Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Havern. Einl. ii. 1, S. 179 f. But if, on the one hand, the identity of these names in the two catalogues is not at all a valid proof of the identity of the catalogues, and by no means justifies us in identifying similarly-sounding names by supposing errors of transcription, on the other hand we must hold that the register refers to the pre-exilic population of Jerusalem, both because of the wide discrepancies in all points, and in accordance with the introductory statements in ver. 2 f. This interpretation is also demanded by the succeeding remarks in reference to the service of the Levites, since they throughout refer to the pre-exilic time.

Vers. 18—34. The duties of the Levites. — Ver. 18. The first half of this verse, " And until now (is he) in the king's gate eastward," must be referred to Shallum (Berth.). To imagine a reference to all the doorkeepers, " until now are they," does not suit vers. 24-26, according to which the doorkeepers kept guard upon all the four sides. The eastern gate of the temple was called the king's gate, because by this gate the king went in and out to the temple; cf. Ezek. xlvi. 1, 2, xli. 3. The remark, u until now is Shallum watcher," etc., presupposes the existence of the temple at the time of the preparation of this register, and points to the pre-exilic time. Against this Bertheau has raised the objection that the name king's gate may have been retained even in the post-exilic times for the eastern gate. This must of course be in general admitted, but could only be accepted if it were proved that Shallum lived after the exile. This proof Bertheau obtains by taking the words, " until now is Shallum in the king's gate," to mean, "that, according to the ancient arrangement, Shallum, the chief of all the doorkeepers, had still to guard the eastern entrance; according to which Shallum would be the collective designation of the whole series of the chiefs of the doorkeepers who lived from David's time till after the exile;" but the words cannot be thus interpreted. Such an interpretation cannot be made plausible by identifying the name Shallum with Meshelemiah or Shelemiah, to whose lot it fell in the time of David to be doorkeeper to the eastward (xxvi. 1, 14); for in doing so, we would overlook the fact that in ver. 21 of our chapter also he bears the name Meshelemiah. The circumstance that both Shallum and Meshelemiah are called Ben-Kore, of the sons of Abiasaph, by no means justifies the identification of these two quite different names; for it is neither necessary nor probable that J? should here be taken in its narrower sense, and Kore regarded as the immediate father of both. The name tinjp is repeated in the family of the east doorkeepers, as we learn from 2 Chron. xxxi. 14, where it is stated that this office was held by a Kore ben Jimna. u These (who are named in ver. 17) are the doorkeepers for the camp of the sons of Levi " (of the Levites), — an antiquated expression, bringing to remembrance the time of Moses, when the Levites, on the journey through the wilderness, were encamped about the tabernacle (Num. iii. 21 ff.). — Ver. 19 gives more exact information as to Shallum's person and his official position. He, the descendant of Kore, the son (descendant) of Abiasaph, a Korahite, and his brethren according to his father' s-house (i.e. called brethren because they, like him, belonged to the father' s-house of Korah), were over the work of the service, viz. keepers of the thresholds of the tent, i.e. of the house of God, of the temple, which, according to the ancient custom, was called tent, because God's house was formerly a tent — the tabernacle. " And his fathers (the ancestors of Shallum) were by the encampment of Jahve, guardians of the entrance." With these words the author of this register goes back into the ancient time; and we learn that Shallum's ancestors, of the father' s-house of the Korahite Abiasaph, had held the office of guardian of the entrance to the house of God from the time of the conquest of Canaan and the setting up of the tabernacle in Shiloh. The remark in ver. 20, that Phinehas the son of Eleazar was prince over them in time past, points to the same period. In the book of Joshua and the older books there is no record of the matter; but since the Korahites were descended through Ishhar from Kohath, and the Kohathites held, according to Num. iv. 4 if., the first place among the servants of the holy place, and were responsible for the holiest vessels, we cannot doubt that the statement here rests upon accurate historical tradition. The u encampment of Jahve " is the holy place of the tabernacle, the dwelling of Jahve in the midst of His people. This designation also is derived from the circumstances of the Israelites in their wandering in the Arabian desert, and is likewise employed in 2 Chron. xxxi. 2 in reference to Solomon's temple; but in our verse the tabernacle is intended. It had only one entrance, Ni2D, the guarding of which was entrusted to the above-mentioned Korahites. — Ver. 20. Phinehas was prince over them, not as high priest, but during the high- priesthood of his father Eleazar, i.e. in the time of Joshua, just as Eleazar, under the high-priesthood of Aaron in the time of Moses, had the oversight of the keepers of the holy place, as prince of the princes of Levi (Num. iii. 32). The words foil niiV do not contain a historical remark, " Jahve was with him," for then the conjunction 1 would stand before it, as in xi. 9; they are a blessing — "Jahve be with him" — in reference, probably, to the covenant of peace entered into with him and his descendants by Jahve (Num. xxv. 11-13). — Ver. 21 is quite unconnected with the preceding context, the conjunction 1 being omitted, and its contents also present considerable difficulties. Zechariah, the son of Meshelemiah, can only be the Zechariah who is mentioned in xxvi. 2 as the first-born of Meshelemiah, and who lived in the time of David; for at the time when David divided the porters into classes, there fell to him the lot towards midnight, i.e. the duty of waiting at the door on the north side of the holy place (xxvi. 14). With this, indeed, the general statement of our verse, " he was porter of the door (or the entrance) of the tent of the covenant," is not inconsistent. But what purpose does this general statement serve? With what design is Zechariah, and he alone, mentioned? We have no means of giving a definite answer to this question; but he may perhaps be named as being the person who, before David's division of the Levites into classes was carried out, had charge of the porters' service in the tabernacle. But even if this conjecture be accepted as well grounded, the abrupt way in which it is mentioned still remains enigmatical.

With ver. 22 the narrative seems to return to the enumeration begun in vers. 17-1 9a, so that the reflections on the earlier times, vers. 195—21, are to be regarded as a parenthesis. Ver. 22 runs: u They all who were chosen for doorkeepers for the thresholds, 212 (men): they, in their villages were they registered; they were ordained by David and Samuel the seer on their fidelity." The infinitive ^n^rin is used substantively, "in reference to them, in their villages was their genealogical registration accomplished." If ver. 22 be the continuation of vers. 17-2 la, then the number given (212) will refer to the doorkeepers in active service at the time of the preparation of the register. With this hypothesis, however, the last clause of the verse, which states that David and Samuel had appointed them, does not seem to harmonize. But if we consider that the four men mentioned in ver. 17 are heads of fathers'-houses, and that their fathers'-houses were not extinguished at the death of their temporary heads, and performed the same service from generation to generation, it might well be said of the generation performing the service at the time of the preparation of our register, that David had appointed them to their office. The case would of course be similar, if, as we have above supposed, the four names in ver. 17 are designations of the classes of doorkeepers, for these classes also performed the same service continually. The statements of our 22d verse cannot be referred to the time of David, for in chap. xxvi. 8-10 the number of the doorkeepers appointed by David amounted only to eighty, viz. sixty-two of the sons of Obed-Edom, and eighteen of the sons of Meshelemiah, which, with the addition of thirteen Merarites (xxvi. 10, 11), gives a total of ninety-three, while in our verse the number is 212. According to Ezra ii. 42, the number of doorkeepers who returned with Zerubbabel was 139 men; and in the register, Neh. xi. 19, the number is stated to be 172. From the remark that they were registered in their villages (Dnnvn^ as in vi. 41, Josh. xiii. 23, and elsewhere), we learn that the doorkeepers dwelt in villages near Jerusalem, whence they came to the city so often as their service required, as the singers also did in the post-exilic time, Neh. xii. 29 f. IB*, to found, set, ordain, and so appoint to an office. a David and Samuel the seer: " »i&pfj, the ancient designation of the prophets, for which at a later time N^J was the more usual word; cf. 1 Sam. ix. 9. Nowhere else do we find any record of Samuel's having taken any part in David's arrangement of the service of the Levites in the holy place. Samuel, moreover, was no longer living when David began to arrange the worship at the time when the ark was brought to Jerusalem, for he died before Saul, and consequently before the beginning of David's reign; cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 1 with xxviii. 3. Bertheau is consequently of opinion that this statement of our historian rests merely upon the general recollection, according to which the worship was organized afresh, and established in its newer form, in the time of David and Samuel. This is of course possible, but there is no cogent reason against accepting the much less remote supposition that the chronicler took this remark from his authority. The mention of Samuel after David has not a chronological signification, but David is named first on account of his connection with the matter in hand; for the thorough re-organization of the worship, and the classification of the persons engaged in carrying it on, originated with David. For these arrangements of David, however, Samuel had prepared the way in his struggle for the restoration of the theocracy, and of the worship which had fallen into desuetude under Eli and his profligate sons. To do this in any measure, he must have, without doubt, ordained trustworthy men to the individual offices, and thus have prepared the way for King David. croiDNZt is found in vers. 26, 31 without the suffix, with the meaning a in good faith" (cf. 2 Kings xii. 16, xxii. 7, 2 Chron. xxxi. 12), and accordingly is here upon their fidelity, i.e. because they had been recognised to be faithful. — Ver. 23 f. They (those ordained by David) and their sons (descendants) were at the doors of the house of Jahve — of the tent-house (/[}$>} M is added to fttiTTP3j in order that the latter might not be confined to Solomon's temple); for the watch (niiD^p of persons, as in Neh. xii. 9, iv. 3, 16), according to the four wTinds (quarters) were they, i.e. the doorkeepers stood so, in accordance with the arrangement made by David; cf. xxvi. 14 ff. — Ver. 25. " And ' their brethren in their villages (cf. ver. 22) were bound to come the seventh day, from time to time, with these." The infinitive fcti3 with p expresses duty, as in v. 1. The seventh day is the Sabbath of the week, on which each class in order had to take charge of the services. n?x Dy are the chiefs mentioned in ver. 17 who dwelt in Jerusalem, and of whom it is said in ver. 26, u for they are on their fidelity, the four mighty of the doorkeepers." In explanation of the *"]&3? Bertheau very fittingly compares arpaTT]yo2 tov lepov, Luke xxii. 52. The words B^?A 0^, which may be translated, "they are the Levites," or "they (viz. the Levites)," are somewhat surprising. The Masoretic punctuation demands the latter translation, when the words would be an emphatic elucidation of the preceding Hftn. Were they a subscription, we should expect n?K instead of &[}; while, on the other hand, the circumstance noticed by Bertheau, that in the following verses the duties not merely of the doorkeepers, but of the Levites in general, are enumerated, would seem to favour that sense. Even in the second half of the 22d verse it is not the doorkeepers who are spoken of, but the Levites in general. May we not suppose that the text originally stood V*PI D»]?rj jci (cf. ver. 14) instead of V»PI1 D^pH Dflt, and that the reading of our present text, having originated in a transcriber's error, found acceptance from the circumstance that ver. 27 apparently still treats of, or returns to, the service of the doorkeepers? So much is certain, that from ver. 266 onward the duties of the Levites in general, no longer those of the doorkeepers, are spoken of, and that consequently we must regard the Levites (D*l7p), and not the before-mentioned four doorkeepers, as the subject of tfrn.: " and the Levites were over the cells of the storehouses of the house of God." The cells in the outbuildings of the temple served as treasure-chambers and storehouses for the temple furniture. ni")¥iKn with the article in the stat, constr. (Ew. § 290, c?), because of the looser connection, since the genitive 'tfrrrvn also belongs to ni3B9n. — Ver. 27 refers again to the doorkeepers. They passed the night around the house of God, because the care of or watch over it was committed to them, and " they were over the key, and that every morning," i.e. they had to open the door every morning. nnDD occurs again in Judg. iii. 25 and Isa. xxii. 22, in the signification key, which is suitable here also. — Ver. 28. And of them (the Levites), some were over the vessels of the service, by which we are probably to understand the costly vessels, e.g. the golden cups for the libations, etc., which were brought from the treasure-chamber only for a short time for use in the service. They were brought, according to the number, into the place where the service took place, and after being again numbered, were again carried forth; and according to ver. 29, other Levites were set over Dv3H and over ^IPl1 v3. — Ver. 29. And of them, others were set over the vessels (in general), and over all the holy vessels which were used for the daily sacrificial service, and over the fine flour (n?b, vide on Lev. ii. 1), wine, oil, and incense which was required therein for the meat and drink offerings, and the D'E^3, spicery, for the holy perfumes (frankincense, cf. Ex. xxv. 6). — Ver. 30. And of the priests' sons were preparers of the ointments for the spices. It is the preparation from various spices of the holy anointing oil, Ex. xxx. 23-25, which is meant, and which consequently was part of the priest's duty. — Ver. 31. Mattithiah, the first-born of the Korahite Shallum (vide ver. 19), was on good faith over the pan bakings (pastry) for the meatofferings, over the preparation of which he was to watch. To the name Mattithiah twrnfo is added, in contrast to the ^a"|D

Finally, to some of the Kohathites was committed the preparation of the shew-bread, which required to be laid on the table fresh every Sabbath; cf. Lev. xxiv. 5-8. The suffix D^nx refers back to the Levites of the father's-house of Korah in ver. 32. — Vers. 33, 34 contain subscriptions to the section 14-32. Since the enumeration of the Levites dwelling in Jerusalem in vers. 14-16 began with the Levitic singer families, so here we find that the singers are mentioned in the first subscription, "these are the singers, heads of fathers'-houses of the Levites," with an additional remark as to their service: u In the cells free, for day and night it is incumbent upon them to be in service," which is somewhat obscure. D^BS, from lt?Sl, in later Hebrew, let loose, set free. Rashi and Kimchi have already translated it, immunes ab aliis nempe ministeriis, or ab omni alio officio. Adopting this linguistically assured translation, we must supply with Fhwp2y dwelling or waiting in the cells of the courts of the temple, freed from every other business in order that they may apply themselves wholly to their service, for they are wholly busied therewith day and night. Day and night is not to be pressed, but signifies perpetually, continually. Bertheau translates DHvV n3KJ83, " they were over them in the service," i.e. had to take the oversight of the singers subordinate to them. But this can hardly be correct; and the passage quoted to justify this translation, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12, proves nothing, because there "ijJQO is used along with it. We therefore prefer to take B£vX| in the signification " it is incumbent upon them," although we should then expect h:inWi instead of na&aS; cf. ver. 27. Yet na«fea can in this connection quite well be used elliptically or concisely for "to be in service," i.e. to carry on their musical duties. The second subscription (ver. 34) refers to all the Levites, and is similar in contents and form to that in chap. viii. 28.

Vers. 35-44. The family of King Saul. — This register has already occurred in chap. viii. 29-38, along with those of other families of the tribe of Benjamin, and is repeated here only to connect the following history of the kingship with the preceding genealogical lists. It forms here the introduction to the narrative of Saul's death in chap, x., which in turn forms the transition to the kingship of David. The deviations of this register from that in chap, viii. 29-38, show that it has been derived from another document in more < on plete preservation than that in chap, viii., which had been handed down in connection with other genealogies of the

Benjamite families, and had suffered considerably in its text. See the commentary on viii. 29—38.

The account of the ruin of Saul and his house in chap, x., cf. 1 Sam. xxxi., forms the introduction to the history of the kingship of David, which is narrated in two sections. In the first, chap, xi.— xxi., we have a consecutive narrative of the most important events of David's life, and his attempts to settle the kingship of Israel on a firmer basis, from the time of his being anointed king over all Israel to the numbering of the people in the latter years of his reign. The second, chap, xxii.-xxix., contains an account of the preparations made towards the end of his reign for the building of the temple, of the arrangement of the service of the Levites and the army, and the last commands of the grey-haired king as to the succession of his son Solomon to the kingdom, and matters connected with it. The first section runs parallel to the account of the reign of David in 2d Samuel; the second is peculiar to the Chronicle, and has no parallel in the earlier historical books, Samuel and Kings. Now, if we compare the first section with the parallel narrative in 2d Samuel, it is manifest that, apart from that omission of David's seven years' reign over the tribe of Judah in Hebron, and of all the events having reference to and connection with his family relationships, of which we have already spoken in p. 12, in the Chronicle the same incidents are recounted as in the second book of Samuel, and with few exceptions the order is the same. The main alterations in the order of the narrative are: (a) that the catalogues of David's heroes who helped him to establish his kingdom (xi. 10-47), and of the valiant men of all the tribes, who even in Saul's lifetime had joined themselves to David (chap, xii.), follow immediately upon the account of the choosing of Jerusalem to be the capital of the kingdom, after the conquest of the fortress Jebus (xi. 1-9), while in 2d Samuel the former of these catalogues is found in chap, xxiii. 8-39, in connection with the history of his reign, and the latter is entirely omitted; and (b) the account of his palacebuilding, his wives and children, and of some battles with the Philistines, which in 2 Sam. v. 11-25 follows immediately after the account of the conquest of the citadel of Zion, is inserted in the fourtenth chapter of Chronicles, in the account of the bringing of the ark of the covenant from Kirjath-jearim (chap, xiii.), and its transfer to Jerusalem (chap. xv. f.). Both these transpositions and the before-mentioned omissions are connected with the peculiar plan of the Chronicle. In the second book of Samuel the reign of David is so described as to bring out, in the first place, the splendidly victorious development of his kingship, and then its humiliation through great transgression on David's part; the author of the Chronicle, on the other hand, designed to portray to his contemporaries the glories of the Davidic kingship, so that the divine election of David to be ruler over the people of Israel might be manifest. In accordance with this purpose he shows, firstly, how after the death of Saul Jahve bestowed the kingship upon David, all Israel coming to Hebron and anointing him king, with the confession, " Jahve thy God hath said to thee, Thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel;" how the heroes of the whole nation helped him in the establishing of his kingdom (chap, xi.); and how, even before the death of Saul, the most valiant men of all the tribes had gone over to him, and had helped him in the struggle (chap. xii.). In the second place, he narrates how David immediately determined to bring the ark into the capital of his kingdom (chap, xv.); how, notwithstanding the misfortunes caused by a transgression of the law (chap. xiii. 7, 9 ff.), so soon as he had learned that the ark would bring a blessing (chap. xiii. xiv.), and that God would bless him in his reign (chap, xiv.), he carried out his purpose, and not only brought the ark to Jerusalem, but organized the public worship around this sanctuary (chap. xv. and xvi.); and how he formed a resolution to build a temple to the Lord, receiving from God, because of this, a promise that his kingdom should endure for ever (chap, xvii.). Then, in the third place, we have an account of how he, so favoured by the Lord, extended the power of his kingdom by victorious wars over all the enemies of Israel (chap, xviii.— xx.); and how even the ungodly enterprise of the numbering of the people, to which Satan had tempted him, David, had by the grace of God, and through his penitent submission to the will of the Lord, such an issue, that the place where the Lord should be thereafter worshipped in Israel was determined by the appearance of the angel and by the word of the prophet Gad (chap. xxi.). And so the grey-haired king was able to spend the latter part of his reign in making preparations for the building of the temple, and in establishing permanent ordinances for the public worship, and the protection of the kingdom: gave over to his son Solomon, his divinely chosen successor on the throne, a kingdom externally and internally well ordered and firmly established, and closed his life at a good old age, after a reign of forty years (c]~). xxii.— xxix.).

The account of Saul's struggle with the Philistines, in which he fell together with his sons, vers. 1-7, exactly coincides with the narrative in 1 Sam. xxxi. 1-7; and the statements as to the fate of the fallen king, vers. 8-12, differ from 1 Sam. xxxi. 8-13 only to this extent, that both narratives make mention only of the main points, and mutually supplement each other. In vers. 13 and 14 there follow reflections on the ruin of the unfortunate king, which show that the account of the death of Saul is only intended to form an introduction to the history of David.

Vers. 1-7. In 1 Sam. xxxi. this narrative forms the conclusion of Saul's last war with the Philistines. The battle was fought in the plain of Jezreel; and when the Israelites were compelled to retire, they fell back upon Mount Gilboa, but were hard pressed by the Philistines, so that many fell upon the mountain. The Philistines pressed furiously after Saul and his sons, and slew the latter (as to Saul's sons, see on viii. 33); and when the archers came upon Saul he trembled before them (?nj from h), and ordered his armour-bearer to thrust him through. Between D^ten and flB^3 the superfluous &WM is introduced in Samuel, and in the last clause "IK*? is omitted; and instead of D^iisrio we have the unusual form D*tfVT|D (cf. 2 Chron. xxxv. 23). In Saul's request to his armour-bearer that he would thrust him through with the sword, WjJT (1 Sam. ver. 4) is omitted in the phrase which gives the reason for his request; and Bertheau thinks it did not originally stand in the text, and has been repeated merely by an oversight, since the only motive for the command, u Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith," was that the Philistines might not insult Saul when alive, and consequently the words, a that they may not thrust me through," cannot express the reason. But that is scarcelv a conclusive reason for this belief; for although, the Philistines might seek out Saul after he had been slain by his armour-bearer, and dishonour his dead body, yet the anxiety lest they should seek out his corpse to wreak their vengeance upon it could not press so heavily upon him as the fear that they would take vengeance upon him if he fell alive into their hands. It is therefore a more probable supposition that the author of the Chronicle has omitted the word *3TjJp only as not being necessary to the sense of the passage, just as tejf is omitted at the end of ver. 5. In ver. 6 we have faV2T731 instead of the vswx-fc) Da vba Kfeta of Samuel, and in ver. 7 hnfc* HMK is omitted after the words *M *3 (Samuel). From this Bertheau concludes that the author of the Chronicle has designedly avoided speaking of the men of Saul's army or of the Israelites who took part in the battle, because it was not his purpose to describe the whole course of the conflict, but only to narrate the death of Saul and of his sons, in order to point out how the supreme power came to David. Thenius, on the contrary, deduces the variation between the sixth verse of the Chronicles and the corresponding verse in Samuel from " a text which had become illegible." Both are incorrect; for WWK"7? are not all the men of war who went with him into the battle (Then.), or all the Israelites who took part in the battle (Berth.), but only all those who were about the king, i.e. the whole of the king's attendants who had followed him to the war. WWrta is only another expression for fflWfcra), in which the 1v3 Nbo is included. The author of the Chronicle has merely abridged the account, confining himself to a statement of the main points, and has consequently both omitted *$5K?Hfife* in ver. 7, because he had already spoken of the flight of the warriors of Israel in ver. 1, and it was here sufficient to mention only the flight and death of Saul and of his sons, and has also shortened the more exact statement as to the inhabitants of that district, " those on the other side of the valley and on the other side of Jordan " (Samuel), into P£V3 1BW. In this abridgment also Thenius scents a u defective text." As the inhabitants of the district around Gilboa abandoned their cities, they were taken possession of by the Philistines.

Vers. 8—13. On the following day the Philistines, in their search among the fallen, found and plundered the bodies of Saul and of his sons, and sent the head and the armour of Saul round about the land of the Philistines, to proclaim the news of their victory to their people and their gods. That for this purpose they cut off Saul's head from the trunk, is, as being a matter of course, not specially mentioned. In regard to the other discrepancies between the two texts, both in vers. 8—10 and in the account of the burial of Saul and of his sons by valiant men of Jabesh, vers. 11, 12, cf. the commentary on 1 Sam. xxxi. 8—13. In the reflection on Saul's death, vers. 13 and 14, a double transgression against the Lord on Saul's part is mentioned: first, the?yv (on the meaning of this word, vide on Lev. v. 15) of not observing the word of Jahve, which refers to the transgression of the divine command made known to him by the prophet Samuel, 1 Sam. xiii. 8 ff. (cf. with x. 8), and xv. 2, 3, 11, cf. xxviii. 18; and second, his inquiring of the nitf, the summoner of the dead (vide on Lev. xix. 31), ^"H?, i.e. to receive an oracle (cf. in reference to both word and thing, 1 Sam. xxviii. 7). — Ver. 14. And because he inquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him. According to 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, Saul did indeed inquire of Jahve, but received no answer, because Jahve had departed from him (xxviii. 15); but instead of seeking with all earnestness for the grace of Jahve, that he might receive an answer, Saul turned to the sorceress of Endor, and received his death-sentence through her from the mouth of Samuel, 1 Sam. xxviii. 19.

CHAP. XI. — THE ANOINTING OF DAVID TO BE KING IN HEBKON, AND THE CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM. A LIST OF DAVID'S HEROES.

In the second book of Samuel there are passages parallel to both sections of this chapter; vers. 1—9 corresponding to the narrative in 2 Sam. v. 1-10, and vers. 10-47 to the register in 2 Sam. xxiii. 8-39.

Vers. 1—3. The anointing of David to be king over the whole of Israel in Hebron; cf. 2 Sam. v. 1-3. — After Saul's death, in obedience to a divine intimation, David left Ziklag, whither he had withdrawn himself before the decisive battle between the Philistines and the Israelites, and betook himself with his wives and his warriors to Hebron, and was there anointed by the men of Judah to be king over their tribe (2 Sam. ii. 1-4). But Abner, the captain of Saul's host, led Ishbosheth, Saul's son, with the remainder of the defeated army of the Israelites, to Mali an aim in Gilead, and there made him king over Gilead, and gradually also, as he reconquered it from the Philistines, over the land of Israel, over Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and all (the remainder of) Israel, with the exception of the tribal domain of Judah. Ishbosheth's kingship did not last longer than two years, while David reigned over Judah in Hebron for seven years and a half (2 Sam. ii. 10 and 11). When Abner advanced with Ishbosheth's army from Mahanaim against Gibeon, he was defeated by Joab, David's captain, so that he was obliged again to withdraw beyond Jordan (2 Sam. ii. 12—32); and although the struggle between the house of Saul and the house of David still continued, yet the house of Saul waxed ever weaker, while David's power increased. At length, when Ishbosheth reproached the powerful Abner because of a concubine of his father's, he threatened that he would transfer the crown of Israel to David, and carried his threat into execution without delay. He imparted his design to the elders of Israel and Benjamin; and when they had given their consent, he made his way to Hebron, and announced to David the submission of all Israel to his sway (2 Sam. iii. 1-21). Abner, indeed, did not fully carry out the undertaking; for on his return journey he was assassinated by Joab, without David's knowledge, and against his will. Immediately afterwards, Ishbosheth, who had become powerless and spiritless through terror at Abner's death, was murdered in his own house by two of the leaders of his army. There now remained of Saul's family only Jonathan's son Mephibosheth (2 Sam. iv.), then not more than twelve years old, and lame in both his feet, and all the tribes of Israel determined to anoint David to be their kin^. The carrying out of this resolution is narrated in vers. 1-3, in complete agreement as to the facts with 2 Sam. v. 1—3, where the matter has been already commented upon. In chap. xii. 23-40 there follows a more detailed account of the assembly of the tribes of Israel in Hebron. The last words in ver. 3, *W3 '121 mrv, are a didactic addition of the author of the Chronicle, which has been derived from 1 Sam. xvi. 13 and 1 Sam. xv. 28. In 2 Sam. v. 4, 5, in accordance with the custom of the author of the books of Samuel and Kings to state the age and duration of the reign of each of the kings immediately after the announcement of their entry upon their office, there follows after the preceding a statement of the duration of David's reign; cf. 1 Sam. xiii. 1, 2 Sam. ii. 10 f., 1 Kings xiv. 21, xv. 2, etc. This remark is to be found in the Chronicle only at the close of David's reign; see xxix. 29, which shows that Thenius' opinion that this verse has been omitted from the Chronicle by a mistake is not tenable.

Vers. 4-9. The capture of the citadel of Zion, and Jerusalem chosen to be the royal residence under the name of the city of David; cf. 2 Sam. v. 6-10, and the commentary on this section at that place. — njnjj ver. 8, to make alive, is used here, as in Neh. iii. 34, of the rebuilding of ruins. The general remark, ver. 9, "and David increased continually in might," etc., opens the way for the transition to the history of David's reign which follows. As a proof of his increasing greatness, there follows in

Vers. 10-47. A register of the heroes who stood by him in the establishment of his kingdom. The greater part of this register is found in 2 Sam. xxiii. 8—39 also, though there are many divergences in the names, which for the most part have found their way into one or other of the texts by errors of transcription. The conclusion (vers. 41-47 of the Chronicle) is not found in 2 Sam. xxiii., either because the author of the Chronicle followed another and older register than that used by the author of the book of Samuel, or because the latter has not communicated all the names contained in his authority. The former of these is the more probable supposition. In the Chronicle the superscription of the register is enlarged by the insertion in ver. 10, before the simple superscription in ver. 11a, cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 8a, of a further superscription informing us of the design which the chronicler had in introducing the register at this place. "These are the chiefs of David's heroes who stood by him strongly (pV P?nnr», as Dan. x. 21) in his kingdom, with the whole of Israel to make him king, according to the word of Jahve, over Israel." The collocation D'n'aan igW is accounted for by the fact that "ti33n is a designation of a valiant or heroic man in general, without reference to his position, whether co-ordinate with or subordinate to others. Among David's D'Haa who helped to establish his kingdom, are not merely those who are mentioned by name in the following register, but also, as we learn from chap, xii., the great number of valiant men of all the tribes, who, even during his persecution by Saul, crowded round him, and immediately after Saul's death came to him in Hebron to hail him king. The enumeration in our passage contains only the chiefs, D^'fcO, of those valiant men, i.e. those who held the first rank among them, and who were in great part leaders in the army of David, or became so. toy^r is n°t to be confined to the mere appointment to the kingship, but includes also his establishment in it; for there follows an account of the heroic deeds which the men enumerated by name performed in the wars which David wao;ed against his enemies in order to maintain and increase his kingly power. rnrv *)T[ concerning Israel is the word of the Lord, the import of which is recorded in ver. 3, that David should feed His people Israel, and be ruler over them. The ipsissima verba are not found in the earlier history of David, but the substance of them has been deduced from 1 Sam. xvi. 13 and xv. 28; cf. herewith the remarks on 2 Sam. iii. 18. The enumeration of these heroes is introduced in ver. 11 by a short supplementary superscription, u these the number of the heroes." That "12>D?? should be used instead of the HiD^ of Samuel is surprising, but is explained by the fact that these heroes at first constituted a corps whose designation was derived from their number. They originally amounted to thirty, whence they are still called the thirty, DW$n; cf. ver. 12, and the discussion on 2 Sam. xxiii. 8 ff. In both narratives three classes are distinguished.

Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah hold the first place, and specially bold and heroic deeds performed by them are recorded, vers. 11-14, and 2 Sam. xxiii. 8-12. For details as to themselves and their deeds, see on the last cited passage. There we have already remarked, that in ver. 13 of the text of the Chronicle, the three lines which in Samuel come between DB> 1DDN3 ETOlt??&a (Sam. ver. 9) and BWv? 'iDDfcW, ver. 11, have been, through wandering of the copyist's eye, omitted; and with them the name of the third hero, HD5?, has also been dropped, so that the heroic deed done by him, vers. 136, 14, appears, according to our present text, to have been performed by Eleazar. In place of the words, " And the Philistines had gathered themselves together there to battle, and there was a parcel of ground full of barley," ver. 13, the text, according to the narrative in 2 Sam. xxiii. 11, must have stood originally thus: "The Philistines had gathered themselves together there to battle, and the men of Israel went up (sc. retreating from the Philistines up the mountain); he, however, stood firm, and smote the Philistines till his hand was wearied, and cleaved unto the sword (i.e. clung crampedly to his sword through fatigue): there wrought Jahve a great deliverance on that day, and the people returned (from their flight) behind him only to spoil. And after him was Shammah the son of Aga the Hararite, and the Philistines had gathered themselves together to battle," etc. In ver. 14 the plural forms ^fj}\ roWR!, EM, are incorrect, and should be changed into singulars, as in Sam. vers. 12 and 70, since only the deed of the hero Shammah is here spoken of. The plurals were probably introduced into the text after the missing lines had been dropped out by a reader or copyist, who, on account of the TH DV n^n Kin (ver. 13), understood the three clauses of ver. 14 to refer to Eleazar and David. V^W, on the contrary, is here perfectly appropriate, and is not to be altered to suit the fc^3 of Samuel, ver. 14, for the ical eiroii^ae of the LXX. is not of itself a sufficient reason for doing so.

In vers. 15-19 (cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 13-17) there follows an exploit of three others of the thirty, whose names have not been handed down. Wh Wfhfn, the thirty chiefs (not, as Thenius wrongly interprets the words, these three knights the chief parts, i.e. these three chief knights), are David's heroes hereafter mentioned, the thirty-two heroes of the third class named in vers. 26-40 (or vers. 24-39 of Samuel). That three others, different from the before-mentioned Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah are intended, is plain from the omission of the article with nwibw; for if these three were spoken of, we would have Ti&\?&n9 as in ver. 18. For further remarks on this exploit, which was probably performed in the war treated of in chap. xiv. 8 ff., and in 2 Sam. v. 17 ff., see on 2 Sam. xxiii. 13—17. The words 'til DnftKTj ffin, ver. 19, are to be translated, " The blood of these men shall I drink in their souls % for for their souls (i.e. for the price of their souls, at the risk of their life) have they brought it." The expression " blood in their souls " is to be understood according to Gen. ix. 4 and Lev. xvii. 14 (WH iPM2 to, "his blood is in the soul," is that which constitutes his soul). As there blood and soul are used synonymously (the blood as seat of and container of the soul, and the soul as floating in the blood), so here David, according to our account of his words, compares the water, which those heroes had brought for the price of their souls, to the souls of the men, and the drinking of the water to the drinking of their souls, and finally the souls to the blood, in order to express his abhorrence of such a draught. The meaning therefore may be thus expressed: " Shall I drink in this water the souls, and so the blood, of these men; for they have brought the water even for the price of their souls 1 "

In vers. 20-25 the second class of heroes, to which Abshai (Abishai) and Benaiah belonged, cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 18-23, is spoken of. They were not equal to the preceding three in heroic deeds, but yet stood higher than the list of heroes which follows in ver. 26 and onwards. *BOK, as ii. 16 and 2 Sam. x. 10, while in 2 Sam. xxiii. 18 and elsewhere he is called ^2K, was one of the three sons of Zeruiah (ii. 16). It is difficult to explain nfbtin tt>*n, " he was the chief of the three/' instead of which we find in Sam. ver. 18 ^^'n, i.e. ^f?, " chief of the bodyguard" (knights). But owing to the succeeding D£> (rfy 87[ T\wb$7i where Samuel also has ntswa and to the recurrence of nwvwn on two occasions in ver. 21 (cf. Sam. ver. 19)-, it does not seem possible to alter the text with Thenius. Bertheau proposes to get rid of the difficulty by taking the word n&>W in two different significations, — on the one hand as denoting the numeral three, and on the other as being an abstract substantive, " the totality of the thirty." He justifies the latter signification by comparison of ver. 21 with ver. 25, and of 2 Sam. xxiii. 19 with ver. 23, from which he deduces that n&W and &&VW denote a larger company, in which both Abishai and Benaiah held a prominent place. But this signification cannot be made good from these passages. In both clauses of ver. 25 (and ver. 23 in Sam.) DWt^n and ntptp'n are contrasted, which would rather go to prove the contrary of Bertheau's proposition, viz. that HKWn, the three, cannot at the same time denote the whole of the thirty, Wvbfrj. The truth of the matter may be gathered from a comparison of ver. 18 with ver. 15. In ver. 18 nipfn is synonymous with tttflten JD ntffctfn, ver. 15; i.e., the three' in ver. 18 are the same men who in ver. 15, where they are first met with, are called three of the thirty; and consequently HKWn, the three (triad), vers. 21 and 25, can only denote the triad of heroes previously named. This is placed beyond doubt by a comparison of ver. 24 with ver. 25, since the D*fcin nfhtf, the triad of heroes, ver. 24, corresponds to the simple nKWn of ver. 25. The only remaining question is, whether by this triad of heroes we are to understand those spoken of in vers. 11-14, — Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah, — or the three whose names are not given, but whose exploit is narrated in vers. 15-19. But the circumstance that the names of the three latter are not mentioned goes decidedly to show that TWptin in vers. 20-25 does not denote that nameless triad, whose exploit is manifestly adduced incidentally only as a similar case, but the three most valiant, who held the first rank among David's heroes. Bertheau's opinion, that in vers. 20-25 one triad of heroes is distinguished from another, cannot be regarded as well-founded, for the three of whom Abishai was chief are not distinguished, and are not different from the three to whom, according to ver. 21, he did not attain. Nor is there greater reason to believe that the triad of vers. 20 and 21 is different from that in vers. 24 and 25, among whom Benaiah made himself a name, and to whom he did not attain. The fact of being chief or prince over the three is not irreconcilably contradictory to the statement that he did not attain to them, i.e. did not come up to them in heroic strength, as is shown by the two classes being connected in ver. 21b. As to the rank which the triad held in the regular forces of David, we know nothing further than that Jashobeam was, according to chap, xxvii. 2, leader of that part of the army which was on duty during the first month. Eleazar the son of Dodo, and the Hararite Shammah the son of Aga, are not mentioned anywhere but in our list. Abishai, on the contrary, who had already distinguished himself by his audacious courage in David's struggle with Saul (1 Sam. xxvi. 6 n\), conducted together with Joab the war against Abner (2 Sam. ii. 24-iii. 30). Afterwards, in David's war with the Ammonites, he was under Joab in command of the second half of the host (2 Sam. x. 10 if.) *, in the war against Absalom he commanded a third part of the host (xviii. 2 if.); and in the struggle with the rebel Sheba he commanded the vanguard of the royal troops sent against the rebel (xx. 6 ff.); and in general held, along with Joab the commander-in-chief, the first place among David's captains. In this position he was chief of the three heroes before mentioned, and their leader (">^), and among them had made himself a name. *6l, ver. 20, is an orthographical error for r>), as in fifteen other passages, according to the Masora. See on Ex. xxi. 10 and Isa. lxiii. 9. — Ver. 21a should be translated: honoured before the three as two; i.e. doubly honoured — he became to them prince, leader. With regard to D^#3, which, as meaningless, Bertheau would alter so as to make it correspond with Wi (Sam.), cf. Ew. Lehrb. § 269, b. For Benaiah and his exploits, vers. 22-25, see the commentary on 2 Sam. xxiii. 20-23.

No special deeds of the heroes enumerated in vers. 26-47 are related, so that we may regard them as a third class, who are not equal to the first triad, and to the second pair, Abishai and Benaiah, and consequently occupied a subordinate place in the collective body of the royal body-guards. In 2 Sam. xxiii.

thirty-two names are mentioned, which, with the above-mentioned three and two of the first and second classes, amount in all to thirty-seven men, as is expressly remarked in 2 Sam. xxiii. 39 at the conclusion. In the text of the Chronicle no number is mentioned, and the register is increased by sixteen names (vers. 41-47), which have been added in the course of time to the earlier number. The words Oyjnn *~))3*\, ver. 26, are to be regarded as a superscription: And valiant heroes were, etc.; equivalent to, But besides these, there remain still the following valiant heroes. The words Dyjnn niaa are not synonymous with Ds^nn vjfc, leaders of the host, 1 Kings xv. 20, Jer. xl. 7, (Berth.), but signify heroes in warlike strength, i.e. heroic warriors, like D^n niaa (vii. 5, 7, 11, 40). That tAm has here the article, while it is not found in the passages quoted from the seventh chapter, does not make any difference in the meaning of the words. The article is used here, as with D^teS!^ vers. 10,11, because the heroes of David are spoken of, and TTO "^K is to be mentally supplied from ver. 10 f. As to the names in vers. 26—41, which are also found in the register in the book of Samuel, see the commentary to 2 Sam. xxiii. 24-39. This list, which is common to both books, begins with Asahel, a brother of Joab, who was slain by Abner in the war which he waged against David (2 Sam. ii. 19-23), and concludes in the book of Samuel with Uriah the Hittite, so well known from 2 Sam. xi. 3 ff. (Chron. ver. 41a), with whose wife David committed adultery. But to the continuation of the register which is found in vers. 416-47 of our text, there is no parallel in the other writings of the Old Testament by which we might form an idea as to the correctness of the names. The individual names are indeed to be met with, for the most part, in other parts of the Old Testament, but denote other men of an earlier or later time. The names <WT.> ver. 45, and?NvK, ver. 46 f., are found also in chap. xii. 20, 11, among those of the valiant men who before Saul's death went over to David, but we cannot with any certainty ascertain whether the persons meant were the same. The expression DWB* vby\ (ver. 42) is also obscure, — " and to him in addition," i.e. together with him, thirty, — since the thought that with Adina the chief of the Reubcnites, or besides him, there were thirty (men), has no meaning in this register. The LXX. and the Vulgate read Ivy, while the Syriac, on the contrary, makes use of the periphrasis, " And even he was a ruler over thirty heroes;" and Bertheau accordingly recommends the emendation DWBfrl?V, and thence concludes that the tribe of Reuben had thirty leaders in its army, — a conjecture as bold as it is improbable. Were DW#n?V to be read, we could not but refer the words to the thirty heroes of ver. 11, and hold Adina to be their leader, which could not be easily reconciled with ver. 11. See on xii. 4. — Ver. 43. fl3J|D"|3 is perhaps the same as '•nsjttsn, 2 Sam. xxiii. 34. — Ver. 44. WWJfn, he of the city Ashtaroth (vi. 56), in the trans-Jordanic domain of Manasseh. ^Jfrffj, he of Aroer, of Reuben or Gad (Josh. xiii. 16, 25). — Ver. 46. Bertheau conjectures that the somewhat strange D^HBTl (LXX. 6 Macoi, Vulg. Mahumites) denotes ^DJjnBflj he of Mahanaim, in the East- Jordan land; see Josh. xiii. 26. — Ver. 47. rpavtsn, which, so far as the form is concerned, is not a nomen gentil.j Reland (Palccst. ill p. 899) holds for a contraction of fcOljn* inao, Migdal Zebujah, — a place which, according to the rabbins, is said to have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of Hebron. Bertheau's opinion is, that the article has come into the text by mistake; and when it has been struck out, the remaining consonants, rvavE, recall the naafO of 2 Sam. xxiii. 36 (?).

This chapter contains two somewhat long registers, viz.: (1) a register of the valiant men who before Saul's death went over to David, vers. 1-22; and (2) a register of the fighting men who anointed him kincr in Hebron. The first is divided into three smaller registers: (a) that of the valiant Benjamites who came to David during his stay in Ziklag (vers. 1-7); (b) that of the Gadites and the men of Judah and Benjamin who went over to him while he remained in the mountain fastnesses; and (c) that of the Manassites who, on his return to Ziklag before Saul's last battle with the Philistines, joined themselves to him (vers. 19-22).

Vers. 1-7. The Benjamites who came to David to Ziklag. — Ver. 1. Ziklag was originally allotted to the Simeonites by Joshua (Josh. xix. 5; 1 Chron. iv. 30), but at a later time came into possession of the Philistines, and was assigned and presented by king Achish to David, who had fled for refuge to him, as a dwelling-place for himself and his followers; see 1 Sam. xxvii.

1-7. As to its situation, which has not yet been with certainty ascertained, see the discussion on Josh. xv. 31. In it David dwelt for a year and four months, until he went to Hebron on the death of Saul. During this time it was that the warriors of the tribe of Benjamin mentioned in the succeeding register went over to him, as we learn from the words "IW Ity, " he was still held back before Saul," a concise expression for " while he was still held back before Saul." This last expression, however, does not signify, " hindered from coming before Saul " (Berth.), but inter Israelitas publice versari prohibitus (J. H. Mich.), or rather, u before Saul, imprisoned as it were, without being able to appear in a manner corresponding to his divine election to be ruler over Israel." 'M nEm, and they were among the heroes, i.e. belonged to the heroes, the helpers of the war, i.e. to those who helped him in his former wars; cf. vers. 17 f., 21 f. — Ver. 2. Wp ^m^ " those preparing bows," i.e. those armed with bows, synonymous with n$> *Th (viii. 40); cf. 2 Chron. xvii. 17, Ps. lxxviii. 9. " With the right and left hand practised upon stones," i.e. to hurl stones, cf. Judg. xx. 16; "and in arrows on the bow," i.e. to shoot therewith. 7)N^ 'TOO, 0f Saul's brethren, i.e. of the men of the tribe, not "of his nearer relatives," and consequently of Benjamin, has been added as an explanation; cf. ver. 29, where i^? *?.? and TiKt^ *n$ are synonyms. — In ver. 3 et seq. we have the names. ^fcon, the head, i.e. the leader of this host of warriors; compare chap. v. 7, 12. T1???^ cf. Gibeah of Saul or Benjamin, cf. xi. 31; and for its situation, see on Josh, xviii. 28. Wi:yn, from the priests' city Anathoth, now Anata; see on Josh, xviii. 24. In ver. 4 the Gibeonite Ismaiah is called c< hero among the thirty, and over the thirty," — words which can hardly have any other sense than that Ismaiah belonged also to David's corps of thirty heroes (chap, xi.), and was (temporarily) their leader, although his name does not occur in chap. xi. It is probable that the reason of the omission was, that at the time when the list was prepared he was no longer alive. WJB?5 of Gedera, a city of the tribe of Judah in the Shephelah, which, according to Van de Velde (Reise, ii. S. 166), was probably identical with the village Ghedera, which lies to the left of the road Tel-es-Safieh to Akir, about an hour to the south-west of Jabne. In any case, it corresponds well with the statements of the Onom. As to Gedrus, or Gaedur, see on Josh. xv. 36. Immediately afterwards in ver. 7 Gedor is mentioned, a city in the mountains of Judah, to the westward of the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem (see on Josh. xv. 58); and from that fact Bertheau imagines we must conclude that the men of Judah are enumerated as well as the Benjamites. But this conclusion is not valid; for from the very beginning, when the domains and cities were assigned to the individual tribes under Joshua, they were not the exclusive possession of the individual tribes, and at a later period they were still less so. In course of time the respective tribal domains underwent (in consequence of wars and other events) many alterations, not only in extent, but also in regard to their inhabitants, so that in Saul's time single Benjamite families may quite well have had their home in the cities of Judah. — Ver. 5. Winn (Keri Winn) is a patronymic, which denotes either one descended from Haruph, or belonging to the *T"]n "»pa mentioned in Neh. vii. 34 along with the Gibeonites. The t^rnj?, Korahites, in ver. 6 are, without doubt (cf. Delitszch, Ps. S. 300), descendants of the Levite Korah, one division of whom David made guardian of the thresholds of the tent erected for the ark of the covenant on Zion, because their fathers had been watchers of the entrance of the camp of Jahve, i.e. had in that earlier time held the office of watchers by the tabernacle; see on ix. 18 f. The names Elkanah and Azareel are thoroughly Levitic names, and their service in the porter's office in the holy place may have roused in them the desire to fight for David, the chosen of the Lord. But there is no reason why we should, with Bertheau, interpret the words as denoting descendants of the almost unknown Korah of the tribe of Judah (ii. 43), or, with the older commentators, refer it to some other unmentioned Benjamite who bore this name. The explanation of the connection existing between these Levitic Korahites and the Benjamites, which is presupposed by the mention of them among the Benjamites, may be found in the fact that the Levites received no tribal domain of their own, and possessed only cities for dwelling in in the domains of the other tribes, with whom they were consequently civilly incorporated, so that those who dwelt in the cities of Benjamin were properly reckoned among the Benjamites. At the partition of the land under Joshua, it is true, only the priests received their cities in Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin; while, on the contrary, the Kohathites, who were not priests, among whom the Korahites were, received their cities in the tribal domain of Ephraim, Dan, and half-Manasseh (Josh. xxi. 9-26). But when the tabernacle was transferred from Shiloh to Nob, and afterwards to Gibeon, the Korahite doorkeepers must, without doubt, have migrated to one of the Levitic cities of Benjamin, probably for the most part to Gibeon, and so were reckoned among the Benjamites. As to ■tfian py vide ver. 4. If this be so, there remains no cogent reason for supposing that in our register, besides the Benjamites, men out of other tribes are also introduced. With that there falls away at once Bertheau's further conclusion, that the author of the Chronicle has considerably abridged the register, and that from ver. 46 onwards men of Judah also are named, the list of wrhom must certainly (?) have been originally introduced by special superscription similar to those in vers. 8, 16, 19. His further reason for his conjecture— namely, that our register makes use of the qualificative epithets, "the Gibeathite," "the Anathothite,', etc., only in a few special cases — is of no force whatever; for we are not justified in assuming that we may expect to find here, as in the register in chap. xi. 26-47, such qualificatives after every individual name. The character of our register cannot be arrived at by a comparison with the list of David's heroes in chap. xi.; it should rather be sought for by comparing it with the succeeding list, whose contents are of a similar kind with its own. David's chosen corps of thirty heroes was much more important for the history of his reign, than the lists of the men who joined themselves to him and fought on his behalf before he ascended the throne. For that reason the thirty heroes are not only mentioned by name, but their descent also is told us, while that more detailed information is not given with regard to the others just mentioned. Only the names of the Gadites and Manassites are mentioned; of the Benjamites and men of Judah, who came to him in the mountain fastness (vers. 16-18), the name of only one, Amasai, is given; while of the Benjamites who came to Ziklag, vers. 3-7, such qualificative statements are made in reference to only a few individuals, and in these cases the object probably was to distinguish them from other well-known persons of the same name.

Vers. 8-18. The Gadites, Benjamites, and men of Judah who joined themselves to David during his sojourn in the mountain fastness. — Ver. 8. David's sojourn in the mountain hold falls in the first years of his flight from Saul, 1 Sam. xxii. ff. IV*?, pointed with Pathach instead of with Kamets (TTO, cf. ver. 16), on account of its intimate connection with fnjlD, is synonymous with Hlft'lD (1 Sam. xxiv. 23, etc.). The addition n"}?]*?, " towards the wilderness," shows that *TC*? denotes a mountain-top or mountainfortress in the wilderness of Judah. If we compare the account in 1 Sam. xxii.-xxiv., we learn that David at that time did not hide himself in one single definite mountain-fortress, but sought and found resting-places, now here, now there, in the wilderness, on the summits of the hills (cf. ni1¥B3 "I31tt3? 1 Sam. xxiii. 14, xxiv. 1); so that *W& here is to be understood, as fTTOten, 1 Sam. xxiv. 3, also is, generally of the fastnesses in the mountains of Judah. At that time there gathered round David a great company of discontented and oppressed men, to the number of about 400, — men dissatisfied with Saul's rule, whose leader he became, and who soon amounted to 600 men (1 Sam. xxii. 2 and xxiii. 13). To these belong the Gadites, and the men out of Benjamin and Judah, whose adhesion to David is noticed in our verses. ^??3 they separated themselves from the other Gadites who were on Saul's side, "strong heroes," as in Josh. viii. 3; cf. rft ^33, v. 24. vii. 2, 9, etc. norro? N3¥ '•bok men for service in the host for the war, i.e. combatants practised in war. niQ'il n2¥ Wj^ preparing shield and spear, i.e. wielding shield and spear, practised in their use: the preparing of these weapons includes the handling of them. Instead of nDni, Veneta and many of the older copies have IJD); but it is not supported by MS. authority, and moreover is not congruous with the passage. Lions' faces their faces, i.e. lion-like in appearance, thoroughly warlike figures; cf. 2 Sam. i. 23. "As roes running swiftly on the mountains;" cf. 2 Sam. ii. 18. This description of the strength and swiftness of these warriors recalls, as Bertheau remarks, the similar expressions used in the historical books concerning heroes of David's time. It has manifestly been drawn from the original documents, not added by the chronicler. In vers. 9-13 the names are enumerated individually. ~WV W%, at the end of a series of ordinal numbers, denotes the eleventh; cf. xxiv. 12. — Ver. 14. NStfn HW\ heads of the war-host, i.e. chief warriors, not leaders of the host. '131 HNDp 1I1K, a one for a hundred, (viz.) the small and the greater for a thousand," i.e. the smaller (weaker) could cope with a hundred, the stronger with a thousand men; cf. Lev. xxvi. 8. This, which is the only correct interpretation, is that received by Bertheau and the older Jewish commentators. The Vulgate, on the contrary, translates, novissimus centum militibus prccerat et maximus mille, which is inadmissible, for in that case?V must have been used instead of h. The intf belongs to both the clauses which it precedes, to fttjan and to «*f?j and is placed immediately before nsop to emphasize the contrast between one and a hundred. In ver. 15 we have a proof of their valour, in an account of a bold exploit performed by them. In the first month of the year, that is, in spring, when the Jordan overflows all its banks, they crossed the river and put to flight all the dwellers in the valleys towards the east and towards the west. This happened, probably, when they separated themselves from their brethren and went over to David, when they must have had to cut their way through the adherents of Saul (Berth.). The Piel N?D with?y denotes to make full, to make to run over, in the signification to overflow. The Kethibh Wna comes from nH|? elsewhere only the plural Vffia, so also here in the Keri. In the dry summer season the Jordan may be crossed by wading at various points (fords); while in spring, on the contrary, when it is so swollen by the melting snows of Lebanon, that in some parts it overflows its banks, it is very dangerous to attempt to cross. See on Josh, iii. 15. B^EJjn, u the valleys," for the inhabitants of the valleys. — Vers. 16-18. There came to David in the mountain-fastness also men of Benjamin and Judah (cf. ver. 8). Their names are not in the l'.sts, possibly because they were not handed down in the historical wTorks made use of by the chronicler. At their head, as we learn from ver. 18, stood Amasai, chief of the thirty, i.e. of the corps formed of the thirty heroes (see xi. 11), although his name does not occur in the catalogue, chap. xi. According to this, Amasai must have occupied a very important position under David; but since the name "toy is not elsewhere mentioned in the history of David, the older commentators have conjectured that *wy may have been the same person as NK>»y, son of Abigail (ii. 17), whom Absalom made captain in Joab's place, and whom David, after the victory over the rebels, wished to make commander-in-chief in the room of Joab, and whom for that reason Joab afterwards murdered (2 Sam. xvii. 25, xix. 14, xx. 4, 8 fP.); or identical with ^BOK the son of Zeruiah, ii. 16 and xi. 20. Of these conjectures the first is much more probable than the second. To meet these men, David went forth from his fastness, and asked them with what purpose they came to him. " If for peace," to stand by him, "then shall there be to me towards. you a heart for union," i.e. I will be with you of one heart, be true to you.

irrt 2& is plainer than ITOf 3J>, ver. 38. " But if «**$, to practise deceit against me (to be guilty of a n9^) ^or mme enemies (to deliver me to them), although there be no wrong in my hands, the God of our fathers look thereon and punish;" cf. 2 Chron. xxiv. 22. The God of our fathers, i.e. of the patriarchs (cf. Ezra vii. 27, 2 Chron. xx. 6, and Ex. iii. 13 f.), who rules in and over Israel, who shields the innocent and punishes the guilty. — Ver. 18. Then came the Spirit upon Amasai, so that he proclaimed himself enthusiastic for David and his cause. With heq? rrn cf. Judg. vi. 34. Usually niPP or QwK is found with this expression (2 Chron. xxiv. 20), and here also the Spirit of God is meant; and D\"6k is omitted only because all that was of importance here was to show that the resolution announced by Amasai was an effect of higher spiritual influence.,1?, to thee, David (do we belong), thine arewe. 1©?, "with thee," sc. will we remain and fight. "Peace be to thee, and peace be to thy helpers; for thy God helpeth thee." *pty, He has helped thee in the fortunate combats in which you have heretofore been engaged (1 Sam. xviii. 12 ff.), and He will help still further. David thereupon received them and made them captains of his band. WJ5, the warrior-band, which had gathered round David, and were still gathering round him, 1 Sam. xxii. 2, xxvii. 8, cf. also ver. 21; 1 Sam. xxx. 8, 15, 23, etc. Vers. 19-22. The Manassites vjIio went over to David before the last battle of the Philistines against Saul. —?V?BJ, to fall to one, is used specially of deserters in war who desert their lord and go over to the enemy: cf. 2 Kings xxv. 11; 1 Sam. xxix. 3.?K ^3*, in the last clause of the verse, is a synonymous expression. The Manassites went over " when David went with the Philistines against Israel to the war, and (yet) helped them not; for upon advisement (nyvn? cf. Prov. xx. 18), the lords of the Philistines had sent him away, saying, ' For our heads, he will fall away to his master Saul/ " 1 Sam. xxix. 2-11 contains the historical commentary on this event. When the lords of the Philistines collected their forces to march against Saul, David, who had found refuge with King Achish, was compelled to join the host of that prince with his band. But when the other Philistine princes saw the Hebrews, they demanded that they should be sent out of the army, as they feared that David might turn upon them during the battle, and so win favour by his treachery with Saul his lord. See the commentary on 1 Sam. xxix. MH^IPJ3, for our heads, i.e. for the price of them, giving them as a price to obtain a friendly reception from Saul (cf. 1 Sam. xxix. 4). In consequence of this remonstrance, Achish requested David to return with his warriors to Ziklag. On this return march (" as he went to Ziklag," cf. with ta?3 the HOT of 1 Sam. xxix. 11), and consequently before the battle in which Saul lost his life (Berth.), and not after Saul's great misfortune, as Ewald thinks, the Manassites whose names follow went over to David. The seven named in ver. 20 were " heads of the thousands of Manasseh," i.e. of the great families into which the tribe of Manasseh was divided, and as such were leaders of the Manassite forces in war: cf. Num. xxxi. 14 with Ex. xviii. 25, and the commentary on the latter passage. — Ver. 21. These 1 helped David Wan bv, against the detachment of Amalekites, who during David's absence had surprised and burnt Ziklag, and led captive the women and children (1 Sam. xxx. 1-10). This interpretation, which Rashi also has {contra turmam Amalekitarum), and which the Vulgate hints at in its adversas latrunculos^ rests upon the fact that in 1 Sam. xxx. 8, 15, the word Wan, which in

1 "We take n^DI to refer to the Manassites named in ver. 20, like the nttrn of ver. 1 and the DH n^K of ver. 15. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks on various grounds that riE&n refers to all the heroes who have been spoken of in vers. 1-20. In the first place, it was not the Manassites alone who took part in the conflict with Amalek, for David won the victory with his whole force of 600 men (1 Sara. xxx. 9), among whom, without doubt, those named in vers. 1-18 were included. Then, secondly, a clear distinction is made between those who gave in their adhesion to and helped David at an earlier period (vers. 1, 7, 22), and those who came to him in Hebron (ver. 23). And finally, the general remark in ver. 22 is connected with ver. 21 by the grounding 13, so that we must regard vers. 21 and 22 as a subscription closing the preceding catalogues. But none of these arguments are very effective. The grounding "o in ver. 22 does not refer to the whole of ver. 21, but only to the last clause, or, to be more accurate, only to N3^3, showing that David had an army. The second proves nothing, and in the first only so much is correct, that not merely the seven Manassites named in ver. 20 took part in the battle with Amalek, but also the warriors who had formerly gone over to David; but from that there is not the slightest reason to conclude that this is expressed by ntSffl. It is manifest from the context and the plan of the register, that 'ui nTV DEitl can only refer to those of whom it is said in ver. 20 that they went over to David as he was returning to Ziklag. If vers. 21 and 22 were a subscription to all the preceding registers, instead of nftHI another expression which would separate the verse somewhat more from that immediately preceding would have been empjoyed, perhaps general only denotes single detachments or predatory bands, is used of the Amalekite band; whence the word can only refer to the march of David against the Amalekites, of which we have an account in 1 Sam. xxx. 9 ff., and not to the combats which he had with Saul. "For they were all valiant heroes, and were B^, captains in the army," sc. which gathered round David. — Ver. 22. " For every day" (DV2 DV nj£, at the time of each day) " came (people) to David to help him, until to a great host, like a host of God," i.e. until his band grew to a camp like to a host of God. E^N npnD? a host which God has formed, and in which the power of God shows itself; cf. hills and cedars of God, Ps. xxxvi. 7, lxxx. 11. In these concluding remarks to the enumeration by name of the valiant men who during Saul's lifetime went over to David, there is no exaggeration which would betray an idealizing historian (Movers, S. 270). The greatness of a host of God is to be estimated according to the power and the spirit, not according to the number, of the warriors, so that we need not take the words to mean a host of thousands and tens of thousands. David had at first 400, afterwards 600, valiant warriors, against whom Saul with his thousands could accomplish nothing. The increase in their number from 400 to 600 shows that the host increased from day to day, especially when we keep in mind the fact that after Saul's defeat considerable bands of fugitives must certainly have gone over to David before he was anointed in Hebron to be king over Judah. The expression is only rhetorical, not idealizing or exaggerating.

Vers. 23-40. List of the warriors who made David king in Hebron. — The superscription (ver. 23) runs: " These are the numbers of the bands of the men equipped for war, who came/' etc. fWin is a collective noun, denoting the equipped manhood. "•^O signifies here, not principes exercitus, as the Vulgate renders it, heads, i.e. leaders of the army (Berth.), but literally denotes sums, i.e. companies, bands of soldiers, as in Judg. vii. 16, 20, ix. 34, 37, 44, 1 Sam. xi. 11; or it may perhaps also be heads for individuals, as CW"i in Judg. v. 30. Both these meanings are linguistically certain; so that we cannot say, with Bertheau, that ^Ni before yvnn denotes, according to the wellascertained use of language, leaders of the army, and that n?j?l would have been used had it been wished to express the number by heads, e.g. xxiii. 3-24. That use of the word is indeed also found, but it cannot be proved to be the only proper one. If we take

*EftO here to denote leaders, we bring the superscription into irreconcilable contradiction with the contents of the following catalogue, which gives the names of the heads and the number of the warriors (ver. 27 f.) only in the case of the families of Aaron, and in that of Issachar the number of the princes; while in the case of the other tribes we have only the numbers of the bands or detachments. This contradiction cannot be got rid of, as Bertheau imagines, by the hypothesis that the superscription referred originally to a catalogue which was throughout similar in plan to that which we find in vers. 26-28, and that the author of the Chronicle has very considerably abridged the more detailed statements of the original documents which he used. This hypothesis is a mere makeshift, in which we have the less need " to take refuge," as the catalogue has neither the appearance of having been abridged or revised by the author of our Chronicle. It is shown to be a faithful copy of a more ancient authority, both by the characteristic remarks which it contains on the individual tribes, and by the inequality in the numbers. Bertheau, indeed, derives support for his hypothesis " from the inequality of the statements of number, and their relation to each other," and upon that ground throws doubt upon the accuracy and correctness of the numbers, but in both cases without sufficient warrant. If we place the respective statements together synoptically, we see that there came to David to Hebron —

The total is not objected to by Bertheau, and its correctness is placed beyond a doubt by the recollection that we have here to do not with the representation of the various estates of the kingdom, but with a declaration of the will of the whole nation, who wished to make David their king. We must, if we are to estimate these statements, endeavour to go back in imagination to the circumstances of that time when Israel, although settled in the land, had not quite laid aside the character of a nation of warriors, in which every man capable of bearing arms marched to battle with, and for, his king. Now if the total number of fighting men in Israel was 600,000 in the time of Moses, and if, when the people were numbered in the last year of David's reign, there were in Israel 800,000, and in Judah 500,000 (2 Sam. xxiv. 9) — the Levites being excluded in both cases — the 340,000 men of all the tribes, except Issachar, in reference to which no number is given, or after subtracting Judah and Levi, the 324,500 men out of the remaining tribes, is not much more than a half of the men capable of bearing arms in Moses' time, and about a fourth part of the fighting population towards the end of David's reign. But the relation of the numbers in the respective tribes, on the contrary, is somewhat surprising, and calls forth from'Bertheau the following remarks: " To Judah, David's

tribe, which from the earliest time had been famous for its numbers and its powers, 6800 are assigned; to Zebulun, on the contrary, 50,000; to Naphtali, 1000 princes at the head of 37,000 warriors; to the two and a half East-Jordanic tribes, 120,000 men, etc. How does it happen that Zebulun and Naphtali, for example, two tribes that play no great part in Israel's history, are so strongly represented, while Judah sends only a relatively small number of warriors'?" To this question we answer, that

Judah's being represented by a number of warriors relatively so small, is accounted for simply by the fact that David had already been king over Judah for seven years, and consequently that tribe did not need to make him king by coming with the whole of its warriors, or the majority of them, when the other tribes were doing homage to David, but sent only a small number of its male population to this solemn act, who were witnesses in the name of the whole tribe to the homage proffered by the others. The same remark applies to the tribe of Simeon, whose domain was enclosed by that of Judah, and which had consequently recognised David as king at the same time as the larger tribe. In regard to the numbers of the other tribes, Levi had in the last year of David's reign 38,000 men from thirty years old and upwards (xxiii. 3); and when here only 4600 Levites, besides the priestly families, are spoken of, the question arises, whether this number is to be understood to refer to the Levites in all the tribes, or only to those dwelling outside of Judah and Simeon, in the cities assigned to them by Moses and Joshua. The smallness of the number (3000) from the tribe of Benjamin is explained by the remark that the majority of this tribe still held to the house of Saul (ver. 29). The only thing which is at all remarkable about the other numbers is, that the Ephraimites are so few (20,800 men) in contrast to the 180,000 men brought into the field by the half-tribe of Manasseh. But if we consider that Ephraim, which at the first census under Moses at Sinai had 40,500 men, had decreased to 32,500 at the second census in the wilderness of Moab, it is not improbable that at the time now treated of that tribe may not have been very strong in fighting men. For in Saul's last war with the Philistines, when thev had pressed forward so far as Mount Gilboa, and also in Abner's struggle on behalf of King Ishbosheth for the re-conquest of the territory occupied by them, it probably suffered more, and was more weakened, than any of the other tribes. Perhaps also we may add that Ephraim, owing to its jealousy of Judah, which dates from the time of the judges, was not very much disposed to make David king over all IsraeL That Zebulun and Naphtali are here so numerously represented, although they do not otherwise play an important part, is no reason for suspecting that the numbers given are incorrect. Since Zebulun under Moses numbered 57,400 men, and at a later time 60,500, and Naphtali 53,400 and 45,400 men capable of bearing arms respectively on the same occasions (see t. i. 2, S. 192); the first named tribe may easily have sent 50,000, the other 37,000 men to David, as the tribes dwelling in the north had been least affected by the wars which Israel carried on in the second half of the period of the judges and under Saul. Both of these tribes, too, are praised in the song of Deborah as a people ready to risk their lives for their fatherland (Judg. v. 18), and may have very much increased in the succeeding time. And besides all this, the tribes Asher, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh are indeed more feebly represented than Zebulun, but more strongly than Naphtali. There therefore remains no reason for doubting the historical accuracy of the numbers given; but it is of course to be understood that the numbers, which are stated only in hundreds, are not the result of an enumeration of the individual persons, but only of an estimate of the various detachments, according to the military partition of the tribes.

In regard to '» SDH?, cf. x. 14; and as to rOT *B3, see the remark on nirv -izns, xi. 3, 10.— Ver. 24 f. For n»nj" ruy *iffeb, cf. ver. 8, v. 18. N3tf??)n niaa, valiant men for the war service.— Ver. 26. Jehoiada is thought by Rashi, Kimchi, and others, to be the father of Benaiah, xi. 22. He was T?3 for Aaron, i.e. prince of the house of Aaron, head of the family of the Aaronites, not princeps sacerdotum, which was a title appertaining to the high -priesthood, an office held at that time by Abiathar (1 Sam. xxiii. 9). — Ver. 28. Zadok, a youth, i.e. then still a youth, may be the same who was made high priest in place of Abiathar (1 Kings ii. 26, but see on v. 34). aAnd his father' s-house, twenty-two princes." The father' s-house of Zadok is the Aaronite family descended from Eleazar, which was at that time so numerous that it could muster twenty-two 0^, family chiefs, who went with Zadok to Hebron. — Ver. 29. From the tribe of Benjamin, to which Saul belonged (7iNB> '•ntf, see on ver. 2), only 3000 men came, for until that time (H3H 1V\ cf. ix. 18) the greater number of them were keeping the guard of the house of Saul, i.e. were devoted to the interests of the fallen house. For JTJDBto "^f, see on Gen. xxvi. 5 and Lev. viii. 35. From this we learn that the attachment of the Benjamites to Saul continued even after the death of his son Ishbosheth, and that it was with difficulty that they could bring themselves to recognise David as king. — Ver. 30. Of Ephraim 20,800 famous men (HiD^ *g&K, see on Gen. vi. 4);!3irrrc£, " in their fathers'-houses."— Ver. 31. Of half Manasseh, this side Jordan (cf. ver. 37), 18,000, who were appointed by name, i.e. chosen as famous men to go thither and make David king. ntofi?3 to|M, as in Num. i. 17, vide on Lev. xxiv. 16. The tribe of Manasseh had consequently held a general consultation on the matter, and determined upon sending their representatives. — Ver. 32. From Issachar came " men of understanding in reference to the times, to know (i.e. who knew) what Israel should do." nj*a)fi\\ knowing in insight (cf. 2 Chron. ii. 12), i.e. experienced in a thing, having understanding of it. From this remark some of the older commentators (Chald., various Rabbins, and Cleric.) concluded that the tribe of Issachar had distinguished itself beyond the other tribes by astronomical and physical knowledge, by which it was qualified to ascertain and make choice of proper times for political action. But the words do not suggest astronomical or astrological knowledge, but merely state, as Salomo ben-Melech in the Miclol Yoplii long ago interpreted them, noverant tempora ad omnem rem et quodque negotium, sicut sapiens dixit: Suum cuique tempus est et opportunitas cuique rei9 Koh. iii. 1. The words refer not to the whole tribe, but only to the two hundred heads, who, as Lavater expresses it, are designated prudentes viri, as being men qui quid, quando et quomodo agendum esset, varia lectione et usu rerum cognoscebant. The only thing to be objected to in his statement is the varia lectione, since a sound and correct judgment in political matters does not necessarily presuppose scientific training and a wide acquaintance with books. The statement in question, therefore, affirms nothing more than that the tribe of Issachar (in deciding to raise David to the throne) followed the judgment of its princes, who rightly estimated the circumstances of the time. For all their brethren, i.e. all the men of this tribe, went with the two hundred chiefs. DrPB"?y, according to their mouth, i.e. followed their judgment; cf. Num. iv. 27, Deut. xxi. 5. — Ver. 33. «1?^P ^'V, preparing war with all manner of warlike weapons, i.e. practice in the use of all kinds of weapons for war; cf. ver. 8. The infinitive "fW? is substantially a continuation of the preceding participles, but grammatically is dependent on *K3 understood (cf. vers. 23, 38). Cf. as to this free use of the infinitive with?, Ew. § 351, c. The signification of the verb "tty, which occurs only here (vers. 33, 38), is doubtful. According to the LXX. and the Vulg. (/3orj6r](rac9 venerunt in auxilium), and nine MSS., which read "»TJJ7, we would be inclined to take "ny for the Aramaic form of the Hebrew "W (cf. 5^), to help; but that meaning does not suit HDiVD "ny, ver. 38. Its connection there demands that Viy should signify "to close up together," to set in order the battle array; and so here, closing up together with not double heart, i.e, with whole or stedfast heart (D?B* 2:pn, ver. 38), animo integro et Jirmo atque concordi; cf. Ps. xii. 3 (Mich.). — In ver. 38 we have a comprehensive statement; rf^''5?, which refers to all the bodies of men enumerated in vers. 24-37. rn^ is nnstp defectively written; and as it occurs only here, it may be perhaps a mere orthographical error. The whole of the remainder of Israel who did not go to Hebron were *inK 37, of one, i#. of united heart (2 Chron. xxx. 12): they had a unanimous wish to make

David king. — Ver. 39. Those gathered together were there three days eating and drinking, holding festive meals (cf. 1 Sam. xxx. 16, 1 Kings i. 45, etc.), for their brethren had prepared them for them. The object of W2r\f sc. the eating and drinking, may easily be supplied from the context. O^n** are the inhabitants of Hebron and the neighbourhood; the tribe of Judah in general, who had already recognised David as king. — Ver. 40. But it was not only these who performed this service, but also those of the remaining tribes dwelling near them; and indeed the men of Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali, those on the northern frontier of Canaan as well as those who bordered upon Judah, had sent provisions upon beasts of burden, "for joy was in Israel." This joy moved those who remained at home to show their sympathy with the national festival solemnized at Hebron by sending the provisions. For By^i, masses of dried figs, and D^ptsy, masses of raisins or cakes, see on 1 Sam. xxv. 18.

chap. xiii.-xvi. the removal of the ark from kirjathjearim. david's building, his wives and children, and his victories over the philistines. the bringing in of the ark into the city of david, and the arrangement of the worship in mount zion.

All these facts are described in the second book of Samuel, for the most part in the same words. There, however, the contents of our chapter xiv., David's building, wives and children, and victories over the Philistines, immediately follow, in chap. v. 11-25, the account of the conquest of the citadel of Zion (1 Chron. xi. 4-8); and then in 2 Sam. vi. the removal of the ark from Kirjath-jearim, and the bringing of it, after an interval of three months, to Jerusalem, are narrated consecutively, but much more shortly than in the Chronicle. The author of the books of Samuel confined himself to a mere narration of the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem, as one of the first acts of David tending to the raising of the Israelitish kingsb'p, and has consequently, in his estimation of the matter, only taken account of its importance politically to David as king. The author of our Chronicle, on the contrary, has had mainly in view the religious significance of this design of David to restore the Levitic cultus prescribed in the Mosaic law; and in order to impress that upon the reader, he not only gives a detailed account of the part which the Levites took in the solemn transfer of the ark of God (chap, xv.), but he sets forth minutely the arrangements which David made, after the ark had been brought into the capital of the kingdom, for the restoration of a permanent worship about that sanctuary (chap, xvi.). Both the narratives are taken from an original document which related the matter more at length; and from it the author of 2d Samuel has excerpted only what was important for his purpose, while the author of the Chronicle gives a more detailed account. The opinion held by de Wette and others, that the narrative in the Chronicle is merely an expansion by the author of the Chronicle, or by the author of the original document followed by our chronicler, of the account in 2 Sam. vi., for the purpose of glorifying the Levitic cultus, is shown to be incorrect and untenable by the multitude of historical statements peculiar to chap. xv. and xvi., which could not possibly have been invented. Chap. xiii. The removal of the ark from Kirjath-jearim. Cf. 2 Sam. vi. 1-11, with the commentary on the substance of the narrative there given. — Vers. 1-5. The introduction to this event is in 2 Sam. vi. 1 and 2 very brief; but according to our narrative, David consulted with the chief men over thousands and hundreds (cf. xv. 25), viz. with all the princes. The preposition? before *P?j"?5 grouPs together the individual chiefs of the people just named. He laid his purpose before "all the congregation of Israel," i.e. before the above-mentioned princes as representatives of the whole people. " If it seem good to you, and if it come from Jahve our God," i.e. if the matter be willed of and approved by God, we will send as speedily as possible. The words nrWJ n¥"^ without the conjunction are so connected that nr6&w defines the idea expressed by rBHBJ, " we will break through, will send," for " we will, breaking through," i.e. acting quickly and energetically, "send thither." The construction of rw with by is accounted for by the fact that the sending thither includes the notion of commanding (pV Httf). jmnK-?3, all the provinces of the various tribal domains, is used for)^Wi"v3, 1 Sam. xiii. 19, here, and 2 Chron. xi. 23 and xxxiv. 33; in all which places the idea of the division of the land into a number of territories is prominent. This usage is founded upon Gen. xxvi. 3 and 4, where the plural points to the number of small tribes which possessed Canaan. After Dn$yi, hv or b nnta'j is to be repeated. The words ^nJ^1 *& in ver. 3, we have not sought it, nor asked after it, are meant to include all. — Ver. 4 f. As the whole assembly approved of David's design (|3 nwp, it is to do so = so must we do), David collected the whole of Israel to carry it out. " The whole of Israel," from the southern frontier of Canaan to the northern; but of course all are not said to have been present, but there were numerous representatives from every part, — according to 2 Sam. vi. 1, a chosen number of 30,000 men. The DTO "tiTO*, which is named as the southern frontier, is not the Nile, although it also is called iriB> (Isa. xxiii. 3 and Jer. ii. 18), and the name " the black river" also suits it (see Del. on Isaiah, loc. cit.); but is the "rirm before, i.e. eastward from Egypt (&H» W"5g n^), i.e. the brook of Egypt, DfTJO?ru, the Rhinocorura, now el Arish, which in all accurate statements of the frontiers is spoken of as the southern, in contrast to the neighbourhood of Hamath, which was the northern boundary: see on Num. xxxiv. 5. For the designation of the northern frontier, npn Niap, see on Num. xxxiv. 8. Kirjath-jearim, the Canaanitish Baalah, was known among the Israelites by the name Baale Jehudah or Kirjath-baal, as distinguished from other cities named after Baal, and is now the still considerable village Kureyeh el Enab; see on Josh. ix. 17. In this fact we find the explanation of '* 'P /K "WV?, ver. 6: to Baalah, to Kirjath-jearim of Judah. The ark had been brought thither when the Philistines sent it back to Beth-Shemesh, and had been set down in the house of Abinadab, where it remained for about seventy years; see 1 Sam. vi. and vii. 1, 2, and the remarks on 2 Sam. vi. 3 f. DB* K"ip3 "WK is not to be translated

M which is named name," which gives no proper sense. Translating it so, Bertheau would alter DB> into DK*, according to an arbitrary conjecture of Thenius on 2 Sam. vi. 2, " who there (by the ark) is invoked." But were B^ the true reading, it could not refer to the ark, but only to the preceding D$p, since in the whole Old Testament the idea that by or at the resting-place of the ark Jahve was invoked (which E£> 1KW would signify) nowhere occurs, since no one could venture to approach the ark. If Dtt> referred to D^p, it would signify that Jahve was invoked at Kirjath-baal, that there a place of worship had been erected by the ark; but of that the history says nothing, and it would, moreover, be contrary to the statement that the ark was not visited in the days of Saul. We must consequently reject the proposal to alter DK* into DK* as useless and unsuitable, and seek for another explanation: we must take 1KW in the sense of o>?, which it sometimes has; cf. Ew. § 333, a: u as he is called by name," where

OP does not refer only to rhrv, but also to the additional clause BWlSjn 3Bn*? and the meaning is that Jahve is invoked as He who is enthroned above the cherubim; cf. Ps. lxxx. 2, Isa. xxxvii. 16. — On the following vers. 7-14, cf. the commentary on 2 Sam. vi. 3-11.

Chap. xiv. DavioVs palace-building, wives and children, vers. 1-7; cf. 2 Sam. v. 11-16. Two victories over the Philistines, vers. 8-17; cf. 2 Sam. v. 17-25. — The position in which the narrative of these events stands, between the removal of the ark from Kirjath-jearim and its being brought to Jerusalem, is not to be supposed to indicate that they happened in the interval of three months, during which the ark was left in the house of Obed-edom. The explanation of it rather is, that the author of our Chronicle, for the reasons given in page 170, desired to represent David's design to bring the ark into the capital city of his kingdom as his first undertaking after he had won Jerusalem, and was consequently compelled to bring in the events of our chapter at a later period, and for that purpose this interval of three months seemed to offer him the fittest opportunity. The whole contents of our chapter have already been commented upon in 2 Sam. v. 1, so that we need not here do more than refer to a few subordinate points. — Ver. 2. Instead of KEW ^ that He (Jahve) had lifted up (N&3, perf. Pi.), as in Sam ver. 2, in the Chronicle we read TOP? HN^3 *3, that his kingdom had been lifted up on high. The unusual form riN'EO may be, according to the context, the third pers. fern. perf. Niph., HNtstt having first been changed into nKfett, and thus contracted into HK&J; cf. Ew. § 194, b. In 2 Sam. xix. 43 the same form is the infin. abs. Niph. n?V*?? is here, as frequently in the Chronicles, used to intensify the expression: cf. xxii. 5, xxiii. 17, xxix. 3, 25; 2 Chron. i. 1, xvii. 12. With regard to the sons of David, see on iii. 5-8.

In the account of the victories over the Philistines, the statement (Sam. ver. 1 7) that David went down to the mountain-hold, which has no important connection with the main fact, and would have been for the readers of the Chronicle somewhat obscure, is exchanged in ver. 8 for the more general expression Dn^B7 twi, " he went forth against them." In ver. 14, the divine answer to David's question, whether he should march against the Philistines, runs thus: urxbws 3DH onnnx rbvn N?, Thou shalt not go up after them; turn away from them, and come upon them over against the baca-bushes; — while in Sam. ver. 23, on the contrary, we read: Dn^n*r?K 3pn rngn fc6? Thou shalt not go up (i.e. advance against the enemy to attack them in front); turn thee behind them (i.e. to their rear), and come upon them over against the baca-bushes. Bertheau endeavours to get rid of the discrepancy, by supposing that into both texts corruptions have crept through transcribers' errors. He conjectures that the text of Samuel was originally Dn^iriK tW$T\ *6? while in the Chronicle a transposition of the words DnvJ? and WJ^nK was occasioned by a copyist's error, which in turn resulted in the alteration of orvpy into DjrafD. This supposition, however, stands or falls with the presumption that by PEgn k? (Sam.) an attack is forbidden; but for that presumption no tenable grounds exist: it would rather involve a contradiction between the first part of the divine answer and the second. The last clause, u Come upon them from over against the baca-bushes," shows that the attack was not forbidden; all that was forbidden was the making of the attack by advancing straight forward: instead of that, they were to try to fall upon them in the rear, by making a circuit. The chronicler consequently gives us an explanation of the ambiguous words of 2d Samuel, which might easily be misunderstood. As David's question was doubtless expressed as it is in ver. 10, 'pan by nfo[Kn, the answer npyri n;> might be understood to mean, " Go not up against them, attack them not, but go away behind them;" but with that the following 'til D»T> rnQ*, " Come upon them from the baca-bushes," did not seem to harmonize. The chronicler consequently explains the first clauses of the answer thus: " Go not up straight behind them," i.e advance not against them so as to attack them openly, " but turn thyself away from them," i.e. strike oh0 in such a direction as to turn their flank, and come upon them from the front of the baca-bushes. In this way the apparently contradictory texts are reconciled without the alteration of a word. In ver. 17, which is wanting in Samuel, the author concludes the account of these victories by the remark that they tended greatly to exalt the name of David among the nations. For similar reflections, cf. 2 Chron. xvii. 10, xx. 29, xiv. 13; and for D0 K*3, 2 Chron. xxvi. 15.

Chap. xv. to xvi. 3. The bringing of the ark into Jerusalem. — In the parallel account, 2 Sam. vi. 11-23, only the main facts as to the transfer of the holy ark to Jerusalem, and the setting of it up in a tent erected for its reception on Mount Zion, are shortly narrated; but the author of the Chronicle elaborately portrays the religious side of this solemn act, tells of the preparations which David had made for it, and gives a special enumeration of the Levites, who at the call of the king laboured with him to carry it out according to the precepts of the law. For this purpose he first gives an account of the preparations (xv. 1-24), viz. of the erection of a tent for the ark in the city of David (ver. 1), of the consultation of the king with the priests and Levites (vers. 2-13), and of the accomplishment of that which they had determined upon (vers. 14-29). — Ver. 1. In 2 Sam. vi. 12a the whole matter is introduced by a statement that the motive which had determined the kino; to brin^ the ark to Jerusalem, was his having heard of the blessing which the ark had brought upon the house of Obed-edom. In our narrative (ver. 1), the remark that David, while building his house in Jerusalem, prepared a place for the ark of God, and erected a tent for it, forms the transition from the account of his palace-building (xiv. 1 if.) to the brinmno; in of the ark. The words, " he made unto himself houses," do not denote, as Bertheau thinks, the building of other houses besides the palaces built with the help of King Hiram (xiv. 1). For nby is not synonymous with n^3? but expresses the preparation of the building for a dwelling, and the words refer to the completion of the palace as a dwelling-place for the king and his wives and children. In thus making the palace which had been built fit for a habitation, David prepared a place for the ark, which, together with its tent, was to be placed in his palace. As to the reasons which influenced David in determining to erect a new tabernacle for the ark, instead of causing the old and sacred tabernacle to be brought from Gibeon to Jerusalem for the purpose, see the remarks introductory to 2 Sam. vi.

Ver. 2 n\ The reason for the preparations made on this occasion for the solemn progress is assigned in the statement that David had resolved to cause the ark to be carried by the Levites alone, because God had chosen them thereto; cf. Num. i. 50, iv. 15, vii. 9, x. 17. TK? "at that time," i.e. at the end of the three months, xiii. 14. HNbj N?? " there is not to bear," i.e. no other shall bear the ark than the Levites. "By this arrangement, it is expressly acknowledged that it was contrary to the law to place it upon a cart; chap. xiii. 17" (Berth.). For this purpose, the king assembled " the whole of Israel" in Jerusalem, i.e. the elders, the rulers over thousands, the heads of families; cf. 2 Sam. vi. 15, where it is stated that ^jnfe* IV|r?3 took part in the solemn march. — Ver. 4. From amon^ assembled Israel David then specially gathered together the heads of the priests and Levites, to determine upon the details of this solemn procession. u The sons of Aaron " are the high priests Zadok and Abiathar, ver. 11; and the " Levites'' are the six princes named in vers. 5-10, with their brethren, viz. (vers. 5-7) the three heads of the families into which the tribe of Levi was divided, and which corresponded to the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, respectively (Ex. vi. 16): Uriel head of the Kohathites, Asaiah of the Merarites, and Joel head of the Gershonites, with their brethren. Kohath is first enumerated, because Aaron the chief of the priests was descended from Kohath, and because to the Kohathites there fell, on account of their nearer relationship to the priests, the duty of serving in that which is most holy, the bearing of the holiest vessels of the tabernacle. See Num. iv. 4, 15, vii. 9; as to Uriel, see on vi. 9; for Asaiah, see vi. 15; and as to Joel, see vi. 21. Then in vers. 8, 9 we have the heads of three other Kohathite families: Shemaiah, chief of the sons of Elizaphan, i.e. Elizaphan son of the Kohathite Uzziel (Ex. vi. 22); Eliel, chief of the sons of Hebron the Kohathite (Ex. vi. 18); and Amminadab, chief of the sons of Uzziel. The sons of Uzziel, consequently, were divided into two fathers' -houses: the one founded by Uzziel's son Elizaphan, and named after him (ver. 8); the other founded by his other sons, and called by his name. Of the fathers'-houses here enumerated, four belong to Kohath, and one each to Merari and Gershon; and the Kohathites were called to take part in the solemn act in greater numbers than the Merarites and Gershonites, since the transport of the ark was the Kohathites' special duty. — Ver. 11. Zadok of the line of Eleazar (chap. v. 27-41), and Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, were the heads of the two priestly lines, and at that time both held the office of high priest (xxiv. 3; cf. 2 Sam. xv. 24 ff., xx. 25). These priests and the six princes of the Levites just enumerated were charged by David to consecrate themselves with their brethren, and to bring up the ark of God to the place prepared for it. Vh$}*}9 to consecrate oneself by removal of all that is unclean, washing of the body and of the clothes (Gen. xxxv. 2), and careful keeping aloof from every defilement, avoiding coition and the touching of unclean things; cf. Ex. xix. 10, 15. v "Tri^rr?^ to (the place) which I have prepared for it. V Vti^an is a relative clause with "1BW, construed with a preposition as though it were a substantive: cf. similar constructions, xxix. 3, 2 Chron. xvi. 9, xxx. 18, Neh. viii. 10; and Ew. § 333, b. — Ver. 13. " For because in the beginning (i.e. when the ark was removed from the house of Amminadab, chap, xiii.) it was not you (sc. who brought it up), did Jahve our God make a breach upon us," sc. by the slaying of Uzza, xiii. 11. In the first clause the predicate is wanting, but it may easily be supplied from the context. The contracted form nglBfctt3D?, made up of HD7 and njitfSTD, is unique, since HD is so united only with small words, as in HJD? Ex. iv. 2, E?pD, Isa. iii. 15: but we find nK?ri» for ni&n-nD, Mai. i. 13; cf. Ew. § 91, d. n»i> here signifies " on account of this which = because; cf. Ew. § 222, a, and 353, a. " This was done, because we did not seek Him according to the right," which required that the ark, upon which Jehovah sits enthroned, should be carried by Levites, and touched by no unholy person, or one who is not a priest (Num. iv. 15). — Ver. 14 f. The Levites consecrated themselves, and bare — as ver. 15 anticipatively remarks — the ark of God upon their shoulders, according to the prescription in Num. vii. 9, OfivJ? fttotoa, by means of poles upon them (the shoulders). ^^D? tne flexible pole used for carrying burdens, Num. xiii. 23. Those used to carry the ark are called D^a in the Pentateuch, Ex. xxv. 13 ff.