Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Vers. 16—24. David gave the princes of the Levites a further charge to appoint singers with musical instruments for the solemn procession, which they accordingly did. T?f v3, instruments to accompany the song. In ver. 16 three kinds of these are named: D733, nablia, ^aXr^pta, which Luther has translated by psalter, corresponds to the Arabic santir, which is an oblong box with a broad bottom and a somewhat convex sounding-board, over which strings of wire are stretched; an instrument something like the cithara. rri"i33, harps, more properly lutes, as this instrument more resembled our lute than the harp, and corresponded to the

Isaiah, S. 702, der 2 Aufl., where, however, the statement that the santir is essentially the same as the old German cymbal, vulgo Ilackebrett, is incorrect, and calculated to bring confusion into the matter, for the cymbal was an instrument provided with a small bell. &^Y>'P, the later word for &vV?V, cymbals, castanets; see on 2 Sam. vi. 5. DTft^tt does not belong to the three beforementioned instruments (Berth.), but, as is clear from vers. 19,

28, xvi. 5, 42, undoubtedly only to EW?P (Bottcher, Neue Jcrit. AcJirenlese, iii. S. 223); but the meaning is not "• modulating," but u sounding clear or loud," — according to the proper meaning of the word, to make to hear. The infinitive clause 'Ml D'nrp belongs to the preceding sentence: " in order to heighten the sound (both of the song and of the instrumental music) to joy," i.e. to the expression of joy. nntpOT is frequently used to express festive joy: cf. ver. 25, 2 Chron. xxiii. 18, xxix. 30; but also as early as in 2 Sam. vi. 12, 1 Sam. xviii. 6, Judg. xvi. 23, etc. — In vers. 17, 18 the names of the singers and players are introduced; then in vers. 19-21 they are named in connection with the instruments they played; and finally, in vers. 22-24, the other Levites and priests who took part in the celebration are mentioned. The three chief singers, the Kohathite Heman, the Gershonite Asaph, and the Merarite Ethan, form the first class. See on vi. 18, 24, and 29. To the second class (D^^BJ}, cf. nJBten, 2 Kings xxiii. 4) belonged thirteen or fourteen persons, for in ver. 21 an Azaziah is named in the last series who is omitted in ver. 18; and it is more probable that his name has been dropped out of ver. 18 than that it came into our text, ver. 21, by an error. In ver. 18 |3 comes in after ^I^T by an error of transcription, as we learn from the i before the following name, and from a comparison of vers. 20 and 25. The name ^Wg is in ver. 20 written bw% Yodk being rejected; and in xvi. 5 it is?WV, which is probaby only a transcriber's error, since?*W. occurs along with it both in ver. 18 and in xvi. 5. The names Benaiah and Maaseiah, which are repeated in ver. 20, have been there transposed. All the other names in vers. 18 and 20 coincide. — Vers. 19-21. These singers formed three choirs, according to the instruments they played. Heman, Asaph, and Ethan played brazen cymbals W&»? (ver. 19); Benaiah and the seven who follow played nablia (jpsalteria) T\S&?y by (ver. 20); while the last six played lutes (harps) by nxb hwtSfn (ver. 21). These three Hebrew words plainly denote different keys in singing, but are, owing to our small acquaintance with the music of the Hebrews, obscure, and cannot be interpreted with certainty. rt2tt? going over from the fundamental signification glitter, shine, into the idea of outshining and superior capacity, overwhelming ability, might also, as a musical term, denote the conducting of the playing and singing as well as the leading of them. The signification to direct is here, however, excluded by the context, for the conductors were without doabt the three chief musicians or bandmasters (Capellenmeister), Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, with the cymbals, not the psaltery and lute players belonging to the second rank. The conducting must therefore be expressed by 3P?t$??j and this word must mean " in order to give a clear tone," i.e. to regulate the tune and the tone of the singing, while njg? signifies " to take the lead in playing;" cf. Del. on Ps. iv. 1. This word, moreover, is probably not to be restricted to the singers with the lutes, the third choir, but must be held to refer also to the second choir. The meaning then will be, that Heman, Asaph, and Ethan had cymbals to direct the song, while the other singers had partly psalteries, partly lutes, in order to play the accompaniment to the singing. The song of these two choirs is moreover distinguished and defined by nSvby by and TVypgh by. These words specify the kind of voices; r\)D?y by after the manner of virgins, i.e. in the soprano; by rpyD^flj after the octave, i.e. in bass — al ottava bassa. See Del. on Ps. vi. 1, xlvi. 1. In vers. 22-24 the still remaining priests who were engaged in the solemn procession are enumerated. — Ver. 22. " Chenaniah, the prince of the Levites, for the bearing, teacher in bearing; for he was instructed in it." Since Chenaniah does not occur among the six princes of the Levites in vers. 5-10, and is called in ver. 27 Nfrttn nfrrt? we must here also join Nbm (as most editions punctuate the first N^CO, while according to Norzi K&B3 is the right reading even in the first case) closely with D^ry—ib>? with the meaning that Chenaniah was captain of the Levites who had charge of the bearing of the ark, a chief of the Levites who bore it. The word K*^D is, however, very variously interpreted. The LXX. have apywv tcov coScov, and the Vulgate, prophetice prceerat ad prcecinendam melodiam; whence Luther translates: the master in song to teach them to sing. This translation cannot, however, be linguistically upheld; the word V&O means only the bearing of the burden (Num.iv. 19, 27, etc.; 2 Chron. xxxv. 3), and a prophetical utterance of an oppressive or threatening character (Isa. xiii. 1, and xv. 1, etc.). But from this second signification neither the general meaning proplietia^ nor, if we wish to go back upon the?ip NEO, to raise the voice, the signification master of song, supremus miisicus (Lavat.), or qui principatum tenebat in cantu Mo sublimiore (Vatabl.), can be derived. The meaning prop7ietia, moreover, does not suit the context, and we must consequently, with Bertheau and others, hold fast the signification of bearing. We are determined in favour of this, (1) by the context, which here treats of the bearing of the ark, for which NtpD is the usual word; and (2) by the circumstance that in xxvi. 29 Chenaniah is mentioned as the chief of the Levites for the external business, which goes to show, if the persons are identical, that he here had the oversight of the external business of the transport, "ibj is not the inf. absol., which cannot stand directly for the verb, finit.; nor is it the imperf. of V)D in the signification of Tife> (Bertheau and others), but a nominal formation from *ip* (cf. on this formation as the most proper designation of the actor, Ew. § 152, b), in the signification teacher, which is shown by Isa. xxviii. 26 certainly to belong to "^DJ. The clause K'#E2 nbj gives the explanation of the preceding K'^D3? or it specifies what Chenaniah had to do in the procession- He had to take the lead in the bearing because he was P2B in it, i.e. was instructed in that which was to be observed in it. — In ver. 23 two doorkeepers for the ark are named; and in ver. 24, at the end of the enumeration of the Levites who were busied about the transport, two additional names are mentioned as those of men who had the same duty. The business of these doorkeepers was, as Seb. Schmidt has already remarked on 2 Sam. vi., non tarn introitum aperire area?, quam custodire, ne ad earn irrumperetur. Between these two pairs of doorkeepers in ver. 24, the priests, seven in number, who blew the trumpets, are named. The Kethibh D'nwnD is to be read B^nD, a denom. from nnvsq; the Keri DnvnD is Hiph. of "wn, as in 2 Chron. vii. 6, xiii. 14, and xxix. 28. In 2 Cliron. v. 12 and 13, on the contrary, D*W?0 is partic. Pi. The blowing of the silver trumpets by the priests in this solemn procession rests on the prescription in Num. x. 1-10, which see. The place assigned to these trumpet-blowing priests was either immediately before the ark, like the priestly trumpeters in the march round Jericho (Josh. vi. 4, 6), or immediately after it. For, that these priests entered in the immediate vicinity of the ark, may be inferred from the fact that before and behind them were doorkeepers of the ark. The procession, then, was probably arranged in this way: (1) the singers and players in front, in three divisions; (2) Chenaniah, the captain of the bearers; (3) two doorkeepers; (4) the priests with the trumpets immediately before or after the ark; (5) two doorkeepers; (6) the king with the ciders and captains of thousands (ver. 25). The two doorkeepers Obededom and Jehiah (p$)% liashi, Berth., and others consider to be the same persons as the singers Obededom and Jeiel ('*??*)* supposing that the latter name is wrongly written in one of the passages. This, however, is incorrect, for the identity of the name Obededom is no sufficient ground for supposing the persons to be the same, since in xvi. 38 the singer Obededom and the doorkeeper Obededom the son of Jeduthun seem to be distinguished. And besides that, Obededom and his colleagues could not possibly at the same time as porters precede, and as singers come after, the priests and the ark, and there is consequently no reason to doubt that the name n^rv is correct.

Ver. 25-chap. xvi. 3 narrate the further procedings connected with the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem; cf. 2 Sam. vi. 12-19. By the words 'U1 TVJ W the account of the execution of the design is connected with the statements as to the preparations (vers. 2-24): " And so were David... who wrent to bring up the ark." — Ver. 26. When God had helped the Levites who bare the ark of the covenant of Jahve, they offered seven bullocks and seven rams, i.e. after the journey had been happily accomplished. Instead of this, in 2 Sam. vi. 13, the offering which was made at the commencement of the journey to consecrate it is mentioned; see on the passage. The discrepancy between ver. 27 and 2 Sam. vi. 14 is more difficult of explanation. Instead of the words OT* Vtb Tjrka "ttnatp TH, David danced with all his might before Jahve, we read in the Chronicle pa ^3 kniD Wl, David was clothed with a robe of byssus. But since "OllD differs from 7TOD only in the last two letters, and "O might be easily exchanged for bl, we may suppose that ^ni3» has arisen out of "D-ilD. Bertheau accordingly says: u Any one who remembered that in this verse David's clothing was spoken of might write "OiDD as ^l"il», while the words ty ^1, which were probably illegible, were conjectured to be pi ^JJDI." This opinion would be worthy of consideration, if only the other discrepancies between the Chronicle and Samuel were thereby made more comprehensible. That, besides David, the bearers of the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah are mentioned, Bertheau thinks can be easily explained by what precedes; but how can that explain the absence of the rn.T *os5> of Samuel from our text? Bertheau passes this over in silence; and yet it is just the absence of these words in our text which shows that hsy&2 i>l"DD pi cannot have arisen from an orthographical error and the illegibility of TV ^31, since mir ^sb must have been purposely omitted. Bottcher's opinion (2V". h\ Aehrenl. iii. S. 224), that the Chaldaizing hmD can scarcely have been written by the chronicler, because it is not at all like his pure Hebrew style, and that consequently a later reader, who considered it objectionable that a Levite should dance, and perhaps impossible that the bearers should (forgetting that they were released in turn from performing their office), while holding as closely to the letter of the text as possible, corrected ty?22 "D")3B into prfOD pn ^JJD3, and that the same person, or perhaps a later, added besides n)33M D^TOHIj is still less probable. In that way, indeed, we get no explanation of the main difficulty, viz. how the words from D*V'"i to D'mbton came into the text of the Chronicle, instead of the mrp 'OS? of Samuel. The supposition that originally the words from D^frbl fiH?33 na-on TVn to D^bteffl stood in the text, when of course the statement would be, not only that David danced with all his might, but also that all the Levites who bore the ark danced, is in the highest degree unsatisfactory; for this reason, if for no other, that we cannot conceive how the singers could play the neb el and the Icinnor and dance at the same time, since it is not alternations between singing and playing, and dancing and leaping that are spoken of. The discrepancy can only be got rid of by supposing that both narratives are abridged extracts from a more detailed statement, which contained, besides David's dancing, a completer account of the clothing of the king, and of the Levites who took part in the procession. Of these the author of the books of Samuel has communicated only the two characteristic facts, that David danced with all his might before the Lord, and wore an ephod of white; while the author of the Chronicle gives us an account of David's clothing and that of the Levites, while he omits David's dancing. This he does, not because he was scandalized thereby, for he not only gives a hint of it in ver. 29, but mentions it in xiii. 8, which is parallel to 2 Sam. vi. 5; but because the account of the king's clothing, and of that of the Levites, in so far as the religious meaning of the solemn progress was thereby brought out, appeared to him more important for his design of depicting at length the religious side of the procession. For the clothing of the king had a priestly character; and not only the ephod of white (see on 2 Sam. vi. 14), but also the meil of pa, white byssus, distinguished the king as head of a priestly people. The meil as such was, it is true, an outer garment which every Israelite might wear, but it was worn usually only by persons of rank and distinction (cf. 1 Sam. ii. 19, xv. 27, xviii. 4, xxiv. 5; Ezra ix. 3; Job xxix. 14), and white byssus was the material for the priests' garments. Among the articles of clothing which the law prescribed for the official dress of the simple priest (Ex. xxviii. 40) the •'W was not included, but only the nj^3, a tight close-fitting coat; but the priests were not thereby prevented from wearing a meil of byssus on special festive occasions, and we are informed in 2 Chron. v. 12 that even the Levites and singers were on such occasions clad in byssus. In this way the statement of our verse, that David and all the Levites and bearers of the ark, the singers, and the captain Chenaniah, had put on rneilim of byssus, is justified and shown to be in accordance with the circumstances. The words therefore are to be so understood. The words from DWrfal to Nfran -)'^n are co-ordinate with TVtt and after them we must supply in thought Y^ ^P? ',?"}?*?j and may translate the verse thus: u David was clothed in a meil of byssus, as also were all the Levites," etc. No objection can be taken to the KfeTsn "ifrn when we have the article with a nomen regens, for cases of this kind frequently occur where the article, as here, has a strong retrospective force; cf. Ew. § 290, d. On the contrary, B*Tijfe?bp after Kfran is meaningless, and can only have come into the text, like |3 in ver. 18, by an error of the transcriber, although it was so read as early as the time of the LXX. For the last clause, cf. 2 Sam. vi. 14. — Ver. 28 is, as compared with 2 Sam. vi. 5, somewhat enlarged by the enumeration of the individual instruments.— Ver. 29 and chap. xvi. 1-3 agree in substance with 2 Sam. vi. 15-19<7, only some few words being explained: e.g. pnto IgrrtJ, ver. 29, instead of 'TSfpR WSO (Sam.), and n*l3 flTK •TUT instead of nirp |V"iN (Sam.); see the commentary on 2 Sam. I.e. Chap. xvi. 4-42. The religious festival, and the arrangement of the sacred service before the ark of the covenant in the city of David. — This section is not found in 2d Samuel, where the conclusion of this whole description (ver. 43, Chron.) follows immediately upon the feasting of the people by the king, vers. 19Z» and 20. — Ver. 46. When the solemnity of the transfer of the ark, the sacrificial meal, and the dismissal of the people with a blessing, and a distribution of food, were ended, David set in order the service of the Levites in the holy tent on Zion. He appointed before the ark, from among the Levites, servants to praise and celebrate God, i.e. singers and players to sing psalms as a part of the regular worship, T'STn?, literally, ll in order to bring into remembrance," is not to praise in general, but is to be interpreted according to the "V??np in the superscription of Ps. xxxviii. and lxx., by which these psalms are designated as the appointed prayers at the presentation of the Azcarah of the meat-offering (Lev. ii. 2). "Wftfi accordingly is a denom. from nl?!^7 to present the Azcarah (cf. Del. on Ps. xxxviii. 1), and is in our verse to be understood of the recital of these prayer-songs with musical accompaniment, rrilin, to confess, refers to the psalms in which invocation and acknowledgment of the name of the Lord predominates, and??n to those in which praise (Hallelujah) is the prominent feature. In vers. 5 and 6 there follow the names of the Levites appointed for this purpose, who have all been already mentioned in xv. 19-21 as accompanying the ark in its transmission; but all who are there spoken of are not included in our list here. Of the chief singers only Asaph is mentioned, Heman and Ethan being omitted: of the singers and players of the second rank, only nine; six of the eight nebelplayers (xv. 20.?*W; is a transcriber's error for?*TO!, xv. 18), and only three of the six kinnor-players; while instead of seven trumpet-blowing priests only two are named, viz. Benaiah, one of those seven, and Jehaziel, whose name does not occur in xv. 24. — Ver. 7. On that day David first committed it to Asaph and his sons to give thanks to Jahve. 10} is to be connected with T3, which is separated from it by several words, and denotes to hand over to, here to commit to, to enjoin upon, since that which David committed to Asaph was the carrying out of a business which he enjoined, not an object which may be given into the hand. ^r\r\ Dto is accented by W. B>K"I3, " at the beginning,"" "at first," to bring out the fact that liturgical singing was then first introduced, vriK, the brethren of Asaph, are the Levites appointed to the same duty, whose names are given in vers. 5, 6. But in order to give a more exact description of the Hiriv nnin committed to Asaph in vers. 8-36, a song of thanks and praise is given, which the Levites were to sing as part of the service with instrumental accompaniment. It is not expressly said that this song was composed by David for this purpose; but if Asaph with his singers was to perform the service committed to him, he must have been provided with the songs of praise (psalms) which were necessary for this purpose; and if David were in any way the founder of the liturgical psalmody, he, as a richly endowed psalm-singer, would doubtless compose the necessary liturgical psalms. These considerations render it very probable that the following psalm was a hymn composed by David for the liturgical song in the public worship. The psalm is as follows: —

Ver. 8. Give thanks unto Jahve; preach His name; Make known His deeds among the peoples: 9. Sing to Him, play to Him;

Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord.

11. Seek ye the Lord, and His strength; Seek His face continually.

13. 0 seed of Israel, His servants, Sons of Jacob, His chosen.

16. Which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac;

17. And caused it to stand to Jacob for a law, To Israel as an everlasting covenant;

18. Saying, " To thee I give the land Canaan, As the heritage meted out to you."

19. "When ye were still a people to be numbered, Very few, and strangers therein,

20. And they wandered from nation to nation, From one kingdom to another people,

21. He suffered no man to oppress them, And reproved kings for their sake:

22. " Touch not mine anointed ones, And do my prophets no harm."

25. For great is Jahve, and greatly to be praised; And to be feared is He above all the gods.

26. For all the gods of the people are idols; And Jahve has made the heavens.

28. Give unto Jahve, ye kindreds of the people, Give unto Jahve glory and strength.

29. Give unto Jahve the honour of His name: Bring an offering, and come before His presence; Worship the Lord in the holy ornaments.

30. Tremble before Him, all the lands; Then will the earth stand fast unshaking.

32. Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof; Let the field exult, and all that is thereon.

Before the Lord; for He comes to judge the earth.

34. Give thanks unto Jahve, for He is good; For His mercy endureth for ever.

And gather us together, and deliver us from the heathen, To give thanks to Thy holy name, To glory in Thy praise.

36. Blessed be Jahve, the God of Israel, From everlasting to everlasting.

And all the people said Amen, and praised Jahve.

This hymn forms a connected and uniform whole. Beginning with a summons to praise the Lord, and to seek His face (vers. 8-11), the singer exhorts his people to remember the wondrous works of the Lord (vers. 12-14), and the covenant which He made with the patriarchs to give them the land of Canaan (vers. 15-18), and confirms his exhortation by pointing out how the Lord, in fulfilment of His promise, had mightily and gloriously defended the patriarchs (vers. 19-22). But all the world also are to praise Him as the only true and almighty God (vers. 23-27), and all peoples do homage to Him with sacrificial gifts (vers. 28-30); and that His kingdom may be acknowledged among the heathen, even inanimate nature will rejoice at His coming to judgment (vers. 31—33). In conclusion, we have again the summons to thankfulness, combined with a prayer that God would further vouchsafe salvation; and a doxology rounds off the whole (vers. 34-36). When we consider the contents of the whole hymn, it is manifest that it contains nothing which would be at all inconsistent with the belief that it was composed by David for the above-mentioned religious service. There is nowhere any reference to the condition of the people in exile, nor yet to their circumstances after the exile. The subject of the praise to which Israel is summoned is the covenant which God made with Abraham, and the wonderful way in which the patriarchs were led. The summons to the heathen to acknowledge Jahve as alone God and King of the world, and to come before His presence with sacrificial offerings, together with the thought that Jahve will come to judge the earth, belong to the Messianic hopes. These had formed themselves upon the foundation of the promises given to the patriarchs, and the view they had of Jahve as Judge of the heathen, when He led His people out of Egypt, so early, that even in the song of Moses at the Red Sea (Ex. xv.)? and the song of the pious Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10), we meet with the first germs of them; and what we find in David and the prophets after him are only further developments of these.

Yet all the later commentators, with the exception of Hitzig, die Psalmen, ii. S. ix. f., judge otherwise as to the origin of this festal hymn. Because the first half of it (vers. 8-22) recurs in Ps. cv. 1-15, the second (vers. 23-33) in Ps. xcvi., and the conclusion (vers. 34-36) in Ps. cvi. 1, 47, 48, it is concluded that the author of the Chronicle compounded the hymn from these three psalms, in order to reproduce the festive songs which were heard after the ark had been brought in, in the same free way in which the speeches in Thucydides and Livy reproduce what was spoken at various times. Besides the later commentators, Aug. Koehler (in the Luth. Ztschr. 1867, S. 289 ff.) and C. Ehrt (Abfassungszeit und Abschluss des Psalters, Leipz. 1869, S. 41 ff.) are of the same opinion. The possibility that our hymn may have arisen in this way cannot be denied; for such a supposition would be in so far consistent with the character of the Chronicle, as we find in it speeches which have not been reported verbatim by the hearers, but are given in substance or in freer outline by the author of our Chronicle, or, as is more probable, by the author of the original documents made use of by the chronicler. But this view can only be shown to be correct if it corresponds to the relation in which our hymn may be ascertained to stand to the three psalms just mentioned. Besides the fact that its different sections are again met with scattered about in different psalms, the grounds for supposing that our hymn is not an original poem are mainly the want of connection in the transition from ver. 22 to ver. 23, and from ver. 33 to ver. 34; the fact that in ver. 35 we have a verse referring to the Babylonian exile borrowed from Ps. cvi.; and that ver. 36 is even the doxology of the fourth book of Psalms, taken to be a component part of the psalm. These two latter grounds would be decisive, if the facts on which they rest were well authenticated. If ver. 36 really contained only the doxology of the fourth book of Psalms, — which, like the doxologies of the first, second, and third books (Ps. xli. 14, lxxii. 18, 19, and Ixxxix. 53), was merely formally connected with the psalm, without being a component part of it, — there could be no doubt that the author of the Chronicle had taken the conclusion of his hymn from our collection of psalms, as these doxologies only date from the originators of our collection. But this is not the state of the case. The 48th verse of the 106th Psalm does, it is true, occupy in our Psalter the place of the doxology to the fourth book, but belonged, as Bertheau also acknowledges, originally to the psalm itself. For not only is it different in form from the doxologies of the first three books, not having the double |£N1 JftK with which these books close, but it concludes with the simple Pin^n \m. If the |»$ t»« connected by 1 is, in the Old Testament language, exclusively confined to these doxologies, which thus approach the language of the liturgical Beracha of the second temple, as Del. Ps. p. 15 rightly remarks, while in Num. v. 22 and Neh. viii. 6 only JEK |£K without copulative 1 occurs, it is just this peculiarity of the liturgical Beracha which is wanting, both in the concluding verse of the 106th Psalm and in ver. 36 of our festal hymn. Moreover, the remainder of the verse in question, — the last clause of it, " And let all the people say Amen, Halleluiah," — does not suit the hypothesis that the verse is the doxology appended to the conclusion of the fourth book by the collector of the Psalms, since, as Hengstenberg in his commentary on the psalm rightly remarks, " it is inconceivable that the people should join in that which, as mere closing doxology of a book, would have no religious character;" and " the praise in the conclusion of the psalm beautifully coincides with its commencement, and the Halleluiah of the end is shown to be an original part of the psalm by its correspondence with the beginning." * The last verse of our hymn does not therefore

1 Bertheau also rightly says: " If in Ps. lxxii. (as also in Ps. Ixxxix. and xli.) the author of the doxology himself says Amen, while in Ps. cvi. 48 the saying of the Amen is committed to the people, this difference can only arise from the fact that Ps. cvi. originally concluded with the exhortation to say Amen."

presuppose the existence of the collection of psalms, nor in ver. 35 is there any indubitable reference to the exilic time. The words, " Say, ' Save us, Thou God of our salvation; gather us together, and deliver us from among the heathen/ " do not presuppose that the people had been previously led away into the Chaldean exile, but only the dispersion of prisoners of war, led away captive into an enemy's land after a defeat. This usually occurred after each defeat of Israel by their enemies, and it was just such cases Solomon had in view in his prayer, 1 Kings viii. 46-50.

The decision as to the origin of this festal hymn, therefore, depends upon its internal characteristics, and the result of a comparison of the respective texts. The song in itself forms, as Hitz.

I.e. S. 19 rightly judges, "a thoroughly coherent and organic whole. The worshippers of Jahve are to sing His praise in memory of His covenant which He made with their fathers, and because of which He protected them (vers. 18-22). But all the world also are to praise Him, the only true God (vers. 23-27); the peoples are to come before Him with gifts; yea, even inanimate nature is to pay the King and Judge its homage (vers. 28-33). Israel — and with this the end returns to the beginning — is to thank Jahve, and invoke His help against the heathen (vers. 34 and 35)." This exposition of the symmetrical disposition of

the psalm is not rendered questionable by the objections raised by Koehler, I.e.; nor can the recurrence of the individual parts of it in three different psalms of itself at all prove that in the Chronicle we have not the original form of the hymn. u There

is nothing to hinder us from supposing that the author of Ps. xcvi. may be the same as the author of Ps. cv. and cvi.; but even another might be induced by example to appropriate the first half of 1 Chron. xvi. 8 ff., as his predecessor had appropriated

cvi.) ver. 47 is the conclusion, a proper ending is wanting; while ver. 48, on the contrary, places the psalm on a level with Ps. ciii.-cv., cvii. Who can believe that the author himself, for the purpose of ending the fourth book with ver. 48, caused the psalm to extend to the 48th verse? In the Chronicle, the people whom the verse mentions are present from xv. 3-xvi. 2, while in the psalm no one can see how they should come in there. Whether the verse belong to the psalm or not, the turning to all the people, and the causing the people to say Amen, Amen, instead of the writer, has no parallel in the Psalms, and is explicable only on the supposition that it comes from the Chronicle. Afterwards a Diaskeuast might be satisfied to take the verse as the boundarystone of a book."

the second, and it wonld naturally occur to him to supply from his own resources the continuation which had been already taken away and made use of" (Hitz. I.e.), A similar phenomenon is

the recurrence of the second half of Ps. xl. 17 if. as an indepen-

dent psalm, Ps. lxx. " But it is also readily seen," continues Hitzig, u how easily the psalmist might separate the last three verses from each other (vers. 34 to 36 of the Chronicle), and set them as a frame round Ps. cvi. Ver. 34 is not less suitable in the Chronicle for the commencement of a paragraph than in Ps. cvii., while ver. 36 would admit of no continuation, but was the proper end. On the other hand, we can scarcelv believe that the chronicler compiled his song first from Ps. cv., then from Ps. xcvi., and lastly from Ps. cvi., striking off from this latter only the beginning and the end."

Finally, if we compare the text of our hymn with the text of these psalms, the divergences are of such a sort that we cannot decide with certainty which of the two texts is the original. To pass over such critically indifferent variations as W&, Chron. ver. 12, for V3; Ps. cv. 5; the omission of the nota ace. HKj Chron. ver. 18, compared with Ps. cv. 10, and vice versa in Ps. xcvi. 3 and Chron. ver. 24; TRI »?g, Chron. ver. 33, instead of TS!? *?^?j Ps. xcvi. 12, — the chronicler has in PfW, ver. 16, instead' of pn^, Ps. cv. 9, and r%, ver. 32, instead" of fe, Ps. xcvi. 12, the earlier and more primitive form; in tiHfl?N W3J3, ver. 22, instead of WTO?K Wzf?, Ps. cv. 15, a quite unusual construction; and in BV b« Di'ft, ver. 23, the older form (cf. Num. xxx. 15), instead of Criv Di*D, Ps. xcvi. 2, as in Esth. iii. 7; while, on the other hand, instead of the unexampled phrase BjJtW D^K iTiin^ Ps. cv. 14, there stands in the Chronicle the usual phrase B**0 n\3n? and 1fe> in Ps. xcvi. 12 is the poetical form for the nnb'n of Chron. ver. 32. More important are the wider divergences: not so much Hpfe* $nj, Chron. ver. 13, for DTOK JHT, Ps. cv. 6, in which latter case it is doubtful whether the my refers to the patriarchs or to the people, and consequently, as the parallelismus memhrorum demands the latter reference, P&nfr"1 is clearly the more correct and intelligible; but rather the others, viz. VDT, Chron. ver. 15, for "9!> Ps- cv- 8; since ^D> not only corresponds to the F»3T of ver. 11, but also to the use made of the song for the purposes stated in the Chronicle; while, on the contrary, "13T of the psalm corresponds to the object of the psalm, viz. to exalt the covenant grace shown to the patriarchs. Connected with this also is the reading M^nsi, "when ye (sons of Jacob) were" (ver. 19), instead of DTli^nil, Ps. cv. 12, " when they (the patriarchs) were," since the narrative of what the Lord had done demanded DDYTQ. Now the more likely the reference of the words to the patriarchs was to suggest itself, the more unlikely is the hypothesis of an alteration into parfrro; and the text of the Chronicle being the more difficult, is consequently to be regarded as the earlier. Moreover, the divergences of vers. 23 to 33 of our hymn from Ps. xcvi. are such as would result from its having been prepared for the above-mentioned solemn festival. The omission of the two strophes, " Sing unto Jahve a new song, sing unto Jahve, bless His name " (Ps. xcvi. la and 2a), in ver. 23 of the Chronicle might be accounted for by regarding that part of our hymn as an abridgment by the chronicler of the original song, when connecting it with the preceding praise of God, were it certain on other grounds that Ps. xcvi. was the original; but if the chronicler's hymn be the original, we may just as well believe that this section was amplified when it was made into an independent psalm. A comparison of ver. 33 (Chron.) with the end of the 96th Psalm favours this last hypothesis, for in the Chronicle the repetition of Nil "Q is wanting, as well as the second hemistich of Ps. xcvi. 13. The whole of the 13th verse recurs, with a single K3 *3? at the end of the 98th Psalm (ver. 9), and the thought is borrowed from the Davidic Psalm ix. 9. The strophes in the beginning of Ps. xcvi., which are omitted from Chron. ver. 16, often recur. The phrase, u Sing unto Jahve a new song," is met with in Ps. xxxiii. 3, xcviii. 1, and cxlix. 1, and BHfJ W in Ps. xl. 4, a Davidic psalm. i£C>~nx WTa is also met with in Ps. c. 4; and still more frequently miTViK CT3, in Ps. ciii. 20, 22, cxxxiv. 1, and elsewhere, even as early as Deborah's song, Judg. v. 2, 9; while niilv XVW occurs in the song of Moses, Ex. xv. 1. Since, then, the strophes of the 96th Psalm are only reminiscences of, and phrases which we find in, the oldest religious songs of the Israelites, it is clear that Ps. xcvi. is not an original poem. It is rather the re-grouping of well-known and current thoughts; and the fact that it is so, favours the belief that all which this psalm contains at the beginning and end, which the Chronicle does not contain, is merely an addition made by the poet who transformed this part of the chronicler's hymn into an independent psalm for liturgical purposes. This purpose clearly appears in such variations as iBHj?*?? rnKBTfl, Ps. xcvi. 6, instead the mention of a courts " is suitable in a hymn sung at the consecration of the holy tent in Zion, for at that time the old national sanctuary with the altar in the court (the tabernacle) still stood in Gibeon. Here, therefore, the text of the Chronicle corresponds to the circumstances of David's time, while the mention of B^pip and of courts in the psalm presupposes the existence of the temple with its courts as the sanctuary of the people of Israel. Now a post-exilic poet would scarcely have paid so much attention to this delicate distinction between times and circumstances as to alter, in the already existing psalms, out of which he compounded this festal hymn, the expressions which were not suitable to the Davidic time. Against this, the use of the unusual word nywij joy, which occurs elsewhere only in Neh. x. 8, 10, and in Chaldee in Ezra vi. 18, is no valid objection, for the use of the verb rnn as early as Ex. xviii. 9 and Job iii. 6 shows that the word does not belong to the later Hebrew. The discrepancy also between vers. 30 and 31 and Ps. xcvi. 9-11, namely, the omission in the Chronicle of the strophe D*U*M WSg pP (Ps. ver. 10), and the placing of the clause qfo m»T D*to TOlta after FJKn bjm (Chron. ver. 31, cf. Ps. xcvi. 10), does not really prove anything as to the priority of Ps. xcvi. Hitzig, indeed, thinks that since by the omission of the one member the parallelism of the verses is disturbed, and a triple verse appears where all the others are double merely, and because by this alteration the clause, " Say among the people, Jahve is King," has come into an apparently unsuitable position, between an exhortation to the heaven and earth to rejoice, and the roaring of the sea and its fulness, this clause must have been unsuitably placed by a copyist's error. But the transposition cannot be so explained; for not only is that one member of the verse misplaced, but also the ^OX of the psalm is altered into VTO#1, and moreover, we get no explanation of the omission of the strophe 'til p\ If we consider TOMft (with 1 consecutive), " then will they say," we see clearly that it corresponds to 'til ti3*v?K in ver. 33; and in ver. 30 the recognition of Jahve's kingship over the peoples is represented as the issue and effect of the joyful exultation of the heaven and earth, just as in vers. 32 and 33 the joyful shouting of the trees of the field before Jahve as He comes to judge the earth, is regarded as the result of the roaring of the sea and the gladness of the fields. The ncs of the psalm, on the other hand, the summons to the Israelites to proclaim that Jahve is King among the peoples, is, after the call, a Let the whole earth tremble before Him," a somewhat tame expression; and after it, again, we should not expect the much stronger 'til P3H *|K. When we further consider that the clause which follows in the Chronicle, " He will judge the people in uprightness," is a reminiscence of Ps. ix. 9, we must hold the text of the Chronicle to be here also the original, and the divergences in Ps. xcvi. for alterations, which were occasioned by the changing of a part of our hymn into an independent psalm. Finally, there can be no doubt as to the priority of the chronicler's hymn in vers. 34-36. The author of the Chronicle did not require to borrow the liturgical formula 'til 1\\5 ^ Ttffr? tftfn from Ps. cvi. 1, for it occurs in as complete a form in Ps. cvii. 1, cxviii. 1, 29, cxxxvi. 1, and, not to mention 2 Chron. v. 13, vii. 3, xx. 21, is a current phrase with Jeremiah (xxxiii. 11), and is without doubt an ancient liturgical form. Vers. 35 and 36, too, contain such divergences from Ps. cvi. 47 and 48, that it is in the highest degree improbable that they were borrowed from that psalm. Not only is the prayer 'til tijf^n introduced by flBS, but also, instead of OT6*! mrp of the psalm, we have HJJB* Ni^K; and to m%2pl, ti7*2?ni is added, — a change which causes the words to lose the reference to the Chaldean exile contained in the text of the Psalms. The post-exilic author of the Chronicle would scarcely have obliterated this reference, and certainly would not have done so in such a delicate fashion, had he taken the verse from Ps. cvi. A much more probable supposition is, that the postexilic author of the 106th Psalm appropriated the concluding verse of David's to him well-known hymn, and modified it to make it fit into his poem. Indubitable instances of such alterations are to be found in the conclusion, where the statement of the chronicler, that all the people said Amen and praised Jahve, is made to conform to the psalm, beginning as it does with Halleluiah, by altering TOIta into IDKV, "and let them say," and of mrri* &ii into nn^n.

On the whole, therefore, we must regard the opinion that David composed our psalm for the above-mentioned festival as by far the most probable. The psalm itself needs no further commentary; but compare Delitzsch on the parallel psalms and parts of psalms.

Vers. 37-43. Division of the Levites for the management of the public worship. — At the same time as he set up the ark in the tent erected for it on Mount Zion, David had prepared a new locality for the public worship. The Mosaic tabernacle had continued, with its altar of burnt-offering, to be the general place of worship for the congregation of Israel even during the long period when the ark was separated from it, and it was even yet to be so; and it became necessary, in order to carry on the religious service in both of these sanctuaries, to divide the staff of religious officials: and this David now undertook. — Ver. 37. Before the ark he left Asaph with his brethren (? before the accus. obj., according to the later usage), to serve, to minister there continually, toi^a DV"D1?7 u according to the matter of the day on its day/' i.e. according to the service necessary for each day; cf. for this expression, Ex. v. 13, 19, xvi. 4, etc. u And Obed-edom and their brethren." In these words there is a textual error: the plural suffix in D^rMC shows that after T3'y BHN at least one name has been dropped out. But besides that, the relation in which the words, u and Obed-edom the son of Jeduthun, and Hosah, to be porters," stand to the preceding clause, " and Obed-edom and their brethren," is obscure. Against the somewhat general idea, that the words are to be taken in an explicative sense, "and Obed-edom indeed," etc., the objection suggests itself, that Obed-edom is here defined to be the son of Jeduthun, and would seem to be thereby distinguished from the preceding Obed-edom. In addition to that, in xv. 21 an Obededom is mentioned among the singers, and in ver. 24 one of the doorkeepers bears that name, and they are clearly distinguished as being different persons (see p. 20G). On the other hand, however, the identity of the two Obed-edoms in our verse is supported by the fact that in chap. xxvi. 4-8 the doorkeepers Obed-edom with his sons and brethren number sixty-two, which comes pretty nearly up to the number mentioned in our verse, viz. sixty-eight. Yet we cannot regard this circumstance as sufficient to identify the two, and must leave the question undecided, because the text of our verse is defective. Jeduthun the father of Obed-edom is different from the chief musician Jeduthun (= Ethan); for the chief musician is a descendant of Merari, while the doorkeeper Jeduthun belongs to the Korahites (i.e. Kohathites): see on xxvi. 4. — Ver. 39. #T)f HK1 is still dependent on the 3$?5 in ver. 37. The priest Zadok with his brethren he left before the tent of Jahve, i.e. the tabernacle at the Bamah in Gibeon. For npa see on 2 Chron. i. 13, and for Zadok on v. 38. It is surprising here that no priest is named as superintendent or overseer of the sacrificial worship in the tent of the ark of the covenant. But the omission is accounted for by the fact that our chapter treats properly only of the arrangement of the sacred music connected with the worship, and Zadok is mentioned as overseer of the sanctuary of the tabernacle at Gibeon only in order to introduce the statement as to the Levitic singers and players assigned to that sanctuary* Without doubt Abiathar as high priest had the oversight of the sacrificial worship in the sanctuary of the tabernacle: see on xviii. 16; with ver. 40 cf. Ex. xxix. 38, Num. xxviii. 3, 6. StffiiTw corresponds to ftfyjj?: and in reference to all, i.e. to look after all, which was written. This refers not only to the bringing of the sacrifices prescribed, in addition to the daily burnt-offering, but in general to everything that it was the priests' duty to do in the sanctuary. — Ver. 41. B^H, and with them (with Zadok and his brethren) were Heman and Jeduthun, i.e. Ethan (the two other chief musicians, xv. 19), with the other chosen famous, sc. singers (^^^3 Vljtt, see on xii. 31). To these belonged those of the number named in xv. 18-21, 24, who are not mentioned among those assigned to Asaph in xvi. 5 and 6, and probably also a number of others whose names have not been handed down. In ver. 42, if the text be correct, pinwi j^n can only be in apposition to B^V: " and with them, viz. with Heman and Jeduthun, were trumpets," etc. But, not to mention the difficulty that passages analogous and parallel to this statement are not to be found, the mention of these two chief musicians in the connection is surprising; for the musical instruments mentioned are not merely the &^?¥£ (s. xv. 19) played by them, but also the nhvvn which the priests blew, and other instruments. Moreover, the names Heman and Jeduthun are not found here in the LXX., and have probably been inserted in our verse by some copyist from ve*r. 41, which likewise begins with B^VI- If we omit these names, then, the verse contains no other difficulty worthy of consideration, or any which would occasion or necessitate such violent alterations of the text as Berth, has proposed. The suffix in Eney refers to the persons mentioned in ver. 41, Heman, Jeduthun, and the other chosen ones. " With them were," i.e. they had by them, trumpets, cymbals, etc. The? before D^^D^O is strange, since D^DBiD is in xv. 16 connected with BWVft as an adjective, and in xv. 19 we have V^l?. But if we compare ver. 5 of our chapter, where JMptPD is predicate to Asaph, " Asaph gave forth clear notes with cymbals," then here also D*JPEM6W in connection with DTOVB is thoroughly justified in the signification, " and cymbals for those who gave forth the notes or the melody," i.e. for Heman and Jeduthun. 'Kn "W ^3 are the other instruments used in the service of song, viz. the nablia and kinnoroth. " The sons of Jeduthun for the gate," i.e. as doorkeepers. As Obed-edom, who was doorkeeper by the ark, according to ver. 38, was likewise a son of Jeduthun, here other sons of the same Jeduthun, brothers of Obed-edom, must be meant, the number of whom, if we may judge from xxvi. 8, was very considerable; so that the members of this family were able to attend to the doorkeeping both by the ark and in the tabernacle at Gibeon. — Ver. 43 brings the account of the transfer of the ark to a conclusion, and coincides in substance with 2 Sam. vi. 19 and 20a, where, however, there follows in addition a narrative of the scene which David had with his wife Michal. This, as res domestica, the author of the Chronicle has omitted, since the reference to it in xv. 29 seemed sufficient for the design of his work. Sftjr is not to greet, but to bless his house, just as in ver. 2 he had already pronounced a blessing on his people in the name of God.

the account of the removal of the ark to the city of David is immediately followed by the narrative of David's design to build a temple to the Lord; and this arrangement is adopted on account of the connection between the subjects, though the events must have been separated by a period of several years. Our account of this design of David's, with its results for him and for his kingdom, is in all essential points identical with the parallel account, so that we may refer to the commentary on 2 Sam. vii.

for any necessary explanation of the matter. The differences between the two narratives are in great part of a merely formal kind; the author of the Chronicle having sought to make the narrative more intelligible to his contemporaries, partly by using and more obscure expressions. Very seldom do we find divergences in the subject-matter which alter the meaning or make it appear to be different. To supplement and complete the commentary already given on 2d Samuel, we will now shortly treat of these divergences. In ver. 1, the statement that David communicated his purpose to build a temple to the Lord to the prophet Nathan, " when Jahve had given him rest from all his enemies round about," is wanting. This clause, which fixes the time, has been omitted by the chronicler to avoid the apparent contradiction which would have arisen in case the narrative were taken chronologically, seeing that the greatest of David's wars, those against the Philistines, Syrians, and Ammonites, are narrated only in the succeeding chapter. As to this, cf. the discussion on 2 Sam. vii. 1-3. — In ver. 10, 0WDJ% like bfrrfl?^ (Sam. ver. 11), is to be connected with the preceding njvtf&ra in this sense: a As in the beginning (i.e. during the sojourn in Egypt), and onward from the days when I appointed judges," i.e. during the time of the judges. \o? is only a more emphatic expression for ip, to mark off the time from the beginning as it were (cf. Ew. § 218, b), and is wrongly translated by Berth. " until the days." In the same verse, W^rn, u I bow, humble all thine enemies," substantially the same as the Vinyjflj " I give thee peace from all thine enemies" (Sam.); and the suffix in T^K is not to be altered, as Berth, proposes, into that of the third person P?JfK, either in the Chronicle or in Samuel, for it is quite correct; the divine promise returning at the conclusion to David direct, as in the beginning, vers. 7 and 8, while that which is said of the people of Israel in vers. 9 and 10a is only an extension of the words. " I will destroy all thine enemies before thee" (ver. 8). — In ver. 11, J1W ITihX'Dy, u to go with thy fathers," used of going the way of death, is similar to "to go the way of all the world" (1 Kings ii. 2), and is more primitive than the more usual fli3N Ey 33fc> (Sam. ver. 12). *PJ3? fiW T#S, too, is neither to be altered to suit TJ/ftft N^. "itf'N of Samuel; nor can we consider it, with Berth., an alteration made by the author of the Chronicle to get rid of the difficulty, that here the birth of Solomon is only promised, while Nathan's speech was made at a time when David had rest from all his enemies round about (2 Sam. viii. 1), i.e., as is usually supposed, in the latest years of his life, and consequently after Solomon's birth. For the difficulty had already been got rid of by the omission of those words in ver. 1; and the word, " I have cut off all thine enemies from before thee" (ver. 8), does not necessarily involve the destruction of all the enemies who ever rose against David, but refers, as the connection shows, only to the enemies who up till that time had attacked him. Had the author of the Chronicle only wished to get rid of this supposed difficulty, he would simply have omitted the clause, since " thy seed" included the sons of David, and needed no explanation if nothing further was meant than that one of his sons would ascend the throne after him. And moreover, the thought, " thy seed, which shall be among thy sons," which Bertheau finds in the words, wrould be expressed in Hebrew by TJ30 T^ while "1B*K Tj>3Z? HW signifies, " who will come out of (from) thy sons;" for }p rvn does not denote to be of one, i.e. to belong to him, but to arise, be born, or go forth, from one: cf. Gen. xvii. 16; Eccles. iii. 20. According to this, the linguistically correct translation, the words cannot be referred to Solomon at all, because Solomon was not a descendant of David's sons, but of David himself.1 The author of the Chronicle has interpreted TIH^ ISTT^? theologically, or rather set forth the Messianic contents of this conception more clearly than it was expressed in VJSO K^. "MP*. The seed after David, which will arise from his sons, is the Messiah, whom the prophets announced as the Son of David, whose throne God will establish for ever (ver. 12). This Messianic interpretation of David's JHT explains the divergence of the chronicler's text in vers. 13 and 14 from 2 Sam. vii. 14-16. For instance, the omission of the words after 15 iu ver. 13, " If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men" (Sam. ver. 14), is the result of the Messianic interpretation of ^JHT, since the reference to the chastisement would of course be important for the earthly sons of David and the kings of Judah, but could not well find place in the case of the Messiah. The only thing said of this son of David is, that God will not withdraw His grace from him. The case is exactly similar, with the difference between ver. 14 and Sam. ver. 16. Instead of the words, u And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee, thy throne shall be established for ever" (Sam.), the promise runs thus in the Chronicle: u And I will settle (yV$Jt cause to stand, maintain, 1 Kings xv. 4; 2 Chron. ix. 8) him (the seed arising from thy sons) in my house and in my kingdom for ever, and his throne

1 As old Lavater has correctly remarked: Si tantum dc Salomone hie locus accipiendus esset, non dizisset: semen quod crit defiliis tuis^ scd quod crit de te.

shall be established for evermore." While these concluding words of the promise are, in the narrative in Samuel, spoken to David, promising to him the eternal establishment of his house, his kingdom, and his throne, in the Chronicle they are referred to the seed of David, i.e. the Messiah, and promise to Him His establishment for ever in the house and kingdom of God, and the duration of His throne for ever. That VVn here does not signify the congregation of the Lord, the people of Israel, as Berth, thinks it must be translated, is clear as the sun; for nji, immediately preceding, denotes the temple of Jahve, and ^a manifestly refers back to v JVn (ver. 12), while such a designation of the congregation of Israel or of the people as " house of Jahve " is unheard of in the Old Testament. The house of Jahve stands in the same relation to the kingdom of Jahve as a king's palace to his kingdom. The house which David's seed will build to the Lord is the house of the Lord in his kingdom: in this house and kingdom the Lord will establish Him for ever; His kingdom shall never cease; His rule shall never be extinguished; and He himself, consequently, shall live for ever. It scarcely need be said that such things can be spoken only of the Messiah. The words are therefore merely a further development of the saying, " I will be to him a Father, and I will not take my mercy away from him, and will establish his kingdom for ever," and tell us clearly and definitely what is implicitly contained in the promise, that David's house, kingdom, and throne will endure for ever (Sam.), viz. that the house and kingdom of David will be established for ever only under the Messiah. That this interpretation is correct is proved by the fact that the divergences of the text of the chronicler from the parallel narrative cannot otherwise be explained; Thenius and Berth, not having made even an attempt to show how W33 liTrnpyrn could have arisen out of livn |D[jtfj. The other differences between the texts in the verses in question, 4 (Chron.) for W^>, iKDSrriX fortafe>» KD3 m (Chron. ver. 12, cf. Sam. ver. 13), and T^ Wj 1#W 'instead of 'til 1PK ^KP DVD (Chron. ver. 13, cf. Sam. ver. 15), are only variations in expression which do not affect the sense. With reference to the last of them, indeed, Berth, has declared against Thenius, that the chronicler's text is thoroughly natural, and bears marks of being more authentic than that of 2 Sam. vii.

In the prayer of thanksgiving contained in vers. 16 to 27 we meet with the following divergences from the parallel text, which are of importance for their effect on the sense. — Ver. lib. Instead of the words D'JNn rnin nxn (Sam. ver. 19), the Chronicle has rpyftn Dian lins "OTKti and sawest me (or, that thou sawest me)

after the manner of men; lin being a contraction of iTlJfl = rnin. nan, to see, may denote to visit (cf. 2 Sam. xiii. 5; 2 Kings viii. 29), or look upon in the sense of regard, respicere. But the word nbyftn remains obscure in any case, for elsewhere it occurs only as a substantive, in the significations, "the act of going up" (or drawing up) (Ezra vii. 9), " that which goes up" (Ezek. xi. 5), "the step;" while for the signification "height" (locus superior) only this passage is adduced by Gesenius in Thes. But even had the word this signification, the word njlp?n could not signify in loco excelso = in coslis in its present connection; and further, even were this possible, the translation et me intuitus es more hominum in coelis gives no tolerable sense. But neither can rpjflon be the vocative of address, and a predicate of God, " Thou height, Jahve God," as Hgstb. Christol. i. p. 378 trans., takes it, with many older commentators. The passage Ps. xcii. 9, " Thou art ^"MJ, height, sublimity for ever, Jahve," is not sufficient to prove that in our verse njjjian is predicated of God. Without doubt, HJJJIsn should go with 'til WiO, and appears to correspond to the pi1*™? of the preceding clause, in the signification: as regards the elevation, in reference to the going upwards, i.e. the exaltation of my race (seed) on high. The thought would then be this: After the manner of men, so condescendingly and graciously, as men have intercourse with each other, hast Thou looked upon or visited me in reference to the elevation of myself or my race, — the text of the Chronicle giving an explanation of the parallel narrative.1 The divergence in ver. 18, TnajfTM injp ^7X

1 This interpretation of this extremely difficult word corresponds in sense to the not less obscure words in 2d Samuel, and gives us, without any alteration of the text, a more fitting thought than the alterations in the reading proposed by the moderns. Ewald and Berth, would alter 'orp&ni into yrptflffi (Hiph.), and rvJ})Dn into rpjJD7, in order to get the meaning, "Thou hast caused me to see like the series of men upwards," i.e. the line of men who stretch from David outward into the far future in unbroken series, which Thenius rightly calls a thoroughly modern idea. Bbttcher's attempt at explanation is much more artificial. He proposes, in N. k. Aehreiilese, iii. S. 225, to read rbyp? • • • WWW and translates: " so that I saw myself, as the series of men who follow upwards shall see me, i.e. so that I could see myself as posterity will see me, at the head of a continuous family of rulers; " where the main idea has to be supplied.

instead of T^*? 13TO (Sam. ver. 20), which cannot be an explanation or interpretation of Samuel's text, is less difficult of explanation. The words in Samuel, " What can David say more unto Thee? " have in this connection the very easily understood signification, What more can I say of the promise given me % and needed no explanation. When, instead of this, we read in the Chronicle, " What more can Thy servant add to Thee in regard to the honour to Thy servant? " an unprejudiced criticism must hold this text for the original, because it is the more difficult. It is the more difficult, not only on account of the omission of "i-Hrj which indeed is not absolutely necessary, though serving to explain *)W? but mainly on account of the unusual construction of the nomen Tfaa with ^sjrntfj honour towards Thy servant. The construction niiT1 riK njn is not quite analogous, for "Jto is not a nomen actionis like njtt; -nx 133 is rather connected with the practice which begins to obtain in the later language of employing riN as a general casus obliquus, instead of any more definite preposition (Ew. § 277, d, S. 683 f., der 7 Aufl.), and is to be translated: " honour concerning Thy servant." The assertion that ^nnyviN is to be erased as a later gloss which has crept into the text, cuts the knots, but does not untie them. That the LXX. have not these words, only proves that these translators did not know what to make of them, and so just omitted them, as they have omitted the first clause of ver. 19. In ver. 19 also there is no valid ground for altering the TDJ/ "^3#5 of the Chronicle to make it correspond to lljj'n "W2 in Samuel; for the words, "for Thy servant's sake," i.e. because Thou hast chosen Thy servant, give a quite suitable sense; cf. the discussion on 2 Sam. vii. 21. In the second half of the verse, however, the more extended phrases of 2d Samuel are greatly contracted. — Ver. 21. The combining of nifcOfai nirra with DB> T> bw? as one sentence, "to make Thee a name with great and fearful deeds," is made clearer in 2d Samuel by the interpolation of DJ? ni^pi, " and for you doing great and fearful things." This explanation, however, does not justify us in supposing that nibypi has been dropped out of the Chronicle. The words fifing n^7? are either to be subordinated in a loose connection to the clause, to define the way in which God has made Himself a name (cf. Ew. § 283), or connected with Dw in a pregnant sense: " to make Thee a name, (doing) great and fearful things." But, on the other hand, the converse expression in Samuel, " fearful things for Thy land, before

Thy people which Thou redeemedst to Thee from Egypt (from) the nations and their gods," is explained in Chronicles by the interpolation of V").]?: " fearful things, to drive out before Thy people, which... nations." The divergences cannot be explained by the hypothesis that both texts are mutilated, as is sufficiently shown by the contradictions into which Thenius and Bertheau have fallen in their attempts so to explain them.

All the remaining divergences of one text from the other are only variations of the expression, such as involuntarily arise in the endeavour to give a clear and intelligible narrative, without making a literal copy of the authority made use of. Among these we include even ferirA sjnaj tf*D, "Thy servant hath found to pray" (Chron. ver. 25), as compared with ^^rh iaWrc ^bj KSD, "Thy servant hath found his heart," i,e. found courage, to pray (Sam. ver. 28); where it is impossible to decide whether the author of the books of Samuel has added tepTiK as an explanation, or the author of the Chronicle has omitted it because the phrase " to find his heart" occurs only in this single passage of the Old Testament. 'nr6 spag nxd signifies, Thy servant has reached the point of directing this prayer to Thee.

The events recorded in these three chapters are all narrated in the second book of Samuel also, and in the same order. First, there are grouped together in our 18th chapter, and in 2 Sam. viii., in such a manner as to afford a general view of the whole, all the wars which David carried on victoriously against all his enemies round about in the establishment of the Israelitish rule, with a short statement of the results, followed by a catalogue of David's chief public officials. In chap. xix. and in 2 Sam. x. we have a more detailed account of the arduous war against the Ammonites and Syrians, and in chap. xx. 1-3 and 2 Sam. xii. 2G-31 the conclusion of the war with the capture of Kabbah, the capital of the Ammonites; and finally, in chap. xx. 4-8, we have a few short accounts of the victories of the Israelitish heroes over giants from the land of the Philistines, which are inserted in 2 Sam. xxi. 18-22 as a supplement to the last section of David's history. Apart from this last section, which is to be regarded even in the

Chronicle as an appendix, we find the arrangement and succession of the events to be the same in both books, since the sections which in 2 Sam. ix. and xi. 1-12, 25, stand between the histories of the wars, contain sketches of David's family life, which the author of the Chronicle has, in accordance with his plan, omitted. Even as to individual details the two narratives are perfectly agreed, the divergences being inconsiderable; and even these, in so far as they are original, and are not results of careless copying, — as, for instance, the omission of the word &^¥3? xviii. 6, as compared with ver. 13 and 2 Sam. viii. 6, and the difference in the numbers and names in chap, xviii. 4, 8, as compared with 2 Sam. iv. 4, 8, are, — are partly mere explanations of obscure expressions, partly small additions or abridgments. For the commentary, therefore, we may refer to the remarks on 2d Samuel, where the divergences of the Chronicle from the record in Samuel are also dealt with. With chap, xviii. 1-13 cf. 2 Sam. viii. 1-14; and with the register of public officials, xviii. 14-17, cf. 2 Sam. viii. 15-18.

Examples of paraphrastic explanation are found in chap, xviii. 1, where the figurative expression, David took the bridle of the mother out of the hands of the Philistines, i.e. deprived them of the hegemony, is explained by the phrase, David took Gath and her cities out of the hands of the Philistines, i.e. took from the Philistines the capital with her daughter cities; and in ver. 17? £P^3 is rendered by, the first at the king's hand. Among the abridgments, the omission of David's harsh treatment of the Moabites who were taken prisoners is surprising, no reason for it being discoverable; for the assertion that the chronicler has purposely omitted it in order to free David from the charge of such barbarous conduct, is disposed of by the fact that he does not pass over in silence the similar treatment of the conquered inhabitants of Kabbah in chap. xx. 3. Instead of this, the chronicler has several historical notes peculiar to himself, which are wanting in the text of Samuel, and which prove that the author of the Chronicle has not derived his account from the second book of Samuel. Such, e.g., is the statement in chap, xviii. 8, that Solomon caused the brazen sea and the pillars and vessels of the court of the temple to be made of the brass taken as booty in the war against Hadadezer; in ver. 11, the word Dnxp, which is wanting in Samuel, as B*]N£>, which in ver. 11 of that book is used in place of it, probably stood originally in the

Chronicle also. Such also are the more accurate statements in ver. 12 as to the victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt (see on 2 Sam. viii. 13).

The same phenomena are met with in the detailed account of the Ammonite-Syriac war, chap. xix. 1, 2, xx. 3, as compared with 2 Sam. x. 1-xi. 1, and xii. 2G-31. In xix. 1 the omission of the name j^n after U3 is merely an oversight, as the omission of the name P'riJ in 2 Sam. x. la also is. In ver. 3 there is no need to alter '1J1 Sjbrfo iprf? into 'til %!$* TjBrniJ ipn, 2 Sam. x. 3, although the expression in Samuel is more precise. If the actual words of the original document are given in Samuel, the author of the Chronicle has made the thought more general: " to search and to overthrow, and to spy out the land." Perhaps, however, the terms made use of in the original document were not so exact and precise as those of the book of Samuel. In vers. 6, 7, at least, the divergence from 2 Sam. x. 16 cannot be explained otherwise than by supposing that in neither of the narratives is the text of the original document exactly and perfectly reproduced. For a further discussion of the differences, see on 2 Sam. x. 6. The special statement as to the place where the mercenaries encamped, and the Ammonites gathered themselves together from out their cities (ver. 7), is wanting in 2d Samuel. The city Medeba, which, according to Josh. xiii. 16, was assigned to the tribe of Reuben, lay about two hours southeast from Heshbon, and still exists as ruins, which retain the ancient name Medaba (see on Num. xxi. 30). In ver. 9, nrjD "Vjn, "outside the city" (i.e. the capital Rabbah), more correct or exact than "Wn nriB (Sam. ver. 8). On Drpta K2sl? as compared with noNjn Nnji (Sam. ver. 17), cf. the discussion on 2 Sam. x. 16, 17.

The account of the siege of Rabbah, the capital, in the following year, chap. xx. 1-3, is much abridged as compared with that in 2 Sam. xi. 1, xii. 26-31. After the clause, "but David sat (remained) in Jerusalem," in 2 Sam. xi., from ver. 2 onwards, we have the story of David's adultery with Bathsheba, and the events connected with it (2 Sam. xi. 3-xii. 25), which the author of the Chronicle has omitted, in accordance with the plan of his book. Thereafter, in 2 Sam. xii. 26, the further progress of the siege of Rabbah is again taken up with the words, " And Joab warred against Rabbah of the sons of Ammon;" and in vers. 27-29 the capture of that city is circumstantially narrated, viz. how Joab, after he had taken the water-city, i.e. the city lying on both banks of the upper Jabbok (the Wady Amman), with the exception of the Acropolis built on a hill on the north side of the city, sent messages to David, and called upon him to gather together the remainder of the people, i.e. all those capable of bearing arms who had remained in the land; and how David, having done this, took the citadel. Instead of this, we have in the Chronicle only the short statement, a And Joab smote Rabbah, and destroyed it" (xx. 1, at the end). After this, both narratives (Chron. vers. 2, 3, and Sam. vers. 30, 31) coincide in narrating how David set the heavy golden crown of the king of the Ammonites on his head, brought much booty out of the city, caused the prisoners of war taken in Rabbah and the other fenced cities of the Ammonites to be slain in the cruellest way, and then returned with all the people, i.e. with the whole of his army, to Jerusalem. Thus we see that, according to the record in the Chronicle also, David was present at the capture of the Acropolis of Rabbah, then put on the crown of the Ammonite king, and commanded the slaughter of the prisoners; but no mention is made of his having gone to take part in the war. By the omission of this circumstance the narrative of the Chronicle becomes defective; but no reason can be given for this abridgment of the record, for the contents of 2 Sam. xii. 26-39 must have been contained in the original documents made use of by the chronicler. On the differences between ver. 31 (Sam.) and ver. 3 of the Chronicle, see on 2 Sam. xii. 31. "TCPJ, " ne sawed asunder," is the correct reading, and D"^ in Samuel is an orthographical error; while, on the contrary, rn*\3ft3 in the Chronicle is a mistake for n5"lMD3 in Samuel. The omission of |37^n Dnix T3grn is probably explained by the desire to abridge; for if the author of the Chronicle does not scruple to tell of the sawing asunder of the prisoners with saws, and the cutting of them to pieces under threshing instruments and scythes, it would never occur to him to endeavour to soften David's harsh treatment of them by passing over in silence the burning of them in brick-kilns.

The passages parallel to the short appendix-like accounts of the valiant deeds of the Israelitish leaders in chap. xx. 4-8 are to be found, as has already been remarked, in 2 Sam. xxi. 18-24. There, however, besides the three exploits of which wre are informed by the chronicler in vers. 15-17, a fourth is recorded, and that in the first place too, viz. the narrative of David's fight with the giant Jishbi-Benob, who was slain by Abishai the son of Zeruiah. The reason why our historian has not recounted this along with the others is clear from the position which he assigns to these short narratives in his book. In the second book of Samuel they are recounted in the last section of the history of David's reign, as palpable proofs of the divine grace of which David had had experience during his whole life, and for which he there praises the Lord in a psalm of thanksgiving (2 Sam. xxii.). In this connection, David's deliverance by the heroic act of Abishai from the danger into which he had fallen by the fierce attack which the Philistine giant Jishbi-Benob made upon him when he was faint, is very suitably narrated, as being a visible proof of the divine grace which watched over the pious king. For the concluding remark in 2 Sam. xxi. 17, that in consequence of this event his captains adjured David not to go any more into battle along with them, that the light of Israel might not be extinguished, shows in how great danger he was of being slain by this giant. For this reason the author of the book of Samuel has placed this event at the head of the exploits of the Israelite captains which he was about to relate, although it happened somewhat later in time than the three exploits which succeed. The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, has made the account of these exploits an appendix to the account of the victorious wars by which David obtained dominion over all the neighbouring peoples, and made his name to be feared among the heathen, as a further example of the greatness of the power given to the prince chosen by the Lord to be over His people. For this purpose the story of the slaughter of the Philistine giant, who had all but slain the weary David, was less suitable, and is therefore passed over by the chronicler, although it was contained in his authority,1 as is clear from the almost verbal coincidence of the stories which follow with 2 Sam. xxi. 18 ff. The very first is introduced by the formula, " It happened after this," which in 2d Samuel naturally connects the preceding narrative with this; while the chronicler has retained 1?"''"?.']^ as a general formula of transition, — omitting, however, 1)V (Sam.) in the following clause, and writing ^EV^, " there arose," instead of Wfl. ipV in the later Hebrew is the same as Dip. The hypothesis that

1 Li^htfoot says, in his Chronol. V. T. p. 68: Illud prsdium^ in quo David in periculum venit ct uude decore ct illxsus exire non poluit, omissum est.

lD^ni has arisen out of Ity Wn (in Samuel) is not at all probable, although my is not elsewhere used of the origin of a war* Even Dip is only once (Gen. xli. 30) used of the coming, or coming in, of a time. On 1TJ3 and ^3D instead of 3J3 and *]D, see on 2 Sam. xxi. 18. V?53 at the end of the fourth verse is worthy of remark, " And they (the Philistines) were humbled," which is omitted from Samuel, and " yet can scarcely have been arbitrarily added by our historian" (Berth.). This remark, however, correct as it is, does not explain the omission of the word from 2d Samuel. The reason for that can scarcely be other than that it did not seem necessary for the purpose which the author of the book of Samuel had in the first place in view. As to the two other exploits (vers. 6-8), see the commentary on 2 Sam. xxi. 19-22.?K for n?K in the closing remark (ver. 8) is archaic, but the omission of the article (?X instead of pKH, as we find it in Gen. xix. 8, 25, and in other passages in the Pentateuch) cannot be elsewhere paralleled. In the last clause, "And they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants," that David should be named is surprising, because none of those here mentioned as begotten of Kapha, i.e. descendants of the ancient Kaphaite race, had fallen by the hand of David, but all by the hand of his servants. Bertheau therefore thinks that this clause has been copied verbatim into our passage, and also into 2 Sam. xxi. 22, from the original document, where this enumeration formed the conclusion of a long section, in which the acts of David and of his heroes, in their battles with the giants in the land of the Philistines, wrere described. But since the author of the second book of Samuel expressly says, "These four were born to Kapha, and they fell" (ver. 22)y he can have referred in the words, " And they fell by the hand of David," only to the four above mentioned, whether he took the verse in question unaltered from his authority, or himself added n?x nyznjms. In the latter case he cannot have added the W"*P3 without some purpose; in the former, the reference of the TO"T3 in the " longer section," from which the excerpt is taken, to others than the four giants mentioned, to Goliath perhaps in addition, whom David slew, is rendered impossible by HJK nyznjrnx. The statement, " they fell by the hand of David," does not presuppose that David had slain all of them, or even one of them, with his own hand; for 1*3 frequently signifies only through, i.e. by means of, and denotes here that those giants fell in wars which David had waged with the Philistines — that David had been the main cause of their fall, had brought about their death by his servants through the wars he waged.

CHAP. XXI.-XXII. 1. — THE NUMBERING OF THE PEOPLE, THE PESTILENCE, AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE SITE FOR THE TEMPLE (CF. 2 SAM. XXIV.).

The motive which influenced the king, in causing a census of the men capable of bearing arms throughout the kingdom to be taken in the last year of his reign, has already been discussed in the remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv., where we have also pointed out what it was which was so sinful and displeasing to God in the undertaking. We have, too, in the same place commented upon the various stages of its progress, taking note of the differences which exist between the numbers given in 2 Sam. xxiv. 9, 13, 24, and those in our record, vers. 5, 12, 25; so that here we need only compare the two accounts somewhat more minutely. They correspond not merely in the main points of their narrative of the event, but in many places make use of the same terms, which shows that they have both been derived from the same source; but, at the same time, very considerable divergences are found in the conception and representation of the matter. In the very first verse, David's purpose is said in 2d Samuel to be the effect of the divine anger; in the Chronicle it is the result of the influence of Satan on David. Then, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 4-9, the numbering of the people is narrated at length, while in the Chronicle, vers. 4-6, only the results are recorded, with the remark that Joab did not complete the numbering, Levi and Benjamin not being included, because the king's command was an abomination to him. On the other hand, the Chronicle, in vers. 19-27, narrates the purchase of Araunah's threshing-floor for a place of sacrifice, and gives not merely a more circumstantial account of David's offering than we find in Samuel (vers. 19-25), but also states, in conclusion (vers. 28-30), the circumstances which induced David to offer sacrifice even afterwards, on the altar which he had built at the divine command, on the threshing-floor bought of Araunah. The purpose which the author of the Chronicle had in view in making this concluding remark is manifest from ver. 1 of chap, xxii., which should properly be connected with chap. xxi.: u And David said, Here is the house of Jahve God, and here the altar for the burnt-offering of Israel." Only in this verse, as Bertheau has correctly remarked, do we find the proper conclusion of the account of the numbering of the people, the pestilence, and the appearance of the angel, and yet it is omitted in the book of Samuel; " although it is manifest from the whole connection, and the way in which the history of David and Solomon is presented in the books of Samuel and Kings, that the account is given there also only to point out the holiness of the place where Solomon built the temple even in the time of David, and to answer the question why that particular place was chosen for the site of the sanctuary." This remark is perfectly just, if it be not understood to mean that the author of our book of Samuel has given a hint of this purpose in his narrative; for the conclusion of 2 Sam. xxiv. 25, " And Jahve was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed," is irreconcilable with any such idea. This concluding sentence, and the omission of any reference to the temple, or to the appointment of the altar built on the threshing-floor of Araunah to be a place of sacrifice for Israel, and of the introductory words of the narrative, u And again the wrath of Jahve was kindled against Israel, and moved David against them" (2 Sam. xxiv. 1), plainly show that the author of the book of Samuel regarded, and has here narrated, the event as a chastisement of the people of Israel for their rebellion against the divinely chosen king, in the revolts of Absalom and Sheba (cf. the remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv. 1). The author of the Chronicle, again, has without doubt informed us of the numbering of the people, and the pestilence, with its results, with the design of showing how God Himself had chosen and consecrated this spot to be the future place of worship for Israel, by the appearance of the angel, the command given to David through the prophet Gad to build an altar where the angel had appeared, and to sacrifice thereon, and by the gracious acceptance of this offering, fire having come down from heaven to devour it. For this purpose he did not require to give any lengthened account of the numbering of the people, since it was of importance to him only as being the occasion of David's humiliation.

Vers. 1-7. " And Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel." The mention of Satan as the seducer of David is not to be explained merely by the fact that the Israelites in later times traced up everything contrary to God's will to this evil spirit, but in the present case arises from the author's design to characterize David's purpose from the verybeginning as an ungodly thing. — Ver. 2. The naming of the *5& DVn along with Joab is in accordance with the circumstances, for we learn from 2 Sam. xxiv. 4 that Joab did not carry out the numbering of the people alone, but was assisted by the captains of the host. The object of vS UTCOT), which is not expressed, the result of the numbering, may be supplied from the context. No objection need be taken to the simple BH3 of ver. 3, instead of the double OT\y\ DH3 in Samuel. The repetition of the same word, "there are so and so many of them," is a peculiarity of the author of the book of Samuel (cf. 2 Sam. xii. 8), while the expression in the Chronicle corresponds to that in Deut. i. 11. With the words 'til tflK K?n, " Are they not, my lord king, all my lord's servants," i.e. subject to him? Joab allays the suspicion that he grudged the king the joy of reigning over a very numerous people. In Sam. ver. 3 the thought takes another turn; and the last clause, " Why should it (the thing or the numbering) become a trespass for Israel % " is wanting. HBBfc denotes here a trespass which must be atoned for, not one which, one commits. The meaning is therefore, Why should Israel expiate thy sin, in seeking thy glory in the power and greatness of thy kingdom'? On the numbers, ver. 5, see on 2 Sam. xxiv. 9. In commenting on ver. 6, which is not to be found in Samuel, Berth, defends the statement that Joab did not make any muster of the tribes Levi and Benjamin, against the objections of de Wette and Gramberg, as it is done in my apologet. Versuche, S. 349 if., by showing that the tribe of Levi was by law (cf. Num. i. 47-54) exempted from the censuses of the people taken for political purposes; and the tribe of Benjamin was not numbered, because David, having become conscious of his sin, stopped the numbering before it was completed (cf. also the remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv. 9). The reason given, "'for the king's word was an abomination unto Joab," is certainly the subjective opinion of the historian, but is shown to be well founded by the circumstances, for Joab disapproved of the king's design from the beginning; cf. ver. 3 (Samuel and Chronicles). — In ver. 7, the author of the Chronicle, instead of ascribing the confession of sin on David's part which follows to the purely subjective motive stated in the words, " and David's heart smote him," i.e. his conscience (Sam. ver. 10a), has ascribed the turn matters took to objective causes: the thing displeased God; and antici- pating the course of events, he remarks straightway, " and He (God) smote Israel." This, however, is no reason for thinking, with Berth., that the wrords have arisen out of a misinterpretation or alteration of 2 Sam. xxiv. 10a; for such anticipatory remarks, embracing the contents of the succeeding verses, not unfrequently occur in the historical books (cf. e.g. 1 Kings vi. 14, vii. 2). — In reference to vers. 8—10, see on 2 Sam. xxiw 10-16. — In ver. 12, n|D3 has not come into the text by mistake or by misreading ^D3 (Sam. ver. 13), but is original, the author of the Chronicle describing the two latter evils more at length than Samuel does. The word is not a participle, but a noun formed from the participle, with the signification " perishing" (the being snatched away). The second parallel clause, " the sword of thine enemies to attaining" (so that it reach thee), serves to intensify. So also in reference to the third evil, the HIT Tin which precedes H.N2 'i??., and the parallel clause added to both: " and the angel of the Lord destroying in the whole domain of Israel." — Ver. 15. 't5> ^» D-n^n nfifcL "And God sent an angel towards Jerusalem," gives no suitable sense. Not because of the improbability that God sent the angel with the commission to destroy Jerusalem, and at the same moment gives the contrary command, " Stay now," etc. (Berth.); for the reason of this change is given in the intermediate clause, " and at the time of the destroying the Lord repented it," and command and prohibition are not given " at the same moment;" but the difficulty lies in the indefinite?]XpO (without the article). For since the angel of Jahve is mentioned in ver. 12 as the bringer of the pestilence, in our verse, if it treats of the sending of this angel to execute the judgment spoken of, ^^?'sn must necessarily be used, or HX?)N?ftn? as in ver. 16; the indefinite "i]f?ft can by no means be used for it. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 we read, instead of the words in question, 'T SjNPiari ST rw»5, "and the angel stretched out his hand towards Jerusalem:" and Bertheau thinks that the reading DNipKfl (in the Chron.) has arisen out of that, by the letters n IT being exchanged for ni.T, and DTita being substituted for this divine name, as is often the case in the Chronicle; while Movers, S. 91, on the contrary, considers the reading of the Chronicle to be original, and would read fOT TW\ in Samuel. But in that way Movers leaves the omission of the article before ^NpD in the Chronicle unexplained; and Bertheau's conjecture is opposed by the improbability of such a misunderstanding of a phrase so frequent and so unmistakeable as fa) Iw'l, as would lead to the exchange supposed, ever occurring. But besides that, in Samuel the simple TjNpsn is strange, for the angel has not been spoken of there at all before, and the LXX. have consequently explained the somewhat obscure "n^v^L1 by 6 a<yye\os tov Qeov. This explanation suggests the way in which the reading of our text arose. The author of the Chronicle, although he had already made mention of the flW r$Q in ver. 12, wrote in ver. 15 DVftjtn?|*£» fhvfa, u the angel of God stretched (his hand) out towards Jerusalem," using DTibsn instead of mrv, — as, for example, in Judg. vi. 20, 22, xiii. 6, 9, and 13, 15, 17. twr&grf!J*6» alternates with tj*6d nin'j and omitting Vlj with n?p\ as is often done, e.g. 2 Sam. vi. 6, Ps. xviii. 17, etc. By a copyist 7]N?0 and DTipxn have been transposed, and ^N?*? was then taken by the Masoretes for an- accusative, and pointed accordingly. The expression is made clearer by lYWrD^ " And as he destroyed, Jahve saw, and it repented Him of the evil." The idea is: Just as the angel had begun to destroy Jerusalem, it repented God. 3"], adverb, " enough," as in 1 Kings xix. 4, etc., with a dativ. commodi, Deut. i. 6, etc. Bertheau has incorrectly denied this meaning of the word, connecting y] with DV3 in 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, and desiring to alter our text to make it conform to that. In 2d Samuel also 2"i is an adverb, as Thenius also acknowledges.

Vers. 16-26. The account of David's repentant beseeching of the Lord to turn away the primitive judgment, and the word of the Lord proclaimed to him by the prophet, commanding him to build an altar to the Lord in the place where the destroying angel visibly appeared, together with the carrying out of this divine command by the purchase of Araunah's threshing-floor, the erection of an altar, and the offering of burnt-offering, is given more at length in the Chronicle than in 2 Sam. xxiv. 17-25, where only David's negotiation with Araunah is more circumstantially narrated than in the Chronicle. In substance both accounts perfectly correspond, except that in the Chronicle several subordinate circumstances are preserved, which, as being minor points, are passed over in Samuel. In ver. 16, the description of the angel's appearance, that he had a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem, and the statement that David and the elders, clad in sackcloth (garments indicating repentance), fell down before the Lord; in ver. 20, the mention of Oman's (Araunah's) sons, who hid themselves on beholding the angel, and of the fact that

Oman was engaged in threshing wheat when David came to him; and the statement in ver. 26, that fire came down from heaven upon the altar, — are examples of such minor points. We have already commented on this section in our remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv. 17-25, and the account in the Chronicle is throughout correct and easily understood. Notwithstanding this, however, Bertheau, following Thenius and Bottcher, conjectures that the text is in several verses corrupt, and wishes to correct them by 2d Samuel. But these critics are misled by the erroneous presumption with which they entered upon the interpretation of the Chronicle, that the author of it used as his authority, and revised, our Masoretic text of the second book of Samuel. Under the influence of this prejudice, emendations are proposed which are stamped with their own unlikelihood, and rest in part even on misunderstandings of the narrative in the book of Samuel. Of this one or two illustrations will be sufficient. Any one who compares ver. 17 (Sam.) with vers. 16 and 17 of the Chronicle, without any pre-formed opinions, will see that what is there (Sam.) concisely expressed is more clearly narrated in the Chronicle. The beginning of ver. 17, "And David spake unto Jahve," is entirely without connection, as the thought which forms the transition from ver. 1 6 to ver. 17, viz. that David was moved by the sight of the destroying angel to pray to God that the destruction might be turned away, is only brought in afterwards in the subordinate clause, " on seeing the angel." This abrupt form of expression is got rid of in the Chronicle by the clause: u And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel... and fell... upon his face; and David spake to God." That which in Samuel is crushed away into an infinitive clause subordinate to the principal sentence, precedes in the Chronicle, and is circumstantially narrated. Under these circumstances, of course, the author of the Chronicle could not afterwards in ver. 17 make use of the clause, u on seeing the angel who smote the people," without tautology. Berth., on the contrary, maintains that ver. 16 is an interpolation of the chronicler, and proposes then to cull out from the words and letters ins"D did rDDn!j«tan m (Sam.), the words ajn winb WOK taara (Chron. ver. 17), great use being made in the process of the ever ready auxiliaries, mistakes, and a text which has become obscure. This is one example out of many. Ver. 16 of the Chronicle is not an addition which the Chronicle has interpolated between vers. 16 and 17 of Samuel, but a more detailed representation of the historical course of things. No mention is made in 2d Samuel of the drawn sword in the angel's hand, because there the whole story is very concisely narrated. This detail need not have been borrowed from Num. xxii. 23, for the drawn sword is a sensible sign that the angel's mission is punitive; and the angel, who is said to have visibly appeared in 2d Samuel also, could be recognised as the bearer of the judicial pestilence only by this emblem, such recognition being plainly the object of his appearance. The mention of the elders along with David as falling on their faces in prayer, clad in sackcloth, will not surprise any reader or critic who considers that in the case of so fearful a pestilence the king would not be alone in praying God to turn away the judgment. Besides, from the mention of the E^y of the king who went with David to Oman (Sam. ver. 20), we learn that the king did not by himself take steps to turn away the plague, but did so along with his servants. In the narrative in 2d Samuel, which confines itself to the main point, the- elders are not mentioned, because only of David was it recorded that his confession of sin brought about the removal of the plague. Just as little can we be surprised that David calls his command to number the people the delictum by which he had brought the judgment of the plague upon himself. — To alter "i^s, ver. 19, into T?J?, as Berth, wishes, would show little intelligence. "|?1?, at Gad's word David went up, is proved by Num. xxxi. 16 to be good Hebrew, and is perfectly suitable. — Ver. 20. |J"jK 31PJ1, " and Oman turned him about," is translated by Berth, incorrectly, " then Oman turned back," who then builds on this erroneous interpretation, which is contrary to the context, a whole nest of conjectures. 3^2 is said to have arisen out of *[$&% the succeeding ^?^n out of?]?£?, toy VJ3 rrony out of v6? DniV m? (Sam. ver. 20), u by mistake and further alteration." In saying this, however, he himself has not perceived that ver. 20 (Sam.) does not correspond to the 20th verse of the Chronicle at all, but to the 21st verse, where the words, u and Araunah looked out (^p^) and saw the king," are parallel to the words, u and Oman looked (B?!) and saw David." The 20th verse of the Chronicle contains a statement which is not found in Samuel, that Ornan (Araunah), while threshing with his four sons, turned and saw the angel, and being terrified at the sight, hid himself with his sons. After that, David with his train came from Zion to the threshing-floor in Mount Moriah, and Araunah looking out saw the king, and came out of the threshing-floor to meet him, with deep obeisance. This narrative contains nothing improbable, nothing to justify us in having recourse to critical conjecture. — Ver. 24. The infinitive niP^n is very frequently used in Hebrew as the continuation of the verb, fin., and is found in all the books of the Old Testament (cf. the collection of passages illustrative of this peculiar form of brief expression, which Ew. gives, § 351, c), and that not only with regard to the infin. absoln but the infin. constr. also. David's answer to Oman's offer to give him the place for the altar, and the cattle, plough, and wheat for the burnt-offering, was therefore: " No, I will buy it for full price; I will not take what belongs to thee for Jahve, and bring burnt-offerings without cost," i.e. without having paid the price for them. — Ver. 25. As to the different statements of the price, cf. on 2 Sam. xxiv. 24.

Vers. 26-30. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 25 the conclusion of this event is shortly narrated thus: David offered burnt-offerings and peaceofferings, and Jahve was entreated for the land, and the plague wTas stayed from Israel. In the Chronicle we have a fuller statement of the nw ""»W in ver. 266. David called upon Jahve, and He answered with fire from heaven upon the altar of burntoffering (ver. 27); and Jahve spake to the angel, and he returned the sword into its sheath. The returning of the sword into its sheath is a figurative expression for the stopping of the pestilence; and the fire which came down from heaven upon the altar of burnt-offering was the visible sign by which the Lord assured the king that his prayer had been heard, and his offering graciously accepted. The reality of this sign of the gracious acceptance of an offering is placed beyond doubt by the analogous cases, Lev. ix. 24, 1 Kings xviii. 24, 38, and 2 Chron. vii. 1. It was only by this sign of the divine complacence that David learnt that the altar built upon the threshing-floor of Araunah had been chosen by the Lord as the place where Israel should always thereafter offer their burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as is further recorded in vers. 28—30 and in xxii. 1. From the cessation of the pestilence in consequence of his prayer and sacrifice, David could only draw the conclusion that God had forgiven him his transgression, but could not have known that God had chosen the place where he had built the altar for the offering demanded by God as a permanent place of sacrifice. This certainly he obtained only by the divine answer, and this answer was the fire which came down upon the altar of burnt-offering and devoured the sacrifice. This ver. 28 states: u At the time when he saw that Jahve had answered him at the threshing-floor of Oman,, he offered sacrifice there," i.e. from that time forward; so that we may with Berth, translate b& Hty% u then he was wont to offer sacrifice there." In vers. 29 and 30 we have still further reasons given for David's continuing to offer sacrifices at the threshingfloor of Oman. The legally sanctioned place of sacrifice for Israel was still at that time the tabernacle, the Mosaic sanctuary with its altar of burnt-offering, which then stood on the high place at Gibeon (cf. xvi. 39). Now David had indeed brought the ark of the covenant, which had been separated from the tabernacle from the time of Samuel, to Zion, and had there not only erected a tent for it, but had also built an altar and established a settled worship there (chap, xvii.), yet without having received any express command of God regarding it; so that this place of worship was merely provisional, intended to continue only until the Lord Himself should make known His will in the matter in some definite way. When therefore David, after the conquest of his enemies, had obtained rest round about, he had formed the resolution to make an end of this provisional separation of the ark from the tabernacle, and the existence of two sacrificial altars, by building a temple; but the Lord had declared to him by the prophet Nathan, that not he, but his son and successor on the throne, should build Him a temple. The altar by the ark in Zion, therefore, continued to co-exist along with the altar of burnt-offering at the tabernacle in Gibeon, without being sanctioned by God as the place of sacrifice for the congregation of Israel. Then when David, by ordering the numbering of the people, had brought guilt upon the nation, which the Lord so heavily avenged upon them by the pestilence, he should properly, as king, have offered a sin-offering and a burnt-offering in the national sanctuary at Gibeon, and there have sought the divine favour for himself and for the whole people. But the Lord said unto him by the prophet Gad, that he should bring his offering neither in Gibeon, nor before the ark on Zion, but in the threshing-floor of Oman (Araunah), on the altar which he was there to erect. This command, however, did not settle the place where he was afterwards to sacrifice. But David — so it runs, ver. 29 f. — sacrificed thenceforward in the threshing-floor of Oman, not at Gibeon in the still existent national sanctuary, because he (according to ver. 30) " could not go before it (1^??) to see^ God, for he was terrified before the sword of the angel of Jahve." This statement does not, however, mean, ex terrore visionis angelicce infirmitatem corporis contraxerat (J. H. Mich.), nor yet, " because he, being struck and overwhelmed by the appearance of the angel, did not venture to offer sacrifices elsewhere " (Berth.), nor, a because the journey to Gibeon was too long for him" (O. v. Gerl.). None of these interpretations suit either the words or the context. ^SE fljni inn, terrified before the sword, does indeed signify that the sword of the angel, or the angel with the sword, hindered him from going to Gibeon, but not during the pestilence, when the angel stood between heaven and earth by the threshing-floor of Araunah with the drawn sword, but — according to the context — afterwards, when the angelophany had ceased, as it doubtless did simultaneously with the pestilence. The words 'til njH3 ^3 can therefore have no other meaning, than that David's terror before the sword of the angel caused him to determine to sacrifice thereafter, not at Gibeon, but at the threshing-floor of Araunah; or that, since during the pestilence the angel's sword had prevented him from going to Gibeon, he did not venture ever afterwards to go. But the fear before the sword of the angel is in substance the terror of the pestilence; and the pestilence had hindered him from sacrificing at Gibeon, because Gibeon, notwithstanding the presence of the sanctuary there, with the Mosaic altar, had not been spared by the pestilence. David considered this circumstance as normative ever for the future, and he always afterwards offered his sacrifices in the place pointed out to him, and said, as we further read in chap. xxii. 1, " Here (WH PIT, properly this, mas. or neut.) is the house of Jahve God, and here is the altar for the burnt-offering of Israel." He calls the site of the altar in the threshing-floor of Araunah •Tin'' fV?, because there Jahve had manifested to him His gracious presence; cf. Gen. xxviii. 17.