but not in- 
 curable. s3JtN, as in Isa. Iviii. 9 (see Addenda), comes 
 from ^Nsom-' (cp. iisns) ; f?:n from ^NonT' ; d^-^ws mm from 
 D"''!©N, and so on. We have here in fact a list of the names 
 of districts or peoples which in MT. and in @ have been 
 applied to 'Goliath.' They are — ^Ni?om% ^NOm% TimN, 
 lis, nans. The manipulating skill of the redactor is 
 obvious. 
 
 Chap, xxiii. 1-7. Budde justly remarks on the pro- 
 verbial character of this poem, and indicates Prov. xxx. and 
 xxxi. I -9 as specially parallel, alike in form and in contents. 
 The procemium, too, recalls the sayings of Balaam, Num. 
 xxiv. 3 ff., 15^ He fails, however, to draw the natural 
 inference. Much keener textual criticism is required. In 
 V. I D-iannNn presumably comes from Dif?Mom"' ; cp. ]"nnM, 
 Isa. viii. 23, and nimw, Jer. ix. i. This is confirmed by the 
 attribution of poems to Jerahmeelites in the true text of 
 Num. xxi. 27 (read D'''?Ni>om-' for D''^m6), and of Prov. 
 xxx. I, xxxi. I. The application of the poem to David 
 must have been an idea of the last redactor, who, doubtless, 
 had a bad copy. Not improbably v. 1 should run thus — 
 
302 CRITIC A BIBLICA xxiii, 2 
 
 fpNonT^ T'lj DN3 ^Ni>Da?'> in3 DN3 Q-'^som'^ nn? i-in rh^ 
 
 With f?:? nprr cp. on h-3 ih, Hos. vii. 16; hvk inoN, Num. 
 xxiv. 4. For m: cp. Prov. xxv. 7 ; for -r^yi, Prov. xxx. i 
 (read 'omi T'll), and perhaps Num. xxiv. 3 ; and for i^n, 
 Prov. xxxi. 14. niffio (as in i. 21) comes from itBo, a 
 current distortion of am? (see on Gen. x. 2). •'rhvi. and 
 lp2?i may both represent ^MonT' (for ipri cp. Mai. iii. 6). The 
 latest explanation of '^ffi■' rmot D"'r3 is that of Nestle 
 {Marginalien, i o), adopted in BDB, s.v, D^^M. This, how- 
 ever involves a use of the Arabic lexicon which transgresses 
 the bounds of the possible, and is justly criticised by Konig, 
 Stylistik, 284. It is a mere resource of despair, and only 
 shows how certainly corrupt the MT is. 
 
 xxiii. 2, la. 'A second introductory stanza ' (H, P, 
 Sm.), not less illusory than the first. The case is slightly 
 parallel to that of the proem to Ps. Ixxviii. (see Pj.®), 
 and still more to that of Num. xxiv. ■^b, 4 (see note). Let 
 us give all due credit to the redactor, and recognise that 
 his work is of value as a piece of evidence for the religious 
 ideas of his time (an interesting and important time), but 
 let us not be debarred from applying to it a methodical and 
 thorough criticism. The prolixity of the preface is un- 
 deniable, and not less so is the poverty of the poem which 
 follows in the traditional text. The reader is assured four 
 times over that the singer is divinely inspired, and the 
 singer's only revelation is that a righteous ruler shall have 
 a brilliant career. Now, in v. 2 there are four words (or 
 rather groups of letters) which experience warns us to 
 criticise when there are grounds for suspecting the text 
 These are niT and TC\TV which may represent fpNOriT ; "inx 
 = f?"lDn (cp. on I S. x. 11), and pojb (see on Josh. xv. 2, 
 Ps. cxl. 4), which may come from ^Ni>DtO\ Similarly in v. 3 
 ICiN and DTrfjM may, as experience shows, come from 
 fragments of ^NDm\ Possibilities of the second order are 
 w-yxs C'^mr) for 11 in ; i-ji? for nm ; rsr\i for Tis ; ^Nsor 
 for ^Nna>i. Thus we get, in various forms of scribal error, 
 ' Jerahmeel-arab,' ' Ishmael,' and ' Zarephath ' ; fresh indica- 
 tions of the (fictitious) N. Arabian origin of this poem. The 
 
xxiii. 9 SECOND SAMUEL 303 
 
 wisdoip of the N. Arabian populations was, in fact, pro- 
 verbial (see on I K. V. I o f.). 
 
 xxiii. 2^-7. I leave the text of the poem, only pointing 
 out traces of an original reference to the N. Arabians. 
 mNl (w. 3) from DIN? Wns (v. s) from '?Ni»Dm-' ? hvihl, 
 □n^D, and T^ n'?! 13 {v. 6), also sbo-> {v. 7), from ^Nom"' ? 
 
 xxiii. 8-38. David's gibborim, otherwise called sali'sim, 
 which either means ' Shalishites,' or is directly corrupted from 
 D'lbNDDiei ; naturally David found his bravest warriors in 
 the Negeb. It is an error to suppose that the original text 
 distinguished between a band or order of three and a band 
 or order of thirty, though at a comparatively early date 
 QiQ>"?tD came to be interpreted as ' thirty,' and the first three 
 warriors were imagined to have formed a class by themselves. 
 See on vv. 19, 23, 24^. 
 
 xxiii. 8. n3EJ3 lffi^ That part of this reading repre- 
 sents nmi-' or niQ)-', i.e. fjNi^DB)"' (cp. on 2 S. iv. 4), is clear; 
 cp. @'s readings. In i Chr. xi. 1 1 the name is QsntD"', i.e. 
 Ssirn-" = ^Nsomi ; cp. fpsntDN, and on the other hand DSIT'. 
 It is simplest to suppose that ttJllffi"' is the part which 
 represents 'om, and that the final ni stands for rr'l (so 
 Marquart), the initial n of ■>3D3nn (see next note) being 
 dittographed. Cp. £■. .5?^., ' Jashobeam.' — i3D3nn. In i Chr. 
 I.e. we find '3n"J3 ; the same patronymic is also attached 
 to Jehi'el in i Chr. xxvii. 32. 0" (Sam.) gives o 'Kavavaio<;, 
 ■'3i>3Drr, which Geiger adopts (but see Marq.). Like jotin 
 and onoD, 'dh comes ultimately from 'jNDm"', though the 
 existence of an intermediate form may be granted. Possibly 
 the required link is imsn ["IT'S]. Beth-hacc6rem comes, no 
 doubt, from Beth-jerahmeel. Cp. E. Bib., ' Tahchemonite.' 
 For y->n read ^hvtarrv. — irtN Di^na ; Kr., nnN. But 
 underneath the corrupt Kt. reading lies probably D■'^D^1. 
 For this place-name see next note. — Read D"'tDS!£>n tONi, 
 ' chief of the Shalishites ' (see on vv. 8-38). 
 
 xxiii. 9. ni'l) or nn, should probably be T':?i (see on 
 xxi. 1 9). — ■'nnN-;3 ; but Chr. TinNn. Instead of reading 
 with Marq. ■'pnW"n"'3 {E,. Bib., ' Ahohite '), read probably 
 n^nTiM, Ahihur = AhiashhUr. It is this name, and not Jair 
 (Dodai) which is the true name of Eleazar's father, ' Ben- 
 jair,' = ' Ben-jerahmeel,' belongs to ' Goliath ' (Gilead), the 
 
304 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxiii, n 
 
 doughty antagonist of David. Cp. on xxi. i6, i S. 
 xvii. 4. — DDnm.' Chr. has rs^-m. DB3, i.e. 'l DBM3 (i S. 
 xvii. I ), Marq. reads Q-'MST ppj?3 ; □"'filN pm:3. would be 
 nearer to Chron., and to MT. of i S. xvii. i. The true 
 solution is probably different. Underneath DSin, must one 
 not see D^'iDn, the name of a place in Issachar (Josh, 
 xix. 19)? See preceding note. The Issachar-names in 
 Josh. xix. appear to be properly Negeb names. As the 
 very namfe suggests, the ' Issachar ' region was originally 
 regarded as Jerahmeelite. Issachar comes from Ashhur. 
 See on Judg. v. i 5. 
 
 xxiii. 1 1 . Read Shimeah, ben Ela, laiwrr (as @, cp. 
 Marq., Fund. 21), and on 'Archite' see on xv. 32. For 
 xrrh I Chr. xi. 1 3 gives nnnSo'?. Both -rh and ry'Cirh'd 
 are among the current corruptions of "JNOriT ; for the former 
 see on Judg. xv. 9, 17, and for the latter on Hos. ii. 20. 
 Klost.'s preference for '"pof? is, therefore, however plausible, 
 unjustified. Dt& was transposed by the Chronicler or his 
 redactor subsequently to the growth of the corrupt reading 
 TM^vhuh. ' To Jerahmeel,' then, i.e. to the place corruptly 
 called Adullam ? 
 
 xxiii. 13. Critics have been mightily puzzled by ffim 
 and Ti2p f?N (see e.g. Budde). But both ffiNT and T'Sp (nisn 
 is here the link) represent TirrffiN. Note the connection of 
 Beth-lehem ( = Beth-jerahmeel) with Hur (i.e. Ashhur, cp. 
 V. 5) in I Chr. iv. 4. Render, ' And three of the thirty 
 went down, and came to Ashhur to David, to Jerahmeel' 
 (on '-{S 'o see on i S. xxii. i). On '•^ pDS, see on v. 18. 
 
 xxiii. 14. Read n^apj (i S. xxii. 4/)? 
 
 xxiii. 18. Read D'^m^EJn t&NI. Strictly, this is incon- 
 sistent with V. 8 ; the traditions evidently come from different 
 sources. — bbjl. See on v. 8. — ntO^mi om "hx So Chr., 
 but in the next verse Chr. inserts the enigmatical word D"'31B3, 
 which Kittel points Dljmjl ' as two,' and Bepzinger alters into 
 "i3n (v. 25), while Budde, remarks that it is the germ of a 
 distinction between the two as well as the three and the 
 thirty gibborlm. But textual criticism has yet to be applied. 
 Now D"'Dm (cp. 2 K. X. 14, Ps. Ix. i), equally with ]DB? (Isa. 
 V. I, X. 27), may represent ^msd©"' (3 for V)- This suggests 
 that mX!fy comes from '?N2)Dffi'>Di, and is, a corrective gloss on 
 
xxiii. 20 SECOND SAMUEL 305 
 
 '»! DtO'lSil (two corruptions of 'dWI) which has intruded 
 from the margin. Render, therefore, '. . . against 300 
 Jerahmeelites in Ishmael' Cp. v. 8, where a similar descrip- 
 tion closes with a statement of the locality. So a great 
 difficulty (see Budde) is finally removed. (On D"'1DirT, v. 22, 
 see note ad loc.'). 
 
 xxiii. 19. The redactor's comment on nffiboJl Dtt? "i^l 
 {v. 1 8). ' Truly he (fan) was honoured among the thirty 
 (as if ctD^lOiTp), and became their captain, but he did not 
 reach the three.' 
 
 xxiii. 20. 'Benaiah' or ' Benaiahu ' bears a Negeb 
 name ; the occurrences (see E. Bib.,) of ' Bani ' and ' Binnui,' 
 when critically examined, place this beyond all doubt. So, 
 too, Jehoiada (see on 2 K. xi. 4). Note the alternative 
 statements, ' son of Jehoiada,' and ' son of a man of Jerah- 
 meel ' (read fpNom"' m"'N p ; see E. Bib., ' Ish-hai,' and cp. 
 bTi p. = 'ttv 'n, 2 Chr. xvii. 7). — ti'hsB n., ' a doer of great 
 deeds ' (H. P. Sm.) ; ' of great possessions ' (Budde). Plainly 
 a Will o' the wisp ! Either D"'f?i'Q, or a-hss, or D■'D'?^? may 
 represent [D"']f?ND[nT] or 'otC ; cp. on i .S. v. 6, xvii. 5. 
 'd It is an editorial expansion of a corrupt ''f7NDm^ a doublet 
 to 'ti m-'N. 
 
 xxiii. 20 /; Benaiah's exploit. Was it ' two lion-like 
 men of Moab ' (AV.) that he slew, or the two sons of Ariel 
 of Moab? And did he add to this the slaying of a lion 
 under special circumstances and of an Egyptian ? Many 
 and diverse have been the views of scholars (see E. Bib., 
 ' Snow '). The key in our hands is the only one which will 
 open the lock. There was a single exploit, but it has found 
 a threefold record. We begin by noting that 1310 (from D''3a>, 
 on which see on v. 8) and yhoTl represent 7Ni?DtO'', and that 
 ^NTN, rr'TNil, and rrNlo should, according to parallels, repre- 
 sent ^Nom"'. INIO, as so often, has supplanted 11SO, and ""ISQ 
 means ' a N. Arabian Musrite (Winckler, KA T'-^'^ 147; E. Bib., 
 col. 3 1 64). As a near approximation to the truth read — 
 
 nam Tf Nin mso f?NonT' ^nsdbi miN-riN rasr^ Nin 
 
 ! 'ill Snoht' m^N 
 ' He slew a man of Ishmael [Jerahmeel Missur]. He 
 
3o6 CRITICA BIBLJCA xxiii. 22 
 
 went down and slew a Jerahmeelite in Arabian Maacath on 
 the day (battle) of Ishmael. He slew a Misrite [a man of 
 Jerahmeel],' etc. A word on the text of i Chr. xi. 23, which 
 Benzinger and Budde fail to comprehend. iTTp Xtnvi. is a 
 corruption of noT ffi'^N, i.e. f^NDHT (cp. Isa. xlv. 14, Num. 
 xiii. 32) ; HDNl man comes from 'vrC" DffiD. D'^ilN m3D3 has 
 the same origin as in i S. xvii. 7. 
 
 xxiii. 22, 2 3«. D"'niin is wrong; it comes from Qi^nN 
 (cp. I S. xvii. 7), i.e. 'jnohT', the usual gloss on ^^ioffli 
 (restored ; see on v.. 18). — V. 23a is the redactor's comment 
 on nmSffil in V. 22. Cp. on v. 19. 
 
 xxiii. 23. ini^QtOD-'jN (Chr. -^5). Siegfr.-Sta., ' (David 
 gave him admission) to the daily audience ' (?). Budde and 
 Kittel, ' over his bodyguard.' But how does the latter sense 
 arise ? ' Over his subject land ' (cp. Mesha's Inscr. 1. 28). 
 But most probably we should read nai^o 'jNi'Ot^l-^i'- The 
 Chronicler's h's and our narrator's Sn both, together with tBD, 
 contribute to make up fpNi^Dt&H. inrn is a fragmentary 
 nDi'D. Cp. on I S. xxii. 14. From viii. 18, xx. 23 we 
 learn that Benaiah was over the ' Cherethites and Pelethites/ 
 This valiant guard probably came from Rehoboth and 
 Zarephath, and these places or districts belonged to Jerah- 
 meel-maacath. The alternative is to read "imDt&a"Sl^ ; ©■" ewX 
 T7]v <])vXaKrjv avTov. But this is too vague. 
 
 xxiii. 24«. QitobtOl, ' among the Ishmaelites ' (see on 
 vv. 8-38). In I Chr. xi. 26 D^'^Trn comes from D'^'pNoriT, 
 a gloss on [D]■'^D:^. 
 
 xxiii. 243. See on xxi. ig. — 25 a. See on v. 1 1. — t^p'hi^- 
 See E. Bib., ' Elika.' From fjNonT. — 26. i^a^DH yhn. But 
 I Chr. xi. 27 ^yhxiTf yhn ; cp. ^^in'^'j^sn, i Chr. iv. 3, where 
 ''y\xh comes from 'jnI^DT (cp. v. 4). The true reading of 
 I Chr. xi. 27 may be i^NISDrr 'n, ' Heles (?) the Penuelite'; 
 Penuel (see on i K. xii. 25) was in the Negeb. But "'Js'^sn 
 is also quite a possible reading. Pelet or Peleth is a Negeb 
 name (see E. Bib., s.vv.). — 27. ' Abiezer,' see on Judg. vi. 11. 
 'Anathoth' in the Negeb (see on Jer. i. i). — ' Hushathite'; 
 xxi. 1 8. — 28. ' Ahohite.' See on v. 9. — inno = DHT, 'Jarham.' 
 — ' Netophathite ' = Naphtuhite. Naphtoah was in the Negeb. 
 — 29. ' Benjamin,' in the Negeb (Judg. xix. 14). — 30. 'Pira- 
 thonite.' See on Judg. xii. 13. — 30. nn. Rather •'"i^n (cp. 
 
xxiv. I SECOND SAMUEL 307 
 
 I Chr. xi. 32), i.e. Ashhuri. But cp. E. Bib., ' Hurai.' Ob- 
 serve the connection between ' Gaash ' and ' Timnath-heres 
 [-ashhur] ' in Josh. xxiv. 30. "ibna is probably from 'pNom"" 
 (cp. Q'>nn3 also from 'm*', and see E. Bib., ' Nahaliel.' If m:s;l 
 represents nrrffiN, we get the compound name ' Jerahmeel- 
 ashhur,' which is both possible and (see on z'. 13) probable. 
 — 31. plSi^-'lN, probably from ]1a^2-3ns (Chr.'s 'jn'^IN is a 
 corrupt mutilation ; cp. on 'n, i S. ix. i). In Josh. xxi. 18 
 Anathoth and Almon are coupled (Anathoth was in the 
 Negeb, v. 27) ; and in Num. xxxiii. 46 Almon .(-riblatham ?) 
 is placed near the mountains of the Arabians (see note). 
 - — 'Arbathite' = Beth-arabathite. — moi:;, probably from 
 7NDnT'"int!)N ; cp. on ' Hasar-maveth,' Gen. x. 26. Cp. on 
 V. j,ob. ' Bahurim,' whence ' Azmaveth ' came, was in the 
 southern Benjamin (xix. 16 ; cp. on iii. 16). — 32. ' Eliahba,' 
 cleverly modified from ' Jerahmeel.' Chr.'s Dturr = QCn 
 (modified from Dffi3 ; Sam. jm"'). — 34. ' Eliphelet' = 'Paltiel,' 
 iii. 15. — ■'nonN-p. Chr., -isn ^^«■p, from which Marquart 
 (p. 22) deduces 'a well-known heathen name' !^n"iN. But 
 the true original must be innms-p (cp. on i Chr. iv. 5 f.), 
 TiasDrril is a variant. Or we might read TiDSQ-Tint&N-p. 
 — 35. ■'nsQ. Cp. Ti>n, a Negeb name (see E. Bib., ' Nebo'). 
 Read either im2;n, ' the Arabian,' or '^DnNrr, ' the Archite.' — 
 36. hi^y ; cp. h^y, from -\ihy. — 'Bani' (cp. on v. 20) was a 
 Gadite of the Negeb. — 37. phi, or (see Marq.) sSs, may come 
 from fpNi^DJC (see on i S. xxvii. 6). ' Ammonite ' may = 
 ' Jerahmeelite ' (x. i ). — inriS = pT' = f?NDn"i\ — TnNl from 
 Tiim (see on iv. 2). — 38. in|. Cp. inw, Dt. iii. 4; inn, 
 Ezra ii. 20. 
 
 Chap. xxiv. 1-9. The ordinary explanations of this 
 passage need not be restated here ; it is hoped that some 
 new light can be thrown on this difficult narrative. So much 
 is clear at once — ( i ) that the region spoken of is not the entire 
 Israelitish empire, with ' idealised ' limits (cp. Budde on v. 6), 
 but the Negeb, and (2) that the numbers in v. 9 are ex- 
 aggerated, owing to the mistaking of ill-written ethnics for 
 numbers. For further illumination we must read in connec- 
 tion (i) the account in 2 S. viii. of David's conquest in 
 Aram, i.e. Jerahmeel, in one part of which (see v. 13, in the 
 revised text) we hear of a corvee imposed by David on the 
 
3o8 CRITIC A BIBLICA xxiv. i 
 
 conquered Jerahmeelites, (2) i K. v. 27 (revised), in which 
 Solomon in his turn is said to have renewed this corvee, and 
 (3) I K. xi. \^ f. (revised), in which Joab, as a sign of 
 David's victory, is said to have taken a census of the male 
 Jerahmeelites, which took six months. Our result will be 
 that the order given to Joab by the king related to a survey 
 of the whole territory of the Negeb (cp. on Num. xxi. 14), 
 and as a consequence of this a census of the male population, 
 with a view to the imposition of a corvee. It may be con- 
 venient to give here the translation of the revised text of 
 these three passages. ( i ) ' And David imposed a corvie on 
 Ishmael after he had smitten the Arammites in the valley 
 of Jerahmeel.' (2) ' And king Solomon raised labourers out 
 of all Ishmael.' (3) ' So it befell that when David smote 
 Aram,. when Joab the general went up to take a census of 
 the Jerahmeelites, and registered every male in Aram — for 
 six months Joab and all Israel remained in Aram, until he 
 had registered every male in Edom.' Let us now seek to 
 recover some of the earlier readings of the story in vv. i -9. 
 It was only after the original narrative had sustained corrup- 
 tion that it became possible for a later writer to represent 
 David as having committed a sin against Yahwe. Space is 
 wanting to draw out here in detail the effect of the examina- 
 tion of the text here instituted on the higher criticism. 
 
 xxiv. I. For ^NntD"' read SNi^DtO"' (as often), and omit 
 mirr^'TiMl, inserted after a corruption had arisen in v. 9 (see 
 below). Not in i Chr. xxi. i. 
 
 xxiv. 2. The verse may be due (or mainly due) to the 
 ' later writer ' spoken of above. But it is equally possible 
 that it may come from the original story. 'jMi^DtD"' "'JDltD is 
 not an impossible phrase ; cp. Isa. xix. 1 3 (the ' tribes ' of 
 Misrinj). Of course the Jerahmeelites had ' tribes.' Note 
 the twelve D-'n23 ' over all Ishmael ' ( i K. iv. 7 ; so read), 
 corresponding to the twelve niQN (cp. Gen. xxv. 16) of 
 Ishmael. 'From Dan to Beer-sheba' iyv. 2, 15; i Chr. 
 reverses the order) describes the extent of the Negeb; see 
 on iii. 10. — 3. Chr.'s reading, 'Are they not all my lord's 
 servants,' is specially suitable if the Jerahmeelites were 
 originally referred to. 
 
 xxiv. dfi. Read 'oQ)'', and cp. on i K. xi. 15. — 5-7. The • 
 
xxiv. 4 . SECOND SAMUEL 309 
 
 difficulties of this passage, which the Chronicler omits, are 
 well known. The ' later writer ' accommodated the names 
 as well as he could to his erroneous representation of the 
 census as extending to the whole of the land of Israel, but 
 could not succeed entirely. The first proceeding of Joab 
 and the captains (nil) in v. 2 is wrong, see Budde) was to 
 cross the stream called Jerahmeel, or by some corrupt form 
 of that name (see on xvii. 22), and note that the starting- 
 point on both occasions is, not Jerusalem, but Ishmael in 
 the Negeb (see on vv. 8, 24). Then they ' began ' their 
 census (read D 'hrv^, with Wellh., etc. ; @'- ^p^avro airo) at 
 Aroer, or rather 'Arab-jerahmeel. This place is referred to 
 again in 2 S. xvii. 26, and of course in Dt. ii. 36,^-JeSI; 
 xiii. 9, 1 6 (see notes). It was on the verge of the Jerahmeel 
 (see Dt. and Josh.), and also in the region of Maacath-jerah- 
 meel. So they came to Gilead (note in 2 S. xvii. 26, the 
 combination of 'Arab-jerahmeel and the land of Gilead) and 
 to the land of the Rehobothites, also known as Ashhur, and 
 from thence to Dan, and to En-ishmael, and, farther still, to 
 a place called Missur, and in fact to all the cities of the 
 Ashhurites and the Kenizzites. They closed their operations 
 in the Negeb of Judah, the entrance to which seems to be 
 placed at Beer-sheba. This implies the following text — 
 
 rmrr 3i3-f?M ins'^t ■'Wpm 'nnmrt ■'^s-^^^ n^isp intt '^nsdjo-' 
 
 jD'^ = po"' in i3'iD\ nai^D from ^^n (as Judg. xii. 4). 'rrv 
 from hnyrf (cp. on Num. xxi. 1 5). ~\m in MT. probably 
 comes from m^hyn, written too soon. If so, 11171 comes 
 from pM. ■'m^n DTinn has revived more than one tempting 
 emendation (see E. Bib., ' Tahtim-hodshi '), but beyond all 
 doubt 'n comes from OTiim (since the Negeb is referred to), 
 and 'n, like mn and ntnn, and like rrmnn in xxi. 16, from 
 mntDM. JS'' in MT. might of course come from n:?^ or nisi, or 
 again from ]VS (see on i K. xv. 20), but on account of l^lD, 
 which is one of the current corruptions of 'Dto^, and requires 
 something before it, it seems better to correct it into ]-^s. For 
 
3IO CRITICA BIBLICA xxiv. 8 
 
 12-nsiD see on Josh. xix. 29. The other corrections are by 
 this time familiar. 
 
 xxiv. 8. The census took nine months and twenty 
 days ; in I K. xi. 1 6 six months are allowed. The high 
 officers return to David ' at Jerusalem.' But most probably 
 for D^tOIT we should read fpMi>at2)i (see on xv. 11). It would 
 be natural that the report of the survey and census of the 
 Negeb should be delivered to David in his more southern' 
 capital (Kirjath-jerahmeel ?), and there may actually be 
 textual traces of this m v. 16 and in i Chr. xxi. 20, 2 Chr. 
 iii. I (see on v. 25). 
 
 xxiv. 9. The ' men of substance ' (7'Tta>"'N) in the Negeb 
 (' every male in Edom,' i K.) amount to 1 00,000 men. This 
 implies reading 'n ffi-'N ^i^ HND 'atO'' ■'Hm. TODffi (like pvi) 
 comes from 'pNi^DtO'^, so also does vp^ ; nn represents the 
 variant ^NDm"' (see on Judg. viii. 10, xx. 2). The intro- 
 duction of Judah is owing to a misunderstanding. tDcri 
 prefixed to DIND represents D^3 (cp. viii. 6, officers in Aram- 
 cusham), a supplement to 'offi'' and 'iTV, followed by a ditto- 
 graphed a>iN ^Sn Hnd. The 'later writer' supposed that 
 this must have referred to Judah. The seemingly discrepant 
 numbers in i Chr. xxi. 5 may be similarly accounted for 
 (Dii»im, like nii?12, represents 'am"'). 
 
 xxiv. 10-25. The pestilence. A later addition (see 
 above). It is the Negeb which suffers. See v. 15, where 
 we have not only ' from Dan to Beersheba,' but also perhaps 
 a second statement of the extent of the epidemic, for the 
 words Ti^ia ni^-^i!'l Ipino are quite intolerable (see Wellh.). 
 ^^^^ suggests that '\p1'n and ^i>^D ni? cover over place-names, 
 such, e.g., as D^^nni (Bahurim) and a"iN T'l? (Ir-aram) or ts 
 D"'ni> (Ir-arbim). 
 
 xxiv. 16. MT., rrmxsh Q^tciT I isfjon it n^te^i. 
 Chr., nriTiffin'? I In'jo I D''n'3Nrr n'?©''!. Note the warning 
 Paseks. Evidently "ni (at any rate) is incorrect ; the order 
 'a TT"' is impossible. It is possible that "ni, like it in Ps. 
 Ixxvii. 3 (see PsP''') came from mn% and that Chr. altered 
 this into DTr'^Nrr. On this hypothesis, however, no fully 
 satisfactory sequel can be obtained (cp. Budde, H. P. Sm., 
 and Klost). There is, however, another possibility ; both 
 rhvci-^ and "iT> may be corrupt. In Job xxvii. 8 f?Ntl)i is the 
 
xxiv. 23 SECOND SAMUEL 311 
 
 right reading instead of hw^ (see Budde, ad loc), and in 2 S. 
 viii. 3 IT, and in Gen. xxxviii. i TVVn, come from f?NonT. 
 Now, if — as the evidence permits or even requires us to hold 
 — the city where David was bore the name (not merely by 
 an archaising caprice of the writer) Ishmael or Jerahmeel, we 
 see at once how the present text may be fully accounted for. 
 ITn, or rather ^Nom"', was written too soon, but, as usual 
 in such cases, not deleted by the scribe, who wrote next 
 HN^Dn, and then, not n^ffl'iT', but the word not unfrequently 
 confounded with it, viz. ht^stXn (a syn. of 'm''). Thus we 
 get the sense, ' And the angel asked for Jerusalem in order 
 to destroy it.' The angel is the heavenly agent whose 
 activity is presupposed in v. 15. — ^3^"IN (the spelling varies 
 in Kt.) ; see E. Bib., ' Araunah,' where reasons are given for 
 restoring lT^^N ; cp. on vv. 18, 23. ' Adonijah,' however, 
 is certainly an incorrect pronunciation. See on iii. 3, where 
 3nN Q~is ?) is explained as the name of a district in the 
 Negeb. — ^^DlTT. Dl"' (like tOl"') is one of the current corrup- 
 tions of ^NSDW, with which diI'' is probably identified in 
 Judg. xix. 10 (true text, see ad /oc). The owner of the 
 threshing-floor was a citizen of the southern capital of David, 
 and as much an Israelite as David himself. — 18. Note Kt. 
 rrmw for rranx. Sometimes, however, the scribe wrote '13^M 
 (see next note). 
 
 xxiv. 23/ As Wellh. saw in 1871, iban nainx comes 
 from tfpQTj ■'3'TN nis (cp. E. Bib., ' Araunah '). '[hnh has 
 been left unquestioned. Yet a close inspection of i Chr. 
 xxi. 23 will show that ~\hi:h must be miswritten for nriio'?. 
 (The words are, Tina 'jSH nTT2Bh D-'tJnm. Here, as in 
 
 1 Chr. xxi. 20, Ps. cxlvii. 14, nisn is a corruption of ^NDm% 
 a and D being confounded. It is a gloss correcting aha in 
 
 2 S. xxiv. 24 which [see below] comes from 'rr]\) Coming 
 (in 2 S.) directly after lf?an, 'n3ob would easily become mis- 
 written I'jD^. Thus V. 23 becomes, ' All this does the 
 servant of my lord the king give as an offering.' In v. 24 
 we get David's rejoinder. ' Nay ; but I will buy it of thee 
 "iinoi.' No doubt TTID may mean ' a price,' but it is also 
 possible that, as in i K. x. 28, Jer. xv. 13 (here n^ = '7m, 
 precedes), it may, like DTH, represent □nT = bNDn~i\ In 
 I Chr. xxi. 24, for 'q% we find m'jd ?1D32, probably from 
 
312 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxiv. 25 
 
 '?NonT' Vp21 (cp. on Gen. xxiii. 9). Therefore read, in our 
 passage, 'm*' [!1D3]3, ' for Jerahmeelite money,' i.e. ' for money 
 that comes up to the Jerahmeelite commercial standard.' — 
 D"'tODn whpxa. ' The order is unusual, and generally late ' 
 (Driver). This reminds us that QiSptO and Qitoon are 
 among the corruptions of fjMSDffii and omia respectively. 
 Our conclusion in the preceding note strongly favours the 
 reading ^NDOtoi ?1D31, on which Offiia will be a gloss. 
 
 xxiv. 25. David builds an altar 'there,' i.e. on the 
 threshing-floor. In 2 Chr. iii. i, according to the ordinary 
 view (see e.g. Benzinger), the threshing-floor is placed on the 
 top of Mount Zion. No doubt the present text implies a 
 combination of the story of David and ' Araunah ' with 
 that of Abraham and Isaac on a mountain in the land of 
 rrinDn (Gen. xxii. 2). , But it is in the highest degree prob- 
 able that in 2 Chr., Lc, for rryan nm we should read 'Dm"'!, 
 i.e. ^NOmil, a variant to f?Mi)DtOil (so read, for D^miT!!). Cp. 
 on vv. 8, 16. 
 
PART IV 
 
 FIRST KINGS 
 
 The textual difficulties of Kings are as great as those of 
 Samuel, and less serious attempt has been made to cope 
 with them. We have, unfortunately, no contribution to the 
 subject from Wellhausen, and Stade's important work in 
 SBOT is only now passing through the press. I hope, how- 
 ever, here and there, by Prof Haupt's kindness, to refer to 
 the latter work. No equally thorough examination of the 
 text from a moderate critical point of view has yet been 
 made. Still there is ample scope for a bolder revision ; 
 progress, indeed, requires it. The historical bearings of the 
 results of the present inquiries will not be overlooked by 
 careful students. A N. Israelitish history, in the proper 
 sense of the phrase, has not, as it appears, come down to us 
 in the Old Testament, unless keener critics should succeed 
 in discovering fragments of it which have escaped the author's 
 notice. 
 
 Chap. i. 1-4. It is a Negeb tradition that we have 
 before us. There was a Shunem (from ' Ishman ' = Ishmael) 
 in the Negeb (see on i S. xxviii. 4, 2 K. iv. 8). For ^NntO"' 
 read probably fjNrotir (a name for the Negeb). Probably 
 :it!?"'3M (which is no more Hebraic than ' Abital ') comes from 
 im-ilN = JN» yys = D31t0 'a, ' Shunammite Arabia' ; cp. ' Abigal' 
 or ' Abigail' = 'Arab-gilead (see on i S. xxv. 3). @='s a^eicra 
 = "'ffl''lM (see on i S. xxvi. 19). Otherwise 'n might be a 
 very early modification of »af?"'D. See E. Bib., ' Shulammite,' 
 ' Shunem,' ' Solomon,' § 2, near end. 
 
 i. S ff. Not Jerusalem, but Beth-jerahmeel, — a place in 
 
14 CRITIC A BIB Lie A i. 9 
 
 le Negeo where David often resided, is most probably tiie 
 :ene of the struggle for the regal inheritance. Cp. on viii. 
 -5, 12. — 8. 'Nathan han-nabV Cp. 2 S. vii. 2, and see 
 I. Bib., ' Solomon,' § 2. How comes a prophet to assume 
 tie prominent position which belongs rather to Benaiah? 
 Vas Nathan really a prophet ? Should N"'n3rr be "^yj^ri, ' the 
 Jadabite ? ' 
 
 i. 9. hyi T^s. See on 2 S. xvii. 17, where it is shown 
 be most probable that the En-rogel in that passage is a 
 Duntain near ' Ishmael ' (i.e. Beth- or Kirjath-jerahmeel) ; also 
 n Josh. XV. 7, where the original reference is shown to be, 
 nost probably, to a fountain near ' En-shemesh,' or rather 
 Ir-cusham ' (or ' Ir-ishmael '). It is important to notice 
 hat, if the place referred to was really this ' Ishmael,' the 
 eference to Enrogel is geographically quite what we should 
 xpect, for ' Kirjath-jearim ' was not far from ' Beth-shemesh ' 
 i- (Josh. xix. 41) ' Ir-shemesh,' i.e. Beth- or Ir-cusham (or 
 r-ishmael). See, further, on 2 S. vi. i. 
 
 i- 33! 38, 45. According to Gen. ii. 13 the stream 
 ailed Gihon flowed round the land of Cush. Cp. E. Bib., 
 Paradise,' § 5, end. Was this ' Gihon ' of the capital of 
 he Negeb named after that legendary stream ? 
 
 Chap. ii. 34. imon wax We should have expected 
 mtol or ^nD^Nn. Corruption suspected (so Stade). Should 
 ve read '1 rT'H, i.e. ^Nom"' n"'31 ? The place meant would 
 »e that commonly called ' Bethlehem-judah ' (see on Judg. 
 :vii. 7, I S. xvii. 12). The nno would be that of Jerahr 
 neel or Ishmael. ^'''s rae^o) (cp. Pesh.) is arbitrary. 
 
 ii. 37. ' Kidron.' See on 2 S. xv. 23. In our ignorance 
 if the topography, it is hazardous to touch the reading (see 
 Clost. and E. Bib., col. 2662). 
 
 ii. 39. 'Achish,' etc. See on i S. xxvii. 2. It was 
 ,n easy journey, no doubt, from one district of the Negeb to 
 nother. Was the real object political ? See E. Btb., 
 Shimei,' i. 
 
 Chap. iv. 1-6, The critical problems arising out of the 
 lames of Solomon's officers, as given in MT., in 0, and in 
 Ii'-, are specially difficult. Burney is lucid and learned, 
 Clost. masterly and original. Stade sees the problems, but 
 lot how to solve them. Perhaps, however, from a new 
 
iv. 6 FIRST KINGS 315 
 
 point of view, some steps in advance can be taken. — 3. 
 finrp^N is better than either EXiac^ or EXtayS, which are 
 evidently worn-down forms. Transposing the two parts (an 
 expedient frequently necessary) we get ■?N■'^D^. The name 
 does not occur elsewhere, but "ino is an Asshurite name in 
 I Chr. iv. 6, and a Maacathite in i Chr. xi. 36 ; see also on 
 V. 10. ^N, as often, is merely formative. — riTTN. See on 
 I S. xiv. 3. — NQ)"'a>, or (better attested, see E.Bib., 4433, or 
 Burney) NtO"ia>, is not from Bab. savsu = samsu, 'sun' — how- 
 ever tempting from the point of view of the history of Baby- 
 lonian culture (see E. Bib., 948) this theory of Marquart 
 may be, but (for a parallel, cp. ■'ffitO, Josh. xv. 14, Judg. i. 10) 
 either from Q>"i3 or from TiDM. The family, then, was N. 
 Arabian. The same result, however, follows if we prefer 
 the reading rr"jto (2 S. viii. 17, see note), or ©'■'s 'tcKJiar, i.e. 
 £33» = nm!i (Zarephath in the Negeb). — BStOin"' and Ti^JTlN ; 
 see on 2 S. viii. 16-18. — 5. iryTtl'. But @ presupposes 
 '1^P3^N. Both are Negeb names ; see notes on the earlier 
 occurrences. Read ^'?E)^ pb, omitting nsT as a gloss (cp. 
 on 2 S. XX. 26). pb = officer ; cp. Am. Tab. 237, 9 {zukini). 
 It is no argument against Klost. (who wrongly keeps jnj), 
 but rightly omits ^r^^) that 'all versions reproduce' 'nT\ 
 (Burney). — 6. IBTIN. Burney rightly observes that the 
 text of V. 6a may be corrupt, the father of the official referred 
 to not being given (v. 4b is evidently an interpolation). 
 He ingeniously conjectures n'^nrr"^^ [rr"']ltD-]l nNi^N"!. But 
 @'s EXtajS uto? 2a^ (or @'- laayS) clearly corresponds with 
 EXtaip vlb<i "ta^a in ©", and 'EKia0 vio<s 'ta<f>aT in @^, 
 V. 3 ; 7raTpi,a<i = crTparia^ = NHS. The truth seems to be 
 that im-'nN (cp. nntcnx), or rather mntON (Stade restores, 
 impossibly, ■'tOTTN), is a variant to mit, or rather (as (^^ pre- 
 supposes) -vSi. Zaccur, then, or rather Ashhur (the original 
 of Zaccur ?) is described as (like Azariah or Adonijah) a son 
 of Nathan, as a high officer (pb) of the king, and as over 
 the palace. — DT3"rN. So v. 28. □^^N (xii. 18 ; 2 S. xx. 24, 
 but ®"'*'' ASoipetpafi) seems to be a contracted form. 0").= 
 fl-jN ( = Jerahmeel), as i Chr. ii. 9, cp. ® apa/i. See also on 
 miM, Gen. xvii. 5. For i^TN see on 2 S. iii. 4. — Miai>. 
 Plausible as the usual explanation may be (E. Bib., ' Names,' 
 |§ 37) Si)> the origin of the other names in the list, and the 
 
1 6 CRITIC A BIB Lie A iv. r 
 
 requency of such corruptions as D"'nn2; from Q'^ms (see on 
 . 4, Num. xxvii. 12), suggests that N^3i7 is a corruption of 
 nr. Cp. also i»mM for lii;, Geri. xxiii. 2, etc. It seems 
 irobable enough that the superintendent of the N. Arabian 
 orv^e would himself be of Arabian origin. Thus all the 
 lames are Negeb names. We shall be still more struck by 
 he list of Solomon's prefects. 
 
 iv. 7-19. These officials are called Clsa (cp. v. 5). 
 5ut we might as well point Di323 (cp. l-iSS, v. 19). At any 
 ate, ^Nnffii in v. 7 should be ^n^dq?"' (as often, though not 
 n V. i). It is the Negeb, otherwise called ' Jerahmeel ' or 
 Ishmael' or 'Aram,' that is meant; cp. on 2 S. viii. 14, 
 Inhere David is said to have put D'^^S? in the newly conquered 
 \ram (not ' Edom '). See E. Bib., ' Solomon,' § 6. They 
 ire twelve in number, because there were twelve tribes of 
 shmael (see on 2 S. xxiv. 2, and cp. E. Bib., ' Tribes,' § 6). 
 The duty of the prefects is to ' provide victuals for the king 
 md his household ' ; ' each man had to make provision for 
 L month in the year' (RV). Taxes were of course quite 
 mimportant ; a luxurious king like Solomon must have 
 bought first of his banquets. Stade {Gesch. i. 305, note i) 
 md historians in general disregard this statement ; all say 
 hat the division of the land of Israel into districts was for 
 he sake of the taxes, but no one (not even Stade in SBOT) 
 nvestigates the text. The truth, however, is that Wh^ 
 ' provide victuals for ') is liable, more than most words, to 
 erve as the envelope or shrine of another word, which, when 
 ve can find it, has to be restored. See, e.g., on 2 S. xix. 33/, 
 [ K. xviii. 4, 13, XX. 27. Applying this key, and omitting 
 littograms, we get this list of names — which is an extended 
 jloss on f?Ni>om"'-^3, — ^Mi^DtDi n-'l linmN n-'l ^ndhT' : note 
 ;hat "i^sSd and 'j'^nn both = '?NonT' (dittogr.) ; 'n wa = 
 nmN nil ; nami = 'offii n^i. 
 
 The names of the prefects and their districts or chief 
 :owns are as follows — corrected readings are in, italics: — 
 
 1. *, ben Ashhur. Mountains of Ephraim. 
 
 2. *, ben Rekab. Michmash, Beth-is hmael, Beth-cusham, 
 Aijalon. 
 
 3. *, ben Ashhur. 'Arabia, Socoh, land of Hepher. 
 5ee on i S. xvii. i. 
 
iv. 20 I^IRST ICINGS 317 
 
 4. *, ben Abinadab (i S. xvi. 8). Naphtoah-arad. 
 (Naphtuhith, an Ishmaelitess, his wife). 
 
 5. Baana ben Ahilud (2 S. viii. 16). Beth-anak and 
 Migron, all Beth-shean {Shunem ?), or from Beth-shean to 
 Abel-meholah (see on Judg. vii. 22). Za.Teth3in = Zarepkat A 
 (see on Josh. iii. 16), and Jokmeam =/era/imeel, are also 
 mentioned. 
 
 6. *, ben Argob, or rather ben 'Arab (see on Dt. iii. 4). 
 Ramoth(ath) Gilead (see on xxii. 3). Also Havvoth-jair or 
 Hebel-argob {i.e. Rehoboth-jerahmeel, Jerahmeel-rehob). The 
 former is said to be ' in Gilead ' ; the latter ' in Cushan! 
 The different writers concerned mean the same thing. 
 
 7. Ahinadab ( = Jerah\mee[\-nadab) ben Iddo (?). Maha- 
 naim (Gen. xxxii. 3, 2 S. ii. 8). For ' Iddo,' cp. @ (^a'^eK ; 
 KaahaiK). 
 
 8. Ahimaaz (i S. xiv. 50). Naphtali. {Cushamith, an 
 Ishmaelitess, his wife.) 
 
 9. Baana ben Hushai (2 S. xv. 37). Asher (from 
 Ashhur) ; 'Aloth or Be'aloth (Josh. xv. 24, a southern city). 
 
 10. Jehoshaphat {=Jerah\meel\- zephath) ben Hepher. 
 Issachar (from Ashhur). 
 
 11. Shimei ben Ela (2 S. xxiii. 1 1). Benjamin (Jamin = 
 Jerahnteel). 
 
 12. Argob ben Arabi. Gilead ((g^ r^a^. The land of 
 Cushan, king of the Arammites, and of Og, king of Bashan. 
 In V. 13 (end) note the lengthy expansion of the corrupt 
 ■crys D"'ffitD (properly 'm"' D03 ; see on Dt. iii. 4). ' 
 
 \nv. 19 it is added pN3 ^te^» nrtN 1"'^31 ; &, however, 
 KoX vaae.^ eh iv 7^ lovBa, and (^^ vacrei^ iv 'yy lovSa eh ; 
 both B and L mention Jehoshaphat at the very end. Kittel 
 would read as in MT., except that }>"JM3 becomes, with him, 
 •t[I7^]i pMl. It is better to criticise ®'s text ; rmn*', as 
 elsewhere, most probably represents ^NoriT^. In v. 5 we are 
 told that Azariah ben Nathan was ' over the D"'ia3.' Perhaps 
 he is the person meant by Tlia, and perhaps dn23n-^i> should 
 be restored in v. 19 after ^^N. So Klostermann. If so, 
 Azariah was practically the viceroy of Israelite territory 
 in the Negeb, as David, too, had perhaps been in his time. 
 Cp. on I S. xxii. 14, 2 S. xxiii. 23. 
 
 iv. 20. Underlying this passage (not in ®) there is 
 
3i8 CRITIC A BIB Lie A v. i 
 
 most probably a list of the peoples over which Solomon 
 ruled. The same account has to be given of v. 2, 3. Both 
 passages have the same object — to illustrate the statement 
 in V. I. I fear this may startle some scholars, but I see no 
 help for it — no alternative view seems possible. Benzinger 
 indeed thinks iv. 20 a not unsuitable close to the account 
 of the administrative divisions of the land, only it implies a 
 conception of the reign of Solomon which is altogether late ; 
 the division into Israel and Judah also, he remarks, points 
 to a late origin. The description of Judah and Israel as 
 ' eating and drinking and joyful ' reminds him of Deutero- 
 nomy {e.g. xiv. 26; we might add, because of noto, xvi. 15). 
 There is, however, this difference between our passage and 
 the deuteronomic passages, viz. that here the eating and 
 drinking is not said to be 'before Yahwb' in his chosen 
 sanctuary, for '.eating, and drinking, and joyful,' and for the 
 singularly abrupt opening, Qi3T '?N"ito":'i rrj^n';, there is surely 
 no parallel in Deuteronomy. I will return to this passage 
 in connection with v. 2. 
 
 Chap. v. i«. @ gives this statement in two forms, in 
 ii. 463 and in ii. 46^. The latter agrees with MT.; the 
 former implies a Hebrew text which closes with rnDSoorr 
 and may be earlier than MT. The ' plus ' in MT., however, 
 has to be accounted for. The ' kingdoms ' are ' the kingdoms 
 of Kenaz' (so read in Ps. cxxxv. 11, cp. cv. 13, and see on 
 Josh. xii. 7 ff.). The addition defines the region as 'from 
 the nn3 {i.e. the river P'rath or Ephrath,^ see on Gen. xv. 18) 
 to the land of the Philistines (Zarephathites) and to the 
 border of Misrim.' The Zarephathites, then, had not been 
 entirely conquered in spite of 2 S. viii. i. 
 
 V. lb. (3 inserts koI ^o-(xi' = vn"i (Klo.), 'and they went 
 on bringing tribute,' etc. 
 
 V. 2, 3, with iv. 20. Benz. remarks, ' The expense for 
 the table shows the luxury and wealth of an eastern despot. 
 The numbers are rather high 1 . . . What the D'^'i^")3 are, 
 
 1 Winckler says, 'the nahal Musri, which is so often confounded 
 with the nahar, i.e. the Euphrates (or even the Jordan),' GI ii. 264, 
 cp. KAT^^'^ 148. He does not notice, however, that there was a P'rath 
 ( = Ephrath) in the Negeb ; this accounts for the supposition of the 
 extension of Solomon's empire to the Euphrates. Cp. on Jer. xiii. i-l- 
 
V. 6 ir/RSr KINGS 319 
 
 we do not know ; tradition is unanimous in rendering " fowls," 
 which is suitable.' A little scepticism as to the incredibly 
 high numbers might have led the critic to examine the 
 textual basis. As so often, a string of ethnics, which were 
 no longer understood and had come down in a corrupt form 
 (for D"'na), cp. on Ezek. xxxi. 16), was manipulated by an 
 ingenious redactor. It is possible, however, to undo his 
 work. Dn^ ^7v, nnN uvh, tov na, nnp na, d-'mi3 npn, ^i>t npn, 
 rrNDI, h'^Vi'Q ~ch, and nion*' all represent repeated ' bad shots ' 
 of the scribe at ^ndhT' ; nnf?m, CT'^hxD, \v(^ (see on i S. 
 xvi. 1 1), "-IJ^ and D'^miN (cp. □-ii?l2, pS3S) come from fjMSDffi"' ; 
 D''»tO represents d''tD3 ; mt»s and QintOi? represent nnp« ; 
 D"'ini no doubt comes from D"'ni;. We can now hope to 
 understand iv. 20 better. Notice the hyperbolical com- 
 parison yh . . . 7"in3. All the passages in which this 
 occurs need a careful examination. See below, on v. 9. In 
 fact the verse is full of groups of letters which have else- 
 where turned out to be corruptions of geographical or ethnic 
 terms. The result is that nb . . b"in3 once ran thus — "JMOm''] 
 'offi-'T 'rrr^ ['m"' U^hs ntew. For the words in [ ] see on Josh. 
 xi. 4. For DTrom = 'om*', cp. on D"'tOnn, xviii. 3 / ; and for 
 uhzii — 'nv, cp. on xviii. 19, Is. Ixvi. 17. Prefix, for v. 
 2oaa, the only essential words, D">1"!S f^MSntCT ^Nom"', z.e. 
 the names of the subject peoples or districts of the Negeb. 
 
 v. 4. Again the limits of Solomon's rule in N. Arabia. 
 Read, perhaps, nmrr lis ; the IT12 is presumably that of 
 Ephrath (see on v. la). For noEDH (see on 2 K. xv. 16), 
 cp. ifliio (2 S. x. 16) or •sjaim (i Chr. xix. 16), also n3»i 
 (i Chr. iv. 17). n\s may stand for 's nsis. •>3^D = 'pNOHT. 
 For the difficult vnis read D"'nr ; and for li^DD read ^NromiQ 
 (a gloss, cp. D^T = 'oa^). 
 
 V. 5. (§", at ii. 46^, inserts iaSiovTe^ koI mvovre'i from 
 ^6a. But DTitDT O'lfjaN = ' Jerahmeelites and Ishmaelites,' 
 and clearly it is the Israelitish aristocracy which is here 
 spoken of Render ' so that Judah and Israel,' etc. 
 
 V. 6, Again, great injustice has been done to the 
 original writer (cp. x. 26). The higher of the two numbers 
 can be corrected from 2 Chr. ix. 25. Is any more correc- 
 tion needed ? nnw is said to mean ' stalls for horses.' This 
 gives a bad sense. It is very possible that nnw may have 
 
320 CRITICA BIBLICA v. 7 
 
 sprung from D"'11i>, while D"'D1D (as elsewhere) may have 
 come from Qimi3, "ln3^D from D"'3m, and D'^tOlD from D''ns^2. 
 Accepting this, we get an excellent sense — ' And Solomon 
 had four thousand Arabians [Cushites, Rehobites] and twelve 
 thousand Zarephathites,' i.e. he had a standing army of N. 
 Arabians. Cp. Hezekiah's ' Arabians ' ( Urbt) in Sennacherib's 
 inscription. The twelve thousand Zarephathites may have 
 included the ' Cherethites and Pelethites ' (2 S. viii. 1 3). Cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Solomon,' §§ 6 / 
 
 V. 7 /. More N. Arabian ethnics. 737D is a regular 
 corruption of 'm"' ; cisa comes from D''i?12 = 'd©"' ; Tiht^n 
 (cp. on Josh. xi. 10) and ■jf7on = 'nT; naha = 'om^^ ; Tlpn 
 = 131, or even 'nT' ; ]r\hw perhaps = D"'n'7» ; ItOin ffi-'N = 
 'T)nwt^ ; ^llS'^sh = h^^l-is (?) ; nn = ni>. — ' Barley and straw 
 for the horses,' etc. A likely thing for a chronicler to report ! 
 The ' barley ' should be D'^l^N, ' Asshurites ' ; the ' straw,' 
 Q-'3p"'n, ' Temanites ' ; 'for the horses' should be D^'^NSOffi"'; 
 ' for the swift steed,' [D"']^3t»M, ' Eshcolites.' 
 
 V. 8. MT. Dm rrri> n^N ; <^,ovavy6 ^aa-CKev^. Which 
 is right ? If the general view of the context common to 
 both MT. and @ is correct, neither. It is very harsh to 
 render the Hebrew, ' (they brought the fodder to the place) 
 to which it had to come ' (so Benz., Burney). On the other 
 hand, it is most unnatural to introduce the king (so Kittel) 
 in this connection. Kittel is half inclined to read VH'] ; cp, 
 2 Chr. i. 14, ix. 25. But then, how came iSan into the 
 text underlying @ ? From our point of view all is plain. 
 Render, ' (and the Jerahmeelites) used to come (^sn;;) to the 
 place where the king might be, each according to his duty'; 
 i.e. Solomon's N. Arabian warriors had, at stated times, to 
 serve as his bodyguard. Cp. on x. 26. 
 
 V. 9-1 1. Solomon had 'width of heart like the sand 
 that is on the sea-shore.' @ has vv. 9, 10 in two forms, 
 viz. (a) together with vv. 1 1-14 after v. 4, and {b) at ii. l^a^b, 
 Swete = ii. i, 2, Lagarde. In the former we find %v/ta 
 Kaphia<i = JlJ? Ih, in the latter ifKaro^ k. = MT. nm is clearly 
 an earlier reading than li, but cannot be correct (see Isa. 
 Ix. 5, Ps. ci. 5 ; and cp. Klost.). Nor is there any parallel 
 for this application of the figure of the sand. There is plain 
 
V. 12 FIRST KINGS 321 
 
 corruption. iS 3m and fjinS represent fjNom"' {Ms). Cp. 
 on V. 2 f. [iv. 20], Gen. xxii. 17, Josh. xi. 4 ('the people 
 of Arab-jerahmeel, which is on the shore of the sea of 
 Jerahmeel'), Judg. vii. 12, i S. xiii. 5. The whole o{ v. g b 
 is a gloss on mp-^l-^S {v. i o), i.e. ' all the sons of Jerah- 
 meel.' Dip, as so often, comes from npl, a worn-down 
 form of 'm"> (see on Judg. viii. 10 and Job i. 3, and 
 E. Bib., ' Jerahmeel,' § 4 « ; ' Rekem '). Point Q"'n^p, and 
 cp. Isa. xix. II, 12 (oracle on Misrim). In v. 11 read 
 probably D•^^?-^^Q n'3rv^, a gloss on v. 10. Another gloss 
 follows, stating the names of the ^"ino-131 {i.e. hviorTV) ; 
 ^^, vlov MaaXa, as if ' Darda ' were the only son of Mahol 
 — as erroneous as the vto? of ©". These are ' Ethan the 
 TnTN,' i.e., as most say, ' the Zarhite.' Certainly in i Chr. 
 ii. 6 the four here mentioned (but ' Darda ' becomes ' Dara '), 
 with ' Zimri,' are made sons of Zerah, son of Judah by Tamar. 
 But 'Zerah' in Gen. xxxvi. 13, 17 is ben Reuel ( = Jerah- 
 meel), ben Edom. It is a widespread name, and probably 
 comes from Tin^N. Still wider in range was the name 
 Jerahmeel (cp. Qpi-'31"73). If tradition had not given 
 Ethan the title ' Ezrahite ' (Ashhurite), he might well have 
 been called a ' son of Mahol.' The same record which 
 makes Heman, etc., ' sons of Zerah,' represents ^amul 
 ( = Mahol ; certainly not for hni lon [Kittel]) as a kinsman of 
 Zerah. These men were famous in legend for their wisdom ; 
 yet Solomon surpassed them, just as Ezekiel's king of Missor 
 was 'wiser than Jerahmeel' (so read in Ezek. xxviii. 3, see 
 Crit Bib.). 
 
 V. 1 2. Benz. remarks that no one can take the numbers 
 seriously, and laughs at ® for exaggerating 1005 into 5000. 
 Kittel is content to say that the basis of these numbers is 
 unknown to us. Experience of the ways of the scribes 
 clears up the mystery. F. 12 is not based on legend, as 
 Benz. thinks, though a plentiful crop of legends grow out of 
 it. It is due to the writer, who sought to extract a rill of 
 sense from the strong rock of corruptly written ethnics. 
 niTT comes from yis (cp. /'j.® on Ps. cxix. 42), nishw and 
 ^»Q = fjMsom'^ ; 1TBJ = ii»«, nwnn = Dtea ; !iSn and [d'^Jd^n 
 represent ht^Q in 'jNortT'. The scribe wished to give the 
 names of ' the nations round about' For one among many 
 
322 CRITIC A BIBLICA v. 15 
 
 parallels see xi. 3. The corruption, however, is old ; cp, 
 Sirach xlvii. 1 7. 
 
 V. 15. The Hiram spoken of was not king of Tyre 
 (llli). The name itself was no doubt Phoenician ; so also 
 was Ethbaal ( = Ishmael) ; so also was Urumilki ( = Jerah- 
 meel). Other considerations exist which force us to hold 
 that this Hiram ( = DTHn = fpNoriT, cp. on v, 32) was king 
 of Missor (ihsip) in N. Arabia. Whether it was the real 
 name of the king who had dealings with Solomon, we know 
 not. ' Jerahmeel ' was apparently a conventional name for 
 a N. Arabian king (see e.g. on Isa. xiv. 12). See, further, 
 E. Bib., col. 4682/;, and note that w. 21 represents Hiram 
 as a worshipper of Yahw^. 
 
 v. 1 7. 'im nonbon. The perplexity of critics is well 
 set forth in Burney's note. But as in several passages 
 {e.g. Hos. ii. 20, Ps. Ixxvi. 4) rTonbo here comes from 
 
 v. 20 (and 13). The 'Lebanon' is that in N. Arabia 
 (see on Jer. xxii. 20) ; or was it ' Gebalon ' (see on v. 32)? 
 •nw is not to be confined to the cedar (see E. Bib., 'Cedar'). 
 In z^. 22 and ix. 11 QitB"ni, and in 2 Chr. ii. 7 n'lDll^N are 
 added. See on x. 1 1. — D"'3125 should be D"'120 (a common 
 error). 
 
 V. 25. rhya n-'Jan, || 2 Chr. ii. g, maa □"'lan. Read 
 nar.D ■'^n, or else (@^ KoX (i'a')(eip ; A ? /la^^^aX ; A* naXaX) 
 ht^DTTT' 'rt. Probably also nTi3 should be n^ro. The Tal- 
 mudic equation DTia = miriD {Menahoth, 86^) is doubtful). 
 
 V. 27. The later tradition, no doubt, considered that 
 Israelites were not exempt from the corvee (cp. xii. 4, 18). 
 But in ix. 20-22 it is expressly said that the corvk was 
 limited to non-Israelites. The original reading in v. 27 was 
 no doubt f?Ni7Dm"'-^3 ; the two names are frequently con- 
 founded. See above, on iv. 7-19. Cp. on 2 S. viii. 13/; 
 also on 2 S. xxiv. 1-9 (p. 308). 
 
 V. 30. n''123n, as in v. 7, comes from D"'f?Ni;Da)"' ; so also 
 does nn^ffib (originally a correction). The gain is great; 
 for how can there have been 'princes of the prefects'? — 32. 
 Another puzzle. D''bl3ini is ' startling ' (Benz;). Stade with 
 some hesitation takes it to be here now as an appellative- 
 ' stone-cutters.' How improbable 1 Thenius and others 
 
vii. 13 FIRST KINGS 323 
 
 correct somewhat violently (see E. Bib., 'Gebal,' i). But 
 from Josh. xiii. 5 (see ad loc.) it appears that i^^li7 fr^ and 
 p:ib are synonymous. The Giblites or Gebalites are the 
 people of Gebal (Ezek. xxvii. 9) or Gebalon. But the 
 passage is not yet quite plain ; it should be read thus 
 [D-'fjiim ^Nnm'' "^an] S'Nsom'^ ■'21 i'?dd-'1. 'ttv ■'^n and 
 □"■71111 are correct explanatory glosses. 
 
 Chap. vi. i, 37. That the contents of this verse are of 
 diverse origin is seen by Kittel. He thinks that R^ obtained 
 the calculation of 480 years, etc., from a scholastic tradition, 
 while the statement of time in b is simply repeated from 
 V. 37. But it should be added that the scholastic tradition 
 is based on a series of corruptions of the text in Judges and 
 Samuel ; it is not found in || 2 Ch. iii. i f. Originally w. 37 
 was without the words Tt riT'l ; similarly, z/. 38 was with- 
 out the words i3"'Dmn mnnn sin hn TXVI. These words 
 originally stood in the margin, but in another form, for they 
 are corrupt, though (thanks to the regularity with which 
 types of corruptions occur) not hopelessly. For "11 HT^l v. i 
 gives •'amn »-rnn Nin tt mini, where onn (cp. on nmin. 
 Josh. XV. 37) represents TintDN ; ■'3Q> (cp. on i S. xiv. 4) = 
 'Qffi% and Tr perhaps = ^IIT, i.e. 'offii (cp. on xvi. 31). In 
 V. 38, f?"ii nT = f7NonT; 'mn 'nn nih is a gloss, viz. N"in 
 hiiSViW lintDN. Thus we get as marginal notes ' in Jerah- 
 meel ' and ' in Ashhur-ishmael,' notes which originally 
 described the region where the workmen ' prepared the 
 timber and the stones' (i K. v. 32). Consequently © is 
 not wholly wrong in placing vv. ^7 f. immediately after 
 V. 32 of our Hebrew text. See on viii. 2. 
 
 Chap. vii. iz /• Origin of the artificer Hiram. The 
 Chronicler (2 Chr. ii. 13) calls him Huram-abi, which, like 
 Aholiab (Ex. xxxi. 6), probably comes from Jerahmeel-arab). 
 He is brought from nkp (not ns), and is the son of a Misrite 
 father, and a mother who was n^o'jN nt&N. Now \xhi^ is a 
 corruption of ^Nom"' (see on i S. xxi. 3), and both here and 
 in xi. 26, xvii. g f. it is hardly doubtful that nDD7N repre- 
 sents nhi^'Q'n'v. Possibly the next words i^nsa rraao Nin 
 (but ® reads wim) imply an endeavour to make Hiram 
 out to have been a full Israelite (see Benz.). More probably, 
 however, the words are corrupt, and we should read nSSffiQ 
 
324 CRITICA BIBLICA vii. 21 
 
 ri"'n[tO]f?S. That ■•nm'jQ and i^Nom*' were synonyms is 
 certain (see on i S. xvii. 26). The region intended was 
 probably that called, according to i S. xvii. 2 (corrected 
 text), fjNom"' n3SD, and referred to again in f. 45, in the 
 account of the casting of the brass vessels. 
 
 vii. 21. The two pillars, pD^ and li^n. In E. Bib., 
 ' Jachin and Boaz,' col. 2304, an explanation is given which 
 is only to a small extent correct. Now that we know what 
 the dominant foreign influence on the popular and official 
 religion of Israel was, it is possible to make this criticism. 
 And as it happens ^^ and partly 1^^ confirm the view which 
 must of itself occur to any one who has realised the religious 
 influence of N. Arabia. pD"! is in ^^^ la'^ov^L, and this repre- 
 sents ^Nom"', while Ti>l is in ^^ ^olKoC,, and this represents 
 birN, i.e. ^Nl^om^', see on xvi. 3 1 . (That ^si probably had 
 some connection with 'pilt was pointed out in E. Bib., l.c. ; 
 now 'pint is a divine title = fjirw). The two pillars were, in 
 fact, dedicated to the N. Arabian deity, sometimes called by 
 the Israelites Jerahmeel and Ishmael. 
 
 vii. 45 j'^ Cp. E. Bib., ' Tebah.' Neither Benz. nor 
 Kittel has removed all the difficulties ; indeed, the chief ones 
 only yield to the ' Jerahmeelite theory.' It is pardonable, 
 and yet a little amusing, when Benz. makes this remark; 
 ' l^arr to be deleted, as in ®, as an incorrect explanation of 
 the subject.' It has, however, been shown again and again 
 that iSorr is a corruption of fpNOni"' (cp. E. Bib., ' Ham- 
 melech '), and when Kittel says of mbp, ' properly stripped 
 bald (of the head), made bald, then polished (of metal),' it 
 must be objected that he, together with the lexicographers, 
 puts an undue strain on the root-meaning of ^3^D ; Isa. xviii. 
 2, 6 is corrupt. And though the correction of nn'Tsn nasoa 
 (v. 46) offered by G. F. Moore and Clermont-Ganneau (see 
 E. Bib., col. 58) deserves praise for its acuteness, it must be 
 pointed out that the text of the related passage Josh. iii. 16 
 is corrupt (see ad loc). The key to i K. l.c. (and the 
 II 2 Chr. iv. 16/) is furnished by i Chr. xviii. %b, which, in 
 a critically revised text, states that David obtained a large 
 quantity of brass from Rehoboth-jerahmeel ('m"' 'm under- 
 lies p3D1 nmcs), a city of Hadad[-ezer ?], king of Zare- 
 phath (or Missor? see on 2 S. viii. 5). It was presumably 
 
viii. 5 FIRST KINGS 325 
 
 this captured brass that Hiram the artificer used, according 
 to the earlier tradition. In short, the tanno of i K. vii. 45 
 and the pIlD of 2 Chr. iv. 16 come respectively from nana 
 and niimo, and the second of these readings is the better. 
 n331 and HTTr, which follow,' are probably corrupt inde- 
 pendent forms of a dittographed 7NanT' (cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Jordan,' § 2 [2]). The result is, with regard to i K. vii. 45, 
 that the verse should end at mn"' IT'n, and that the hitherto 
 unexplained f?nNn represents ^Nam"' (written in the margin 
 as a gloss on DTTt, and that v. 46 should run thus, n^n? 
 
 For the ' Succoth ' of MT., see on Gen. xxxiii. 17; for 
 ' Zarethan,' on Josh. iii. 1 6. 
 
 Chap. viii. 1-5. These verses appear in @ and (§'■ in a 
 much shorter form, and this form is almost entirely an earlier 
 form. So the critics agree, and this adds weight to the 
 circumstance that <B gives iv Xeioav, where MT. gives D^tBTii. 
 Kittel regards this as a pure mistake — somewhat too easy 
 an expedient. It is plain that the original sources of the 
 history of Israel have been very much worked over, and we 
 have seen already that both David and (up to this time at 
 any rate) Solomon preferred [Beth-]ishmael or [Beth-]jerah- 
 meel as a residence to any other city. Moreover, it was here 
 that David placed the ark, and here that, after his accession, 
 David's successor resided. We have also seen that in Am. 
 vi. I p'S represents 7N2>affi'', i.e. Beth-ishmael (cp. on 2 S. 
 V. 7). It is possible that, according to the original record, 
 Solomon gathered together the elders of Israel {i.e. the Israel 
 in the Negeb and in Judah) at Beth-ishmael to take up the 
 ark out of the city of David ( = Beth-ishmael) to Jerusalem. 
 But it is also possible that the original writer meant us to 
 understand that the house which Solomon had prepared for 
 the ark was in a higher part of Beth-ishmael — the place 
 where, in a sanctuary in the so-called 'city of David,' David 
 had placed the ark. And this may be confirmed by v. 2 
 (see below), also by the fragment of song ascribed to Solomon 
 (see next note), and by the notice (both in MT. and in @) 
 found in v. 65 (2 Chr. vii. 8). In this case there has been a 
 fusion of two accounts, each of which referred to Solomon's- 
 erection of a temple — the one at Beth-ishmael, the other at 
 
326 CRITIC A BIBLICA viii. 12 
 
 Jerusalem. See, however, Winckler's radical criticism {GI 
 ii. 252^; cp. E. Bib., ' Solomon,' § ^a). — Note that of v. 2 
 @ only gives eV firjvl Adafieiv (AOavetv) = C^^riNrr nTin. ' This 
 [statement] has given rise to many scruples,' says Stade, ' as 
 it seems to be at variance with the statements in vi. 38 and 
 xii. 32.' Cp. Kittel and Benz. The text has been manipu- 
 lated ; hence the perplexity of the critics. For 'riNn nT'3 
 'w read 'jNi^Dffi-' nn^N Nin D-'an-'Nn ^NOnT^n, and cp. on vi. 
 I, 37. The 'Zion' intended was in the district called 
 Jerahmeel of the Ethanites, i.e. Ashhur-ishmael (gloss). 
 
 viii. 12. This utterance of Solomon (cp. 2 Chr. vi. i/) 
 occurs in @ and ©'- after v. 53 — vv. 14-53 being a later 
 insertion. It is more important, however, to notice that the 
 Greek version gives it in a fuller form, which may be here 
 quoted from (^^ — 
 
 "HXiov ea-TTjcrev ev ovpavm Kvpio<s, | Koi elire rov Karoiiceiv 
 iv yv6(f>q), | OiKoBofiijeyov ol/cov /lov, oIkov evwpeirfj aeavTm \ 
 Tov KaroiKelv eVt Kai,voT7jTO<; ' || ovk IBoii avrrj 'yeypaTTTai em 
 
 The most essential part, however, is given by MT. The 
 two most remarkable words are bp"ir and bni. 'is is at first 
 sight plausible, being frequently given in a description of a theo- 
 phany (cp. Burney, p. 109), and it is usual to find a contrast 
 in the first two lines, as given in @, between the brightly 
 shining sun and the black cloud filling the House of Yahw6. 
 This, however, does not fit in with the context, and would 
 not the '^ 1113 (v. 1 1) be a luminous cloud ? Hence Bottcher 
 has suggested ^NntO"'! and Thenius D^tOIT^l (for ^snsn); 
 indeed, long ago (probably by a guess) Tg. paraphrased, 
 ' Yahw^ has been pleased to establish his Shechinah in Jeru- 
 salem.' The difficulty exists, and it is time to apply our 
 own critical method to it. hD-\S is a good Hebrew word, 
 but it closely resembles two groups of letters which cover 
 over 'pNOm"' ; these are fpEnDN (Gen. xiv. i ) and •JwaiN 
 (Hos. X. 14); f?Di>, too, has sometimes sprung from this 
 word (see, e.g., on 2 K. v. 24, Mic. iv. 8). This leads to the 
 conclusion that hsis^ may come from f?NOnTl, and if this 
 and this alone brings sense into the passage, and makes it 
 full of life and colour, we may say that it does. And does 
 
viii. 12 FIRST KINGS 327 
 
 it not restore life and meaning to the song -fragment? 
 Surely. ' Yahw^ said that he would dwell in Jerahmeel,' i.e. 
 in the Negeb, where his sanctuaries were. Then take 73'T. 
 Without retracting what is said in Proph. Is. ii. xjz f.,\ 
 must qualify it by observing that Sit sometimes, like f?ir«, 
 represents ^Ni^am"' (cp. on vii. 21, Judg. ix. 28). Our object 
 of reviving the perishing colour of the song will be further 
 promoted if we read, for 'pDt, ^NSOtO"', or rather (cp. || Smri) 
 'd2>"'3. These corrections will be confirmed if, in other 
 passages (see on Josh. x. 13, 2 S. i. 18), we find ourselves, if 
 not compelled, yet gently stimulated to read, for ^tt>^^ ^SD, 
 ^^IffiM 'd. The postscript of the song-fragment then becomes 
 ' Surely it is written in the book of Ashhur,' implying that 
 the passage refers to Ashhur or Jerahmeel, i.e. to the Negeb. 
 But what is to be said of the introductory words in (g's 
 version ? Critics differ as to its retroversion, because, while 
 @ gives i'fvwpKTev, (^'^ has earrjcj-ev. The true reading ought 
 to be some word out of which both snin and ]-^'jr} may have 
 grown. That word should be fpNom"' (for the former cp. on 
 fjMSiT', I Chr. vii. 6 ; and on TIST, Ps. cxxxv. 5 ; and for 
 the latter, cp. on pi, vii. 21). But what of ffioffi and Qiami ? 
 a>DQ> often comes either from Dffil) or from fpN^Offi"'. In the 
 present instance it comes from 'aaj"'[l]. D^DtOl most prob- 
 ably has the same origin, while TV^TT again and again comes 
 from [S«D]m"'. Thus the opening words in @ (cp. OP 
 212; Burney, p. iii) represent a two -fold and twice- 
 written marginal correction of the corruptly written Sm:;l ; 
 the correction is ^Nom"' ^Ni'Dffi"'!. So that @ has really 
 misled the critics ; Solomon's ' song ' is more correctly given 
 in MT., unless olKoB6/j,r]crov oIkov fiov ktX. may seem prefer- 
 able. From our point of view, indeed, it is not preferable. 
 Read, therefore, ^7 n^l TT'an nb3 fpNonm pmh ion mni 
 DiQ^ls TnntoS pan 'jMi^ntO-'a, ' Yahw^ promised that he would 
 dwell in Jerahmeel ; I have built a house for thee in Ish- 
 mael, a sanctuary for thy inhabiting evermore.' [Hum- 
 melauer's article, ' Salomons Tempelweihe,' Bidi. Zt. i. 
 43-46, only shows the urgent need of a reform in the 
 methods of textual criticism. At the same time, he rightly 
 protests against the improbabilities of the received inter- 
 pretation.] 
 
328 CRITICA BIBLICA viiL 65 
 
 viii. 65. 'All Israel' is defined as extending ' from the 
 region of non to the U'lnso hv^! nan is a popular modifi- 
 cation of nDi;D (see on 2 S. viii. 9) ; D"'n2D as often means 
 Misrim, Cp. on 2 K. xxiv. 7. 
 
 Chap. ix. i i . ' Twenty cities in the land of ^■'^jn,' 
 the cession of which to Hiram provoked the disparaging 
 remark, 'What are these?' — and so 'they were called 
 b^lS p"]« unto this day.' The true explanation ought not 
 to be far away. 7113 must be a corruption of some well- 
 known name of a district ; it can hardly be, as Burney 
 supposes, the name of a town (cp. Josh. xix. 27) from 
 which the district was named. We require a name out 
 of which both SinS and hxxi. can have sprung ; for and 
 (g'- agree in giving "Opiov where MT. has ^113. In PSBA 
 xxi. [1899] 177 ff. (cp. E. Bib., 'Cabul') '^int = l^"Qt is 
 proposed. The explanation of Zebulun as ' dung-country ' 
 would be parallel to that of Beelzebul as ' lord of dung,' 
 and 'Izebel as 'what dung!' — implied in 2 K. ix. 37 (but 
 cp. note). Out of fjinT both f?in3 and f?l33 might have 
 sprung, though the expansion of a character is less 
 common than its diminution. But there is a better 
 alternative, viz. to read i>ll"?l. This word may indeed 
 have come ultimately from ^ndht (see on i S. xxviii. 4)^ 
 but a corrupt form resembling ^xh'X may have established 
 itself as the name of a particular district. The palatals 
 a and D are easily confounded. The name may have been 
 popularly derived from "hy, ' to shave.' A ' shaven ' country 
 was a treeless country. It was perhaps the treelessness of 
 the district that displeased Hiram (cp. Judg. i. 1 5). 
 
 ix. 14. The original which underlies the received text 
 is probably 'in nHD •^hKh nf?©"'! ; DT'n is a gloss on 
 -))1Q '^bo, inserted at the wrong place. See Winckler, GI 
 ii. 262 ; KAT'-^^ 237. Solomon, it seems, had to make up 
 for the territory which Hiram rejected by a large payment 
 in gold. 
 
 ix. 15. MlS'on = fpNonT [rT'l] = the acropolis (see on 
 2 S. V. 9), so called, perhaps, because the temple of Jarham 
 or Jerahmeel stood there. Another derivative of 'm*' may 
 perhaps be nmp (inscr. of Mesha) ; cp. on 2 K. v. 24.— 
 ' Hazor ' (see on Josh. xi. i ) represents nrtffiM ; ' Megiddo ' 
 
ix. 17 FIRST KINGS 329 
 
 pnip ( I S. xiv. 2 ; cp. on iv. 1 2, Josh. xvii. 1 1 , Judg. v. 1 9). 
 ' Gezer ' is not the Gezer represented by Tell Jezer, identi- 
 fied by Cl.-Ganneau, and explored by Macalister, but rather a 
 place in the Negeb called either Gezer or perhaps Geshur 
 (cp. on I S. xxvii. 8). For ' Jerusalem ' we should still 
 read ' Ishmael.' 
 
 ix. \6-\ya. On the right placing of this passage, see 
 Kittel, who, however, has not noticed that the king with 
 whom Solomon allied himself by marriage was necessarily 
 the king of Missor. It was against Geshur in the Negeb 
 that Pir'u (cp. on Gen. xii. 15, 2 K. xvii. 7) took the field ; 
 it was Geshur, whose Kenizzite inhabitants he slew, that he 
 might give the place as a marriage-portion to his daughter. 
 Macalister's archaeological conjectures {Pal. Fund. St., Jan. 
 1903, p. 11) have no critical weight. — ijb, 18. Beth- 
 horon, like Gibeon, was in the Negeb (see on Josh. x. 10 f., 
 Ezek. xlvii. I, 6). For ' Baalath and Tamar' (2 Chr. 
 viii. 6, ' Baalath ' only) we might read ' Baalath-tamar,' i.e. 
 ' Lady of Tamar.' The case, however, is parallel to that 
 of Abel-meholah, both parts of which compound place- 
 name may ultimately come from ' Jerahmeel.' ' Baal ' in 
 place-names seems invariably to represent fjND. non prob- 
 ably comes from nm, which (see E. Bib., ' Tamar,' 2) comes 
 from the ethnic ^Mam^ In different forms, this name was 
 very often given both to towns and to districts. For 
 pNl ^2^D1 (to which Kittel would append rmn*') read 
 either ikps y\s;^ or a-^y^s pNl (s and 1 again confounded). 
 Klost. too boldly Diwa n3"TB3. For another too bold view 
 see Perles, Anal. 22. Both these scholars hold that the 
 Kr. nmn is correct (but see E. Bib., 'Tadmor'). — For 
 lann and D"'miDn read □•'^NnnT' and DTims. See on v. 6, 
 X. 26. ' Jerusalem ' may be right ; ' Lebanon ' is certainly 
 the southern Lebanon (v. 20). May we compare the t^ 
 Svvaa-Tevfiara tov AijSdvov which Solomon ' opened ' (@, 
 ii. 46c, mentioned just before the building of ttjv @epfuii iv 
 TJj ipriliM) ? Cp. Benz. ; and for Winckler see E. Bib., col. 
 3098. — 25. l»M iriN and rT^in-riN O^aj are most puzzling 
 (see Burney, pp. 141 /). The passage is not, however, 
 hopelessly corrupt. Read Tii&M-nij and 'jMrntO"' n''5-nN'i, 
 and join on to v. 24. 
 
 23 
 
33° CRITIC A BIB Lie A ix. 26 ' 
 
 ix. 26-28. See E. Bib., ' Solomon,' § 4. The "received 
 view virill hardly stand. In v. 27 D^ri ^s"!^ rii'3M 'iffi3i<i are 
 a redactor's makeshift ; the two first words represent 
 Di'?M»na>-' ; the two last D'i^Nom\ (mi^M = ■'t03N, like ]m, 
 is a fixed corruption of 'no)"' ; so also ST^ and qi of 
 'm"' and p-' respectively ; nv^N may represent D''''Dn, 
 which = D"'^Nt3nT). Cp. on x. 22. I must also glance 
 at the traditional place-name ^n:l ]V^S, the treatment of 
 which by Lagarde (endorsed in BDB, s.v.) I cannot regard 
 as satisfactory. The two parts of the name must be 
 grouped with those other, already explained, names to 
 which by their respective forms they are related, jvss is 
 obviously to be connected with ps, ]ss, |N2i (i S. xvi. 12), 
 jV^S ; therefore, unless some strong reason to the contrary 
 exists, it ought to be = f?NSDt»"', while 131 must be explained 
 in the same way as ini (nn:i p) in iv. 13, and liiN in iv. 13, 
 2 K. XV. 25, Dt. iii. 4, i.e. it represents n3i> = 3'is. The 
 name means, therefore, ' Arabian Ishmael.' There were 
 various towns called (in a corrupt form) Ishmael ; this one 
 was defined as the Arabian Ishmael. (The theory in 
 E. Bib., 2352, was, however, a first step in the right 
 direction.) 
 
 Chap. x. i /. This favours the view that there were 
 two Shebas. We know of queens of N. Arabia {mai Arik),. .'• 
 but not of the Sabsean empire, and if we apply criticism 
 to the text of our narrative it will become still clearer ; 
 that a N. Sheba is here intended. In v. i mrr"' Dvh is 
 not ' hopelessly corrupt ' (Kittel) ; according to parallels it 
 may represent 'pMOm"' ^Ni'OtO"' (cp. on ohw, ix. 25), i.e. it 
 is a twofold gloss on Nlt&. In v. 2 Tnd ni3 h'TII and 
 'lil O-hay are in apposition ; D'hai, as elsewhere {e.g. Judg. 
 viii. 21), comes from Q''bNDm^ In the train of the queen ; 
 were Jerahmeelite merchants bearing spices (cp. E. Bik, ; 
 ' Merchant '). There may have been a confusion between \ 
 the two Shebas, but the earlier tradition meant the N. 
 Sheba, in the neighbourhood of Musri, whence came 
 Solomon's principal wife. Cp. Wi. GI ii. 267 ; also ; 
 E. Bib., ' Solomon,' § 5 (J. 1 
 
 x. 1 1 . A very early corruption has to be indicated' J 
 here. ' Almug(gim) ' or ' algum(mim) ' is,, like ' gemallim,' | 
 
X. IS FIRST KINGS 331 
 
 in V. 2, miswritten for ' Jerahmeel,' from which word also 
 the Assyrian tree-name 'dlammiku' (Del. Ass. HWB 74^) 
 may also perhaps come.^ The Jerahmeelite timber was 
 naturally obtained (as 2 Chr. ii. 8 expressly states that 
 the algum wood was obtained) from Lebanon ; by 
 ' Lebanon ' we (but perhaps not the Chronicler) mean the 
 southern Lebanon, mp'^ ]3N, in accordance with v. 31, 
 vii. 9 ff., ought to mean ' costly building-stone ' ; such stone 
 naturally came from the same district (v. 27, 30/.). Now 
 it so happens that in 2 Chr. ix. i o we read thus, ' Also the 
 servants of Huram and the servants of Solomon, who 
 brought gold from Ophir, brought algum -timber and 
 mp"' jaN.' It is probable that, after omitting the paren- 
 thetical remark (not here pertinent) about gold from Ophir, 
 we may accept the Chronicler's text as correct. The 
 redactor of Kings took the passage (vv. 11, 12) from 
 its original context, introduced the remark just referred to, 
 and placed the notice in connection with the visit of the 
 queen of Sheba. Observe that, according to v. 12b, such 
 a quantity of almug-timber was never again seen in Israel. 
 Perhaps the trees had become rare owing to the large 
 number cut down for Solomon. (Cp., however, E. Bib., 
 ' Solomon,' § 4, end.) 
 
 X. 1 2. rr^y^h D'^V??^ ninap^i ; ' very strange ' (Klost.). 
 Read C^MSom"; C^ll"! D'^^ndtit, a gloss on nOi?! UVn nni> 
 rrofpto, which originally (see preceding note) stood at the 
 beginning of w. 11. For a parallel corruption, see on 
 I S. xviii. 6. 
 
 X. 15. n1^n^ ■'mDND na^. ' Incurably corrupt ' (Benz.) ? 
 Surely not. It is tribute which we expect to be referred 
 to here. ■'ffiiND probably comes from t»3j?ri, and what 
 follows is a list of the sources of the tribute. Read 
 [QTnnm] ^y^s •^s^D-f^S'i [ai^MonT'] D-'nnmM"i □•'ni^rn. t65i>p nab. 
 For D'^nnn cp. on mn, i S. xxii. 5 ; for inDD, on nnt&D, 
 Ps. ex. 3 ; for uhy^, on Neh. iii. 32 ;' for 3"]OT, on Jer. 
 
 1 Cp. ]oa YV, probably from ^wdk" yv, and ■rns'Nn, perhaps from ■flB'fi. 
 See further on pjn, Dt. xii. 2. That ' almug ' and ' glammiku ' may be 
 connected, was first suggested by the writer in Exp. T \x. ^-jo ff. ; 
 Homme! {ib. 525) assented. 'Elammiku,' however, may possibly mean 
 •'Elamite' (Hommel). 
 
332 CRITICA BIBLICA x. 22 
 
 XXV. 24. The concluding words Y^f)tr\ niriEJT (also in Chr.) 
 may be an editorial or scribal expansion of a mutilated 
 and slightly corrupt form of DTilim (but see E. Bib., col. 
 4688, note 2). 
 
 X. 22 a. Benzinger's excuse (p. 75) of the supposed 
 misunderstanding of the Chronicler is unnecessary; the 
 misunderstanding is most probably with modern critics. 
 ' In all passages,' says this scholar, ' except here and 
 I K. xxii. 49 (both passages from the redactor) ships 
 that really went to Tarshish or at least sailed on the 
 Mediterranean are intended.' But a keener criticism will 
 only allow three passages in which, even plausibly, 
 tO-'mnn nr^N (■'3n), ' Tarshish-ships,' can be read.^ These 
 are i K. x. 22, xxii. 49, and 2 Chr. ix. 21. The first 
 is our passage ; the third, the parallel in Chr. ; in the 
 second, we should probably follow @ which has simply 
 (eTTotTjo-e) vr\a<;, and it is open to us to hold that ©■'ffinn is 
 a variant to rrT'Slw, tl>"'min being a corruption of n"i2)N, which 
 was probably, like Sheba, the name of more than one part 
 of Arabia (cp. Jer. x. 9, where ' Tarshish,' i.e. ' Asshur,' is 
 parallel to ' Uphaz,' i.e. Ophir). — Returning now to i K. 
 x. 22«, it is well to take it in conjunction with 2 Chr. 
 ix. 21, applying, however, a keen criticism to the text 
 of both passages. Probably the original passage ran 
 somewhat as follows, DTTT ■'"OS DS m"'mnn "^brt fjfpfi^ ^n ■'3. 
 □3, which in MT. follows Ppah, may have come from ]D3 
 ( = 7Nom"'3) ; if so, it is a geographical gloss stating that 
 ' Asshur ' (' Tarshish ' !) was in (the southern) Jerahmeel. 
 On the origin of the word Cttrin see E. Bid., ' Tarshish.' 
 
 X. 22 ^, Q"'i|3n"i n^pp"! Disrr^to . . . nnN, i.e. the ships 
 returned once in three years bringing gold and silver, and 
 also some animate or inanimate objects which critics find 
 it diflScult to determine. According to Benz. and Kittel, 
 vv. 20b (or at least 21, Ki.)-22 belong to a later writer 
 (perhaps the redactor), so that Kittel finds it justifiable to 
 suppose that the writer is aware of voyages to India, and 
 transfers such voyages to the time of Solomon. But, as we 
 shall see, a fuller criticism renders this supposition of voyages 
 
 1 See E. Bib., col. 4899, with note 4 ; and cp. col. 4685 
 
 (^ Snlnmnn.' 8 A\. 
 
». 28 FIRST KINGS 333 
 
 to India unnecessary. Either the □"'Dp and the n''"'3n are 
 different sorts of aromatic oil (see Amarna Tablets, E. Bib., 
 190), in which case D^'im© should perhaps be read D''2n» ; 
 or '3m should be read Dnm ■'JIM (see Klost. in note), in 
 which case underneath both 'p and 'n the Ass. hipindu (see 
 E . Bib., ' Peacocks,' ' Topaz ') has been suspected ; or the 
 three terms are virtually ethnics, viz. ^msdw "lal and Qinaso 
 or QTiim (underlying both QiDp and Qiian). The last- 
 mentioned view is the best, onw, whether as the name of 
 a precious stone or as a personal name, probably comes 
 from f?N»nB)% and ^^n in the Psalter is a relic of nDi>a. 
 If so, (DTQm) aTiSSOl 'omi ■'31 is the continuation of (or 
 a gloss upon) v. 15, which, as we have seen, contains 
 the ethnic names of Solomon's N. Arabian tributaries. 
 Indeed, v. 22a as explained above, should properly stand 
 after vv. 1 4 /i If it be asked how Solomon came to have 
 so much gold, the answer is, because the king's servants 
 were wont to go periodically to Asshur, and bring thence 
 gold and silver. 
 
 X. 25. This verse too, now becomes clear. S. A. Cook 
 led the way to the truth by the suggestion {Exp.Tx. 27 g/.) 
 that (g's o-TaKTrjv represented no, and that this should be 
 combined with MT's ptD3. The true reading, however, is not 
 Q-'prnano (Ass. mAr-niske, 'young steeds,' Del. Ass. HWB, 
 391^), but pmo-mN = Dm3-Di«. mo^to = lof?© = the Sal- 
 maeans, or = 7Ni>Qm\ D''Dajn = D''^Mi>Offl"' (cp. nomi, iv. 15). 
 D^DID = aiffilS. nms = QTnEJN or DTims. Cp. on Isa. Ixvi. 20, 
 Zech. xiv. 15, Ezra ii. 66 f. (similar errors). Thus 'vessels 
 of silver and of gold ' are the whole tribute. 
 
 X. 26. Another version of v. 6. Read, ' And Solomon 
 gathered together Rehobites (D'^nrn) and Zaraphites (Dim:j); 
 be had four thousand (so @) Rehobites, and twelve thousand 
 Zaraphites, whom he placed (orilll) in the cities of Rehob 
 and with the king in Jerusalem.' inn and nilhn, QiQ-is and 
 n'^nsiS (cp. Neh. iii. 8, 31/) are, of course, synonymous. 
 
 X. 28 / After Lenormant {Origims, iii. 9), Winckler 
 {Alttest. Unters. 173 ; AOF^^'^x. 28 ; (7/ ii. 265) and Hommel 
 {Gesch. Bab. u. Ass. 610, n. 3) ; the scholars to be consulted 
 for corrections of this difficult passage are P. Ruben 
 {JQR X. 543) and the present writer {E. Bib., ' Mizraim,' 
 
334 CRITIC A BIBLICA k. 28 
 
 \ 2 a, col. 3163). But is the result entirely satisfactory? 
 So much, indeed, is perfectly clear, that Egypt (Misraim) 
 was not the country from which Solomon was likely to have 
 imported horses, but that he might very possibly have im- 
 ported them from a N. Syrian land called Musri (Misrim)^ 
 and the adjoining district of Kue (mp ?), or E. Cilicia. 
 There is, however, some improbability in Winckler's and 
 my own former view of the passage. (i) Though pos- 
 sible, it is at any rate unlikely that a N. Syrian Misrim 
 should be referred to here, considering that everywhere 
 else Qin^D means either Egypt or the Musri in N. 
 Arabia. (2) Though possible, it is somewhat improbable 
 that such an odd-looking place-name as mp should be 
 correct, considering that elsewhere equally odd-looking 
 names, such as Shoa and Koa in Ezek. xxiii. 23, Helek 
 and Gammadim in Ezek. xxvii. 1 1, plausibly identified by 
 archaeologists, can be still more reasonably explained as 
 corruptions of N. Arabian names. And when we scrutinise 
 the words of the passage in MT. and ^, we are struck by 
 several phenomena favourable to the view that some part 
 of N. Arabia is referred to. For instance, where MT. has 
 mpo, ® has eV TeKone, i.e. sipntp, a reading which the 
 ordinary criticism (see Kittel, Chron., Heb., SBOT, p. 72) is 
 unable to explain. Now there was a ripn in the Negeb, 
 as Jer. vi. 1 1 shows (see Crit. Bib. ad loc^. It is not, 
 however, this ' Tekoa ' that will be meant, if ®'s text is 
 correct, but some other district called 'Tekoa' or rather 
 ' Maacath ' (for ' Tekoa ' is a popular distortion of Maacath), 
 still more to the south. In the Hexapla we find another 
 reading, e'/c Keaa (cp. 2 Chr. i. 1 6 Nlpo) ; now s^p in Ezek. 
 xxiii. 23, according to the best theory of the reference ■ 
 of chap, xxiii., is a corruption of najja.^ And Luc. 
 
 1 P. Haupt makes a reasonable suggestion. ' It seems almost certain 
 that in several passages of OT the final d in MT. onsD represents a later 
 addition due to a misunderstanding, and that the original reading in 
 such cases may have been '-isp. MT. onuD was no doubt often written 
 'nsD' (postscript to note on x. '28 in Stade's Kings, SBOT). Winckler 
 writes Musri ; Haupt prefers Musr, the / being the genitive ending, im- 
 plying a prefixed mdt, ' country (of).' 
 
 2 In Crit. Bib., p. 100, by an oversight, vip is equated with H»am.. 
 This is possible, but Vipn and yip are most easily explained as above. 
 
X. 28 FIRST KINGS 335 
 
 gives the additional words koX e/c Aafiaa-Kov ; now pffioT 
 (see on Isa. xvii. i-ii) often represents Dm^3, i.e. Cusham 
 in N. Arabia. Next, turning to MT. we find, joined 
 to the second n^po, the improbable word Tno3. ' Im- 
 probable,' I call it, for why should such a vague phrase 
 be used? It is obvious that without payment no horses 
 could have been obtained ; it is also obvious (unless our 
 widening experience of corruptions is to be allowed no 
 weight) that T;nQ here, as in Jer. xv. 13, may very well 
 have come from arrv ( — ht^DTTV). In short, we are led 
 to suspect that T^nol mpa has come from ^NonT'l nDrea 
 (we may omit the last two words oi v. 28 as a gloss). It is 
 but little less probable that rr^sm which follows TTrnl, and 
 which has been ingeniously regarded as a technical term 
 (rhs, ' to be estimated ') has grown out of a dittographed 
 ^NoriTn (d and n, n and n confounded). Looking on 
 further, we notice DTI (' by their means ' ?). Now, as a 
 study of Isa. x. 5 (see Crit. Bib.) will show, this may very 
 well have come from ^ndht or ^mdhtI (omit as a gloss). 
 It is true that, as Ezek. xxvii. 14 is given in MT., horses 
 were imported into Palestine from Togarmah, which is 
 supposed to mean Armenia. The precariousness of this 
 view, however, is extreme ; in a strictly revised text 
 Togarmah becomes ' Beth - gomer' = ' Beth- jerahmeel,' and 
 the ' horses, and horsemen, and mules ' also become trans- 
 formed, while the importing country is not Tyre, but 
 Missor in N. Arabia. According to the same text (v. 20) 
 the source whence Missor obtained q-^ttid^ was Dedan. 
 We may perhaps venture to find the same word for some 
 costly young animal in i K. x. 29 (for iinb point "'"irip). 
 Lastly, we are struck by the reference to the kings of the 
 DTin and of mw. Now we have met with southern D'^nn 
 and a southern Aram so often that we have a right, when 
 
 1 On TnD see E. Bib., col. 2112, f- ; and cp. Del. Ass. HWB s.v. 
 suMru. What kind of young animal is meant by suMru is uncertain. 
 It is mentioned (see Del., op. cit., p. 173) after bakru, 'young camels' 
 (collective). In i K. v. 8 [iv. 28] the AV. renders i!'3T (which may be 
 explained as a popular corruption of thd) ' dromedaries.' Prof. Haupt's 
 remark (in Stade's Kings, SBOT) suMru 'does not mean horse,' 
 but ' might perhaps denote the suckling colt of an ass ' is not destructive 
 of the above view. We may still hope for more light. 
 
336 CRITICA BIBLICA xi. i 
 
 these names come before us, to think in the first instance 
 of these southern peoples ; DTin, in fact, represents 
 D"'niin"! and Dl« is a very early abbreviation of SNnm\ 
 And it is not unimportant here to recall the fact that 
 Hadad-ezer, who was so troublesome to David, was well 
 provided with horses, and that Hadad-ezer's kingdom was 
 on the N. Arabian border of Judah (see Crit. Bib., p. 274/), 
 He was, in fact, to apply the language of i K. x. 29 (see 
 above) a ' king of Aram in Jerahmeel.' Having all this in 
 view we cannot hesitate to read w. 2% f. thus, ' And the 
 exportation of Solomon's horses was from Misrim, and 
 from Maacah were fetched the king's subirs. And a 
 chariot was exported from Misrim for six hundred pieces 
 of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty. And on 
 these terms they were exported to the kings of the 
 Rehobothites and to the kings of Aram.' Gloss on 'from 
 Maacath' {v. 28), and on 'Aram' {v. 29), 'in Jerahmeel.' 
 
 We are therefore bound to suppose that there were 
 districts of N. Arabia, called respectively Misrim and 
 Maacah, from which horses were imported. Misrim was 
 a wide region, so that in Ezek. xxvii. 20 the king of 
 Missor ( = Misrim) can be said to have obtained his subirs 
 from Dedan. According to Winckler, the Misrite kingdom 
 extended to Medina, and, according to Glaser, we have 
 to place the seats of the tribe of Dedan N. of that place, 
 In Judg. i. 19, the Maacathites are said to have had 
 ' chariots of iron.' Stade in SBOT denies the possibility of 
 reference to Arabia. But there are too many passages re- 
 ferring to chariots and horses of Misrim, Aram, and Ashhur 
 to warrant this incredulity. Isa. xxxi. i, quoted by Stade, 
 refers not to Egypt but to Musri. Mi§rim was no doubt an 
 extensive region. 
 
 Chap. xi. 1-8. We cannot by the older methods 
 restore the approximately correct text either of the 
 original narrative or of the additions which, as all critics 
 (with many differences of detail) agree, were made to that 
 narrative. For the results of the newer methods see 
 E. Bib., 'Solomon,' § 10. It is very doubtful whether 
 the early narrator said anything about any other wives 
 of Solomon but the Misrite princess. The original state- 
 
xi. 22 FIRST KINGS 337 
 
 ment probably was to the effect that 'there Solomon built 
 a sanctuary for the god of Cusham and the god of Jerah- 
 meel,' i.e. for the god worshipped by his Misrite wife.^ It 
 is not, however, to a supplementer, but to corruption of the 
 text, that we may ascribe the statement that Solomon had 
 seven hundred princely wives and three hundred concubines ; 
 both niND rntD and niNO Xlhw are corruptions of nvf?N270a>"'. 
 It is one of the commonest phenomena — the transformation 
 of ethnic names into numerals. The other corruptions 
 (popular and other) of ethnics have been pointed out in 
 E. Bib. {l.c.) ; they are the familiar ones, such as 'nwo for 
 'nSD, '3DS for 'f?«Dm^ 'ms (perhaps) for 'mw (note that ® 
 gives a choice of three readings, 'o~im, 'dIn, and Son), 'di^j 
 from SlJD (cp. on xvii. 9), 'nn from 'mm. 
 
 xi. 14-22. I have already examined this as well as I 
 could in JQR, July 1899, pp. 551-568 ; cp. Winckler {GI 
 ii. [1900] 269-273), whose results to some extent agree 
 independently with my own. I cannot think this unim- 
 portant, though Burney, even in his ' Additions,' p. 380, 
 makes no reference to it. It was already made as plain as 
 possible in my article (with which Winckler on this point 
 coincides) that the refuge sought by Hadad (and by Jero- 
 boam) was not in Egypt but in the N. Arabian Musri. For 
 some of the other results which, rightly or wrongly, I seemed 
 to have gained, see E. Bib., ' Genubath,' ' Hadad,' 3. It 
 may now be possible to improve some of the details, (a) 
 Who was Hadad ? According to MT. and @ an Edomite. 
 Rather, as Winckler (GI ii. 270), an Arammite — i.e. a man 
 of the southern, not (as Wi.) of the northern, Aram. And 
 whether we consider sin ihan STro (MT.) or TT^'hiiin 'lQ (@) 
 to be the more original reading, the authentic reading is 
 neither the one nor the other but SNonT' 'to, ' of the race of 
 Jerahmeel' (for rr3lf?Q, cp. on 2 K. xxv. 25, Jer. xli. i). 
 anNl (onNl) has come in from the next verse. See on 
 Gen. xxxvi. 35. 
 
 (b) What was the occasion of Hadad's flight? It was 
 
 1 That eriDz is a very early modification of de-id, and both n'?D and dd'^d 
 of hxam', is, from a text-critical point of view, highly probable. In the 
 original text, however, which underlies v. 7 nmi and ^nonT probably 
 meant, not the gods, but the people, of Cusham and Jerahmeel. 
 
338 CRITICA BIBLICA xi. 23 
 
 the conquest of a large part of Aram or Jerahmeelby David 
 (cp. 2 S. viii. S /i, 1 3 f^, which was followed by a census of 
 the male population, with a view to the imposition of a 
 corvie (see p. 308). Read in vv. 15/ nhsn^ (for nrm, with 
 Bottcher), □i^NonT'-nM 'i\>^ (for D-i^fpHn-nN n3p^), nna^i 
 (for T"i), yr^ (for ninan). 
 
 (f) Hadad's reception in Misrim. "iNns or "li^is (not 
 ^T^^D) gives him a house and a wife. The latter was the 
 sister of Pir'u's wife ; her name is given in MT. as Tahpenes, 
 in @ as deK^OT 'x)e/j{e]iva. The Hebrew form reminds one 
 of DHiDnn ; the Greek of OeKefiavei, which in ® of 2 S. 
 xxiii. 8 corresponds to "'Doartn. Now both 'ann and 'ann 
 ultimately proceed from ^NonT' (pp. 52, 203). The precise 
 form of the name is unimportant ; what is significant is the 
 circumstance that the early tradition gave Hadad's wife a 
 Jerahmeelite name. m''3-in, for which @ preserves two 
 alternatives, t?js fieC^co (m"'23n) and ttjv Trpecr^vTepav] 
 (Trr'Djin), is corrupt. We expect a clan-name ; probably we 
 should read rrnpan, ' the Bicrite.' The Bicrites were a 
 Jerahmeelite clan ; cp. on 2 S. xx. i. (In v. ig read -m 
 for the second mriN, and in z'. 20 omit mnN and DDSnn.) 
 
 xi. 22 /■ On ' Rezon,' see E. Bib., s.v., but cp. also on 
 ' Jehoiada,' 2 K. xi. 4. On ' Hadad-ezer ' and ' Zobah ' see 
 pp. 274/; For piODI see on xix. 1 5, Isa. xvii. i, where it is 
 pointed out that a city in the southern Aram is meant. D^ID 
 is suggested. This must be nearly right ; cp. ffiip for IDID. 
 But most probably '-\, like miN, ^TIN, etc., is a compound 
 name, and comes from tlJ3"Dn«. C. Niebuhr {Gesch. des Ebr. 
 Zeit, i. 137, n. 3) has suggested ntop QT;n — a step in the 
 right direction. It is to the Jerahmeelite country in a wide 
 sense that this notice necessarily points. 
 
 xi. 26-40. See E. Bib., 'Jeroboam,' i, where the Mis- 
 rite origin of Jeroboam's mother is shown. The nsns and 
 n^ofjN of MT. in V. 26 come respectively from njISp and 
 JT'^Nom"' (cp. on vii. 1 4, xvii. 9,2 K. v. i , xv. 5 ; the tto/svi? 
 of xii. 24^ (®""), i-e. nj'lt, represents rc^MrDtC^ (see on Judg. 
 xi. I ). Jeroboam himself was an ' Ephrathite ' ; it is the 
 Ephrath in the Negeb which is referred to (cp. on Gen. 
 XXXV. 1 9). ' Zeredah ' (nms) or ' Zererah ' (Judg. vii. 22) is 
 almost certainly ' Zarephath ' (see, further, on xiv. 1 7), while 
 
xii. 25 FIRST KINGS 339 
 
 the name DSIT' itself comes from Ssm^ i.e. f?Nnm^ Nebat, 
 too (see E. Bib., s.v.), may be a N. Arabian name. Cp. 
 D-'3E3n, probably from cm^, 'Nebatites' (Josh. xi. 26). — 27. 
 Mi'pQn, probably from 'pnqtIT' [n-'l] ; see on ix. 15, 2 S. v. 9. 
 
 xi. 28. For *)p"v rria read probably 'pnsoQ)"' JT'n (see on 
 Am. vi. 5 /). Possibly, too, ^ID is a corruption of 7N5om'' 
 (see on Ps. Ixxxi. 7). If so, Jeroboam's office was that of 
 Tp3. or governor, of ' all Ishmael.' See on 2 S. xx. 26, 
 end. 
 
 xi. 29. For n^BJlTQ read fjMSDffi'^D (see on 2 S. xv. 11); 
 Beth-ishmael (or Beth-jerahmeel) is meant. The ' Shiloh ' 
 from which Ahijah came was in the Negeb (see on i S. i. 3, 
 and cp. E. Bib., ' Shiloh,' § 5, end). 
 
 xi. 40. pm-'tD, @ a-ovaaKeiiL ( = D''pmitr>), are corruptions 
 of mi3 and n^'tOia respectively. The king intended is the 
 same called iNnn in the true text of xi. 18. He was king 
 of Misrim, but might quite well be, racially, a Cushite. 
 Winckler's view that '» is here an interpolation (my own 
 view also in JQR, 1899) is therefore unnecessary. See 
 discussion in E. Bib., ' Shishak,' § 3 ; also on xiv. 25. 
 
 Chap. xii. 1-20. That the original story of the separa- 
 tion of the kingdoms was much edited is plain from a com- 
 parison of MT. and of @ (cp. Burney, pp. 164/). Both 
 MT. and ®, however, erroneously assert that the ultimate 
 cause of the separation was the hard labour exacted from 
 the Israelites by Solomon, whereas the detailed evidence 
 before us (see on chaps, iv., v.) supports the statement 
 expressly made in ix. 20-22 that the corvie was imposed on 
 non-Israelites only. And though, as Benz. points out, the 
 LXX. (S^) may contain, in xii. 24 n, 0, the fragmentary be- 
 ginning of a second account of the great event representing 
 a different point of view from that given in the rest of S^ 
 and in MT., yet this, too, contains details which are, histori- 
 cally, very improbable. All that we can be sure of is that 
 there was a national assembly, at which Jeroboam was 
 solemnly recognised as king, and that this took place at the 
 place commonly called Shechem, but more properly Cusham 
 (see on Gen. xxxiii. 1 8, and E. Bib., ' Rehoboam '). 
 
 xii. 25-32, 33. Very difficult (see Kittel, and cp. E. Bib., 
 'Shechem,' § 3). In z/. 25 (i) why is Shechem, or rather 
 
340 CRITICA BIBLICA xi 
 
 Cusham, described as ' in Mt. Ephraim ' ? To distinguis 
 from other places of the same name. The full nam( 
 Cusham was Cusham-jerahmeel (see on Gen. xlviii. 22, 
 E. Bib., ' Shechem,' § 2, end) ; now there was a Mt. Epht 
 in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see on i S. i. i). (2) I 
 comes it to be said that Jeroboam resided in Shed 
 rather than in Tirzah, and why is Penuel specially n 
 tioned ? Nowhere again is Penuel mentioned in the r 
 period. Add to this, that v. 25 is singularly isolated. 
 Visual to regard it as a separate fragment of old mate 
 But may not a study of the text reveal an underlying ea 
 form which would fit in with vv. 26 ff.} Klostermann 
 an ingenious suggestion, but perhaps the following is ne 
 to MT., fjMnffii ■'Di ^Nsoto-'D insTi^T D-^nnt vu^i'^^ q-'idn . . . 
 For 'i ms-'l, cp. V. 27 ; for 'n"'"i, 2 Chr. xi. 13 ; for ntt) 
 ]DQ)D = ^WomiD, cp. Isa. Hi. 1 1 . For omission of s in i 
 cp. DH^N for D:?n-^N in v. 28. Probably the southern Be 
 was near Cusham (Judg. xxi. 19). Vv. 26-33 really su] 
 an explanation oi v. 25 (as here read). — In v. 27 i 
 perhaps right to assume that later ideas of the sup( 
 sanctity of the temple at Jerusalem have influenced 
 present form of the passage. But it is more probable 
 D"?Q>1T' has come from fjNSDtD'^, and that the speaker nn 
 the old temple of Kirjath-jerahmeel (K.-jearim), where 
 ark was at the accession of David (see on 2 S. vi.). — V. 
 For ■hys ■>3» read probably either ^NOm"' [SnsdB)"'] or 
 ['d©'']. t&3N, pm and 0130 sometimes come from 'dBJ'' ; 
 may not i2B> ? And if in Hos. xiii. 2b tihya should be 
 (see also on v. 32), why may not' 'hiys have that origin h 
 hys may, indeed, also be supported by Hosea (see '. 
 viii. 5, X. 5 [®]), but it is not likely either that the nair 
 Jeroboam's God was unmentioned, or that it was menti( 
 in vv. 29-31 (see below), while in vv. 28, 32, tihys, 'cal 
 was substituted for it. Now as to the name of the < 
 In vv. 28, 32 [D]'^Sli», and in z;. 31 xsnxh cover over res 
 tively fjNoriT' and nnDJN[^]. In fact, it is possible that 
 of the names under which the early Israelites worshi] 
 their supreme Deity was the compound name "illSN [W 
 ^MQm\ The evidence for this is naturally not on 
 surface, but it seems to be none the less real (see on ' 
 
xiv. 10 FIRST KINGS 34' 
 
 xvii. I, Ex. iii. 14, vi. 2, also on Gen. xiv. 18, xxi. 33). 
 Considering that the chief sanctuaries were in the Negeb, 
 and that bull-symbols were used in the temple at Jerusalem, 
 also that ' Steer (Tn^) of Jacob ' (or ' Israel ') was an archaic 
 title of Yahw^, we cannot wonder either that Jeroboam made 
 a bull-image (cp. Ex. xxxii. 4) of his God, or that he identi- 
 fied his God with the God who had led Israel out of Misrim. 
 The place where the idolatrous symbol was, seems to have 
 been the southern Bethel. (Point D-'iSp.) — V. 29. For Trniirf 
 (first) read fpNom"' (see on i S. i. i), and omit the closing 
 words. — V. 30. For nnwrr again read 'm*' ; omit pni;. — ; 
 V. 32. For trhysh read fjNoriT^ (see on Hos. xiii. 2b). 
 The other corrections will be best exhibited in a connected 
 attempt to restore the text oi vv. 31-33 : — 
 
 : 'in in 
 
 The names ninffiN, fpNOnT and jd"" caused the scribe much 
 trouble. There is hardly any doubt that they did occur 
 again and again in the original text, the narrator having been 
 anxious to prevent the misunderstanding which, after the 
 text had become corrupt, actually occurred. It is amusing 
 to see how all we critics have been taken in by tiST\ nispD, 
 by the supposed names of the months, and by the enigmati- 
 cal -chn «ni ntON. For the former phrase, cp. on 2 K. xvii. 3 2, 
 Judg. xviii. 2. The editor was more opposed to Jeroboam 
 than the original narrator. 
 
 Chap. xiii. 32. On pnom "^s, see on 2 K. xvii. 26. 
 
 Chap. xiv. 10. Cp. on i S. xxv. 22. — 17. mnn. On 
 the situation of Tirzah, and on the true form of the name, 
 see E. Bib., ' Tirzah,' and ' Zarethan,' § 3, where rm2 or rm2t 
 (see on xi. 26), the crapeipa of @, and nsnn are identified 
 with nans, 'Zarephath.' Winckler's view {AT. Unters. 14) 
 that the reading rrr\r\ (v. 1 7) is an ' alteration,' caused by 
 the transference of the sickness of Abijah into the period 
 after Jeroboam's accession, is unnecessary, now that we have 
 
342 CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 XIV. 21 
 
 (as it seems) attained a truer view of the traditional history 
 of Solomon and Jeroboam. 
 
 xiv. 2 1. So 2 Chr. xii. 13. But is rvyiys strictly- 
 correct ? Hardly. The addition in @ (see on 2 S. x. i, 
 xi. I ) suggests that 'Di> = n'^'^NDm"' ; but it is also possible 
 that we should read rr'SJ^ (see E. Bib., ' Rehoboam '). Note 
 also the fiaaxa/J' of (3^ (cp. xv. 2). — 23. to~ip may come 
 from ■itp^3, a collective, = ' Cushite priests,' a synonym for 
 £D"'1t33, i.e. ' Jerahmeelite priests.' See on xv. 12, 2 K. 
 xxiii. 5, 7. — 25. pffiitD (Kt.) or pm^w (Kr.), i.e. ^mn or iri 
 (cp. ^W^p, I Chr. vi. 29). Even if Shoshenk I. really invaded 
 Palestine, which is hardly proved by the grand sculptures 
 on the south wall of the great temple of Karnak, it is not this 
 invasion which is referred to here, but a raid of the Misrites 
 of N. Arabia. For the arguments, see E. Bib., ' Shishak,' 
 
 1 3. In this connection note @'s addition respecting the 
 spoil taken from Hadadezer by David, and now taken by 
 ^ovcraKeifi. The colouring is all N. Arabian. 
 
 Chap. xv. i (xiv. 31, xv. 1,7, bis, 8). d''1n ( = )n; 3T»), 
 like in"'lM, ultimately means 'tiTW ini;, ' Jerahmeelite Arabia.' 
 Thus both forms are strictly correct. For another view of 
 D"'1M, see Jastrow, JBL, xiii. 114 (1894). — 2. m^Q)"'lN-rQ, but 
 in 2 Chr. xiii. 2 bNiTiN-ni. Both ■'ilN and "'In may come 
 from ["ijns ; Ql^tO from fjNSDtOi (see on 2 S. iii. 3). The 
 queen-mother, then, was of the Negeb or N. Arabian border- 
 land ; her name ' Maachah ' corresponds. The ' Gibeah ' of 
 
 2 Chr. is probably ' Gibeath-jerahmeel ' (see on Jer. iii. 23/). 
 Cp. E. Bib., ' Maacah;' 3. — 10. Pesh. gives as this Maacah's 
 father's name whxo lli>, where ~\i:i is a corruption of ans 
 (cp. on vv. I /). — 12. Q'lffinpn, perhaps from D"'t»"i3n (cp. 
 Ezekiel's objection to N. Arabian temple-ministers, Ezek. 
 xliv. 7, 9, and see above, on xiv. 24). Just afterwards the 
 gillulim, i.e. images of Jerahmeel (see on xiii. 30), are very 
 naturally referred to. 
 
 XV. 1 3. Possibly mtON^? was appended to ns^SD by the 
 redactor, .who may have supposed 'dd to mean ' idol' (cp. ®, 
 2 Chr. XV. 16). If not, mtBN'? will have to be taken as a 
 gloss = ' with reference to Asherah.' For with our present 
 experience we can hardly doubt that niifjsa (about which 
 even the latest critics are hopeless) is a corruption of 
 
xvi. 9 FIRST KINGS 343 
 
 nhiiS'CXtr. The great N. Arabian goddess (consort, probably, 
 of Ashtor) was called sometimes Cushith (see on xvii. 19), 
 sometimes 'queen of Ishmael' see on Jer. iii. 23 /i, vii. 18). 
 Another corruption is Mazzaloth (2 K. xxiii. 5); indeed, 
 Klost, on grounds of his own, would read ni^tD here. Note 
 that @'s Ta? KaraSuo-et? = TOI'Ci (a variant). ' Kidron ' ; see 
 on 2 S. XV. 23. — 16. NtDsl, probably from ^NSDt!}\ Cp. 
 ' Baaseiah,' i Chr. vi. 40, from ' Maaseiah,' i.e. Ishma'-jerah. 
 The corruption arose very early, for Ba'sa was the name of 
 an Ammonite king (temp. Shalmaneser) ; Del. Par. 294. 
 
 XV. 18. ^^^-p. Perhaps a Hebraised form of Bir-dadda 
 {E. Bib., col. 3861, note 3). jsnita, probably not a personal 
 name, but a corruption either of Beth- or of Rabbath-jerah- 
 meel. )Vin may come from \vyn = bNortT' ; if so, it is a 
 gloss either on ]cn or on mN (Ben-hadad was king of the 
 southern Aram). See E. Bib., col. 41 12. — Read db^3 
 (xi. 24). — 20. The cities should be in the Israelite portion 
 of the Negeb. \vs, either from p'j-'N or from ps. p ; see 
 on Judg. xviii. 28 (near Beth-rehob). hlt^ an element in 
 several place-names, =Jerahmeel (cp. on 2 S. xx. 14). 
 711133, by the western shore of the Jerahmeelite sea (n33, like 
 ]"nnN, represents ^NDriT^), equivalent to "''jnaa pN'Sa, which 
 is a gloss upon '33 ^3 (omit hs, as a dittographed ^3). ® 
 in 2 Chr. xvi. 4 favours this. 
 
 XV. 23/; The cities fortified by Asa are not only Geba 
 of (the southern) Benjamin and Mizpah, but a place the 
 name of which, in two forms, underlies rhn "in3p1 Tiih pT 
 V^ITDN ('diseased in his feet' !). The name is Racal (i S. 
 xxx.29),'glossed Jerahmeel. Read [S'NDm"' riNl] cnp ^Ti riNl. 
 
 XV. 25, 27. Note the Negeb names, Nadab (i Chr. 
 ii. 28), Baasha ( = Ishmael), Ahijah (i S. xiv. 3). ' Issachar,' 
 too, comes from ' Ashhur.' ' Gibbethon ' is harder. It was 
 a Philistine, i.e. Zarephathite, city (xvi. 15); in Josh. xix. 44, 
 however, it is Danite. Should we read ny^l ? Cp. n3''3 or 
 {&) TiTO., I K. xvi. 21/; •'3'13, Gen. xlvi. 24. Or is it = 
 Gibeah of Phinehas (cp. ®^*'- r^a^aQav), i.e. Gib. of Jerahmeel, 
 which Josh. xxiv. 3 3 places in (the southern) Ephraim ? Cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Gibbethon,' 
 
 Chap. xvi. 9. inpt, a N. Arabian name. Cp. E. Bib., 
 'Zimri,' 'Zimran.' — 16. 'nas, clearly analogous to ^not. Cp. 
 
344 CRITICA BIBLICA xvi. 29 
 
 ■'noN, ■'QiN, both probably = hvi.rm''. — 24. pnom or potfr 
 (point so), from the clan-name notO. Stade's argument for 
 ]npm in ZATW V. 165 ^. is very strong. It is merely con- 
 venience which may induce us to follow MT. and point 
 Jinom. The pointing jnom adopted by MT., where the 
 capital of Israel is concerned, is clearly inaccurate. See 
 E. Bib., 'Samaria,' § r, with note 2, ' Shimri,' 'Shimron,' 
 and cp. Burney's rhum^ of Stade, pp. 216 f. One important 
 point must, however, be added — the clan-name Shemer 
 probably belongs to the Negeb. In i Chr. vi. 46 / not!) is 
 the son of i^no ( ="'^NnnT), and in vii. 34 noto is the father 
 of inN (also = ''nT); cp. v. 32, noitc son of iin (a Negeb 
 name, Judg. iv. 11). 
 
 xvi. 29. INTiM (Ass. Ababbu) a Jerahmeelite name, as 
 appears ( i ) from the name of our Ahab's father, Omri ; (2) 
 from Jer. xxix. 21,' Ahab ben Kolaiah,' where nffpip, accord- 
 ing to analogy (cp. on "hyp, Ps. Ixxvii. 2), represents fpNDrtT; 
 (3) from the name DNTIN given to one of David's warriors, 
 presumably of the Negeb, 2 S. xxiii. 33.' The explanations 
 of a supposed name, ' father's brother ' (see, e.g., Nold., E. 
 Bib., ' Names,' § 65, Ulmer, Die semit. Eigennamen, i. 14 ^. 
 [early polyandry ; after Winckler]), or ' the (or my) brother 
 is the father,' are strained. Here, as in all similar cases, 
 the popular wit has played us a trick. The original meaning 
 of Ah'ab, or (Nold.) Ahi'ab, was probably ' Jerahmeel-'ardb ' 
 (cp. on Q13M, XV. i). This may not have been remembered 
 in Ahab's time ; nevertheless the fact that this king bore a 
 Jerahmeelite name is significant in the light of the very full 
 narratives, the scene of which is in the Negeb. 
 
 xvi. 3 1 . After the ' sins of Jeroboam,' i.e. his introduc- 
 tion of Jerahmeelite religion, the writer mentions Ahab's 
 marriage with SlfN,^ i.e. [n"']^NSD2)'' ; cp. fjinT ^i;3 below ; also 
 D"'^i>n, Jer. xl. 14 {Crit. Bib.). The name of the queen's 
 father, ^ririM, is also, like Snn (cp. also on Di^llJa, Ezek. 
 xxiii. 15, and on mriTiN, i S. xvii. 34), a form of 'Dtl)\ 
 which had attained an independent existence. This ' Eth- 
 baal ' was king of the Qi^TlJ. Who were these people ? 
 According to Judg. xviii. 7 they were at any rate in the 
 
 1 Marquart (Fund. 24) prefers ^?!'3m. If right, this should mean 
 'de" any.. 
 
xvii. 1 FIRST KINGS 345 
 
 same region as wh (see on i S. xviii. 17); according to 
 xvii. 9 the land of jlTijj included Zarephath. It is at any 
 rate possible that the people called '1 were people of the 
 Negeb. The considerations which make this view in the 
 highest degree probable will be found collected in E. Bib., 
 ' Prophecy,' §§ 6 / Both nis (^l) and pTS (]1!5) are possible, 
 and often probable, corruptions of Tiap (or niap). Jezebel's 
 hil was therefore the Baal of Ishmael, corruptly called 
 mi'r ^i>l = ^"Qt '1 (see on 2 K. i. 2). Cp. on 2 K. x. i?> ff., 
 and E. Bib., col. 4683. 
 
 xvi. 34. The names are Negeb names. Jericho = 
 Jerahmeel. Hiel = Ahiel = Ahijah (see on i S. xiv. 3). 
 Bethel, see on xii. 29, Am. vii. g f. Abiram = 'Ar4b-jerah- 
 meel. Segub (on the name, see E. Bib. s.v., and ' Reuben,' 
 § 11) is father of Jair = Jerahmeel (i Chr. ii. 21 f.). 
 
 Chap. xvii. i. -ri;^i iiano ■'ntonrr. Most critics try to 
 make out that there was a place in Gilead called Tishbe, 
 referring to Tob. i. 2, where ©la^r] in Galilee is mentioned, 
 and supposing that ~\shy is appended to ■'^Bjn in i K. xvii. i , 
 to distinguish Elijah's Tishbe from the Tishbfe in Galilee. 
 The supposition, however, of two Tishbe's is very improbable. 
 It would be better to correct ToKetXaLa in Tobit into TaXaa^, 
 or (rather) to suppose that in the Hebrew text "[J-^y (the 
 original reading) had got corrupted into h'hy (the two words 
 are easily confounded). It is true, this leads us into a fresh 
 difficulty. Tob. i. 2 describes ©kt^j) as being in Naphtali 
 as well as (ex hyp^ in Gilead. If, therefore, the proposed 
 reading be adopted, we shall have to suppose that two 
 discordant readings were placed by the redactor side by side. 
 But, however we read in Tob. i. 2, must we not admit that 
 the introduction of a plan, otherwise unknown (in the O.T.), 
 into the story of Elijah is improbable ? Did tradition really 
 connect the great prophet with an insignificant village ? 
 Klost, therefore, plausibly enough, proposes to read ''XhTr\ 
 tojp ; ^ Jabesh in Gilead was renowned in tradition. But 
 there is a more satisfactory solution of the problem. On 
 Tob. i. 2 no reliance can be placed ; the narrative of Tobit, 
 
 1 Bume)f's objection (p. 216) that 'aisinn would then have to be corrupt 
 six times over, is of no weight. Nothing, perhaps, is more clear than 
 that the text of the O.T. writings was harmonised with minute precision. 
 
 24 
 
346 CRITICA BIBLICA xvii. 3 
 
 like so many other narratives, has been edited in such a 
 way as to alter the historical and geographical references 
 (see on Tobit). Both in Tob. i. i (reading ' Gilead ') and in 
 I K. xvii. I the ' Gilead ' referred to is the southern Gilead, 
 and ■'Iffin represents (i) Tisns, (2) nmii (cp. the personal 
 names TiltO and asm = Tims and nsnt respectively). Elijah 
 then (the name ultimately = ' Jerahmeel '), like Moses (see 
 E. Bib., ' Moses,' §§ 4, 1 7), was connected by tradition with 
 Zarephath. This fits in perfectly with the most prob- 
 able explanation of TV\2 {v. 3), and is supported even by 
 MT. later on (see chap. xix.). See E. Bib., ' Zarephath.' 
 
 The ' unintelligible ' phrase (Klo.) rhi^T} D"'DTr should be 
 S'NonT'l, i.e. ' in the Negeb.' Both q-'Qi and nhi^n (see on 
 Josh. xi. 10) are current corruptions of f?NDm\ See on 
 xviii. I. 
 
 xvii. 3. nnip may = TiQpl, i.e. rhvfarw ; see E. Bib., 
 ' Rekem.' At any rate, ir-nD (cp. imD, ' Cherethite ') comes 
 from nim, and jiT^ from pm"', another of the independent 
 modifications of 'm"' (see on Josh, iii., 2 S. xvii. 22). — 4. 
 MT. D-'l-ii»n. It is an old idea that the 'ravens' should 
 perhaps be ' Arabians.' Though dismissed by Bochart, it 
 appeared not impossible to Clericus, and it gives the most 
 satisfactory sense (cp. Isa. xxi. 14). The 'commanding' 
 of the D"'ns corresponds with that of the rvxhvk {v. 9). 
 Cp. on m>, Judg. vii. 25. — 9. TOO^M. See on xi. 26. 
 
 Chap, xviii. i. Both riDm and wh^D are found as cor- 
 ruptions of ^«i)DtBi. Read probably 'ocn, 'in Ishmaer = 
 in the Negeb. Cp. on xvii. i (end). — 3 /. "1^■'^Di' perhaps 
 from irfms = 'm*' ins ; cp. on Judg. ix. 26, 2 S. vi. 10. See 
 on w. 13, from which, in its corrupt form, the statement in 
 V. 4 is derived. — 13. Read, 'I hid of Yahwe's prophets a 
 hundred men [Ishmaelites] in Jerahmeel.' D"'tBDn (in v. 4 
 only once) comes most probably from D"'f?NSDffi"' ^ (cp. on 
 D"'min, Ezek. xxvii. 24) ; so also does ffiiN. On msD 
 ( = 'm"'), see on i S. xxii. i . This is a gloss. The closing 
 words D"'D"l anh '^3N are, agreeably to parallels (see, e.g.,on 
 
 1 Another view is possible — that D'lS'Dn here and elsewhere {e.g. 2 S. 
 xxiv. 24, see p. 312) represents an original D'cn. But the view adopted 
 above is more probable ; cp. on v. 2 y!! [iv. 20]. y and n are sometimes 
 confounded; cp. nDi!"i, Isa. xxxix. 2 = yDii''i, 2 K. xx. 13. 
 
xix. 4 FIRST KINGS 347 
 
 iv. 7, XX. 27), three different corruptions of SNDm\ 
 ' Obadiah's ' talkativeness is now somewhat reduced. Cp. 
 E. Bib., col. 3860, note 6. 
 
 xviii. 1 9. ' Mount Carmel ' should be ' the highlands 
 of Jerahmeel,' as often. For msD :>nN (twice over) read 
 ('jMSOffl"') ^MonT ins; a gloss (see on 2 K. xiv. 13, and cp. 
 on Josh. xiv. 15). The Baal prophets were of 'Arab- jerah- 
 meel. D"'a)Dn["i], i.e. Q"'f?Ni?Qffi"' (see preceding note), is another 
 gloss. ■'93N (cp. on Isa. Ixvi. 17), ix. 7NDm"', is yet another. 
 f?irM \rhva probably comes from 'in "'mTOD, ' diviners of 
 Jezebel.' Observe that in vv. ig, 2t, @ has t^? ala')(vvr)<i 
 (for MT.'s fjsin), t.e. nmsn. This is probably not a con- 
 temptuous substitute for 7S3rr, but represents another reading, 
 viz. rctpSTl, ' the Cushite goddess.' The N. Arabian consort 
 of Baal-ashtor is meant. Cp. on xv. 13, Jer. iii. 23/! '3n 
 and mtDNn would be parallel. 
 
 xviii. 21. Benz., Kittel, and Burney still repeat the 
 same impossible explanations, in spite of Che. JQR, 1898, 
 pp. 568^, Jastrow, /5Z, 1898, pp. 108^., who have inde- 
 pendently completed the solution begun by Klostermann. 
 Surely D"'£3SD does not mean either ' opinions ' or ' knee- 
 cavities ' (yfvvai), and ' limping ' for QiriDS is unsuitable (see 
 below, on v. 26). Read d^'BdH (Klo.), and render, ' How long 
 will ye leap over both thresholds ? ' — i.e. enter with the same 
 scrupulous awe the sanctuaries of the two rival deities. Cp. 
 on Zeph. i. 9, i S. v. 1-5, and E. Bib., col. 5062. — 42. nrr^il. 
 Cp. E. Bib., col. 3824 f. — 45 f. The southern Jezreel is 
 probably meant. 
 
 xviii. 26. inDQ""!, not ' limped,' scornfully (Burney), but 
 * danced.' See on 2 S. v. 16 (references). 
 
 Chap. xix. 4 / MT. nn« nrh nnn. Benz. remarks, 
 ' The intermediate clause 'm 't nnn imiT NTT is a later gloss ; 
 V. $a nnn am shows clearly that this broom plant had not 
 previously been referred to.' Neither Benz. nor Kittel, nor 
 even Burney, discusses the difficulty about the gender of 
 Dm (fern, in v. 4, masc. in v. $). The latter leaves v. 4 
 untouched, but proposes to restore in v. 5, nOJ ]t»"'"'1 13tD"'1, on 
 the ground that ' nnw cm in the previous verse is simply 
 transliterated, LXX. ' Vafffiev, Luc. paOafiew,' suggesting ' that 
 the original text read iicel alone, and that the remaining 
 
348 CRITIC A BIBLICA xix. g 
 
 words are a later insertion after MT.' This is possible ; Dt& 
 fell, perhaps, out after ]©. But it does not affect the sense. 
 On V. 4 critics have overlooked E. Bib., vol. ii. (1901), col. 
 2647, where it is proposed to read ninhl ^n33 (im^i'i). Of 
 this, mnm at any rate both may be and is right, the word 
 has, in fact, a triple representation. In nnn and nriN the 
 letters n and n, in om the letters n and n are obviously 
 preserved. The missing l may conceivably underlie one of 
 the remaining letters. Further study, however, leads me to 
 question hr\yi (derived from Klo., who reads D'^iaa '?ri33, cp. 
 xvii. 5). The parallelism of Jon. iii. 2 (see note) suggests 
 that DV -[Ti may come from jo^ ^^^, i.e. ' towards Yaman 
 (Jerahmeel),' and this forcibly suggests correcting 'n 't nnn 
 into cnim.. In this case it will be best to omit iffi-'T (a3tB''1), 
 as an insertion from v. 5, just as in v. 5 we have to omit 
 'n '1 nnn as an insertion (corruptly written) from v. 4, and 
 to regard n1''T as a corruption of lis (a word very often 
 corrupted). We thus get for v. 4, ]ai l"n nnoa l^rr Nint 
 'inn fpNtO'^1 [D-'nnm 3-i»], 'And he himself went into the 
 wilderness, towards Jerahmeel [Arabia of the Rehobothites], 
 and he requested,' etc. Then, in z^. 5, we have simply to 
 make the omission indicated and read 'in TOm ;ffl"'"'T lDt»''1, 
 ' And he lay down, and slept, and behold,' etc. This is, at 
 any rate, more like an authentic text than what we now 
 have. 
 
 xix. 8. All between , nnm"'"i and mn is probably a 
 transformation and deformation of the true text (note Pasek 
 after n3l). Whatever view we take of the situation of 
 Horeb, it cannot have taken Elijah ' forty days and forty 
 nights' to get there. The statement of time is specially 
 strange after the words ' in the strength of that (divinely 
 provided) food.' Wi. {GI i. 29, note) would omit the words 
 in question as a later insertion. This, however, becomes 
 unnecessary, now that we know how often rilN stands for 
 yrs, and Qii^niN for a"'nr, and that D"i"' sometimes comes 
 from ;o^ (see preceding note), and nh'h from 'jMom"'. nT3N, 
 too, is suspicious. It is for fjDN, rr^5M, 'jaND, says Burney 
 (p. 209), and may be dialectical (N. Palestinian). Rather 
 (like ■'^3M in xviii. 1 9) nS''3M[n] represents '?NDm% and NTrn 
 has grown out of another fragment of the same word. Read 
 
XX. FIRST KINGS 349 
 
 nn [^wanT] trons nn '^s iron ib'^l, ' and he journeyed in 
 his strength to Horeb the mount of the Arabians [Jerah- 
 meel], Horeb.' The probability is, that dTT^m in, however 
 fine a reading in itself, is not the true reading, and that the 
 sacred mountain was originally called, sometimes the moun- 
 tain of the Arabians, sometimes the mountain of Jerahmeel 
 (D"'n'?N and rhh, both from ^Nom"'). Cp. Ex. xxiv. 18, 
 where the original story probably had n^'ni; im nmn TT'I 
 |3>NDnT]; also on Ex. iii. i, iv. 27. It now becomes plain 
 how @'s text came to be without the Qirr^N ( = 'm'') of MT. 
 
 xix. 10, 14. Read with Kittel, Stade, etc. Tims (so (g). 
 IJT'nn comes from a too early written T^nnitD. — 15. For 
 'tn read nffi^3 (or better miD-mN). ' Hazael,' a N. Arabian 
 name (see E. Bib., col. 3861, note 3). 
 
 xix. 19. ^XQ-hv) from '?N^Da)^ as ^r^•hv^ from ^NDm^ 
 BSto from nss = ns-iS (see E. Bib., ' Shaphat,' ' Shephatiah '). 
 The difficulty felt by critics (e.g. Kittel) in Dt§n disappears 
 if ' Abel-meholah ' (v. 1 6) is a place in the Negeb (see on 
 Judg. vii. 22). 
 
 Chap. xx. Ahab, suzerain of the king of Aram- 
 cusham. Cp. Wi. GI i. 148, foot. — i. The name Ben- 
 hadad (see on xv. 1 8) was perhaps assigned to a king of 
 Aram (Jerahmeel) when the true name was unknown. 
 Now as to the ' thirty-two kings.' Had Ben-hadad really 
 so many kings about him ? ' Even if we give quite a 
 modest meaning to "iha, the number is surprising' (Kittel). 
 In xxii. 3 1 we hear of ' thirty-two captains of Benhadad's 
 chariots.' Has tradition magnified these captains into 
 kings ? This view may seem to be favoured by v. 24 ; 
 for this passage certainly appears to assume a connection 
 between the ' thirty-two kings ' and the ' thirty-two captains.' 
 But the explanation is not correct ; it is not exaggeration 
 but textual corruption which has been at work, and it is 
 in the number, not in the word ' king(s),' that the error lies. 
 The truth is that both D"'t&f?m and D"'3t0 are current cor- 
 rections of fjMSOtZT (cp. e.^-. 2 S. xxiii. 24, i K. xii. 28). 
 Again and again we find numerals in place of ethnics 
 (see e.£: on xix. 8), and this is another instance of the 
 same phenomenon. Read inM ^s^OtC"' I^DT lb'^n-'73-nN. 
 Thus the king of Aram is accompanied by a N. Arabian 
 
35° CRITICA BIBLICA xx. 12 
 
 vassal called ' king of Ishmael.' For a parallel see on 
 2 K. xvi. 5 (Isa. vii. i). The besieged city is Shimron 
 (or Shamron) ; see on xvi. 24. 
 
 XX. 12, 16. Omit n-'3^am Nirr in v. 12; also the 
 whole oi V. 16 (Kittel). 
 
 XX. 15. Omit D-'m^tOT ni^m, inserted from v. 16. 
 
 XX. 20. ' D"'a)"iD"i gives no sense ' (Benz.). But did 
 and mnD are, as often, corrupt. Read DTiEina a>15-^N, 'to 
 Cush(am) of the Zarephathites.' 
 
 XX. 23. Where was the nWD of Aram? Is the 
 reference due to the recasting of the story by the re- 
 dactor ? — 24. Is this verse a redactipnal insertion, to 
 account for the thirty-two captains of chariots in xxii. 31 
 (see above, on v. i, and Benzinger)? But if so, why is 
 mna used here instead of 33nn "'Iffi ? 
 
 XX. 26. Aphek in the Negebj whence the Aramraites 
 of Cusham made frequent attacks on Shiipron. Cp. on 
 Josh. xiii. 4, Judg. i. 31, i S. iv. i. — 27. ifjD^D, from 
 D^'^NDm"' (gloss on mw). See on i K. iv. 7. — 29/ Kittel, 
 Stade, and Haupt point out the difficulties. The boldest 
 solution is that of Haupt, who reads in v. T^ob, nin IT'I Nli"), 
 ' and entered a conjugal chamber.' Clearly, we must search 
 further, and with our present clue we can hardly go far 
 wrong. In v. 2gb, '^y\ Ji^N Hno comes from ~(sh^ f?NDnT[3] 
 7NDm"' JQi^, ' in Jerahmeel of Gilead, in Yaman of Jerahmeel,' 
 a geographical gloss on npDN, v. 30.' After rrpSN supply 
 perhaps rhhci "iDSm"'! (2 S. xx. 15), i.e. 'and (the Israelites-) 
 cast up a mound.' The second Qiimin indicates that the 
 preceding words, in their true form, are a gloss on that word. 
 Read QifjNSDm"'") D'^niDM, i.e. those who were left were Asshurites ; 
 and Ishmaelites (the N. Aram is thus excluded). The 
 second "iirrr^N (v. 30 ^, cp on xix. 13 [Tii;^]) has come from 
 ^NonT' ; •nro. nnn is probably a corruption of lin-]3. See, 
 however, E. Bib., 1725 (top). 
 
 Chap. xxi. i. mi3 ; see E. Bib., 'Naboth.' — 27. 
 23N '^i'LT-;'! p'm ISm^l. H.ere are two difficulties, (i) We 
 do not hear elsewhere of sleeping in sackloth ; and (2) 
 £3N 'rr*'"! 'gives no tolerable sense' (Benz.). The text is 
 corrupt. ^NonT^ ffilpDl (D12ii~l). — Cp. Am. vii. 13, where 
 (the southern) Bethel is called I'jQ-mipQ, i.e. 'ttt^'q (see 
 
xxii. 38 FIRST KINGS 351 
 
 ad loc). Elijah, does not, like Amos, reject this great 
 southern sanctuary. 
 
 Chap. xxii. 3. The name Ramath, doubtless, belonged 
 to different Jerahmeelite settlements. This Ramoth or 
 Ramath was probably a border -city in the southern 
 Gilead. — 6. m-'N mND l^nxa. Read ^Ni;Dffli insD. The 
 prophets came from the whole region of 'Arab-jerahmeel. 
 Cp. on xviii. 19. — 8, 11. The names are Negeb names. 
 We infer this partly from the form of the names, partly 
 from the occurrences. — 26. "-pmrf ]1, i.e. ' son of Jerahmeel.' 
 See E. Bib., ' Hammelech.' 
 
 xxii. 28. D^3 □"'Bi; ^rom nosn Not in ®. Most 
 suppose that this (see Mic. i. 2) is the gloss of an early 
 reader who identified the two prophets. But why not 
 investigate the text before imputing such stupidity or 
 ignorance to an early reader ? Each of the abo^e four 
 words is one of the current corruptions of ethnics, i and 
 4 of ' Jerahmeel,' 2 of ' Ishmael ' and 3 of ' Arammim.' 
 Originally ' Jerahmeel, Ishmael ' may have stood in the 
 margin to explain who the enemies of Ahab were. — 31. 
 Omit a-'3DJ1 D''cf?B, i.e. Di'jMSaa)"! (see on xx. i ) ; a gloss. 
 
 xxii. 34. ianV can hardly mean ' artlessly ' (d^eXm?, 
 ©"-) or ' with a good aim ' {evffTO'xm'i, ^^'"). ^lon frequently 
 {e.g. 2 S. XV. 20) is a corruption of '^Ni^omi or 7NDm"'. 
 This enables us to explain lanS here and [ojonf? in 2 S. 
 XV. 1 1 (see ad loc). It was ' a man of Ishmael ' who let go 
 the fatal shaft. — pnmrr pn D"'pnn J''^. Cpn is obscure ; the 
 most recent explanation ' armour ' (Barnes, /. of Theol. 
 Stud. Jan. 1903, pp. 266 ff.) is scarcely better than its 
 predecessors. Shall we read [opim p3] Q":?!"; r3, where the 
 second phrase would be a gloss on the first? Cp. Dt. 
 xxviii. 35, where read for □"iSlsn, D-'3T,n. 
 
 xxii. 38. 'Jisni nha^ri"! ; adds ia-rl, an interpretative 
 addition (so also in xxi. 19). Benz. and Kittel omit the 
 words as a late writer's tasteless insertion. But such 
 hypotheses are generally made without a previous criticism 
 of the text. 31 or yi (cp. p!i) is frequently the kernel of 
 a corruption of f7Mi;D»^ ; cp. on naTr (0®''), applied to 
 Jeroboam's mother, xi. 26, while -nsn (cp. "ism) and ina 
 (see Ezek. xxvii. 18) are most probably corruptions of 
 
352 CRITICA BIBLICA xxii. 47 
 
 n^nt^N. It is therefore plausible to read linmNT 'oorn, ' in 
 Ishmael and Ashhur,' and to regard this as a perfectly 
 correct gloss on ' all the cities that he built {y. 39). 
 
 xxii. 47 / Here the old and the new methods of 
 criticism come into direct conflict. That the text is 
 corrupt is generally admitted, but most take the easy 
 course of correcting ntoi> into rrtCi? on the authority of 
 Kr., the versions, and several MSS., and reading ^'?D^r TSi") 
 '"irf (so Stade, Benz., Kit, and nearly Klo.). The sense 
 that results is by no means natural. ' In Edom there 
 was no king,' leads us to expect information respecting 
 the government of Edom, not the construction of ships, 
 or of a ship, by a 'deputy' of whom we know nothing. 
 The argument that the versions all presuppose ntor would 
 be more important if this were not the easier reading. But 
 who does not know how often @ alters already corrupt 
 readings by conjecture ? The results of a keener criticism 
 seem to me to be these : — ( i ) pN 170 probably comes from 
 D"'DN^D, i.e. DTl^in. (2) 123 D'nN and nil JTSS are probably 
 slightly different names of the same place ; the former 
 comes from ^Ni^offii dim (for isi, cp. pslS == ^Nrom''), the 
 latter from ni; fjNi^DtD"' (for ]V2i> again cp. psns, and for 
 ^ll, see on iv. 19, 2 K. xv. 25). (3) JaSB^iT' l^D possibly 
 comes from Jatoo ©Bh N^n n^Q (cp. Ezek. xxvii. 29), a gloss. 
 (4) ntor and Wffiin come from n^w and in^N respectively 
 (see on x. 22); on this, nTQiM is a gloss. (5) riT'JN 
 represents rT'^Nl. (6) Lastly, we must prefix PlbM^'i (or 
 the like). Thus we get the thoroughly suitable sense, 
 ' And he gathered together mariners in Aram -ishmael 
 [those that handle the oar] to go to Ashhur [to Ophir] for 
 gold ; but they went not (■'3^n ihS), for the ship (rr''3Nn) 
 was wrecked at Ishmael of Arabia.' 
 
SECOND KINGS 
 
 Chap. i. 2-16. Here, too, it is evident that the prophetic 
 narrator beHeves the chief residence of the kings of Israel to 
 be at Shimron in the Negeb. Elijah the Tishbite (Shepha- 
 thite = Zarephathite) meets the messengers of the ' king of 
 Shimron,' who are on their way to a sanctuary beyond the 
 limits of the Israelite territory in the Negeb, to inquire of 
 the Ishmaelite ( = Jerahmeelite) Baal (cp. on Jer. vii, 18) 
 whether the king will recover from his illness. The narrator 
 also believes that there is no sanctuary of Baal on Israelite 
 soil, whereas i K. xvi. 32 tells us that Ahab had built a 
 house of Baal in Shimron (cp. Am. viii. 14), and there is 
 strong probability (see on Am. vii. 1 3) that Baal was wor- 
 shipped in the temple at the southern Bethel. JTipi', here as 
 elsewhere (see on i S. v. 10), has arisen out of a corruption 
 of f3NDm\ nni hs:i comes from ^ilT f?i)l, and ^im (as in 
 the case of the proper name, Judg. ix. 28 ; cp. also S^m 
 and fjarw) has arisen out of f?Nl?Dm"'. (Cp. Tno for 'otD"' in 
 viii. 21.) Other views are given in £. Bib., ' Baalzebub,' but 
 it is hardly possible to defend them against the text-critical 
 arguments. ' Zebul ' is one of the recognised types of 
 textual corruption, and as an element in a name must 
 = Ishmael. The short and simple refutation that ^IIT 
 instead of mnt has only the sanction of Sym. (^eeX^e^ovX) is 
 of no value against the evidence from the habits of the 
 scribes. See E. Bib., col. 3862. 
 
 Chap. ii. 1-18. That the scene is in the Negeb is shown 
 in E. Bib., col, 3862/,; 'Gilgal' indicates a Jerahmeelite 
 city ; Bethel is the southern Bethel ; ' Jericho ' and ' Jordan ' 
 have arisen out of popular corruptions of ' Jerahmeel,' which 
 
 353 
 
354 CRITIC A BIBLICA ii. 23 
 
 had acquired an independent existence, and consequently 
 were separate, distinctive names. For the latter, cp. on 
 2 K. vi. I, vii. 15. The Sn3, or even perhaps im of Jerah- 
 meel, was probably ' the river of Misrim ' (Gen. xv. 18; see 
 note). Cp. on 2 K. v. 1 2. In v. 8 D^n is corrupt ; cp. on 
 Ezek. xxvii. 24, Ps. cxxxix. 1 6. Read fpNOHT, a gloss on 
 Q-'sn. Sqi corrupt in Judg. viii. 21. In z/. 12 '^iN was 
 repeated by inadvertence. Read, however, ]i1m ; Elisha 
 exclaims, ' I behold the chariots of Israel and his horsemen.' 
 
 ii. 23. The mocking speech is not recorded; mp n'js 
 probably comes from ^Nom"', a gloss on •v^r\. The .city was 
 Jerahmeel (hardly Jericho ?). 
 
 Chap. iii. 4. It was most probably Missor which David 
 conquered (see on 2 S. viii. 2), and of which Mesha (i>t&iD = 
 fjNiJOB"') was king. The strange statement in v. 4 that 
 Mesha was a npj (see Driver on Am. i. i ), and paid a tribute 
 (Tt&n, frequentative) of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams 'in 
 wool ' has caused some trouble, and with all Stade's critical 
 experience he can find no remedy. Benzinger finds something 
 disparaging in ^j5i ; Klost. thinks the term intimates that 
 Mesha was by contract the king of Israel's sheep-master (cpi 
 I Chr. xxvii. 29-31). The moderns (following Tg.) suppose 
 the lambs and the rams to have been a yearly tribute ; ®, 
 however (eV t^ eTravaaTaa-ei), represents the requisition as a 
 punishment for Mesha's rebellion. But one can hardly doubt 
 that, as so often, the numbers are due to the misunderstand- 
 ing of a scribe or editor, by whom, indeed, the whole passage 
 has been transformed. Read, probably — 
 
 ! '?NonT'-n''-ip fpNimi-iSo^ Ttem nm:^ rrri nisn '^ba sw^a) 
 
 3N1D for Ti!iQ is a common error ; lat, at the end, represents 
 ^kp, an early correction of 3N1D. np3 comes easily from 
 rrni^ (or nana) ; pjSn HNQ and q-'^-'n are both perfectly 
 regular distortions of ^ndtiT' ; D"'"iD comes from TVlp. To 
 ' push ' is to gain a victory over any one (Ps. cxviii. 1 3 ; cp. 
 na3, I K. xxii. 11). Ahab ' pushed ' Mesha so hard that he 
 had to restore the cities of Jerahmeel which had previously 
 been occupied by Israel. 
 
 iii. 8 / Read nnw n3"7Q. Very possibly, too, DHN. 
 
iv. 42 SECOND KINGS 355 
 
 throughout this narrative, should be nnN. See on viii. 22, 
 I K. xxii. 47. 
 
 iii. 25. In w. 2 5« we hear of the stopping up of the 
 fountains and the felling of the fruit-trees ; what is to be 
 expected in 3 ? Klost., Benz., and Kittel suppose a reference 
 to the fact that only a single city remained untaken. 
 (Luc.) inserts /cat i^ea-eurav rov Mwa^, and continues eto? 
 Tov fir) KaTaXiirelv XiOov ktK. From this Klost. extracts 
 'n T'p ■'tI>3N DN 13 T^Nton iS IS. Against this see E. Bib., 
 ' Kir-heres,' where it is proposed to read SliffiN iN^n N^ ^i7 
 r\min or nmin T'p! rpy^s (ih -js with ©'- and Tg. Jon.). 
 Certainly ' the men of Kir-hareseth ' is not in place ; ' the 
 citadel ' would be better, but after the mention of the ' choice 
 trees ' we expect to hear of the destruction of the grapes (cp. 
 Isa. xvi. 7). 73BJN seems to have dropped out owing to its 
 containing two of the letters of nstun, and one which is easily 
 confounded with the closing letter of that word. But to 
 emend 'n T'p into n^)^^ TV\p is not enough, though 
 Lagrange {Revue biblique, Oct. 1901, p. 529) and Nestle 
 {ZATW, 1 90 1, pp. 327 ff.) incline to ntenn (as suggested 
 in E. Bib., col. 2676), and in Isaiah favours this view. 
 The former thinks that the place originally bore the name 
 nmp. The truth, however, most probably is that both 
 ' Heres' (wherever this name occurs) and ' Hareseth ' are cor- 
 ruptions of nintOM, ' Ashhur ' (a district or region in the Negeb). 
 Cp. on Judg. i. 34, Isa. xix. 18, also on Isa. xvi. 7, where, as 
 here, ' Kir-hareseth ' should most probably be Kir-ashhur. 
 nt&nn in Judg. iv. 2 probably comes from mna>N (so also, 
 indeed, does MnD"'D). 
 
 iii. 27. Sacrifice of children, a N. Arabian practice (cp. 
 on Jer. ii. 34). 
 
 Chap. iv. 8. 'Shunem.' In the Negeb (see on i S. 
 xxviii. 4). The parallelism between the Shunem story of 
 Elisha and the Zarephath story of Elijah thus becomes even 
 closer, the southern Shunem and Zarephath not being very 
 far apart. — 34. nni"'!. Read niin-]"! ; see E. Bib., col. 3824, 
 top, and cp. Nestle, Exp.T, Jan. 1903, also on i K. xvii. 21. 
 
 iv. 42. ' Baal-shalishah.' Identified with Kh. SirTsia, 
 1 3 m. from Lydda. But the true scenes of the traditional 
 activity of Elijah and Elisha have been much mistaken. 
 
3S6 CRITICA BIBLICA v. i 
 
 Where the 'land of Shalishah' (i S. ix. 4) was, there, of 
 course, was Baal-shalishah. It was an Ephraimite place, as 
 the biblical geographers rightly say ; but the Ephraim was 
 the southern Ephraim. ' Shalishah ' ( = Laishah, Isa. x. 30), 
 like Sha'iil (see on Gen. xlvi. 10) and Ishmael, was a name 
 connected with the Negeb. — ^ia'?)?^^ ^PlSl- See E. Bib., 
 'Sack.' @ presupposes Q-'Sl"!^ (cp. i S. xxv. 18); 'cakes of 
 figs ' would be quite suitable here. But we can hardly say 
 with Klost. that D'''?!-!") = hGi'y\, and that ®(B) omits "I3^p21 
 It is MT. which has dropped ni^mx 'sn 'l31 probably 
 represents S'NSOffi"' "^^l (see on p^"^, 2 S. xxiii. 37) b-cra, 'to 
 Carmel of the Ishmaelites,' a geographical gloss. ' Carmel ' 
 (as in I K. xviii. 42, etc.) = 'har Yerahme'el'; Gilgal (see 
 on ii. I ) was in the Israelite territory in the Negeb ; in fact, 
 whether we place the temporary residence of Elisha at Gilgal 
 or at Carmel makes no difference. Either term probably 
 indicates the same well-defined district in the highlands of 
 Jerahmeel. The renderings ' garment ' (Tg., Pesh.), ' sack ' or 
 ' wallet ' (Tg.) are pure guesses, even though philology has 
 been called upon to give them a degree of plausibility. 
 On @*, ^aKeWeO, see Lagarde, Mitteil. i. 212; Arm. Stud. 
 § 333) but note that ^uKoXad in some MSS. of ® = MT.'s 
 nsSsn, I S. X. 2, where 'hi, like ntoStO has to be grouped ; 
 with '?NSnm\ 
 
 Chap. v. 1-27. The healing of Naaman, general of the 
 king of Aram ( = Jerahmeel). As (^^ suggests («at 
 avdpwiro'i r)v Xeirpo^), h'^'Tt li3| forms no part of the original 
 text. We cannot, however, say that it is a gloss on B''n 
 7ni, which, in fact, requires no gloss. Read riTT tcsni 
 n?Q [i^Nom"'] ; 'ttt' is a gloss on ■'^2JD. The key to the 
 passage is supplied by i S. ix. i, where 'n 'i represents 
 ■'SNQm\ a gloss on 1310% and by passages (xv. Si " ^' 
 xi. 26, 2 S. ii. 18) in which si'^Q, ns"ns, rT'ins are corruptions 
 of -i-jsp, TTn^D ; cp. also on vi. 32, i K. vii. 14, xvii. 9, and 
 see E. Bib., cols. 2404, note 2, 5243, 5414. The passage 
 is partly important as showing the early date of the con- 
 fusion between T\1'a and ■'ISO. Possibly there was an 
 Israelitish story that the O'lisa were lepers (cp. Manetho on 
 the Exodus, Jos. c. Ap. i. 26 /). At the same time it is 
 plain from this confusion that the Elisha-narratives, in a form 
 
V. II SECOND KINGS 357 
 
 resembling the present, arose long after the supposed period 
 of the events. For this confusion is not an error of com- 
 paratively minor importance ; it is the real parent of the 
 narrative. If Naaman was not a leper, the whole story of 
 his intercourse with Elisha falls to pieces. But though 
 relatively recent, the narrative was clearly written by some 
 one who knew that Elisha's sphere of activity was in the 
 Negeb. This appears from the contrast in z/. 12 (MT.) 
 between ' Dammesek ' and ' Israel.' We have no right to 
 assume that ' Damascus ' was occasionally the name of a 
 country. From other passages, critically viewed, we know 
 that prnm is often miswritten for DffilD, or rather t2Jl3-D"iM. 
 Now ' Cusham ' (or rather Aram-cush) is the name of a 
 N. Arabian region. Consequently the author of this nar- 
 rative, though he misread inSD for iiao in some earlier 
 writing or collection of anecdotal stories, was aware that 
 Naaman was a southern Aramaean, and that Elisha was 
 a prophet of the Negeb. In fact, Naaman's name, with 
 which compare Naam, ben Caleb, and Naamah, bath Lamech 
 ( = Jerahmeel), marks him out as a N. Arabian. It is no 
 objection to this view that the region in which Elisha dwells 
 is called 'the land of Israel.' For the Negeb was the 
 earliest land of Israel, the land where the patriarchs were 
 reputed to have lived and to have been buried, the land 
 containing the most sacred mountain and the most venerated 
 sanctuaries of Yahwe. There, too, was the favourite resid- 
 ence of the kings of Israel ; the king as well as the greatest 
 prophet of Israel is represented as dwelling in Shimron. 
 
 v. 3. Point ]"npt&. By ' Shimron,' however, is meant 
 here, not the place called Shimron, but the Israelitish 
 Negeb (cp. i K. xiii. 32, 2 K. xvii. 26, xxiii. 19). See on 
 V. 24. — 10, 14. For ]"7T3 read 'pMonT?. One of the uh'n's 
 or rmna of the Negeb is meant. See on ii. 6, Gen. 1. 1 1 . 
 
 V. II. See 'Addenda.' — 12. The irnm of Aram-cush, 
 according to Naaman, are ' better ' than any of the streams 
 of the land of Israel. Their names are given as Abanah 
 or Amanah and Parpar. The problem of the ' rivers of 
 Damascus '(?) thus becomes geographically shifted. Two 
 points are highly probable, i. We may regard ' Amanah ' as 
 one of the many independent popular distortions of ' Jerah- 
 
358 CRITIC A BIBLICA v. i8 
 
 meel,' and connect ' Parpar ' with ' Ephrath ' or ' Perath.' Cp. 
 on Gen. xv. 1 8. 2. The region called pmon, or rather fe-D-iN, 
 is that which, in the Paradise story, is called ffi13, and said to 
 adjoin gan 'eden. Among the four rivers (nrr2) of gan 'eden 
 are Hiddekel, or, rather Jerahmeel, and Perath or Ephrath. 
 These two streams correspond with Amanah and Parpar. 
 No wonder, then, that Naaman insists on the special sanctity 
 of his own streams. Evidently he does not hold that the 
 stream called Jerahmeel belonged to the Israelitish territory 
 in the Negeb. (What ' Negeb ' means, we do not for 
 certain know ; see, however, Winckler, Gesch. Isr., ii. 1 84, 
 note 2). We cannot state what river-names of our own 
 day correspond with these ancient names. — 1 3. 13^ is 
 surely not from qn dm (Kittel), but from a dittographed 
 
 v. 1 8 / pan, to the redactor, no doubt, the (Canaanite, 
 Babylonian, and Assyrian) Ramman, but properly the name 
 of the god of Aram — an early corruption of f?MDm\ Cp. Zeph. 
 i. 5, and E. Bib., ' Rimmon.' — 22. qiidn nriD. The southern 
 Ephraim is meant ; the highlands of Jerahmeel were the 
 great prophetic centre (see E. Bib., 'Prophet,' §§ 6, 13). — . 
 J>1N m.l3. No learning can explain this satisfactorily ; see 
 on Gen. xxxv. 16 (xlviii. 7). The key is supplied by TVQ 
 (i K. xvii. 3) and im3 (i S. xxx. 14); cp. also ©" m 
 SejSpada t?)? jr}<;. miD and Be^paOa both come from naDII, 
 i.e. nihl •^"I'T ; DT (m) fell out, as if dittographed. pN 
 either comes from '^-'S, and this (as in T^s 'l, Gen. x. 11) 
 from lis, or from n'ao. The sense is, ' he went towards 
 Arabian Rehoboth.' 
 
 V. 24. 'jsrrr-SN. Benz. remarks that @ (crKOTeivov) con- 
 founds hss with htiit. But this implies that bsi> is correct, 
 In E. Bib., col. 3513, rthmrj is suggested (the stairs leading 
 to Gehazi's chamber). This is at least a step in the right 
 direction. For most probably hnsTl (like h^is in Mic. iv. 8 
 and elsewhere, and Ppi^ often) comes ultimately from 
 ^NDHT. We have seen already that the much -disputed 
 Nlf?D has this origin, and means ' acropolis ' (see on i K. 
 ix. 15). It may perhaps be the acropolis of Shimron that 
 is here meant. In Mesha's inscr., //. 2 1 /! (cp. Cooke, pp. 
 2 /), nmp, psn, and has may all be synonyms for the 
 
vi. 32 SECOND KINGS 359 
 
 acropolis, and all ultimately have the same origin, ^ejs may- 
 be a constant scribe's and stone-cutter's error. 
 
 Chap. vi. 2. ' Let us go to Jordan,' i.e. to the plain of 
 the Jordan (Benz. Kittel). Read rather ^Nom"' ; cp. on 
 ii. 1-18, vii. 15- Forest or jungle-land extended to the 
 'river of Jerahmeel,' i.e. the stream bordering the Negeb, but 
 commonly regarded (see on v. 12) as belonging to Aram- 
 cush. 
 
 vi. 8. Read ^NDm"' mpQ-'^N, ' at a place in Jerahmeel ' 
 (i.e. in the Israelite Negeb). Cp. on Ruth iv. i, i S. xxi. 3. 
 
 vi. 1 3. There was a Dothan in the Negeb (see on Gen. 
 xxxvii. 1 7). Evidently it was near Shimron. The northern 
 Dothan was not near Samaria ; a distance of 10 m. will 
 certainly not suit vv. ig f. 
 
 vi. 25. For Tion tDNT it is plausible to read D^'P'T? inh, 
 and for D"'3V "'nn to read □■'3^nn, ' pods of the carob tree.' 
 See Expos. July 1899, p. 33 ; -E. Bib., cols. 1 130, 1980, and 
 cp. on 2 K. xviii. 27. The existing text (however well 
 attested) is impossible. Winckler {Krit. Schr. ii. 35) accepts 
 non, and Stade n"'l"nn. P. Haupt's objection to nnn (in 
 Kings, SBOT) seems to me answered by himself. At the 
 same time, it is a singular fact that nearly all the words in 
 V. 2$b occur again and again in corrupt passages. It is 
 almost certain that v. 25^ is made up of geographical glosses, 
 stating where Shimron was. Read — ^Mom"' n^N non T'r 
 
 That is, ' a city of Hamath (Maacath), Asshur-jerahmeel, 
 in Ishmael-cusham, Jerahmeelite Arabia, in Ishmael-cusham.' 
 It is becoming plain that at a comparatively late period in 
 the development of our Kings, it was known that Shimron 
 was in the N. Arabian border-land. Cp. on xviii. 2^6. 
 
 vi. 32/ mnDri-)3. Who is the murderer ? Jehu 
 (Kuenen)? Cp. Hos. i. 4. Or is it the reigning king 
 himself; the faults of the son being imputed to the father 
 (Winckler) ? Surely neither view is satisfactory. The case 
 is exactly parallel to 2 S. xix. 23, ' What have I to do with 
 you, ye sons of Misri?' For nsno read n-'isn (cp. n^'lia 
 from 11S0, note on 2 S. ii. 13, and see on v. 1-27. The 
 Misrites must have been noted for their fierceness. The 
 ' Misrite woman ' referred to is presumably Jezebel ( i K. 
 
36o CRITICA BIBLICA vu. 6 
 
 xvi. 31) ; tjie king, her son, is Jehoram. — In z^. 33 read, of 
 course, "^^an, with all recent critics (cp. Burney). Cp. Kittel 
 {SBOT) on I Chr. xxi. 20, and note in Ges.-Bu., s.v. 
 
 Chap. vii. 6., A large survey of text-critical facts is 
 here indispensable. Not the kings of the Hittites, but tbe 
 kings of the Rehobothites are meant, and not the kings of 
 the N. Syrian Musri (Hommel, Winckler, followed by Benz., 
 Kittel, Burney), but those of Musri in N. Arabia are meant. 
 These were the nearest allies whom Israel could obtain. 
 See, however, Winckler, Krit. Schriften, ii. 16/! 
 
 vii. 15. Read SNOHTni? (see on ii. 1-18, vi. 2). The 
 stream of Jerahmeel may be meant. 
 
 Chap. viii. i ff. Elisha (who lives at Shimron) sends 
 the Shunammitess (see on iv. 8, 2 S. xxviii. 4) out of the land 
 because of a famine which he predicts. So she goes into 
 the land of the Zarephathites (' Philistines ') for some years, 
 and then returns. Cp. the story of Ruth, and E. Bib., 
 ' Shunem.' 
 
 viii. 7 ff. Elisha, Damascus, Hazael ; so Elijah, 
 Damascus, Hazael (i K. xix. 15). ' Damascus ' comes from 
 ' Cusham ' ; Hazael (see on i K. I.e.) is a N. Arabian 
 name. In v. 12 the close of the description, as given in 
 MT. and @, is too highly coloured ; the redactor has pro- 
 duced it out of a corrupt text. Read ^>S^n Drpfjpil^"! 
 rjjin DiTTi^ip^. Cp. on XV. 166, Am. i. 13, Hos. xiv. i, 
 Isa. xiii. 16. On niDO in z;. 15 Benz. remarks, 'What the 
 makber is, we do not know.' True, because the word is 
 non-existent. @^ Aq., Sym. give to a-Tpwim, i.e. laifiin. 
 Cp. on Tna, I S. xix. 13, 16. So E. Bib., col. 510. 
 
 viii. 20-24. Stade, whom Burney unfortunately over- 
 looks, has done the most for this passage, on which he 
 remarks that few passages are so well adapted toi impress 
 us with the problematical character of most conjectures on 
 the MT. But his own recent article (^ZATW, 1 901, pp. 
 337 ff-)> which partly corrects, partly supplements, his note 
 in GVI i. 53 7, can hardly be called decisive in its results. 
 A somewhat new point of view, which presupposes a fuller 
 study of the habits of the scribes, and a recognition of at 
 least the most obvious of the textual references to N. 
 
ix. 27 SECOND KJNGS 361 
 
 Arabian interferences in the affairs of Judah, is shown by 
 his paper to be urgently required. From such a point of 
 view we seem to reach the following result, beginning by 
 taking a hint from (g's ave^i), "iQi> lann-b^T rriiao mv fpS'T 
 'W IDnn ^n» riNT □■'S«i>om-' [dim] idn ^^'V Observe that 
 rhh Dp Nin-'iT'T has arisen out of a badly written cor- 
 ruption of D"'f?NDnT', which should have been the subject of 
 13'"!, but was written too soon, and that vfjM Tlon (which 
 has caused Stade so much trouble) has come from C^Ni^offi"' 
 (TlD often covers over ^Ni^DtD"'). Thus it was not Joram 
 who defeated the Arammites, but the Arammites who routed 
 the Israelites. We must also read dim for cns in v. 20 
 (cp. on Hi. 8 /). Missor may be a N. Arabian town, and 
 is perhaps the ii7">s of Josh. xv. 54- (see E. Bib., ' Zior'). 
 
 Chap. ix. 2. Jehu, who attains distinction in the war 
 with the southern Arammites, is called ' son of Jehoshaphat, 
 son of Nimshi.' 'Shaphat' (i K. xix. 19) no doubt repre- 
 sents ' Zephath ' or ' Zarephath ' ; for the prefix in"', see on 
 I K. xxii. 42. Nimshi = Ishmin = Ishmael (fjNrotOi). Prob- 
 ably Jehu (like Joab) was a native of the Negeb, which was 
 the home and nursery of bold adventurers. 
 
 ix. 25. npin. Probably for IpTp, z.e. npT]? (see on 
 I K. iv. 9). Pesh., ^p■r 11. Saul's son had a guerilla leader 
 named Rechab (2 S. iv. 2), and Jehu himself was in covenant 
 with Jehonadab, ben Rechab (x. 15). But cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Bidkar." 
 
 ix. 27. Dr^T-riN itCN Til-rr'ji^Dl. The geography has 
 to be revised. Gur-baal in 2 Chr. xxvi. 7 is the name of a 
 place inhabited by Arabians ; Dozy explained it as = Gedor- 
 baal (enclosure of Baal), but more probably it is a corruption 
 of Jerahmeel. Ma'aleh-gur may receive a similar explana- 
 tion. An independent corruption of the same name is, no 
 doubt, ' Ibleam ' {ueK^aafi, @^). This place is generally 
 (and rightly) identified wth the ' Bileam ' of i Chr. vi. 55, 
 which is one of the Levitical cities of Manasseh. We must 
 not, however, hastily infer that the ' Bileam ' intended is 
 Bel'ameh, a little S. of JenJn (cp. on xv. 10). There is 
 good reason to think that here, as in some other cases, the 
 Chronicler (like P) has used geographical documents which 
 referred to the Negeb, but which he wrongly supposed to 
 
 25 
 
362 CRITICA BIBLICA U. 34 
 
 refer to N. Israel. .Certainly, in Gen. xiv. 24, Aner, with 
 which Bileam is grouped in Chr., is a Hebronite {i.e. Reho- 
 bothite) name. Not improbably it comes from p3N["nia], 
 better known as ^^iTi (Taanach). yxxx^ here, as again and 
 again elsewhere, comes from h'llti (cp. on xxiii. 29), a 
 decidedly Jerahmeelite name. Lastly, as to ]|n-n"'3. The 
 critics rightly identify this with n"'2a-pi;. Josh. xix. 21, but it 
 needs to be added that the list of Issacharite names in Josh, 
 xix. 18-22 seems to have been derived from a list of Negeb 
 names. Were the names originally Negeb names, but 
 transferred by the Issacharites ? At any rate, a Beth- 
 gannim or En-gannim may safely be said to have existed 
 in the Negeb. Most probably the true form is Beth-guni 
 (■'33.-ni3) or Ir-guni (^•yir'\-^i). Cp. on Gen. xlvi. 24. 
 
 ix. 34-37. Whether this is the original story seems 
 doubtful. Did the dogs really leave the feet and the 
 palms of the hands ? The text may have been recast 
 rh'h'y. may possibly come from ni?Si (cp. on nf?i. Am. i. 6, 
 Ob. 20), xi-hy\ from oni;'?! (cp. -ahl^ the home of a 
 Gileadite, 2 S. xvii. 27), DiT^ msi from ^Nomi man 
 (Tappuah = Nephtoah, an important place in the Negeb). 
 There may have been a movement of those friendly to 
 Ahab and Jezebel, which Jehu had to crush. This would 
 help further to explain the cruelties referred to in x. 1-8, 
 Observe that in i K. xxi. ij ff. the reference to the fate 
 of Jezebel is plainly a redactional insertion. In our passage, 
 vv. z6 f. may also be redactional. 
 
 Chap. x. i . The gloss-theory has here been overdone ^ 
 by Stade {ZATW, 1885, pp. 279/, also ' Kings ' in SBOT). ' 
 As Kittel points out, v. \b could hardly form the be- 
 ginning of a narrative. Add to this, that the section 
 abounds in words which create more or less difficulty to 
 the interpreter, and which are among those which most 
 frequently come into MT. through corruption. This is 
 already the case with v. \a. Kittel would alter yvm^h 
 into f^a^. This is a violent step, and it does not achieve 
 its object. For Jehoram can scarcely have had seventy. 
 sons. Comparing note on the second inhn and on Judg. 
 xii. 14, it is best to read {v. id) pnp»3 ['?Ni>om''] f^NDHT^ ^3. 
 This must be a fragment of a passage relative to the 
 
X. 14 SECOND KINGS 363 
 
 existence in Shimron of a royal body-guard consisting of 
 Jerahmeelites or Ishmaelites. The reference m v. ib to 
 'Jezreel' is wrong ; read (with ^^ Benz., YiXt, E. Bib. 2355, 
 and Burney) Sm T-sn ■'nto f?N. — Inhn n''3DNn. Probably 
 insert 'ai {0-, Klo., Benz., Kit., Burney). This, however, 
 is not enough. Kittel and (virtually) Benz. would change 
 INHh? into ^f?D^r. But D"'3DN has also to be questioned. 
 In V. S D-'30Nn is II to D-'Dpin. Evidently the word ((g, 
 ol TtOrjvoi) is wrong, and remembering toon, JqSn, cor- 
 ruptions of ^NDHT (see on v. 12, i K. xi. 26, xvii. 9), we 
 should most probably read [fpNOHT' "'33] cao"!, ' Yamanites ' 
 (gloss, 'sons of Jerahmeel'); so, in f. 5, Di^oTr. — In v. 6 
 m-'M D'^sim should be Qi'jNi^Qffl-i (see on v. la) — a gloss on 
 the text underlying the following words T^un -hlTnt^ 
 nniN n-h-jya, i.e. [nasao Q^'T^V^] 3"3?0 CTiJ^a-nM. The 
 royal princes were guarded by Gileadites from Arabia (cp. 
 on XV. 25). — In V. 7 D-'^NSDa)'> (underlying m-'N 'nm) is a 
 gloss on unhii. — In v. 11, for T'iriDI T'i'T'O") yh'^y read 
 T'3''p1 vanNl insSl, ' his Gileadites, his Arammites, and his 
 Kenites.' — The southern Shimron and Jezreel are referred to. 
 X. 12-14. Q■'^^^ Ipi^-n-'l, npi^-rr^a. ' Certainly " Beth- 
 Eked of the shepherds on the way " still remains obscure ' 
 (Kittel). A solitary building is generally thought to be 
 meant. In E. Bib., ' Beth -eked,' it is proposed to read 
 □"''TpiiTT'a, and to take D""!?"!?! as a gloss on the somewhat 
 rare word '3. Prof. Torrey, it is true, thinks ~ips the last 
 word to suspect {Amer. Journ. of Theol., 1900, in review 
 of E. Bib.), but on what ground ? The discovery of the 
 frequent corruption of ^NOm"', however, opens up fresh 
 possibilities or probabilities. np» in i Chr. ii. 27, anp in 
 Dnp3n (Am. i. i), and Q^iJirT in Am. i. 2 all come from 
 7MDm''. How probable, therefore, it is that lpi>-n''n (cp. 
 inps) comes from ^Mom'^-n"'!, and that 1TV^r^ ( = 'nv) was 
 originally a correction of the miswritten word Tpi^ ! This 
 suits the view of the revolution of Jehu as an event which 
 occurred in the Negeb, which a combination of reasons 
 forces upon us. Should we not read 'nrTT'l imn ? — 13. 
 tshxoh. All the versions agree. But such an elliptical 
 expression is very improbable. Doubtless we should read 
 SurDm-'^, 'to Ishmael, i.e. Beth-ishmael or B.-jerahmeel, 
 
364 CRITIC A BIBLICA x. 15 
 
 one of the chief places in the Negeb (cp. on 2 S. xv. 17), 
 '"in l^on ""ai may be a gloss on ms "'31. — 14. For dii;n« 
 ©■"N catCT read D"''7Ni;Dm-' Q'^nr, glosses on ipr ; cp. Q^anrr 
 ( = 'nT) in V. 12. Cp. on Judg. xii. 14, 2 S. xxiii. 18. 
 
 X. 15. Note the alliance between Jehu and the 
 Rechabites, whose haunts were in the Negeb. ' Nadab ' 
 is a N. Arabian name (see E. Bib., ' Nadab,' ' Nodab '). 
 The prefix ^^^^' — ITT' = 'm"'. The original text probably 
 stated that Jehonadab was a man of the Negeb. Q)il tB> 
 may come from "'S'NSOm'', ' an Ishmaelite ' (t.e. Jerahmeelite), 
 a gloss. The usual explanation (see e.g. Burney) is hardly 
 natural. 
 
 X. 22. rrnphrpri. The sense 'wardrobe' has no sound 
 basis. n|tpVn is plausible ; the worshippers would collect 
 in the hall of the temple (i S. ix. 22). See E. Bib., 
 ' Vestry.' Now, however, that we know that the N. Arabian 
 god is called in the O.T. not only ~)S'3.'n but ^NoriT' (see 
 e.g. on Zeph. i. 5), it is difficult not to suppose that rmrhn 
 comes from m^D, i.e. f^Nom"', and to restore ^ndHT TVI. 
 Cp. ©^, Tc3 eTrl Tov oUov Mea-daaX [MeX6aaX, see Kittel]. 
 
 X. 25 j^ See Klost. (followed in E. Bib., col. 2356, 
 note s) ; Stade, ZATW, 1885, pp. 278 /; Lagrange, 
 Rel. S^m. 204, note 3. In v. 25 D"'tO"'^t» represents 
 probably Q-'^NVQffi"', a gloss on u-^Ti, which (see on xi. 4) 
 comes from Q-Tims. Cp. the case of ^nrn inm^Sil (i S. 
 xvii. 26, 36), where f?ni>rr = 'mTT, a gloss on TitB^D. See 
 E. Bib., col. 3812, note 2. — In v. 26 read mnaffi':i, for 
 mE3nt»-'1. — In V. 27 for rQ2SO read mtp (see i K. xvi. 33); 
 so Stade, Benz., Kit., Burney. — In v. 27 for nNina^ (so 
 Kt.) read probably niinno (Ezek. xxix. 12). 
 
 ■K. 2)2 f. Hazael is a N. Arabian king, and the land ■ 
 which he covets is the Negeb. He makes devastating 
 inroads into all the territory of Israel in the Negeb, ' from 
 (the wady or stream of) Jerahmeel eastward, all the land 
 of Gilead,' and this southern Gilead is further defined as 
 ' the Gadite (region), the Reubenite, and the Manassite, from 
 Aroer (?) which is by the wady of Arnon (?), both Gilead 
 and Cushan.' ]mi for jQjii (see on Num. xxi. 33) is a common 
 error. Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh were partly settled in 
 the Negeb. Cp. on Dt. iii. 15-17, 2 S. xxiv. 5-7, 2 K. xiv. 
 
xi. 6 SECOND KINGS 36^ 
 
 25, 28 ; note also ' ben-Gadi ' (?), the name of a successful 
 usurper, a native of the Negeb, xv. 1 4. 
 
 Chap. xi. i. Plausible as it is to explain n"'f?n2; 
 'Yahwe is great, or high' (cp. Ass. etellu, E. Bib., col. 
 380), the daughter of Jezebel (=Ishmael) ought to have 
 a N. Arabian name. And so she has. In i Chr. viii. 26 
 ' Athaliah ' is a son of Jehoram (Jarham = Jerahmeel), and 
 in Ezra viii. 7 ' Athaliah ' belongs to the b'ne Elam ( = b'ne 
 Jerahmeel). 
 
 xi. 4. ' Jehoiada ' is a Negeb name ; cp. ' Jada,' i Chr. 
 ii. 28, 32; 'Jedaiah,' Ezra ii. 36, etc. Cp. 2 S. xx. 23 
 (corrected text), where two alternative descriptions of 
 Benaiah are given, ' son of Jehoiada, and ' son of a man 
 of Jerahmeel.' — •l^^^. The generally received view of ■'"isn is 
 most doubtful ; ' Carians ' have no place among the warriors 
 of Israel. The term only occurs three times, viz. in vv. 4, 
 19, and 2 S. XX. 23 (where the Kr. is •^nisn). Presumably 
 ■inD is a corruption of TnD ; but the original might be ■':iDi, 
 'Rechabite' (cp. on ix. 25), or 10^D, ' Carmite ' = ' Jerah- 
 meelite ' (cp. on D"'30n, x. i ). The D"'!5"i spoken of (see 
 also I S. xxii. 17, 2 K. x. 25, but not i K. i. 5, referred to 
 by Burney) are probably, says Ges.-Rodiger {Thes. 1278^), 
 identical with the ' Pelethites.' He might have added that 
 D"'ST probably comes from DTiDns. Considering the corrupt- 
 ness of Til^ and Ti^D (terms similar to WT\), we can hardly 
 (with Prof Paul Haupt) illustrate csn, ' runners,' by Ass. zuk 
 sepd, ' rush of feet,' i.e. ' infantry.' (In TextbuchS^'^, p. 46, 
 Winckler renders Sennacherib's Prism Inscription iii. 1 6, ' the 
 attack of ziik sepd troops.) 
 
 xi. 6. Since one third of the soldiers is mentioned in 
 V. 5, and the two other thirds are referred to in v. 7, the 
 intermediate verse must be superfluous. It may have 
 grown up in this way. no in Tin n^tun is a corruption either 
 of DID (D"'D'1d) — Benz. has already suggested this — or of 
 OTims. u^-(n ni>t!Jl also comes from Dinms n2?t»l, the proper 
 place of which is at the end of z^. S ; IHN is a corruption 
 of D''f?MDnT, a gloss on n^'ST which we need not take account 
 of Dmo»T was originally iiom, as in v. 6 (a dittogram 
 with what follows) ; it was altered when the disconnected 
 groups of words were worked up together. rtDD is possibly 
 
366 CRITICA BIBLICA xi. i6 
 
 a corruption of n[nD]t»D, another repetition. The reason 
 for the mention of the 'gate of the Zarephathites ' will 
 appear presently (see on v. i6). 
 
 xi. 1 6. Q-'DID, as often {e.g. i K. v. 6), is a corruption 
 of D'^m^S. The 'horse-gate' (2 Chr. xxiii. 13, || passage) 
 is really the ' gate of the Cushites,' i.e. the gate by which 
 the Cushite mercenaries entered the royal palace. Near 
 this gate the soldiers were to assemble {v. 6, see above). 
 
 Chap. xii. 18. m, as so often, is a corruption of 
 m^m ; evidently there has been a harmonising process. 
 Rehoboth would seem to have escaped when Hazael made 
 that earlier expedition into the Negeb which is referred to 
 in x. 32 _/! The next thing was to reduce Judah to 
 vassalage. Was Hazael anticipating a possible Assyrian 
 invasion ? 
 
 xii. 2 1 . N^p ~r\yr\ m^o rc^, ' unintelligible ' (Ki.), 
 ' unmeaning ' (Benz.). The theories of the commentators 
 do not go to the heart of the matter. It has not been 
 recognised that M7D (^NO) is a frequent representative of 
 7Nom"', also (for this, there are parallels enough) that 
 N^D "Ilin is another corruption of the same word. ^'''s 
 rendering (eV oik^ MaXXtoz') tc3 ev ry Kara^daei AXXav 
 represents another corrupt reading, p^N ^T1Dl. The TaaWa 
 or TaaXaS of (§"* would seem to point to ^i>■)i ; if genuine, 
 this would mean the southern, not (as Wi. Gil 178) the 
 trans- Jordanic Gilead. But one may perhaps doubt the cor- 
 rectness of the Greek text. So, then, the place where Joash 
 was slain was called Beth-jerahmeel. It must have been 
 some building in Jerusalem, and was perhaps devoted to the 
 N. Arabian troops (cp. on qi^dn, x. i ). See, further, E. Bib., 
 ' Millo,' and (on the N. Arabian names of the ' servants ' of 
 Joash) ' Shimeath,' ' Shomer.' 
 
 Chap. xiii. 5. The deliverance concerned the Israelites 
 in the Negeb. For om^tO ^1Dn3 read [^Ni^otO'^] fjNamn; 
 'w is a gloss on 'm"', ' Jerahmeel,' i.e. the Negeb. Cp. on 
 I S. x. II, xiv. 21, xix. 7, Mic. ii. 8, Ps. xc. 4; see also 
 on Isa. XXX. 33. 
 
 xiii. 17. 'Aphek.' See on i K. xx. 26. — 22. The 
 addition in (^^ (critically treated) states that Hazael had 
 taken the Zarephathite territory ' from his hand ' ( = from 
 
xiv. 19 SECOND KINGS 367 
 
 Jehoahaz), from the Arabian Jerahmeel as far as Aphek 
 (cp. xiv. 25). Cp. on xii. 18. — 25. The reference is to 
 cities in the Negeb. 
 
 Chap. xiv. 2. Amaziah's mother was ][i]"TJ;irp. pi; is 
 a Jerahmeelite name (see on xix. 1 2) ; "iri"' perhaps comes 
 from nT, i.e. SsDrrT. For second 'Wi'V read ^Ni>ntOi {i.e. 
 Beth-jerahmeel in the Negeb). Cp. on xv. 2, and see E. Bib., 
 col. 5240, note I. 
 
 xiv. 7. D"nN should be DnM ; n^o is a popular cor- 
 ruption of fpNom*' ; ^Nnpi comes from ^Ni?atDi (cp. on ^pn, 
 Dan. V. 25). ' Kadesh-barnea ' may be meant. The name 
 was already corrupt when v. 7 was written. See E. Bib., 
 'Joktheel.' — 8 ff. Amaziah covets the Negeb. A battle 
 with Joash follows at ' Beth-cusham which belongs to 
 Jerahmeel' {v. 11). Jeroboam II. recovered this place 
 for Israel (see v. 28). For t&nm nil read Qm3 nil (i S. 
 vi. 9). For rmn"''? read fpNom"''? (cp. on vv. 21, 28). The 
 ' Lebanon ' of z'. 9 is the southern Lebanon in the Negeb 
 (cp. on Jer. xxii. 6). Note that both the ' thistle ' 
 (Amaziah) and the ' cedar ' (?) (Jehoash) are in Lebanon. 
 That DbtDni is rightly read, appears beyond doubt ; the 
 two gates mentioned are well-known gates of Jerusalem, 
 and the 'house of Yahw^' can hardly be any other than 
 the temple at Jerusalem. Nevertheless, noN niND Win 
 is suspicious ; 'd 'n in Gen. xv. 13, i K. xviii. 19 represents 
 'nr ins or 'dot in?, and noN[n] in 2 S. ii. 24, viii. i = 
 fpNOriT. In the light of more directly certain facts we can 
 hardly avoid correcting 'm"* 1'Vs., a topographical gloss on 
 tDDffi nil, corresponding to the miniS imN of v. 11. — 14. 
 Probably pno© here = Samaria. 
 
 xiv. ig ff. Vv. 19-22 belong to a different document 
 from vv. 7-14 (see Kittel). According to this source, a 
 league of Jerahmeelite kings, the chief of whom is called 
 king of Jerahmeel (see on v. 21 ), but with more precision 
 might have been called king of Missor, so alarmed Amaziah 
 that he fled to Eshcol (in the Negeb). Apparently he was 
 at this time residing in the Negeb. The crown prince 
 Azariah, however, was captured, and, after his father had 
 been slain, was raised to the throne by his captor, ' the king 
 of Jerahmeel' For 'm\-vi (v. 19) read 'jMroffiil, ' in Ishmael ' 
 
368 CRITIC A BIBLICA xiv. 21 
 
 = ' in Jerahmeel,' i.e. in the more distant part of the Jerah- 
 meelite region called Missor. For rroraf? read nb!ll»N (see 
 on Mic. i. 13, Num. xiii. 23/.). — £3"'DlD"7i> also needs cor- 
 rection. D"'tp^3rT"f?5 {E.. Bib., col. 5242) is possible. ^3 and 
 ^s, D"iD and tOi3 are sometimes confounded. ^S, however, 
 is not quite natural. More probably we should read 
 D-'^Dffisin. This may be a little more obvious if ^s be 
 taken as a corruption of "j^. It is, how^ever, also possible 
 that D^'DID represents cmian, and that hv comes from Sn; 
 i.e. 'DtONH may have been broken into two pieces. The 
 sense produced is excellent, ' the Eshcolites (among whom 
 Amaziah had come) bore him [to Jerusalem], and he was 
 buried in Jerusalem.' 
 
 xiv. 21. rrxrr d:>-'73 ^n^r^^. Why hri ? and why mm-'? 
 Contrast xxi. 24, xxiii. 30, p^n Di>. Remembering the 
 tendency of the scribes to confound ^7D and ^Mf?D (cp. on 
 vi. 33), and to write rmrr"' for 'nv {i.e. hi^Gor), it is natural 
 to read here fjNDm"' if^P np"."!. If so, the appointment of 
 Azariah as king was due to the king of Jerahmeel (here = 
 Missor), of whom we shall hear again presently. Cp. 
 xxiii. 34, xxiv. 17. 
 
 xiv. 22. nS"'M-nM TOl Mirr. The mention of Elath 
 here is very unexpected, and has been the occasion of 
 much acute but premature theorising. Klost. alone has 
 suspected the text. Adapting a suggestion of this critic, let 
 us read 'h TOXp'^^ "I^Nl iriN N''3n N^n (cp. Ezek. xvii. 13). 
 Azariah, then, took a solemn oath of fealty to his captor the 
 king of Jerahmeel or Missor as a condition of his being . 
 allowed to return to Judah after the death of Amaziah. 
 
 xiv. 25. Hamath, as so often, = Maacath ; rr3ivrr D"' 
 should probably be lis jqi, ' Yaman (Jerahmeel) of Arabia' (cp. 
 on ''\s, Dt. i. I ) ; rraT' comes from ■'3r ( = Yemani = Jerah- 
 meelite) ; tidn is a corruption of '^nai^O- Gath = Rehoboth ; 
 Hepher, too, is a southern name. See on Book of Jonah 
 (introd.). It was Jeroboam's good fortune to recover a large 
 part of the Negeb for Israel (see on v. 28) ; Amos, however, 
 — a prophet of the Negeb, — foresaw that this would only be 
 for a time (see on Am. vi. 14). 
 
 xiv. 26. nwa "iTiya. Another proof of the inadequacy 
 of the old methods. Kamphausen, Kittel, Burney, read 
 
xy. 5 SECOND KINGS 369 
 
 «in np, ' [that] it was bitter.' Of course, mio as in Gen. 
 xii. 6, etc. = '7«Dm\ and ind = dnN. It is a twofold gloss 
 either on nanrr n-io {v. 25, end) or on the corrupt minff? 
 {y. 28). 
 
 xiv. 28. Read fpNonT^-nDrD-nsT DmiD-riM i-'cn ntUNi 
 hvrmh. 'The addition "for Judah" is absolutely un- 
 intelligible ; there must be corruption, but all attempts to 
 treat it are vain. It is best simply to delete the word ; 
 how it came in, we cannot tell ' (Kittel). Klost.'s attempt 
 (by rearranging letters) is no doubt unsuccessful, but ex- 
 perience (see e.g. Judg. xix. i /) shows that rmrr"' was 
 liable to be confounded with 'nT = ^NQnT. Historically 
 the correction is of great importance. Judahite territory 
 in the region of the northern Hamath never existed (cp. 
 Wi. AOF i. \ ff.; GI \. 147). Winckler proposes to render 
 I'lfflrr, ' drove back ' (cp. Isa. xxviii. 6, xxxvi. 9). But it is 
 difficult (as Wi. admits) to do this in the face of xiii. 25, 
 xiv. 25. It is equally difficult to read '1 norrriN l"'ton, 
 ' he turned away the anger of Yahw^,' with Burney. liffin 
 here can only mean ' recovered.' The narrator tells us that 
 it was Jeroboam who recovered the region of Cusham and 
 that of Maacath (in Jerahmeel) for Israel. Cp. on vv. 25 y. 
 
 Chap. xv. i f. On the name Azariah, see E. Bib., 
 col. 5240, note I. Azar or Ezer was a clan in the Negeb. 
 
 XV. 2. The queen-mother was a Jerahmeelite ('offliD ; 
 cp. on xiv. 2). "liT^bai, connected no doubt with ^nohT'. 
 
 XV, 5 f. Nothing is said here of Azariah's wars. 
 According to 2 Chr. xxvi. Uzziah ( = Azariah) was much 
 engaged in warfare in the south (see E. Bib., ' Uzziah,' § 3). 
 Textual criticism discloses a reason for the omission of all 
 reference to such warfare in 2 K. xv. 1-7 (at least in the 
 present text). That reason is a certain heavy misfortune 
 which befel Azariah in the course of his warfare — captivity 
 in the land of Misrim. From the meagre and corrupt 
 record of this which came down to later times, the redactor 
 of Kings extracted the statement that Azariah was smitten 
 with leprosy. The textual error is precisely the same that 
 we have met with in the cases of Jeroboam and Naaman. 
 See on v. 1-27 and on i K. xi. 26, and E. Bib., 'Uzziah,' 
 § 4. The text should probably be restored thus, — in^'^T 
 
370 CRITICA BIBLICA xv. 8 
 
 ' and Jerahmeel carried away the king, and he was in 
 Missor till the day of his death : he dwelt in Beth-zarephath 
 of Missor.' The final word is restored from 2 Chr. xxvi. 21. 
 The strange word jT'tCDnn comes from mstONn, 'the dung-;, 
 hill,' and mDION (as in the phrase nbmNn ~[m, Neh. ii. 13, 
 etc.) is a corruption of nsis = HDS. For the results attainable 
 by the old methods see Stade, GVI \. 569/; ZATW 
 vi. 156-15 9, where it is suggested that we might read, for 
 JT'iCDnn rcn, >n.nri t\-%, ' the winter palace.' Cp. also 
 Klost., Kittel, Burney. That any of these are satisfactoryj 
 can hardly be said. On the other hand, the new results 
 throw a bright light on the history of Azariah, and are in 
 harmony with parallels elsewhere. Like Manasseh, Azariah 
 was carried into captivity as the punishment of rebellion by 
 the N. Arabians, but unlike Manasseh he did not return. 
 
 XV. 8. On the name ' Zechariah ' see E. Bib., s.v., and 
 ' Zaccur.' — 10. By his name 'Shallum' he had near, or remote, 
 N. Arabian affinities. Cp. E. Bib., s.v., and ' Solomon,' § 2, 
 and note the other occurrences of ' Shallum.' He was a son 
 of tOi;, i.e. Jabesh-gilead ( = Ishmael-gilead ? see on i S. 
 xi. i). — aj-^l^. Gratz, Klost., etc., read d:;Sti (see on 
 ix. 27). We cannot, however, assert that ' in Ibleam ' {^'^ b 
 le^Xaa/j.) is more original than 'in Kebleam' (0"'* eV Ke^Xaafi). 
 Dsblp springs from DN^nn = fpNDm"' (cp. [nJDN^n, 2 S. 
 x. 17, Kt.). CtsbT, therefore, has nothing corresponding -to 
 n. Both forms (Ibleam and Kibleam) may have been 
 current. 
 
 XV. 1 3. ynow here must be the southern Shimron (see 
 V. 1 4). — 1 4. On ' Menahem,' cp. Manahath, Naham, Nehemiah 
 — all southern names. — "''TJ-JS. ' Gadi ' may mean the Gadite 
 territory ; there was a ' Gad ' in the Negeb (see on x. 32/). 
 (The yaXXei of @*'"''- is probably a scribe's error ; A and A 
 confounded.) n:i may, however (as probably in ^3, p), 
 come from mm = mj(7. — 16. Most suppose that rtDSn is an 
 error for niDn (Tappuah) ; ' there is no Tiphsah in Palestine' 
 (Benz.). ©"■ TTjv Ta^we. But in i K. v. 4 (see note) noDIi 
 is one of the limits of the dominion of Solomon in "iian !1"JS 
 (on which there is a gloss ^NonT^, represented by '^D^d), and 
 there is no sufficient reason to doubt that nosn is either 
 
XV. 19 SECOND KINGS 371 
 
 correct or at least more nearly correct that either msn or 
 ((g°'s reading) ^nt^n. It is also usual to supplement the 
 text from (g", and to read 'in-'ja-DNT rrsn "h inns ih ■'3. 
 We have seen, however (on viii. 12), that in most of the 
 passages in which the worst barbarities of conquerors are 
 mentioned, there is a serious error in the text ; and so it is 
 here. HN T"! niay be disregarded ; it represents nvnp^, which 
 is less correct than rrn'nf:|-'?3 (so read, for nTmnn'73) which 
 follows. This suggests that ©"'s oVt ovk rjvot^av avrw is 
 an expansion of an incorrect reading, and that nriD N"? "'3 
 has grown out of an ill- written bN-nnD'D. ' Iphtah-el ' occurs 
 in Josh. xix. 14, 27 as a place-name on the N. border of 
 Zebulun. The Zebulun place-names, however, given in 
 Josh. xix. 10-16 (see notes) seem originally to have be- 
 longed to the Negeb. The sense produced is, ' then Menahem 
 smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the territory 
 thereof from Zarephath ("Tirzah"), from Iphtah-el, and all 
 the cities thereof he conquered (viii. 1 2).' 
 
 XV. 19. TimN ^^a h^B Nl. ® iv Tat<i ■^fiepaig airov 
 ave^Tj (jjova (but read <f)ovX, as in Chr.). Who is Pul ? 
 Benzinger, with most, answers : ' It is true, Pul is distinguished 
 from Tiglath-pileser in the Book of Kings. But, comparing 
 the Babylonian " list of kings " with the Babylonian Chronicle, 
 the identity of the two names is beyond doubt, for the former 
 gives the name Pulu, where the latter has Tiglath-pileser.' 
 This assumes that the Hebrew Tiglath-pileser is identical 
 with Tuklat-abal-i-sarra, which may indeed be in accordance 
 with the view of the redactor of Kings, but is not by any 
 means certain. In i Chr. v. 6 we read of a certain prince 
 of Reuben called Beerah whom Tilgath - pilneser, king of 
 Asshur, carried away captive. The other names in the list 
 are distinctly Jerahmeelite, and ' Asshur ' at any rate is quite 
 as likely to be the N. Arabian Asshur as it is to be the 
 better known Assyria. We have also already found that 
 N. Arabia exercised a strong influence, both attractive and 
 repellent, on both the Israelitish states, and that there is 
 evidence (cp. on x. 33) pointing to the view that Reuben, 
 as well as Gad and Manasseh, was partly settled in the 
 Negeb. It is reasonable, therefore, to think that Tilgath- 
 pilneser in i Chr. v. 6 is a king of a N. Arabian land called 
 
372 CRITICA BIBLICA xv. 19 
 
 Asshur or Ashhur, and not of the land commonly called 
 Assyria, and if so, we cannot doubt that the Tilgath-pilneser 
 of V. 26 ( = the Tiglath-pileser of 2 K. xv. 29, xvi. 10) is 
 the same king, and that in both passages the same captivity 
 is referred to, in which Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh — or 
 those parts of these tribes which were settled in the Negeb 
 — were the sufferers. If, therefore, by Pul and Tiglath- 
 pileser or Tilgath-pilneser the same king is intended, this 
 cannot be supported by a reference to Babylonian docu- 
 ments. Textual criticism alone can explain the double 
 name which in MT. and @ is given to the king of Asshur, 
 with whom Menahem and Pekah of Israel had to do. Let 
 us ask, then, what is a possible name for the king of 
 Asshur ? It might be a conventional one, e.g. ' Asshur,' as 
 in Isa. X. 5, or ' Jerahmeel.' The latter name seems to be 
 marked out as most probably the original both of MT.'s 
 ^13 and of ^'"s ^dXwy^ ; with the former cp. the Reubenite 
 name w^g, and with the latter the probably N. Arabian 
 name ij^i^q (@ fidXa-^. This view is supported by i Chr. 
 vi. 26, where ^ID I nin-riN has probably grown out of a 
 corruptly written 7NQm\ We can now perhaps explain 
 IDN^PD n:if?n, which probably once stood (for 'afjD ''hr\) in 
 the second clause of v. 26. This second clause should 
 certainly be a repetition of the first. To bring this about 
 however, TitCN 17D must be a gloss on part of idn7D n^^n. 
 That is, these two words come from "li&N 'n^D ^3. The final 
 n in ni7fi is dittographic. T>r\ comes from ^7D, though 
 the misreading was of course only possible to a scribe or 
 editor who had in his mind some contraction of Tuklat-abal- 
 i-§arra, and this also accounts for the other changes. (Note, 
 too, the proper name tidm, from TitON.) We need not now 
 be disturbed at the fact that the Assyrian inscriptions do 
 not favour the supposition that Tiglath-pileser III. advanced 
 as far south as Samaria. It was a N. Arabian power, riot 
 Aram, nor yet Misrim, but one stronger than either — perhaps 
 Melubba — which invaded the Negeb, and Menahem was 
 glad to buy him off by the payment of a heavy tribute. It 
 is possible that the true form of the Hebrew name for the 
 king of Asshur underlies the incorrect '^5^0 of 2 Chr. 
 xxviii. 16, which may have come, not from I'jO, but from 
 
XV. 29 SECOND KINGS 373 
 
 '?NDm^ See, further, on Hos. v. 1 3, etc., and cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Pul.' 
 
 XV. 25. Pekah, the conspirator, is IH'^^DTp = '?Mom"' p, 
 'a Jerahmeelite.' The problematical part of the text lies 
 between inN-riN and Qnrf?!, for (g's ivavnov probably comes 
 from ev avSp&vi (see ®, I K. xvi. 1 8), and throws no doubt 
 on pDnN3. ' Argob ' and ' Arieh ' are very strange personal 
 names; can the words be rightly read? Stade {ZATW 
 vi. 160) suggests that nnw riN and t^n:; Trm dn (so for riN 
 mNn) were glosses properly belonging to v. 29. This, 
 however, could only be adopted as a last resource. The 
 solution of the problem is furnished by @, which gives fjuera 
 TOW (so B and B''A*) or ust ainov, B*n^, apyol3 koX fier 
 avTOV apeia (B ; but apie, A) koi fier avrov irevrijKOVTcir 
 avSpei (so BL, but A avBpa<;) airo twv Terpaicocrimv. The 
 latter part of this is the true text of © ; it represents itss"} 
 niMD S3"1«D Q'^^prj, where 'd 'no is a variant to the 1310 
 ansSl of MT. Klost. inclines to read V131 niMQ i^mN-ns, 
 i.e. Pekah and his fifty Gileadites overpower Pekahiah and 
 his four hundred gibborim. This is ingenious, but the true 
 solution is suggested by habits of the scribes which Klost. 
 has probably overlooked. Placing @'s rendering in the 
 light of facts obtained elsewhere (see on Gen. xv. 13, i K. 
 xviii. 19, 22, and i K. xxii. 6), we see that mNQ snND 
 (presupposed by airo r&v rerpaKocricov) represents SlSD 
 7NDnT, ' from Jerahmeelite Arabia.' It now becomes easy 
 to account for nns and rflN, which represent ns and 
 7NDrrT' respectively (cp. iT^im, Isa. xv. 9 ; fpNlM, 2 S. 
 xxiii. 20). riN {bis) is an editorial insertion. The text 
 thus becomes, ' . . . and smote him, etc., and on his (Pekah's) 
 side were fifty men from Jerahmeelite Arabia ' {v.l. ' of the 
 Gileadites '). 
 
 XV. 29. Conquest of a large part of the Israelite territory 
 in the Negeb. For ' Tiglath-pileser ' see on w. 19; for ' Ijon ' 
 and 'Abel' on i K. xv. 20; for 'Hazor' on i K. ix. 15 ; 
 for ' the Galil 'on i K. ix. 11. Janoah has been identified 
 with the Yenu'amu of Egyptian inscriptions (see E. Bib., 
 'Janoah'), but a place in the Negeb seems rather to be 
 meant. Josh. xvi. 6 mentions a Janoah on the E. border 
 of Ephraim. Either this name was transferred from the 
 
374 CRITICA BIBLICA xv. 32 
 
 Janoah in the Negeb, or the Ephraim names in Josh. xvi. 
 were derived from a geographical writing which related to 
 the Negeb (note the names Ataroth = Ephrath, Naarah, 
 Shiloh, Tappuah = Nephtoah). m^X> is not any Kedesh in 
 the north, but the so-called Kadesh-barnea (cp. on Tobit 
 i. 5). 'What Gilead can mean in this connection it is hard 
 to say ' (Kittel), at least from the ordinary point of view. 
 ' If the name is not corrupt it can only have come in as a 
 gloss' (Benz.). In E. Bib., col. 1628, note 2, it is suggested 
 that ~[)h'X may be miswritten for ^71^:1, the wrong word and 
 the right being, as often, left side by side (cp. the corruptions 
 mentioned under ' Gilead, 2 '). ~\^'i., however, as an abund- 
 ance of evidence shows (see, e.g., on Jer. viii. 22), is not only 
 a trans-Jordanic region, but a district in the Negeb. In 
 fact, all the localities in w. 29 belong to the Negeb, including 
 the last three, ' Gilead, and the galildh, all the land of 
 Naphtali.' h'hl, rh^X and baf?l may possibly be early 
 popular corruptions of fpNom"' ; cp. D"'1in hh\ Isa. vii. 23, 
 where c^ian may possibly arise out of some badly written 
 form of '^NQHT^ (cp. D"'ia, Gen. xiv. i ; Di-iin nffiin, Judg. 
 iv. 2) and be a gloss on h'h'X. In any case, hh'X is a name 
 of the Negeb. Did the places and districts mentioned form 
 part of a larger region called ' the land of Naphtali,' and was 
 this ' Naphtali ' identical with the ' tribe ' so called ? In Isa, 
 viii. 23 ' the land of Zebulun ( = Ishmael ?) ' and the 'land of 
 Naphtali ' are mentioned together. Or has there been a con- 
 fusion between ■'^nD3 and "innsj (cp. on Gen. x. 1 3) ? I should' :■ 
 prefer to suppose that ' Gilead and the Galil ' covered a larger 
 region than 'the whole land of Naphtali.' The ' Asshur' spoken 
 of is of course lower down in N. Arabia than the Negeb. 
 
 XV. 32. Jotham, also a son of Jerubbaal (Judg. ix. 5)1 
 and a member of a Calebite genealogy (i Chr. ii. 47)- A 
 Jerahmeelite name. So, too, is Zadok (see the occurrences). 
 The name NtOiTi (na)"n% Chr., is less probable) reminds us of 
 N®si ( I K. XV. 1 6, etc.) from f?Ni?a»-'. Is it a corruption of 
 NtOIT ? 'tO'iT' precedes, which may account for the mishap. 5 ■ 
 
 Chap. xvi. 3. Note the reference to the sacrifice of 
 children, which, though it doubtless spread northward, was 
 specially a Jerahmeelite practice. Cp. on xxi. i, and on 
 Jer. ii. 34. — V. 5. See on Isa. vii. i. ' 
 
xvi. IS SECOND KJNGS 375 
 
 xvi. 6. Klost., partly anticipated by Thenius, corrects 
 WVA throughout into divt, and cdTin into DiQnN (with Kr. 
 and (S) ; he also omits psn, assuming the redactor who 
 placed the verse in this connection to be in error. So Benz., 
 Kittel, Burney. It was, however, a Misrite king who was 
 virtually (not nominally) lord of ' Ezion-geber ' in Solomon's 
 time (i K. ix. 26 f.), and it is now a Cushite king who 
 ' recovers ' the neighbouring part of Elath for Aram (' Aram ' 
 will cover both Misrim and Cush) in the time of Ahaz. 
 Between Jehoshaphat (i K. xxii. 48) and Ahaz we may 
 assume that Elath had for some time been in the possession 
 of ' Aram.' In v. 6b for D"'DTIn (a mixed reading), and in 
 2 Chr. xxviii. 1 7 for D"'DTtn, it appears that we should read 
 D'^DIM. Note in the latter passage that the appeal of Ahaz 
 to Asshur is brought into connection with an invasion of 
 Arammites (assuming the change proposed above) and the 
 Philistines. Now the Philistines here, as so often, are the 
 Zarephathites. Possibly in 2 Chr. xxviii. 1 8 there is a 
 confusion between Israel and Judah. For ' Aijalon ' is 
 plausibly identified with ' Ijon,' which in 2 K. xv. 29 is 
 apparently represented as in the Israelite territory. As to 
 the erroneous "'D^D in 2 Chr. xxviii. 1 6, see above on xv. 1 9. 
 
 xvi. 9. The fate of the Israelitish Negeb (xv. 2g f.) is 
 now shared by Cusham, the people of which are deported to 
 Kir, if for rTT'p we should not read SnohT' or mintON (see 
 Am. i. 5). For ptDOT read omiS, or perhaps rather t0i3-D"iN ; 
 the ptDon of Chr. may come from ptomT 
 
 xvi. 1 5. nplS "h TT'T\^. ' The significance is obscure. 
 Ipl means " to examine." ' So Burney, who thinks the least 
 questionable rendering, ' shall be for me to inquire by,' lit. 
 ' to investigate,' scil. the oracle, perhaps by examination of 
 portions of the sacrifice. Kautzsch, Die Aramaiomen, i. 24, 
 thinks that the phrase refers to a particular kind of royal 
 sacrifices (cp. W. R. Smith, Die Rel. der Semiten, p. 289). 
 More probably, something shocking to later Jews is covered 
 over by this form of the text. IDT sometimes comes from 
 f?NDnT (see on xix. 23), and ^n from ^no (as an element of 
 f?NDm\ That the temple at Jerusalem was often not 
 strictly confined to the cultus of Yahw^ we know. Read 
 ^MOm'^^ nM\ i.e. the brazen altar, which the new altar 
 
376 CRITICA BIBLICA xvii. 
 
 supplanted, was to be devoted to the cultus of the Jerah 
 meelite Baal. 
 
 Chap. xvil. 3 / Omit ' Shalmaneser ' (see Kittel' 
 Winckler now assents {Krit. Schr. ii. 19; KAT^^'^ 268^ 
 Misrim and Israel reject the suzerainty of the successor 
 ' Tiglath-pileser.' Cp. E. Bib., ' 'Rosh.eai,' col. 2127, and cp 
 ' So,' and especially Wi. KA T'-^^ 1 46. A curious probleir 
 is presented by ^^ at xvii. 4 ; instead of ^jcop or Swa, we 
 meet with aSpa/jieXe'^, tov AlOioira tov KaroiKovvTa iv AlrfvirTw. 
 From our present point of view the mystery can be easily 
 explained. ASp, tov Aid. is ' Jerahmeel the Cushite ' (see 
 on xvii. 31, xix. 37). According to this statement, Hoshea 
 sent an embassy, not to Sib'e the Turtanu (jmn, see KA 7''^ 
 1 46), but to Jerahmeel the Cushite, who was then ' residing,' 
 i.e. as king, in Misrim. (Possibly, however, tov kwtoik. springs 
 from a gloss ■'f?Ni!Dtt>"', ' Ishmaelite,' which was corrupted, as 
 often, into ItP"'). Burney's note is hardly satisfactory. 
 
 xvii. S f. The fate of the northern jnotu is most prob' 
 ably not mentioned in the original O.T. texts ; see on Isa. 
 xxviii. 1-4, Mic. i. 6. It is the fate of the piDlD in the 
 Negeb which finds mention in xvii. 5. — ThT\% (in xviii. 11, 
 n^ns). A place in N. Arabia is required ; or should we say 
 rather a river? In xvii. 6 and xviii. 11 &', and in xvii. 6 
 ©"* read iroTaiiol'i jeo^av (or jco^ap), where MT. gives inj 
 ]ti2i in apposition to ninn[5^]. rhn is presumably an ex- 
 panded fragment of fpNonT. What, then, is Tian, and what 
 ]n:i ? The redactor no doubt thought of the Habur and the 
 Assyrian province Guzanu, where the Habur was (see E. Bib,, 
 ' Halah,' ' Habor,' ' Gozan '). But what did the original 
 document mean, and what was its reading of these names? 
 The names with which ' Gozan ' is combined in xix. 1 2 com- 
 pel us to think that pli is a (deliberate ?) corruption of ]pQ. 
 Now it so happens that in v. 12 two fivers of Cushara, or 
 Aram-cush (see on xvi. 9) are mentioned, viz. Amana and 
 Parpar. If Halah and Amana represent Jerahmeel, it becomes 
 natural to expect that the two other names of rivers, Parpar 
 and Habor, will also correspond. This, however, is not 
 the case. Parpar is evidently = Ephrath, but Habor 
 represents either Rehob(oth) or the Chebar of Ezekielj 
 which (see on Ezek. i. 3) most probably = Jerahmeel. If 
 
xvii. 30 SECOND KINGS 377 
 
 the latter view is correct, MT. is, after all, right against 
 © ; n^n and nim are simply variants, and represent 
 the same 'river of Cusham,' which bore a name, or 
 names, the ultimate origin of which was ' Jerahmeel.' See 
 following note. It need hardly be added that many of the 
 distortions of ' Jerahmeel ' may early have attained an inde- 
 pendent existence. — no ■'I?"!, ® taX oprj Mrihmv. Instead 
 of this, I Chr. v. 26 gives Nnni, between ^i^^y^^ and nmi. 
 For possible explanations of Nin see E. Bib., ' Hara/ 
 Without the Jerahmeelite key, however, the mystery about 
 it cannot be dissipated. The probability is that iNim is a 
 corruption of 'pNom"', which is a gloss, most probably on 
 n^n. The Chronicler, therefore, does not recognise ilD "'ni;, 
 and it is just possible that no -nsx like iNnm, is a corrup- 
 tion of 7MDm''. "'ID by itself, wherever it occurs, certainly 
 does come from 'm"'. In this case, the true reading 'riT' is 
 a gloss. Apart from this, ins is at any rate better than i-irr 
 (see, however, Wi. Alttest. Unt., p. 109). See on v. 9, and 
 cp. ' in the cities of Shimron,' v. 24. 
 
 xvii. 9. ' From the tower of the watchman to the fortified 
 city ' (also in xviii. 8^) is strange. In xviii. 8 (see note) it 
 is natural to read nslD 'VS-~\S CISD ^^1QD, ' from the Misrite 
 Migdal to the fortified city [ = Missur].' Here it is perhaps 
 an intrusive gloss on '^no ■'^27 in v. 6. 
 
 xvii. 24. The colonists from N. Arabia who filled the 
 places of the Israelites in the Negeb. f?ni is probably a 
 corruption of some abridged and distorted form of ^NDm\ 
 nms represents, not Kutha, but mi3 or Dmi3. N^i» is un- 
 certain, but probably represents yrs, (see on z/. 3 1 ). nori = 
 nasD. QiinsD has grown out of nsD = nans (cp, mDo, Neh. 
 vii. 57). Possibly there was a second Zarephath. In any 
 case, the inhabitants of the Israelite Negeb had not a long 
 journey to take. See E. Bib., ' Sepharvaim.' This remark- 
 able passage, in which even the insight of Winckler seems 
 to be at fault, refers not to ' Samaria ' but to Shimron, i.e. to 
 the Israelite territory in the Negeb, the capital of which was 
 Shimron. 
 
 xvii. 30/ A most difficult passage. We begin with 
 the impossible word U'^'^s, the easiest correction of which is 
 a-'Tis, 'Arabians' (see E. Bib., 'Avvim'). See Dt. ii. 23, 
 
 26 
 
378 CRITICA BIBLICA xvii. 30 
 
 Josh. xiii. 3, which, critically regarded, show that the Avvim 
 dwelt on the N. Arabian border of Palestine. N^i; (z;. 24) is, 
 therefore, presumably from DNli; (cp. i?nN-n''np = iNns 'p). 
 We now pass on to the names, so variously and insecurely 
 explained, of deities. It is hardly too much to say that they 
 yield up their secrets in the light of the new theory strugglihg 
 into existence. The commentators with one voice call them 
 'Samaritan' deities; they are not, however, really 'Samaritan,' 
 but Shimronite (see preceding note). The deity of f?3i is 
 m3D, i.e. not n^ro (Am. v. 26), but nffiS, i.e. the great 
 ' Cushite' goddess, called (if the text is right) in Jer. vii. 18 
 ' the queen of heaven ' (cp. note, and on Jer. iii. 24). The 
 appended m31 has nothing to do with Ass. banttu (see £. 
 Bib., ' Succoth-benoth '). It must be a corruption — very 
 possibly of nlDI. ^"^3 represents ^ma, i.e. hvfdrrw ND''tt)N 
 comes from ^Ni»Dffii (Kittel, however, produces a river niqbn 
 near Tyre). tm3 (or, less " probably, )n33) is ' unknown ' 
 (Kittel), unless textual criticism be applied in combination 
 with the new theory. No other people is stated to have 
 made two deities, but is ' Nibhaz ' really a fresh deity ? It 
 is not preceded by riN, and we may therefore presume that 
 it is an intrusive gloss from the margin. Take on "1 from 
 T\VC\, and we get imn3 or (t and n being very often con- 
 founded) "nm:. What this is we can hardly doubt. A N. 
 Arabian name is wanted, and the choice is very limited. 
 Most probably "nm^ is b[N]Qm"' written backwards (the 
 final 7 in these names often become d),; SsDriT was prob- 
 ably written in the margin as a gloss on iSmiN. pmn, 
 then, is the only deity of the ' Arabians.' To explain this, 
 we must not have recourse to Assyrian (see, however, E.^Bib., 
 ' Tartak ') ; pmn is not improbably mnp written backwards, 
 and this group of letters, equally with m"lJflp, seems to be a 
 corruption of mn, which (see E. Bib., 'Terah') almost 
 certainly comes from [^NoJnT'. Cp. on xix. 9. mn, how- 
 ever, doubtless early obtained an independent existence. 
 lScn[l]N and lSo3i; are still more obviously from ^NOriT 
 (cp. on xix. 37), nor must the variety of conflicting explana* 
 tions blind us to the extreme probability of this view. The 
 cruel god, to whom children were sacrificed, was the Baal of 
 Jerahmeel (cp. on Jer. ii. 34). See E. Bib., ' Sepharvaim ' ; 
 
xviii. 8 SECOND KINGS 379 
 
 but cp. also ' Adrammelech,' ' Anammelech/ and ' Nisroch ' 
 (these articles assume that an Assyrian king is the agent in 
 this narrative). 
 
 Chap, xviii. 2. Kgs., iin ; Chr., n:;lM. The compound 
 name is rather more probable. See on i K. xiv. i. 
 
 xviii. 4. On ' Nehushtan ' see E. Bib., s.v. Plainly 
 there are two questions, (i) What was the real origin of the 
 ' brazen serpent ? ' and (2) What was the real name under 
 which it was worshipped ? The story in Num. xxi. 6-9 is 
 etiological ; it is chiefly valuable, in combination with 2 K. 
 xviii. 43, as showing that in the regal period superstitious 
 Israelites sacrificed to the idol to obtain the recovery of 
 their sick. Was the idol of directly Babylonian origin, or 
 was it derived from the N. Arabians (leaving the question of 
 its ultimate origin undecided) ? In the article ' Nehushtan ' 
 reasons are shown for supposing a Babylonian origin. 
 Notice, however, that in the time of Hezekiah's father there 
 was a strong religious as well as political connection between 
 Judah and the N. Arabian Asshur (Ashhur), and it is very 
 possible that Ahaz took not only the pattern of an altar from 
 Cusham (see on xvi. 10^), but also the idol here referred 
 to. That the name ]nffln3 is wrong seems to be certain. 
 In the E. Bib. article several conjectural origins are men- 
 tioned. From our present point of view a better one can 
 be offered. jnQ?n2 should be pmna. The meaning of Nahson 
 might be 'little serpent.' Most probably, however, this is a 
 mistake, and the name is partly a corruption, partly an ex- 
 pansion, of j^ia. The idol referred to was probably an image 
 of the Cushite or Jerahmeelite Baal, such as is referred to as 
 having existed in the temple at Jerusalem in the last years of 
 the kingdom of Judah (see on Ezek. viii. 3, 5). Hezekiah 
 naturally broke up this idol and 'the Asherah' when 'he 
 rebelled against the king of Asshur and served him not' 
 (v. 7). Later writers confounded 'Cushan' with another 
 image of Babylonian affinities — the so-called ' brazen serpent.' 
 
 xviii. 8. Hezekiah's (temporary ?) successes against the 
 Zarephathites (Pelistim). These extended to the territory 
 of 'Azzah (' the strong '), i.e. perhaps Zarephath. A second 
 definition is also given, nsio T'i'-ns D"'ns3 ^liDD (cp. on 
 xvii. 9). Here '3 should be D'^n^o ; note that in i K. xvii. 9 
 
38o CRITICA BIBLICA xviii. 9 
 
 we read of ■^•v'h nmN nEJns, where (see note) pT2 comes 
 from niSQ. nsiD ti:; is a description of nisp, ?>. the city of 
 Missor. Cp. Josh. xix. 29 ; the original document underlying 
 this passage must have had niJo isio T'l', and have referred 
 to the N. Arabian border-land ; also i S. vi. 1 8. 
 
 xviii. 9/ npM3Q^m, i.e., as most say, Shalmaneser IV. 
 Again, in xvii. 2 (gloss ?). The Babylonian Chronicle gives 
 the name of Tiglath-pileser's successor as Sulman-asarid. 
 According to Schrader {ZKP ii. 197 ff.) there is a tran- 
 scriptional error in the Hebrew text, and we should read 
 TiDN-Jo^tO- Does our passage state that the Assyrian king 
 took Samaria? Most probably it does. ® gives koX Kare- 
 Xd^ero ; the Hebrew text has mi'?"'"!, which, following ns"'1, 
 is most naturally pointed rT"j3^^1. The points, however, give 
 n"T3^n, which it is very natural to prefer, if the pnotD referred 
 to is Samaria. For beyond question Sargon and not ' Shal- 
 maneser ' took Samaria. We must, however, after all that 
 has gone before, pronounce it to be more probable that jnoD 
 is the Shimron in the Negeb, and that ' Shalmaneser,' like 
 ' Tiglath-pileser,' is a N. Arabian king. It was apparently 
 a king called Shalman who took Shimron and with it the. 
 Shimronite Negeb, and perhaps we may rightly see a 
 reference to this in Hos. x. 14, if Beth-arbel in that passage 
 should rather be Beth-jerahmeel (see note). A king of 
 Moab called Salamanu is mentioned by ' Tiglath-pileser.' 
 The same name may have been borne by a king of Ashhur, 
 IDN may itself represent Ti2)n. 
 
 xviii. 1 3 -xix. 37. Not only is this narrative composite, 
 but there are traces in it of a combination of two traditions, 
 one referring to an Assyrian, the other to an Asshurite 
 or N. Arabian invasion (against Winckler and Prasek, see 
 E. Bib., 'Sennacherib,' § 5).^ That xviii. 13^-16 refers to 
 Sennacherib's invasion in 701 is probable; the parallelism 
 between the 46 fenced cities, etc. of Sennacherib's inscription 
 
 1 PraSek's latest utterance (' Sanheribs Feldziige gegen Juda,' L, in 
 Mitteil. der Vorderasiat. Gesellsch:, 1903, part 4) takes no account of this 
 article, which probably appeared just too late for him. It is an able 
 work, but relies, as I venture to think, unduly on the Massoretic text. 
 The same remark applies to Winckler. Until these critics have done 
 more justice to the new point of view in Old Testament criticism, no 
 sound progress can, as it seems to me, be hoped for. 
 
xviii. 17 SECOND KINGS 381 
 
 and V. 13* is striking. But at any rate the rest of the 
 narratives, which critics have analysed into two distinct 
 accounts, refer to a N. Arabian invasion. The redactor 
 misunderstood this, and revised the text in accordance 
 with the theory that here, too, the invasion of the Assyrian 
 king was referred to. If this be so, the name Tin^D 
 must have a twofold representative character ; ( i ) it must 
 stand for Sin-ahi-irba, the name of the Assyrian king 
 Sargon's successor ; and (2) it must have been partly cor- 
 rupted, partly altered from some conventional or real name 
 of a N. Arabian king. Tnn (cnn) would be a perfectly 
 natural corruption of XiTW (cp. on dttt, i K. v. 15), 3 as 
 often may represent the final letter of ^Nom"' ; D may either 
 be an editorial prefix (cp. on Jsf?13D, Neh. ii. 10) or a cor- 
 ruption of D (the D in rw repeated). Probably too, here as 
 often elsewhere (see on 2 S. xv. 11), of^miT' is a corruption 
 of '3MSOtD^ The place meant is Beth-ishmael or -jerahmeel 
 (p. 286). 
 
 xviii. 14. rrB"'3f?, preceded and followed by Pasek. If 
 the king of Asshur referred to is the Assyrian king Sen- 
 nacherib, the place intended may be that defined by Eus. 
 and Jer. as 7 R. m. S. of Eleutheropolis, and referred to on 
 a bas-relief of Sennacherib as having been taken by that 
 king (Winckler, Textbuck^^^ 47). We do not, however, know 
 from any other source that Sennacherib received ambassadors 
 from Judah at Lachish, and it is possible that rrtO^Df? was 
 inserted in v. 14 by the redactor in order to fuse the two 
 independent narratives, ©""a^ being referred to in v. ly as 
 the place where the king of Asshur was when he sent a 
 ' great host ' against Jerusalem. 
 
 xviii. 17. ©13b here is probably a corruption of hiiWi}, 
 i£. possibly TT^n (see E. Bib., ' Negeb,' § 7, ' Ziklag '), but 
 more probably fJMroBT, i.e. ' Ir Ishmael ' or ' Ir Jerahmeel' 
 ]mn and o'lno'lT are wanting in Isa. (xxxvi. 2), and since 
 in the sequel mention is only made of Rab-shakeh (cp. also 
 (3's TTjOo? avTov, V. 1 8), it seems probable that rrpm-n alone 
 is correct, jmn is, no doubt, the Ass. turtdnu, i.e. com- 
 mander-in-chief. Whoever wrote this word 'm.v. 17 identified 
 the king referred to with Sennacherib. But was this the 
 view of the original writer- of the document? There are 
 
382 CRITICA BIBUCA xviii. 2t 
 
 historical reasons for doubting this (see E. Bib., 'Sen- 
 nacherib '), and these doubts are confirmed by the fact that 
 no perfectly satisfactory explanation has been given from 
 Assyrian of the titles Rab-saris and Rab-shakeh. Upon 
 the theory that a N. Arabian invasion is intended, at any 
 rate, in the greater part of the narrative, we may (applying 
 the methods adopted elsewhere) explain Rab-saris as a cor- 
 ruption of 'Arab-asshur ( = Asshurite Arabia), and Rab- 
 shakeh as a corruption of 'Arab-cush ( = Cushite Arabia). 
 The narrative is possibly an amplification and development 
 of a short and simple record in which Asshurite and Cushite 
 Arabia were spoken of as taking part in an invasion of 
 Judah ; possibly, too, the narrator used the record in a 
 corrupt form, which presented the names in forms approach- 
 ing Rab-saris and Rab-shakeh. At any rate, there are 
 parallels enough for the corruption of TitOM into d"'1d, and of 
 tei3 into nptO. Cp. on Jer. xxxix. 3. See also E. Bib., cols. 
 4001,4903; Zimmern, ZDMG, liii. 116, note; Winckler, 
 in KAT'~^\ 273. 
 
 xviii. 21. The figure of the reed is from Ezek. xxix. 
 6 f., and the narrator means by D"'n2JD the same region as 
 the prophetic writer, viz. Misrim (Musri). r\T(^ is either a 
 later insertion, or a corruption of INIQ (Pir'u). The Asshur- 
 ite king had a quarrel with Misrim (see on xix. 9). 
 
 xviii. 26. Rab-shakeh (?) is requested to speak in 
 ardmith, i.e. in the language of Aram or Jerahmeel, with 
 which Hezekiah's courtiers are well acquainted. Cp. Neh. 
 xiii. 23/;, where read, ' In those days also I saw the Jews 
 who' had married Asshurite wives [glosses, Jerahmeelite, 
 Misrite], and of their children half spoke Asshurite.' 
 
 xviii. 2yb. It is plausible to read dnij^in-nij f?b>ji^, 
 D^on-nM mn^^"i, 'to eat their carob-pods and to drink 
 their sour wine.' See E. Bib., ' Husks.' Certainly the text 
 is impossible.^ But the parallelism of Q'^3T'i"in (vi. 25) and 
 nni'nn suggests a more completely defensible' remedy. Dies 
 
 1 Konig {Siyl. 267) objects to emendation, on the ground that else- 
 where the text-tradition alters the text in an aesthetic direction. But 
 there is a whole group of passages in which the early redactors had not 
 this object before them ; a corrupt text has here been manipulated by 
 them in a very unassthetic direction. 
 
,xix. 9 SECOND KINGS 383 
 
 (' together with you ') should follow HDnn-'pi;. The inter- 
 mediate words come from ethnics. nM^iM = bi^nriN = 'dQ)'' ; 
 Dni"in = 'nT. mnmb = ni^jom = d-''?Mi;Dm-' (i K. x. 25). 
 un-TXa also = 'om'^ (cp. Q^im, mi^s, ps = 'om-'). The Kri read- 
 ings may represent 'rrv 'otDi (cp. on vcp, nN2, "12, ^p, Isa. xxviii. 
 8, 10 (pp. 33, 144). The ' Jerahmeelites ' or ' Ishmaelites ' 
 are the people of the Negeb. Cp. on xviii. 1 3-xix. 37 (end). 
 
 xviii. 32. 'A land of corn and wine' (as Dt. viii. 7 f.). 
 Unless we are prepared to suppose that here the redactor 
 has itianipulated the text, introducing a reference to Baby- 
 lonia, we must hold that some part of N. Arabia is meant. 
 Certainly the Negeb seems to have been regarded in 
 S. Palestine as rich in agricultural products. See on Gen. 
 xlix. II, Num. xiii. 23, Ezek. xxvii. 18, Ps. civ. 143, i 5«. 
 
 xviii. 34. Cp. on Isa. x. 9-1 1. non, ^S^N, D''"nDD 
 probably come from n3SD, mSN, nms. S3rr and m» do 
 not occur in the || Isa. xxxvi. 1 9 ; they are found, however, 
 in 2 K. xix. 1 3 and Isa. xxxvii. 1 3. They represent two 
 fragmentary distortions of SMOm"' (cp. on f'^h, xix. 13). 
 For the place called here ' Jerahmeel ' see on Hos. x. 1 4. 
 We must, of course, supply (from ©"-) ]innm pN TrfpM rfNI. 
 pnoB is the Shimron in the Negeb. {Vv. 32-35 seem to be 
 an interpolation ; cp. Duhm on Isa. xxxvi. 18-20). 
 
 Chap. xix. 8. It appears (see Duhm ; and Intr. Is., 
 p. 229^) that of the two accounts of the expedition against 
 Jerusalem, one represented the messengers to Hezekiah as 
 starting from ' Lachish ' (see- on xviii. 17), the other as start- 
 ing from Libnah. If it is the king of Ashhur who sends 
 the messengers, both Lachish and Libnah must be sought in 
 the Negeb. ' Lachish ' will come from ' Eshcol ' (cp. on 
 xiv. 19); for 'Libnah' cp. on Num. xxxiii. 20/, Dt. i. i, 
 and note the gentilic ' Libni,' Num. iii. 18, etc. Cp. on 
 xxiv. 17. 
 
 xix. 9. nj^rnn, ' king of Cush.' According to most, the 
 narrator, or his authority, is here well-informed, inasmuch 
 as Taharkd did not become king of Egypt till 694-693 
 {E. Bib., ' Tirhakah '), while Sennacherib's expedition to the 
 West land took place in 701. Doubtless the redactor 
 meant by rrpmn the still famous Tahark6. But was this 
 the name used by the original writer ? If it is on the whole 
 
384 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xix. 12 
 
 probable that his ' Asshur ' was in N. Arabia, and that the 
 kingof ' Asshur' was called by him ' Jerahmeel,' it becomes 
 plausible at once to suppose that the original name was 
 pmn, which (see on xvii. 30/!) probably comes from niri. 
 The ' great king ' of Asshur claimed suzerainty both over 
 Judah and over the smaller ' Jerahmeelite ' kingdoms (see on 
 Isa. X. 10). His claim, however, was disputed by Judah, 
 by Misrim, and by Cush. The ' great king,' therefore, sought 
 to bring each of these countries into subjection. (Even if 
 we accept this theory, we may, of course, use the facts of the 
 life of Taharkd to illustrate the passage as read by the 
 redactor). 
 
 xix. 1 2. From our present point of view, Haran is the 
 southern place of that name (see on Gen, xi. 31), and 
 ' Rezeph ' is a corruption of ' Zarephath * (see E. Bib., 
 ' Rezeph '). ' Eden ' (jni?) is the Eden-jerahmeel revealed by 
 textual criticism in Gen. ii. 8 (see also on Am. i. 5, Ezek. 
 xxvii. 23). ' Gozan ' has probably arisen out of a cor- 
 ruptly written ]tB^3 (cp. on xvii. 6). The ' bne Eden ' are 
 further defined as being in n^N^ri, or, rather, 1£&n hv\, or, 
 best of all, ^Ej« "bin (see pp. 9 1 /.). 
 
 xix. 13. Cp. on xviii. 34. T^'S (not in xviii. 34) is 
 here prefixed to D"'inDD (so in Isa. xxxvii. 13). No doubt 
 it is a corrupt fragment of f?NDnT, i.e. the city of Jerahmeel, 
 a place-name which also probably underlies mpl i^DH (see on 
 xviii. 34). Cp. on Ti;n-SN, i K, xx. 30*5. 
 
 xix. 23. Evidently corrupt. To restore the text suc- 
 cessfully we must remember that the invader is a N. Arabian 
 Asshurite, and that the territory invaded is that of Judah in 
 the Negeb, also that the metre of the poem is the so-called 
 kind metre. As to the details. In v. 23a IDT represents 
 bNom"' (cp. on Ezek. xxiii. 23, xxvi. 10) ; so also nyra and 
 cnn. In V. 233 xha (Kgs.) and dtid (Isa.) both represent 
 pQIN (cp. ni^o^N and 'qim, competing readings in Isa, 
 xiii. 22) ; mp (Kgs.) or lap (Isa.) springs from oma or iriBJN 
 (cp. on Ezek. vii. 6) ; ^:>1 from Ti^l, and I^Kna from 'riT. 
 Read therefore — 
 
xix. 26 SECOND KINGS 385 
 
 . . . m3NT 
 
 xix. 24. Point T!i2i!p (lisp ?) ■'niN'; ; cp. Isa. vii. 1 8, 
 xix. 6, Ezek. xxix. 3 ff., xxx. 1 2, Ps. Ixxviii. 44, and see 
 Cheyne, SBOT, ' Isaiah,' Heb., pp. 115/ (but also Haupt 
 on p. 109); Ps.^^'' on Ps. Ix. 12; and Winckler, Alttest. 
 Untersuck., 170. 
 
 xix. 25. We may with some probability correct thus — 
 
 : . . . mMtcn'? 
 
 !?NonT is a title of the king of Asshur (cp. on Isa. 
 xiv. 12, Ezek. xxviii. 8). p"imo^ in MT. is suggested by 
 Isa. xxii. 1 1 . The sense, however, is improved by the 
 proposed correction. After the proud vaunt of the Asshurite 
 king, we expect an indignant apostrophe, addressing him by 
 name (cp. on v. 27/), and Dip iqid has more force, if the 
 'antiquity' of the predetermination of the king's exploits 
 comes in as a climax, followed by TiT^SX For the corruption 
 of 'nv into pyrvyoh, cp on Jer. iv. 16, viii. 19. ■^nn[l] in 
 MT. is dittographic. 
 
 xix. 26. How very weak and tautological in the midst 
 of such a vigorous and concisely expressed attack ! Is it 
 an editorial amplification ? Experience, however, bids us 
 look for an underlying text. The proximity of ■'itO"' and 
 Id"' naturally suggests the presence of ^mso©"', while "'isp 
 may easily have come either from •i^^^^^ or (better) from 
 TintfM. There remain jrr, t.e. \n, ' behold ' ; innT, i.e. mim ; 
 and vrr, i.e. Nin. This part of v. 26 has probably grown 
 out of -nntOM Nin ^MOnT jn, 'truly, Jerahmeel (see v. 25a, 
 ' Hast thou not heard, O Jerahmeel ' ?) is Ashhur ' ; in fact, 
 the leading N. Arabian king is, in Isa. x. 5, 24, called 
 ' Asshur,' This was recast by the editor, who also inserted 
 mnm and (twice) ^M:>Dm\ — The latter part of z^. 26 (down 
 to HEnw) consists of interpolated place-names. Iter comes 
 from i;3t& = ^MSDt»i ; mva, M»l, and Ti^n represent nintON ; 
 pv comes from 'nT" ; HDimT nm from DTiEjns na, cp. Am. 
 vi. 2. (Isa. has nDn», unsuitably, even from a conservative 
 
386 CRITICA BIBLICA xix. 27 
 
 point of view. Yet, comparing the koI to? aypcoari'; of @ in 
 Isa. xxxvii. 27, i.e. T'p^pl, we might perhaps restore p"ip0"i.) 
 The three places meant seem to be Beth-jerahmeel, Ashhur- 
 (or Ashtor-)jerahmeel, and Rehoboth (cp. E. Bib., ' Reho- 
 both'). V. 26b, therefore, is a gloss on Tmi'y D'lli;, z/. 25. 
 For other views (resources of despair, surely) see Marti on 
 Isa. xxxvii. 27 {un^i J^nm) ; Nestle, PSBA, xxv. 63 [1903], 
 who suspects a reference to the Egyptian shadoof {tnrn&d by 
 the foot) ; and Klost, followed by me in SBOT, pp. 28, 116 
 (QVDtpl) ; also Kittel, ad loc. — Ti'Op 133^?, of course, comes 
 from 'FfOj^ -ijpS ; so Wellh. (Bleek's Einl.^'^^, p. 257), and most 
 after him. Burkitt {PSBA, xxiv. 217 [1902]) points out 
 that this is really confirmed by the Syr.-hex. in Field's 
 Hexapla. 
 
 xix. 27/ Accepting Wellh.'s suggestion, and remem- 
 bering that the poem is in the ^ina metre, we are obliged 
 to omit -TiST, as well as hv^ 'nrr nwi. riMT is a corruption 
 of a dittographed r\TV. "ht^ 'nrr is also duplicated. But 
 this is not the whole story. We have hardly a right to 
 excise TirT' without accounting for it Did a scribe insert 
 it from the mere love of amplifying ? Besides, ■'^n and pi 
 are also difficult ; 'hv^ is superfluous (cp. 133Nffi), and \T is 
 awkward. As to TIST. Sometimes {e.g. Ps. xxxi. 15, 
 Ixxxi. 6) this word has come froni f?NnrrT'. This is almost 
 certainly the case here ; the sense almost requires this, and 
 we can best account for p-^ h^, ■'Sn, and the nn in imnn 
 by supposing that these also represent fjNom'' (pi = nsi;on 
 which cp. note on 2 S. xxi. 1 9, Ps. cxxxii. 6). The result 
 obtained is as follows — 
 
 That ^NDHT, ' O Jerahmeel,' is a mere stop-gap, no one will 
 venture to assert. Cp. on D. 25. 
 
 xix. 35. Why this exact number, 185,000? As in 
 many similar cases, it is due to the redactor, who misunder- 
 stood corruptly written ethnics. The original text had 
 f7ND[nT'] dms 7Ni>Dffl-' [^]NDn[Ti] — glosses on n^i^N. — 1D''5t!)"'1 
 'yx\. Marti remarks, ' Whether v. 361^ can be rendered, 
 " When one arose early in the morning, one found them 
 
xix. 36 SECOND KINGS 387 
 
 all lifeless corpses," is surely very questionable,' and, with 
 Duhm, supposes the words to represent a popular witticism. 
 If, however, this is the only meaning the text will bear, can 
 the text, we ask, be correct? The most doubtful word is 
 not lD"'3tO"'T but D^a. In a less degree qtid D"'niE3 is also 
 objectionable ; DTiD (in spite of Gesenius's comparison of 
 Syr. pagra, ' de quovis corpore, etiam vivo ') is superfluous. 
 Now nba is one of the current corruptions of 'jnoht ; not 
 improbably D"'11S (like Q■'^ll in xxii. 14) is a corruption 
 of C^MOm"', which was originally written as a correction of 
 ah'2. The sense then becomes, 'and when men arose, etc., 
 behold, the Jerahmeelites were dead.' On the singular story 
 of Sethos and Sanacharibos in Herod, iii. 141, see E. Bib., 
 ' Sennacherib,' § 5, where Herodotus is proved to have fallen 
 into a confusion of persons. See on xxiii. 29. 
 
 xix. 36 / rv\T2 (where 13 = n, 1 = n, n = n) most prob- 
 ably comes from fjMom"', some form of which was assumed 
 by Hebrew writers to be the name of the capital of the 
 N. Arabian Asshur. — ^^^D3. The name has been much 
 discussed (see SBOT, 'Isaiah,' Heb., pp. 113/; E. Bib., 
 ' Nisroch '), and Sayce's theory (wrongly ascribed by Kittel 
 and Burney to Haldvy as first proposer) that Nisroch (?) 
 comes from Nusku, a god connected with Nabu, and also 
 identified with Gibil the fire-god, has found some accept- 
 ance. In E. Bib., l.c., ^^D3 is supposed to be miswritten 
 either for nf?D[l]3», ' Anumelek' (MT., 2 K. xvii. 31, "q^B??), 
 or, more probably, for inno (MT. ill'ia). These explana- 
 tions (the latter given independently by Winckler), however, 
 are only plausible on the theory that the original narrative 
 referred to a king who resided at Nineveh in Assyria. 
 From our present point of view 11D3 is most easily ex- 
 plained as a corruption either of "np: or of f?MDm\ A late 
 writer might perhaps suppose that ' Nimrod ' was the name 
 of the god as well as of the founder of Nineveh. This 
 would enable us to keep 'nnM .or the underlying name for 
 the assassin of ' Sennacherib.' But it is more probable that 
 'niM, i.e. hvxsm-' (see next paragraph), is an early correction 
 of inD3 ; cp lf?D3M in xvii. 31. 
 
 We now pass on to •sj^an^M. This name, too, has exer- 
 cised the critics. In the Babylonian Chronicle only one son 
 
388 CRITICA BIBLICA xx. 12 
 
 is mentioned as the murderer of Sennacherib, and Winckler 
 {AOF, vii. 59; KAT,^^^ P- 85) thinks. that Adrammelech 
 and Sarezer represent two names of the same person. More 
 probably, however, ffponiN comes from l^anN (a well-known 
 PhcEn. name, Cooke, pp. 18, 20), and this from ^NDnT, 
 which was written in the margin as a correction of inoi. 
 From the margin 'm^ in the correct form 'i^oniN, penetrated 
 into the text at an unsuitable place. Thus Sarezer was 
 provided with a fellow-conspirator. Cp., however, Cheyne, 
 'Prince Adrammelech,' etc., Exp.T, June 1898. — issjcito (i"./. 
 n!iN~im). According to Winckler {AOF, I.e.), from Sar-etir, 
 More probably, however, the name is due to a redactor,;: 
 underlying it, there should be a name or title referring to 
 some native of the southern Asshur. The best explanation 
 (but cp. on Jer. xxxix. 3) is that ^2M^Q> comes from n^N ya, 
 ' a prince of Asshur.' — r^l (Kr. here, many MSS., all vss., 
 and II Isa.) is rightly absent from Kt. — IflT.'iN. See on Gen, 
 viii. 4. The original text had dim, t'.e. the southern Aram. 
 — j'rrT-npN. That the redactor thought of the Assyrian 
 king, Asur-ah-iddina, is beyond doubt. But that here, as 
 elsewhere, the text has been manipulated, is almost equally 
 certain. But what is the underlying name? Probably 
 J~in-n^N, whose pn (like hrtl in Gen.) is a fragment of 'riT ; 
 h, as so often in these names, became j. 
 
 Thus the verse becomes, ' And as he was worshipping in- 
 the house of Jerahmeel his god, a prince of Asshur smote 
 him with the sword. As for him, he escaped into the land 
 of Aram. And Asshur-haran (?) his son reigned in his 
 stead.' 
 
 Chap. xx. i 2. Tixni is a corruption, not of llNIO (as 
 several MSS., @, Pesh., Targ., and || Isa. xxxix. i), but of 
 TTN13 ( = Bir-dadda, a N. Arabian name, see KB, ii. 222/), 
 and pN^l probably comes from this same word dittographed. 
 (' Son of Baladan ' is a poor gloss). The king referred to 
 is one of the Jerahmeelite princes who had owned the 
 supremacy of Ashhur, but were now conspiring to re- 
 pudiate it. 
 
 XX. 14, 17/. h:iX as so often, is a literary corruption 
 of some form of f?NDm"'. The capital of Cusham or 
 Aram-cush (MT. nnms) is meant. 
 
xxii. 14 SECOND KINGS 389 
 
 Chap. xxi. i. 'Manasseh.' The name may perhaps be 
 a sign of the annexation by the Judahites of territory which 
 had once belonged to the northern tribe of Manasseh. Cp. 
 xxiii. 4, 15-20, and see on 2 Chr. xxxiv. 6. This annexa- 
 tion may account for the gravitation of this king towards 
 jerahmeelite cults ; note the comparison of Manasseh's 
 religion to that of Ahab (husband of a Misrite princess). 
 Note also in v. 6 the reference to the sacrifice of children 
 (cp. on xvi. 3). The queen-mother's name is nn-isgn. In 
 E. Bib., s.v. ' Hephzibah,' this is identified with the Phoenician 
 name, S»3SDn {CIS, i. 102 ; Cooke, p. 90). But whether 
 the name originally meant ' pleasure of Baal ' is doubtful. 
 Ssas may be the connecting link between Jisis (Gen. 
 xxxvi. 2) and f?N:;Offi"> ; cp. ^3rN, Ahab's wife's name, nn 
 may come from npn, which is the name of a son of Manasseh 
 (Josh. xvii. 2); cp. also on ' Hepher,' i K. iv. 10. — 13. 
 Point pnpro. — 18. See E. Bib., ' Uzza, Garden of — 19. 
 yvm, like lisn, may come from i^naJM ; mifl^' from nriD"' 
 (see E. Bib., ' Jotbah '). 
 
 Chap. xxii. i. Cp. the N. Arabian name, m)!% Gen. 
 xxxvi. 5, etc. — 'Adaiah'; cp. mi'. Gen. iii. 19, a Jerah- 
 meelite name. 
 
 xxii. 3 ff. The geography of the narrative has evidently 
 been shifted. Even ' Jerusalem ' is probably inaccurate ; the 
 city meant is [Beth-]ishmael ; cp. on xxiii. 1 3. The temple 
 of this place had probably been almost destroyed. Josiah 
 ordered its purification (as regards cultus) and reparation. 
 In the course of the repairs, Hilkiah found the famous law- 
 book of the Negeb, and perhaps carried out a further 
 redaction and expansion of it. 
 
 xxii. 12, 14. 'Shaphan' has nothing to do with 
 totemism, though for a time such a connection seemed 
 plausible (see E. Bib., ' Shaphan '). Ahikam, Akb5r, and 
 Mikaiah are all Jerahmeelite names, and so, too, presumably 
 is Shaphan. The best theory is to connect )Dm with jiDS 
 (the name of a N. Arabian region; see on Jer. i. 14 ff-); 
 cp. ma from nD2J. ' Huldah,' too, does not properly mean 
 ' weasel ' (!), but is probably in its origin a literary corrup- 
 tion of rh^n, i.e. Jrhrri = ni'7Mom\ The Nabatsean name 
 nhn (CIS ii. 158 ; Cooke, p. 256) may be a stone-cutter's 
 
390 CRITICA BIBLICA xxui. 4 
 
 mistake ; ^'Wi, too, in 2 Chr. xxviii. 1 2, an Ishmaelite 
 name, should perhaps be if?in. ' Huldah ' is the wife of 
 Shallum (Ishmaelite? Salmsean ?), who is distinguished (i) 
 as mpn-p, where i?1pn = n3:>D (in the Negeb), and (2) as 
 Dnnn iDto omn-p, i.e. hvcarrx' piot» [^NDmi] ja, ' a man 
 of Shimron-jerahmeel.' 'in = f?Nnm"', written too soon, and 
 therefore to be neglected, nom is piom written shortly 
 ('lom). D■'^3a is a manipulated corruption of 'm^ (cp. 
 ana:!). — For obteiT'l read ^Ni>Dm"'l ; the two names are 
 often confounded. If ' Huldah ' had dwelt in Jerusalem, 
 why should this have been mentioned ? — r72ffli23, i.e. hv^'sufsn 
 (cp. JDBJ, Isa. X. 27), originally a correction on the mis- 
 written Dbm^T'3. If we do not wish to hold that Huldah 
 dwelt in Beth-ishmael (or -jerahmeel), one of the chief 
 cities of the Negeb, we must suppose that a part of 
 Jerusalem bore the name ' Ishmael.' Cp. on Zeph. i. 10; 
 also E. Bib., ' Huldah,' ' Tekoa.' 
 
 Chap, xxiii. 4. The southern Bethel is meant (see on 
 I K. xii. 29, Am. vii. 13). For ' Kidron,' see on 2 S. xv, 23. 
 — V. 5 D"'li5|. See on Hos. x. 5, Zeph. i. 4. — nh'jja. 
 The word follows motcn and mTT. Most probably from 
 rr'^Ni^atC"', ' the (great) Ishmaelitish goddess ' ; cp. na^O 
 ^Nl^QtO"', if we may so read in Jer. vii. 18. Similarly 
 ■non (see on Ezek. viii. 1 4) ; cp. also Q"'atot, Dt. ii. 20, . 
 from Qi^NSoa?-'. Perhaps we may omit ffiomrr and r\r'X\ 
 as interpolations, in which case the Baal and his consort 
 (bsin and iT'^Ni^Dm"') will stand together. 'All the host 
 of heaven ' (which follows) of course includes sun and moon 
 (cp. xvii. 16, xxi. 3). — 7. Benz., 'The writer of v. yb seems 
 not to have known what the D"'ffllp were for, since he 
 makes them into weavers.' But possibly we should read 
 U'^Mi, ' Cushites ' (see on i K. xiv. 24). The Cushites were 
 temple-ministers ; see on Ezek. xliv. 913:, Zeph. i. 8 /, 2 S. 
 v. 8 (' therefore the Jerahmeelites are servants of Yahw^'s 
 house '). 
 
 . xxiii. 8. The difficulties of this verse are great. Why 
 ' from Geba to Beersheba ' ? Did Judah proper really extend 
 northward only as far as Geba (see E. Bib., ' Geba.') ? Next, 
 even if we read QiTrto for C3"'"istp, who can explain the topo- 
 graphical notice in v. 8b? The parallel phrase ' from Dan 
 
xxiii. 10 SECOND. KINGS 391 
 
 to Beersheba' originally described the Israelitish Negeb 
 (see on Judg. xx. i, 2 S, xxiv. 2), and 'from Geba to 
 Rimmon' (taking these words by themselves) in Zech. 
 xiv. 10 can only mean 'from Geba to Jerahmeel,' and both 
 these place-names necessarily belong to the Negeb. Then, 
 T'sn nns-imM, •vst\ n», and Tii^rr nsmn — are not these in 
 some way related? Then, m''N fplMom-'pi^-nffiN, how is this 
 to be construed in the clause ? And what business has 
 ' Joshua, chief of the city ' in a description of a gate ? It is 
 a weak remedy for ©■>« 'm-^r to insert Na (Klost, G. Hoffm., 
 Ki., after (g"-; cp. Perles, Anal., 49). Only a thorough- 
 going and yet regular criticism will help. We may assume 
 that the passage referred originally to the Negeb (annexed 
 by Judah) ; rmn*' ""ISQ should be fjMonT^ •'li'p (cp. T^'^^^^!V 
 from ^Nom"' in the corrupt phrase rnirr"' Dn^-nil). As 
 to V. 83, it should probably run thus tD'^"T£&n msiTiN j>n3T 
 fpNOHT nsm nns 1»m, ' and he pulled down the bamdth of the 
 shedlm which were in the entrance of the gate of Jerahmeel.' 
 The corrupt text also : permits us to see that there was a 
 variant to f?MDm% viz, (as so often) f?NSDt»'^. The city 
 meant was one distinguished religiously by having beside 
 its gateway bamdth of Baal and his consort, here called 
 shedlm. stoiri"' is an invention of the redactor, based upon 
 fragments of both readings fjNOm"' and ^NrDtO"" {i.e. m"' ^- 
 sm). Trn -iW comes from ^NonT' 1HW. ^iNom-^i? nt&N 
 comes from ^Nl'DtD"' ni?t». T'sn "iSW m"'N represents husow 
 ^NDTTT' n»». The passage implies that the inhabitants of 
 the Negeb still practised the old cults of the country, and 
 had Israelitish priests. To these priests Josiah gave other 
 places of abode, and their bamoth he profaned ; and the 
 specially famous bamoth of Jerahmeel (see on Jer. ii. 34, 
 iii. 24, Mic. i. 5-7) he broke down. 
 
 xxiii. I o. 11^6^. Rather "n^GiS. "qSo, according to most 
 recent scholars (see E. Bib., ' Molech,' § 5), was a title of 
 Yahwe. The evidence, as sanctioned by a keener criticism, 
 seems to show that l^D is a popular corruption of ^Nom"> {i.e. 
 the Jerahmeelite Baal). See on Lev. xviii. 2 1 , Jer. xxxii. 35. 
 In the latter passage the bamdth of ' the Baal ' are put in 
 equally close connection with lf?D. — 11. The passage has 
 been discussed in E. Bib., ' Nathan-melech,' ' Parbar.' For 
 
392 CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 xxm. I 
 
 M3p read probably m.i?0, ' on the west of/ and for the ur 
 intelligible D^'n'nni read c-iisa. The name ij^D-jn^ seem 
 to be a popular corruption of T'NQm'' jrfN. There wa 
 an Ethanite or Jerahmeelite, whose office was to attem 
 to the mules — the king's riding animals. Near his chambe 
 were the horses which the kings of Judah had dedicated t( 
 the sun, together with the chariots of the sun, which latte 
 Josiah is stated to have burned. — 13. nTltCan nrr. Hoff 
 mann {ZATW ii. 175), Perles {Anal. 31), and Kittel {ac 
 loc.) suppose rr^nmo to be an intentional, witty alteration 0: 
 nntOD. But what evidence is there for nntOD, ' oil' ? Surelj 
 nTiman, like mriDtsn in Zeph. i. 11, comes from D'^inntfiBrj; 
 for an explanation of which see 2 S. xv. 32, mnnJD'' ntSN 
 cnrhih nm. DirT"irr rhsti may also be a corruption oi 
 'morr rhsa. See on Neh. xiii. 15, and cp. E. Bib., ' Destruc- 
 tion, Mount of,' also (for the original name), Crit. Bib. p. 288, 
 foot. There is good reason to think that the ' mountain ' 
 spoken of was really close to Beth-ishmael in the Negeb. 
 
 xxiii. 15, 19. Here a revision of the -text leads to 
 important results. A recent writer -speaks thus (Day, /5Z, 
 1902, pp. 208/). 
 
 We are told in the later narrative that Josiah carried his reform, 
 not only into Ephraim and Manasseh, but also into Simeon and 
 Naphtali (xxxiv. 6). Did the writers locate Simeon in the north 
 because they knew no better than to place there a tribe that long 
 before their time had been absorbed by Judah ? Naphtali appears 
 to have become ... a name for all Galilee. The writers of 
 2 Chr. think that the whole land must have been purged. In 
 giving their conception of the extent of the reformation, they name 
 all parts of the land as. it was known to them. All this is in 
 glaring contradiction to the earlier story, where Josiah is said to 
 have gone only into Samaria when upon his iconoclastic pilgrimage. 
 
 The truth, however, from the newer point of view, appears 
 to be that Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, and Naphtali in 
 2 Chr. xxxiv. 6 are the territories in the Negeb which were 
 anciently colonised by the tribes bearing the names ; the 
 closing words of the verse should probably run ['om''] niiTi? 
 f^Mroffl"', 'in Rehoboth of Jerahmeel (or Ishmael).' Cp. on 
 2 Chr. XV. 9, xxviii. 12, xxx. i, 10 f., and see on Isa'. 
 ix. 7-x. 4. 
 
xxiii. 29 SECOND KINGS 393 
 
 xxiii. 29. rrb3 ni"iB. So in vv. 33-35, but in Jer. 
 xlvi. 2 hD3 'q, and in 2 Chr. xxxv. 20, 22 133 (without 's). 
 That the redactors thought of the Egyptian king Nek6u IL, 
 whom Herodotus (after Hecataeus) states to have warred 
 with the Syrians, and to have defeated them at Magdolon, 
 after which he took Cadytis, a large city of Syria (ii. 1 5 9), 
 is beyond reasonable doubt. But Egypt was not half so 
 likely to have interfered with the affairs of Palestine as a 
 N. Arabian power. The description of Josiah's encounter 
 with Necoh may be plausibly read so as to fit this view. 
 ' In his days the king of Misrim went up against the king 
 of Ashhur to the stream Ephrath ; and king Josiah went 
 against him, and he slew him at Migdal.' Then (vv. 33 /■) 
 we are told that the Misrite king put Jehoahaz in chains 
 at Riblah ( = Jerahmeel) in the land of Maacath (see 
 E. Bib., 'Riblah'), and took him away to Misrim. It is 
 true that Herodotus {I.e.) speaks of the warlike expedition 
 of Ne/eo)? in Syria. But it is this same writer who elsewhere 
 (ii. 141) speaks of %ava'^dpi,0o<;, king of the Assyrians and 
 Arabians, as going against Se^to? king of Egypt, whereas, 
 doubtless, it was a king of the Asshurites and Arabians 
 who went against the Egyptian king Seti (see E. Bib., 
 'Sennacherib,' § 5). A similar confusion seems to have been 
 made with regard to ' Nekos.' It was not an Egyptian but 
 a N. Arabian king who made the expedition of which 
 Herodotus speaks. The Greek writer knew nothing of the 
 N. Arabian peoples, and concluded that, as Nekos was 
 the most powerful king near the S. border of Syria, Nekos 
 must have been the king meant by the notice which had 
 reached him. Precisely such a mistake was made by the 
 Chronicler and by the redactor of Kings, and all the more 
 easily because the ethnic Misrite appears not to have gone 
 out among Jewish writers even after, according to Winckler, 
 the old Misrite territory had passed from the Misrites to the 
 peoples called Kedar and Nebaioth. If so, we may suppose 
 that the original narrative in Kings spoke of "iNnD or li^nn 
 without (133 as the king whom Josiah opposed. Herodotus's 
 'Magdolon' is more correct than the 'Megiddo' of Kings 
 and Chron. ; the confusion of f?l3D and 'TOO was very easy. 
 Herodotus also throws some light on the facts by stating 
 
 27 
 
394 CRITICA BIBLICA xxiii. 31 
 
 that ' Nekos ' fought with the ' Syrians.' It was, at any 
 rate, virtually the Asshurites with whom the Misrite king 
 contended ; the KaSuri? of Herodotus was possibly Kadesh. 
 Prior to measuring himself with the king of Ashhur he 
 wished to become possessed of the old Jerahmeelite Negebj 
 in which Migdal (perhaps Migdal-cusham, Judg. ix. 46) was 
 situated. — On the text of the closing words (iriN "iriNia is 
 impossible), see Klost. (who refers to 2 Chr. xxxvi. 23), and 
 E. Bib., 'Josiah,' col. 261 1, n. i. Note that in 2 Chr. 
 xxxvi. 22 T\ya rwpyi should most probably be h^^^ya T(ystii, 
 or riDi^D ^^:lDn ('n and 'd have a tendency to be confounded). 
 Cp. on Zech. xii. 11. 
 
 xxiii. 3 1 . bmon comes from '?N-inpn ; h\^ is formative. 
 'The queen-mother by her name was a Hamathite, i£. 
 Maacathite. 
 
 xxiii. 34. Eliakim made king ; his name changed to 
 Jehoiakim. The motive for such a change is not easy to 
 see. Did the conqueror simply accept the name proposed 
 by the priests ? Or was the name originally ' Yerahyakim,' 
 for Yerahme'el-yakim,' i.e. ' Jerahmeel raises up ' ? Cp. on 
 xxiv. 17. 
 
 Chaps, xxiv.-xxv. Here again the question arises 
 whether the (composite?) narrative does not confound two 
 distinct invasions. It would be hypercriticism to deny that 
 Nabu-kudur-usur, king of Babylon, invaded Judah. BerossuS' 
 (Jos. c. Ap. i. 19) is said to have spoken of the rebellion of 
 the satrap appointed by Nabopalasar in Egypt, and the 
 region of Coele-syria and Phoenicia, of his defeat by Nabucho^ 
 donosor, and of the captives of the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians,| 
 etc., made by that prince after his accession to the throne 
 (cp. Winckler, Keilinschr. Textbuch^^^, p. 58, note 3). There 
 is also a fragment of a cuneiform inscription relative to a 
 campaign against Hatti-land (i.e. the region to the W. of 
 the Euphrates) in 602 B.C. Still there are cases enough 
 elsewhere of the (probable) confusion of two distinct invasions: 5 
 of Palestine (see on xviii. 9, 17, xxiii. 29, Isa. xx. i) to 
 make the story plausible even here (cp. on Jer. xxxvii. S)-. 
 A study of the later O.T. literature leads irresistibly to the 
 conclusion that whatever the Babylonian operations in Pales- 
 tine may have been, they did not set the same mark on 
 
XXV. 6 SECOND KINGS 395 
 
 Jewish tradition as another invasion — that of the N. Arabians. 
 That the name ^2iM3^3"ln3 or n2iMnn3"il3 meant, to the redactor of 
 Kings, the Babylonian king Nabu-kudur-usur, is unquestion- 
 able. But experience justifies us in doubting whether this 
 was the name in all the original documents. Most probably 
 12NinD"Q3 (3 for n, after ^, is a corruption) is, usually at least, 
 a redactional transformation of ni|N Til3, ' Nebrod-asshur ' ; 
 cp. Mic. V. 5 [6], where ' Asshur ' and ' Nimrod ' are parallel. 
 Cp. on Jer. xxvii. 6, and for Nebrod = Nimrod see @, Gen. 
 X. 8/ 
 
 xxiv. 2. For Dnto3 read Di0^3 or mi3-mM, for iNlo and 
 pns read perhaps niSD and ^Nom"'. Since qim, as well as 
 pas, represents fpsonT^, it is possible that the original passage 
 meant ' bands (cp. 2 K. v. 2, " the Arammites had gone out 
 in bands ") of the Cushites, of the Jerahmeelites, and of the 
 Misrites' (Winckler admits Arabian ' kasdim,' AOF'-^\ ii. 
 250^.). Note that v. 2 has the appearance of being the 
 beginning of the account of an invasion ; i.e. the Cushite, 
 the Jerahmeelite, and Misrite ' bands ' were the precursors of 
 an army. Vv. 2-4, therefore, do not probably follow v. i. 
 
 xxiv. 7. This verse seems to be the continuation oiv. i. 
 It states that the king of Misrim remained quietly in his 
 own land. His plan of annexing the Negeb to Missor had 
 been defeated, for his suzerain the king of Jerahmeel (MT. 
 ^3a) had taken all the territory which Pir'u of Missor had 
 temporarily occupied 'from the torrent of Misrim to the stream 
 of Ephrath ' (D-i-isp, nnDM). 
 
 xxiv. 8. jehoiachin's mother came from Ishmael 
 (ofptDIT' and fjusotO'^ are confounded). But Ishmael is a 
 synonym for Jerahmeel. Jehoiakim's mother also came 
 from Jerahmeel (nmn, xxiii. 36, is a corruption). 
 
 xxiv. 17. Mattaniah is made king, and his name 
 changed to Sidkiyyah. Why? Sidkiyyah must have 
 meant more than Sidkite (a clan-name). May the rr in 
 such names be a corruption of vtv (for 7Nom''), so that the 
 name would be capable of being interpreted ' Jerahmeel is 
 righteousness,' or ' Righteousness of Jerahmeel.' Cp. on 
 xxiii. 34. Zedekiah's mother comes from Libnah, very 
 possibly the Libnah in the Negeb (see on xix. 8). 
 
 Chap. xxv. 4-6. Zedekiah flees in the direction of 
 
396 CRITICA BIBLICA xxv. 20-27 
 
 Arabia (m^i? iji"! ; cp. on Dt. i. i ), but is taken in Jerah- 
 meelite Arabia (^ndHT' lisa). He hoped, perhaps, to reach 
 the Misrite army (cp. E. Bib., ' Zedekiah '). ' Riblah ' is a 
 southern city (see E. Bib., s.v.). 
 
 xxv. 20. nt?11^^?- -^ S°°<^ Babylonian name. But it 
 may have been produced by the redactor out of a N. Arabian 
 name, either Bir-dadda (see on xx. 12) or Nebrod-aram. — 
 cnaa-n.. The analogy of D"'lD-m and np2>-:n suggests; 
 that 'nD-y] may come from a N. Arabian district-name; one 
 naturally thinks of Q-'narn. XlS- There were probably several 
 Rehoboths. How the original sentence ran we cannot tell. 
 Cp. on Gen. xxxvii. 36. 
 
 xxv. 22^. See on Jer. xl. isff-, xliii. 2. The names 
 all point to the Negeb (cp. E. Bib., ' Tanhunieth '). For 
 instance, ' Kareah ' = Jerahmeel ; ' Netophathite ' = Naphtu- 
 bite (cp. E. Bib., ' Naphtuhim '). ' Maacathite ' = belonging 
 to the southern Maacah. Mizpah may represent ' Zarephath.' 
 
 xxv. 27. ITiD S^'IN. The redactor obviously meant 
 Nebuchadrezzar's son and successor, Avil-Marduk, no his- 
 torical inscriptions of whose reign have come to light. 
 Berossus says that this king ruled avoyM'i koX aa-eXyw^. His 
 reign, however (562-560 B.C.), was surely too short to be 
 that referred to in vv. 2g /. (' all the days of his life '). It is 
 only a slight improvement which Tiele (BAG 4S7 f.) pro- 
 duces by supposing (on biblical-chronological grounds) that 
 the true liberator of Jehoiachim was Nergal-sar-usur, 
 commonly called Neriglissar ; this gives four years (560-556), 
 instead of two, to account for the Hebrew phrase referred to. 
 One can hardly doubt, however, that the king intended was 
 the leading N. Arabian king, and that the underlying name 
 is T^ia ^NpnT; (cp. on xx. 1 2). It would be delightful to 
 replace this notice with security in its complete historical 
 setting. Did the friendly treatment of Jehoiachin involve 
 the recognition of the Jews as a nation, and therefore of the 
 Jewish cult ? If so, it would seem that the temple must, as 
 a consequence, have been rebuilt, and that licence must have 
 been given to the" exiles to return. Tradition is opposed 
 to this, and so too, apparently, is the great prophecy of restora- 
 tion in the Book of Isaiah. But see Cheyne, Pj.® Introd., 
 and especially Winckler, ^ Oi^ ii. 198,439; cp.KAT^^\'p.2S4. 
 
ADDENDA 
 
 1 Kings xvii. 12, xviii. 10. Why iin^N mrri? Kittel 
 replies, ' In the former case because the speaker is a 
 heathen (?) ; in the latter because Elijah stands in a special 
 relation to Yahwe.' The reasons are very weak. Most 
 probably the original reading was f3N[n]nT' mn">, which 
 appears to have been a current name of Yahw^ in the Negeb, 
 indicating that he was identified with Jerahmeel. See on 
 Gen. ii. 4^. If so, ' Baal ' was distinguished by the narrator 
 from Jerahmeel, which is very possible. 
 
 xviii. 1 2. mri"' rm is followed by a masc. verb. Why ? 
 rm is fem. According to Stade {SBOT) TTT\ is a later 
 addition, to remove the anthropomorphism. The original 
 reading, however, most probably was 'jNom"' mrr^. TVn was 
 suggested by an incomplete ^Nom"' ('m"'), and, for the sake 
 of sense, was prefixed to ^^^T^\ 
 
 2 Kings v. II. Dlporr-'^N has not been satisfactorily 
 explained. Stade excises it as a gloss. He is right, but 
 the form needs correction. In Gen. xii. 6, Isa. xxxiii. 21, 
 DIpD is a corruption of omi ( = fjNOnT') ; cp. also DSOp'' 
 (i K. iv. 12). Probably mpDn-^M represents SnohT', a cor- 
 rection of TTI^N. A current name of the God of Israel 
 appears to have been fjNDHT^ mrv (see preceding notes). It 
 is true that the God of Aram bore a name which ultimately 
 represents 'Jerahmeel'; the origin of'Rimmon'or 'Remman' 
 (0) however, had no doubt been forgotten. [Stade seems 
 wrong, in omitting m^^ with 0\] 
 
 397 
 
PART V 
 
 JOSHUA 
 
 No one who has studied the recent commentaries, histories 
 of Israel, and treatises on Hebrew names, can fail to see 
 how much investigation is still required in the Book of 
 Joshua. There are, first, the ordinary and most easily 
 recognised textual questions ; next, the historical problems 
 which are largely mixed up with less obvious, but not less 
 real, textual problems ; and lastly, the problems of the 
 significance, linguistic and geographical, of clan-names and 
 place-names. All these need to be taken up from a larger 
 point of view, and some of them for' the first time. An 
 attempt is made to do so here, except, indeed, in so far as 
 the constructive treatment of historical questions is con- 
 cerned. That must be left, if it please God, for the near 
 future, when perhaps the wished-for help will have been 
 received from fellow-students working on the same lines. 
 It may, however, at least be suggested to commentators that 
 the view of the conquest of the land of Israel, as having been 
 effected rapidly and completely under Joshua, becomes, not, 
 indeed, historical, but less strikingly irrational, if the land 
 which Israel, according to the earlier form of the narrative, 
 occupied was the N. Arabian border-land, than if, as the 
 present text represents, it was Palestine to the west of the 
 Jordan. Also that the narrative of the conquest of ' Jericho ' 
 (including among its details the incidents of the 'harlot' 
 Rahab and the ' mantle of Shinar ') becomes more intelli- 
 gible by the application of a keener textual criticism, while 
 the strange story of the ' hill of the foreskins ' now for the 
 first time reveals its own origin ; and further, that riddles 
 
 28 
 
400 CRITIC A BIBLICA i. 2 
 
 like in-'T' pT^ (xiii. 32) and pTri minn (xix. 35) appear 
 to have at length yielded to criticism. The geographicjl 
 significance of the proper names too can be better seen, 
 now that by the application of the comparative method, and 
 the study of recurring types of corruption, it has become 
 possible to see that in their earliest form very many of the 
 place-names record the original settlements of the tribes- 
 which occupied the N. Arabian border-land. The expressio^l 
 ' better seen ' is here used to guard against the erroneoJj^ 
 supposition that a claim is made by the present writer to 
 finality. The work in hand is difficult, and though possi- 
 bilities and probabilities have been anxiously weighed in the 
 light of a widened point of view, the writer knows full well 
 that the years will bring many welcome supplements and 
 corrections. 
 
 Chap. i. 2. Joshua (see on Num. xiii. 4-16) is to lead 
 the people across the same stream which its ancestor Jacob 
 crossed when returning to ' his country ' (Gen. xxxii. i i). 
 As we shall see, Jacob's country was in N. Arabia, and the 
 stream was the jnn^ (Yarhon = Yerahmeel). Note the 
 ancient correction of pii into "im"' ('im"'). Num. xxii. i, etc, 
 which leaves hardly a doubt as to the true reading. 
 
 i. 4. The geography has been transformed. hvCS\ 
 should be either ~\^y or ■'TsSin, and ms = mSM ; see on 
 Gen. XV. 18. For 'irr □"TT Dt. xi. 24 has jnnsn DTT ; 'ns 
 comes from □m"' or SNOm"' ; cp. nnx often for 'riT,. also 
 jm"'. Thus the two phrases are synonymous (cp. E. Bib., 
 col. 3010). The Lebanon is the southern range so called 
 (see on Jer. xxii. 20, i K. v. 20, 2 K. xiv. 7). — DTinn pi« ^3 
 interrupts, and is evidently a gloss (not in ^^^\ The' 
 phrase itself surprises Dillmann and Steuernagel ; ' HittiteS5?| 
 and ' Canaanites ' are not generally synonymous. But, as 
 usual, Qinn represents Qinim (see on Gen. x. 1 5 ). ' Reho- 
 bothites ' and ' Zarephathites ' are used widely, though not as 
 synonymous with ' Canaanites ' (rather ' Kenizzites '). 
 
 i. 1 4. C^JCon. For this much misunderstood word, see 
 on Ex. xiii. 18, i K. xviii. i. — 15 (end). See on Dt. iv. 47. 
 
 Chap. ii. i. mnn. BDB say, 'noun masc. as adv., 
 " silently, secretly." ' But this implies an excessive deference; ; 
 to MT. Clearly we must read int^M, ' (to) Ashhur,' one of 
 
iii. JOSHUA 401 
 
 the terms for the N. Arabian borderland, though also used 
 with a special significance. Cp. on onn, Judg. i. 35, and on 
 ntDin, I S.xxiii. 15. — 'Jericho.' But the previous statement 
 mentioned Ashhur as the point for which the spies were to 
 make. This confirms the view (see on Gen. xiv. 7, Num. 
 xxxiv. 4) that »-rp in Mil m^p is miswritten for ann, i.e. inaJM, 
 and that Mil comes from pan, i.e. ^Nom"'. Now Ashhur- 
 ' jerahmeel seems to be the true name of the capital of Bashan 
 (cp. on Dt. iii. 17). There is no reason, however, why there 
 should not have been another place bearing a name which 
 was virtually Ashhur-jerahmeel, though in the speech of the 
 people it became Heresh-ram'an (i?3ni 2>^p) and (omitting 
 the first half of the name) jinT or im\ The later pro- 
 nunciation of im"" was Yereho or Yeriho (here, MT. gives 
 "irrT*). — Let us now return to ionn, which, by the way, the 
 accentuation unites to "yavh. If the true name of the city 
 was Ashhur-jerahmeel, it becomes probable that yath here, 
 as occasionally elsewhere {e.g. Jer. iii. i, see note), has come 
 from fjNDm"', or has displaced an imperfectly written 'm"'. 
 Read, ' as spies to Ashhur-jerahmeel [saying].' — n3"it. Why 
 to the house of a harlot ? To attract less attention, say the 
 commentators. A weak answer, when we consider that 
 Jephthah and (in ^^^') Jeroboam are made sons of harlots 
 bj?- a pure mistake of the scribes (see on Judg. xi. i, i K. 
 xi. 26, and cp. on i K. xxii. 38), n3Ti being a corruption of 
 some popular abbreviation of n"'^«i>QtO"', cp. p2, JN25, p2i. The 
 original text must have stated that the Israelitish spies 
 found hospitality in the house of an Ishmaelitess — a fact 
 specially noticed, because ' Jericho ' was a city of the Ish- 
 maelites ( = Jerahmeelites or Ashhurites). — 3m should be 
 connected with the name of some clan, or people, or place, 
 irn and inn (cp. on Num. x. 29) have been suggested 
 {E. Bib., col. 2399). From vi. 25 we learn that the clan of 
 am (or nan ?) existed long afterwards in the midst of Israel. 
 Cp. Bertholet, Z>2£ Stellung der'Israeliten, p. 5. — 7. pTH. 
 The original story had jrvy} (i. 2). 
 
 Chap. iii. That the original story spoke of the capture 
 of a city called Jerahmeel is in the highest degree probable. 
 Did it also say anything of the wonderful crossing of a 
 stream by the Israelitish host ? I see no reason to doubt 
 
402 CRITICA BIBLICA iii. i6 
 
 this. The substratum of this story seems to be mythological 
 (Winckler, GI ii. io6/), and even if it should turn out that 
 the stream called Jarhon was not a very great one, this 
 need not diminish our enjoyment of the narrative, which 
 partakes of the nature of a fairy-tale. The case is parallel 
 to that of the rivers of Paradise, which were identified (how 
 unfitly !) with the streams of the N. Arabian border-land 
 This renders it. superfluous to indulge in the otherwise 
 plausible hypothesis that two traditions were confounded, 
 one of which had no crossing of any river, and referred, to 
 the conquest by the Judahites of the city of Jerahmeel, and 
 the other to the crossing of the Jordan near Damieh, and 
 the conquest of a Jerahmeelite city by the Ephraimites. 
 See E. Bib., ' Jericho,' § 4, where it is held that ' the crossing 
 of the Jordan by the Israelites under the Ephraimite Joshua 
 was, in its original form, parallel to the migration of Jacob- 
 Israel across the Jordan, which an early tradition placed at 
 the point where it is met by the Jabbok.' Against this 
 observe that most probably the Ephraim which Joshua 
 represents is a southern Ephraim, and the Jabbok a southern 
 stream ; cp. also in general G. A. Smith {Hist. Geogr. 659- 
 662), whose argument is directed against Stade from a 
 different point of view. 
 
 iii. 16. The following corrections appear practically 
 certain. We have here two parallel, alternative descriptions. 
 One runs thus — ntON -vsn rnvi% n^NpnT: u''~rm D^an ^^TaT^ 
 T\D'\1 ^Slp. ' Jerahmeel ' is here the name of a district 
 ' Aram ' may perhaps be the city previously called ^Tr^^^' 
 ( = ^Nom"'). "ra lop, THn, and pmn (for the first cp. nup 
 in Hos. X. 14 ; for the second, see on Gen. xvi. 13, xxii. 13; 
 for the third, cp. n"'pm, Ps. Ixv. 6) represent respectively, 
 the first fsNom"', the second and third together 'm*' in0s, a 
 fuller phrase for the Jerahmeelite region or district, which we 
 shall again and again meet with, "tnd and n"rN3 both repre- 
 sent rnvQ.. yrra (cp. nsnn) is one of the current corruptions 
 of nans. The second runs thus — D"'] ini; D^ hvi mTn 
 im33 lan [^NDm\ Cp. on Dt. Hi. 17. Note that ®'s 
 rendering includes the words em? /Mepovs Kapia6iapein (see 
 E. Bib.). This it is usual to regard as corresponding.' to 
 jms lan ; according to Hollenberg Kapiad. is an ex- 
 
V. 2 JOSHUA 403 
 
 pansion of tjapQav (cp., however, E. Bib., col. 2398, note 2). 
 But it is certain that (@'s rendering is no longer in its 
 original form ; it is conflate. One thing seems clear, that 
 the writer of Kapiadiapeifi had before him a text in which 
 the Jerahmeelite scenery of the narrative was more evident 
 than it is now. We are not bound to adopt either 
 unT rmp or ^Nom"' rr'lp ; n■'^p may perhaps be a bad 
 emendation of pmn. But we are justified in insisting on 
 the view that 'Jerahmeel' came into the description, from 
 which it follows that the later tradition was quite wrong in 
 its geography. Cp. on i K. vii. 46. 
 
 Chap. iv. 3 (cp. 8). ' And lay them down p^an 
 rhhn in 13"'^n-nmN.' C. Niebuhr {Gesch. i. 327) has already 
 remarked on the strangeness of the term Jlfjan. He thinks 
 that the story of the twelve stones originally stood in one of 
 the Elijah-traditions (cp. v. 5, end, with i K. xviii. 31), and 
 that pSo comes from this tradition (cp. 2 K. vi. 1-6). But 
 the truth about p^D will be clear to us if we refer back to a 
 strange story about Moses, in which pSai also occurs 
 (Ex. iv. 24) ; see also on 2 K. xix. 23, Jer. ix. i. No doubt 
 pfjD in all these passages comes from 'pNom"'. The stones 
 were actually set up {vv. ig f.) in Gilgal. ' Gilgal ' as we 
 have seen (on Dt. xi. 29/) was in the Jerahmeelite region. 
 It is possible that rh'hr\ in the appended words of v. 3 
 ('in 1»m) really comes from f?NDm"' (cp. on 2 K. viii. 21, 
 Ps. Ixxvii. 3, xci. 5) — a gloss on ]l^D, so that the redactor's 
 work was limited to connecting the two corrupt words pjiai 
 and n^i^n. — 13. in"'T mni> (so v. 10), from pnT ll?, z.«. 
 'Arabia of the (stream) Jarhon.' Cp. on Dt. i. i and on 
 IMID Ss, Num. xxii. i. 
 
 Chap. v. 2 ff. The current criticism is very defective 
 here, owing to the want of a sufficiently thorough criticism 
 of the text. With Hollenberg, Wellhausen, etc., we may 
 agree that the original part of vv. 2-9 is limited to vv. 2 /, 
 8 / (or, rather, as Carpenter and Battersby), vv. 2 f., 9, and 
 that the object of the inserted passage was to harmonise the 
 original account with the statement of Gen. xvii. that circum- 
 cision was the sign of the covenant of Israel with Yahw^. 
 It is wrong, however, to affirm that mtO and n-'3m in v. 2 
 were also inserted in the same harmonising spirit, for these 
 
404 CRITICA BIBLICA ,. 2 
 
 words are corrupt ; all that we can say is, that the faulty 
 readings may have been facilitated by a desire to prepare 
 the way for vv. 3-7 (8). It is also an erroneous view that 
 the short original account said anything at all about circum- 
 cision. As in Ex. iv. 24-26 (quoted as a parallel to vv. 
 2 /., 8 /; by Kuenen), also in Gen. xxxiv. (see E. Bib., col. 
 4439), and in i S. xviii. 25-27 (see note), the reference to 
 circumcision is due to faults in the text. The true name of 
 the ' hill ' spoken of in v. 3 has nothing to do with fore- 
 skins ; ^ it is a corruption of D"'^NOm'' nm (for this name, ■ 
 see on i S. x. 5), for which it may sufifice here to refer to 
 the gloss uh'i^ (as if ' uncircumcised ones ') on DTiffifja, or, 
 rather, DTIDIS. We now pass to v. 2. Joshua is told to 
 make ' flint knives ' (□"'"IH nilin) and circumcise the Israelites^ 
 ' again, the second time.' The key to '2 'in is supplied by 
 a phrase in v. g. D"'12Q nmn, though, as it stands, an am- 
 biguous and improbable phrase, must nevertheless be correct 
 as regards D'liaa. It is true, ' flint knives ' might be an 
 archaic survival (see E. Bib., col. 2685), but the double 
 plural {cry^ rixyyn) would not be likely in a technical term. 
 The two phrases, D"'n:i miin and D"'1SQ riDnn, are variants ; 
 each supplies half of the true text, which is D"'~i2Q main, 
 ' swords of the Misrites.' It is now possible to give decisi^^v'; 
 corrections of ^D l^mT (or, as @, Itti), of rT'3tO, and of riBs 
 T>. mi'i and 3m"' (itOl) are frequent corruptions of f?M»Dffl^ • 
 and comparing further the names ^iw and 'jlffiM, which" 
 have the same origin, we cannot hesitate to correct fj^aoBvl 
 TViW, however strange it may seem to the inexperienced, 
 comes from a corrupt form of 'offi"' (so in Isa. iv. 6, Ezek. 
 xi. 11), and so also does lS rrfiJi? (cp. on ' Eshcol,' Gen. 
 xiv. 13, Num. xiii. 23). To take a step further, we must 
 once more combine v. 2 with v. g. In v. 2, correctly read, 
 {i.e. omitting the three 'jNsntO"'), the divine speech is reduced 
 to the fragment ^N^m■'-'31-nN cnSQ mmn. In v. 9, how- 
 ever, we read in MT. (® agrees), nn^P riB-iIl-riN "ni^ oi'il 
 D3"'7i>p. This gives us as the necessary correction of the 
 speech in v. 2, Q-'nSD nimnp '^-^ ■'31 dn "'n^Nj nvji (fof 
 TifpNl, see on Ps. xxii. 9). D3"'^i;o in v. 9 can now be easily. ; 
 accounted for. It is a corruption of D-'p^cr = Q'^^NOriT, 
 ^ Also nothing to do with the Babylonian Aralu {E, Bib., col. 1716)-, 
 
vi. 4 JOSHUA 405 
 
 which is a gloss on D'^nSD, parallel to the gloss ^Msom'' in v. 
 2. It is almost needless to add that z'. 3 is a redactional 
 piece of work, except m^nsn nsai, i.e. uhvtTyrw 'la ; we 
 omit f?M as dittographic, and replace 3. Where the words 
 'at the hill of the Jerahmeelites ' belong we shall see 
 presently. 
 
 V. 13-15. Omitting vv. 10-12 (P), we come (as it 
 seems) to an account of a divine revelation to Joshua 
 (cp. on V. i$a with Ex. iii. 5). But where is the revela- 
 tion?^ The answer is that part of it, at any rate, is to 
 be found in a distorted form in vv. 3 and 9. In the 
 original story v. 1 5« was followed by these words, 
 Q-'nsD mnnD-'ai-riN ti^mi avrt i^t&in-'-fjN '•< noN'^i. The 
 'drawn sword' of the speaker would be an apt comment 
 on such a speech. And in the opening of w. 13 ITT'T'l 
 (clearly unsuitable) should be changed into Q^'^NDm"' ni;D:i3. 
 Apparently the ' Jerahmeelites' hill ' was close to Gilgal, 
 where, according to Judg. ii. i (see note), rv\iV InSd had 
 his station.^ 
 
 Chap. vi. 4. ' Seven trumpets of rams' horns.' Revised 
 Version, with margin, ' or, jubile trumpets.' The combina- 
 tion of rmmm with o'^Snin, and in V. s of \yp with ^iT^rr, 
 is remarkable. According to the common theory, both 
 ISIBJ and ^3T meant originally ' ram,' and hence ' ram's 
 horn ' (see Ges.-Bu., s.v.). There is no evidence, indeed, 
 that iDitD ever means ' ram ' in the O.T., and no secure 
 evidence that f?ni does. Why, e.g., should Sivn X^p mean 
 'a ram's horn?' And why do we never find the analogous 
 phrase isntDn ]'[p'} Lastly, the phrase hiyn nam (Lev. 
 XXV. 13, etc., P), if explained 'year of the ram's horn,' 
 appears scarcely distinctive enough for the great eVo? t-jjs 
 o^eo-ews' {&). The philological facts on which the ordinary 
 theory is based are sound, but the theory may nevertheless 
 be wrong. It seems wiser to say that the origin of im© 
 is almost as uncertain as that of m22Jn. To me it appears 
 
 ^ Holzinger well remarks that a mere repetition of Ex. iii. 5 is 
 improbable. 
 
 ^ Similarly Steuemagel, comparing Judg. ii. i, assumes that the 
 appearance described was at Gilgal. 
 
 ^ @ gives a^earis for im. Lev. xxv. 10, for hy\-, Lev. xxv. 28, etc., 
 and for nuDe', Dt. xv. i, etc. 
 
4o6 CRITICA BIBLICA ' vi. 19 
 
 possible that these three terms, 'sn, '», and f?nv all come 
 from the names of N. Arabian peoples. This is, at any 
 rate, probable for ^IT". We have seen in the course of 
 these inquiries that certain objects from N. Arabia are 
 described as being Jerahmeelitish or Ishmaelitish (bows, 
 mantles, and cymbals may be mentioned), and we shall see 
 later that the ' Jabal ' and ' Jubal ' of Gen. iv. 20, the ' Obil', 
 of I Chr. xxvii. 30, and the ' Ubal ' of Dan. viii. 2, etc., are 
 Jerahmeelite names. It is natural to suppose that the 
 trumpet or horn of yobel came from N. Arabia, and that 
 the word yobel (like h's'yv') comes from ^NDrn\ Quite 
 independently of this, it has been held that i;Dt& 'hhl in 
 Ps. cl. 5 must mean ' cymbals of Ishmael ' (read f?Ni;Dtl>-'). 
 It may not be superfluous to remark that the story of 
 Hiram the artificer appears to show that bronze-work was 
 anciently a specialty of the Jerahmeelite region (see on 
 I K. vii. 1 3 /i, 46). The secret of Sivn nam has not yet 
 been fully penetrated. ' Year of the Jerahmeel-trumpets ' is 
 an inadequate meaning. ' Year of Jerahmeel,' however, is not 
 impossible ; this might mean ' the year of the reassignment 
 of the Negeb.' I here assume that the phrase is very' 
 ancient, and comes from a law-book which had special!' 
 reference to the Negeb. The origin of the corruption '^nv 
 was, of course, forgotten. 
 
 vi. 19, 24. The treasury of Yahwe's house intended: 
 here is probably that of Beth-jerahmeel (see on Dt. xii. 5)- 
 See on ix. 27. 
 
 Chap. vii. i. jd^ (cp. p3i?. Num. xiii. 22, )p»\ Dt 
 X. 6, and DMp"', xii. 22), and iD^ (see (5", Pesh., and cp. 
 vii. 25, and i Chr. ii. 7, 4 Esd. vii. 37 [107]) are both 
 early distortions of Snoht, and equally justifiable readings. 
 With 'Akar we may compare the legendary Ahikar (Achia- 
 charus of Gk. Tobit ; Vg. Achior). •>on3 also" comes from 
 'nT (cp. ' Beth-hakkerem'). mi and mi too are N. 
 Arabian clan-names {E. Bib., ' Zabdi,' ' Zabdiel ' ; cp. ' Zimri,'- 
 ' Zerah '). 
 
 vii. 2. ©" omits rv:h mpa ]1n ; (g*, 'jN-n-'i'? mpo. 
 Steuernagel follows ®^ ; he holds that pM-rT'n is a deliberate 
 alteration of hv< m, Beth-el being regarded as a place of, 
 idolatry. This, however, is an error ; see next note. — ^^SiJ; 
 
vii. 21 JOSHUA 407 
 
 (®, Vai ; sometimes 97 ttoXw = •vsxi). A strange name for 
 a city evidently of great importance. Of course, ' heap ' 
 cannot be the meaning (cp. C. Niebuhr, Gesch. i. 336). The 
 word may be a corruption of ins ; cp. on d'^^n in II. Isaiah. 
 There was a famous place in N. Arabia called Kirjath-'arab, 
 i.e. Rehoboth (not Hebron), but this does not appear to have 
 been near Beth-el ; besides, Joshua is said to have assigned 
 Rehoboth (Hebron ??) to Caleb (xiv. 13). There is, however, 
 one important place near Beth-el, viz. Beth-aven, or rather 
 Beth-on (cp. on Am. v. S, Hos. iv. 15); and the question is, 
 whether ' Ai ' does not mean the city which preceded the 
 later Beth-on, and was itself called ' On ' (pN) or ' Beth-on,' 
 and perhaps also 'Beth-eden' (see on Am. i. 5). Possibly 
 •"S was a deliberate alteration of jin to keep the two sites 
 distinct. In Isa. x. 28 we find a place called 'Aiath' 
 (or perhaps ' Ai ' ; cp. @), but this was not necessarily 
 more than a ruin; the 'Ai' of Ezr. ii. 28, Neh. vii. 32, 
 and the ' Aija ' of Neh. xi. 3 1 are probably archaistic. 
 Hence even if p« rril-DS be a gloss (see preceding note), 
 we must not defend this on the ground that jin n"'l is a 
 dogmatic alteration of hv^ n^l. — 7. It is simplest to read 
 
 vii. 21. pmb, 'bar (of gold),' can now be confirmed 
 by the use of lisanu in Ass. and Bab. inscriptions (Bruno 
 Meissner, ZATW, 1903, pp. 151/)- It is strange, how- 
 ever, that this should be the only occurrence of the word 
 in such a sense, and considering that one might well expect 
 a gloss on such an obscure geographical name as ni?Dt2?, 
 it is better to regard 'h as a corruption of fjMrom"', as in 
 XV. 2, xviii. 19, Isa. xi. 15, Ps. cxx. 3, cxl. 12. As so 
 often, the marginal gloss got into the text at an un- 
 suitable place. It may have been already corrupt when 
 it thus shifted its position. nnN might be redactional. 
 But more probably both nnN and inN are fragments of 
 ^Nanr, which, like 'offi'' (pm'?), is a gloss on "iMm.^ But 
 what is nwtO? Is it = sani-'iri, i.e. 'land of two cities,' 
 as Schrader once supposed {KA T<^^ 34) ? Or is it = Sumir, 
 
 1 The view in E. Bib., col. 175 1, that 'h is a corruption of ini?, 
 ' cuirass,' is plausible. But experience of the types of corruption favours 
 the above theory. 
 
4o8 CRITIC A BIBLICA vii. 24 
 
 a Babylonian district of doubtful location, as Schrader 
 afterwards held {KAT'^^^ 118 /)? Or is it = 6anbara, a 
 region mentioned with Hatti in Am. Tab. 25, 49? Surely, 
 these are all equally hazardous explanations. Many 
 parallels, however, suggest that ' Shinar ' is a compound 
 N. Arabian name. Virtually, it is = iw© and jmi, i.e. it 
 comes from ni> )Q?, where jm (cp. ]Nm) represents ^NSDtD\ 
 ' Shinar ' then means ' Ishmael of Arabia.' For @'s para- 
 phrase yjriXrjv TTooKtX-rjv, see on 2 S. xiii." 18/! , 
 
 vii. 24, 26. The scene of Joshua's warfare is in the 
 S. borderland. Not only, therefore, does i"i3r (like nil3s) 
 probably come from '?Nom"' (see on v. i), but pas, as in 
 Ps. Ix. 8, etc., must come from nDsn. pas would not be 
 a very natural word for a valley in the region indicated. 
 
 Chap. viii. 17. f?N irini ""i^a. @ does not express 
 f?N rT'll. Was this introduced by a scribe (Steuernagel), or 
 through ' awkward editorial supplementation ' (Oxf. Hex.). 
 Perhaps the original text had pN rTil, here and here only, 
 for ^STl (see on vii. 2), of which there were two competing 
 corrections, '^s[n] and ^n rril. 
 
 Chap. ix. The agreement with the Gibeonites. The 
 narrative is composite. Steuernagel divides it between 
 D^ and P. Both strata contain the same statement as 
 to the fate of the Gibeonites, whose lives indeed are 
 spared, but who are assigned as slaves, hewers of wood 
 and drawers of water, to the sanctuary of Yahwe (see on 
 vv. 23, 27). 'When the Gibeonites were really put into 
 this position,' says Steuernagel, ' cannot be made out with 
 certainty ; probably it took place in the time of Solomon| 
 (i K. ix. 20 /, Ezra ii. SS/).' But of the two passages 
 which he quotes the first alone is to the point, and that 
 only to a slight extent ; it speaks of the forced labour of 
 the non - Israelites of Solomon's dominion, including the 
 ' Hivites ' (cp. Josh. ix. 7) ; the second is disfigured by 
 textual corruption (see E. Bib., ' Solomon's Servants '). 
 The probabilities is that both parts of the strange story 
 in chap. ix. have been manipulated by redactors, and that 
 originally the narrative only stated that the powerful 
 Gibeonite people escaped extermination, not by superior 
 prowess, but by a mere ruse, and that the notion of their 
 
ix. I JOSHUA 409 
 
 being condemned to be 'hewers of wood and drawers of 
 water' arose through the corruption of Ssi'Da)'' niin, ins 
 (' Arabia, Rehoboth-ishmael') into ^ D'}0"'5Nm"i D"'^J? "'lam ^3^. 
 The corruption is closely analogous to that in Ezr. ii. 55^ 
 (see E. Bib., Lc). We may also compare, for the corruption 
 of ns into ^l:;, the corrupt mN nis from mx mi; ; for 
 that of ram into 3£sn, see on Num. xi. 4, 2 S. viii. 8, Ezek. 
 jExxix. 6 ; for that of 'offi"' into Qiss, on Dt. ii. 8 (51:22?) ; 
 and for that of Di'jNSatD'' into □■'D-'In®, we may compare 
 wm = i»Dm = 'dQ)-' in xix. 2, and DilNmo (from 'ao?-') in 
 Judg. V. II, also D^D in xi. 8, 2 S. xii. 27. It really 
 appears as if one of the main historical difficulties of the 
 Joshua-narratives had been removed, and fresh light had 
 been thrown on the genesis of some of the later narratives. 
 
 ix. la. Read \rT lim fjbn^ nmsn •^Tt^2. \^^■'^^ ni?3 
 ]^rnT\ ^MOnT 7s'?an]. 71o = 'nT, as in Dt. i. i. 'Gilead, 
 jerahmeel, Lebanon ' is a gloss on jp; lim. (cp. on Dt. 
 i. 7). — ' Gilead,' in 2 S. ii. 9, is the most important 
 part of the S. borderland. — The list in &. i5 is a gloss 
 on Dia^QiT^S in a ; the original reading in a may have been 
 [iBIN?] 1^D^» ■'3f?o (@; Steuemagel). — 3. As the historical 
 and geographical setting shows, Gibeon must be in the 
 southland. The other mentions of the place in the O.T., 
 critically treated, favour this view. Note, for instance, that 
 in I Chr. ix. 35 (viii. 29), the 'father'^ of Gibeon is f?Nli>i 
 ( = ^NOm"'), whose wife's name is ' Maacah,' and that, 
 according to w. 38 (viii. 32), Jeuel's family dwelt in obmTii, 
 which, the names being Jerahmeelite, may be, and probably 
 is, a corruption of fjNSnffii ; i.e. the land of the Gibeonites 
 was in the N. Arabian borderland. It is still more im- 
 portant that the references to the pool of Gibeon in 2 S. 
 ii. 13^, Jer. xli. 1 2 occur in contexts which point distinctly 
 
 1 The singular and plural, side by side, in v. 23, has naturally 
 excited surprise. On the new theory ' Arabia,' or ' Ishmaelite Reho- 
 both,' was a marginal note stating where Gibeon was. Note that 
 one of the Gibeonite cities is called ' Beeroth,' i.e. ' Rehoboth ' {v. 17). 
 
 ^ It is most probable, however, that uk in these and similar passages 
 {e.g. I Chr. ii. 21, 23/, 42, 44/, etc.) has supplanted an original my. 
 If so, in ix. 35 'ii nn should be 'iy my, i.e. ' Arab-gibeon,' a gloss on 
 'Gibeon.' Cp. the proper names Abshalom and Abishai='Arab- 
 ishmael, and see on xv. 13. 
 
410 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ix. 7 
 
 to this region. Cp. also above (introd. to chap, ix.), on 
 'm nij; in J-. 23. 
 
 ix. 7. ■'?nn-^!<i, rather inhn-Sij, i.e. ■'nntCNn-bM or 
 ■'inmrr^M (cp. on Judg. iii. 3). See on x. 41, 'the land 
 of Gishran = (Ashhur) unto Gibeon.' — 10. See on Num.; 
 xxi. 2 I -35, Dt. iii. 17. 
 
 ix. 17. @ omits ' on the third day.' The three other * 
 Gibeonite cities, (i) nTD3. Cp. the ^nn '^31, Neh. vii. 24, 
 mentioned before the b'n6 Gib'on. Probably from isn, 
 Hepher, i K. iv. 10. The mTi of Ezra ii. 18 probably 
 comes from m"'[D3] ; but cp. E. Bib., ' Hariph.' In Neh. 
 vi. 2 Chephirah is probably intended by 131N nrp31 n"'lD3 ; 
 read pN DDi^ol D"iQn, ' fjiphram (?) in Maacath-on.' This 
 passage suggests that Chephirah (Hiphrah?) and, therefore, 
 Gibeon were not very far from Ai (Beth-on ?) ; cp. on 
 vii. 2. (2) mnNl, i.e. probably one of the places called 
 rram. (3) D''nr"' ninp, probably from 'pNom"' 'p (cp. tn"'). 
 Note that the prophet Uriah of ' K.-jearim ' flees to Misrini '; 
 (Jer. xxvi. 20 /.), just the natural refuge for him if this 
 place was in the Negeb. Cp. on'xv. 9. 
 
 ix. 23, 27. The Gibeonites being a people of the 
 Negeb (v. 3), the sanctuary which they are to serve is 
 also in the Negeb, by which we here mean the N. Arabian 
 borderland (see on Dt. xii. 5). 
 
 Chap. x. i. 'Adoni-zedek [@, harmonistically, ASww- 
 /Se^ex] king of Jerusalem.' On the names in Assyrian 
 historical and business records compounded with Aduni, 
 Adunu, see Zimmern, KAT^^^ 398, note 2. It is enough 
 to mention here Adunibaal (beside Abibaal), a son of a ' 
 king of Arvad {KB ii. 173). From our point of view 
 Aduni-baal and Adoni-zedek are both compounded of 
 ethnic or district names of the N. Arabian borderIand|| 
 ^i>l (as often, e.g. Baal-gad) is a corrupt fragment of 
 ^NonT' ; "pll is an old clan-name (see on 2 S. viii. 1 7)) 
 though also probably the name of the god worshipped 
 especially by the Sedek clan (cp., for facts, Zimmern, KA J*' 
 473/); n^ is the name of a district famous in legend 
 and in prophecy (see on Gen. ii. 8, Am. i. 4 /, and E. Bib., 
 ' Paradise,' § 7). Such names were carried by immigrants 
 to Phoenicia, and naturally abounded in the Negeb. 
 
K. 3 JOSHUA 411 
 
 d'pioIT', as often, (see on ix. 3), comes from f?Ni?atci. 
 ' Ishmael ' or ,' Jerahmeel ' was one of the chief places in 
 the Negeb. See on Judg. i. 5. We need not therefore 
 cast about for an excuse for the apparent anachronism 
 ' king of Jerusalem.' 
 
 X. 2. Adoni-zedek is afraid because Gibeon ' was a 
 great city, like one of the royal cities, and because it was 
 greater that Ai,' etc. What an obscure and prolix story ! 
 How can Gibeon have been greater than Ai, and yet 
 (unlike Ai) have had no king? The remedy is simple. 
 The first [^]'?^^l probably comes from nr^a (see on 
 xiv. I S). "xThiyari ■'"IS reminds us of rvhiyti TT^'y = ^NonT' IT'n, 
 Am. vii. 13. The original text said simply, 'they feared 
 greatly because Gibeon was a city of Gilead.' To this two 
 glosses were appended, 'pNom"' "'ns nrrND, ' like one of the 
 cities of Jerahmeel,' and a much later one, inconsistent with 
 the former, 'ill ^S^^1 NTI "'31, ' and because it was greater 
 (than Ai, etc.).' 
 
 X. 3. As to the personal names. For nmn read tnyTi ; 
 see on v. 33. In both passages gives atXa/i [BA] or 
 e\a/i [L]. ' Horam ' and ' Elam ' both come from ^Nom"' 
 (cp. on D^'^i', Gen. x. 22, Ezra ii. 7). ddid probably repre- 
 sents ISIS ; cp. Pir'u, king of Musur {KB ii. 54). i;iD"' ; cp. 
 riNlD and nsiS. But @° (ie<f>6a) suggests either riQi or 
 nns"'. The name Japabi given to a prince of Gazri 
 (Gezer) in Am. Tab. 204, 4, etc. may be compared with 
 S''!]\ We also find Japti'-Addu. Is Japabi = Japti' = nnDi? 
 See on nna^S, xxvi. 33. TIT is properly a place-name; 
 see on xv, i 5. All these seem to be Negeb names. Next, 
 as to the place-names, jnin, as usual, has grown out 
 of, or been substituted for, mim, while moT' (like the 
 nimi of I Chr. viii. 14, etc.) represents ^Nom"'. Possibly 
 indeed moT", as an alternative form to 'm\ was not un- 
 commonly used, for mo in Isa. xxviii. 15, 18 (|| ^lNm = 
 S^rDttT') and mo[rr] in Isa. xxv. 8 are best viewed as 
 ultimately = f^NDJiT. Note that in i Chr. l.c. moT' is a 
 brother of pB>» ( = »1D, cp. mp). Also that in xv. 3 5 maoT' 
 is mentioned with xh'i's, certainly a Jerahmeelite settlement, 
 tira^, as in 2 K. xviii. 1 4 (see note), represents the Negeb 
 name ^31»M (see on Num. xiii. 23). p^as ; see on Judg. iii. 12. 
 
412 CRITIC A BIB Lie A ^. j 
 
 X. 5. ■'"ibNri. ^, however, presupposes ■'pi';rr, i.e, 
 ■'burDt&irr, which (since ' Ishmael ' and ' Jerahmeel ' are 
 synonyms) points to iQiNn (instead of ■'IDNh) = "'fsNoriTn. 
 Cp. on xxiv. 8, 12, 15. 
 
 X. 10 ff. Not the northern but a southern ' Beth- 
 
 horon ' is meant (cp. ' Sanballat the Horonite,' Neh. ii. i o). : 
 
 ' Azekah.' A place in the Negeb (see on i S. xvii. i). 
 
 'Makkedah.' See next note. For p^iN pDi^l read nisoi 
 'n (see on xv. 8), and for naiTl nso read mnmN nSD, ' book 
 of Ashhur.' See on 2 S. i. 17-27, end. 
 
 X. 16-27. The cave of Makkedah, like that of the 
 Zidonians in xiii. 4, that of Obadiah in i K. xviii. 4,, that 
 of Adullam in i S. xxii. i, and that of Machpelah in 
 Gen. xxiii. 9 is probably due to mistake, mro (cp. niDNI, 
 nm) is one of the early corruptions of f?MDnT ; so, too, 
 probably is mpD. It is also obvious that mso and mpo 
 are easily confounded. The writer of vv. 16-17 had before 
 him a plain statement of the conquest of Makkedah {v. 28), 
 into which, however, a var. led. mro had found its way 
 from the margin. To justify this strangely isolated mention 
 of a cave, he imagined the story in vv. 16 ff. — 29. 'Libnah.*; 
 See on Num. xxxiii. 20/, 2 K. xix. 8. 
 
 X. 33. In the meagreness of tradition it was natural 
 to select a form of ' Jerahmeel ' (mn) as the name of the 
 king of Gezer or Geshur ( = Ashhur). Cp. on i K. 
 ix. 15. — 38. ' Debir.' See on xv. 15. — 40. A geographical! 
 summary. Cp. on Dt. i. 7, where Q-'H ?]"in, i.e. p-^ mm, 
 corresponds with rmtON, i.e. either TinaJi> or mt'nfflM (see 
 on Dt. iii. 17) here. 
 
 X. 41. nji», perhaps a title of np~i^. — ]^^ pM. A 
 riddle hitherto unsolved, but scarcely insoluble. The 'land 
 of Goshen ' mentioned here and in xi. 1 6 is not very 
 different from the 'land of Goshen' in Gen. and Ex, V 
 ' Goshen ' in Gen. and Ex. is in the land of Misrim ; the 
 identification with the Egyptian name Kesm (philologically 
 precarious, see W. M. Muller, E. Bib., col. 1759, note 8) is 
 excluded by this precise statement. The key is supplied | 
 by ©'"s equivalent for the Calebite name Jt&ia in i Chr. 
 ii. 47, which is yrjpacofi. Now Qtoni or ]lffii:i certainly 
 comes from tBni = ]^3L. ]^^ therefore comes from ;tBia = 
 
xi, 8 JOSHUA ■ 413 
 
 jntpa = nfe = nntpN. So also the place-name 'a in xv. 51. — 
 ' Unto Gibeon,' which was an Ashhurite city (see on ix. 7). 
 
 Chap. xi. 1-9. The conflict with Jabin. Cp. on Judg. iv. 
 The geography is transformed. — i. I'll"! should be pO'' = joi 
 (see on Judg. iv. 2). Here, however, as also in i S. xii. g, 
 @=* has la^eif = ay, i.e. ^mi>dB\ Jaman (Jerahmeel) and 
 Ishmael are synonymous. Tisn comes from nintON ; cp. on 
 ins, Ezek. xxvii. 1 8. — ' Jobab ' ; see on Gen. x. 29, xxxvi. 3 3. 
 — ' Madon.' ©^^ fmppav, but Eus. iJt,apco/i, which seems 
 right. It is the place referred to in nilD ■'D (v. 5) and id 
 niD (Judg. V. 19). The former phrase may come straight 
 from 'rtT ■'D, the latter mediately through h^^^l.D "'D. — 2. 
 in niD3, probably from Tis ninQ3. Cp. on i K. iv. 11. — 
 V. 4 is probably altogether an interpolation ; v. $a, with ' all 
 those kings met,' connects directly with vv. 1-3. The object 
 of the insertion was to introduce a list of the countries or 
 peoples represented in Jabin's host. At any rate, all that 
 follows Dn"'3nD-'?3T is explanatory of that phrase ; read 
 
 Cp. on Gen. xxii. 17, Judg. vii. 12, i S. xiii. 5, 2 S. xvii. 11, 
 I K. v. 9. The ' Sea of Jerahmeel ' is the so-called Dead 
 Sea (xii. 3). 
 
 xi. 5. miD ■'D. Formerly identified with the Huleh 
 lake, but without good reason. A. banda {MVG vii. 2, pp. 
 39-50) compares the Marum of the cuneiform inscriptions 
 and the Marama of Egyptian documents. But mno is one 
 of the corrupt forms of ^MDriT (see p. 31), and fpiTia (see 
 on Judg. v. 19) is another. If we are right in combining 
 our passage with Judg., I.e., the ' waters ' referred to will be 
 those of the ]mi3 f?n3 (see on Judg. v. 21). 
 
 xi. 6b. 'Thou shalt hough their horses, and burn their 
 chariots with fire.' A late redactor's pious reconstruction of 
 a ruinous text. Read DTOm-DNT ^MOHT'-nM D''m"i3-nN 
 [^MSDBJi nans]. Cp. on Gen. xHx. 6. For lp»[n] cp. \\iips 
 = inrrN = 'nv ; n is a fragment of dn. 
 
 xi. 8. Read HDSD naso-Ti'T jo; riDianrT yrs, iisp-ns. 
 Unless there be a N. Arabian pT»2 (to which nothing points), 
 'T2 as well as n["i]2 must be a miswritten lisp. Cp. E. Bib., 
 col. 3164, note 3, and on ' Misrephoth-maim,' col. 3155. — 
 gb. In its true form a gloss on v. 8b, viz. f?NanT'-nN D"'t&13-nM 
 
414 i CRITICA BIBLICA xi. 13 
 
 ['aa>i nsn25] DTiim-riNT ; cp. v. 6b. — lo. n^Nij niD^pon; 
 
 12. rhvin D'>3^an (@ here, t&v ^acrtXemv). V. 12 is diffi- 
 cult, not only through n^wrr, but through the double reference 
 to the kings. In Isa. x. lo @ presupposes n^Nrj ma^Dnrr, 
 which, equally with MT.'s ^if?Nn 'd, comes either from 'dd 
 ^h?nnT' or from Di^NDnT (double representation), and here, 
 too, MT.'s and ^'s reading comes from f?Nom\ Cp. also' 
 on rhi^'U, xvii. 9, Judg. ii. 23, i K. v. 7. The sense becomes, 
 • all the cities of Jerahmeel (cp. gloss in v. 4) Joshua took.' j 
 But we cannot stop here. In v. 10, too, rhi^in 'Don must 
 come from 'm"" niD^DD. Hazor (Ashhur) was 'the head of 
 all the kingdoms of Jerahmeel.' 
 
 xi. 13. This follows strangely on z/. 12. It becomes 
 clearer when connected with v. lib. Joshua burned only 
 one city, viz. Hazor ; the other cities were left (cp. Judg. 
 i. igb,2i, etc.). These cities are described as th'n-h's nnpsn 
 (@ implies dViti'W)- Clearly this is corrupt, thn is un- 
 doubtedly from ^Ni^DtO"' ; see on D^£3, Josh. xv. 24 ; S"ian, 
 I S. xxi. 6. Has anything fallen out between 'dot and 
 'ry-hs ? The easiest restoration would be 'otO"' irT"^i>. 
 
 xi. 1 6b. A gloss on the preceding description ; 1, as 
 often, means ' in fact,' ' that is.' Read DTim^T ^N^^Dm"' nn-nNl. 
 — 17. Either this geographical description has been manipu- 
 lated, or popular names are used which led the redactor (in 
 his ignorance of southern geography) to suppose that the 
 whole land of Israel, with partly ideal boundaries, was meant. 
 The mountain-range known as pSnil is no doubt some part 
 of the southern ranges, pbn, which may possibly come from;'i| 
 'm'', seems to be a clan-name of the southern Gilead. See 
 on ppn, xix. 34 ; also on Num. xxvi. 30 ; and cp. "'p^n, 
 r\''\hn, also np^n, xix. 25, xxi. 31. Ti'to probably comes, ; 
 not from nisa, but from llffiN. na h^n is not 'Lord 
 of good fortune,' but = ' Jerahmeel of Gad ' ; f?ri oftefi 
 represents the fpNO in 'm"'. We must not forget that the 
 region referred to is not in the far north but in the far south ; 
 Maacath (so read for bik'ath), Lebanon, and Hermon are 
 southern as well as northern names. Cp. on Judg. iii. 3- ^ 
 
 xi. 21. 'Anakim,' 'Hebron,' ' Debir.' See on xv. 13- 
 15. — 13» (Anab), probably from jvni, though the redactor,:"' 
 who used an imperfect text, may have thought of the site 
 
xiii. I JOSHUA 415 
 
 Still called 'Anab (see E. Bib., ' Anab '). rrnrr, as often, may- 
 come from 'm^ and fjNimi be miswritten for 'offii ; Jerah- 
 meel and Ishmael are synonyms. — 22. Read ' only in 'Azzah 
 (a title of Zarephath?), Rehoboth, and Asshur.' — 23. 'And 
 the land had not non'jDD ' (so xiv. 1 5^). 'nfjD, as in Hos. 
 i. 7, ii. 20, Zech. ix. 10, x. 4, Ps. Ixxvi. 4, is a corruption of 
 ^SDHT. Cp. on Judg. iii. 11, 30, v. 31, viii. 28. 
 
 Chap. xii. 1-6. See on Dt. i. 4, ii. 36, iii. 8, 10-12 
 16/. In z;. 3 read TVs, D■'^i>^] nmTo rm33 a^-ii> ■yrs^ 
 ['td ^NOnT'-D'', in accordance with the true text of Dt. iii. 1 7. 
 Two alternative readings. The ' Sea (Lake) of Kinneroth ' 
 and the ' Sea (Lake) of Melah ' (or Jerahmeel) are the same, 
 viz. the 'Dead Sea.' Cp. on xi. 4. — mho. A puzzling 
 word till we become aware that ^f?D, hpD, and hptt are current 
 corruptions of ^MSDUr (cp. p. 264). ' Salecah,' in fact, 
 records an old Ishmaelite settlement. 
 
 xii. 10. Read SnsqQT and mim. These names decide 
 the general character of the list. — 1 7. ' Tappuah,' see E. Bid., 
 s.v. — 18. 'Aphek.' See p. 206, near foot. — \yitch. If ^^hQ 
 is right, read pmf?, z'.e. either ]i^» ( = Shiloh), or better fjNSDffi"' 
 (see on xv. 2). — 20. ' Shimron - meron.' See E. Bid., 
 'Shimron,' § i. — 22. 'Jokneam.' See on xix. 11. — 23. 
 'Dor,' etc. See on xi. 2. — h:h^h D''11. Graf (TA. Stud, 
 u. Krit., 1854, p. 870) makes a good case for hh:h; cp. 
 E. Bib., co\. 1628. But both h:hy (as in Dt. xi..3o) and 
 hhy (as in I K. ix. 11) are current corruptions of ^s^i. In 
 the present case, h:h::h comes from nn»f?:i (2 K. xv. 25), 
 which was intended as a correction of rT'll. 
 
 Chap. xiii. 1-7. Here our study of the text compels us 
 to traverse the statements which are becoming traditional 
 among critics. These statements are only justified on the 
 hypothesis that the received text is in the main correct, i.e. 
 that it represents what the original writer, or writers, said. 
 Now, however, that it has been rendered in the highest 
 degree probable that the original text was manipulated by a 
 redactor, or redactors, who had incorrect views both of 
 ancient history and of its geographical setting, we are com- 
 pelled, not so much to contradict as to transform them. ' In 
 2-6,' says the Oxf. Hex. (ii. 341), ' R° explains the previous 
 statement in a quite different sense as applying to remote 
 
 39 
 
4i6 CRITICA BIBLICA xiiL 2 
 
 outlying regions in the south and north. Yet again in 7 
 these distant patches are to be distributed among the nine 
 and a half tribes which settle west of the Jordan. Plainly 
 2-6 is not really related to i and 7, for the land to be divided 
 in 7 is not that described in 2-6.' — Vv. 1-7 are therefore 
 assigned to an older source (J), and vv. 2-6 to R°. Un- 
 fortunately it has, from our point of view, to be affirmel 
 that the original J considered that the land which was to be 
 allotted was in the N. Arabian borderland. It spoke not 
 of ' Jordan ' but of ' Yarhon,' i.e. the stream of Jerahmeel.lnot 
 of Canaan but of Kenaz ; and, whoever be the writer of m. 
 2-6 and 8-12, the region in his mind's eye was not differenf 
 from that referred to in vv. 1 and 7. 
 
 xiii. 2. 1-nmi. See on i S. xxvii. 8.-^3. Tin"'©, not the 
 Nile, but Ashhur in N. Arabia. See E. Bib., ' Shihor ' ; cp. 
 Hommel, Aufsdtze u. Abhandl. iii. i, p. 285. The two 
 discussions are, it should be added, quite independent. The 
 view here given is supported by (5, which presupposes, not 
 nn"'mn-JO but ]1D''m"'Q {airo ri]'; aoiKrjTOv), i.e. f?Ni>Dt&"'D (see on 
 Num. xxi. 20). Possibly ■^llffiin hz is a later insertion. — The 
 five ' potentates ' (D"'3'n, see on Judg. iii. 3) of the Zare- 
 phathites reside in 'Azzah (i.e. Zarephath-'azzah ; cp. on 
 Judg. i. 18, I K. xvii. 9). Asshur, Eshcol (Ashkal?), 
 Rehoboth, Ekron (cp. on Judg. i. 18). — W'Ss, probably from 
 D'^mi; (cp. pp. Z77 f^- Here (cp. Dt. ii. 23) @ presupposeSs 
 
 xiii. 4. For mso read either mi?0 (@ ivavriov Td^rj's), 
 
 taking nj» as = Zarephath, or nK)«T.o ('t an early modifica- 
 
 ■ tion of 'pNDnT'. From the traditional point of view, Bennett's 
 
 mNta is plausible. Cp. E. Bib., ' Mearah.' — ' Aphek.' See 
 
 on xix. 30. 
 
 xiii. 5. ■'^lin pNT (so read) and p31^n-^3 are equivalent; 
 possibly the latter is a gloss. There was a Gebal in the N. 
 Arabian borderland. See on i K. v. 32 ; also on Judg. 
 iii. 2 (where the phrase has also been discovered). — 11 hA 
 See on xi. 7 ; also on Judg. iii. 3*. — nDn = n3SD (v. 13)-— 
 9. See on v. 16. 
 
 xiii. 13. 'In the midst of Israel,' i.e. in the Negeb.*# 
 16. Read ^Nom"' n3i;ni ntON Ti>n. The ' city ' intended is 
 Aroer, or (see on 2 S. xxiv. 5) Aroer-yaman. It lay towards 
 
xiii. 28 JOSHUA 417 
 
 Maacath (see on Judg. xi. 33). — 'Arnon.' See on Num. 
 xxi. 13. 
 
 xiii. 1 8. ' Kedemoth ' (cp. ' the wilderness of Kedemoth,' 
 Dt. ii. 36), a Jerahmeelite region. See on ' b'ne Kedem,' 
 Judg. vi. 3, and E. Bib., ' Rekem.' — 19. ' Sereth hassahar,' 
 i.e. TintOM nans, ' Sarephath of A§hur,' to distinguish from 
 other Sarephaths. — 'p'^'SX^ nn3. It is usual to interpret pDi> 
 here, and in v. 27, as = the Jordan valley (cp. G. A. Sm. 
 Hist. Geogr. 655; Buhl, Pal. 112). But in the original 
 record (as originally in Judg. vii. i, 8, 12, xviii. 28, Ps. Ix. 8, 
 etc., the reading was nDSD. ' The highlands of Maacath ' is 
 a very possible phrase. Cp. n3l»D m©, 'the uplands of 
 Maacath,' Gen. xiv. 17 (revised text). — 20. Steuernagel 
 supplies nnn before 'srr 'n. Rather read 'm"' l^ntpN, the 
 name of a place as well as a mountain (see on Dt. iii. 1 7). 
 Evidently a place-name is required. — 2\b. See on Num. 
 xxxi. 8. Note that pIT'D corresponds with ]1^D. It was 
 therefore the name of a district ; the original is TintCM. 
 
 xiii. 23-28. The original writer meant the southern 
 Reuben and Gad. He wrote, probably, not ^I33n JITTT, but 
 h^ jnTn. The 'border of the Reubenites' {y. 23) was the 
 stream of Jarhon ( = Jerahmeel) and the land of Gebal (cp. 
 on I K. V. 32). See on Num. xxxiv. 6. — 26. □■'atal. Prob- 
 ably from D''£313, i.e. a settlement of the Nebat-clan (see on 
 I K. xi. 26). But see also on 2 S. ii. 29. — nmf? or nm "h 
 (2 S. ix. 4), i.e. either nn? ~\-h\, or, much less probably, nNia 
 'f?! or 'h^. JT'l. Cp. on XV. 15. Probably v. 26 should come 
 aftens^a in w. 25 (Holz.). — 27. pD»l ; see on v. 19. — r\-% 
 Qin, presumably from SnohT' 'i (cp. on mn, x. 33). But 
 \\r\ '1 may be a better reading (see on Num. xxxii. 36). — 
 m3D. Probably from n3^D { = r\-hv(s-arsr); not necessarily 
 the Salecah of xii. 5, xiii. 11. — pD^. Cp. the Gadite 
 names pD? and ]ras, and note that pas is the name of 
 a N. Arabian district. See on Jer. i. 14, xv. 12, and 
 especially E. Bib., 'Zaphon.' — ^7311 JTT^n. Correct as in 
 V. 21. A gloss, II fnTH 31» (so read) farther on. — 30. 
 W rm, i.e. 'nT ram, ; see on Num. xxxii. 41. — T'j; n^M. 
 One of those quaint early transformations of ethnics, of which 
 we have so many in Judges {e.g. xii. 9, 14)- Read ^Nroffii 
 21?, an early gloss on Jt03, which really comes from ]mnN or 
 
4i8 CRITICA BIBLICA xiv. 
 
 ^ClN, i.e. 'did"' nns (see on Num. xxi. 33). We hear of ' sixty 
 cities ' again — if the text may be trusted — in Dt. iii. 4 and 
 I K. iv. 13, where they are located in nnw hyn, in jmi, and 
 also in i Chr. ii. 23, where (according to the text) the 
 Havroth-jair (twenty-three in number, v. 22), together with 
 Kenath and its towns, make up ' sixty cities.' In each case 
 make the same correction. — 32^^. See on Num. xxii. i. 
 
 Chap. xiv. Here begins the assignment of the land of 
 Kenaz (read tap). Caleb, a Kenizzite who had joined the 
 Israelites, receives the first portion. Caleb, of course, is the 
 name of a large clan or tribe (cp. i S. xxx. 14). See on 
 Num. xiii. 6, Judg. i. 13, and cp. on xv. 13. 
 
 xiv. 15. cp^i?! fjlTin mNH, 'the greatest man among' 
 the Anakim'? A foolish idea, badly expressed. Read 
 □""pa^^n 7sSa 'jNom"' (for msn see on Gen. vii., and for bnarr 
 on X. 2, Gen. xv. 18, Dt. i. 7, etc.), a gloss on iiD. @°*'' has 
 fiTjTpoTroKi^ tS>v ivaK[e\ifi, which springs from a parallel gloss 
 (see on xv. 13). 
 
 Chap. xv. 2-12. Borders of Judah. Cp. on Num. 
 xxxiv. 3-6. In V. I read d^n (Num. xxxiv. 3, revised text). 
 — 2. The south boundary line begins ' at the end of the 
 Jerahmeelite Lake, at Ishmael that looks southward.' ][')]vh 
 (so V. 5) comes from ~>nsdQ)"' ; see on vii. 21. — 3. [n]spipn, 
 surely a distorted version of 'Jerahmeel.' — 6. n^an"n''3, 
 ' partridge-house.' Is this a trace of primitive totemism (E. 
 Bib., ' Names,' § 1 04) ? But totemistic appearances have 
 hitherto proved fallacious, hrw (see Ps. cxx. 4, cxl. 11) is 
 one of the current corruptions of ^ndht ; another cor- 
 ruption is nf?[l]nD out of which, indeed, nSin may have 
 directly sprung. In xviii. 21 it is given as a place- in 
 Benjamin ; it is the Benjamin in the N. Arabian border- 
 land which was originally meant. — piNTjn ]n:i pN. As 
 Hogg acutely points out, ]ni is a corruption of ]31N1, and 
 the true reading probably is 't ]1n or '1 131 ]1N {E. Bib., col. 
 535, note 4; and 4090; cp. col. 3332, foot) ; in xviii. \^ 
 i^"'- implies '1 ■'31, ' Reuben,' as its name (cp. ' Jerubbaal') 
 indicates, was originally a Jerahmeelite tribe. — 7. 113S is 
 certainly in the south borderland (see on vii. 24, 26) ; like 
 ■'31M it comes from f?MDnT. h:yhy probably from T:»'?l. — 
 D'^QlN (so xviii. 17). Read D'^tsnM. Cp. on i S. xvii. i* 
 
x7. 9 JOSHUA 419 
 
 end. — ' En - shemesh,' ' En - rogel ' = ' En - cusham ' (or ' En- 
 ishmael '), and ' En-jerahmeel ' respectively ; perhaps, how- 
 ever, ' En ' (ps) should be ' Ir ' (nir). Cp. on i K. i. 9. 
 
 XV. 8. Many of these names appear to have had a 
 double existence. There was, very possibly, not only an 
 En-rogel (see on 2 S. xvii. 1 7), but also a ' ravine of the 
 sons (read ■'33, as in 2 K. xxiii. 10, Kt.) of Hinnom ' in the 
 south. border-land as well as near Jerusalem. D3n may be 
 another independent offshoot of 'm"' (cp. pn), though it may 
 also be explained as = pM {E. Bib., col. 2071); note that 
 ' Naaman ' belongs to a group of N. Arabian names (Na'am, 
 Naham, Nahamani, etc.). — "'Dll'^n. ©" tov Iel3ovi ; ©*'- 
 le^ous (cp. xviii. 16; ©^ lej3ova-ai ; (B"'' le^ovi ; xviii. 28, 
 ^BAL ig^ou?. '»"ni wn here and in xviii. 28 is a gloss. Bui 
 the gloss is not in its original form, '©"ni is miswritten for 
 'dvt (a common confusion), and dIT (@) is no ' pseudo- 
 archaism ' (see on Judg. xix. i o), for dT, IDT, and IB)'' are 
 all current corruptions of 'dW. The ' Jebusites ' are, by their 
 name, Ishmaelites. It is highly probable that there was a 
 'dbt TS on the border of (the later) Judah and Benjamin, 
 and another in the south borderland (see on 2 S. v. 6-8). — 
 D''MST pos. The original text must have had D'^nEJN nsQ ; 
 see on Isa. xvii. 5. 
 
 XV. 9. rnhSD, originally a N. Arabian name ; cp. the 
 ethnic DTinaj, Gen. x. 13, and see on vv. 19, 34, xvii. 7. — 
 'Ephron.' The name of a Rehobothite clan (see on Gen. 
 xxiii. 8). Should we not read jnns pw^N? ""IS (not in 
 (B) and in are of course variants, and both may have sprung 
 from pM, written Sm. — nhsi. See on v. 60. — 10. T'rto nn ; 
 • {B" Spoi Aa-a-ap. Read n^int^M ITJ ; cp. on mn in, Judg. 
 »• 35- — ia^ns"' in = 'nT in. — pf^oa. ho^, hpD, hpw, 'pam, and 
 ttoh all represent fjMrDtir (see pp. 49, 264, and on vv. 30, 
 39, xix. 1 2, 1 8). ]iSd3, therefore, must be formed from an 
 abbreviation of 'our (a synonym of 'ni""). Possibly 'dD nTl 
 is an alternative gloss to D"'1i»"' 'ip NTT, v. 9. — ' Beth-shemesh,' 
 either from Beth-ishmael or from Beth-cusham (cp. on i S. 
 vi. 9). — II. 'Ekron'; see on Judg. i. 18. — plDtD probably 
 from 1J7I^M. — 'Mount Baalah.' 'Baal' often represents 
 'Jerahmeel.' Some spur of the Jerahmeelite ranges is 
 meant. — hMT. &" Xefiva, as if n33^ (cp. on v. 42). MT., 
 
420 CRITICA BIBLICA xv. 
 
 however, is plausible. Cp. ' Jabin,' ' Bani,' ' Benaial 
 ' Ibneiah,' etc. For na; the original text probably had nji: 
 'to Yaman,' and in v. 12, for 'in HQ-'n, [^ni^ ly^^Jnac 
 Cp. on Num. xxxiv. 6 f. 
 
 XV. 13. SUM 'p = l-ji| 'p (see on Gen. xxiii. 2). Tl: 
 rest of z^. 13 testifies to ' awkward erudition,' says Holzinge 
 This is a hasty judgment ; the passage goes with xiv. i 
 (see note). As elsewhere (see on ix. 3, with note), -ilN come 
 from 1-15. The resulting phrase yy3r\ 3nj? is clearly a gloi 
 on l-ji? (underlying anw). ^^'"^ reads differently ; firjTpo'n-oXi 
 [tcov] evaKeifi = D"'p3i!rr DN. The sense firiTpoTrdKn; for DN i 
 based upon 2 S. xx. 1 9, where @ has ttoXiv koI fiTjTpoTr. i 
 laparjX, but here, unfortunately, the text is in the utmos 
 disorder. Probably 'dot d:;, in the text of Joshua used b; 
 @, sprang from 'dot ^Nom"' ; cp. on hdn, 2 S. viii. i 
 ' Hebron,' as often, should be ' Rehoboth ' (Gen. xiii. 1 1 
 xxiii. 2, xxxvii. 14), a leading city of the Jerahmeelites, wb 
 are called, in a, b'ne ha-anak (see E. Bid., 'Anak,' ' Rehoboth ' 
 
 XV. 14. In Num. xiii. 22 the phrase, 'the three sons c 
 Anak,' is wanting. We might therefore suppose that "'t'; 
 P2ST1 meant ' offspring of Anak.' But in reality ■'T^"' come 
 from SsDnT^ (cp. on Jer. ii. 14), which is a gloss on p3sr 
 Cp. on Num. I.e. 
 
 XV. 1 5. ^l■7. A hard name to explain. Most probabl; 
 nn (but in X. 3 Tim) is the nmf? of xiii. 26, which, in turr 
 is the 't j7 or 't ah of 2 S. ix. 4./., xvii. 27 respectively 
 That "T y7 and 1 N7 come from isb^ is extremely probable 
 no other view at any rate appears tenable ; and ni, as wel 
 as n>?l, probably comes from inj; (cp. npa> n from infflN Its] 
 Other names for the locality are ~\bd TVtp (as here) and 'j 
 n3D (v. 49). The former is, not ' city of books ' (^, ttoKi' 
 ypafifidrav), nor ' city of the scribe ' (Steuern., after W. M 
 Miiller and Sayce), but = ' city of Sarephath ' (by trans 
 position and popular corruption) ; cp. on iDD, Gen. x. 30 
 ^^E]D, Obad. 20 ; not, however, meaning the Sephath ( = Sare 
 phath) of Judg. i. 1 7. The latter, hitherto poorly explainec 
 as a scribe's error, may, according to parallels, come fron 
 f?Mi)Dmi ; see on n3D3D, v. $1. Cp. E. Bib., ' Kirjath-sannah, 
 ' Kirjath-sepher.' 
 
 XV. 16. r7D3i» (@, partly, acr'xa) means not 'anklet' (!, 
 
XV. 21 JOSHUA 421 
 
 but ' Ashhur,' personified as a woman. Cp. tC-'DN ('Achish) 
 and n»DS (Ps. cxl. 4), both from n^nffiN. Note that Caleb, 
 'Achsah's father, is lord of Rehoboth (' Hebron '), and that 
 ; 'Achish is king of ' Gath,' which is best identified with 
 Rehoboth (see p. 235, and E. Bib., 4028, foot). — 17. ' Oth- 
 niel, son of Kenaz ' ; cp. i Chr. xxvi. 7, ' Othni, son of Obed- 
 edom ' {i.e. Arab-aram). "jn is formative ; ""^ns is probably 
 from ■'3n"'M. Cp. in the story of Judith (which, in its earlier 
 form, had to do with the N. Arabian borderland), ' Uzziah, 
 b. Micah, of the tribe of Simeon, Habri b. Othniel, and Carmi 
 b. Malchiel ' — all Jerahmeelite names. Note, too, that Ethan, 
 in I K. V. 1 1 , is an Ezrahite. i.e. Ashhurite. 
 
 XV. 19. According to Moore, n"'D nSl, n["i]''f?:> 'a, and 
 n[l]"'nnn '1 are proper names of Canaanite (not Israelite) 
 origin. Similarly Budde, who, however, thinks that D'^d is 
 an Israelite gloss on the obscure word rhl. It has not been 
 noticed that CD sometimes represents ]d; or 'jNQnT' (2 S. 
 xii. 26, 2 Chr. xvi. 4, Ps. Ixv. 10, and probably Gen. vii. 6, 
 Josh. xi. 8), also that -ad in 'Gilead' has a tendency to 
 become -ath (see on i S. xvii. 4«). Thus D"'Q vh'X becomes 
 19^ ^sV^l, 'Yamanite Gilead.' Consequently n[l]"'^i' and 
 n[l]innn must also be corruptions of N. Arabian names, 
 such as D'^^NSom-' and D-'nins? (cp. on ninpa, xv. 9). For 
 another attempt, see E. Bib., ' Keilah.' 
 
 xw. 21 ff. A close study of these names shows very 
 clearly that they belong to the S. borderland and indicate 
 Jerahmeelite settlements. Only a few need be referred to 
 here ; for the rest, see E. Bib. In v. 21, '?N!51p[-'] represents 
 a combination of distorted forms of Dm"" and hi^SQXir' re- 
 spectively (for fjMS, cp. on shi, xviii. 28, and on 3M'I-3p^ 
 Judg. vii. 25). For D17M read mM. In v. 25, Tisn is men- 
 tioned twice over ; the second time as equivalent to xv&n 
 Between y^irt and jlisn we find nvnpl nmn. The pre- 
 sumption is that the same name underlies both these words, 
 and that it is the second part of a compound name beginning 
 with nisn (nintDN). We must take our choice between 
 mim and 'qttv {i.e. ht^OTlT). The element ^■m in two 
 names (vv. 27 _/!) also probably comes from iJitpw (cp. nns, 
 Ezek. xxvii. 18). h^'di no doubt comes from f?"iN» or 
 S^jjoar ; probably, therefore, rm. comes from another tribal 
 
423 CRITICA BIBLICA xv. 44 
 
 name -\\. ' Beth-pelet ' ; see on Num. xvi. i. ^id3 (v. 30) ; 
 see on xix. 4. n3D3D (v. 31); see E. Bid., ' Sansannah.' 
 But considering that pD, ]"'^, )VD, \V^, p^, JNS form a group 
 of current corruptions of fjlM© or 7N2;ami, we may best 
 regard this as a corruption of one of these names (cp. on 
 vv. 15, 49). In w. 32 read (with all critics) ' En-rimmon,' 
 though ' Ir-rimmon ' (city of Rimmon) is also possible. 
 ' Rimmon ' comes from ' Jerahmeel ' (see E. Bib., s.v. 8 2). 
 \xi V. 33, as elsewhere, nfjDlO has probably been substituted 
 for n^SiB, which in turn has come from nD"i!i. For ' Zorah,' 
 see on Judg. xiii. 2. ' Eshbaal ' (cp. E. Bib., ' Seth ') is a 
 secondary formation from ' Ishmael.' See on ' Eshtemoh,' 
 V. 50. In V. 34, for Q-'aj ]^l!, <3 has TTTjjrjv jpaiMfjATrnv, as if 
 ngp ; but really perhaps from tt. yavvt/ji,. Q'^il, however, must 
 be wrong ; perhaps we should read caij ; cp. Ginath or 
 Gunath, i K. xvi. 2 1. n^sn comes from nins3 (see on v. 9). 
 For D3"'i>1, see on Gen. xxxviii. 14. In v. 35, nbito. In 
 I S. xvii. I ©"^j and in 2 Chr. xi. 7 {^^'^ give a-oicxmd. Can 
 nD"ito be a late error for TlTfD, arid this (like m3D ; cp. on 
 xiii. 27) come from rchc? See on xii. 5. Cp. anotheif 
 n3ia> in V. 48. There were, most probably, several places 
 called Salecah (' Ishmaelitish '). For this, see on i S. 
 xxii. I. In w. 37 'Zenan' comes ultimately from nOJin, 
 from nmin = nnt»N. In v. 38, f3Nnp^ see on 2 K. xiv. 7. 
 In V. 39, miD^ = SStpN = SNi?Dffi\ Cp. ^iDD, xix. 30. 'Ish- 
 mael ' ; see E. Bib. s.v., and on Mic. i. 1 1. In w. 41 (xix. 27) 
 'Beth-dagon' perhaps comes from 'Beth-gadon' (see on 
 Judg. xvi. 23). The redactor perhaps confounded this with^ 
 a Beth-dagan elsewhere (cp. E. Bib., ' Beth-dagon '). 
 
 XV. 44. Note that ' Mareshah ' in i Ch. ii. 42 is the 
 father of ' Hebron' (Rehoboth), and that the b'n^ Mareshah are 
 Calebite. See on Mic. i. 14/, 2 Chr. xiv. gf. — 49. TOD 'p, 
 @ TToXt? 'ypa/jLfi.aTwv, to conform with v. 15. But see on 
 V. 15.-50. 33i;. See on xi. 21. nontCM or i^iantSN, as 
 xxi. 1 4. One of the corruptions of ^NSDffi"' is DTiffi (see on 
 Judg. X. 3 ; cp. on Dnt2>, Num. ^xxiv. 3). The n must not 
 divert us from the only plausible explanation both of ^iMnfflN 
 (v. 33) and of i>lona>N. Secondary formations with letters 
 inserted must apparently be admitted. Cp. on i S. xxx. 28. 
 
 XV. 51. ]W1. See on x. 41. — ]'f?n' or (i Chr. vi. 43) 
 
xyi. JOSHUA i,ii 
 
 l^n. Cp. ]^n, Num. i. 9 ; b"inf?n, w. 58 ; also ^^n, one of 
 the b'nd Aram, Gen. x. 23. The common original is ^sonT ; 
 the popular speech produced many such independent 
 formations. Cp. also on xix. 25, Judg. v. 28, and E. Bib., 
 ' Holon.' — n'^a. Perhaps' from ^»'?l (cp. nif?a = ~{sh:i.), unless 
 it be a corruption of nh'^Hp. See on 2 S. xv. 12, and E. Bid., 
 ' Giloh.' — s 2. mN = ITS, an Arabian settlement. — noiT ; see 
 on Gen. xxv. 14. — ptoM. Cp. ]t»», z;. 42 ; jNtO-JT'l, xvii. 11. 
 'oBT is the common original. 
 
 XV. S 3. mDn-n""!. Another Naptuhite settlement ; see 
 on V. 34, xvii. 7. — 54. rrEaon probably = the /ceifmO of @^, 
 I S. XXX. 29, i.e. Maacath. A S. Maacathite settlement. 
 See on fjislDn, 2 K. xxiii. 3 1 . — ^ns-'^i. See on 2 K. viii. 2 1 . 
 — 55. nav. Perhaps from n3£3"' (cp. on 2 K. xxi. 19). — 
 58. ' Halhul,' see on v. 51. — ' Beth-zur,' perhaps = ' Beth- 
 zophar ' = ' Beth-zarephath.' Cp. on 'Zuriel,' Num. iii. 35. 
 — 59- ipnV^ ; cp. nprhi^, xi. 44 ; spn^N, xxi. 23 ; '7Nnp\ 
 ■z/. 38, 2 K. xiv. 7 (see note) ; all from ^MScmr — 59. See @'s 
 insertion, where the names are equally Jerahmeelite {e.g. 
 Beth-lehem = Beth-jerahmeel). — ' Beth-anoth.' See on 
 * Beth-anath,' xix. 38. — 60. ' Kirjath-baal,' ' Kirjath-jearim ' ; 
 see on 2 S. vi. 2. — mnrn.. Perhaps "i should be omitted, 
 and '-\n regarded as an honorific title of 'mi n^np. There 
 were other cities called ' Jerahmeel,' but this was the great 
 one, where kings resided (see on 2 S. xv. 11). ' Two cities 
 with their villages' is, of course, the redactor's insertion. 
 — 61 / Here, as elsewhere, ni ys should be read i-ra ps (see 
 on Gen. xiv. 7, but also on i S. xxiv. i). n^p T^i' is a 
 popular corruption of 'm^ n^s (cp. on 2 S. viii. 1 3). This 
 implies that the places referred to are in the Negeb. n^D 
 T^y^s may come from nns n^a. Cp. ' Arab - jerahmeel ' 
 (perhaps) in 2 S. xvii. 26, xxiv. 4 ; see notes. )no may 
 represent ^inp ; but cp. on ' priest of Midian ' Ex. iii. i . 
 rra^D almost certainly comes from nDD = rr37D. 11033 is 
 . problematical (see E. Bib., col. 3406). Perhaps, as in the 
 case of rvyyo, one letter is dittographic. \mi most probably 
 = J»3M = Worn-' 3"is (see on Dt. i. 4, Judg. v. 28). — 63. See 
 on V. 8, Judg. i. 2.1. 
 
 Chaps, xvi. / The tribe of Joseph. Again, it is 
 probable (from the names) that the writings used by P and 
 
424 CRITICA BIBLICA xvi. i 
 
 by R in their original form referred to the geography of the 
 Negeb (cp. p. 374, top). The Chronicler confirms this 
 view. For in 2 Chr. xxxiv. 6 we should read 'in the 
 cities of Manasseh and Ephraim ... in Rehoboth-ishmael.* 
 In xvii. 16, 18, textual criticism notices another reference 
 to Rehob(oth)-ishmael as the territory of the Joseph-tribe. 
 
 xvi. I. iniT" "^th ^rVT' ]1TD. Steuernagel regards ^d!? 
 't" as a gloss ; @ did not read the words. This, however, is 
 a mistake. IJT'T' = ]''l^■^^ a correction of the false reading 
 ;7T'D. See on Num. xxii. i. S "^xh has also been mis- 
 understood. It comes certainly from fpNom"', which is a gloss 
 upon ]im\ Similarly, in xiii. 22, Num. xxvi. 2, xxxiv. 15, 
 etc. The stream intended is that which, as a boundary 
 stream, bore the name 'Jerahmeel.' — 2. n'^nsi?. An early 
 corruption of jtism. Cp. on i Chr. ii. 54, Num. xxxii. 3, 34. 
 ' — -'th^-'. £2^2"' is an Asherite, i Chr. vii. 32/ With the 
 name, cp. Palti, i S. xxv. 44 (of the Negeb), and see on 
 Peleth, Num. xvi. i. — ' Beth-horon.' See on x. 10. — 
 3. ' Gezer.' See on x. 33. — 5. ' Addar.' Cp. i Chr. viii. 3 
 ( Addar, son of Bela = Jerahmeel) ; Arod, Num. xxvi. 1 7. — 
 6. nnoDQ, probably from roi^D. — nbm n3Nn. ' Fig-tree of 
 Shiloh' (so E. Bib., cols. 3316, 4859 ; cp. @)? But more 
 probably from 'xs ViViXS, ' Anathoth of Shiloh,' to distinguish 
 from the Anathoth N.E. of Jerusalem. Cp. on Jer i. i. — 
 nni:;. Cp. on 'Janoah,' 2 K. xv. 29, also on ' Nohah,' 
 I Chr. viii. 2. — 8. There was probably a northern wady 
 called Kanah (see E. Bib., s.v.). Did the Ephraimites carry 
 the name northward ? For a southern Kanah must be 
 presumed to have existed, nap, too, is most probably a 
 southern name (see on Num. xxxii. 42), and certainly pp. — 
 10. Note (gi's addition, and cp. on Gen. xiii. 7. 
 
 Chap. xvii. Observe that some of the names are com- 
 pounded with ' Ishmael.' See on vv. 7, 11, and note 
 ' Rehoboth-ishmael,' underlying corrupt words in 2 Chr. 
 xxxiv. 6 (see above, on chaps, xvi. f.). For the names in 
 V. 2 see on Num. xxxii. 42. — 7. Read ' Maacath (xvi. 6) that 
 is eastward of Cusham.' — For ■'IQ?"' ^« l-iDTr-fpN, ® has evl 
 lafieiv Kol Iaa-o-et/8. Correctly, only iim'^ should, as often 
 {e.g. in V. II ), be ^nsqq)"'. The sense becomes, ' to Jamia 
 ( = Jerahmeel) ' ; the appended words ' to Ishmael ' are a 
 
xvii. i8 JOSHUA 425 
 
 gloss or variant. — msn-J''i» should probably be nhngrT'i' (cp. 
 on XV. 34). — 9. Read D'-nDN^ ^NDHT' in» hnh nin:'. For 
 ^f?^^^ = 'm^ see on xi. 10, Isa. x. 10. Then continue 
 'nT nason (cp. on ^^n, Ps. Ixxiii. 14), a gloss, nmao is out 
 of place. '3D ^"illl follows. 
 
 xvii. II. J«m-JT'n = ^Ni^DtD"' '3, an Ishmaelite settlement. — 
 D»"?T, from ^1 (see on Gen. xiv. 2), i.e. a Jerahmeelite 
 town ; cp. on Num. xxii. 5. — ^hnt ; see on xi. 2. — '\'^'ST\, 
 almost always joined to yxyo (rather ^TrlD ?). For possible 
 origin of name see on Judg. v. 1 9. — "'n©"' (four times) comes 
 from '?M^D»^ ' Ishmael ' = the Negeb. Similarly nE33n rxhxa 
 = mnD3 'D^>^ ' Ishmael-naphtoah.' So speculations as to 
 the ' three Naphoth ' lose their basis. 
 
 xvii. 14-18. The Josephites' complaint of their in- 
 sufficient allotment. ' In the highest degree peculiar, and by 
 its awkwardness of expression suggesting the initial period 
 of Hebrew prose ' (Ewald, Dillm.). A keener textual criti- 
 cism is urgently required. Budde and others have made a 
 * banning. See also corrections in E. Bib., ' Perizzites,' 
 'Rephaim.' — 15. Joshua's reply to the petition is, ' If thou 
 art (as thou sayest) a large people, go up to the woodland 
 (ir), and clear it for thyself [Ishmael, in the land of the 
 Zarephathites (the Rephaites, in the land of ail the Repha- 
 ites)].' — 16. To this the Josephites reply, 'It is beyond us 
 to obtain the woodland [Rehob-ishmael], because of all the 
 Kenizzites who dwell in the land of Maacath [namely, those 
 who are in Beth-shean and its towns, and those who are in 
 Maacath-jizreel].' — ij /. Joshua rejoins, ' Thou art a large 
 people, etc. ; for the woodland shall be thine, and thou shalt 
 clear it, etc., for thou shalt dispossess the Kenizzites [in 
 Rehob-ishmael], for thou hast superior strength.' In w. 15, 
 mm has given much trouble. Budde (ZATW, 1887, p. 
 135 ; cp. 1888, p. 148) and Holzinger would read ishl nis\ 
 But the text-reading is better. It is the nsi of the Zare- 
 phathite country that is meant. inD, as usual, should be 
 [DJ'^nms, to which D''NDnrr (also miswritten as D"'1Dwnn) is a 
 variant, am, as often, is a fragment of 'd©-' ; note that ® 
 does not render D''Mm . . . D». In v. 1 6, N^iS"' is generally 
 misunderstood. iTTn should be ns'n ; cp. on v. 1 8. 331, as 
 elsewhere (e.g. Jer. xlvi. 9, Ezek. xxvi. 7), represents nhT ; 
 
426 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xviii. i 
 
 @, tTTTTo? imXeKTO'i. f?ni, as often (e.^. Judg. i. 1 9, iv. 3, 
 
 1 S. xvii. 7), represents either ^N^^oaT' (if the linking form is 
 Sint) or 'dw^ yis, if, on the analogy of ptoai ( = nnSJN onM) 
 and npton ( = intOM ns), we explain f?T11 as = ^ni^diB' y\s, 
 ' Ishmaelite Arabia.' The latter view is preferable, but it is 
 convenient in translation to give simply ' Ishmael.' Thus,'; 
 here at least, the ' chariots of iron ' disappear ; for parallels, 
 see Judg. i. 19 (note), iv. 3, and cp. on Ex. xiv. 7. pDi>rT, 
 as often, represents nDi»a. Similarly, 7Mi)ir 's comes from 
 'v n'DSD, 'Jizreelite Maacath' (Judg. vi. 33), a portion of the 
 larger ' land of Maacath.' For the older view of the ' vale 
 of Jezreel ' see E. Bib., ' Jezreel.' In v. 1 8, ^^T\ "^a and 151-13 
 are variants. The right reading is probably ni;TT 13. N"in 
 comes from [l^] rrrri. Read i^pn (as often), "h h^^1 n3T 13 
 is, exegetically, very harsh. Read fpNSomi lh"i3 ; i^ repre- 
 sents Sn in 'ddji. At the end, follow @ (with Steuernagel). 
 
 Chap, xviii. i. Originally this stood before xiv. i 
 (Wellh., CH, 130); xviii. ib thus becomes intelligible. But 
 which Shiloh does P mean ? At any rate, the writings used 
 by him meant the Jerahmeelite Shiloh (see on i S. i. 3). — 
 17. nifpi^a, like Slf?:i in xv. 7, probably comes from ishl. 
 Cp. mSl and nhl for ~\sh'x, Am. i. 6, 9, i S. xvii. 4. 
 
 xviii. 19. The original writer probably spoke of a place 
 called ' Ishmael ' at the south end of the stream Jarhon. 
 pffl^ from 'otoi ; see on vii* 21. 
 
 xviii. 21-24. Originally the Benjamin in the border- 
 land. See E. Bib., ' Zemaraim,' last small type paragraph. J 
 — 21. psp pDS. A strange name for a town ! pos as often 
 (see on 2 S. v. 1 8) comes from nsQ. p2Sp may be grouped S 
 with the p2n of 2 Chr. xx. 16, and the j['i]!i2n of Gen. xiv. 7, 
 
 2 Chr. XX. 2, perhaps too with d"id, Isa. Ixvi. 20, Ps. xx. 8, 
 Ixxvi. 7, etc. The original of all these corrupt names 
 (unless indeed did = t2)"i3) is almost certainly i^n^N. — 22. 
 TTlts nil ; see on xv. 6. — QinaiS ; see E. Bib., ' Zemaraim.' — 
 23. Ci''']s. As in xiii. 3, Dt. ii. 23, from ti^y^s. — ma [n] and 
 mas, both probably from nnSM or iriB (see on Jer. xiii. 4). 
 To be distinguished from the Bethlehem -ephrath. — 24. 1B3 
 ■■ilDirn. Probably from £Di3"iOi;n n^n. — i3Di>n (stench-town ??), 
 probably a dittographed ■'3[l]asn. — 25 _^ ninNl, m"'S3. , See 
 on Josh. ix. 1 7. — n2D[n] ; cp. NSilD, i Chr. ii. 46, viii. 36, 
 
xix. JOSHUA 427 
 
 ix. 42.— Dpn, from ^mdhT' (cp. E. Bib., ' Rekem ')■ — ^Nm\ 
 Perhaps from SND[n]T', a gloss on Dpn. Again, perhaps, 
 miswritten as n^Nin (n for D, n for n) ; cp. nbsno, xix. 1 1. 
 — 28. s^?, from ^Nsnffii (see on 2 S. xxi. 14). — ^S^rr, 
 
 ^probably from bNCin[T] ; cp. on Ps. 1. 10. — 28. For D^miT' 
 read f?NSD»"' (as in xv. 9). — rr'ip nsia, a combination of 
 alternative readings. The second part of the place-name 
 has been swallowed up by the following word W''ys (cp. ^). 
 Read, therefore, either n"'~ii»"' n^ll or '1 n"'-ip (d^'IS"' from 
 ^NDHT). See on 2 S. vi., Jer. ii. 34, iii. 24, vi. i ff. 
 
 Chap. xix. The problems connected with Simeon would 
 seem, under our hands, to have become much simplified. A 
 northern Simeon has only come into existence through the 
 late redactor's transformation of the geography of his texts. 
 See on Gen. xxiv., 2 K. xxiii. 15, 19, 2 Chr. xv. 9. The 
 Simeonites, by their very name, are seen to be of Ishmaelite 
 — i.e. N. Arabian — origin, and they seem not to have 
 belonged to the most progressive branches of the race. — 
 4. 'Bethul'; in xv. 30, called ' Chesil.' ^"ini comes by 
 transposition from ^mn, i.e. f?Mi)DtO"' (cp. on 'pioriN, i S. x. 11); 
 so also does f?iD3 (see on ]iSd3, xv. i o). — r\'cr(n \ see on 
 Num. xxi. 3. — 5. abps from ^:i^ps, i.e. ni^^l Wom"' (see on 
 I S. xxvii. 6). — nnanon rr^i, from nnm n^l ; see E. Bib., 
 'Marcaboth.' — riDlD nsn, doubtless from 'om"' in^«. — 6. 
 jmntD. From j-i^nmN. See E. Bib., ' Sharuhem.' — 8. rhsi 
 1N3, rather yis rhg^, 'the Arabian Baalath' (i Chr. iv. 33, 
 ' Baal '). ' Baal ' often comes from ' Jerahmeel ' (cp. xviii. 14). 
 — 33Q nan [nown]. Cp. i S. xxx. 27. Perhaps a misplaced 
 gloss on pDT pi? (v. 7) or '1 nis (see on v. 13).^ — 11. no-h 
 nhsnax Both words are peculiar. Why nah ? ' Observa- 
 tion of the Sprachbewusstsein,' says Konig (Sj/nL § 530 i). 
 But the preceding Paselj warns us to suspect the text. The 
 word nhsna (cp. n^Min, xviii. 27) has also an improbable 
 
 ■ air. The remedy is plain. Both words represent nbNam% 
 'towards Jerahmeel' (cp. on v. 29, end).— ntom (a hump?) 
 is also corrupt. @* has BaiOapa^a^yrs, n-'B. Read 
 perhaps nmT ; mT = ^S»D»-' ; ' Ishmael' is personified as a 
 woman. Cp. on ntOT, Ps. xcv. 5. — Di)3p% another N. Arabian 
 
 1 nodi, like nm, v. 21, mm-, xxi. 29, -lon-n, Ex. vi. 23, and d'ijin, Num. 
 xxi. I, originates in nn-\' = ^HDm-. Cp. E. Bib., col. 401 1. 
 
428 CRITICA BIBLICA xix. 14 
 
 name. Cp. on ]5i7, vii. i. The fact that there was a 
 northern Jokneam (W. M. Miiller, As. u. Eur. 393) does not 
 militate against the prior existence of Jokneam (a settlement 
 of the 'Achan-clan) in the S. borderland. — 12. inn nh^M. 
 Cp. m^D3, V. iZ; fj-iDD, XV. 30 ; mhvo, xv. 40 ; see on pSoa, 
 XV. 10. n^DD is to ^D3 = ''Dmi as rh'sn is to fji;! = f?NDnT. 
 nnn, probably from rcim. (Judg. iv. 8, viii. 18) ; cp. the by- 
 form rmM3. So the name is virtually Ishmael-rehoboth.— 
 — rril'^, an early condensation of a compound name. See 
 on min, Judg. iv. I, and note the gentilic name iin, borne 
 by the father of rr^Q^O ( = Ishmaelitess) in Lev. xxiv. 1 1. 
 As to the situation. The modern Daburlyeh, ' on the side 
 of a ledge of rocks at the W. base of Mt. Tabor ' (Rob. BR 
 iii. 2 1 o), may perhaps represent an ancient mm. But our 
 experience suggests the view that the Issacharites (Ashhurites) 
 brought the name from their earlier home in the S. border- 
 land. — vnx:i\ See on x. 3. — In vv. 12 f. Steuernagel would 
 excise momn mto and nmiD as glosses to ^D^p. They 
 imply that Hryip means ' eastward.' But has it not rather 
 come from riKipn, i.e. ' towards Jerahmeel ' ? Cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Rekem.' — 13. ' Gath-hepher.' See on Jonah (p. 150).-^ 
 ]''2p nnr. nns may be simply a dittographed nni ; or, with 
 ®, we may read 'p -v^. At any rate, the true place-name 
 underlies piip, and this is to be explained like psn (Gen. 
 xiv. 7), i.e. it probably comes from TintO = nintOM. See on 
 f'iLp, xviii. 21. — r\^-sn "iMnan pan. Plausible as the current 
 explanation may be (see E. Bib., ' Rimmon,' 2 (3), compari- 
 son of parallels and geographical consistency suggest a 
 different view as in the highest degree probable. Read . 
 fpNom"' riDNT r[T[m. This is partly confirmed by (gi^'"' (see 
 E. Bib.) ; rrMn may be grouped with rrMorr, Neh. iii. i, 
 xii. 39, and MH, 2 K. xviii. 34, xix. 1 1. The place referred 
 to had two equivalent names, ' Rimmonah ' and ' Ramath.' ; 
 Both are pretty widely spread popular corruptions of ^nDOT. 
 To prevent confusion the second name had ' Jerahmeel ' -i 
 attached to it, to indicate that it was in the Negeb and not 
 in Palestine proper. For a parallel see vv. 7, 8, where nm 
 ai3 is probably a gloss on poT fs (or 't th), 
 
 xix. 14. f?M nna-' •^i. As usual, a N. Arabian locality js 
 ■was originally intended. Iphtah is to be grouped with 
 
ix. 26 JOSHUA 429 
 
 Nephtoah'. (see on Judg. xi. i, 2 K. xv. 16) ; el is forma- 
 ive. For older views see E. Bib., ' Dabbasheth,' ' Jiphtah-el' 
 — 15.' Nahalal.' Cp. on ' Nahaliel,' Num. xxi. 1 9. — ' Shim- 
 ■on,' ' Beth-lehem.' There was a southern as well as a northern 
 Shimron, and very possibly a northern as well as more 
 :han one southern Beth-lehem (Beth-jerahmeel). Cp. E. Bib., 
 Shimron,' ' Nazareth.' — 18. ' Chesulloth.' See on ' Chisloth- 
 ;abor ' (w. 1 2). — ' Shunem.' See on i S. xxviii. 4, 2 K. 
 V. 8. — 19. 'Hapharaim.' Read ' Hapharam ' (cp. E. Bib., 
 Names,' § 107). See also on i K. iv. 10 (Hepher). — mnjN, 
 ike pnnN (see on Dt. xi. 24), from -^NOnT, with feminine 
 ;nding. — 20. T\•%'^r^. Read, probably, mam. C. Niebuhr 
 proposes mm; cp. @° and xxi. 28. — jvmp, either from 
 ia)''p ((©" Keto-ctfi/), a popular corruption of ]ffi^3, or from I'^t0^p. 
 The II passage, i Chr. vi. 72, has m^p. Cp. E. Bib., col. 
 2683. — j>aM. From N325, which, like NTH (see on 2 S. ix. 2) 
 = J1S32, «.«. 'Dm\ Cp. on p2N, Judg. xii. 8. — 21. ' Remeth ' ; 
 iee on ' Ramath-negeb,' v. 8 (note). — ' En-gammin.' See on 
 2 K. ix. 27 (p. 362). — 22. ' Tabor.' See on v. 12. — nmsnto, 
 1 puzzling name (see E. Bib., col. 4421). In view of the 
 numerous names made up of two corrupt, mutilated elements, 
 ive may venture to explain Shahasum as = Ashhur-ishmael, 
 che feminine ending attached as in Ramah, Baalath, etc. — 
 TT', as usual, from ]rTi\ 
 
 xix. 24-31. It is specially important here to remember 
 that the foundation of P's work is a geographical survey which 
 related to the N. Arabian borderland, and that ' Asher,' like 
 Issachar,' was most probably produced by the popular 
 speech out of ' Ashhur.' 
 
 xix. 25. np^n. See on pV^^ ""■ 34- — ^"^^ Read ■^n (as 
 ®°), i.e. hv(arrv (see on v. 33). — \\!Sy. See on Qijiaa, xiii. 26. 
 
 xix. 26. l^iafpM. From ^N[-']3^a. Cp. on Gen. xlvi. 1 7 
 IMalchiel is an Asherite). — ' Mish'al,' from '7MrDm\ — ' Carmel.' 
 Driginally the southern Carmel ( = Jerahmeel) was meant. 
 — ' Shihor-Iibnath.' See E. Bib., s.v. ' Shihor ' is no doubt = 
 :he N. Arabian district-name, Ashhur, which, like Jerahmeel, 
 jave its name to different settlements. This Shihor or 
 \shhur was near Libnah, or belonged to the Laban clan. — 
 Bet'h-dagon. See on xv. 41. — 27. h>S3. Rather f?133i = 
 aa (cp. on I K. ix. 13). — 'Beth-emek,' ' Neiel,' see on 
 
430 CRITICA BIBLICA xix. 26 
 
 Num. xxvi. 3 3. The following word, fsNDBQ (' on the left , 
 hand ' ?), is a difficulty. It nowhere else occurs in P, and 
 why should this particular member of the list of names 
 have this special topographical definition ? Surely 'ffio is a 
 corruption of f^NSDQT', which is a gloss on the name which | 
 underlies ^113. There were other places of the name ; this 
 one, however, was in ' Ishmael ' = ' Jerahmeel,' i.e. the Negeb.| 
 — 28. pnii; or fnns (xxi. 30), perhaps ]imi? (from lis). 
 nm = mnim. TOp. Cp. on xvi. 8.— mn pT^sns. Here;| 
 the redactor's manipulation can be clearly seen. So many 
 indications show that the original lists referred to the Negeh^ 
 that, unless we assume that there was a Zidon in the Negeb 
 or in Musri, we must here, as elsewhere, probably correct 
 JIT'S into ni2D, and suppose an anticipative reference to the 
 city of Missor, of course, which is mentioned again in v. 29. 
 (We might read "ysl, but cp. on Gen. xix. 20.) n:n should ■ 
 probably be ini;. It was not the. N. Syrian but the Arabian 
 Musri to which the original list referred. — 29. ' Ramah.' A 
 Ramah near Tyre? For conjectures assuming this view, 
 see E. Bib., ' Ramah,' § 6. The name, however, indicates 
 that a Jerahmeelite settlement is intended, and can best be 
 explained on the hypothesis that the original writing referred 
 to the south borderland. — nij n^ip T'S-TfSi. @* expresses - 
 ps instead of Tii> (see E. Bib., 'Tyre,' § i, and cp. Dillm. 
 ad loc). Probably, however, we should rather read T'r'TS'l 
 n^ao, 'to the city of Missor,' and so in 2 S. xxiv. 7. Cp. 
 my note on Ps. Ix. 1 1 (in cviii. 1 1 TiSQ TH becomes 123D T»), 
 and on 2 K. xviii. 8. — nph. G. F. Moore's tempting identifi- 
 cation with the Usu of the Assyrian inscriptions {Judges, 
 p. 51, note -f-) must, I fear, be put aside; the redactor (who 
 seems to have shifted the geography of the lists) can hardly 
 have known of USu. In i Chr. xvi. 38, xxvi. 10, 16, we 
 find among the doorkeepers (d"'1»Q>), originally ' Asshurites^l 
 (a'^ltSN), of the temple the names Obed-edom (rather 'Arab- 
 aram) and Hosah (nph). Consistency requires that this 
 should be a N. Arabian name. Its origin is obscure. In 
 Chron. l.c. we expect such a name as mn = irrffiM (' Asshur?)! 
 ites ' are spoken of), nor should we be surprised to find it in 
 the original list of the towns of Asher (from ' Asshur ' = 
 ' Ashhur '). — na;;!!. Originally ny(T,, ' towards Jaman ' (Num. 
 
;ix. 33 JOSHUA 431 
 
 cxxiv. 5). — We can now understand nTWN hyna. Steuer- 
 mgel remarks, ' Following @, read inpN"! iSno^, and connect 
 liese words with v. 30.' For only slightly different views, see 
 E. Bib., col. 102, note i ; Moore, Judges, 51. Two points, 
 lowever, have to be considered : ( i ) that f?3n again and 
 igain (see on Dt. iii. 4) has come from ^Nom"' ; and (2) 
 Lhat in w. 1 1 the two words, n^i^nn^i ncb (side by side), both 
 represent n^NDm"' (error and correction). It is difficult to 
 ivoid concluding that f?3no rraTT in z^. 29 represents mo"'. 
 ?NnnT' (see above), where 'm"' (' to Jerahmeel ') is a gloss on 
 mtr (' towards Jaman '). The n- in '3n"i is redactional, a 
 Eonsequence of the faulty reading, f?nnD. The next name 
 in MT. is HQi? (v. 30), which, after Hollenberg {ZATW 
 i. loo/i), it is usual to emend into n3» or "iss, i.e. as the 
 commentators suppose, the modern 'Akka. Geographically, 
 this can be made plausible (see Moore, Judges, 51), though 
 the strong idealisation of the territorial limits of the northern 
 Asher is most surprising (cp. E. Bib., ' Asher,' § 3). One 
 may agree that rrDS is an approach to the original reading, 
 but experience enables us to go farther. The original writer 
 did not idealise Asher ; he spoke of a district in N. Arabia, 
 and wrote, not riDS, but niSD. This needs no special con- 
 firmation ; it is self-evidently true. Still it is worth noticing 
 that Pesh. and two Heb. MSS. (de Rossi) read pos, i.e. n^ro. 
 — ^pSM. Is this Aphek, which (see xiii. 4) was on the 
 border of the (southern) Arammites, the Apku of Esar- 
 haddon's inscription, quoted in E. Bib., col. 4529 (top) ? So, 
 at any rate, banda (MVG, 1902, p. 58). Apku was 'in 
 [country) Sa-me-n[a],' i.e. perhaps in Ishmael, and was in 
 the direction of the wady of Musur. — ' Rehob,' i.e. ' Reho- 
 both' (see on Num. xiii. 21). 
 
 xix. 33. PihvfO, certainly not 'from Heleph.' Either it 
 comes from a dittographed Q^lj (E. Bib., col. 2005), or, 
 more probably, like ^ino {v. 29) and v^vin (xviii. 28), it 
 represents fjMDm"', which was a correction of D"lp7, and has 
 intruded from the margin. — D-'23i'21 can also now be defini- 
 tively explained. D''33i>2 (cp. on ]:n2, Mic. i. 11) would 
 represent uhtvs-osr. The form found, however, is 'sn ; this 
 comes from D-'3S32J, which (see on Gen. xxxvi. 2) is still 
 nearer to 'd©\ Perhaps some great battle, with hostile 
 
 30 
 
432 CRITICA BIBLICA xix. 34 
 
 Ishmaelites or Jerahmeelites, took place near the sacred tree 
 (P^n). Cp. on Judg. iv. 37 i^elon meonemm). — 3j33n wn. 
 apjn is puzzling. It might mean ' the pass ' (so most), but 
 is this likely ? -iDTN probably comes from 'idin, i.e. D'^Bls, 
 (cp. @^'') ; see on noTN, v. ^6 ; q-'DIN, xv. 7. Now D-'mN 
 apirr for 'in IpD is hardly conceivable. @ supposes 'the 
 word following ■'OIN or iQlN to be a place-name (or [^'-J a 
 part of a compound place-name). We may plausibly take 
 n^'DlN to be an early gloss on D"'33i;2 ( = 'otO"'), and read 
 lp3m. A clue to this name is wanting. 
 
 xix. 34. XXn mDTN. Cp. mNt»-pM, I Chr. vii. 24^. 
 The two parallel compound names represent respectively 
 n!ini-]Nl and nnffiM-jNl. JNI, like pi;, ]n!J, and ps (see on 
 I S. xvi. 1 1, Mic. i. 1 1, Num. xxxiv. 26), represents f7Ni;Dffi*| 
 see, further, on 2 K. xxv. 23. For inn, see on v. 12. — ppn. 
 Cp. pp^n, I Chr. vi. 60. Like npbn in xix. 25, xxi. 31, 
 and the personal name, plpin, it probably comes from 
 SNQm\ Cp., however, E. Bib., ' Helkath.' — ^th n-j^mn^ 
 This ancient enigma can now, it would seem, be solved. 
 The non-recognition of rnirfl in @ led Holzinger to sup- 
 pose that it was excised by the translator (or the scribe 
 whose work he used ?) as ' suspicious,' i.e. corrupt. In .£. Bib., 
 col. 2623, it is maintained that ]TT' was written twice, and 
 one of the ' Jordans ' wrongly emended into ' Judah.' See 
 also Torrey, N'ew World, viii. 776. We have, however, now 
 plenty of evidence that miiT' and ]^^■' are constant types of 
 corruption, which replace fpNom"' and pm*' respectively, and 
 since the redactor is evidently working on territorial lists, 
 which originally referred to the south borderland, we need 
 not hesitate to read v. ^4l> thus, ' and it strikes Zebulun on 
 the south, and strikes Asher on the west, and Jerahmeel {i.e. 
 the border-stream called Jerahmeel or Jarhon) on the east.' , 
 
 xix. 35-38. All these place-names seem based upon 
 names of clans and districts. Ziddim, Zer, Hazor, En-hazor, 
 are best connected with nntON ; Adamah and Ramah with 
 DIM ; Iron (pMT') and Horem with SwDm"' ; Hammath with 
 Maacath, Beth-shemesh with Cusham ; Kedesh needs no 
 explanation (cp. Judg. iv. 6, where a southern Kedesh was 
 plainly meant by the original narrator). The doubtful ones 
 are — (i) mD31 npl. This should probably be m33 TV^p- 
 
 A 
 
ix. 40 JOSHUA 433 
 
 \.s for m33, it is now possible to go beyond E. Bib., cols. 
 '47/ Without denying that kn-na-ra-tu in the Retennu 
 ist of Thothmes III., no. 30 {RP^^^ v. 45 ; WMM, As. u. 
 ?ur. 84, note i) has to be explained in the same way, I 
 lold it to be plain that m33 is a Jerahmeelite name. From 
 5 S. vi. 5, I K. X. 12, we see that 1123 was liable to be read 
 or pnns = JsnT' = SNom-' (for 'hn, see on Dt. xi. 24). Cp. 
 jianp, also from 'nT (Gen. xiv. 5). For ■'sniN ( = 112;), see 
 m Dt. i. 4. In ' Migdal-el,' el is formative ; ' migdal ' prob- 
 ibly comes from noa = Dm"" (cp. on Gen. x. 2 1 and i S. 
 dv. 2). ' Beth-anath ' may come from ]niM IT'S. On ^a^N 
 lote that Kampffmeyer would read r7Q^N (for mw) in i K. 
 ni. 46, where, however, the true reading is q-jn. See 
 ZDP V xvi. 1 4. — ' Beth-shemesh ' ; see on xv. i o. 
 
 xix. 40^. Cp. on Judg. i. 34/ That Dan was one 
 )f the tribes which dwelt in the south borderland appears 
 torn Judg. xiii. 2 5 and xviii. ; ' Zorah ' and ' Eshtaol ' (see 
 3n XV. 33, Judg. xiii. 25) were certainly in this much dis- 
 puted region. — 41. ' Ir-shemesh ' = Ir-ishmael, or Ir-cusham ; 
 see on ' Beth-shemesh,' xv. 9. We need not be surprised at 
 inding Dan compared in Dt. xxxiii. to a ' lion's whelp that 
 caps forth from Cusham.' — 42. ' Shaalabbin,' elsewhere 
 Shaalbim ' (see E. Bib., s.v.). The place-name, however, is 
 :orrupt ; the original may be ' Beth-sha'alim ' (cp. on i S. 
 X. 4), if we should not rather say, ' Beth-ishmael ' (cp. 
 Leshem,' v. 47 = ' Ishmael '). The totemistic theory both 
 jf Shaalbim and of Aijalon (as if = Fox-town, Stag-town) 
 nust be abandoned. — ' Aijalon ' (^'h'Vi) and ' Elon ' {v. 43). 
 The original is fjNariT ; cp. on pW, Judg. xii.ii. — ' Tim- 
 lah'; see on Gen. xxxviii. 12, Judg. xiv. i. — ' Ekron,' pipi> 
 'see on Judg. i. 18). That there was a true 'Philistine' 
 Ekron need not be denied. But there was also a Zare- 
 phathite Ekron, which the Danites may for a time have 
 :onquered. The ' Philistine ' Ekron in the Assyrian inscrip- 
 :ions is Amkarruna (Del. Par. 289), which, like \^•^p•' ■'O in 
 X 46, possibly comes from ^sdHT. See on Josh. vii. i, and 
 E. Bib., ' Me Jarkon.' Places with names which arose out of 
 Jerahmeel,' but which, in their corrupt form, early attained 
 in independent existence, abounded in S. Palestine and in 
 :he borderland. — 44. ' Eltekeh.' See on xv. 59. — 'Gib- 
 
434 CRITICA BIBLICA . xx. 
 
 bethon. Is it for ' Gibeathon ' ? See E. Bib., s.v., and on 
 I K. XV. 27. — 45. ' Jehud' Cp. the personal name, ' Jehudi/ 
 Jer. xxxvi. 14, also on 'Ammihur' (@, Ammihud),. 2 S. 
 xiii. 37. — p15-"'35. Cp. 'Barak,' Judg. iv. 6. That there 
 was a southern clan-name, ^^l, is shown by the occurreneei^, 
 of the expanded gentilic fT^^nn (see B. Bib., ' Berechiah!) ; 
 probably n31 (Gen. xlvi. 21) is only another form of this. 
 Cp., also, nil, TQ3i?, and D"'npi'. In Sennacherib's Annals 
 (ii. 66) we find the place-name, Banai-barka. — 46. ' Me- 
 jarkon ' ; see on «'. 43 (Ekron). — ppin ; dittographic. — "is\ 
 The original text probably had siDv(j;. 12). Cp. on Jon. 
 i. 3, 2 Chr. ii. 16. — 47. Cp. on Judg. i. 34 #. Dffif?, like t»ifj, 
 comes from SNi^Dffi"'. — 50. mD-n3on = onn-'n, i.e. inmN-njpri, 
 ' the Ashhurite Timnah.' The southern Ephraim is meant. 
 
 Chap. xx. Cities of refuge — three on the west, three 
 on the east of the stream Jarhon (cp. on Dt. iv. 41-43). — 7. 
 'Kedesh,' h-hy^. Read, rather, ni>bll (see on xxii. 23). — 8. 
 irrT, i.e. 'inT, a correction of pT (see on Num. xxii. i). 
 (^ does not express the correction, and also neglects nmiD. 
 — mDNl, v.l, nQN^. See on xix. 8. 
 
 Chaps, xxii.-xxiv. There has been much manipulation 
 and expansion of an older text, glimpses of which can be 
 obtained. 
 
 xxii. II. n"i"?"'71. See on xviii. 17, and on Dt. xi. 30 
 {hlhl from iihy). 
 
 Chap. xxiv. i. 'And Joshua gathered all the tribes of 
 Israel to Shechem.' In the writing which P probably used, the 
 phrase, ' all Israel,' meant ' all the Israelites in the N. Arabian 
 borderland' (see on i K. viii. 65, Judg. xx. i, 2 S. ii. 8/, 
 V. I ). — ' Shechem,' as usual, has come by transposition from 
 ' Cusham.' It is not a historical fact that this convention 
 under Joshua took place, but, at any rate, such assembli« 
 may have taken place when the original writer lived. — 2. 
 The ina referred to may be the mD[N] irT3 (see on Gen. 
 XV. 18); and -\'2S'3. (so v. 15) should not improbably be 
 n.J?a (see on Dt. i. i ) ; just as Dnt&a Tl« should be 'd y]S. 
 D'^nnN D'^n^N should possibly be ^ndhT' "'n^M (cp. on Dt. 
 V. 7). The N. Arabian deities seem to have been Jarham 
 (the moon-god) — or Jerahmeel = Baal — and Cushith or 
 Yisme"elith (see on Jer. iii. 23/, 2 K. xxiii. 5), i.e. Astar 
 
xxiv. 33 JOSHUA 435 
 
 or Astart. Cp. Barton {^Semitic Origins, p. 148), 'The 
 worship of Baal was in many places connected with the old 
 Ijiiother-goddess, Astart.' — In v. 3 read, perhaps, n$D, and 
 certainly np, and so on. — In z^. 1 5 '^noN was originally "^QlN, 
 and in w. 17 CTls n-'^p was D'^l"ii» Tr%'a (see on Ex. xiii. 3). 
 — In V. 30 (Judg. ii. 9) tSsj nn from nrrBN in (as shown on 
 2 S. xxiii. 30); mo, as we have seen (on xix. 50), also = 
 intDN- (©^""i Toi) 6pov<i [tou] yaXaaS, presumably representing 
 an early gloss. Cp. @*, 2 S. xxiii. 30, airo 'xeifiappwv yaS 
 (from yaXaaS?). — In z'. 33 ona'^B rii^ia, ultimately perhaps 
 from ^Nom"' '31. See E. Bid., ' Phinehas,' and on Jer. 
 xlvi. 15 ; also on i K. xv. 27. 
 
JUDGES 
 
 The introductory remarks on Joshua may, to a great extent?; 
 be applied to Judges. It is true, more has been done for 
 the text of Judges (think of chap, v.!) than for that of 
 Joshua, the number of obvious textual corruptions being 
 much greater in Judges than in Joshua. But whether even 
 here the textual problems have often been rightly appre-' 
 hended is the question. The historical problems, too, have 
 received much attention, but, as the present writer is com- 
 pelled to think, without very satisfactory results. It must, 
 however, be emphatically stated that without the able 
 pioneering work of predecessors (notably Moore) the present 
 imperfect attempt to revise the basis of all investigation — 
 the Hebrew text — would have been impossible. Many errors 
 in the following pages there must, of course, be, but there 
 are, at any rate, not a few solutions of textual problems 
 which have an air of considerable probability, and which 
 ought not to be set aside, simply on the ground that the 
 point of view here adopted, and the methods employed, are 
 partly different from those favoured by the majority. It 
 takes much hard and self-denying work to get at a new 
 point of view, and without such hard work on the part of 
 those who may sit in judgment on the present work much 
 unintentional injustice cannot be avoided. ' When large 
 ranges of [possible] truth open, it is surely best to be able to 
 open ourselves to their reception, unfettered by our previous 
 pretensions.' -. 
 
 Chap, i- $ ff- The conquered enemies are Kenizzitesv 
 (p3D has constantly replaced p23 in the early narrative) and 
 Zaraphites or Zarephathites (see E. Bib., ' Perizzites '). The 
 battle-field was near pn. There is no need to read TTpfS 
 
 436 
 
i. 16 JUDGES 437 
 
 (Steuern. Einwand. 85). The word may represent either 
 pll, or ^^l (? ^3^i), or 133. All these names are connected 
 with the Negeb. nan, the name of Saul's clan, is perhaps 
 the most plausible, having regard to i S. xi. 8, where Saul 
 is spoken of. Here the true text probably states that 
 Bezek (?) was in Jerahmeel {i.e. in N. Arabia). It is true, 
 Moore denies that the same Bezek is meant in both passages, 
 but a searching criticism shows, at any rate, this much, that 
 the scene of both narratives is in N. Arabia. The name of 
 the hapless king in i. 5 ^ is probably pTS "'anw ; the place 
 to which he was conveyed was his own royal city Ishmael 
 (see on Josh. x. i), or, as the place is also called, Jerahmeel. 
 That the original tradition specified the rmrT'""'3a as the clan 
 which conquered Ishmael is improbable. \xi v. 21 the 131 
 JD^I are implied as the conquerors of that city. Thus 
 Kuenen's difficulty about Jerusalem {OnderzoelP^ , i. 357) is 
 removed. The question of the origin of such names as 
 Adonizedek is adverted to in note on Josh. x. i. The 
 current view needs expansion and correction in view of the 
 facts of textual criticism.^ 
 
 i. 10-15. See on Josh. xv. 13-19. In v. 13 note the 
 insertion 13DD Jttpn (also in iii. g, but not in Josh. xv. 17). 
 To what name is the phrase 'in 3^3 Tis in apposition ? 
 Critics reply, to Othniel. But why should the age of Othniel 
 be noticed at all ? It has not been observed that Jjapn and 
 13DD are among the current corruptions of "JNom"' (cp. on 
 Gen. ix. 24). 'd 'xiTi represent a dittographed fpNom"' (a 
 variant to r:^^'). According to i Chr. ii. 9, 42 Jerahmeel 
 and Caleb were brothers. Render, ' Othniel, son of Kenaz 
 [Jerahmeel], the brother of Caleb.' 
 
 i. 16. On •'^•'p see Moore. Perhaps we should read 
 'T'pU nnri (see on Num. x. 29). Q-'-|Dn T'i> (so iii. 13) repre- 
 sents ^Mom"' IT.?; cp. Tl?'' = 'nT, and DTIDT in i S. i. i. 
 The identification of the ' city of palm-trees ' (?) with Jericho 
 is a mistake (see E. Bib., cols. 2396, 2651, and on Dt. 
 xxxiv. 3). The next words are difficult. ' It hardly seems 
 
 1 Here and elsewhere Pfere M. J. Lagrange (whom I am delighted 
 to meet on this field) gives lucid and accurate expression to the view 
 generally prevalent among contemporary critics. A step forward, 
 however, cannot long be delayed. 
 
438 CRITICA BIBLICA i. ig 
 
 possible that a part of the Wilderness could be described as 
 lying in the Negeb of Arad ' (Moore). The variety in the 
 readings of @ shows the difficulty that was felt by the 
 ancients ; see Moore and Lagrange. With- Moore, I am of 
 opinion that (g's TilDl (eVl KaTa^aaewi) is an old error for 
 nilM, as in viii. 24 (MT. 'lD3, but ® eVt t^? Kura^.). 
 Possibly the true @ should run, . . . iv rw vot^ ApaS, 'a 
 second nnD[l] having intruded very late into the text, mis- 
 written (possibly under the influence of lis) as lTio[3]. 
 This, however, surely does not give the original writer's 
 meaning. The scribes were in constant danger of confound*;} 
 ing 'nT ( =f?NDm"') and rmri"' ; see on i S. xxvii. 10, Zech. 
 xii. 4-7, etc. This confusion has evidently taken place 
 here. Either we should read 'nT" 1133 ItOM ~ns ino or 
 fpNom"' y^s, 1131 ntON ino. The latter reading is to be 
 preferred, because it explains the reference to ' Amalek ' or 
 ' Jerahmeel ' at the end of the verse. (For doubtless 0" 
 Sahid. are right with their /j^era [tov \aov] A/mXtik, except 
 that Dsn presupposes either ip7Di>rT [Budde] or ■?NQm\ Cp. 
 I S. XV. 6.) For ' Arab-jerahmeel,' see on Dt. i. i /i, 2 S. 
 xvii. 26, and on the whole passage, see on Num. xxi. i. — 
 17. See on Num. xxi. 3. naK = nD"i§ (cp. ®*^ ffe^ep); 
 TiDTn = nam (from 'nT'). 
 
 i. 1 8. m^, perhaps short for 's nD!S (nDl2) ; cp. on i K. 
 xvii. 9. If so, the conquest of Zarephath is related twice 
 over. ]l7pa>N should be read either hiWij-i, or better, SptDM. 
 The origin both of f?3ffiN and of p'pptON is doubtless fjNMO"' 
 (see on i S. xvii. 41^-7). Eshcol (Ashkal) was in the hill- 
 country near Hebron or Rehoboth ; tradition affirmed the 
 conquest of both places, jnpi' comes from pnN ; inw is a 
 common abbreviation of SmdhT' ; cp. also ppT*, Josh. xix. 46 ; 
 pDr, Num. i. 13. Possibly, therefore, more than one place 
 bore the name of Ekron. We may assume, however, that 
 the ' Ekron ' here meant is the most famous one which was 
 on the northern border of the land of Kenaz (Josh. xiii. 3). 
 That tradition in one of its forms spoke of the early conquest 
 of ' Ekron ' seems to be indirectly stated in the story which 
 accounts for the name of ' Achor ' (Josh. vii. 24, 26). V. 19 
 thus becomes an explanation of z^. 1 8. @ apparently reads 
 (for T^b'^i) ©■'■nn nSt ; but this may be a learned emendation, 
 
i. 34 JUDGES 439 
 
 suggested by the very considerations urged, in our day, by 
 the commentators {e.g. Moore). 
 
 i. 1 9. ' For he could not (Sy nS '3, ®) dispossess the 
 inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron ' ? 
 The 'chariots of iron' are suspicious (cp. on iv. 3, Josh, 
 xvii. 16). We might read 'chariots of Ishmael' (f?nn from 
 ^NSDW ns). But the sense produced is not perfect. Since 
 33T sometimes replaces irn, we may, as in Josh., I.e., read 
 'dBJ-' ama, 'in the Ishmaelite Rehob.' This will be a 
 gloss on •p'C^^r^ (or rather n3i?D ; see on v. 34). urh (as 
 i> elsewhere, cp. onf?) comes from ^NDm"", a variant to ns 
 'DtD\ — 21. ofptDlT miswritten for SNiQm\ See on Josh. 
 XV. 8, 63. 
 
 i. 23^. See on Gen. xxviii. 19. — 26. Very possibly 
 there were two places (both in the N. Arabian borderland) 
 called ' Luz.' The name belongs to the same group with 
 Laish and Shaul, and indicates an Ishmaelite ( = Jerah- 
 meelite) settlement. This passage confirms the view that 
 ' Beth-el ' comes from ' Beth-ishmael ' (see on ii. 1-5 ). Note, 
 also, that here, as elsewhere, ' Hittites ' comes from ' Reho- 
 bothites' (see on Gen. x. 15, Josh. i. 4, Ezek. xvi. 3). — '27 ff. 
 See II passages in Josh, xvi., xvii., and xix. — 31. With 
 ' Ahlab ' and ' Helbah,' cp. ' Helbon.' See on Ezek. xxvii. 1 7, 
 and especially on Josh. xix. 29. 
 
 i. 34/ ■'nONn is surprising, as P^re Lagrange remarks. 
 Elsewhere in chap. i. we find ■'3W3n, which indeed Moore 
 and Nowack read here. Budde {Richter u. Sam. p. 18, 
 note i) suggests TitofpEjrr (cp. chaps, xiii.-xvi.). Read rather 
 ''QlNn ; this approaches Budde's view, for ' Arammite ' means 
 ' jerahmeelite,' and to the early tradition 'Philistine' and 
 ' Jerahmeelite ' were equivalent (see on xiv. 3). Observe 
 that in Josh. xix. 47 the chief success of the Danites is 
 the conquest of nvh, i.e. of f?Ni;otO^ presumably not the 
 famous Ishmael or Jerahmeel spoken of in vv. 7 /, but 
 another. It appears, then, from this tradition, that the 
 Danites were engaged in warfare with the Arammites unsuc- 
 cessfully, except so far as the hill-country was concerned, for 
 the Arammites would not permit them to come down pDsf?. 
 This reading ( = ' into the broad, deep vale ') is plausible, but 
 often elsewhere {e.g. Gen. xiv. 3, Ps. Ix. 8) •p'O's has sprung 
 
440 CRITICA BIBLICA i. 36 
 
 out of nDi»o, and this seems to be the case here and in v. 19. 
 It is ' Maacath-jerahmeel,' disguised in Josh. xix. 12 as pDi^ 
 pf?"'N, which is meant. — mrrirr, rather ITII^M ^i^. Cp. Kir- 
 heres (Isa. xvi. 11), Ir ha-heres (Isa. xix. 18); also ffiDtD-JT'a 
 from nm3-rT'3^ {v. 33), and pf?iN from fjNOm"' iy. 3S). • See, 
 further, on vi. 26, Josh. xix. 41, i K. iv. 9. 'Aijalon,' see 
 on Josh. X. 1 2 ; ' Shaalbim,' see E. Bib., s.v. 
 
 i. 36. Moore, Budde, and Lagrange would read, for 
 ■'ION, ■'a7N, adopting one of the alternatives in ® (jov A/iop- 
 paiov o 'ISou/Ltato?) ; Hollenberg would even combine the 
 readings. But 1D^N is probably right. So in Num. xxxiv. 3, 
 Josh. XV. I read qim. The statement of the boundary of the 
 Arammite territory is imperfectly given. Moore, it is true, 
 would delete the initial D in rbonD, and render ,' to Sela.' 
 But considering how often otdd, or some similar combination 
 of letters, is a corruption of '?Ni?tDtD"', it is hazardous to take 
 this step. It may be added that it is very improbable that 
 i^'pon or i^D here, and in 2 K. xiv. 7, Isa. xvi. i , means ' a 
 cliff near the south end of the Dead Sea.' As in Isa. xlii. 1 1, 
 i'7'D[n] is no doubt an early corruption of fjNi^OtO"'. Similarly ^ 
 rhuti represents ^NDm"' (cp. Josh. iii. 16); the vague expres- | 
 sion, ' and upwards,' is most improbable. ' Ishmael ' and 
 ' Jerahmeel ' are probably two geographical glosses on ' the 
 ascent of Akrabbim ' (for this phrase, see on Num. xxxiv. 3). 
 Cp. E. Bib., ' Sela.' 
 
 Chap. ii. 1-5. mn"' InSd here, as throughout the pre- 
 exilic writings, has most probably come from TTVT' 17D, i.e, 
 '■' 7NDm"'. As indicated in the ' Addenda ' to Kings, and as 
 will be shown at length on Gen. ii. 4, xvi. 7, Ex. vi. 2, the 
 early Israelites, at any rate, in Judah and in the Negebj ? 
 called their God Jerahmeel-yahwe or Yahwe-jerahmeel, to 
 indicate the identity of Yahw^ and Jerahmeel. It is not our 
 business to criticise them from the point of view of the 
 religion into which Yahwism blossomed, but to understand 
 them. Historically, at any rate, the identification was 
 justified. Next, as to the paragraph, vv. 1-5. That ii. la, 
 53 originally stood together, as the close of the account of 
 
 ^ It comes to nearly the same thing if n/oa in this name be ex- 
 plained as an expansion of oi!', which pretty often in MT. is a mutilated 
 form of vov = hxsDu/; 
 
ii. 23 JUDGES 441 
 
 the conquest in chap, i., is plausibly held by Wellh. {CH'^^'^ 
 215); the intermediate portion is Deuteronomic, and there- 
 fore quite out of harmony with chap. i. In z/. i« @ gives a 
 conflate text, kirX tov 'KkavdnSiva koI iirl BatOrjX teal eVt 
 701* oiKov la-parjX, where MT. gives n^'pinri-'jN. For the 
 varying views of the critics see Moore's note in SBOT, and 
 cp. Budde's more recent expression of opinion. The truth, 
 however, has been missed for want of the right clue. D"'Dn[rr], 
 f?M TT'a, and 7Nna?"' nil all mean the same place. Qiai or 
 D^Nai (2 S. v. 23/, see note), is a corruption of tiTTV 'l = 
 fjNOm"' TV1, of which ^N nil is a broken-down form (p. 142). 
 ^Nnnr nil is a corruption of fjurotOil (as 2 S. xxiv. i, and 
 often) ; cp. on v. 23. How famous Beth-jerahmeel or Beth- 
 ishmael was even in later times (see PsS^^ i. Introd.), our 
 studies may perchance have revealed. The best reading 
 seems to be 'mi nil, so that, if we combine ii. la and 5i5, 
 the original close of chap. i. becomes, ' And Jerahmeel- 
 yahwe came up from Gilgal to Beth-jerahmeel, and they 
 sacrificed there to Yahw^.' I confess, however, that I am 
 not quite satisfied. Surely between v. la and v. t,b some- 
 thing has been lost, which the existing narrative seeks in 
 vain to replace. There may have been an account of the 
 erection of an altar, perhaps also a speech of Jerahmeel- 
 yahw^, describing the compassion (DiQm) of Yahwe towards 
 his people, and so accounting once more for the name 
 'Jerahmeel.' Very possibly Beth-jerahmeel or Beth-el was 
 not far from Shiloh. If so, there was no great discrepancy 
 between the statement of Judg. ii. i that the early religious 
 centre of Israel was at Beth-el (cp. xx. 18, 26 f., xxi. 2), 
 and that of P who places it at Shiloh (Josh, xviii. i, xix. 5 i). 
 The passage presupposes the conquest of Beth-el (i. 22-25). 
 ii. 23-iii. 2. ' The text is in the most extreme confusion 
 through repeated over-working' (Budde), and still- more 
 through textual corruption. — 23. rhi>trf, difficult. See 
 Bertheau, Moore, Budde. The clue, however, has been 
 found. As in Josh. xi. 10, i K. v. 7, Isa. x. 10 (0), for 
 rhvtn read certainly f?MDmi. Dilin, altered by R from n^a. 
 The peoples of the Negeb are meant. — nno. Almost cer- 
 tainly from am, i.e. f?NDmi (cp. on \ v. 30), a correction of 
 
 rhvm. 
 
442 CRITICA BIBLICA iii. i 
 
 Chap. iii. i / The strangeness of the phraseology has 
 struck every commentator, and the only remedy proposed is 
 the hypothesis of redactional insertions or glosses. On v.ih 
 ' Moore remarks, ' The words are difficult and inappropriate in 
 their present connection'; on v. 2, 'The text is clearly corrupt; 
 the restoration is somewhat uncertain.' Budde remarks on 
 the strange phrase p33 mon^D, and on the redundancy:iof 
 mo^^ by the side of nsi paf?. To remedy the latter 
 Kautzsch omits nsi as a dittogram of m"r (cp. @) ; Moore 
 and Budde, however, omit rm and DIQ?'?, and Budde further 
 omits the second pi as a dittogram. Dli'T is also a difficulty ; 
 unless the clause be a doublet to v. lb, the plural masculine 
 suffix is intolerable. The truth is, however, that, as so often, 
 the editor does his best to make sense out of repetitions oi 
 ethnics. Underneath li^T'-sS' ^a?N"'7D nw we can see riN 
 ^NOnT^ Itpi^-h'^. Then follows (under '^D-f?D hn) the doublet 
 ^NDnT-^^ riN (cp. on nin-' mDnf?io, Num. xxi. 14), to which 
 the gloss igp (miswritten JWD) is appended, po'? pT repre- 
 sents a repeated ^Nom"' ; the same must be said of DTdS^, 
 nonba, and pi. fjNimi-i^n n-^ll ns^i probably represents 
 ^Ni'DtD"' ■'31 y^s (on which 'm"' is a gloss). Then we get pN 
 D-h:il disguised as D"'3sf7"nil>N ; cp. Josh. xiii. 5, i K. v. 32 
 (the names ' Gebal,' and perhaps ' Gebalon,' seem to have 
 been given to the mountain-country of N. Arabia). D1i>T N7 
 represents 7NDm"> — a gloss. Thus the original text of vv. 
 1-3 seems to have run thus, 'These are the nations, etc., 
 Asshur-Jerahmeel [Kenaz], Arabia of the Ishmaelites [Jerah- 
 meel], the land of the Gebalites [Jerahmeel].' 
 
 iii. 3. Read 'the five potentates'' (■'311, ® a-aTpdiTai) of 
 the Zarephathites, and all the Kenizzites, and the Misrites (?), 
 and the ^lorites that dwelt in Mt. Lebanon from Mt. Baal- 
 hermon to the entrance of Maacath.' With regard to ]T2, 
 we may plausibly assume that, hke i:s (Tl^), it is a modifica- 
 tion of 1220. i"irr, as usual, = ^in, i.e. iintDM ; cp. Isa. xvii. 9, 
 
 1 D'inD, according to BDB, 'a Philistine loan-word' — a very timid 
 hypothesis; G. Hoffmann {Ph'dn. Inschr. 15) would make it a dialectic 
 plural of lie. We have no reason, however, to think that the narrators 
 or redactors took the trouble to record dialectic or foreign words, ffin 
 is good Hebrew, and though generally poetic, presumably at one time 
 belonged to the ordinary speech. It is suggested by ® of Judg. v. 3 
 (craTpairat = D'Jn). 
 
iii. 12 JUDGES 443. 
 
 where lOinn corresponds in ® to ol Evatoi, ' the Hivites.' 
 
 It is true, the Gibeonites are, in Josh. ix. 7 (see note), called 
 
 ■'inn, but there is no reason why Horites (Ashhurites) should 
 
 not have been traditionally placed both at the southern 
 
 I Gibeon and in the southern Mt. Lebanon. — jlDin f?sl "Tna. 
 
 ' Cp. Josh. xiii. 5, and E. Bib., col. 410 1. Most probably Si;3, 
 
 when it enters into compound names, is a popular corruption 
 
 of ' Jerahmeel ' (see on ' Baal[e]-yehudah,' 2 S. vi. 2, and cp. 
 
 hfyA in ' Abel-beth-maacah '). In early ages the southern 
 
 Hermon would naturally be distinguished by the prefix 
 
 ' Jerahmeel,' which became worn down into ' Baal.' Cp. 
 
 I Chr. V. 2 3 (' Baal-hermon ' and ' Mt. Hermon ' are variants). 
 
 iii. 8. D'Tistp"! ]m^3. See E. Bib., col. 969 /. It is better,, 
 however, to read DTIDIS 'd. This Cushan is here called king 
 of ' Aram-naharaim'; W'\TV:\ may represent ^NDriT ^ (a gloss). 
 See on Gen. xxiv. 10. He might with equal justice have been 
 called 'ns ^'?D, ' king of the Zarephathites,' Zarephath being 
 a Jerahmeelite city. His oppression of Israel, according to 
 the traditional text, lasted ' eight years.' The same duration 
 is assigned to the rule of Abdon the judge (xii. 14). In 
 both places, however, xy^ysi n3Dt2? has probably arisen out of 
 a twice-written ]DQ)"', i.e. ^NliDtor There are a number of 
 passages in which numerals have arisen out of ethnics (cp. 
 on V. 30). The chronological scheme of Judges seems to 
 have been largely accidental ; i.e. the chronologist theorised 
 on the basis of corrupt texts. ' Ishmael ' may be a second 
 gloss on ' Aram.' 
 
 iii. II. Read [Wd©''] tJ^llTO pMH Japtom. See pre- 
 ceding note. D"'ms and csmN are repeatedly confounded 
 (see E. Bib., ' Moses,' § 11). mm, like j^m, )Dm, etc., repre- 
 sents htiSOVr. Cp. V. 31, xiii. I, and especially viii. 28, and 
 see on v. 30, and on Josh. xi. 23. 
 
 iii. 12-30. The traces of different versions of parts of 
 the story show that scribes and redactors were early at their 
 work. Winckler, however (GI ii. 129 /), goes too far; 
 seldom, as it seems to me, does he err so much through 
 theorising on the basis of an unmethodical textual criticism. 
 
 iii. 12. Eglon (@ EyXeofi) as a personal name here 
 
 1 It is possible, however, that ' Aram-naharaim ' may mean ' Aram 
 of the two streams ' (the streams of Ephrath and of Jarhon). 
 
444 CRITIC A BIBLICA iii. 13 
 
 only. But as a place-name (® usually oSoXKufi = Jerahmeel)K 
 in Josh. X. 36, xii. 12, xv. 39, passages which, critically read, 
 point to the Negeb. Note in Josh. x. that ' Joktheel,' i.e. 
 [Kadesh-Jjerahmeel, is not far off. Kadesh in the Negeb 
 seems to have been near the border of the non-Israelite^| 
 territory, and to have been coveted by Eglon. The whole 
 story becomes intelligible only on the theory that 1n"id, as 
 so often, is miswritten for Missor, and that QinDnn T"!; is a 
 corruption of fpNoriT^ t:;, ' the city of [Kadesh-Jjerahmeel.' 
 Eglon's own name points either to ' Jerahmeel ' or to ' Gilead.' 
 
 iii. I 3. pSoi^l pai?. Read fpNDnT^ ; the text combines 
 two popular corruptions of this name. — Cionn Ti;. See ' 
 on i. 16. Winckler's view is that Ehud's Ir-temarim should 
 be Ir-tamaraim = Baalath-tamar [Gesch. Isr. n. 104). 
 
 iii., 14. Probably the original text simply stated that 
 ' the b'ne Israel served Eglon king of Missor,' with the gloss, 
 ' Ishmael (n3tD, naiom), Ashhur (n:imi>).' Cp. on X. 8. 
 
 iii. 15. TinN occurs again in i Chr. vii. 10, from which; J 
 passage it is plain that TirrN must represent an ethnic of the 
 Negeb. Pesh. gives 'tkur, and in i Chr. viii. 6, for TinN, 
 'abihur (cp. 'abihur for TirT'lN in v. 3). Probably Tin[ffi»]"'3N 
 ( = 'Arab-ashhur) is correct ; cp. ^^T■'^M from nnTIN in i Chr. 
 viii. 7 (this form = inmN f^NOm"'), and note Ishhod (lirrffi"'), 
 I Chr. vii. 1 8, also from iinOJN. 
 
 iii. 1 6. ni"! N ^Di^, ' a short cubit long ' ? See Moore 
 {JBL xii. 104). Unfortunately the traditional Jewish ex- 
 planations are commonly wrong, and both loi and ^ix are 
 regular corruptions of ^«am"'. The ' sword of Jerahmeel ' 
 was proverbial (see on Hos. i. 7, Ps. Ixxvi. 4, Jer. vi. 25). 
 Read nrs ■'3tt> xh^ hvfCXTr^ nn nin'^lN -h xa^-^X Winckler's, 
 appeal to Assyrian {gamru = ' whole,' ' full ') is therefore un- 
 necessary. Nor is the sense oi peotk (?) made out. See GI 
 ii. 119. 
 
 iii. 19. D"'^"'DDn. Among the possible corruptions of 
 Sn^dEO"' are ^dd and h''VB (cp. E. Bib., ' Sheleph '). It is not 
 a locality but an outpost of Ishmaelite or Jerahmeelite troops 
 that Ehud had to pass near Gilgal. See E. Bib., ' Quarries.' 
 
 iii. 22 / TOTt^nsn and TOTnoan. Both words are 
 corruptions of the same original, i.e. most probably of nsB 
 n|3ri, ' the corner-gate.' ~\vi^ became nim and t\'d ; n3Dn 
 
iii. 31 JUDGES 445 
 
 liemained in the one case, and in the other became rxyan. 
 After going out by this gate, Ehud (Abihur) shut up the 
 murdered king in the 'nh's. V. 22 is one of the many- 
 passages in which an apparent coarseness is due to corrup- 
 tion. See E. Bib., ' Porch.' 
 
 iii. 26-29. The awkwardness of the connection and the 
 exegetical difficulty are well known. It is, however, all 
 due to corruptions, which we can now heal with a near 
 approach to certainty. Dnanonn ~[S comes from n.i^p 
 .fjNDriT: cp. on Gen. xix. 16, also on Qinonn Ti? (i. 16). 
 a''^"'DDn riN n^i? Nim should certainly be Qi^Ni^Dm'^ ns Nin, 
 'that is, Arabia of the Ishmaelites,' a gloss on the preceding 
 words (when read DTicnn 'in). nrrvs\Sl'n perhaps comes from 
 (Tfin^N, ' to Ashhur.' However this may be, one thing is 
 certain— we are in the N. Arabian borderland. It is the 
 southern Mt. Ephraim which we meet with in v. 27. — itttt 
 should be jhl'n ; the stream meant is that of Jarhon or 
 Jerahmeel (vii. 24). 
 
 iii. 28 / pTH n-in^i^D. See on vii. 24. — ffl-'N-^DI pm-SD 
 hn. jD0, in the sense of ' robust, vigorous ' (Moore), occurs 
 nowhere else ; nor can Isa. x. 1 6, Ps. Ixxviii. 3 1 (D"'2Da>D) 
 protect the reading. Why, indeed, should it be specially 
 noted that the slain enemies were ' all robust and all valiant 
 men ' ? The truth is, that jam and ^tt are current corrup- 
 tions of fjNSDtD"' and fjNonT' respectively (Isa. x. 27, Ps. 
 Ixii. 11). Read ^NDnT" m-'N-f?3T ^Nrom"' [©■'M-]S'D1, where, of 
 course, 'rtT' aTM-Ss may be omitted as a variant. 
 
 iii. 30. natr D"'31Dm. Why ' eighty ' rather than ' forty 
 years ' ? The question is of a kind which often besets us. 
 Why, for instance, had Abram 318 home-born slaves (Gen. 
 xiv. 14)? And why were no more nor less than 185,000 
 men of Asshur slain in Hezekiah's time (2 K. xix. 35)? 
 The truth is, that both D-'31Dm and mtD, like pm, are among 
 the current corruptions of [D■l]'?Ni;Dm^ On the analogy of 
 iii. 1 2 and other passages, read D"'f?Ni'i2m''D fM^Tt aptom. 
 
 iii. 31. Nowhere, perhaps, has criticism tried harder to 
 solve problems without an adequate examination of the text. 
 From the newer point of view all is clear. The object of 
 w. 31 is to explain an obscure phrase which the redactor 
 read (not quite correctly) in v. 6. It has, however, suffered 
 
446 CRITICA BIBLICA iv, 
 
 in transmission. We cannot be far wrong in correcting thus — 
 
 ^Nim'^-nN Nin-Dl l^tOil. Cp. on xv. 1 5 (Samson) ; 2 S. 
 xxiii. 8, 1 8 may also be corrected on the same lines. Thus 
 the difficulties caused by the air. Xej. TD'JD (note ®'s 
 singular versions), and the 600 men who 'have always' 
 taxed the credulity of commentators ' (Moore), disappears, 
 while the strange-looking ' Shamgar ben Anath ' (cp. E. Bib., 
 ' Shamgar ') becomes the intelligible ' Gershom ben Ethan,' 
 who is on a par with ' Othniel ( = Ethani) ben Kenaz' in 
 iii. 9. Note that ' Ethan ' in i K. v. 1 1 is called imiNn, i.e. 
 iintpi^n, 'the Ashhurite,' and that ntoni (see on Ex. ii. 22) 
 comes from ntc^ = "inmM. £»2) has sprung out of ©"in ; niND, 
 as not seldom, represents D"'7SQ. The impossible word- 
 group, npirr "ra^ai a>"'N, which remains, after the preceding 
 corrections have been made, has sprung from f?NDm''D ffi'^N 
 Q-'iain or the like. That ^Momi can underlie id^d or loSl, 
 the student will readily see. 131 is a well-known southern 
 clan-name (cp. on pni. Josh. xix. 45). Here I may well 
 pause. In the light of results gained elsewhere the possible 
 becomes the probable and almost the certain. I am afraid 
 that the facts derived from the Greek and Latin versions by 
 Moore and Lagrange are of no value for our present purpose ; 
 I need not here repeat them. The extended note of the 
 latter scholar, so lucid and so learned, is altogether off the 
 right track, except, indeed, where it says, ' Nous avons aussi 
 un exemple des alterations qu'a pu subir le texte' (p. 64). 
 To trace the later fortunes of the text is doubtless an object 
 worthy of so good a scholar. 
 
 Chap. iv. ' The actual text of chap, iv.,' remarks 
 Lagrange, ' presents insurmountable difficulties.' All is plainj,?^ 
 and in harmony with the Song in chap, v., as long as we 
 keep to Sisera. But when ' Jabin, king of Canaan, residing 
 at Hazor,' and ' king of Hazor,' enters on the stage all 
 becomes difficult. There never was a single king of Canaan ; 
 the geographical perplexities, too, are quite extraordinary. 
 It is a sad confession. Can nothing be done to remove these 
 difficulties? The prevalent view ascribes the embarrassing 
 circumstances to the fusion of two traditional stories, relative 
 to Jabin and to Sisera respectively. The consistent develop- 
 
iv. JUDGES 447 
 
 ment of this idea, however, compels us to suppose that Jael 
 and Heber had no connection, since Jael incontestably be- 
 longs to the story of Sisera, and Heber is expressly brought 
 into connection with Jabin. In reality, says Lagrange, there 
 is no story of Jabin. His own opinion is that ' Jabin ' and 
 ' Razor ' got into the text after what should have been the 
 final redaction of the narrative. The true name of the 
 oppressor was Shamgar ; his capital was Harosheth of the 
 Goyim. — This is the latest criticism ; I can hardly say that 
 I think it satisfactory. No progress can be made till the 
 proper names have been thoroughly examined, with constant 
 reference to the results of text-critical study elsewhere. That 
 ' Jabin,' or better ' Jamin ' (^'^ iv. 2, 7), comes from Jaman, 
 i.e. Jerahmeel, 'Hazor' and 'Sisera' from Ashhur, 'Harosheth' 
 from a feminine form of the same name, ' Canaan ' from 
 'Kenaz,' is plain to any one who has given a keen criticism 
 to the Hebrew proper names, and who accepts the well- 
 supported theory of N. Arabian influence on the fortunes of 
 the early Israelites. There were, no doubt, different versions 
 of the story of a great defeat of the N. Arabians. One is con- 
 tained in the story of the battle by the waters of D^^Q (Josh. 
 xi. I- 11). Two others are represented in chap, iv., one of 
 which gives Jabin (Jaman) and the other Sisera (Ashhur) as 
 the name of the N. Arabian king. A fourth is given in the 
 Song (chap, v.) where the N. Arabian chief is called Sisera ^ 
 (Ashhur), and where a larger number of Israelitish tribes is 
 represented as taking part in the holy war than the com- 
 posite narrative in chap. iv. recognises (see iv. 6, 10, Naphtali 
 and Zebulun). In the first and fourth it is plainly stated 
 that there was a confederation of kings ; the second and 
 third, in their present combined form, appear to relate that 
 there was only one hostile king, who was called ' king of 
 Canaan,' though the description of Jabin 'm v. 17 shows that 
 this erroneous view belongs to a late editor, — perhaps, indeed, 
 to the redactor who changed ' Kenaz ' into ' Canaan,' and in 
 other respects altered the geography, and who also created the 
 prophetess Deborah by a misunderstanding (see on v. 4, end). 
 
 1 The theory of Moore, Budde, and Lagrange that 'Shamgar' is 
 given in v. 6 as the name of the oppressor of Israel, is extremely in- 
 genious, but can hardly now be maintained. Cp. E. Bib., ' Shamgar.' 
 
 31 
 
448 CRITICA BIBLICA iv. 
 
 Upon the theory here adopted the difficulties mentioned 
 by the critics are, to say the least, very greatly diminished* 
 Certainly those which relate to geography, and which are so 
 forcibly presented by Moore, tend to disappear, if the scene 
 of the struggle is in N. Arabia. We may, for instancej 
 reasonably assume that the distance between Haroshetl' 
 (Ashtor) and the Naphtalite Kedesh — two points in the 
 Negeb — was considerably less than forty or fifty miles (the 
 distance calculated on the old geographical theory). The 
 discrepancies between chaps, iv. and v. also lose much of 
 their importance, if a methodical criticism is applied to the 
 traditional text. It is true, iv. 6, lo speak only of Zebulun 
 and Naphtali, while v. 14, 18 mention several other patriotic 
 tribes of Israel. But, according to the new theory, all these 
 tribes were in the N. Arabian borderland ; they were not 
 separated so widely as the tribes bearing the same names in 
 central and northern Palestine. True, again, that iv. 10 
 speaks of ten thousand warlike Israelites, and v. 8 (in the 
 received text) of forty thousand. But methodical criticism 
 throws so much doubt on the text of v. 8 that we cannot 
 venture to use it. 
 
 That chap. iv. in its present form, is later than the Song 
 in chap. v. must be admitted, (i) because the Song gives a 
 more consistent picture of the events, and (2) because the 
 prose -narrator has misread, and therefore misunderstood, 
 several passages in the Song (iv. 4./., 21, cp. v. 7, 12, and 
 26). It is plausible, however, to suppose that the basis of 
 chap. iv. is an old prose-story of a N. Arabian king called ' 
 Jerahmeel (Jabin) or Ashhur (Sisera) who oppressed the 
 Israelites of N. Arabia, but whose yoke was thrown off in a 
 patriotic rising of the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun. 
 
 Objection may perhaps be taken to the above view 
 that the mention of horses and of ' chariots of iron ' points 
 definitely to the north. The Book of Job, however^ is 
 plainly a N. Arabian work, and here we find the war-horse 
 among the familiar sights of nature (Job xxxix. 19-2 5 )», 
 The same book distinctly refers to iron-mines (Job xxviii* 2). 
 And unless we insist on binding ourselves to the traditionall 
 text, there is evidence in many parts of the O.T. that horses 
 and chariots played a great part in N. Arabian culture; and 
 
IV. 2 JUDGES 449 
 
 that iron was abundant. For the iron, see on Dt. viii. 7-9 ; 
 for the horses, on i K. x. 28 /; for the chariots, on Gen. 
 xli. 43, 2 Chr. XXXV. 24, where the right reading is ' chariot 
 of Ishmael' (mtoo from ;om-' = ^Nsnmi). Note also the 
 interesting phrase 'wagons of Ishmael' in Num. vii. 3 
 (MT., enigmatically, 3S rhys). I cannot, however, help 
 adding that the phrase ' chariots of iron ' is in the highest 
 degree improbable. It is usual to explain it as ' chariots 
 strengthened with iron,' but what a violent explanation ! 
 If the text of Josh. xi. 6 is correct, the chariots of Jabin 
 king of Hazor were burned by the Israelites. If so, they 
 were in no proper sense of the phrase ' iron chariots.' The 
 truth is, however, that again and again . hvo. (iron) is mis- 
 written for hmy\, i.e. ^Ni;Dmi ni>. 'Chariots of Ishmael' 
 {f.e. of N. Arabia) is at any rate a possible phrase. A 
 fuller criticism, however, throws doubt on the other com- 
 ponent member of the phrase ; not only ^m but 13T is 
 probably incorrect. See on v. 3, and cp. on Josh. xi. 4, 6, 9; 
 That Sisera himself had a chariot is not on this account 
 to be denied (see v. 28, revised text), and in this connection 
 we may recall the fact that chariots are constantly mentioned 
 in the Amarna tablets. 
 
 The legend of Jabin or Sisera has a fuller significance 
 than may at first sight appear. Such periods of oppression 
 by the Jerahmeelites were afterwards common. We may 
 regard the legend as an anticipation of the semi-historical 
 narrative of the ' Philistine ' tyranny which was so gloriously 
 resisted by Saul, and may group it with the equally legendary 
 account of Gideon-Jerubbaal's struggle with the Amalekites 
 and Midianites. The difference in the ethnic names given 
 to the foes of Israel is unimportant ; that they are in all 
 cases N. Arabians is sufficiently clear. 
 
 Chap. iv. 2. 'Jabin' or 'Jamin' (®*, vv. 2, 7), i.e. 
 'Jerahmeel' (cp. on Josh. xi. i); his realm is Ijj?, a part 
 of N. Arabia, and his city ' Hazor' (cp. Josh. xi. 10), or 
 rather ' Ashhur.' ' Sisera ' (mid-'d) is neither a Hittite nor 
 an Egyptian name, but, like ' Hazor,' comes from -\'v&n = 
 lin^M (cp. on Ezra ii. S3)> while nffiin probably represents 
 nnt&i? (see on v. 3), and tr\yn comes from fpMOm'' (cp.' on 
 Gen. xiv. i). The Israelites oppressed by Jerahmeel or 
 
4SO CRITICA BIBLICA iv. 3 
 
 Ashhur are those in the southern borderland. (Cp. on 2 K. 
 iii. 25, where VXSnn is traced to TintDN.) 
 
 iv. 3. •h hxyi-£n DInd i?QJn. 'Chariots pf iron", is 
 improbable, and not less so, when strictly criticised, is ' nine 
 hundred.' Did a later scribe, fond of numbers, insert sffin 
 mNQ after the corruption which follows had arisen? No; 
 it is almost certainly a corruption of ^Nom"' inffir^ (see 
 on Dt. i. 4), which was originally intended as a correction 
 of tr\yn nmnn in v. 2. ■h hm ^yy^ comes from npj; im 
 ^MSDtB"', probably a supplementary geographical gloss on 
 ' Ashtor-jerahmeel.' ib = ^n ; cp. on i. 1 9, Josh. xvii. 1 8. — 
 ["l]Nn2i nto comes from ^NrDtO^' ^t», 'prince, or kinglet,; of 
 Ishmael.' Nl!i and S12J are frequent corruptions of i»DB). 
 Cp. on V. 30. 
 
 iv. 4. min. However plausible a meaning ' Bee ' 
 may seem (cp. Melissa in Herod, v. 92, and see E. Maass, 
 Griechen u. Semiten, 1902, p. 113; Sayce, The Hittites, 
 1882, p. 79), 'Deborah' has most probably grown out of 
 ' Daberath ' ^ (so -C. Niebuhr, Winckler), the name of a town ; 
 see on Josh. xix. 12 (two Daberaths). At any rate, 
 Deborah and Daberath are connected as closely as Zip- 
 porah and Zarephath. The key to both names is in the 
 name nm ^h, i.e. n[i>] TiS = l-is ns^a. Cp. on 'Lidbir,' 
 Josh. xiii. 26. The narrator, in the present form of the 
 text, calls Deborah mT's'? ntON (wife of Lappidoth). The 
 point of this reference escapes us. But the clue to both 
 words (nffiN and 'a'?) is furnished by our previous experi- 
 ence. ntDN, like stDD, in iv. 3, almost certainly representSi| 
 nnms ; mTs'? comes, not from 'Paltiel' {E. Bib., 2710,3' 
 plausible supposition), but from some compound name into 
 which sfjjj ( = ^NsntO"') enters. Such a name is nnD^Ss= I 
 inn-'ciQ?'> (see on Num. xxvi. 33); 'vxn was a 'son' of 
 Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 15). Presumably 'Ashtor-jerahmeel' 
 is meant. ■ If the preposition ]D were prefixed, we should 
 have to suppose that the writer brought Deborah from 
 the very city where Sisera resided (see on v. 3), which 
 
 1 Perhaps the only doubt is, whether nine comes (as nno repeatedly 
 does) from 'jNom', or from nsyo. 
 
 2 ' C'est fantaisie pure,' exclaims Lagrange. It is best to avoid such ^ 
 remarks. Change your point of view, and much that appeared to be 
 sober sense at once becomes a mere imagination. 
 
iv. 10 JUDGES 451 
 
 would be strange. Most probably 'Asktor-ishmael-fyadad,' 
 which underlies 'esheth lapptdoth, is a variant to 'Ashtor- 
 jerahmeel (v. 3, revised text). That the narrator created 
 'Deborah' out of a misunderstood passage of the Song 
 (v. 7) has been pointed out by Winckler {GI u. 126). 
 
 iv. 5. On the geographical discrepancy between v. 5 
 and Gen. xxxv. 8, see on the latter passage. The narrator 
 is made to say that Deborah ' sat ' (i.e. as a prophetess and 
 judge) ' under the tomer of Deborah.' Lagrange insists on 
 adhering to MT.'s noh ' pillar ' as being more difficult than 
 IDP (adopted by Moore). Ges.-Bu. keeps noh, but explains 
 'palm-tree.' But is ion the right reading either here or 
 in Jer. x. 5 ? Here, at any rate, it is not ; ion has re- 
 peatedly arisen out of nm, and so it has here, ' Deborah 
 sat at the foot of Ramath-daberath,' or, as another scribe 
 put it, ' between Ramah and Beth-el.' All southern names. 
 Tg. appears to have preserved another reading mn m^s 
 ('Ataroth [see on Josh. xvi. 2] comes from Ephrath). — ^^ 
 D'^ISN. See on I S. i. I. 
 
 iv. 6 f. p"il. Rather ^^l or •\yx, a clan-name ; see on 
 Josh. xix. 45. — Di'riM = DM ini;. Naam was a 'son' of 
 Caleb (i Chr. iv. 15). — niin. Read probably mim (see 
 on viii. 18). Linking form, n"nM3. — ptO-'p, corrupted from 
 ]ffli|3 (cp. ffi-'p). The 'stream of Cushan' = 'the waters of 
 Migdol' (v. 19) and 'the waters of Marom' (Josh. xi. s). — 
 The original reading was '"CifSr nm (see on v. 2b) ; pT is an 
 insertion. 
 
 iv. gb, lob. 'Deborah.' The earliest tradition would 
 have said 'Daberath' (see on v. 4), i.e. the men of 
 Daberath. — 11. W. Max Muller remarks (As. u. Eur. 
 174, note S), 'Strange that a nomad tribe of the extreme 
 south should be found here.' He therefore explains •^^-'p 
 'man of the city of Kin,' referring to a passage in Papyrus 
 Anastasi I. in which a locality called Kina, N. of Megiddo, 
 is mentioned. See, however, Jensen (in Budde's note). 
 Miiller's remark, however, is fully justified. The problem 
 referred to exists, but the true solution is in the theory 
 here advocated — that the scene of the original narrative 
 was in the south. — niJ7 is given as an Asherite, Benjamite, 
 and Judahite, as well as a Kenite name. Now, Asher and 
 
452 CRITICA BIBLICA iv. 13 
 
 Benjamin were originally settled in the south, and Judah 
 was a highly mixed and probably in the main N. Arabian 
 tribe. — D"'2i>2;l, or rather a-'33S2n, is against all analogy. Con- 
 sidering that p2 and ]N2 are among the current corruptions 
 of fjNraO)"' (cp. on ' Zaanan,' Mic. i. 11), it seems probable 
 that 'sn is a corruption of D^'^NrotO'^, the l having arisen 
 from a false idea that wivt, or rather a''33i>!S3, was a place- . 
 name. Cp. on Josh. xix. 33, Judg. ix. 37. 
 
 iv. 1 3. The ' nine hundred iron chariots ' are interpo- 
 lated from V. 3. — 17. ^i!^ from fpNOHT. — 18. The covering 
 of Sisera is mentioned twice (see v. 1 9, end). This is to be 
 explained, not by referring the two mentions to different 
 sources, but to corruption. If there were really two 
 mentions, we should expect TS to accompany the second 
 (see Moore). In spite of Lagrange's opinion that the most 
 pressing object was to cover up the fugitive warrior, I 
 venture to think that a drink was the first thing to offer. 
 I therefore delete the "irroam in v. 18, and am now enabled 
 to explain nD"'OtDl. This, seems to be a marginal note on 
 ^i?i Shn in V. 1 7. Jael's tent was in Cusham ; read Dffil33. 
 XSfVp and mi3 were liable to confusion ; ]Wp hro ( = JffilD '3) 
 may also have been known as D''U>^p '3 (see on v. 21). 
 
 iv. 21. The narrator misunderstood v. 26. 
 
 Chap. v. A study of Moore i^SBOT), Lagrange and 
 Ruben convinces me that on the well-chosen battle-field 
 of this poem the old method of using the versions 
 (especially the Greek) as they stand to correct MT. is 
 inadequate to the chief textual problems. This applies, 
 of course, quite as much to the older @ version as to the 
 younger (see on v. 1 2). Nor can I convince myself, that the 
 old methods of correcting the Hebrew text apart from the 
 comparison of the versions have proved very much more 
 effectual (cp., e.g., the different solutions offered by Qratz, , 
 Budde, Lambert, Lagrange, Ruben respectively for the 
 cruces in v. 8). Ruben deserves high credit for bringing 
 in oriental history for illustrative purposes. His view 
 formerly influenced me (see JQR, July 1898, p. ^66; 
 E. Bib., ' Kadesh,' 2) ; I ab'aridoned it on discovering more 
 and more the extent of the N. Arabian connection with 
 Israel. I am sorry that I cannot own obligation to 
 
V. 4 JUDGES 453 
 
 Winckler's audacious reconstruction of the text in GI 
 ii. 130 ff., or to C. Niebuhr's Reconstellation (1894). 
 'Probably, however, Winckler is right in holding that the 
 so-called Song of Deborah (but really, of Daberath) referred 
 to the traditional expulsion of the Philistines from the land 
 of Israel by Saul (see GI ii. 164), who may even be 
 referred to in the Song as ' Barak,' i.e. Beker. Saul was 
 a Bikrite (cp. on i S. ix. i). Note also that in w. 14 
 ' Machir ' follows ' Benjamin,' and that ' Bikrite ' and 
 ' Machrite ' may be of the same origin. Cp. @^ i S. 
 ix. I, and see E. Bib., 'Saul,' § i. The prose narrative, 
 as we have it, is later than the Song. See on chap. iv. 
 
 The Song in its original form consists of trimeters. 
 Compare, however, Rothstein, ' Zur Kritik des Deboraliedes 
 u. d. urspr. rhythm. Form dess.,' ZDMG, Ivi. 17S ff-, 
 437 ^ [1902]; also D. H. Miiller, Strophenbau u, Re- 
 sponsion (1898), pp. 9-14; Marquart, Fundamente (1896), 
 pp. I -10; Grimme, ZDMG 1. 572 /: [1896]; Winckler, 
 Gesch. Isr. (1900), ii. 128-135, 165; C. Niebuhr, Versuch 
 einer Reconstellation des Deboraliedes (1894). The last- 
 named writer is not so far from the truth as one might 
 expect in making Sisera an Egyptian prince, and, in ac- 
 cordance with this view, placing the tent of Jael, to which 
 Sisera directed his course, in the Negeb. — For the titles of 
 other books see Budde's list {Buck der Richter, p. 39). 
 
 The reader of the Song as here given will observe that 
 the Arabic numerals, other than those indicating the verses 
 of MT., refer to glosses in the footnotes. 
 
 ^MSoari nn-]S n??^ For the crushing of Zarephath in 
 
 Ishmael, 
 ^MOmn 11T^^ rinm For the disaster to the Arabians 
 
 in Jerahmeel, 
 rrr^tDM ^ rnnh ^ ^33M '* I, to Yahwe will I sing, 
 hvnm-' -^rhth ^ 1B?« I will chant to Israel's God. 
 Tll^MD ^n^^3 mn-' * Yahwe ! when thou wentest forth 
 
 from Asshur, 
 
 1 D-an ivmn d'3^d lyDB-. ^ '33". * ■"''"'('''■ 
 
454 CRITIC A 
 
 P5? ■'211 D-'-im:! io-ii6<T) 
 
 rnf?pf?ps mmN laS"'! 
 DiinBNi ^NonT' lino* 
 
 ■^ D-'msT fpNonT' ■'jntap 
 nin-i mpns 123t " 
 
 *f?Mn»-'l 1312T mpi2 
 
 BIBLICA V. 5 
 
 When thou marchedst from the 
 
 highland of Aram, 
 The earth quaked, yea, the heavens 
 Yea, the clouds dripped water ; 
 The mountains streamed before 
 
 Yahwe, 
 Before Yah, the God of Israel. 
 In the days of the Geshurites: 
 
 and the Anakites, 
 In the days of Ishmael and 
 
 Cusham, 
 Those who fared on the ways 
 
 trembled, 
 They went by crooked paths. 
 Potentates trembled in Israel 
 At the sword of Jerahmeel and 
 
 the Ashhurites. 
 Kings and princes shuddered 
 At the hosts of Jerahmeel and 
 
 the Arabians. 
 Loudly praise ye the righteous 
 
 acts of Yahwe, 
 His righteous, gracious acts in 
 
 Israel. 
 
 mn •'-ins inii>^^ 
 
 nit6"i pni t:iyp 
 D'^ns •'31 mi5i 
 
 a''n2?i IT mn-'-a? 
 
 D''lto ["ITT] D^nSN-'2D^* 
 
 March on, march on, Daberath ; 
 March on, march on into Asshur. 
 Arise, Barak, and take captives. 
 Subdue the sons of Arabia. 
 Then they came down to the 
 
 Asshurites, 
 Yahwfe's force came down into 
 
 Arabia ; 
 Out of Ephraim [came down] 
 
 princes. 
 
 1 IBBJ. 2 ,3,0 n,_ 3 i?KDm'. * 1 rimn. 
 
 6 [tj^'jHVOB" I'D D'nnEJN ^NDm'] nwaJN tit'jv '3^»m. 
 
 6 ^>Kn»'a . . mm . , ny mn. 
 
 ■^ piD 'db" D'ins D'jn'N nnh-i [t>NDm'3 D'aiy nnnn] 'db" 'm' 'db'' 'm'. 
 
 8 n'.T Dy n^^vh m' tn (see z/. 13). 
 
V. 23 
 
 JUDGES 
 
 455 
 
 npsQp pcai vnnM 
 
 D-'ppnO ITT- T3D-'3D 
 
 aif? ■'ipn D■'7^l 
 DTiss-pn raxtr nof?^* 
 'o'-ns np"ip rbf^ 
 
 ^JT'N Till pT 
 
 fjMQm-' mm-f?:' '^SnD3T 
 
 After' him Benjamin from Maa- 
 
 cath ; 
 Out of Machir came down 
 
 marshals, 
 And out of Zebulun wielders 
 
 of the mace ; 
 mm Dsn ^ nam-'l ^* And Ishcar was in Daberath's 
 
 force, 
 And the warriors of Caslah 
 
 among his great ones. 
 (But) in Pelesheth of Reuben 
 The great ones searched out 
 
 the heart. 
 Why didst thou tarry among the 
 
 Zephathites, 
 To hear the hissing of the 
 
 Arabians ? 
 Gad dwelt in Arabia, 
 And Dan sojourned with Ethan. 
 Asher tarried by Rehob, 
 And dwelt by those of Zarephath. 
 ^MSDW qin Q? pf?n " Zebulun was a people that defied 
 
 Ishmael, 
 And Naphtali, in the highland of 
 
 Jerahmeel. 
 
 ° 1on^3 □"'3^70 IMl " The kings came— they fought, 
 hrxxa ""D-^S pjS-JT'l At Beth-anak by Migdol's waters, 
 fjMDrrT'T D»3 M5S The host of Cusham and Jerah- 
 meel, 
 Tli&« DSI ^ f^MSDW ^'' Ishmael and the folk of Asshur ; 
 113M TTin D'^l^idM ^^ The Asshurites were panic- 
 stricken, they perished, 
 DmiD * ysrO hvoi ^^ in the stream of Cushan were 
 
 their corpses. 
 'din lisp 'ilM ^^ Curse ye Missor of Jerahmeel, 
 
 1 iBD. 2 p-i3 \v.v\\ isi!"!. ^ 'w Twhta (repeated). 
 
 ^ D'^KDm- D'^xyDB" D'VKOnr. ^ ^luyDK" ^KDm' [wp 'a D'e-ip Vm. 
 
 9 VRDnr. 
 
456 
 
 CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 V. 24 
 
 ^ llin fjHNl D-'t»3D 
 
 "inj?n nn^Di nsncn 
 
 n3!&3 ]i^n n"'sn ^* 
 * ;a>iN Ti?! •^^m^ dn 
 ^ man ©t&n i^no 
 
 
 29 
 
 Say a curse upon its inhabitants, 
 Because they came not to the 
 
 help of Yah, 
 To the help of Yah in Arabia. 
 Blessed above women be Jael, ' ' 
 Blessed above women in the tent. 
 Milk of the goats she gave. 
 Sour milk she presented in a bowl. 
 Her hand — she stretched it forth 
 
 to a club, 
 Her right hand to a staff of 
 
 JerahmeeL 
 She struck Asshur on his head, 
 She shattered and pierced his 
 
 temples. 
 At her feet he sank down. 
 As the wicked, Asshur fell ! 
 
 In the city -of Holon she now 
 
 enchantments, 
 Asshur's mother in the city of 
 
 Cushan ; 
 ' Why fails his car ? 
 (Why) linger the steps of his 
 
 chariot-horses ' ? 
 The wise men of her sanctuary 
 
 divine ; 
 'Surely he shall bring back 
 
 Jerahmeel. 
 Shall not Jerahmeel' be strong, 
 (Yea,) prevail over the host of 
 
 Israel ? 
 Perish all the foes of Jerahmeel ! 
 Be his friends as the going forth 
 
 of the sun ! ' 
 
 Part i. V. 2. mi^nn. Cp. on Dt. xxxii. 42. — ^NSDtD'' 
 and 'iffli confounded (as e.g. in i K. iv. 7). — Di> 313, from 
 
 1 ■■y;)n -an n»N. 2 ^^^ q,o_ , 3 i^gj y^j f,''?:n pa aDP ^sa. ^ m'aj. 
 
 5 yna maV. 6 Sudht S»vdv' (repeated corruptly). ' "n?". 
 
10 JUDGES 457 
 
 ij|-nj>. Cp. Isa. xiii. 2, cm^ •>nnD ; read ts^-yys 'n. 1311 
 'nT3; mn"' = 'nT. — 4. iitBNO. Cp. on Dt. xxxiii. 2. — 5. 
 'D m, a gloss on D'^nn (see Moore). — 6. niato. Correct in 
 le light of iii. 31. Here, however, 'tt> must be the (corrupt) 
 ime of an oppressor or an oppressive people. The name, 
 jeshurites' (Dt. iii. 14, Josh. xii. 5) = ' Ashhurites.' — -p-ya. 
 n imperfect p became n. — The name ^i>i comes from 
 «Dm\ Here, however, a partly effaced 'offii has become 
 IT. — DQ)3T is derived from innpaj in v. 7. — 6, 7. "ibnn not 
 ear. Read mn. mmx, according to Moore, has two 
 ;nses in the same couplet, which is strange. Metre suggests 
 le omission of the first. — Transpose the "1 ; see text. — 7. 
 na. Among the @ renderings are 01 KpaTovvrei; and 
 rvaroi. This, at any rate, gives the required sense. Read 
 ^ari ; (^* gives the double rendering, a-arpairai hwaroi for 
 
 in V. 2. — hvn^ is repeated at end of verse. inQptl> ^:; 
 id DN TiDpay have been produced by the redactor on the 
 isis of a marginal note, D'^^NDm'^ nam TS ( = 'm"' oms T^), 
 hich enables us to complete the line (see v. 6) beginning 
 n"' '^Cl. Out of his head he made it into an address to 
 leborah, the ' mother in Israel' This was how he made a 
 ridge between ^^^^ and ^Nlffi'^1 {v. jb). — 8. MT. presents a 
 [le field for exegetical ingenuity. QinfpN, as often, comes 
 om fjKonT' ; for D-iffiin (Marq. and Herz wrongly, Qitonn), 
 ). on nw\n, Josh. XV. 37, and cp. D'>Tit01 in v. 6. nm 
 
 a case of transposition. — The ' barley-bread ' of MT. 
 
 as imaginary as the barley-cake of vii. 13. Q"'"Tt& for 
 nstS (Houtsma) is off the track. ' King and princes ' = all 
 le rulers and magistrates of Israel (Hos. viii. 10, xiii. 10, 
 c), who were paralysed by fear. — pD from i^noQ ; note 
 le context. — HNT' QN and HOT ( = 'm'') represent common 
 pes of corruption. For 't cp. on i K. xviii. 28. — Dii>nM, 
 1 often (see E. Bib., 'Moses,' §11), from U'Ons ; initial 1 
 lould be 1, The reference in the corrupt text to the want 
 ■ weapons reminds us of the equally corrupt passage, i S. 
 ii. 19-22 (see note). — Then follow a number of ethnics — 
 learned scribe's explanation of ' Arabians.' See glosses, 
 id note that both rh and •'■pTprh are fragmentary repre- 
 ntatives of fpNOnT. — ro, mntDN 11Tf?» ■'s'^m (l = namely) 
 the right reading of a misplaced marginal gloss relative 
 
458 CRITIC A BIBLICA v. u 
 
 to niTri3 '^S^rr iv. 6). ' I see no way to do anything with 
 iniQ?,' remarks Moore. Lagrange, rvxa, ' verdure ' (?). The. 
 remedy is plain; cp. Jer. ii. i8. — ii. The improbable l^rr' 
 almost certainly comes from 133T ; the preceding D» (as in 
 Isa. Hi. 1 1 ) represents ^Mrnm"' (in the list of ethnics). — "i^ins, 
 corrupt, according to Moore. Budde, ' his peasantry (?) ' ; 
 Lagrange, ' his leadership (?).' Read i^hsn. 
 
 Part ii. v. 1 2. •'lis, T'ffi "'nn. ' By a poetical artifice 
 the author invites Deborah to arise out of Israel, to manifest 
 herself as the preacher of the revolt ' (Segond). But if there 
 were a Deborah at all, who else should the author be? 
 What the context requires is a summons to some personified 
 clan or tribe to take the field against the oppressors. MT. 
 has the great merit of allowing us to see the true text 
 through it. Read 'in ^iliS. TO? for nWN as TitO, Gen. 
 xvi. 7, Ps. xviii. 30, etc. ; ' Asshur ' here means the Asshurite 
 oppressors of the Israelites in N. Arabia. For /. 2 Moore 
 (SBOT) gives as mnn ■'T^sn, but this will not account for 
 the '('W of MT. ; while Lagrange attaches Tiffll to /. i, which 
 gives a bad sense, and is arbitrary. These scholars, it is 
 true, follow their method ; see the oldest recension of (gi. 
 But fivpidha'i fiera \aov, i.e. Dl?l man, most probably comes 
 from D"'l"is Di»l, which was originally a gloss on 11 ©Nl. — 
 Moore and Lagrange also feel bound to follow the readings, , 
 evLaxva-ov = p]n (Moore) or h> ia-')(yl = i;\ii1 (Lagr.). This 
 word, however, is pure amplification. Both lines in the true 
 text are trimeters ; T^© comes from wyT\ ; Dr3"'nM representsfj 
 DS ""aaN, where 'nw, as elsewhere, = 135, and ns = us = U^'y^S. 
 — F. 13 should be collated with v. lib. If the form were 
 in use we might read (in a) Q"'^Nlt5"' ; in this case we should 
 keep Qiniail. It is assumed above that n(l)31 represents 
 ns. So in V. 23^. In both passages '"yxi is rather a pale 
 expression. — In w. 14 p7Di»l and T'DDSI both represent the 
 same word, probably niSQD. For phtiSI ®, Theodotus have 
 pDSl, which Moore, Budde, and Lagrange adopt. This is a 
 step towards the truth, for pQi> often represents n3i'D. For 
 the troublesome D'l^tOQ read D'^p-'tHD. nSD is metrically 
 superfluous ; it is probably a gloss. — In v. i^ "nXS^ is a frag- 
 ment of nam-'l (so read). Delete the following 13Q)% and read 
 m.a"iT-D»3. ]3 represents 13, the last syllable of n3t»\ It 
 
V. i8 JUDGES 459 
 
 seems to have displaced Nirr. Read, probably, Nin naC'l 
 pia, ' Iscar means Barak.' For nf?» pDi>l read n^D3 DS1, or 
 the like ; cp. ' Casluhim,' Gen. x. 14; also Chesil and 
 
 j.Chesalon. V^IH is a simple change. — For nil^Q read 
 rUD^Q. Note @"s readings for Pelet (i Chr. ii. 47) and 
 Peleth (Num. xvi. i), viz. <j)a\ey and (jsaXeK, and cp. H. W. 
 Hogg, £. Bid., 'Reuben,' § 12, with note 5. 'Peleth' was 
 a Reubenite ; ultimately this name and ' Pelesheth ' have 
 the same origin, viz. ' Zarephath ' ; cp. E. Bib., ' Pelethites.' 
 — Read ^pn (®^), clearer. — In v. 16 DinQmD(n) is evidently 
 wrong; also in Gen. xlix. 14, and (without d) Ps. Ixviii. 14. 
 Moore makes the word = ninatOM, 'dung -heaps,' ' ash- 
 mounds.' Rather read DTiDQ? = DTIEJIS, ' Zephathites ' {i.e. 
 
 ||SZarephathites '), and in next line, D"'l"ii> np"i» (cp. Jer. 
 xix. 8, etc.). ' Arabians,' ' Zarephath ' are parallel in //. i f. 
 of the poem. — In v. ij Houb., Budde, etc., read ^l for 
 nsSa ; a tribal name is wanted. Cp. Pesh. ; and 2 S. 
 xxiii. 36 (0°), 2 K. X. 33 (@*). — For \-\-\n inDl read, as 
 usual (see on i. i ), f?NDm^ n.?3. Metre, however, suggests 
 that 'nT is a gloss. Of this, the superfluous nth in next 
 line may be a corruption (n from n). For DT^^M, which 
 Ruben rightly questions, and for which Budde once read 
 VTT'Ma, we should read JIT'S, i.e. the Ethanites of N. Arabia 
 (see I K. iv. 31). — For p;\nh read liny^j; ; QiD'^ = Q1301, a 
 gloss. Cp. on Gen. xlix. 13. ' Reholj ' = Rehoboth (as 
 Josh. xix. 28). — T^snSD, aTT. Xey., imperfectly explained as 
 'his ports' (Schultens, Op. tnin. 163) or 'his landing-places' 
 (JBDB). ' II est difficile de habiter contre ses propres ports ' 
 (Lagr.). The word has some resemblance to another obscure 
 word, DinD»D, and almost certainly has the same origin, viz. 
 DTions. — 18. maS ims: t\-)n- 'The original meaning (of 
 J|in), " to despise," passes over into that of " giving up " ' 
 (Bertheau). But where does ^in mean 'to despise'? Isa. 
 liii. 12 is quoted, but rrsth imD3 m's-n is doubtful. Duhm, 
 Marti, and SBOT omit r\^xh as a gloss. But is it to be also 
 a gloss in Judg. v. 1 8 ? Doubtless one of the above three 
 words is metrically superfluous. But notice that ^"lon, or 
 some closely similar group of letters, often represents either 
 SNi;OBr' or 'rw (see on i S. x. 10), and this is most 
 probably the case with r\ych both in Judges and in 
 
46o CRITICA BIBLICA v. 19 
 
 Isaiah.^ The nearer of the two possible originals is f?NrDt»\ 
 This implies, in the case of Judg. v. 18, that ^M2;nt»'' (the s 
 original reading) was intended either as a gloss on, an 
 equivalent term to, 'Dffi^ or as a correction of a miswritten'il 
 'dq>"i. The latter is the more probable view ; in fact, it is 
 not uncommon {e.g. v. 21) to find itDD3 (imE33) written in- 
 stead of lom-' = ^Nl»Da>\ Read, therefore, 'd»i P^n. Insults ' 
 (cp. I S. xvii. 43 7^; cp. V. 10) were a common mode of 
 defying an enemy. — In I. 2 transpose ; •'D'nD representSif 
 f?«DnT (cp. on Josh. xi. 5, ' Merom '). ' 
 
 Part iii. v. 19. The gloss is plain ; 'lon'pa tN = Di^NDnT 
 (•r = n, 3 = d). p5$-nia accords with pss •>3l in v. 6. For the 
 wide extension of the Anakites, see Josh. xi. 2 1 . — "TOD. As 
 in Josh, xvii. II, etc., from ^1710. — qD3 from DffiS, as Isa. 
 xlviii. 10. — inpf? tS. The final b^ in ^NonT^ often gets 
 separated, and is prefixed as tS. npz> (like pm, sometimes) 
 from noT = f?NDnT. — 20. A fine but not clear passage. 
 ]d[Q)] and D'iDt» both represent fpNi^QB'^ ; lon^a (twice), ninilj 
 come from ^Nom"' ; nmbDD[Q] = ^Ni^DtO''. For N^D'>D a» 
 read mt&N Ds.— Vv. 21 and 22 are best transposed. Both 
 have been overgrown by faulty readings, out of -which the 
 redactor has done his best to extract a passable sense. In 
 z/. 22 la^rr in (cp. "ionf?3 Tn, v. 19) represents Q'^^MonT; so, 
 too, i3pi> (like 3pD"' now and then) ; Ruben has already 
 divined that ''yps conceals the name of a country. DID, as 
 so often, = either t6^3 or mms (nint»M) ; cp. NnD^D. nnrno 
 mnrn is left by Moore ; also infjn (^Q^n). He remarks, 
 however, that ' the text has been differently understood, and 
 has varied considerably.' Ruben keeps v. 22a, and in ^ 
 reads 'in rrnmo '^2'i:s3. ('1 = Ka^avadu, a land whose. prince 
 was an ally of the ' Hittite ' king Sisera).^ ra? ii/S/jet? eKo-ra- 
 o-ews avT&v, where eKaTaa. avT&v represents ormn (cp. ®, 
 I S. xiv. 15). InJQR, July 1898, p. 566, I suggested, on 
 this ground, lDnn3, retaining the VT'lN of MT. and (g. But the 
 initial 3 is a diiificulty. We must, therefore, question both 
 '~\ 'id and 'a^. The reading underlying VT'lN can only be 
 n^N. Now the original text comes out. Attach D in 'iD 
 
 1 Read, probably, 'jnyDj!" is-in -w« nnn. Both iirfl: and rtaS ( = ^non, see 
 on I S. X. 1 1 ) represent 'db". The next verse-number in MT. needs no 
 emendation. Correct p. 46 accordingly, , 
 
 I 
 
V. 23 JUDGES 461 
 
 to DID, i£. n"l»N, and read ^^lM ^iTij^ qi-i^^m. — V. 21 is full 
 of difficulty ; pt&ip htVi alone seems clear, but even this has 
 to be improved, 'p is doubtless an early popular corruption 
 of ]to. Dini, ' scraped them out,' cannot be right. (Does 
 Jv^-X really exist ?) DSi^j C/5^, l-c^ fits in with Ruben's 
 Assyriological explanation of 11; ••XStiy. But this seems to 
 me now too bold. It is one of the many Assyriological 
 explanations which Delitzsch and others have suggested, but 
 which a further study shows to be precarious. We do 
 expect, however (Ruben is right here), a reference to the 
 dead bodies of the foes ; read, therefore, nniniD JtOID ^TO3. 
 — '^Wp '3 D-^Dnp '3. The explanations, of 'tp are forced 
 (see E. Bib., col. 2683, note 2). Nor would it be wise to 
 correct into QiDpi (npT = SNOm"'), for the older ® version 
 (with Theod.) gives KaZ7]a-eiii. Ruben would therefore read 
 D"'Bi;p, ' the Kadeshites ' (the people of the northern [so 
 Ruben] or of the southern Kadesh). This might be a 
 second name of the nahal in question. It is, however, not 
 probable that such a name (unattested elsewhere) was known 
 to the glossator ; at the end oi v. 21 'riT^ and 'dc are given 
 as glosses.- The most probable view is that Q'^ffilp comes 
 from Q'iffl'ip, i.e. Di»l3. — is ■'msa represents two corruptions of 
 'tX^ ; for 'd see on v. 18; for fs, cp. ^nr« and ]SX i3nn 
 (cp. ^^^^, Zech. ix. i) = f?MDnT. 'mi and 'nT are glosses 
 on pffiip or D■'QJ^p. The method is surely wrong which 
 produces D^is i»a3 111 vonp '3, ' le torrent de Kades a foul6 
 les cadavres des forts' (Lagrange).— 23. tiio is neither 
 from Merom nor from Meron, but from lisp ; cp. @* 
 lia^cup, at least for the transposition of letters. The 
 Migrites had once been Israel's friends ; yet ' they came 
 not,' etc. See E. Bib., ' Meroz.' — For Diniail read Qimri 
 (see on v. 1 3^). — In mn*' In'pd ion, noN comes from 
 DTi^ (the southern Aram) ; '1 'd represents nT" ^nd, i.e. 
 ^MDm"'. We might, indeed, truthfully say that both 'd 
 and '1 possibly represent fpNOm"' ; there are parallels enough 
 to prove this. But it is simpler to suppose that the two 
 halves of 'rrv were transposed, and that f?MO was misread 
 '«f7D = Tn^d. On. the MT. Moore remarks, ' It must be con- 
 ceded that the phrase here has some difficulty.' Grimme 
 and Lagrange delete in^d on this account. But why should 
 
462 CRITICA BIBLICA v. 24 
 
 a special divine command be introduced ? ' They came not 
 to the help of Yahw6 ' ; curse them, therefore. Is not this 
 the ancient feeling? — In v. 24, a prosaic gloss. — 25. Roth» 
 stein makes a very good suggestion {ZDMG Ivi. 200) ; did 
 fjNffi cannot originally have belonged to this line ; it must 
 be a later addition ; suggested probably by iv. 1 9. But the 
 rest of the text has still to be adequately criticised. The 
 key of the situation lies in D'^inM. Being corrupt in v. 13, 
 this word may very likely be so here. Indeed, what sense 
 here has '^^* f?DD ? It was not the bowl but the milk that 
 was important. ' A bowl fit for giants ' (Moore) ? But we 
 do not hear that Sisera was a giant, and the ordinary Arab's 
 bowl is 'mighty' (Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 398). 'A 
 bowl fit for illustrious guests' (Budde)? But did nomad 
 women keep artistic bowls ? In this context surely the 
 milk, not the bowl, requires emphasis. D'^nnN should be 
 Di^S ; and this should stand in /. i , cts 'n (cp. Prov, 
 xxvii. 27). — 26. The text is questioned in E. Bib., 'Jael,' 
 but not adequately corrected. Passing over, for brevity's sake, 
 both ancient and modern explanations (except the latest— 'I 
 nhlSi. ^Q^l^3 — Rothstein), I venture to say that for niD^n'? 
 a"'f?t2i' we should almost certainly read ^Nom"' isio'?. A 
 club-stick loaded with iron (cp. Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 397) is 
 meant ; 'm"' Eoln, because N. Arabia had abundance of iron 
 ore (cp. on Jer. xv. 1 2). It now becomes plausible to correct 
 the impossible "rni into nmn, which, though in Assyrian it 
 means 'javelin' (see on Ps. Iv. 22), may in Hebrew have 
 also meant ' club-stick.' — npno, miswritten for runti (out of 
 place) ; so Marquart. — For the inappropriate nsSn read 
 nn^Q (Gratz). — 27. Omit dittographed words. — For ntUNl 
 no? i;^5 (omitted, too hastily, by Budde) read D■':?tB^5 ; cp. 
 2 S. iii. 33. The word was miswritten, with letters ditto-' 
 graphed ; then came the redactor. — For ^^^Q) read iltDN, 
 which should also be restored for nhd'^d. 
 
 In Part iv. there is much of interest to notice, niim, 
 'and wailed' {v. 28), first excites our suspicion. If nDplD3 
 is right, 'm should be a synonym. The KarefiavOavev 
 of 0*'' suggested to Klostermann ]3"i3nn"i (Marq., Bu., 
 Lagr.). Plausible, but the trimeter is complete without 
 either word. aiTil is, no doubt, a corruption, but not 
 
»• 28 JUDGES ■ 463 
 
 necessarily of a verb. It may represent either a gloss 
 or a variant to any of the words in v. 28« (assuming 
 the text to be correct). Next (b), n^rmm moDn looks 
 doubtful. ' The wisest of her princesses ' ; who are these 
 princesses ? Consorts of neighbouring chieftains ? and why 
 are they credited with wisdom ? There were ' wise women,' 
 no doubt (the poet speaks from his own observation — 
 — cp. 2 S. xiv. 2, XX. 16), but their 'wisdom' had no con- 
 nection with their position as wives. Nothing of importance 
 is gained by pointing np3n (Marti, Budde, Lagr.), ' the 
 sagest of her court ladies answers her.' And what an 
 unwise 'answer' v. 30 presents! In fact, vv. 29, 30 are, 
 from first to last, impossible. Nor is this all. Negatively, 
 as well as positively, the text is open to strong objection, — 
 (i) there is no geography, and (2) there is no religion, at 
 least till we come to v. 31a, of which, as Winter {ZATW 
 ix. 224), approved by Budde, says, ' this colourless, moral- 
 ising reflexion spoils the effect of this fine specimen of the 
 poetic art.' The geography and religion must, of course, be 
 looked for at the opening of the part {v. 28). Evidently 
 7S1 should come from -v^l. Now, as to pSnn and lamNrr. 
 The key to \hrt is in Josh. xv. 5 i (see note), where a place 
 so called is grouped with ' Goshen ' and ' Giloh ' (both Negeb 
 names), and in Gen. x. 23 where Sin is a son of ms 
 ( = 7NDnT), and the key to l3tDN is in Gen. xiv. i, where INDQ) 
 is the name of the king of nmN (i.e. hi^'arrv ; cp. din), and, 
 according to analogy (Abishai, Abishalon), should represent 
 'oar n» ; cp. also on Dt. i. 4 (jmi = ]»1n). Read, therefore, 
 fibh Tsn ( = 'n-i'' T'i'i) and ]miN T'i?n ( = 'nmi ni> tsi). In 
 iv. 2 the city of ' Sisera ' is called nojnn, i.e. mrtffi, the 
 feminine form of inps. But, as we may see from- 2 S. 
 xxiii. 1 3, ' Ashhur ' and ' Jerahmeel ' are practically synony- 
 mous. Now, as to the religion. The N. Arabian peoples 
 were pre-eminently addicted to soothsaying ; cp. e.g. on Dt. 
 xviii. g /., 2 K. i. 2, Isa. ii. 6. What more probable than 
 that the queen-mother should seek an oracle as to the cause 
 of the delay in Sisera's return? For nspm: (v. 28) read 
 ns!&3, and for n33»m read ^isai?-; (cp. Isa. ii. 6 and Ivii. 3). 
 But where are the ' diviners ' ? Read, probably, ii'^^'jpp '^aan. 
 It was the sanctuaries which were the centres of N. Arabian 
 
 32 
 
464 CRITICA BIBLICA v. 3,1 
 
 ' wisdom,' and v. 2gb — so fascinating in MT. in its suggestivle| 
 obscurity — should be ^ndhT' ri"'ffi"' NIH IN. The type of cor- 
 ruption in th rrilDN is common. It still remains to correct 
 aiTil. The most suitable correction is mill (i and \ t and 
 1 confounded). ' Sisera's ' mother ranked next after the' 
 king (cp. I K. XV. 13, 2 K. x. 13). — Nllf? and the second- 
 i'lTO are metrically superfluous. — In ». 30 hhvo is a cor- 
 ruption of ^Ni^omi (^NltZ)-' would here be unsuitable) ; this is 
 the iirst and most obvious correction (cp. on Isa. viii. i). It 
 then follows that "ip^rf is wrong ; read f?NOm'' ; 'oB'' was 
 inserted as a gloss. 1N2D"' will then become DS.i>\ The 
 ' wise men of her sanctuary ' Cplur. of extension) return 
 answer that there is no ground for uneasiness. The king 
 will bring back his victorious forces. The || to D2Si is ^3^ 
 'nm'' Nl2S-^:>, which underlies hhw '^ii(\sh i^-iwrh 131 xsinrh. 
 The difficulty of hh\0 "'"INI^S is well-known (see Moore and 
 Budde). Both words, 'l2(S) and S^m, are specially liable to 
 emerge as the result of corruption (for '"12, see on Judg,- 
 viii. 21, 26, and Ps. Ixxv. 6). The remainder of v. 30 
 has grown out of repeated attempts of the scribe to write 
 ^NDm"' 7Ni>D£D'' correctly. These words were originally -a 
 marginal note equating ' Jerahmeel ' with ' Ishmael.' The 
 corruptions are hh^ (see above), D"'i'!l2i and n'yi (cp. on Gen, 
 xiv. 2, xxxvi. 2, 2 S. ix. 2) ; these represent 'omi ; and rropT 
 and Qinnpi, representing. 'pNom"'. The two latter words. 
 Gratz {Gesch. i. 118) and C. Taylor {^Journ. of Philology, 
 1873, P- 61) take to be for DTnon "lion, 'heaps' upon 
 heaps ' (?), Judg. xv. 1 6. The comparison, at any rate, is, 
 in point, for iian (cp. on Judg. I.e., Gen. xxxiii. 19, xlix. 14) 
 is a very possible corruption of 'jNom"'. — V. 3i<a: is not a 
 redactor's insertion in the style of the psalms (see above), 
 but a part of the oracle. ]D may be a corruption of % 
 (written too soon). TVyTV T'3"'"IN comes from ^Nam*' "'TIN 
 (on rx^rv for 'nT, see on Gen. ii. 4). — Omit "imi:il (metri- 
 cally superfluous). — After the Song comes a redactionalfj 
 notice, [^Ni^DtD"'] l-j^p }>~iNn tflpmnv I cannot help thinking 
 this correction a great help to the effect of the narrative. y;#] 
 those who have ever read chap. v. aloud will agree with me. 
 The corruptions of MT. are paralleled in iii. 1 1, Am. ii. 10, 
 v. 25, etc. (see notes). 
 
vi. JUDGES 465 
 
 Chaps. vi.-viii. The narrative is highly complicated, 
 and traces of composite origin abound. Nowhere has 
 criticism been more carefully and acutely applied than here 
 {E. Bib., col. 1 7 19). And yet the imperfection of that 
 textual criticism, which necessarily precedes a sound docu- 
 mentary analysis, vitiates to a considerable extent the results 
 thus far attained. A fresh combination of textual, literary, 
 and historical criticism was attempted by the writer in 1 900, 
 the results of which are given in E. Bib., ' Gideon.' In that 
 article the writer certainly did not minimise his debt to the 
 criticism summed up by Prof Moore (Judges, 1895), but the 
 pressing necessity for a keener textual criticism than that 
 applied by Moore forbad him to let the student suppose 
 that Moore's view of the legend of Gideon adequately repre- 
 sented the actual state of investigation. The results of the 
 article could not, it was admitted, be more than provisional ; 
 the early fusion of the different traditions having been fairly 
 thorough. But it was held to be ' scarcely open to doubt 
 that Gideon (Gaddiel ?) and Jerubbaal (Uribaal ?) are two 
 different heroes (the one belonging to W. Manasseh, the 
 other either to Gad or to E. Manasseh), whose respective 
 legends have been combined and expanded by successive 
 narrators and editors ' {E. Bib., I.e.). That Gideon and 
 Jerubbaal were different heroes was adopted from C. Niebuhr 
 and Winckler. Not only this, but the main outlines of two 
 distinct legends appeared to follow from the ' higher criti- 
 cism ' of the text, as revised with some attempt at complete- 
 ness. Winckler (see KAT^^'^, first half [1902], p. 216 ; cp. 
 GI ii. [ 1 900], pp. 135 ff^ appears to be still contented with 
 his earlier results, in spite of the fact that he has laid the 
 foundation for a new view of Israelitish history, according to 
 which the N. Arabian borderland was very largely mixed up 
 with the affairs of the Israelites. It is this new view which 
 has obliged me to revise the results of the article ' Gideon.' 
 Those results are indeed a step in advance, and the latest 
 editor of Judges (the learned and acute P^re M. J. Lagrange) 
 has not, I think, justified either the extreme caution of his 
 own views, or his silence as to the article in the E. Bib. 
 But in investigations like the present, no one can be tied 
 down to his own printed words. The scene of the original 
 
466 CRITIC A BIBLICA vi. 3 
 
 narrative, as well as (of course) the various traditions fused 
 together in it, is in N. Arabia. This could only be laid down 
 after considerable research into other parts of the Hebrew 
 texts. Now, however, it can be affirmed to be something 
 which, though doubtless susceptible of fuller proof, is, never- 
 theless, so far proved that arguments of a quite novel char- 
 acter and of quite extraordinary weight would be required! 
 to subvert it. It does not, therefore, seem impossible that' 
 one and the same legendary hero may be intended throughr- 
 out chaps, vi.-viii., and that, just as the leading king of 
 Kenaz in chap. iv. is called both Jabin or Jamin {i..e. Jerah- 
 meel) and Sisera {i.e. Ashhur), so the heroic deliverer of 
 chaps, vi.-viii. may have been called traditionally both 
 Gideon {i.e. Gileadon) and Jerubbaal {i.e. Jerahmeel). Nor 
 is the difference in the ethnic names of Israel's enemies of 
 much importance. Amalekites and b'he Kedem or Rekem 
 (vi- 3, 33, vii. 12 ; so Pesh.) are both names of the Jerah- 
 meelites. ' Ishmael,' which underlies Di3a> SIQ) in vi. i, is a 
 common synonym for ' Jerahmeel.' ' Midianites,' as Winckler ' 
 has made probable {KAT^^\ p. 143), is the name of the 
 people of the N. Arabian region, called by the Assyrians 
 Musri ( = Heb. Missor). Attention may perhaps be called 
 in advance to the explanation here given of the genesis of 
 the so-called ' late embellishments ' of the Gideon-legend in vii. 
 2-8<2, and to that of the dream of the Midianite in vii. 13/,;' 
 Chap. vi. 3. See on v. 33. — 10. Read lans. — 1 1. IN^D .'; 
 mn"' and QTT^Nrr 'ho {v. 20) both appear to represent J 
 WTT' ^NonT ; see on ii. i, vi. 24, Gen. xxi. 17. — 'Ophrah.y 
 See on i S. xiii. 1 7 /. — ' Abiezer ' ; also a Negeb name, 
 as, indeed, is suggested by the neighbouring names in the 
 lists, Num. xxvi. 30, Josh. xvii. 2, i Chr. vii. 18 (note 
 e.^. Helek, Hammolecheth, Milcah, Ishhod [Ashhur]). In 
 I Chr. iv. 4 Ezer is a son of Hur (Ashhur), etc. ' Abi,' as 
 usual, = Arab. Gideon then is a N. Arabian Israelite. — 
 ' Gideon,' pi>-ra. Certainly not ' the Hewer.' Possibly con- 
 nected with fjN^Di (Phcen. f^Nia), but much more probably 
 from p~r:;^l, ' belonging to Gilead ' (see on Num. i. 1 1).^ All 
 
 1 The southern Gilead is intended. It need hardly be said that 
 half Gilead belonged to Manasseh, and that Gideon was a Manassite 
 (v. 15). 
 
vi. 28 JUDGES 467 
 
 these hero-names have a distinct local significance. Cp. the 
 name of Gideon's son, Abimelek = Arab-jerahmeel, and note 
 that in 2 S. xvii. 22 (rightly read) 'the land of Gilead ' is a 
 gloss on ' Arab-ishmael ' ( = ' Arab-jerahmeel '). 
 
 vi. 14. For m nriDl read perhaps ^i3''2m (cp. Gen. 
 xiv. 14). — 24. Yahwe-shalom, i.e. 'Yahwe is well-disposed'? 
 (so Moore, cp. v. 23). Most probably the original name was 
 ' Yahwe-Ishmael,' equivalent to ' Yahw^-Jerahmeel,' an early 
 name of the God -of Israel (cp. on Gen. ii. 4*5). It should 
 be remembered that mrr"' Im'pq {vv. i i ff^ is equivalent to 
 mrr ^MDm^ i.e. the God known as Jerahmeel-Yahw^ (see on 
 ii. i). Gideon has seen this God 'face to face,' and been 
 afraid for his life. The God has reassured him, and the 
 altar called ' Yahwe-Ishmael ' commemorates the theophany. 
 — On (g's eip7]vr] K.vpiov, see Moore {SBOT, Heb., p. 40). 
 
 vi. 25, 26, 28. The text has been altered by the 
 redactor, who had before him a text partly corrupt and 
 partly expanded by glosses, 'in nQ-riN Tip cannot be right ; 
 ' V. 27 suggests that the original reading was T'lli'D Q"'tl?3N TTp, 
 or the like. This became illegible, and the redactor inserted 
 from the margin a gloss which has become corrupt, and 
 needed to be manipulated in order that any sense might be 
 got out of it. The true form of the passage probably was 
 'dbt 'd»-' mDi> fjMQm-''? icn mntDN mas, ' Ophrah of 
 Ashhur, which (is reckoned) to Jerahmeel, Ophrah of Ish- 
 mael ' ; this was a gloss on ' Ophrah of the Abi-ezrites ' 
 V. 24. (The only correction which may seem doubtful is 
 ^NSDBT for MT.'s -"Dm and mffl sym. See, however, on z/. i, 
 and note that @'s tov fj.oa-'xpv rbv a-irevTov, i.e. JOton nsn [cp. 
 Moore], confirms this.^) After making this insertion the 
 redactor harmonised vv. 26 and 28 with the manipulated 
 V. 25. — In V. 26 note also the unintelligible ni^an and 
 n3n:;a3. Budde apparently takes nso to refer in some way 
 to a neighbouring hill. But he does not explain how this 
 can be. @ takes the word to be a proper name (some MSS. 
 insert rov opov<;) ; the form it assumes is MaoveK [B] or 
 Maax [A]. The latter suggests msa (cp. 1i:?D, i S. xxvii. 2). 
 mso is obviously the original of the impossible nDni>D ; it 
 may also be that of TTin nron, the link being miro (nt arose 
 1 ]aa in MT. often (see e.g. on iii. 28, Isa. x. 27) represents ht(vai!/\ 
 
468 CRITICA BIBLICA . vi. 32 
 
 through dittography). tDNn, however, is not clear, for nSiio 
 was hardly the name of a hill. Remembering the TiriBN (?) 
 of the gloss in w. 25, we might perhaps read mntCN [in] ^1» 
 'on, ' on Mount Ashhur in Maacah ' ; cp. onn •^^^^ = TintON in, 
 i. 35. Was Ashhur near Ophrah? Was it the scene of a 
 battle in which Gideon-Jerubbaal was victorious? Cp. on 
 viii. 13. 
 
 vi. 32. So then the original name 'Jerahmeel' had 
 already become ' Jerubbaal ' (cp. E. Bib., ' Jerubbaal '). 
 Another corruption of the name is ' Jerubbesheth ' (ultimately 
 from ' Ishmael '). This, however, is due to an arbitrary scribe 
 (see on 2 S. xi. 21). — 33. y'^l^'s, an early corruption of 'riT. 
 The same ethnic suffered different' corruptions in different 
 regions and localities, mp here, as often, = npl, i.e. DHT^ ; 
 cp. on Jer. xlix. 28, and E. Bib., ' Rekem,' and col. 17 19, 
 note 4. For 'r pnsi read 'r n3i>Q3, ' in Jizreelite Maacath.' 
 Cp. Josh. xvii. 16. 
 
 vi. 35. All the tribal territories were in N. Arabia; i.e. 
 there were a Manasseh, an Asher, etc., in N. Arabia, as 
 indeed is suggested by the names of the tribes mentioned, 
 except Naphtali, and the phenomena in this and other early 
 stories make it not merely possible but probable that the 
 Negeb tribal territories are referred to. 
 
 Chap. vii. i. The topographical description has suffered 
 either corruption or manipulation by an uncomprehending re- 
 dactor. The scene is most probably in the Negeb.^ Tiin ]■"? 
 (or Tjfl Tis? cp. ©'', apaZ) is there; see on i S.xxviii. 7, xxix. I. 
 The name mio, too, is there ; see on Gen. xii. 6. Even 
 pDS, which at first sight (see MT. vi. 33) seems to point 
 distinctly to the plain of Jezreel, is most probably, as else- 
 where (vi. 33, Ps. Ix. 8, etc.), a corruption of nauo, a name 
 which belongs primarily to the Negeb (see on nnno, v. Sb). 
 rrmon nan may possibly represent fpNoriT' ns^l, the name 
 of a city with a famous sanctuary (see on Jer. iii. 2 3 /.), but 
 it is also possible that ni;ll may have sprung either from 
 nshi = nsba or from r!n^arr ; mion, le. '?Nom\ would in 
 this case be either an appendage to 'hz. or a perfectly 
 correct gloss on 'yn. For an attempt to deal with the text 
 
 1 It may again be remarked that, for brevity and variety of expres- 
 sion, ' Negeb ' is here used widely for the N. Arabian borderland. 
 
vii. 10 JUDGES 469 
 
 of w. I as a whole, see E. Bib., cols. 1966 /, cp. 1724 
 (top). 
 
 vii. 2-8«, a late insertion ; for the evidence, see Budde. 
 But neither this critic nor Moore — acute as they both are — 
 have discovered the genesis of the tale. The story of the 
 'smelting out' (fjn^j) of the less ardent warriors, and the 
 impossible numbers (cp. Lagrange) in v. 3 5, have grown out 
 of corrupt glosses, f^l {v. 4) and -iD:i {v. 3) have both 
 arisen out of nsis (Gen. xxxvi. 1 1 ) or nsns, and the numbers 
 in V. lb from D'ln^N and D'^'pNi'Cim"'. Parallels in abundance 
 exist in this very book. A ' pure Midrash ' (Budde) can now 
 be observed in the making. — 2ib. nnna, from Ti^SD ( = pDi>). 
 
 vii. 3 f. On the chief cruces see preceding note. The 
 mention of Mt. Gilead is only a difficulty if Gideon lived 
 in central Palestine. For one view of the text see E. Bib., 
 col. 1967, note I. (§'s eK')(aipeCT(i3, however, may represent 
 mi"' (cp. Am. vii. 1 2), which would give a suitable sense. ^D2;■' 
 is surely impossible ; '2 should mean ' to plait,' or ' to twitter.' 
 
 vii. 10. ms. Probably from mDS or mSN. — 11. 
 cmon, from D"'SN:;Qt!J\ See on Ex. xiii. 18. — 12. Trans- 
 pose pasi and Di'pD^, and read 'rw nDi^Ql (see on viii. 10). 
 '^y\ h^m. Read ^NonT'-n: riDm 7i?t» ^Nom^ Cp. on Gen. 
 xxii. 17, Josh. xi. 4, i S. xiii. 5, i K. v. 9. — 13. hhl, Kr. 
 hh'% ; ' sense and etymology unknown ' (Lagrange). ' From 
 the context, a round (disk-shaped) cake or loaf (Moore). 
 See also Budde, ZDPV, 1895, p. 93. h%, however, as well 
 as Df?S, is a current corruption of ^Nroffii (cp. on ^2^2, Isa. . 
 xviii. I ; -^1, Jer. vi. 4), and ■axh of ^Momi ; D■'^:;m at 
 once suggests Din^M. It was not a rolling cake, ' trundling 
 through the camp,' of which the Midianite dreamed, but a 
 wonderful sword which turned every way, as in Gen. iii. 24. 
 31i;i may safely be inserted (see v. 14). Read probably 
 — 'i3T isnno [D^n^N 'rw^ hvcsrM^ nn nam. By Ishmael 
 (Jerahmeel, Asshurim) the speaker means the followers of 
 Gideon or Jerubbaal. The region from which these men 
 came was called indifferently Ishmael, Jerahmeel, and 
 Asshur. Of course, this part of the complex narrative (see 
 on chap, vi.) designated the foes of the Israelites, not 
 Jerahmeelites, but Midianites.— 14- Omit mNV-p pi'TX t»-'« 
 ysr is to be taken collectively. 
 
470 CRITICA BIBLICA vii. 22 
 
 vii. 22. The explanation of the route of the fugitives 
 depends, of course, on our view of the scene of the conflict. 
 Whatever line wre take, the text has to be corrected. If 
 Gideon was a hero of central Palestine, the corrections: 
 proposed in E. Bib., col. 1720, are plausible. If, however, 
 he belonged to N. Arabia, a re-examination of the text 
 becomes necessary. r\miX^ rii3-ns corresponds equally with 
 nmia and with nsm-ni>. In fact, nam (cp. on Joel iv. 18), 
 and nstO certainly, and rvni not improbably, represent nm^^ 
 (cp. on I K. xi. 26). ^IN n^ino, too, is a Negeb name 
 (cp. on I K. iv. 1 2), both parts of which come from bNom^ 
 though the connection of fjiN (especially) must have been 
 early forgotten. Tabbath (cp. Jotbah, Tabbaoth) also points 
 to the far south (see E. Bib., col. 4860). — 24. The paral- 
 lelism of iii. 28, xii. 5, suggests that what is meant is 'the 
 fords of the Jarhon ' (the stream, whose name is so often 
 miswritten as JTT'), i.e. that rmiSD pTTT became miswritten, 
 by corruption and dittography in such a way, that the 
 redactor, who transferred Gideon to central Palestine, could 
 make it into 'ttttinI mn rril ni> □■'DH-nN. It is worth 
 adding — though no deduction can be drawn from it — that 
 D"'D may (see 2 S. xii. 26 f.) represent a fragment of 
 D"'SNDm"', and that mi rTil might come from ni> ri"'! (see 
 on 2 S. xvi. 14). The difficult words here may conceal 
 something no longer to be recovered which was in accord- 
 ance with the ancient geography of N. Arabia. 
 
 vii. 25, viii. 5. Winckler's mythological explanations 
 hardly justify themselves {GI ii. 136/;). ito comes from 
 ini? ; Tl2i[l] may come from ^m, and lpi[l] from Dp"' ( = dHT), 
 a variant to 3Nl. As to the origin of iNt (and possibly of 
 the Zabibieh of Tiglath-pileser's inscription), we can no longer 
 have any doubt ; it is a corruption of S'NrotO"' (cp. on W3, 
 I K. vii. 2 1 ; til. Gen. xxii. 2 1 ; rty\\ 2 S. viii. 3 ; NTS, 
 ix. 2; rrmii', i Chr. ii. 18). MQ^S, too, certainly comes 
 
 1 Lagrange {Livre des Juges, p. 139) thinks that there were two 
 places called mns or [ms. He criticises Budde, who connects Beth- 
 haSSitta with MeSetta, SSE. of Jogbeha, where, Lagrange remarks, no 
 acacia (rmis') has ever grown. Lagrange is always interesting on 
 Palestine geography, but his candidly expressed ' incertitudes ' would 
 not have arisen if he had devoted a more systematic and thorough study 
 to textual criticism. Cp. E. Bib., ' Zarethan.' 
 
viii. 13 JUDGES 471 
 
 from TN^DIB"'. The view which has now become the 
 favourite, that 'af?s includes the divine name xh% is only 
 plausible if D^s and ^MSDtD'^ may be connected. The proper 
 name lYlCDbs in an inscription from Teima, referred to by 
 Noldeke, however explained in later times, may perhaps 
 be compounded of two independent forms of the ethnic 
 best known to us as '"cxcn. Thus we get two parallel pairs 
 of names, Oreb and Zeeb = 'Arab and Ishmael, and Zebah 
 and Zalmunna, both = Ishmael. Tradition loves to dupli- 
 cate. Note n:>-tDNm. See E. Bib., ' Oreb,' ' Zalmunna.' 
 
 Chap. viii. 4. a-'Sl'll CS;:?, (3, TreivSiVTes koI SimKovre^ (B), 
 iiKur/(r^v')(ovvTe<; k. S. (A). Budde (and before him Houb. 
 made the same correction) infers from (g*"-, D"'3r"i^ 'r. But 
 the words just here are not wanted, and Moore {SBOT, Heb., 
 p. 43) suggests that they may be glosses, derived from v. 5. 
 This, however, is too easy a correction ; why should such 
 glosses have arisen ? The key is supplied by the ||, 2 S. 
 xvi. 4 (see note). Read fpNom"' inr, ' to 'Arab-jerahmeel.' 
 It is a correction of -^ys ^3^^"'^T. The true text said, ' And 
 Gideon came to 'Arab-jerahmeel, he and the 300 men that 
 were with him.' It now becomes unnecessary to remark, 
 ' 135 is really impossible ; read n3i?"'l with @, or suppress it as 
 a gloss ; the passage of the Jordan was a matter of course ' 
 (Lagrange ; cp. Moore, Budde). — 5. n'iSp. Read n3"?D (see 
 on Josh. xiii. 27), or less probably, DDSO. 
 
 viii. 10 f. "sp^p should be either DpT or fjNom"' (see, 
 however, E. Bib., col. 1720). DpT . . . ff^nm^n ^3 is re- 
 dactional. The rest of the verse has for its substratum cor- 
 ruptly written ethnics. □■'f?D3 (difificult to render) comes from 
 D'^^MOnT (so in viii. 10, Gen. vi. 4, etc.), of which hnd is also 
 a fragment, n•'•^m represents q-'I^n ; ©■'N ^'jn, f?MSOt»"' ; ^7m 
 and nn, 'dot and m"' respectively (cp. on xx. 2). — 1 1. MT. 
 D''^M3 ■'313©n %yi, untranslatable. E. Bib., col. 1721, 
 note I, reads ptoDm = pmQT- A step in the right direction. 
 But we are in the southern Aram. Read fpNOHT' Dmi3 "yTf. 
 — rt^l should perhaps be m3m[3]. Cp. on 2 S. viii. 8, 
 Ezek. XXX. 9. 
 
 viii. 13. MT. mnT} "ih^rhp npoVon-Jp. Read inaJMO 
 ^NDm^ Both non^o and rhvK> occur elsewhere as corrup- 
 tions of 'nT ; on mn cp. on i. 35. F. 10 tells us that the 
 
472 CRITICA BIBLICA viii. i8 
 
 enemy was in Jerahmeel, and in the true text of vi. 26, 
 ' Ashhur in Maacath ' appears to be indicated as the scene of 
 a victory of Gideon. 
 
 viii. 1% ff. For -nyn read probably nishn ; cp. on rvxi, 
 V. 33, on iv. 7, Josh. xix. ii, and Ps. Ixxxix. i^b. Differ- 
 ently, Budde, and E. Bib., col. 1720. For inN nmoa TlM 
 read Qi^Nnmr At any rate, omDD (Jer. xli. 17) and ins 
 (i S. i. i) are elsewhere corruptions of fjNDm"'. l^orr ("'33) 
 also comes from 'm'' ("'31). Read, therefore, as the answer 
 of the Ishmaelites, ^Nom"' "'31 lNn3, with the variant 
 D'^^NOm"'. on "iDN has the same origin. Gideon's rejoinder 
 is 'rw TIN, ' the Jerahmeelites are my kinsmen.' — in\ The 
 other occurrences of the name are significant as to the 
 locality of those who bore it. 
 
 viii. 21. The last clause, as Budde remarks, sounds 
 very strangely. Why speak of the camels here? Besides, 
 according to v. 26, the crescents ('ntl>) were worn by the 
 Midianites. Surely we should read here n'n^sriTiM njp^l 
 ,D-'f?Non"|i liJ'iT? iffiN. Cp. 2 S. i. 10, the rni>!5 on king Saul's 
 arm. The words became half effaced, and the redactor filled 
 up inadvertently (see v. 26). 
 
 viii. 28. Correct, as in Judg. v. 31, Qinro pNn Zapfflm 
 {^Ni'DtO-']. — 31. ifjD'^lN, i.e. originally fjNonT' in?. — 33. MT. 
 TT'ia Sra ; so ix. 4, but in ix. 46, El-berith. If there were 
 any proof of a direct relation between Shechem and the city 
 Berith (Beirut), we might, thinks Lagrange,^ explain niil 7»3 
 as Baal of-Berytus, ' the Baal ' being almost always the Baal 
 of a place, whereas the name of El is habitually followed by 
 a word ' indicating a memory.' For this statement respect- 
 ing El he refers to Gen. xxi. 33, where Abraham is said to 
 have called at Beer-sheba on the name of El-'olam. He 
 thinks himself that the primitive form of the name of the 
 god of Shechem was El-berith, that this was changed into 
 Baal-berith (' Baal de I'Alliance ') to emphasise the idolatrous 
 character of his cultus, that El-berith may quite well date 
 back to the Israelites, and that it is probably 'the name 
 which in Gen. xxxiii. 20 is suppressed when, after the agree- 
 ment with Hamor, Jacob mentions by name El . . . God of 
 
 1 Livre des Juges, pp. 164, 185 ; cp. Rel. Sim. p. 84. 
 
ix. 5 JUDGES 473 
 
 Israel.' The hypothesis is as premature as that of Winckler.'^ 
 If almost everywliere else ' the Baal ' is the Baal of a place, 
 why should not this be the case here ? And if an examina- 
 tion of El-olam, El-elohe-Israel, El-roi reveals the fact that 
 these titles are made up of El and a N. Arabian ethnic or 
 district, why should not El-berith be similarly composed? 
 Some light may be thrown upon ninn h'sl (i) from viii. i8, 
 where ninn probably comes from nhirri, (2) from 2 S. viii. 8, 
 where TiniD, as ©**'■ suggests, has come from nnrno ; and 
 (3) from Ezek. xlvii. 16, where in like manner a comprehen- 
 sive view of the context, coupled with a due regard to 
 historical criticism, bids us read, not nn"ni (which Ewald 
 wrongly connected with the well-known Berytus), but nh2rn,. 
 In our passage, too, the best sense is produced by reading 
 Baal- and El-rehoboth. The importance of Rehoboth in the 
 Negeb was great (see E. Bib., ' Rehoboth '), and we cannot 
 doubt that this importance extended to religion. It is not 
 improbable that at Rehoboth, and not at Hebron, was the 
 reputed tomb of Abraham (a Jerahmeelite hero) ; also that 
 ' Rehoboth ' in ' Baal-rehoboth ' (underlying Baal-berith) is 
 used as an equivalent to ' Ishmael ' in the phrase ' Baal- 
 ishmael' (underlying Baal-zebub, see on 2 K. i. 2). Now 
 we can understand how the Israelites can be said to have 
 made Baal-berith their god. ' Baal-of-the-alliance ' cannot 
 with any probability be asserted to have been worshipped by 
 the IsraeHtes. But the Jerahmeelite Baal, here called ' Baal 
 of Rehoboth,' certainly was worshipped by them, as the 
 prophets frequently tell us (see e.g. on Zeph. i. 5). 
 
 Chap. ix. 5 ff. nnx RN-^i? (also v. 1 8). Both )3n and 
 nnN are suspicious ; it is useless to labour to explain the 
 phrase. For pw, see on 2 S. xiv. 26 ; for nnM, on Ixvi. 17. 
 Read probably 'jNonT' ''31 (a variant to 'n^ ^33) ; cp. hvfrs-p^ 
 from 'rrv. hs comes from ht^ (in 'm''). — NI^P n-'3. Does 
 this mean the acropolis of Cusham (MT, Shechem)? Cp. 
 on 2 S. V. 9, I K. ix. I 5. Or a place called Beth-jerahmeel, 
 near Cusham ? See on Dt. xii. 5. The latter view is to be 
 preferred. See on v. 46.— Dma, in the Negeb (of course). 
 Cp. nu, 2 S. v. 25, I K. ix. 15 (see notes), also ^nn, i S. 
 
 1 See^. Bid., col. 2582, note 3 ; Winckler, Gin. 69/, J^AT^ 218. 
 nns, the confederacy of the earlier N. Israelitish tribes. 
 
474 CRITIC A BIBLICA ix. 12 
 
 xxvii. 8 (other connections in note). See further on Dt. 
 xi. 29 (situation). 
 
 ix. 12/ See on Ps. civ. 15.3. — 15. For the southern 
 Lebanon, see on i K. v. 20, and for the possibility of a name 
 ' Gebalon ' see E. Bib., ' Solomon,' § 3. The meaning of n« 
 is not ' cedar ' only. 
 
 ix. 21. n"[.M3. Read perhaps nins, ' to Arab[-jerahmeel],' 
 ie. to a town so called. Cp. on 2 S. xvi. 5, and note the 
 true origin of the name Abimelech (on viii. 31). 
 
 ix. 26-41. Cp. E. Bib., ' Gaal,' which, however, needs 
 correction. Not only can Wellhausen's explanation of the 
 name (' dung-beetle,' as if hil) be questioned ; numerous 
 parallels enable us to find the true form, which is ~\^'X ; this, 
 indeed, is already given in @°*, which has yaXaaS. Lagrange, 
 rightly, from his point of view, is surprised at jaXaaS, but it 
 is quite right. 1^, too (Hollenberg, Moore, Budde, n^s), is 
 not a shortened theophorous name ; as in mN"13S, it is a 
 corruption of lis (cp. on 2 S. vi. i o). Thus ' Gaal ' was by 
 origin a southern Gileadite and an Arabian. For the im- 
 probable DD2)i IllS'^l (see Moore) read omDl cnr, ' Arabians 
 in Cusham ' (gloss). Another series of corrections affects 
 V. 28. Moore seems to be correct in his general view of the 
 passage, but his reading of the text can, it is hoped, be 
 improved. First, in Gaal's first question we cannot do with- 
 out a synonymous expression, and the text supplies us with 
 the means of providing it. — ^i;lT'-]l ahn is a gloss, bidding 
 us read 't' ]1 instead of D3tD ; ® goes one step towards this 
 with its vw a-vx^efi (which Oort, Kuenen, etc., adopt). Next, 
 as a consequence of this, and supported by one attested • 
 reading of (3 (see Moore, SBOT, Heb., p. 22) — KUTeSovKw- 
 aaro tov<; dvSpa<; e/x/itojo, we must, for TTIS, read TISH ; "'IN 
 Q3t2) is of course a gloss to be explained just as the same 
 words are to be explained in Gen. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 6, or 
 in the underlying original story (see notes). The sense 
 produced is ' Who is Abimelech, and who is the son of 
 Jerubbaal, that we should serve him ? Zebul, his officer, 
 has made slaves of the men of Hamor, and why should 
 we be slaves — we?' (For the 'vineyards,' v. 27, cp. xv. 5i 
 xxi. 20, and see on Jer. xiii. 12, Ps. civ. iSa.) 
 
 ix. 31, 41. Both nam and no^nw represent popular 
 
X. 48 JUDGES 475 
 
 distortions of SNDm\ With the latter cp. nmn, 2 K. 
 xxiii. 36. See E. Bib., ' Ramah,' ' Tormah.' 
 
 ix. 37. nints is clearly wrong. We can hardly (with 
 Winckler) imagine a reference to the mountain of the 
 gods — too grand a solution to be offered until the basis of 
 fact is more secure. Twice (see on viii. 18) mm seems to 
 represent ninJT). May not this be the case here ? ' Reho- 
 both ' meets us again probably in the divine title ' Baal-of- 
 Rehoboth' (Baal-berith). xxs in qi^q may perhaps be a 
 corrupt fragment of xx^i-a ; Y^Vi\ri\ too may, here as else- 
 where, represent isp. Thus we get the phrase mimn 
 D^nSD, 'from the Misrite Rehoboth.' — D-'33irp, probably a 
 distortion, partly accidental, partly deliberate, of D^'^JNonT' ; 
 3 constantly replaces the final h in corrupt forms of ' Jerah- 
 meel,' ' Ishmael.' See E. Bib., ' Meonenim,' and cp. ' Maon,' 
 2, ' Moreh.' 
 
 ix. 46, 47, 49. DDD5-f?ni!3 h^-xh^. See E. Bib., 
 ' Shechem, Tower of,' which needs supplementing. We 
 have to ask whether Migdal-shechem is to be identified 
 with ' Beth-millo ' (v. 6), or not. This is affirmed by Stade 
 and Budde, but denied by Moore and Lagrange. From 
 our present point of view this answer may be given. Most 
 probably ' Millo ' and ' Migdal ' have the same origin, viz. 
 S'NOnT' (for hllo, cp. noi and JTilD, i S. xiv. 2, note). 
 'Beth-millo' (see on v. 6) represents ' Beth-jerahmeel.' 
 Being near ' Cusham ' (' Shechem '),^ this place was also 
 called ' Jerahmeel-cusham.' One of the sources, which are 
 combined in this narrative, used the name ' Beth-jerahmeel ' 
 (Beth-millo), the other 'Jerahmeel-cusham' (Migdal-shechem). 
 In this venerated place was a sanctuary of 'Jerahmeel- 
 rehoboth ' (El or Baal Berith), the Jerahmeel whose central 
 sanctuary was at Rehoboth, the Hebron of the Abraham 
 group of stories. See on viii. 33, and on the god Jerahmeel 
 cp. on Ex. iii. 14. 
 
 ix. 48. po^S, i.e. \ht<isovr (cp. on Am. v. 26); (3 
 (epfuov, aepficop) presupposes poin, i.e. \^hi^OTlT. The two 
 names are' synonymous. Some mountain of a Jerahmeelite 
 range is meant. Cp. on Ezek. xxviii., xxxviii., and E. Btb_ 
 
 1 ' Near Cusham,' because of the whole context in chap, ix., and 
 because of xxi. 19. 
 
476 CRITICA BIBLICA x. i 
 
 'Zalmon,' i. The divine name D^}£ (see Baethgen, Beiir. 
 80/; Zimmern, KAT^^^ 47S /■) ^t ^"7 ""^te in Aramaic 
 and Hebrew, should come from ^NSDtD"'. 
 
 Chap. x. i. The position of textual questions as it 
 was until lately is well set forth (after Moore) by Lagrange. 
 No attempt is made to go behind either of the two texts 
 (MT. and the versions, and Moore's ©'"''). The same keen 
 criticism which has cleared up many analogous problems, 
 appears to lead to the following reading of the text, 
 pMonr p] n^ntpM-)3 n-igN-p fpisrit&M. In justification of 
 this see E. Bib., ' Tola,' but note that some details of that 
 statement are here rectified. Thus, tCM niT has almost 
 certainly grown out of 7nmN = limN, i.e. iintON ; for this, 
 cp. ^^^, followed by itBN, in Ps. cxxxii. i /. (see Ps.^^^). 
 The next word n3JDt2>i is an incorrect, and yet (cp. on Gen, 
 XXX. 1 8) natural emendation of "iinJDN. The vlov Kupte 
 or Kap'qe which @''P) introduces after vlov <^ova (hnID), is 
 not a corruption of ' ben Issachar,' but represents mp'Jl, 
 i.e. ' ben Korah ' or ' ben Kareab ' where K. is an early 
 expansion of a fragment of ' Jerahmeel.' The puzzles about 
 ^'T^^ now disappear ; so also does the problem created by 
 the reference to ' Tola's ' residence in MT. Ephraim (cp, 
 E. Bib., col. 2293, and Steuernagel, Einwanderung, p. 13), 
 It is the southern Ephraim that is meant. — T'P0 or (@*, etc., 
 Iv XafiapeLa) Y\~[Dib ? Note that the ' sons of Issachar ' in 
 Gen. xlvi. 13, Num. xxvi. 23/;, are Tola, Puvvah, Job, (or 
 Jashub = Ishmael), Shimron, Shamir and Shimron may 
 have been near together. — ' He judged Israel twenty-three 
 years.' But the original text had ' he righted Israel against 
 Asshur and Ishmael ' (SNi'atD''m TitDNo). Numerals from 
 ethnics, as often, especially in Judges. The very same 
 error (tt)"?tOT Clt^i'), needing the same correction, occurs in 
 I Chr. ii. 23. 
 
 x. 3-6. At first sight Jair the Gileadite may seem to 
 have been invented to account for the name Havvoth-jair, 
 One is surprised, however, that no attempt is made to relate 
 the details of the conquest of Havvoth-jair. In the next 
 section, which is by no means homogeneous, we find the 
 conquest of ' twenty cities ' ascribed to another Gileadite 
 named Jephthah. ' Can these have been the Hawoth-jair, 
 
6 JUDGES 477 
 
 hich, though represented in x. 4 as thirty in number, in 
 Chr. ii. 23 are said to be twenty-three? It would relieve 
 le story of Jephthah if either xi. 1-33, or xi. 34-40 could 
 t detached from it. It was therefore proposed in E.Bib.^ 
 )ls. 2359-2362, to annex xi. 1-33 (in a revised text), 
 '.utatis mutandis, to the story of Jair. Plausible, however, 
 5 this may be, so long as the ' thirty cities ' of x. 4 and 
 le ' twenty cities ' of xi. 3 3 are retained, a searching criticism 
 r these pairs of words changes the aspect of the passages, 
 nd so removes the grounds for the hypothesis. 'Jair' is 
 lerely another witness to the warlike capacity of the 
 jraelites of Gilead. 
 
 X. 3. tn;;, the Gileadite. For a Jair, ben Manasseh, 
 ;e Num. xxxii. 41, Dt. iii. 14, Josh. xiii. 30, i K. iv. 13 ; 
 )r a Jair, b. Segub, b. Hezron, i Chr. ii. 22 (cp. Steuern. 
 \inwand. p. 26) ; Hezron's mother is a bath Machir. Most of 
 lese names — Jair, Gilead, Manasseh, Machir — clearly point 
 1 the first instance to the south (see on Gen. xxxi. 47 f., 
 )t. iii. 14/i); note also ' Kamon,' z/. 5.-^ At the close the 
 riginal text had ^Niiom-'OT Timwa (cp. on v. 2). 
 
 x. 4. A corrupt passage was manipulated by the 
 idactor with a truly absurd result. Cp. xii. 9, 14. The 
 ime key opens all three locks ; numerals often come 
 •om ethnics. Read here probably — [^nsdIO''] CTTys ^h vn-'l 
 Mom"" mim ■^33. wnys a necessary insertion suggested 
 y the II xii. 14. 'affii a gloss or variant; it underlies 
 ""vhw. ""33 from □■'31 (a mark of abbreviation was imagined 
 fter ^l). h'3 O'llDT represents 'm"' mim, as we can see 
 ■om the equally corrupt but more transparent T'n-' mn 
 ;p. on Dt. iii. 14). □"'T'r D''ffif?m, twice over, conceals 
 IT 'ow (gloss) ; urh, twice over, and iNipi also cover 
 ver 'riT'. "rsSirr . . . DT^rr ^i» is a redactional insertion, 
 ased on misunderstanding. For MT.'s 'thirty' © has 
 thirty-two.' To both numbers the same key applies ; 
 ■•mfym and D-'3» are both current corruptions of ^Ni;Dm\ 
 a I Chr. ii. 22, read ems'? D-'^JNi'Dmil n^ii^s l^-vn^'l. 
 
 X. 5. jion?. 'p must be some important place. The 
 ame may come from ni3np or Q-'3nD, which are both 
 opular corruptions of 'nT. Cp. on 2 S. ii. 8/ xvii. 22. 
 
 X. 6 -xii. 7. Here again textual criticism throws a 
 
478 CRITICA BIBLICA x. 6 
 
 welcome light both on the exegesis and on the composition 
 of the section. As to xi. 12-28 Holzinger andBudde 
 seem right in holding that ' the Ammonites ' has in some 
 places displaced ' Moab,' and that in v. 1,5 ' and the land 
 of the Ammonites ' is an interpolation. But we must go 
 farther. As in Num. xxi. ff., nslD appears to have dis- 
 placed nhap. The negotiations were originally between 
 Israel and the king of Missor. Missor, like Moab, appears 
 to have worshipped Chemosh. Not impossibly the | present 
 text of z'Z'. 12-28 has replaced a passage which the redactor 
 found illegible (cp. E. Bib., col. 2361). 
 
 X. 6 ff. Rightly read, N. Arabian ethnics (see E. Bib., 
 ' Maon,' end). — ' The impossible collocation, " in that year 
 eighteen years " must be attributed to editorial interpolation 
 or composition ' (Moore). This, however, is not at all 
 certain, though as regards iVTd^ nDtOl it is highly probable. 
 The troublesome ' eighteen years ' is most probably due to 
 editorial misunderstanding of an early gloss. As in iii. 14 both 
 TOOQ) and n3tD probably represent '7«i>Da>% and m^^ repre- 
 sents intON. Perhaps we should read 'dq)''1 nmw '~iW i^l-ns 
 ninmN, to which 'in -la^N^ pNi 'n-v nii;? nms 'm^ ■'31-^D-nM 
 would be a variant. 
 
 X. 8 /; The stream is the 'm*' hni (see on 2 S. 
 xvii. 22), the Judah (xv. 9-1 1, xviii. 12), Benjamin, and 
 Ephraim mentioned are in N. Arabia. 
 
 x. 1 1 /; Probably the list is swelled by some corrupt 
 doublets. ]ii?o may be a repeated jias, which word is a 
 popular variation of p^Dl^ = f?Nam\ @ has MaSta/i, which 
 some critics (including Budde and Moore in SBOT) adopt. , 
 Against this see E. Bib., ' Maon.' 
 
 x. 1 7. Tsfpi probably = ':i nil (see on 2 S. ii. 8 /, Am. 
 vi. 1 3 /.). riB^p. See on Gen. xxxi. 49. 
 
 Chap. xi. See on x. 3-6. ' Jephthah,' it may be 
 added here, is no mythological figure (see Goldziher, 
 Hebrew Mythology, pp. 97 ff^, but the hero of a clan. 
 His father was Gilead, his mother an Ishmaelitess, i.e. the 
 clan was of mixed origin. His name indicates a Naphtuhite i 
 connection ; see on Naphtuhim, Gen. x. 1 3 (N. is one of 
 the sons of Misrim), and cp. Nephtoah, Tappuah, also 
 Pahath-moab, and the Zerahite name Pethahiah. Expelled 
 
xii. I JUDGES 479 
 
 (as the folk-story said) by his kinsmen, he took refuge in the 
 land of nts, i.e. Snin (see on 2 S. x. 6, and E. Bib., 'Tob')- 
 The corruption toiT, from hvis-om^ with feminine ending, 
 occurs again in a similar context in i K. xii. 24^, pre- 
 supposed by the iropvr) of ©*"-,• also in Josh. ii. 1,1 K. 
 xxii. 38 (plur.) ; cp. i^s (i S. xvi. 19, xvii. 34), pjs, ps, Q31»,, 
 all from 'dB}\ If we keep mns nt»N in v. 2, we must 
 suppose that v. 2 is an insertion made after the corruption 
 mit had arisen. But inN (cp. i Chr. vii. 1 2, Isa. Ixvi. 1 7, 
 Ps. xvi. 4, and D'^nJiN rsrhv^ from 'dht^ Thvi) is one of the 
 mutilations of ^NDm\ V. 2, end, thus obtains a good 
 , sense, ' for thou art the son of a Jerahmeelitess.' Now we 
 see why Jephthah fled to Tob, or rather Tubal, for ' Tubal ' 
 anciently meant ' Ishmael ' (cp. ' Ethbaal '). 
 
 xi. \2 ff. See on x. 6-xii. 7, and cp. on || passages in 
 Num. XX. / — 33. nr"ni>; see on Josh. xiii. 9. — jt^^d ; read 
 rOSQ (cp. on Ezek. xxvii. 1 7). Perhaps ' Abel-beth-maacah ' 
 is meant; in this case it may be = 'Abel-keramim ' (cp. on 
 ' Beth-haccerem,' Jen vi. i ). T'S D"'lt&l» ' stands in a sus- 
 picious place ' (Moore), and is certainly corrupt. T'r = ^s^ 
 (dittogr.), and rrysi's should be D'^n^N, which should be 
 joined to naro. Q'^Dia ^IM, i.e. Qip-iS f7Nom^ 'Jerahmeel 
 of the Carmites' ; cp on Num. xxii. 24. — 37. The difficult 
 TinTI is really a miswritten TT'snT {E. Bib., col. 2361, 
 note 5). 
 
 Chap. xii. i. Read perhaps nnss, 'to Zephath 
 (Zarephath),' assuming that nsSD (xi. 34) is a side-form 
 of nns or ns^S. — 4. From every point of view a difficult 
 passage. Moore, Budde, and Lagrange omit Dnw . . . 'nDM "'3, 
 but whether they rightly explain the insertion of these 
 words, seems very doubtful. It may be that our key will 
 unlock even this troublesome door. £3^£3 in Ps. Ivi. 8 (see 
 Ps!^^ probably represents nms. Here, however, it will 
 rather represent m£3, i.e. the nahal Ephrath (cp. on Jer. 
 xiii. 4), while ^'\^av^ "'3 may come from 'nnro, i.e. rmii>D. 
 Reading D^DM[f?] 's 'd, we may take the words as a variant 
 to 'smS 'nro-riN in v. 6, for pT'n, as in x. 8 /, represents 
 the 'riT' ^TO, which was either synonymous with the 
 msN ^nn, or might easily have been substituted for it in 
 another form of the legend, txhl Dnw possibly represents 
 
 33 
 
48o CRITICA BIBLICA xu. 6 
 
 ^^^h''X n3i>03, beside which we have the two variants, dlN 'an 
 and ^jNaDW 'on. (^^n from riDsa, as in Ps. Ixxii. 14 ; 'idm 
 from onN, as in Isa. xvii. 3 -, nm^n from ]dB)'' = ^NSDffl\ 
 as perhaps in Ps.lx. 9.) — 5. JIT, as often, from jhT. 
 
 xii. 6. nbiaoj. Was this word merely a chance 
 selection ? or was it suggested by the neighbourhood of 
 the stream (so Lagrange)? The latter theory is the more 
 nearly correct. Only, for 'a> we should read ^na> (Gen., 
 xxxvi. 20), or even, as in Isa. xxvii. 12, "JMSatO"' (of which 
 ^na? is a side-form). Note that some of the corruptions/- 
 of 'om"' {e.g. f?lD, Ps. Ixxxi. 7) ; ^qd, Ezek. viii. 3, 5) have 
 D. — The statement (of the redactor?) that forty- two 
 thousand Ephraimites fell is due to a misreading of the 
 editor. tr-l'W\ □"'snN comes from ^Nsami ns, a geographical.^ 
 gloss on 'iin nnii^D (see on 2 K. x. 14); qf?M (see oh 
 viii. I o), from 7no, a fragment of 'w. 
 
 xii. 7. ' Six years.' But the original text probably 
 had either 'ottji m-'wo, or 'omioT nlffiNO. 
 
 xii. 8. J21N ; ©, 6o-6;S(az' = pl^iN, Gen xlvi. 16, i Chr. 
 vii. 7, which should be ]li?12J (Gen. xxxvi. 2, etc.), i.e. 
 T'NSatO"'. Cp. J>1M, a place-name in Issachar (see on Josh, 
 xix. 20). Hommel {ap. Ulmer, Die semit. Eigennamen, 
 i. 22, note i) compares 'Ibzan' with Arabic names. 
 Ibzan's city is Beth-lehem = Beth-jerahmeel (see on Josh, 
 xix. 15). 
 
 xii. 9. Read, in accordance with x. 4, xii. 14,. 17 ViT'T 
 f?NSDt&") "i^l [^«i>Dm"'] n"'nns. What follows is an editorial 
 expansion of corrupt forms of 'dC '^32. 117© m23 seems 
 to have come from SlNntt>« "^^l ; now 'ntBN is not im- 
 probably a corruption of 'otlJ''. n^tU suggested the story 
 about marrying his daughters into other families. How 
 absurd, indeed, that this should form a judge's encomium ! 
 Finally, ' he judged Israel seven years.' But with what 
 acts did he fill those years ? Probably the text originally 
 had 'om^'O 'nW-riN (cp. on X. 2 /, xii. 7). J73tl) and ni2t» 
 ( = pm*') both represent '?msdq?"' ; cp. on vi. i . 
 
 xii. II. The 'Zebulun' is in the Negeb. Elon 
 (j^'jiN = ^h'ii = 'm"') ' judged Israel ten years.' But origin- 
 ally ' righted Israel against Asshur and Ishmael ' (TifflSD 
 'offi'^DI). 
 
xUi. JUDGES 481 
 
 xii. 14. Cp. on V. 9, x. 4, and read cn^i? iS-lirT'l. 
 [f?MDnT' f?Nl>Dm"'] D'^irn, ■'33 'otO"' "'33. O'^l'mN, when corrupt, 
 I generally comes from D"'31l>, but this word may, just as 
 naturally, become £3"'13i'. The correction made here enables 
 us to restore the lost word in the parallels in v. 9, x. 4. — 
 ' He judged (righted) Israel eight years?' Originally, it was 
 ' against the Ishmaelites.' The same correction as in iii. 8. 
 
 xii. 15. The apparent discrepancy between the positive 
 statement that Pirathon was ' in the land of Ephraim ' and 
 I Chr. viii. 23 and viii. 30 ( = ix. 36), where Abdon is 
 reckoned as a Benjamite, is dealt with in E. Bib., ' Pirathon,' 
 in the main correctly ; the ' land of Ephraim ' spoken of is in 
 the Negeb. There is, however, no occasion to suspect the 
 form ' Ephraim ' ; cmnin pN3 and ip^DS nni (from nna 
 ^NDriT) are parallel. According to i Chr., l.c., Abdon was 
 a Benjamite. It is plain, however, from i S. ix. 4 that the 
 southern Ephraim was near the iD"'Di piN — a term which 
 may have been equivalent to the original Benjamin. It 
 may be added that in i Chr. viii. 28 and 32 D7t01T' is most 
 probably a corruption of "jMsatO"'. Thus there is no great 
 difference in meaning between Ephraim, Amaleki, and 
 Benjamin, pnsis itself probably comes from mSN (cp. 
 some readings of @ ; E. Bib., ' Pirathon '), which is a Negeb 
 name. Note the remarkable reading of (§''P (Moore) — ev 
 opei E^paifi ev yr} XeXXij/j,, i.e. fjNSOm"' p«3 D^'IDN in2. 
 'oBT, as so often, is a synonym of 7NQnT'. 
 
 Chap, xiii-xvi. There are two different strata of 
 narrative, in one of which Samson is represented as on 
 personal grounds the antagonist of the hostile people, 
 while in the other he appears as a specially Israelitish 
 champion.'^ That the latter view is the more correct one, 
 or at least that Samson was originally the champion of his 
 own tribe — Dan, can hardly be doubted. The popular 
 humour seized upon him, more than upon any other figure 
 in the portrait-gallery, and slightly weakened the character 
 
 1 See xvi. 23-30, and note the description of Samson in xvi. 24, where 
 the words 'he who devastated our country, and who multiplied our 
 slain ' (from an old rhyming passage) seem to point to exploits more 
 serious than any of those which have found record. I do not of course 
 mean by this to assert the historical character of the hero. 
 
482 CRITICA BIBLICA xiii. i 
 
 appropriate to a hero. The humorous element, however, has 
 been exaggerated. At any rate, the story of the foxes and 
 that of the jawbone owe their origin, not to the popular wit, 
 but to a redactor who worked upon a text which abounded 
 in corruptions and was disfigured with glosses. According 
 to Winckler {KAT^^^ 219), Samson is purely mythological/. 
 The present inquiries, however, tend to show that the 
 original legend of the Danite deliverer contained no mytho- 
 logical elements. On this point, and on the scene of the 
 stories, which, as well as the name of the hero, has under- 
 gone modification, see E. Bib., ' Samson ' § 4. Suffice it to 
 add here that the Negeb was always a ' bone of contention ' 
 between the Zarephathites (Philistines) or Jerahmeelites 
 (^aretlm ; ' arammim) and the Israelites who early estab- 
 lished themselves — but with much difficulty — in the N. 
 Arabian borderland. The latter by their origin were half 
 Jerahmeelites, and, to judge from the evidence before us, 
 bore names which indicated this fact. Such a name is 
 ' Shimshon,' when rightly understood ; for, like ' Shimshai ' 
 this name indicates that its bearer is an Ishmaelite {i.e. — a 
 man of the Negeb ; see on xiii. 24). That the corruption is 
 a very early one, may be granted ; such corruptions mostly 
 are very early. That it has also been found far away from 
 the Negeb (Hilprecht, in Ges.-Bu. 861 (5), as Samsanu, is 
 also not surprising. N. Arabian names spread widely, as 
 a consequence of popular migrations, and often assumed 
 the same corrupt forms as in the Negeb or in Canaan. 
 
 xiii. I. mxSi Q'^rnw, as in iii. 11, v. 31, viii. 28, from 
 ^NSnm"' tr''y\s, a twofold gloss on DTim^Q. — 2. Originally 
 not nn« but ^Nnm*' ; see on i S. i. i . — For r\^r& origin* 
 ally perhaps stood -ysi or nisp ; see E. Bib., ' Zorah.'^For 
 ■'3"Tn nrtB^ap (so xviii. 11) one might read '^a'Tsn npisp (cp. 
 I K. xvii. 9), a variant to nsnsD. See Josh. xi. 8, xiii. 6, 
 where moiffia = nans;, and cp. on xviii. 1 1 (xvii. 7), and 
 E. Bib., ' Tribes,' § i . Elsewhere, however (see on Joel 
 iv. 4, 6, and especially Gen. x. 15) pTS, as well as ns, TiS, 
 probably comes from nisp, i.e. the N. Arabian Musri, and 
 it is probable that both in our passage and in 1 K. xvii. 9 it 
 was not Zidon or the Zidonians, but Missor or the Misrites 
 who were spoken of. — niap. Connected with the Negeb 
 
XV. 4 JUDGES 483 
 
 names ' Manahath ' and ' Manahathite(s) ' ; see E. Bib., 
 s.v. — 3. mn'' lNf?D, i.e. '1 Sndht (see on ii. i). 
 
 xiii. 14. For pn ]Qa read jo^ JQI ' the vine of Jaman' 
 ( = Jerahmeel). See on Num. vi. 4. 
 
 xiii. 18/ ■'Mf?s Nim. Siegfried-Stade remark, ' iMfps is 
 causelessly questioned by tradition, and replaced by -hs ' ; 
 cp. on cxxxix. 6. Certainly such a word is in itself 
 possible, but is not in this context probable. To tell 
 Manoah that the divine name had extraordinary powers, 
 was quite unnecessary ; hence in a parallel case (Gen, 
 xxxii. 30) the divine being is content with simply saying, 
 'Why dost thou ask,' etc. We have also to deal with the 
 fact that in z/. 19 there are the troublesome words N'lfjDDT 
 nifflsS, which even such able critics as Moore and Budde 
 have failed to explain quite satisfactorily, though Budde 
 (after Bertheau) recognises the connection between these 
 words and the ■'K^S Nirp of v. 18. The truth seems to 
 be that a glossator has been at the pains to tell us the 
 name of the divinity. fj^M is one of the current alterations 
 of i^MD[nT'] or Sm[»]o[»"'] ; see on v. 8, xv. 15, Josh, 
 xviii. 28. So here ^tSa represents ^MonT ; the name 
 ' Jerahmeel ' is used for the fuller name Yahwe- Jerahmeel 
 (see on Gen. ii. 4b). In w. 19 mms^ M"'^DDl[n] surely 
 represents [^msDBT] fjNonT Nirr. Both verses preserve the 
 same ancient gloss, ' It (t.e. the divine name) is Jerahmeel ' ; 
 in w. 19 the synonymous ' Ishmael ' is added (cp. on vi. 24). 
 
 xiii. 24. pmom. Originally pSMSOttJ'' (see on chaps. 
 xiii.-xvi., end). Cp. ' Jair ' = ' Jerahmeelite ' ; ' Gideon ' from 
 Giradon = ' a man of Gilead.' 
 
 xiii. 25. For p-nanoi read |Tnn3Dl (see S. A. Cook's 
 article ' Mahaneh-dan,' in E. Bib., iii.). 
 
 Chap. xiv. i. If Zorah is in the Negeb, so also is 
 Timnah (cp. on Gen. xxxviii. 12), which, indeed, in the 
 period described, was Zarephathite (Philistine). — 3. Q'^f?nrn. 
 From D-'^MOm% a gloss on DTim^D. Cp. on i S. xiv. 4 /, 6. 
 — 5. ' The vineyards of Timnah.' See on Ps. civ. i Sa. — 19. 
 pf?p»M. See on i, 18, Am. i. 8. 
 
 Chap. xv. 4. ' L'id^e d'attacher deux b^tes par la queue 
 a quelque chose d'^trange' (Lagr.). S. Reinach {Revue archM. 
 xli. 273) sees in the foxes of Samson a legend which replaces 
 
484 CRITICA BIBLICA xv. 9 
 
 the ritual sacrifice of the fpx ; the genius of the harvest 
 burning in place of the harvest itself. See also E. Bib., col. 
 1563. But as in the case of the jawbone, the story is really- 
 based on corruptions of the text which lay before the narrator. 
 For aif?ria> . . . ~dT^ read D^'^NSoa?'^ 'H!"!- The continuation 
 is in V. 8(2, which originally ran [f?NDnT' miD] bniN T1 ; 
 'Cush' and 'Jerahmeel' are glosses {E. Bib., col. 4270). — 
 9, 14, 19. inb; -^rh noT {v. 17). Here, as in Gen. xvi. 14, 
 2 S. xxiii. 1 1 , there can be no doubt that [nj'TI^ is a corrup- 
 tion of ^Nom"'. See notes on these passages, and E. Bib., 
 ' Lehi.' — -15/ On the jawbone story see E. Bib., 'Jawbone, 
 Ass's,' but note that the Assyriological explanation there 
 proposed will (as in so many other cases) only hold if we 
 regard the present form of the text as original. As remarked 
 above, the present story was suggested to a redactor by a 
 corruption of the text. The original account of the fruitless 
 binding of Samson probably had nothing about a jawbone, 
 and simply said D'^^Ni'DtO"'! T'T ; cp. 2 S. xxiii. i o. Then 
 followed Samson's exclamation probably in this form — 
 ^Nom"' tO"'N '''T\''':i'n ^ndhT'I, ' In Jerahmeel have I smitten 
 men of Jerahmeel,' or — for a more striking sense — '7Nam''"iT3 
 'in, ' By (the help of) Yah-Jerahmeel have I smitten,' etc. 
 This assumes as correct the plausible hypothesis (see on Gen. 
 ii. 4) "that the pre-exilic Israelites identified Yahwe with 
 Jerahmeel (or, more strictly, Jarham). For lion = 'm"', cp. 
 pn Gen. xxxiii. 19, i S. xvi. 20 ; for QTnon Tion, on Judg. 
 V. 30 (DTiDp-i . . . napl) ; for ©in ^i^n, i S. iv. 10, vi. 19 
 (where, however, read ^nsdO)"'). — 17. non, as usual, is an 
 early shortened form of SNOm"'. Like Tif? it attained an 
 independent existence ; hence its combination with Tl? 
 became possible. — 18. tshysri, as usual, = Qi'jNOnT. — 19. 
 Spl"."!. Budde would read i^p^'^.l, treating d'^H^n as redactional. 
 But the original story probably had fjNDnT" mn\ The 
 omission of mrj"' may be as accidental as @'s omission of 
 Kvpio<; (before o ^eos) in Gen. vii. i, viii. 21, ix. 12. Qin^M 
 for 'm*', as in xx. 2. — Nnhprj ]"'», as if ' spring of the caller.' 
 But Nip (in different verbal forms) often represents 'm*' (see 
 on x. 4, Isa. xxxiv, 12, 2 S. xv. 11, Ezek. xxiii. 23), and 
 so here ' En-hakkore ' no doubt comes from ' En-jerahmeel.' 
 Against the rendering ' partridge - spring,' see E. Bib., 
 
^1- 23 JUDGES 485 
 
 ' Partridge.' — 20. TOO? D'^-^WS, probably -from ^NSoaj^ i^i^n, as 
 in iv. 3. A gloss on □■'na)'?a, like Q-h']S, i.e. 'rr\\ 
 
 Chap. xvi. 3. Our key seems to the present writer to 
 be the only one which will open this lock. n^i?rr ninoa, as 
 Moore perceives, is impossible, and though he does not 
 expressly question imnnn^l, yet he remarks very justly 
 that Hithp. of m~in occurs nowhere else, and that Hiph. 
 is usual. The truth is that all between the first and the 
 second rhhn-hli is a corrupt gloss. Read 'riT' "i^i&Na 
 Tin»M3, 'in Asshur of Jerahmeel, in Ashhur' ("nntONl is 
 a variant to 'rw 'q>«i). This defines broadly the situation 
 of the city called ms. [75^1 and nana are rightly supplied 
 by Moore in SBOT ixom @ and @*'-, etc., respectively.] 
 For jnin read nilhl (see on Gen. xxiii. 2, xxxvii. 14). 
 
 xvi. 4. pnhto. Perhaps nhnm = nin»M. Cp. on Jer. ii. 1 8, 
 Josh. xiii. 3. Note that nw, whither Samson also went, was 
 probably in Ashhur (see preceding note). 
 
 xvi. 23. \\y\; see on i S. v. 1-5. Lagrange remarks 
 {Rel. sent. p. 131),' An extreme scepticism on the subject of 
 the fish-Dagon is just now prevalent. There is no good 
 reason for this doubt. Since the coins represent the god 
 of Ascalon under this form (of a fish), we have here a 
 decisive coincidence with conclusions already reached respect- 
 ing the form of the Ascalonite Dagon of the Bible narrative 
 ( I S. V. 3 /!).' Lagrange's view is plausible so long as we 
 retain the view that m? = Gaza, and that the city to which 
 the ark was brought (see i S. v. i ff^ was Ashdod, or, we 
 may say, so long as the land of D'Tim^D is supposed to be the 
 maritime plain from Joppa in the north to the desert south of 
 Gaza. But if the DTiBJ^D of the OT. texts are a N. Arabian 
 population — the Zarephathites, — and if ms is the second 
 name of a N. Arabian city, and TntON in i S. v. a corruption 
 of TlI&M, it becomes improbable that the Jin of Judg. and 
 I S. is a fish-god, and even very possible that piT is corrupt. 
 That there was a temple of a god Dagon at Ashdod in 
 Maccabaean times (i Mace. x. 83) is not denied, and this 
 jnables us to account for the representation in i S. v. 1-5. 
 More than this we can hardly say. Moore {E. Bib., col. 
 pSs) has already pointed out how slender at present is the 
 aasis for identifying ' the Philistine Dagon ' with the Baby- 
 
486 CRITJCA BIBLICA xvii. 
 
 Ionian Dagan. Nor does the occurrence of Beth-dagon as 
 a place-name in Judah (Josh. xv. 41) and in Asher (Josh, 
 xix. 27) prove that the form Dagon is correct any more 
 than it proves the prevalence of early Dagon-worship beyond 
 the limits of ' Philistia.' It appears that Dagon was the chief 
 god of the Zarephathite (Philistine) confederacy. But the 
 name may, as I have remarked, reasonably be questioned. 
 We should expect it to be a supplement of Baal, and if so, 
 the nearest name to Dag-on is certainly Gad. Thrice in 
 Joshua (xi. 17, xii. 7, xiii. 5) we meet with a place Baal-gad 
 in the valley of (the southern) Lebanon, and in Isa. Ixv. 1 1 
 we find the religious adherents of the Shimronites of the 
 Negeb (not the Samaritans) accused of worshipping Gad. 
 Perhaps Dagon should be Gadon. Cp. on Gen. xxx. 1 1 . 
 
 Chap. xvii. f. A story designed to dehort faithful 
 Israelites from frequenting the Jerahmeelite sanctuary at 
 Dan, which was founded with a stolen idol and with a run- 
 away Levite for its first priest, and in total disregard of the 
 claims of the sanctuary at Shiloh (xviii. 31). In its present 
 form (even if we adopt the results of a searching textual 
 criticism) the narrative is probably late ; it implies that the 
 unfavourable view of the Jerahmeelite sanctuaries expressed 
 by Amos (Am. viii. 14) had become a received part of 
 Israelitish orthodoxy, and the effort to stem the tide of N. 
 Arabian heathenism reminds one of a vehement address of 
 ' Malachi ' (Mai. ii. 10-16, revised text, see p. 19S). There 
 may, however, be an underlying ancient narrative describing 
 the conquest of Laish by the Danites, and even, if the story 
 as it stands be late, it was still possible for a narrator to 
 supply, or rather to retain, a Jerahmeelite background. For 
 the scene of the whole story is laid in N. Arabia. Note 
 also that the narrator is acquainted with the fact that one of 
 the chief centres of the Levites was at Zarephath, so closely 
 connected by tradition with Moore. See £. Bik, ' Moses,' 
 § 17; ' Micah,' 2; ' Tribes,' § 4, with note i (col. 5204); 
 ' Zarephath' (end). Lagrange (pp. 293,^.) has rightly seen 
 that the narrator is by no means indifferent to idolatry ; 
 ' toute cette histoire marque un bUme discret, mais tr^s 
 caract6ristique.' 
 
 xvii. I . ' Mt. Ephraim.' See on i S. i. i /. — 7 /. 
 
xviii. 28 JUDGES 487 
 
 TSnci. Why not iTSD? Read f?NOnT^ ; a gloss on anb. 
 So, too, in w. 8 /, rrr\ry, as elsewhere, = 'm\ If so, for 
 rmrr an? TT'SD we should read simply 'm"" TT^la. — For 
 riTliT nnntODD (impossible ; see Budde) read probably 
 'rrc DEnsjD. IZp. on ^q»d ]ii7, Gen. xiv. 7. So in u. 9. Cp. 
 E. Bib., ' Micah,' 2 ; ' Moses," § 1 7. Observe that ' Zarephath 
 of Jerahmeel ' = ' Zarephath of the Zidonians,' 'Zidonians' 
 being = ' Misrites ' (see on xiii. 2). — For Qffi-ii M"im read 
 ■'3fri3 wm ; T = D. Cp. xviii. 30. Nearly so Bennett, Ex/>. 
 1898, p. 78. •^l^ Nim and •'^mtl Nin are alternative readings. 
 
 Chap, xviii. The scene is in the Negeb ; the Danites 
 are at first at Zorah and Eshtaol (see on xiii. 2, Josh. xv. 33). 
 omspD comes from asn ni2JpD, z.e. hutiTTV "iinBJMn ; cp. on 
 I K. xii. 32 ; also on DISp, Ps. Ixv. 9. — 2. Read DnnDWDn 
 (® Moore). 
 
 xviii. 7. W'h. See on i S. xviii. 17. V. jb has re- 
 ceived a number of accretions (glosses). First comes nil&T' 
 D"'3TS JflSmoa rva'h. ' Budde would fain assign this to a 
 second source called B. But nitB^, n£si, and fasten are (as 
 experience elsewhere suggests) corruptions of 7Ni»DQ?"', m^m, 
 and na^S respectively. The four words quoted are a gloss, 
 telling us what ' the people within it ' was, viz. ' Ishmaelites 
 (or) Rehobothites, like Zarephath of the Zidonians.' Next, 
 nss anr pNl nn D'^^ao-pMl. Here, too, we can probably, 
 using parallels elsewhere, restore the original, which is 
 nii&M pNa [D""]?"!? D-'Wqtit. This is a gloss on □i^T'S in 
 the next clause, — ' Jerahmeelites, Arabians, in the land of 
 Asshur.' Lastly, dtn-ds anf?-pM nm. This comes from 
 Biy-ar ^NOm'' I'll!, i.e. ' Arabia, Jerahmeel, the people of 
 Aram,' a shortened form of the second gloss. Thus v. 7, 
 without the glosses, becomes ' And the five men departed, 
 and came to Laish, and saw the people therein (who were) 
 quiet and secure (cp. v. 27); they were far from the 
 Zidonians,' or, if we doubt a Zidon in the Negeb, ' from the 
 Misrites' (cp. on xiii. 2). We are thus relieved from the 
 trouble of explaining isr WW, on which see Yahuda, ZA 
 xvi. 249. 
 
 xviii. 28. B7N-a» an^'l'^M -^T^^ ; see on v. 7. — For posi 
 read npso?, cp. on Ps. Ix. 8). — 30/ Regardless of the ark 
 at Shiloh, the Danites set up Micah's pesel, and initiate a 
 
488 CRITICA BIBLICA xix. 
 
 cultus, which continued till the ark was carried away, and 
 (presumably) the little sanctuary as well as the great was 
 destroyed. The priesthood remained in the family of the 
 original Levite who (see on xvii. 7) came from a city con- 
 nected with the Moses -tradition — Zarephath. We are 
 here told the Levite's name — Jonathan, b. Gershom, b. 
 Mosheh. Jonathan is a N. Arabian name (for ' Nathan,' see 
 on 2 S. V. 1 4 ; ' Jeho ' probably represents in*' = 'm"") ; 
 ' Gershom ' represents mtoa = DinmN, ' one belonging to 
 Ashhur'; 'Mosheh' (from ^Ni>DtO'' ; see on Ex. ii, 10). 
 Even if, contrary to the general voice, we read nt&20 (see 
 Moore, SBOT), it makes no difference, a>30 being = ]DtO, i.e. 
 f?NSoa>"'. — f\iiin, an ' impossible ' reading (Lagr., who infers 
 i3"7rr from 0's tov. Aav). Read iTitftTf (Kimhi, Houb., 
 Krochmal, Bleek), out of which i^irr easily arose. — 31. 
 'Shiloh.' See on i S. i. 3. Smend reads Ttm-h^ {ZATW 
 xxii. I59#.). 
 
 Chap, xix.-xxi. A story, not without mythic elements, 
 relative to a shameful act performed in a district of the 
 Jerahmeelite Negeb, and comparable to that hinted at in 
 the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The object of the 
 present narrator is to warn his countrymen against the in- 
 fection of the immoralities attributed rightly or wrongly to 
 the Jerahmeelites.^ For Stucken's view of the mythological 
 element in xix. 15-30 and Gen. xix. i-ii see E. Bih, 
 ' Sodom,' § 9. Note also that there may have been a con- 
 fusion between pD"'^! (Benjamin) and JCi;-]a = ^MoriT'-p. TTDTV 
 in rmn'' onS rr^n (Bethlehem-judah) may have come from 
 ^Mom'' n-'l (rn'\rr' = ^NDm^ a gloss on nn^). The ' Gibeah ' 
 of the story was perhaps the Jerahmeelite Geba (Gibeah ?) 
 in 2 S. V. 25 (cp. V. 22). The 'Bethel' in xx.~ 18 is the 
 southern Bethel, repeatedly spoken of by Amos. Cp. on 
 xxi. 19. 
 
 xix. 1 . 13. ■''1^ BJiN. But ' observe ( i ) that the Levitical 
 origin of the man has no significance in this narrative, and 
 (2) that the designation -''h only occurs twice (xix. i, xx. 4), 
 and each time with the plain t&'^M, W^aTl, which everywhere 
 
 1 The connection with the Sodom-story has often been observed 
 (e.£^. by H. P. Smith, Olci Test. History, 1903, p. 45), but with in- 
 sufficient clearness as regards the motive of the narrator. 
 
XX. I JUDGES 489 
 
 else is used for him ' (Budde, p. 127). We are not, however, 
 to infer from this that ni ^l^ in xix. i and thn in xx. 4 are 
 redactional insertions (so Bu.). This would, if I may say so, 
 be too superficial a criticism. Rather read, for •^'h Wn (w. i ), 
 hv&or^., and for ■'l^n m'^Mrr (xx. 4), i^NSDtf'n. These words 
 were written indistinctly, and the redactor, by a not unnatural 
 conjecture, read as we have it in MT. 
 
 xix. 2, end. ' And was there some time, four months.' 
 Moore remarks, ' The last words are in loose apposition, and 
 may perhaps be a gloss (cp. xx. 47).' Budde suspects that 
 words from two sources have been combined. Rather, rri^nw 
 D■'t&^^ comes from nin^M l"i$, i.e. ' Ashhurite- Arabia,' a gloss 
 on ^NDJiT rr^a (so read, as in xvii. 7 ff. ; see note). Cp. on 
 XX. 47. 
 
 xix. 10 ff. It is usually held that ' Jebus ' is a pseudo- 
 archaism, invented by later writers who, from the designation 
 of the people of Jerusalem as Jebusites, inferred that the city 
 was once called ' Jebus.' This new dogma of criticism turns 
 out to be ill-founded, or, at the very least, inaccurately 
 expressed. Read f?Mi;D&'; N"'ri Dll\ Dl"', tOl"', and itD"' are 
 all current corruptions of f?M3;atDi (see on Josh. xv. 8). — 14. 
 The southern Benjamin is meant (cp. on Jer. vi. i). — 29. 
 ' In (or through) all the territory of Israel.' So i S. xi. 7. 
 In both passages the Israelitish territory in the Negeb (with 
 the Caleb region around Hebron ?) is meant. — ' Gibeah.' See 
 above, on chaps, xix.-xxi. 
 
 Chap. xx. i . ' From Dan to Beer-sheba,' according to 
 Budde, is an ancient expression belonging to an older 
 narrative worked up by a post-exilic editor. H. W. Hogg, 
 on the basis of a general survey of the occurrences, doubts 
 the antiquity of the phrase, and sees no reason to sever it 
 from its ' post-exilic context' The remarks that ' the earlier 
 sources do not countenance any such fantastic conception as 
 that of a gathering of all Israel from Dan to Beersheba in 
 the pre-monarchic age' (Ex^os., Dec. 1898, p. 414). But 
 the phrase most probably is an early one ; it means the 
 whole of the Israelitish Negeb (see on 2 S. iii. 10). It was 
 from N. Arabia that all the freemen of Israel assembled (cp. 
 on Josh. xxiv. i, 2 S. ii. 8/, v. i, i K. viii. 65). Possibly 
 ishm pM is a gloss on siw nMl-ni^l ]lth ; in Dt. xxxiv. i 
 
490 CRITICA BIBLICA xx. 2 
 
 we find the phrase ' all the land of Gilead unto Dan.' In 
 2 S. ii. 9, however, ' Gilead ' seems to represent a district 
 in the borderland. — 2. The tribes of Israel,, i.e. in the 
 Negeb. So vv. 10, 12, xxi. 5, 8, 15. See on 2 S. xv. 2, 
 Ps. cxxii. 3. — ain^«n or hrxp^. Mic. ii. 5, mn'' hrrpx is 
 
 not quite parallel. In the historic style we expect Srrpa 
 fpNnW, as I K. viii. 14, 55. Probably we should read f?rrpa 
 fjNDm"' Di>. Cp. 2 S. xiv. 1 3 where, for dtt^n nr-S», read 
 'xw Qi»"^». — ' Four hundred thousand footmen who drew 
 sword.' In vii. 3, viii. lo, i S. xi. 8, 2 S. xxiv. 9, and even 
 Ex. xii. 37, the numbers of the warriors are, partly or alto- 
 gether, due to corruption. So it is here. V. 2b has grown 
 out of ['m-i 'txr\ ishy [ht^SDW] ht^DrtT n», i.e. ' Arab-jerah- 
 meel (and) Gilead,' a gloss on the geographical statement in 
 V. I. See especially on viii. 10, and below on vv. 15-17. — 
 9. f?mil rfha ; untranslatable. None of the expedients pro- 
 posed (Moore, Budde, Lagr.) are adequate. Both rrhs and 
 f?Ti:il (cp. on Ps. xvi. $b) may be corruptions of ^Nom''. 
 Read, therefore, 'm"' n:;!!"?. ' Gibeath-jerahmeel ' appears 
 in MT. as Gibeath ha-elohim (a corruption ; see on i S. x. 5, 
 where 'in itON is a gloss). This will do, if Gibeah of Benjamin 
 and Gibeah of Jerahmeel are identical. — 11. For D"'"!in read 
 ^nin (Budde). — 14. For Di"i2;n-;Q read 'jNoriTD. Cp. on 
 xvii. 8. — 15-17. Much corrupted. For the key to the main 
 part of it, see on v. 2b. In z/. 15 read ^NOnT^D . . . 'nHnrT'i 
 Ti^Smq. nmw represents a dittographed i")Q>n. Wn f\hti and 
 f\bw, also »l» and ffiiN m«D, also (see on i S. xxviii. 8) ina)"'[Q], 
 represent ^Ni?Qm\ nn, T^h, and nim (?) ^ come from 'm'' 
 ('otO'', being a synonym of this, may be omitted). nsDin is, 
 of course, redactional. In v. 16 note that @, Vg., Pesh. (see 
 Moore) are without nim . . . ^30 ; the words may be a 
 gloss (see Lagr.). ijip'^-T ^?^^». ' left-handed,' is explained as 
 an insertion from iii. 15, perhaps made 'by some one who 
 took n£3N [as Lagr. does now] in the sense a/i^orepoSefto?.' 
 Budde, however, retains the words ; a fusion of Ehud and 
 David, which created a model troop of 700 left-handed 
 slingers, was quite within the range of a Midrash. Note, 
 however, the clan-name njSM in Ezra ii. 1 6, etc. . Possibly it 
 
 1 mn and nina, however, may represent [ni]3im. 
 
XX- 45 JUDGES 49, 
 
 comes from ITiSN, while 12"'D"' (with or without t) may repre- 
 sent ^NDHT. Then comes a statement relative to the feats 
 of the Benjamite slingers who could sling a stone at a hair 
 and not miss. But why should this ' fabulous markmanship ' 
 (Moore) be introduced here? Now it so happens that 
 several words in this passage may, according to parallels, 
 easily be corruptions. f?N ]nN:i i>^p may (see on Zech. ix. 1 5) 
 come from ^ndhT' ""gn ; msffi may (see on Ps. xl. 13) repre- 
 sent n^n^N ; Nlsn*' vh may (cp. fpNTnp-') come from ^ndht. 
 Thus, omitting dittographs and synonyms, we get for v. 1 6b, 
 nintONl 'm"| •'31 'hT" mjDMD, and the result is that, according 
 to the original story, the b'ne Binyamin came from Jerah- 
 meel, Asshur, and Ephrath-jerahmeel, or, as a gloss expressed 
 it, they were Jerahmeelites and Asshurites. No wonder, then, 
 remembering the Jerahmeelite story of Sodom (see E. Bib., 
 ' Sodom '), that a legend represents the Benjamites as liable 
 to transgressions of the sacred law of hospitality. But we 
 have still to solve the problem of v. 17. On ]a''31o T^b 
 Moore comments thus, ' The author's conception of ■ the 
 solidarity of Israel is such that he thinks it necessary formally 
 to except Benjamin from the general levy raised against that 
 tribe ' ! Late writers were not as stupid as this ; we must 
 look farther. Applying our key, it seems prbbable that 
 this troublesome ]Qi33D lib comes from ]onP ^MOriT', a 
 combination of two glosses, and that the text (apart from 
 glosses) originally ran thus, 'jnoht' n^^D ininnn 'ntO'' ©■'Nl, 
 /.g. ' the men of Israel joined together (coming) from Jerah- 
 meelite Arabia ' (cp. the revised text of xx. 2). Wa prob- 
 ably =nimM; rrnnf?D = 'nT (cp. on Ps. Ixxvi. 4). — 18, 26, 
 31. The southern Beth-el (see on i. 22). — 21, 25, 35, 44. 
 Correct according to preceding parallels. In v. 44 note the 
 use of nw before a nominative. Moore accounts for this 
 as a late linguistic usage. But f?3 n«, like ^rririN in 
 I K. xvi. 31, and (probably) hpn in Dan. v. 25, comes from 
 hiiSom\ — 33. ni?in hs^, i-e- transposing, fjMonT' nQ> Cp. on 
 iii. 13, 2 S. xii.'23; see also E. Bib., ' Baal-tamar. — 45. 
 pa-iil S^p-^l?. S^D, as elsewhere (see on i. 35), = ^Ni>DtO% 
 here' perhaps, a district-name, qualified by pt3n[n]. — Di^-ja-l?. 
 Read, perhaps, an»^3i 'VT'^v; cp. ©*■■ '^eXaal, and on 
 pi»12, vi. II. Or else from DinM = '7MonT; cp. on d-'IIN, 
 
492 CRITIC A BIB Lie A xxi. 12 
 
 2 S. xxi. 19. — 46. Redactional (cp. v. 35, in spite of the 
 extra '100 men'). — 47. D^min nmN = TinQ?M ni?, as in 
 xix. 3. 
 
 Chap. xxi. 12. For p33 originally stood wp. — 19. 
 The very full account of the situation of Shiloh (' which is 
 on the north of Bethel,' etc.) is quite reconcilable with the 
 view here taken (p. 488) of the scene of the narrative (see 
 on I S. i. 3). It may be added that the text underlying 
 the MT. of I S. i. 9 furnishes another geographical state^ 
 ment ; the words rrntO innt^T (jocularly referred to by Wellh. 
 TBS, p. 25) really, according to parallels, represent TintCN 
 SmdoB)"', ' Ashhur-jerahmeel.' These words are a gloss, so 
 that we need not wonder at their non-representation in ®. 
 The final redactor of the Hebrew text, in the interests of 
 the widely-spread Jewish ' church,' sought perhaps to efface 
 what he thought superfluous references to the N. Arabian 
 borderland. ' Lebonah.' Cp. n3'l!l'?, Sam., Num. xxxiii. 20 
 (® Xefimva and Xe^cova) ; also on the Laban-story ■ in 
 Genesis, and on ' Laban,' Dt. i. i . 
 
 Printed by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh. 
 
niiiiiiiiii ill I