CONTENTS Page Chapter I HISTORI CAL INTRODUCTION i Chapter II THE TARGUM. EXAMINATION OF THE TARGUM, WITH REFERENCE TO THE MASORETIC TEXT; DEFINITION OF ITS CHARACTER AND VALUE i° Chapter III THE PESlTTO. EXAMINATION OF THE SYRIAC TEXT, WITH REFERENCE TO THE MASORETIC TEXT; DEFINITION OF ITS CHARACTER AND VALUE 22 Chapter IV THE SEPTUAGINTA. EXAMINATION OF THE GREEK TEXT, WITH REFERENCE TO THE MASORETIC TEXT; DEFINITION OF ITS CHARACTER AND VALUE 44 Chapter V THE MASORETIC TEXT. THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT; MOTIVES FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE TEXT; DEFINITION OF ITS CHARACTER AND VALUE 7° Chapter VI ANNOTATIONS TO THE MASORETIC TEXT. . 8o ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS USED (the most used abbreviations only) M = Masoretic text; ed. Kittel '1933. Tg = Targum; ed. de Lagarde 1872. S = PeSitto; ed. Lee 1824. G = Septuaginta; ed. Rahlfs 1935. The Roman figures indicate the chapters of the first Book of Samuel. CHAPTER I HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION cuncta mortalium incerta Tacitus "The books of Samuel have suffered unusually from transcriptional corruption", is generally the commencement of the studies of this part of the Bible. The text of M contains many obscure passages, in which the Hebrew differs from that of the other books. The contents show conflicting accounts in respect of the regular construction of the stories. Besides this, the old translations contain important differences, and for that reason many scholars have endeavoured to amend the text of M with the aid of a Hebrew grammar as well as with context and probability in logical sense and with the different versions of the translations. The commentary of Thenius1 which first appeared in 1842, signifies, concerning the use of G, the commencement of a new examination of textual criticism. In this work, Thenius disputes an introduction to an extensive Septuaginta-examination which appeared the previous year 2. This study, made by the chief-Rabbi Frankel, has found little echo, possibly owing to the fact that he did not complete the plan he had announced 3. As Jewish scholars are generally well acquainted with the Rabbinica, which, for texttradition, the oldest exegeses and the translation, must be considered of great value, and as the examination of the text of the last decennial brings us again close to some of Frankel s ideas, it seems very desirable that we should state them in brief. Frankel wishes to make an independent examination of G in order to 1 O. Thenius, "Die Bücher Samuels" *1842, 2i864, 3i8g8 ed Löhr, in the series "Kurzgefastes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament . Leipzig, Hirzel. 2 Z. Frankel, "Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta" 1841. Leipzig, Vogel. 3 See the foreword of his "Ueber den Einfluss der palastinischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik" 1851. Leipzig, Barth. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION - Frankel penetrate the spirit of the translation and only if this succeeds it is possible to form a judgment. In his opinion the translation is merely done as a religious necessity1. G translates an Aramaic text. The Targum, which descends from the time of Ezra, is full of paraphrase and was not a literal translation, as was asserted by R. Asaria di Rossi2. However the differences in G are not all explained here, its mistakes very often arose from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew text, and for that reason the differences do not rest merely on a faulty interpretation and untimely paraphrase, but appear to be caused by a difference in text. "Und nun sind wir auf dem Punkte angelangt, wo die Kritik ihr Recht geltend macht und zur Vergleichung unseres Textes mit dem muthmasslich den LXX vorgelegenen schreitet. Aber welcher Vorsicht bedarf es hier, und wie begrenzt ist die Aussicht auf Gewinn! Die erste Uebersetzung war nicht vollstandig (this meaning is made acceptable with the motive of origin, viz.: to lend assistance in the Synagogue), was konnte nicht durch allmaliges Nachtragen verdorben werden, da noch überdiess die Kenntniss des Hebraischen in Alexandrien stets mehr abnahm und sich im Verlaufe der Zeit fast bis auf die letzte Spur verlor!" 3 After an examination of certain texts and a treatment of the pronunciation, by which the alteration of some of the letters is also discussed, a charactersketch of the grammar, there follows a paragraph on hermeneutics and exegesis of G 4. The translators give an explanation, without indicating that they are interpreting. This they have in common with all old translators. It is their intention to give an elucidation of the original, by which we get inaccuracies in people and numbers, extension as a means of explanation, contraction of what appears to be doublé, etc. Euphemisms endeavour to avoid anthropomorphic expressions, besides which the Midrash-element penetrates all the old versions. Frankel considers the translators to have been unskilful in Hebrew, which is plainly shown in their rendering of proper names. His last chapter 5 contains according to him, besides 1 Op. cit. page 23, § 3. 2 Op. cit. note to page 34 and 35. 8 Op. cit. page 37. 4 Op. cit. page 163 et seq. 6 Op. cit. page 204 et seq. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION - Thenius an interesting history of the literature, the fact, that the translators must have used an inaccurate text. The original of G however conforms to the Masoretic text, "nur dass er durch seine Ungenauigkeit zu Conjecturen, deren sich die LXX in ihrer Unkunde gern als Erleichterungsmittel bemachtigten, Anlass gab". A few passages in Isaiah illustrate that G often changed a difficult text into an easier one by an alteration of letters. In the preface to his commentary Thenius shows at once that he is not in agreement with this estimation of G. He quotes as his starting point and principle rule in his criticism "quo intelligatur atque etiam quo emendetur, veteris testamenti textus, necesse est, ut adhibeantur versiones antiquae", "ea lectio indubitato melior est et praeferenda, quae sensum parit in se veriorem, planiorem, aptiorem, concinniorem, commodiorem, consequentibus et antecedentibus magis cohaerentem, menti et scopo scriptoris propiorem atque congruentiorem ac totius scripturae analogiae magis conformem concordemque, in quocunque tandem codice illa lectio occurrat" 1. Herewith he breaks into a new field of research with little used tools 2. Others have already perceived the imperfections of M, e.g. Michaelis. Most scholars however believe in the integrity of M which promises Thenius' work, as he himself says, a very poor reception. His chief work is the examination of G by which he arrivés at the conclusion that the Vatican manuscript, GB, is better than the Alexandrine. The Greek translator was not completely master of Hebrew, but applied himself to reproduce the original with diplomatic accuracy or rather with religious zeal 3. The oldest Greek text returns to a recension of the original text, which differs considerably from the Masoretic tradition. The reception of Thenius' commentary was, however, very favourable. The path made by him of the more systematic use of the ancient versions is trod still further. We will not give a complete history of the literature here, but will confine ourselves to a few writings, which have exercised much influence and still continue to do so. 1 Quoted from Kennicott and Capellus. 2 Op. cit. Preface, first edition. 8 Op. cit. introduction § 6 (in the second edition § 7). HISTORICAL INTROD UCTION - De Lagarde, Wellhausen In 1863 de Lagarde published "Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien" 1. Although this writing does not treat on Samuel, yet, by its introduction, it is of much importance for our survey. De Lagarde observes that G cannot be used off hand in determining the Hebrew text, or in improving M. The original form of the Greek translation must first be determined. G shows that many alterations have been made by the Christian Jews; later comparing, also, with newer versions has spoilt the text still more. De Lagarde precedes his examination with three maxims: — 1. die manuscripte der griechischen übersetzung des alten testaments sind alle entweder unmittelbar oder mittelbar das resultat eines eklektischen verfahrens: darum muss, wer den echten text wiederfinden will, ebenfalls eklektiker sein, sein maassstab kann nur die kenntniss des styles der einzelnen übersetzer, sein haupthilfsmittel muss die fahigkeit sein, die ihm vorkommenden lesarten auf ihr semitisches original zurückzuführen oder aber als original griechische verderbnisse zu erkennen. — 2. wenn ein vers oder verstheil in einer freien und in einer sklavisch treuen übertragung vorliegt, gilt die erstere als die echte. — 3. wenn sich zwei lesarten nebeneinander finden, von denen die eine den masoretischen text ausdrückt, die andre nur aus einer von ihm abweichenden urschrift erklart werden kann, so ist die letztere für ursprünglich zu halten. De Lagarde as well as Thenius therefore, indicates an original text, which differs from M. It is considered to be incorrect to bind oneself down to one manuscript, or that the too literal character should give a proof of genuineness and reliability. We are not surprised that Wellhausen begins his dispute over Thenius' method with the commencement of de Lagarde's first thesis. Yet he considers that G may already be used before this version "in ihrer reinen Gestalt" is of service to us. "Man kann auch mit zweischneidigen Messern ohne Gefahr operieren, wenn man nur weiss, dass sie zweischneidig sind und sie vorsichtig benutzt". According to him the whole of the Greek translation is not of so much importance as the part to be compared. He does not aim at making an amendment of the pure form of the oldest translation, but of tracing the original text. To the question of 1 1863. Leipzig. 2 J. Wellhausen, "Der Text der Bücher Samuelis" 1871. Göttingen. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION - Wellhausen how to obtain this text from G, Wellhausen answers "erst wenn man im Allg. eine Idee davon hat, was etwa in (the Greek text) Hebraisches zu suchen sei, wird man das Richtige finden: auf diese Ahnung aber führt das mas." (the Hebrew text), and 2: 'Man muss einen Vorbegriff haben von der Wahrheit, um sie zu finden .... Das eine (richtige Conjectur) wie das andere (Gesichtspunkte zur Auffindung) wird sich nur aus dem mas. Texte ergeben, ohne den die LXX gar nicht zu verstehen ware . . . This leads eventually to the right to judge (Urtheilsfahigkeit). Wellhausen agrees with Thenius that literally, Samuel is correctly translated (compare Thenius, page XIX), but this must not be explained with religious scrupulousness (see Thenius, page XVIII) as with this explanation, the lack of that characteristic in the conservation of the original text in the Palestine version becomes an open question. Verbalism is a result of the fact that the translators were Hellenist Jews, who thought Semitically, even though they spoke Greek. Verbalism, even to clumsiness, does not, however, exclude exceptions. The then existing exegeses show prominently in the free transcriptions, whilst the alterations of the kere are nearly always taken over 3. When G and other versions agree that another Hebrew text than M has been translated and they mutually disagree, we have probably to do with different interpretations. Here Wellhausen adds very cautiously4: "womit nicht geleugnet werden soll, dass auch positieve Uebereinstimmung der Versionen in der Abweichung vom M nur auf gemeinsamer Abhangigkeit von der traditionellen Hermeneutik beruhen könne". The books of Samuel contain many instances of involuntary mistakes through homoioteleuton, omission of complete sentences, wrong repetitions, etc. Yet mistake and accident are unfruitful means as an explanation. The many variants protest against such a rigidity as Thenius is said to suppose. A letter is very often sacrificed in free and easy naïveté to the significance. Wellhausen denies the possibility of variety in pronunciation, the difference between x and n is not linguistic but 1 Op. cit. Einleitung, page 6 note. 3 Op. cit. Einleitung, page 7 note. 3 Frankel op cit., page 224, incorporates Samuel with the books in which kere is translated exclusively. The only exceptions are VIII 3 and XIV 27. 4 Op. cit. Einleitung, page 12. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION - Wellhausen, Driver, Budde graphical. With this he discourses freely on the Hebrew style. From the very beginning the Hebrews had no fixed image of a sound, but reckoned on the reliance and performance of the reader, who had first to understand the sense before he could pronounce the words. Image and tone demand much of the activity of the listener. The style must also be taken with a pinch of salt by the reader. The style of recording may also be very circumstantial, but again trusts very much to an implied understanding. No appearance of objectivity exists, and for that reason, the Hebrew manuscripts have not arrived at any fixity of form as have those of the Greek and Latin. Explanations, further definitions, retouches, additions of a pragmatic nature, and inaccuracies in such words as ?, HfN and negatives, have done much to alter the text. The amendment of the original is, in these cases, dependent on the motive for alteration, and this will generally be found in the variant but not in the letters. The signification generally decides the amendment of the text1. In the foreword he makes the demand: — that a history of the Semitic writing should be made, e.g. beginning with a concordance of proper names according to the pronunciation of the traditional text and the tranlations. Driver and, much later, Wutz, have worked on the fulfilment of this demand. Wellhausen shows, next to his great appreciation of G as a medium in the amendment of the original text, much circumspection in the determining of corruptions in M. Driver 2 is less hesitant with his alterations. He treats the history of the Hebrew alphabet very lucidly in the preface to his annotations and gives a discussion on the old versions. He considers that the intrinsic superiority of one text over another lies in: — conformity with the context, grammatical correctness and agreement with the general styles and customs of the writers of the old testament. Budde 3 — we will leave different other commentators aside — is of the opinion that, in the determining of the text, an exceptio- 1 Compare op. cit. Vorrede, page VI. 2 S. R. Driver, "Notes on the Hebrew text of the Books of Samuel" 1890. 2i<)I3, Oxford. 3 K. Budde, "Die Bucher Samuel" 1902. Tübingen and Leipzig, Mohr. From the series Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, ed. Marti, Abteilung VIII. Einleitung, page IX et seq. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION - Kahle, Wutz, Bertram nally bad manuscript was chosen for Samuel. G offers a better text and is a literal translation, but even G is in a very confused condition. The doublé rendering is an improvement on M, which was later added. However, when such an improvement has been substituted, the old text has become lost. Budde admits the subjectivity of opinion concerning the correctness of the text: — "Freie Verbesserungen bei dem Zustande des Textes sind gar nicht zu entbehren". For explanation, he considers that it is not necessary to amend the text so exactly. The textual criticism with reference to the explanation merely has as its aim: die Ermittelung des ursprünglichen Wortlauts". With respect to Driver, we believe Budde has gone a step further by openly acknowledging the subjectivity, which we observe with Wellhausen, albeit it cursorily, when he discusses the right to judge (Urtheilsf ahigkeit). This subjectivity is clear in the text amendments which Sievers 1 and Bruno 2 require for their metrical rendering of the texts. It is to be mentioned of Kahle, that it is to his merit that he has retraced the examination of the more or less ingenious hypotheses to the examination of the texts themselves. In the following research into a part of the book of Samuel, we shall find an opportunity to discuss his ideas and those of Wutz, who was encouraged by Kahle on this subject. Kahle's examination contains chiefly grammatical and tradition questions, whilst Wutz subjects G to a careful examination with reference to its "Vorlage"and origin. We observe with this, that Frankel's method is, for a part, again found here. Frankel's demand, to understand the translation by a penetration of the spirit of it, is taken seriously in the Septuaginta studies of Rahlfs, Bertram and others. The former facilitates the accessibility to the text in a carefully worked out edition, whilst the latter breaks a lance for the examination of G as an independent trans- 1 E. Sievers, "Metrische Studiën" III. Samuel, text 1907. Leipzig, Teubner. No. IV of the XXIII volume of the "Abhandlungen der PhilologischHistorischen Klasse der Königl. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften". 1 A. Bruno, "Das Hebraische Epos" Uppsala 1935. 3 A. Rahlfs, "Septuaginta" 1935- THE TARGUM - Difference in proper names and essence is very close to the Semitic, the use of the tetragrammaton for the name of God becomes ever so more a matter of course. Besides this the possibility exists, that the people has still polytheistic ideas, which find the best foundation in DTDN. The interdiction of pronunciation is not explained with this; however, the explanation of awe for holiness must be considered insufficiënt, on account of alterations which we have proved. Driver 1 mentions as one of the two characteristics of the Tg the pious tendency to euphemize anthropomorphic expressions or to omit them. He cites for this the use of Dip and Dip Jö. If we — although this use of words can no more be reckoned as belonging to the proper names, we shall yet discuss this small words here in connection with the names of God — tracé these words, we observe that they are used for the translation of \ a good twenty five times, of a good ten times, of a good ten times, of dj? four times, of nK (nota acc.) six times, of hv, and UJ each, once. Besides which they occur a good fifteen times for making a direct sentence indirect and five times in an augmentation of the text. The socalled anthropomorphic expressions VIII 21 : "> WM3, XII 17 and XV 19 : 'i rnn are also circumscribed by Dip . But it is not certain that here we are only concerned with awe, as Dip also occurs for profane things and persons : I 16, VII 2, VIII 11 and 18. Samuel is also once preceded by Dip XVI 8. Moreover XVI 22 in mine eyes" (of Saul) is also translated by Dip; also IX 15 "the ear" (of Samuel), XI 4 "in the ears" (of the people). After the discussion of the other differences we shall see, that also this method of translating is connected with another characteristic of the translation. Difference in proper names. We find simplification and elucidation in D'llJJn, which are rendered in IV 6, XIII 3 and XIV 21 by ktijt whilst e.g. XI 8 is translated literally. Instead of Jerubbacal the Tg has Gideon, XII 11, which can hold relationship with didactic considerations, compare Judg. VI 32 and II Sam. XI 21. ta* in VI 18 becomes Njnx, XIII 18 adds ^ rarcai, a translation of cpt?, whilst in this 1 S. R. Driver, "Notes on the Hebrew text of the Books of Samuel", Introduction, page 70 et seq. THE TARGUM - Minus, Plus verse also has the translated name JTPSN "wolves". XIV 4 also has translated names: NrvmiPÖ 1 which means a steep slope, and XffDiTlD "declivity of a rock". The difficult explanation of the names of the Hebrew text is avoided by choosing descriptive names from the situation of the story. VII 11, IX 4 and XIII 17 Non for and bvw may also be elucidating. nm occurs in the Tg as the name of a little town in the neighbourhood of Sichem, II Kings XXIII 36. XV 7 renders as NUn 2 whereby the possibility of new names for old places must be considered. We find a clerical error in X 21 : "TO3ö, probably influenced by TDts of verse 22. XIII 3 has jnj; the final n is not always written. In XV 4 itjÓb is not considered as a proper name, hence a translation which enlarges the sentence. XV 6 translates 'Upn by comp. Genes. XV 19 (comp. also Levy, Wörterbuch2 s.v.) The signification is indistinct. Now we will tracé what has been omitted in the Tg (minus), added (plus) and what is changed (difference). Minus. Simplification: I 11 "on him" replaces "on his head". III 19 omits nsnx, the complete expression being obsolete. In VIII 8 the use of 1 for -ij? has disappeared. X 9 omits the plastic maar. XVI 12 leaves the difficulty of M, Dy, untranslated. Plus. Concerning the additions we observe elucidations many; they extend the text; make the sense more fluent; render a direct method of expression indirect and weave in introductions. We will treat the passages in the order of the text, with the exception of a few combinations under one heading. I ib extends exegetically in the sense of ia, that knows of a sanctuary with a school of prophets in the mountainous districts of Ephraim, comp. III 15, XV 22. I 2 makes the text harmonious 1 This word occurs in the plural Jer. XXIII 12. 2 Also XXVII, 8. THE TARGUM - Plus in a logical sense by the definite article of the numeral. 16 elucidates with r6. I 7 extends with NttHpa, comp. I 24, III 3, 15. I 8 gives an explanation. I 10, 15,18,19, 20 give extension of an explicatory nature. I 26 gives an explanation of U where 'i is considered a contraction of HM "to ask". II 1-10 gives four-fifths extension and one-fifth free rendering. The extension anticipates the history by quoting the Philistines, the Ark, the Levites, Sanherib, Nebucadrezar (v. 2), probably Rabsaké (v. 3), the Jonians, the destruction of Jerusalem (v. 5). V. 6 in its paraphrase is nearer to the text of M, v. 7 is similar to M and v. 8 gives the religious view of a later period. M speaks of the Almightiness of God, Tg of the punishment for the workers of evil and of the future for those who do the will of God: therefore the enlargement of v. 8a in a religious sense. Also with v. 9> treating on the day of judgment and v. 10, which must emphasize the impression upon the people. II 12 gives a ritual sense to the knowledge of Jahu, which anticipates on the DStyo of the priests with the people. II 14 extends for elucidation with N!"Q"6, II 15 with NrmD ?V, out of which the didactic character speaks. DDJ is usual, v. 13 and elsewhere. II 20 extends int to "virtuous sons . II 21 elucidates with vrWD. II 25 gives an explicatory extension in connection with the difficulty of the praying of the genius (dt6n) for him. The addition avoids the difficulty which is caused by □t6n being seen as mn\ 25c is connected in the enlargement with the circumscription of v. 25 a and b. II 26 discourses on "the name" and "his way". II 27, 28, 29 extend for elucidation with "serving" (the house of Pharaoh), ' for sacrifices , burning of incense", "to serve", circumscription of Ïïl?n by rvan mp •"BHpö. II 30 extends "my" to "my name" ; II 31 strengthens the text by twice adding rppn; II 32 translates twice VsnDn Tim and nn Tim and adds as paraphrase 'Jl Tim III 3 reminds one of the temple of Jerusalem (mrp the inner court). III 7 extends the text with r^N, III 12 and 13 with WH. With nar ^BHlp is used for elucidation, III 14 and VI 15. the same as XI 15, XIII 9, XV 22, and XVI 5 know this by DM. III 15 turns Samuel into prophet; comp. I 1 and XV 22. Indirect method of expression. The sense is made indirect in III 19, (with which III 20 is THE TARGUM - Plus connected), VII 2, 3, 9, VIII 8, 18 ("accept your prayers" instead of "to answer"), IX 17, X 19, 22, 26, XI 6, XII 5, 9, 12, 20, 24, XIII 13, XIV 3, 36, 37, XV 11, 19, 29a, XVI 7b, 13, 14. IV 1 facilitates by adding "pleasing". At the same time the text is strengthened with iernrUK, as well as in VII10. mi? elucidates with the plural of the verb in IV 2; IV 3 and 4 extend the text. ruw is an example of the influence of the period on the translation. IV 7 and 8 soften an old view or no more understand it and therefore elucidate by adding ruriN and ma»ö. The extension 'J1 VYraiin serves to avoid the indistinctness between "Egypt" and "desert". IV 9 exaggerates with prpJ (twice); IV 12 damages the direct method of narration by adding m IV 13 gives explanations out of v. 18, whilst v. 18 adds miN out of v. 13 (the gateway). IV 19 extends with ^ptanwn, IV 21 with 'Ji nwi, whilst IV 22 is a repetition of v. 21. V 7 explains by adding and NnnD. VI 3 is extended with whilst NÏ2CX obtains here as well as v. 4, 8 and 17 pip. VI 6 elucidates with p TO. VI 18 makes the text more fluent. VI 19 extends for elucidation. VI 20 no more recognizes the equalisation of "ark" with nw or alters this view by adding NJ11N, comp. IV 7 and 8. At the same time it is elucidated with snriN. VII1 has t for ninja which makes the sense more fluent; VII 6 gives an allegorical exegesis of the old use, DV33. VII 13 extends the text with ttvlN. VIII 3 adds the later often recurrent idol's name pao. VIII 12 gives elucidation with NHD'N and N'JöiN. VIII 16 gives a circumscription of \ nttW the same as VIII 15 and 17 of ntyy. IX 5 and 20 elucidate with pon?. IX 7 gives a softened representation of the old use by the addition piao ^npo dn. At the same time 01 C|N, Din» and are added for elucidation. IX 12 gives a extending explanation. IX 16 gives, besides a doublé translation of the definite article and the elucidation "in order to be" (comp. XV 1 and 11) the addition 1 Npnn "pressure", oppression , a doublé translation of the latter part of the sentence. IX 20 explains Dvn by "and as for thine she-asses that were lost to you (which) you have come to seek three days past from now" etc. pi is an enclitic partiele following interrogative pronouns (Stevenson, Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, Oxford T924> P- 19)- IX 24 gives an explanation, which loses the actual sense ("to the meal"). THE TARGUM - Plus IX 27 elucidates with N3H. X 4 extends with rwu. X 14 elucidates by enlargement of the text. X 15 circumscribes the pregnant >3 of M by pinsiPK N1? nN. X 19 enlarges the sense. X 24 elucidates with xn, the same as XV 22. X 26 circumscribes with a long indirect sentence. XI 2 and 3 extend the text. XI 11 and 12 extend the signification by strengthening appendices. XII 3 adds l, which makes the summing up more fluent. XII 6 explains with T bv pUJ. XII 19 adds pn. XII 21 explains the difficult text of M and gives an explication of min. XIII 1 explains the missing number in M. XIII 6 adds a few words for "hiding-plaoes . XIII 8 gives a doublé translation of iinö by adding ION for elucidation XIII 19 explains erin as pn TM? pNl (craftsman, who makes arms) and adds mnn. XIII 20 makes the sense more fluent with inïó without preserving the directness of the short style of M. XIV 6 elucidates by giving nW an object (miracle). XIV 13 explanatorily extends with pj»D which makes the sense fluent XIV 16 and 19 explain the additions and alterations of M s difficu text. XIV 21 is ian supplement for the independent infinite. XIV 25 and 29 by and tmv lose the directness of M s style. XIV 42 extension, XIV 43 elucidation, also XV 1 and 11.T e difficult yn in XV 5 is explained with rin» wvnwï D'pDl. XV ö facilitates by adding 13. XV 12 explains in disapproving sense T by 'Jl M "in*. XV 14 gives a supplementory explanation «nö»p 'tel. XV 17 extends and alters in order to give an explanation: "From thy beginning (youth) wast thou not despised an weak in thine own eyes? But the merit of the tnbe of Benjamin thy father, hath strenghtened thee (because?) they tried to cross the sea at the head of the Israelites, for thus hast thou magnified Jahu to be king over Israël". XV 22 gives a supplement, which places the being a prophet of Samuel in the foreground, comp. I 1 and III 15. In agreement with this is XV 23, that by 3 ma *es a comparison of the expression in MaSal-form; further circumscription of ; v. 23b a circumscription of the sin of disobedience against the prophet by the worship of idols. XV 24 extends wit nnoav XV 28 elucidates with >nnnV- XV 29a gives an ïntroduction which makes the sense indirect. The end of this verse is also a extension, exaggerating in Jahwistic sense. XVI 1 elucidates and extends. In XVI 7 3 gives the comparison, by which it facili- CHAPTER III THE PESITTO Proper names. The comparison of proper names shows agreement to a still greater extent than what we determined in the Targum. A good hundred and twenty-five of the approximate hundred and fifty proper names are literally similar or have merely rendered the difference caused by the Syriac method of writing. Comp. and N in the name Elkana is given of, whilst the vocalisation in some names, e.g. in Drn\ is different from M. The differences are possibly coherent with the Syriac pronunciation and are of no importance in the determining of the text. In IX 4 1 for will also be a difference in pronunciation. As in the Targum I 1 misses cpsiï and is therefore read a form of the verb "to see". S however is more closely related to M with the direct translation O f , as Tg has already again translated the form of nas by W3J which was then in general use. S also makes no additions. It is quite possible that the final □ of DTittin is carried to the foliowing word, compare the relative partiele for "seers". Ii therefore cannot be called an actual omission of the name. VII 4 actually does not know in the translation. As XII 10 and elsewhere a translation of this word does occur, it is not easy to find an explanation for this minus. Possibly contains nnrow as wel as CP ^J73, as this word signifies a place for worship and the connection of with a definite place is well known x. 1 Comp. W. Robertson Smith, "The religion of the Semites" '1927 ed. Cook. London, Black, page 97. THE PESITTO - Proper names, the name of God The word may also have been dropped out or overlooked. III 21 omits Samuel and Siloh, see below. XV 21 omits as M in v. 15. Also XVI 10: "to Isai", comp. V 10. We find the following additions: in IV 12 for Benjamin, of the same nature as in Tg. XII 11 mentions in the summing up of the judges: Deborah, Barak, Gideon and Simson. Gideon is put, as in Tg, in the place of Jerubba'al. The other judges are a correction of M's summing up. This correction need not be another "source" but is a harmonization with the stories from the Book of Judges. The stories of Deborah, Barak and Simson are the most important, so that the word DStv immediately calls these heroes to mind. There is a possibility that this addition was later made as a margin note to the text, although the oral tradition makes the influence of the known stories very possible. Here we have an example of free translating, a freedom which is bound only to the series of stories and the traditional form of the story. The addition XIV 49 of the name \o<,-i4, ] seems to us to be of the same nature, with this distinction, that the story of this son of Saul has been lost to us. Amongst the differences which find their origin in the method of writing VI 21 and XII 11 must also be included, where we find a nun instead of an iod, comp. the inclination to drop ^ together with the following vowel iedac > ïdac. Probably XIV 49 ^ ^ and 1A x> also return to another method of writing. The name Benjamin is, as in Tg, more considered as one word than in M; comp. IX 1 and 4. The name of God. The name of God p ^x> , niiT, is added III 17, IV 22, V 8, VI 3, 8, XIV 37; |o^ , is added IX 7, XII 10, 15, XIII, i3 , 14, XIV 10,45. mn1 is omitted II1, XII 7, 14, 17, 22, XIV 35, XV 13, 20, 22, XVI 9; is omitted II3, DWN XVI16; IV 3 is added. \ > occurs II 25, 27, III 3, IV 4, 11, XIV THE PESITTO - Proper names, the name of God, differences 15, 18, and XVI 23 as the translation of dvi^k, and ]oC^ occurs V 3, VI li, 15, 17, XI 7 and XVI 14 as the translation of mm, which proves that the names were supposed to be of similar signi- fication. We see also that S has no preference for P V» as Tg has for the tetragrammaton. As in Tg the indirect manner of speech plays a part, even though we find yO less than mp. mm^ and are also directly translated by \ . '02^ is rendered by yo fjO , as much for profane names and affairs however as for the names of God. II 11, III1 for Eli; IV 2, 3, 17 and VII 7 for Philistines; VIII 11 for chariot; VII10 for Israël; XIV 13 for Jonathan; XVI 8, 10 for Samuel. i>N, (>!?, nx, DJ and Dl? we find also translated by 7° T-° • I 26, VII 5, 6, 8, 9, X 17, XII 8, 10, 19, XV 11; : 1 10; riN : II11,17, III1, XVI14; Dl?: II 26, for mm as well as for bhmn; ■UJ : XII 3, XV 30. mm WK3 VIII 21 and DS?n VWO XI 4 are translated both times by ■ IX 15 translates jttrrue less plasticly by \ ^50 | . "• 'ri?! is in XV 19 also rendered indirect by yo • Against this is the fact that XIII 12, the same as M, speaks directly of -as| , so that we must determine that we cannot speak of awe towards the name of God which might be indicated by the use of . The different prepositions of ♦ the Hebrew language are equivalently translated, so that we can only speak of a language poorer in this respect, which is a common phenomenon of the later Semitic languages. The remaining differences are as follows: I 7 adds for elucidation of the subject: Peninna and Hanna. The same I 26: "Hanna to Eli". II 11 adds for elucidation: "He and Hanna, his wife". The name Israël explains IV 22, Samuel IX 17, X 22, Saul X 13, THE PESITTO - Minus follows. XV 13 omits b as well as nnx by which the direct benediction is bereaved of its personal character and is turned into an ordinary benediction. XV 20 leaves untranslated. We miss the partiele Ni every now and then, e.g. XVI 17, 22; ni? XVI 11, which might be called a simplification. XI 10 omits 3 without altering the signification. This may be a reading fault. Besides this the expression occurs more without the comparing partiele, comp. XIV 7 and 40. IX 12, 13, 23 omit the nota accusat., without making the signification of the sense indistinct. IX 13 the omission is suggested or is caused by the doublé use in M. XIV 34 omits without any known reason. XIV 41 also misses b K but here the reason is another interpunction, see below. XIV 45 misses nxrn. XVI 6 knows no suffix in DN121 but the plural is given by o L | . DJ is missing in XII 16, 23, XIII 4 and XVI 8; nny XIV 30; run XIII10. I 18 omits "and she ate", by which the connection between "to eat" and "to look animated" is lost. This is connected with the alteration of the pregnant text of M by the addition of the verb vl o j "to be in motion". II 5 facilitates by omitting *11?. II 15 and 16 give the general term for "to sacrifice" and omit nï>n. II 17 also simplifies by omitting nma. II 22 misses nna, simplification by which the door falls away as a place of revelation. V 5 makes the repetition of the name pJT by the omission of |VH m no longer a superfluous observation. In this way V 10 misses the parenthesis pipy 'xn JV1N X13D Wl, which, what concerns the thread of the story, could be conveniently left out. It is also possible that by the twice reccurring p"lp37, the parenthesis has been overlooked. IX 20 simplifies by leaving out ^ which is connected with the later rejection of Saul. IX 24 facilitates the text by omitting the addition of "iyiï3. The exactly fixing of the time, which is connected with this, is to be found in the circumstance that the translator has not feit the emphasis on the fixing of the time for the story. IX 27 misses "Qm, a parenthesis that disturbs the direct sentence. XII 2 omits "|^nno, probably because the same is said about king and judge. XII 4 is less plastic by the omission of ~P in the expression "to take from a person's hand". XII 12 misses THE PESITTO - Difference, number, collective and individual narrator places the matter of the story foremost; comp. the place of the verb in the sentence. We often find an alteration of number. In the following cases S has the plural, whilst M has the singular : II 10 (as well as kerë), III 2, V ii, XI 12, XII 5, io, XIII 6, 15, 17, 19 (as well as kerë) 23, XIV 2, 14, 22, 24, 25, 32, XV 3, 6, 18, 21 and XVI 4. On the other hand S gives the singular, whilst M gives the plural: IX 11, X 10, 22, 26, XI 9, 11, XII 8, 17, 18, XIV 13 and 41. Of these III 2 with "in those days" is less plastic and definite than the concrete "on that day" of M. V 11: "us and our people" is brought into agreement with the subject, by which this passage is also less concrete. The collective is not feit as such and we find the same with XI 12, XII 5, XIV 32, XV 6, 18, 21, where the verb in the plural does not indicate the collectivity of the conception vi % , but explicates it. Neither does XVI 4 feel "the oldest" any more as collective. as collective is XIII 6, 15, XIV 2, 14, 22, 24, XV 3, and XV 3 altered in the plural, to which the numbers of the verbs regulate themselves. Of these, XIII 6, M already has the verb in the plural with XIV 41 a.o., a proof of a lack of system in this respect. The alterations which S causes herewith are all logically comprehensible and may be called harmonisations of the thread of the story. Nevertheless through this the character of the collective which is significant of the Hebrew text, is lost. To understand the conceptions of individual and collective in their attitude to each other is only possible if the Israelitic conception of man is clear to us1. Jahu moulds man of clay and by blowing his breath into this form, he makes him a "living soul", (Gen. II). The ipsj is not added, but the whole becomes ipsj, viz. man in his whole being 2. The idea "man", which is always present, sometimes 1 Comp. for the following: J. Pedersen, "Israël, its life and culture", 1926, page 99 et seq. 2 Op. cit. "his whole manner and being", "totality". We must be careful with the word "totality". Formal logic teaches, that an idea is the poorer in contents, according to its larger circumference. The word "totality" calls up thoughts of an extensive idea. This however is not what Pedersen means. He thinks of something concrete, something the same as what "idea" was to Plato. 3 THE PESITTO - Difference, number, collective and individual visible, sometimes invisible; which is behind everything he does and shows itself in everything that he does, is the ty£U. The "soul" is a whole, that expresses itself in a definite will. The Israelites do not know a theoretical abstraction, nar is not our "to think", but "to remember". Should the remember anything, it is no objective remembrance, but an actual and working representation. It grasps a "totality", directs itself towards the essential. Herein lies the action of the subject; the existential. The collective is the general one that is expressed in a definite individual. By collective w e often understand a collection of individuals, which can be expressed by one collective name, but for the Israelites this is not so. The individual is merely a form of the predominant type, the prototype of the kind, and the collective always has the individual in the background. Thus by collective is meant, the universality concrete x. Those two ideas are closely related and can without difficulty be used together. In the places mentioned in S we miss this character of collective as representativeness in individual form. It is therefore an alteration,a result of the change in the psychics of the language. Here also a weakening might be spoken of. XIII17 has the verb in the plural the same as the subject, as the sequel speaks of groups, logically harmonious, which is probably connected with the preceding (nvwD as collective). XIII 23 is of the same nature. The plural (Philistines) may have brought about the alteration. XIV 25 has however a greater alteration, as another subject is introduced, with -=» as a result, for M's subject. The intention is an eluci- dating of the text of M. The places given in the singular by S are partly of an explanatory nature. IX 11 shows, that we have to do with Saul and not with his servant. In this way, as well as in X 10, which is brought into agreement with v. 10 b and with IX 11, the old characteristic, which appears from the confidential intercourse of the son of the master with the servant, disappears. X 22 adds Samuel as subject. 1 Also in Deutero-Jesaiah the nw *ny. The individual manner of expression is only a form of presenting the collective more concretely to himself and to others. THE PESITTO - Difference also a harmonisation from a logical point of view. XI 9 and 11 also explain in the same way taking Saul as the subject. The exegesis of XI 11 understands the expression 'Jï -pro wrongly: S explains : "Saul came into the midst of his men", M means : "Saul and his men came into the core of the enemy's army". In X 26 is feit as a unity. The term "standing army" had become well-known, from which it has the verb in the singular. XII 17 and 18 know the claps of thunder as thunder storm", singular. The realistic expression is weakened to a definite name. XII8 gives by taking Moses as the sole leader in the exodus an historical explanation, with the singular as a result. XIV 13 adds a subject which brings the verb into the singular. The plural (Philistines) has not the same result as in XIII 23. Continuation of the Differences. I 16 explains as "for thee". I 20 gives in place of "the turn of the year", a weak translation : "in the time of the days". 123 explains by the other suffix and now obtains a logical sense. I 26 explains W 13 in the same way as Tg. (see Tg Plus). I 28 translates OOt , in connection with another interpunction. n1n may be read or explained as iTn. II 2 et seq. gives no paraphrase, but a translation. II 2 translates less plasticly the meaning of M 7IX "rock", by the adjective "strong". II 3 at the end, tries to make a fluent sense in agreement with the preceding one. II 4 is the same as v. 2, less plastic by the general "to become strong", instead of the concrete "to gird". II 8 gives the impression of being a later mistake of S (a clerical error or a remoulding for church use): "the Lord overshadows the depths of the earth". pacel of for ">!> '3, originally translated by II 14 still remains vague to us, in S as well as in M and Tg, as the archeological discoveries till now have thrown insufficiënt light on these articles of daily use; also x 5 and xiii final. ii 15 is brought into agreement with the result of the verse (nar). ii 19 explains d'avi nar as to. THE PESITTO - Difference II 20 elucidates with instead of tow and brings the plural suffix ^00 y ),] into agreement with the plural form of the verb. II 21 weakens the active ips "O by "and the Lord visited". II 25 as Tg, no more understands the old signification of dv6n. II 29 is explicatory by replacing pjjö by "from off the desert". II 30 has no separate rendering of DNJ and translates the terminus technicus, -|!>n as Tg by the general verb yjO >xu. . II 32 avoids the difficulty of M by giving >1170 the pronoun second person. is is replaced by "the (judgment) staff". III 2 explains as yO01 (to sleep). III 10 tries to render the expression DJ733 DV£0 by ■ III 19 makes the story more fluent: "and Samuel knew that the Lord was with him". IV 2 translates a passive, by which the alteration of subject of M drops. At the same time this verse gives a simplified translation of cd: by | O Oi » also XII 22 by r-> . IV 13 explains the difficulty of M by reading t and by translating nsxo by ' IV 15 gives Eli seventy eight instead of ninety eight years, probably a reading fault. IV 20 translates freely and is less plastic. V 3 makes the sense less active and more descriptive by 01 Ouu^a-*-j O instead of run. V 4 translates mnöö freely. The same as Tg V 5 has also | V-X> os> , also VI 2. V 8 and 10 render 33D by os which also serves as a translation of 3W. The nuance is not feit; also VII 10 and 13, which use as well for as for l?J3. VII 16 has 33D translated by 7c yj> ("to go round"). VI 2 has Jj O ^ for D'QDp, possibly a reminder of the princes of the Philistines, who are mentioned in V 11. The association magician — king however is not strange in itself. VI4 elucidates by ^ A a suffix which agrees THE PESITTO - Difference with the oratio directa of the verse. VI 6 gives no advice, but a command, probably in connection with the alteration of v. 2. At the same time is said "not to mock", leaving out the difficult text of M by placing this small sentence on one line with "like the Egyptians" etc. VI 12 facilitates by replacing nty by "to be sent away". Instead of the second yn occurs fines, district. VI 19 has instead of nxi. The conformable forms of run and jrp may also bring about such an alteration, but it is more probable that the seeing of the sanctuary is no longer understood as a reason for the slaughter. The numbers are more freely given, more logical in succession, first fifty thousand, then seventy. VI 20 translates : "and who shall take away the Ark from us?", by which the Ark does not remain personal as in M. VII 6 makes the sense more fluent by replacing av by the causative . VII 12, 14, X 22, XIV 42 and XV 6 show a confusion of TO and pn. XIV 42 shows that appears as a translation of pa. VII 14 has the indirect saying : "the Lord delivered for Israël". VIII 13 explains npi as "to weave". IX 7 has less actively, instead of the question, "OnN no, the logical conclusion of Saul's objection: IX 8 increases the distance between the servant and the future king by translating q, ♦ v>\ instead of "to Saul", whilst the giving of the present is also to be done by Saul, instead of WO. IX 14 is brought into agreement with v. 18 : . IX 21 alters >Jt3pÜ in a logical sense in the singular. IX 22 S has instead of the definite n^ï» the generally used N ■ -s . X 1 is an expla- nation: "the horn of anointment". b Niï>n is weakly rendered by . X 5 has 3'XO in the singular ; explanation. The musical instruments are in a different succession, whilst the significations are not altogether certain, comp. II 14 and XIII final. IX 19 THE PESITTO - Difference facilitates by reading the negation instead of i!>. X 22 simplifies the pregnant text of M "and he (Samuel) said: where . . . instead of "does he still come hither?" XI 11 elucidates with: "and they were overpowered". XI 13 uses the indefinite instead of the definite DV. In XII 3 the possibility of the offence, in which the tension in Samuel's question actually lies, is immediately rejected by changing : "and I will pay thee back" into A O poj XII 6 weakens by changing the suffix second person plur. into 3rd pers. plur. XII 8 makes "the Lord" subject of the last verb in agreement with the history. XII 9 explains "to forget" of the Israelites by • translating H "to fall into error". The typical term "to sell" is replaced by the less plastic "surrender", "give up". XII 15 facilitates the same as Tg. XII 16 is less plastic, the same as XV 19 a.o. XII 23 gives a weak translation of "to cease to" by "not" and omits the difficulty of M by reading the article instead of "P"1-?. XIII 1 elucidates : "when Saul had been king for twenty one years", v. 2, "over Israël" etc. XIII 2 explains "tent" as "house". XIII 5 alters the number into three thousand. XIII 12 weakens "to soften" into "to see". nnv is not given in the usual form by |_a. os but elucidates with the interrogative partiele (so that not ....). XIII 17 and 18 show freedom in the choice of words by giving rus twice by and once by 110 The signification of the names of the instruments remains vague, XIII 20 et seq. XIV 4 immediately continues the story by which the complicated locative is simplified. XIV 5 explains piïïD as Ui. XIV 6 explains nel? by translating it by \ (to help). XIV 14 alters M's difficult text with a comparison as illustration of Jonathan's deed : "as (stone-)cutters and as guiders of yokes in the field". This comparison finds its beginning in 3 and mif 10X and is a free explanation. XIV 16 elucidates and alters for the sake of the story pon: "and behold, the army of the Philistines went back and forth (was in commotion) and was broken up"; also T HE SEPTUAGINTA - Plus I 17 Hannah only asks one thing, and the plural forms in II 16 and VII 7 indicate the enlargement. So VII 9 is a great extension, X 17 tenders for the kingship over all Israël, XI 8 loses sight of the fact that it is concerned with the opposition Israel-Judah and considers Israël also as the name of the whole people. XV 13 is anticipation, as Saul's question cannot include all that is still to happen. XVI 4 is an exaggeration. In the following places we come across a doublé rende r i n g, which indicates uncertainties, which the translators either leave undecided or extend with an explanation. In some places the translations are in juxta-position and in others a fluent sentence is made by xai. These phenomena indicate (oral) tradition, also of the translation which precede our recension. Certain passages cannot possibly have presented difficulties, so that we must take into account their doublé rendering by reason of the urge towards completeness and clearness and the freedom with respect to the text to be translated. I 5 öri ovk tfv avrrj Jiaidiov, repetition of v. 2. I 6 is a completely free rendering, possibly caused by the concise text of M, and repeats the explanation, which is given of the alteration in v. 5. III 13 vicöv avrov. III 17 èv rolg u>aiv aov. IV 5 JiQog avrovg, doublé translation of V 4 éaXl? is an elucidation, which explains the sudden leap of thought in M 1, but paan has remained in transcription, a/xaqjsê, in juxta-position to ra ê/mgocr&ia. V 12 oi CcovTeg y.ai is probably caused by DnwNH in M. VI 2 xm rovg ènaoióovg avrcov, for elucidation. VI 7 avev rwv rsxvcov, anticipation and therefore doublé translation, caused by the preceding word, for elucidation. VI 8 êv êé/uari fieQae'/{}av. VI8 xai ajisMaare. VI 11 and 15 ro êe^a êgyaf}, U"1N is according to v. 8 (and var.), an unknown word. VII 12 ApeveCeQ is explained by hdog tov (Sorjdov. VII 14 aai dnsöojy.av avtag, for elucidation. VIII 12 'BsqCCelv §eomiiov avrov, at option or for elucidation with rovyav rqvyrjröv avrov. VIII 18b ön xrX. IX 7 /j,e&' fjfMav and ro vnaqxov ri/j-wv. IX 16 rtjv rajielvwmv, comp. Tg. IX 21 oxrjnrQov TTO1? and remained in juxta-position to the correction. XIII 5 xai avafiaivovaiv èni laqar\l, for elucidation. XIV 24 xai ZaovA. rjyvorjoev xrX and xai agarai, a different vocalisation of M. XIV 25 taag önv/iog, explanation. XIV 26 xai Idov. XV 3, 8, Iegi/J, anexreivev, due to a faulty understanding of Dtn. XV 23 tzovovq and êegatpiv probably explanation. The following places anticipate the story or are i ntroductions to the coming narration. They are intended for the elucidation or harmonisation of the different stories. The working out is often weakening to the style. I 25 is an enlargement for the elucidation of the rest of the verse. The independent deed of Hannah is brought back to a secondary action, which is also the cause of the addition Avva ri nrjrrjg. III 21b and IV ia introducé the coming incidents and strengthen the bond bet ween the youth history of Samuel and the stories to come. V 6 anticipates VI. VI 1 xai ê£eteoev xrX. VI 19, introduction. IX 11 ra, comp. v. 12. IX 16 rrjv rajieivwoiv, v. 16b. IX 20 aov for "|?. X 1 et'e a.QX0vra htA., introduction to what is to happen. XI ia lays the connection with X, even though this connection may be caused by faulty reading. XI 3 6 for aw^cov. XIII 15b explanation in connection with v. 16. XIV 23 xai nag xrX., introduction to the story which already indicates certain future occurrences; also: XIV 41, 42, XV 3, 12, 20 and 29. We find a standard word-combination with viog, avr]Q and other words. In II 22, VII 14 and X 18 to "Israël", IX 1 to "Benjamin", XI 11 to "Ammon", X 26 to Win, XIV 47 to "Edom", XIV 50 to "uncle of Saul", XIV 51 to "Jamin" viog is added. We have already seen that the small word is elsewhere missing, so that we consider this a freedom in the rendering. The addition is explained by the frequency of the connection; the same with avr]Q. This is added in IV 2, 10, 17, XII 1, XIII 2 to "Israël , XIV 52 to Wrp, XVI 18 to 'Ji jn\ Comp. Tg and S for these words. -p and mean "belonging to the category of". XI 5 THE SEPTUAGINTA - Plus exchanges WN with vicov. We find a Standard word-combination with the word "Ark": V 4, VI 3, 13, 18, VII 1 (twice) dia&rjxrjg (xvQiov), comp. S. With the places where rm is missing, these phenomena show a certain freedom. The independence of the translation may therefore be called rather considerable. II 14 adds röv jiéyav with 1V3, which may be viewed as an exaggeration or a Standard word group The copulative is, except in the added or subordinate sentences, introduced in the following places : II 29, III 2, IV 8, VI 3, VIII 17, IX 6, 10, 13, 24, XII 2, 24, XIII 14, XIV 4, 15, 22, XV 3, 6, 29. These additions are either a facilitation or elucidation of the story, they strengthen the connection and often weaken the direct manner of speech of the Hebrew. IV 8 is an example of explanation : "and (in the desert)", an allusion to the plagues in Egypt and the adventures during the journey in the desert, where there were no more Egyptians! For some places comp. S (VIII 17, IX 13) and Tg (XV 3). We will now discuss the rest of the additions. I 2 adds the article to nn», the same as Tg and S, which does away with the indistinctness. I 5 translates 3HN largely by adding V7ZEQ ravrrjv. nnx means "to give the preference to". I 8 extends with xai einev xrX. The story is freely related, comp. the addition of v. 25. I 9 xai xarearrj èvcomov xvoiov is a supplementary link, which elucidates the pregnant text. I 11 elucidates with dorov and xal olvov xrX., in agreement with the prescripts of the Nazarite. 112, II12, III1 add ó Ieqevq to Eli, comp. S III 1. I 14 increases by ro na.1da.QL0v the distance between the priest and the woman. Comp. concerning the putting in the background of the woman I 8 and 25. The story is supplemented by xai uoqevov èx ngoodmov xvqiov. In I 17 avxrj makes the sentence more fluent. I 18 and 19, in connection with I 8 and 25 solve the difficulty of the concise method of narration. Also I 22. I 20 gives another interpunction by which the Standard connection of the verba mn and is broken for the sake of rational exactness. In I 20 xai eijcev combines the explanation of the name still closer to the story. I 21 offers enlargement : xalnaaaq xrX. Also I 23 : ro ê£eX&ov xrX., I 24 : xai dgroig. êv is exegesis : the Lord of Siloh is the same as the Lord in THE SEPTUAGINTA - Plus Siloh. II1 and IV 3 have the suffix to êeog, caused by the alteration in the name of God. II 2 ovx saxiv ayiog nXrjv aov is paraphrase of M II 2b "|ni>3 pN 'D. II 3 renders the subordinate sentence in two sentences: j). VII 6 extends with èni xrjv yrjv. VII 12 makes the text more fluent with avxov. VIII 8 adds /.101 for elucidation, also VIII 11 and 12 avxovg. In VIII 18b ó'rt xxX. offers a detailed repetition, which weakens the style. IX 9 adds 6 Xaog, changes by reading èxaX.ei and omitting DVH, by which it appears that this translation is further from the story, than the rendering given by M. IX 12 extends with xa xogaaia and avxoig, also IX 13 êv xrj tzóXel and IX 15 ngog avxov. IX 23 adds fxoi for elucidation, as with jnj only öiöoj/u is thought of and not of "to place","to put", as meant by M; therefore a wrong translation. IX 24 elucidates with avxo as X 1 with avxco. IX 24 adds at the same time (bioxnfe; see Difference. IX 26 explains "roof" as "house" and adds êm. X 4 explains the loaves as a thankoffering by adding (biaQ%ag. X 18 adds Xsycov (Hebrewism), also 0agaco (iaaiXscog, a specialisation, to which the locality of the translators may be the cause. X 21 constructs the story with more rational correctness by adding xai ngooaycooiv xxX. X 22 facilitates, the same as S, the pregnant and active manner of speech of M by adding <5. X 25 adds a link for the sake of the story xai ajtrjXêev. XI 2 adds óiai)rjxrjv (Hebrewism) as S. XI 4 explains with Ttoog. XI 6 has ên' avxovg which is not altogether clear ; this translation rriay be possibly meant as an explanation. XI 9 elucidates with slg xrjv nofav. XI 12 elucidates with ov as Tg and S. XII 3 makes a harmonious sense with fj — r/, as Tg and S. XII 6 explains in the sense of the preceding nw ny with Asycov Magxvg. XII 7 explains "> mplï D2C with THE SEPTUAGINTA - Plus xai anayyeXoi vjj.iv. XII 8 enlarges elucidatingly with xai oi vioi avrov whilst xai èxajieivwaev nr).. is added as a supplementaty link in the story. XII 14 elucidates with nogevó/uevoi. XIII 5 adds xara vorov without indicative cause. XIII 8 elucidates the concise text, as Tg, by adding elnev and explains further with avrov. XIII 9 explains with ónwg noirjoco. XIII 13 makes the text more fluent with ori. XIII 16 adds xai ëxXaiov alluding to Samuel's words and going away. XIII 20 explains with yrjv. XIV 7 is exaggeratedly clear with xaqöia /iov. XIV 9 elucidates with èxeï, XIV 10 with ngog rj/j,ag. XIV 13 adds ênaraliev avrovg which has become necessary by the alteration (êne(i?.e ipav). XIV 14 êv poMoi xai èv kt)., alters the difficult text. XIV 15 explains M's text by a free addition with an parenthesis, (xai avroi) ovx rfieXov tioieïv. XIV 18 adds avrog r/gev in connection with the alteration of Ark intoEphod. XIV 25: "and every one used to take the meal. . . observation of the narrator who has to make the story gain in tension. In XIV 29 xai ëyvm is added which must also serve for an increase of the tension. XIV 39 êavarm (ajioê.), wrong Hebrewism. XIV 42 /leaov, Hebrewism. XIV 44 elucidates with /iov as S. arjfiegov is punctilious, by which the strength of the story is actually lost. In XV 2 vvv sharpens the tendency of the story. XV 4 in connection with the increase of the number shows an exact rendering in military terms. XV 6 is elucidated by the article with xivaïog. XV 12 adds rationally ró aQfia. XV 14 adds navxa in order to enlarge the contrast with v. 15. GBhas not navxa. XV 18 elucidates with aoi and elg ê/ié, XV 19 with rov déadai. XV 23 elucidates the final word by fir] eivai fiaaihéa èm Iagarj?.. XV 25 enlarges with rw &eq> aov. XV 26 adds the article to Israël, comp. v. 23, which has the same expression without the article; no literal translation! XV 27 elucidates the situation by adding to nqóoomov avrov and the name of Saul and avro. XV 28 elucidates the metaphorical style by adding ex %eiq°g ; HN1 as ógaco êig, comp. Tg. S has retained the literal signification of M. XVI 12 adds a quality THE SEPTUAGINTA - Difference to David, dyaêoQ, by which the sense is altered. XVI 16 elucidates and extends with êv rrj xivvqa avrov and xai avajcavoei, ae. XVI 18 also elucidates, avrov, xai avrov ; XVI 19 aov and XVI 21 avrov. XVI 23 adds 7iovï]qov, an explanation which, with the omission, is a witness of an altered idea of God. Difference. I 2 gives the second time naidiov instead of the plural form. This alteration concerns the following story, which is about the one son of Hannah, but disturbs the balance in the Hebrew sentence. I 11 makes the text weaker by the general term rjviaro Evyr\v instead of TO Tin, also I 21. èvo'mióv aov is a free rendering, which endeavours to correct. For the use of èvwmov comp. I 26, II 21, Tg mp; écog rifiegag davarov avrov mentions the border of life instead of the totality. I 13 weakens pi by xai. I 15 renders indistinct with ri[iEQa for mi. Wutz's supposition to read TO 1 is no more than a possible explanation of G. In I 16 slg is a literal translation of •02^. èxréraxa is an exaggeration of which a reading 'mn may be the cause 2.118 may have avvéneaev as a translation of nin = otherwise the alteration is an explanation of the difficulty. I 19 has avrov in connection with the addition. I 20 alters the definite combination of the verba by a logically corrected succession. I 23 has suffix second person ; more logical. M equalises Eli's word to Jahu's answer to Hannah. I 24 facilitates with /lEr'avrcDv by which we get dveftri and elorjAêev instead of the hif'il forms. G reads further: "with a three years' old ox", an alteration which is connected with M's unusual reading. I 25 alters the numbers of two verbs, to give them both Elkana as subject. In I 26 G has "a as êv êfioi ("the responsibility of the following rests with me"). I 28 reads rvn as rvn, as S. II 2 translates the signification of 7IX by êixaiog : "the righteous man stands on the ground of the rock", "the steadfast man". Wutz thinks to read "purity" 3, with a duplication of j, txj, a purely mechanical explanation which proceeds from an unmotived superiority of G. II 3 final has lost the chiasmus 1 "System. Wege , page 37 and 637. 2 Wutz, "System. Wege", page 9 and 517. It concerns however the silent speaking of Hannah! 3 "System. Wege", page 754. TH E SEPTUAGINTA - Difference of the verse by the alteration of into bn. This alteration will be brought about by the thought, mentioned in the beginning of the verse. II 5 uses the general word èXaaaow for the concrete "DIP. Wutz gives an acceptable reason viz:, that this is read as jacr 2, even though we may think of a free rendering. naQfjxav yfjv will mean: "they left their land untilled", "neglected it", or "left it to others to cultivate". 117 is probably read as pl>. II 8 has yr\ for the dust (of the earth). II 10 reads rnrp instead of mrv 3 and replaces rationally by roig flaaiXevaiv. II 13 shows another interpunction for elucidation and limits the institution to the priest Eli. II 14 elucidates with êv tt], II 16 : "and the man who sacrificed used to say : let first the fat be burnt, as it ought to be is read as an elucidation which is quite possible with the recording of the oral tradition. II 18 has ftag instead of na. II 20 translates DB" correctly by anoreiaai. II 21a has ipS1! as S, a weakening of the expression. II 24 has, the reverse of II 18, the exchange of "1 into 1: rov f.irj öovXeveiv which makes a distinct sense with the enlargement. II 28 alters for elucidation in rational sense : tov oixov tov naxooc, aov; further the general term legareveiv for the concrete personal pni». II 29 weakens DM to èmflXeneiv dvaideï ó(fêalfi co and explains with the verb singular, as this word is logically seen, spoken to Eli. è/mooaêev fiov gives \ genitivi prolixly. pyo = nu = "in the temple", is missing. In II 31 G has the general word "seed" instead of the plastic : "arm" = "shoot", comp. T. II 33 has logically harmonised the suffix 3rd person, instead of 2nd person, "his (eyes)", "his (soul)", with v. 36. which had the addition as the result, becomes in its turn avÖQcov. III 1 translates pSJ freely by diaarelXovaa. III 3 replaces the concrete nnD1 by the general term êmay.evaa&rjvai. III 13 harmonises by &eov, instead of Dni>, with II 25, reads therefore D7VN. III 16 weakens the style with dmv for Nip. IV 1 translates avToig instead of "Philistines" in connection with the addition in v. ia. IV 2 translates "the war cast down" weakly with xhveiv. The verse explains the alteration of the subject, as S, by translating the passive form. IV 13 shows alteration of succession and elucidates 1 "System. Wege", page 28, 29 and 647. 2 Wutz, "System. Wege", page 29. THE SEPTUAGINTA - Difference the sense with naga rrjv nvXrjv. IV 15 gives a round number instead of ninety-eight. IV 17 translates freely naidaoiov instead of "waan. IV 18 diminishes the number to twenty. V 3 reads ifip>i instead of ïnp1! and translates r/yeigav, or shows a narrating manner of translation. V 4 and 5 alter and fix to tcqo&vqov ("portal") and fSaftfJiot; ("threshold") for jnsö, for explanation of the situation. V 9 repeats *p with the difficult nnttH. V 10 and 11 are elucidating harmonisations of the text by xL anearQerpars, rjfiag and rj/Mov. VI 3 djcoöiöovreg anódoTe (Hebrewism). Free, weakened rendering of PT1 by êiikaa'dijaerai fivj. VI 5 makes one instead of two kinds of gifts : "and a golden mouse like the image of your mice, which cause damage to the country; and ye shall give glory unto the Lord so that He shall lift His hand from you, and from your Gods and from your country". VI 6 êvenougev translates the happening, which is presumed in ^vnn and is therefore explanation. VI 13 elucidates with oi sv; sig andvrrjoLv avrrji; is a free translation. VI 14 elucidates with naq' avxr). VI 15 puts the sentences in juxtaposition as in the Greek manner: xai — xai — xai. VI 20 gives freely öirJ.Oeiv for "lïDl?. In VII 2 ènefiXeipev is a weak rendering of "to complain", "sigh". VII 3, 4 and XII xo give as Tg, ra alor) for nvwy. VII 8 alters the suffix into aov. VII 16 gives rjyiaa/xevoig, a free translation of rvffipO. The place of judgment = the holy place = the place of sacrifice. VIII 2 makes the sense more fluent with Tavra ra xtA. VIII 4 renders indistinct the typical Hebrew character by translating "Opr by dvdgeg. VIII 5 has xal tol Xoma instead of bi. VIII 20 on the contrary is literal in these, an example of freedom in the rendering. VIII 7 indicates freedom in the choice of words, where the synonyms è£ovdevi£co and êiov&enCco are used for DN». VIII 12 has rationally replaced O'tPön nttf by ey.arovraQxovq, comp. S. VIII 16 has ra fïovxólia for Dmm. It is possible that p, pronounced as %, has brought about this alteration, even though the logical succession may be the chief reason for it. niry is read as TO and therefore anticipates v. 17. VIII 20 has rov TioXe/iov, the singular. IX 2 makes the country equal to the people, comprehensible in the diaspora. IX 4 translates the collective by the plural, comp. S. IX 6 explains by letting ónmc, replace by which the possible doubt over the Man of God disappears. IX 7 nXeiov replaces mm, probably a free translation. Possibly the root THE SEPTUAGINTA - Difference IXiy is read or heard in mwn. ro vna^yov rj/uv is a repetition of jied'fjjKjjv. The interpunction is varied, by which the question in M, which shows very free intercourse between master and servant, is broken off, comp. S. IX 8 has also dwaeiQ instead of TUU. IX 12 explains the illogical ino by (ëanv, idov xara nQoamnov) v/acdv] v. 12 as well as v. 13 read DVH for DVn '3 and ovro, an example of freedom in respect of the text to be translated. IX 18 corrects by nohq. IX 19 gives avrog instead of runn, a free rendering. IX 22 increases the number to seventy. IX 24 gives a free continuation of the story, so making a comprehensible sense, comp, S. IX 25 has xaTefir] merely Saul as subject, changes "Ui into diéoTQCJoav1. jjn is freely translated with êm rep öwfiari. Harmonisation in logical sense, as the actual conversation between Samuel and Saul does not take place before the following morning. IX 26a is a continuation of this alteration a. In IX 27 axovoov renders *|jPöl8M simplified. X 2 has Q-rj/jia in the singular. X 3 renders ayyeia for rïTDD, id est "three pans of bread" = "round loaves". X 5 has as S ro avdarrjfia, singular. X 10 harmonises in a logical sense by xai EQ%srai, singular; whilst èxei&ev makes the text more fluent. X 12 has avrwv instead of Dtttt), a harmonisation with v. 11 (kaog). X 14 shows freedom of rendering by having avrov instead of Saul. X 19 does not understand '3 as an emphasising partiele and so, as S, alters s1? into X 22 and 23 give the singular in connection with the added subject. X 24 has a different interpunction. Ei sogaxare v/j,lv instead of DV, already mentioned. idti is read as OT. X 25 renders nn freely with tojiov. XI 5 vocalises Ip3 as "morning". XI 7 gives a translation of the signification, for elucidation: övo. For the rest, the translation exaggerates with ê^orjaav instead of "and they went forth" 3. XI 8 replaces ^3 by avöga and increases the numbers to sixtythousand and seventy-thousand. XI 9 corrects the plural with slnev and renders the collective by the plural in rot? dvdgaaiv Ia^ig, 1 Wutz, "System. Wege", page 38, 145, 254, 457, 493, supposes that G read -Q"i. 2 Wutz, "System. Wege", page 38, 145, 254, 457, 493 supposes that ö and 2 are changed. 3 Wutz, "System. Wege", page 640 adds an 1 • picel of nWX, at its best merely an explanation of G's manner of reading. THE SEPTUAGINTA - Difference comp. Tg and especially S. XI 11 alters mnttö in fiera rrjv avgiov, an endeavour to become lucid, which finds its origin in the story, that has the idea of time as the moment of tension. XI 13 blurs the specific signification of 3 (to) by èv. XI 14 replaces by leymv an alteration comprehensible by pronunciation in copying or dictating. XI 15 Iets Samuel anoint Saul, instead of 1DÏW, which indicates an action of the people, comp. Plus. XII 2 has xa&rjoo/j,m instead of voer, a reading fault. XII 3 translates only partially with ajcoxQi&rjre, as it contains trial as well as defence, giving only the judicial sentence. We find exaggeration in ê£emeoa ("to suck out" instead of "to treat violently"). G reads Tl? D^17Ni as plus 3 rui?, repetition of v. 3a, elucidating explanation. XII 4 has ■xaradvvaoreveiv for what v. 3 translates as êxmvsiv; freedom in rendering. XII 5 elucidates by translating tiqoq rov Xaov instead of DirbK 1. sinav is translation of the collective, in the same manner as Tg and S. XII 6, 8, 12 (twice) have r/fxcov instead of v/iojv which weakens the pointe, as Samuel is on the side of Jahu. XII 8 explains by xarcpxiasv as Tg and S. XII 15 avoids the difficulty by translating rov fiaaihéa vfxcov instead of "your fathers", a solution taken from the story. XIII 3 has rjÜErrjxaoiv oi dovXoi "the servants have broken the covenant". This explanation comes out of the story, VII 13 the Philistines are beaten. G supposes that they are subjected to Israël until the history of XIII. Wutz gives a possible explanation of this interpretation of G, as G would have read DJW instead of VW 2. XIII 6 has eidev, singular, owing to the subject which is however collective. The difficulty with 13 is further solved by uniting //.r] ngooaysiv avrov to the principal sentence. XIII 7 as v. 6 collective : èiearrj. XIII 8 translates the hi'fil form as kal xat dieanaQï], for elucidation. XIII 13 gives a free translation, which by /iov instead of mrv weakens the commandment of God. XIII 15 tries to unite two stories, therefore a harmonising exegesis : elg óöov avrov. XIII 17 has ê| aygov instead of "out of the army". nWB as participle, in M as subject; a simplified explanation. XIII 18 translates eptp freely by "to extend to". 1 Wutz, "Transkriptionen", page 69 and 293 supposes that the transcription served for DiT>i>N as well as for DUH Ï>N, a possible explanation for G's alteration. 2 "System. Wege", page 99 and 100. 5 THE SEPTUAGINTA - Difference XIII 20 shows the same uncertainties as Tg and S; at the same time freedom of rendering [jahiEVEiv for wxh). XIII 21 makes a legible sentence by reading riTXS as TXO and by the narrating of toelq aixkoi. XIII 22 translates the collective ov by the plural; reads further èyevrj&r) and lays the connection with the preceding by reading liayEjxaz instead of noni>l3. XIII 23 obtains another subject on account of the difficulty with nxa. XIII 21a and 23 try to draw the technical final of this chapter more into the story. XIV 1, 6, 11, 12 and 15 do not translate 3XQ but give a transcription /leaaafi, whilst XIII 23 and XIV 4 translate vnoaxaaiq. XIV 2 again renders the collective in the plural form. XIV 5 gives a more detailed exegesis of v. 4 : instead of nerga (twice) "the path along the rocks", which is the main point in the story. êQ'/o/isvrn is a free rendering of Viö. XIV 7 makes the text more fluent by rj xanöla aov èxxhvr) instead of "]!> hdj comp. also Plus. XIV 8 alters by translating xaraxvfacrfhjoó/ae'&a which intends to signify: "we will repair to them as quickly as a stone rolls down the side of a hill". This free narration is therefore an anticipation. XIV 9 from a logical point of view alters "to descend". into ójiayyEXXEiv. XIV 13 elucidates the complicated sentence by etle^Xe ifiav and ènaxa^ev avrovg. In nma» G reads the root fro and translates freely : "to give besides". XIV 16 has nags/i^obj for pon. Wutz 1 supposes that G read pap, an Arabic word for "maintroop", which is an possible explanation for this alteration. XIV 17 places the king further from the people, ê£ vfxcov, whilst M knows Saul as the king from amongst the people. XIV 18, as Tg solves the difficulty caused by the parenthesis in M by translating èvomiov Iaqar\X. XIV 21 as S gives another interpunction for elucidation, whilst ] for DJ also remains translated. XIV 25 elucidates by r\qioxa and another interpunction. XIV 26 translates èmarQEcpmv, freely as Tg and changes C2T into in {Xa)., a free, harmonising rendering, which brings the verse into agreement with the continuation; comp. v. 45. XIV 32 makes the text more fluent with èxXv&rj instead of Wl. XIV 33 reads Dl^n (èvrav&a) instead of DVn. XIV 34 harmonises with ro for "his ox" with v. 34a, in which 1 "System. Wege", page 13 and 636. THE SEPTUAGINTA - Difference sheep are also spoken of. XIV 39 explains the pregnant text by djioxQivco xara. XIV 40 reads "Ol? instead of "Ql? and translates freely irvai? (twice). XIV 42 is a making heavier of the punishment, by which the story has to gain in tension. XIV 45 is weakened by translating op as ó Xaog; ngoarjviaxo is weaker than ma. Saul's power is greater in G than in M. XIV 47 reads rote as ro»6ö and translates now: "Saul obtained (by the lot) to do the work in Israël", an endeavour to harmonise this text with the king's anointment. G makes a continuous history of the different stories, whilst the mentioning of the royal position of Saul is influenced by the later power of the king in Israël. XIV 47 G has more rationally slg fiaaiXea, singular. êow£exo supposes l!W, which is more logical than IWT, in connection with v. 48. XIV 48 exaggerates with xaxajzaxovvxmv instead of "to plunder". XV 4 increases the numbers to four hundred thousand and thirty thousand. XV 9 gives xatv èèea/iarmv xai rcov d/uieXojvrnv so that DWün is explained as "food" and D,_0 as D"D, rj uuTieXog. XV li gives a weak translation of "to keep" with the expression rrjgeiv (idc) . XV 16, the same as the Masoretic vocalisation, explains by reading singular EÏnev. XV 18 avtovg for the collective and avvxeXéarjg, as Tg and S. XV 20 already anticipates v. 21, where the people are called "the guilty". XV 21 has fj/imv instead of aov. XV 23a is a paraphrase of the pregnant maSal-text, comp. II 1—10. XV 28 GB0L xrjv fiaaiXeiav aov ajio. XV 29 diaigedrjaexai xrX., instead of 'Jl nxj, is an exegetical enlargement which anticipates the history. XV 30 gives èvmmov ngea^vrégcov Iagarjl xai èvomiov Xaov /iov in a different succession, an example of freedom in translation. XV 32 explains rmyn with rge/imv by which it is necessary to omit id. With this a sense which fits in with the story is obtained. XVI 1 translates the concrete -fin by the general paoifoveiv. XVI 4 forms a question: "is thy coming peaceful?", which shows less distance to the Man of God than M's version: "May your coming be peaceful . XVI 5 svrpQav&rjre arjfj,egov is an explanatory, free rendering of nam onjo ("to come to a sacrificial meal" = "to go and rejoice"). XVI 11 has xaxaxXiêw/j,ev for nDJ for elucidation. XVI 14 exaggerates with ènviyev. XVI 16 narrates freely and changes the subject (sinaxcoaav xxX.) which may be caused by the omission of \ for and the juxta-position of the two sentences THE SEPTUAGINTA - Character and value without connecting partiele. XVI 18 anticipates David the Psalmist with ipaXfiov. ovverog and ayaêog are extensions, whieh glorify David. XVI 19 hyeov for lom. XVI 20 youop is transcription of non that has remained untranslated, or of "yov and then becomes exegesis. Character and value. The history of the text of the Septuaginta shows that the writings which do not belong to the Pentateuch must be individually examined for their characteristics and value 1. The part which has been examined, can therefore serve for a provisional sketch. Contrary to Tg and in agreement with S, we found no literal translation, but a free rendering. The translator knows himself as the narrator, from which arises a certain independence. He tries to give a comprehensible story, by which explanations of obscure passages, harmonisations of contradictory data, omissions and alterations must serve. In many of these cases relationship of meaning or agreement with Tg and S can be discerned. The translation endeavours to give one continuous history, by which it already indicates its intrinsic value with reference to the stories handed down by M. It is also clearly shown from the doublé translations and transcriptions, as well as from later variants, that in G we have not a completely finished text, to which the last touch has been put. They show that various traditions have existed, which were written in juxta-position or have been handed down to us in corrected form. As with S we have come to the conclusion that the story and its frequent logical lucidity constitute the form of the tradition. G serves as well as S for independent use, in the synagogue and family circle, and is not a scientific edition in the Greek language of the Hebrew text. With the proper names as well as in some other places we observe a transcription of the Hebrew words. Wutz, starting from Origenes' Hexapla, has endeavoured to determine a method of transcribing and presumes that G is a translation of one or more transcribed Hebrew texts. He often succeeds giving an acceptable cause of G's divergent text and he often finds the modern commentators 1 See A. Rahlfs, "Septuaginta", Stuttgart 1935, page VI et seq. THE SEPTUAGINTA - Character and value returning to an irresponsible translation of G in Hebrew1. We could however find no fixed system of transcription in our part. The starting point of Wutz' supposition, the Hexapla, is a product of study and of theological polemics. G is not so, only in difficult places do we find a transcription 2. Even though certain passages remain without a clear explanation of why G differs from M, and although some of the proposed explanations are nothing more than probabilities, the independence of the translated story, the agreement with Tg and S and elucidation as the main tendency leave us in no doubt that we in G have to do with the same Hebrew text as the one offered by M. Translating is interpreting, and interpreting is elucidating with a definite intention. The intention of G is to help the Greek speaking Israelites to bear actively in mind the stories of the Israelite people, out of its Holy Scripture. As with Tg and S we find a weakening in the plastic power. The direct, plastic manner of speaking is often replaced by a general term. On the grounds of our research, this part of G can be considered of little value for the determination of the "original" Hebrew text. The divergencies give important material for the determination of the intrinsic value of the translation and point out the difficulties which M has not smoothed out, but they cannot amend the Hebrew text. 1 "System. Wege", Vorwort, page XVII et passim. 2 We return in Chapter V to Wutz's method of work. CHAPTER V THE MASORETIC TEXT Our research into the old versions with reference to M gave no proof of the existence of an original text, from which M would be a later divergent adaptation. In this chapter we will tracé what may further be adduced as proofs for this supposition, and in respect of our part of the bible, how far it may be considered correct. We shall naturally first discuss the studies of Kahle, expert par excellence of handwritings x. After an examination of the Masora and after grammatical studies based on this tradition Kahle has put the question: must we not, on the grounds of the fact that about thirteen hundred years lie between the language of the people and the work of the Masorites take many alterations into account? The school of Tiberias, especially the five generations of Ben Aser, ± 780—930, has determined the correct pronunciation and delivery in an elaborate system of punctuation, and this system has triumphed. So we must consider an analogous state of af fairs, with reference to the consonants. Gressmann writes 2, that when the canonical text was determined, the best writings which existed in Palestine, will have been used. Although this is a general idea, it however is incorrect. "Genau so wie spater sich die Rezension des Ben Aser allmahlig durchsetzte, und die Masora die andersartigen Lesarten mehr und mehr beseitigte, genau so war es seinerzeit auch 1 Comp. for the following, principally : "Masoreten des Ostens, die altesten punktierten Handschriften des alten Testaments und der Targume", Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament, Heft 15. 1913. Hinrich, Leipzig, and "Masoreten des Westens" I and II, Beitrage N.F. Heft 8 and Dritte Folge, Heft 14. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur vormasoretischen Grammatik des Hebraischen) 1927 and 1930, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart. 2 Deutsche Literaturzeitung XXXIV 20 1913. THE MASORETIC TEXT - Kahle bei dem Konsonantentext. Eine Version des Textes wurde — aus welchen Gründen ist uns heute nicht mehr ersichtlich — als massgebend angesehn, und die Masora hat daran gearbeitet, diesem Texte zum Siege zu verhelfen" ("Masoreten des Ostens", page XVIII et seq. note). M would therefore be much more a work of construction than is generally accepted. Gradually all the divergences have been done away with and all the particularities of this text, which have, by chance in a certain sense, come to general consideration, [litterae maiusculae et minusculae, nun inversum, pnncta extra ordinaria etc.) have now been introduced into the other handwritings. In order to prove this supposition, handwritings which are only slightly or not at all "gleich geschaltet", must be at hand. Therefore Kahle endeavours to find prae-masoretica. From his description, partial transcription and treatment, the foliowing is important for our research: "Masoreten des Ostens", page 115 et seq. 21. Oxford Ms. Heb. e. 30, fol. 40—42, whereby I Sam. XIV 43 — XV 11. This handwriting contains all the characteristic peculiarities of the Babylonian punctuation. 22. Oxford Ms. Heb. d. 49; 4, 5 I Sam. II 30 — VI 13; 6—10 I Sam. IX 26 — XVII 21, to which handwriting, according to Kahle's research, Cambr. A387 also belongs. This handwriting shows remarkable hyphens between closely connected words x. He gives the following as exceptional divergences: fifty-nine places in our part, which for the majority of it offer a different vocalisation. s and V change in VI 8, kerë has n as l twice, IV 15, V 12., in IV 15, X 7 is missing. XV 25 misses 1. V 10 reads the nif°al of pi?r, VI 12 has the article with n^DQ, XII 24 reads W}). XV 25 reads ntn. Kahle discovers clerical errors e.g. X 5, XII 15, 21, XVI 14 (miT DVQ corrupt mrv j-ino). As the differences of vocalisation may coincide with other pronunciation and with the less complete system of punctuation, whilst the actual differences are of little significance, the conclusion arrived at from these handwritings is of little importance to the supposition. Neither does "Masoreten des Westens" I offer any proofs, (see page 71, 74 and 77), whilst "Masoreten des Westens" II offers no material for our part. Kahle must piously ejaculate: "Leider haben sich Reste von dem noch nicht so einheitlich 1 Probably for Synagogical use. THE MASORETIC TEXT - Kahle, Aptowitzer rezensierten Texte hauptsachlich nur noch in griechischer Sprache erhalten" 1. In the "Vorlagen" of G however, according to Kahle, they are to be found. "By the literary work of Franz Xaver Wutz we are able to prove this" 2. For the Pentateuch the Hebrew text of the Samaritans also supplies material for proof, even though this text has again undergone various alterations. Kahle believes that there is very important proof for his supposition in the fact that the Rabbinica know citations, which are not in agreement with M. In "Masoreten desOstens" (page XVIII) aswellasin'*Masoreten des Westens" II (page 36*) he refers to the examinations made with respect to it by Aptowitzer 3. Even with Jewish writers of the tenth to the twelfth century citations occur, which diverge from M, "die zumeist nicht als freie ungenaue Zitate angesprochen werden können, da sie vielfach mit Lesarten alter Uebersetzungen, besonders der Septuaginta, übereinstimmen". Aptowitzer discerns five kinds of variants 4: 1) Those which offer certainty, which from the contents of the place appear to be correct. 2) Those which are in all probability correct, because they are supposed by the old versions. 3) Those which are probably correct, because they also occur in codices. 4) Those which may be correct, because all the texts of one source are in agreement. 5) Those which may be right, because most of the texts of one source are in agreement. From this it may be concluded that the contents and the testimonies give striking proofs for the originality of the reading. When we go into the divergent readings we then notice, that in most cases we have to do with an elucidation, which is of the same nature, as those which we determined in the old versions and besides, it may be observed that the differences are not great 1 "Masoreten des Ostens", page XVIII note. 2 "Masoreten des Westens" I, page 43. 3 Comp. for our part: V. Aptowitzer, "Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur", Prolegomena, in Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie Bd. 153. Wien, 1906. 4 Op. cit. page 28. THE MASORETIC TEXT - Kahle, Wutz comp. Tg, in which the image of the letters must have played a part. In some cases we can even speak of a smoothing (e.g. 110,12, II16), whilst exegesis in a rabbinical sense also occurs.The agreement with G, which is often literal, may indicate its influence, even though similar elucidation is no proof of dependency. Therefore we carinot consider Kahle's appeal to these rabbinical citations as a strong one. It also appears that his above mentioned argumentation that G would prove to us that M has linked the original Hebrew text, is not correct for our part. In Samuel M indeed offers us a text which in many cases differs from the rest of the Hebrew. We should now expect that G will support this text which has not been thrust into the masoretic strait-jacket. But nothing is less true than this! G départs from the Hebrew text in Samuel more than elsewhere, from which we can draw the following conclusion : with reference to our part M does not show a smoothing out of the antithesis; merely the extensive Tiberian punctuation-system is introduced. The pre-masoretic rudiments show no significant consonantal difference, but vocal difference. This latter may indicate difference in interpretation, locally varied tradition and pronunciation. It now remains for us to tracé whether Wutz supplies the evidence which was not possible to be given by the prae-masoretica and rabbinica. In chapter IV we have already discussed some of his results 1. 1 Wutz observes in the preface to "System. Wege" 1937, Page XIX, that he has obtained some altered opinions. He however keeps to his main point: the regaining of the Hebrew "Vorlage" of G brings us close to the original text. "Transkriptionen" (Lieferung II) possesses a register of the places discussed. "System. Wege" does not. For that reason the places discussed of I Sam. I—XVI follow here. The pages are bracketed. G means: alteration with the aid of G; voc. means vocal alteration; cons. means consonantial alteration, addition or omission; a. means difference in interpunction; b. means metathesis of consonants. 11 (751), voc, cons. I 5 (411), G, voc, cons. I 5 (412), voc, cons, a. I 6 (412), voc, cons. I 7 (412) voc, cons, a. I 9 (30), voc, a. I 11 (224), voc, cons. 115 (37, 637), G, voc. 116 (9, 517), voc, cons. 116 (9, 517), G, voc, b. I 18 (752), cons. I 18 (752), G, cons. I 20 (289), voc, b. I 22 (289), voc, b. I 22 (289) G, cons. I 23 (289), voc, cons, b. I 24 THE MASORETIC TEXT - Wutz Wutz' principal argument for the alteration of M is the technical possibility of the alteration of the text. We will now tracé what turns the scale in applying the technics. It is not correct to think that the transcription is with Wutz the chief thing for the "Ausgleich" of G and M. The survey, which we give concisely in the notes on page 73—75, of his alterations shows that of the good hundred and fifty proposed alterations, for nearly two-thirds he does not use G. Moreover G offers various cases of minus, plus and difference, which are not mentioned. Wutz must therefore also accept that GB offers a strongly recast, partly (138), voc, a. I 24 (138), voc. I 28 (482) G, voc, cons. II 1 (493), voc, cons3, a. II 2 (754) voc, cons, a. II 2 (754) G, voc, cons. II 3 (28), voc, cons, a. II 3 (28) G, voc, cons, b2. II 5 (28, 29, 647) G, cons. II 5 (29, 647) voc, cons. II 8 (754) voc, b. II 8 (754) G, voc, cons. II 9 (755) G. b- II 10 (29) G> voc> b- 11 10 (29) voc< cons- 11 10 (29) voc. II10 (29) voc. II 13 (755), voc, a. II14 (755). voc, a. II17 (756) voc, cons. II 17 (756), voc, b. II 20 (508) voc. II 20 (508) voc, cons. II 21 (679 and 508) see II 20. II 33 (80) voc. II 33 (80) voc. II 24 (100),? G, voc, cons, b. II 27 (155) G, cons. II 27 (155) voc, cons, b. [page 757 another result.] II 29 (63, 64, 105) G, voc, b2. II 29 (63, 64, 105) G, voc, cons. II 29 (63, 64, 105) G, voc, cons. II 31 (63) G, voc. II 31 (63) cons. II 32 (63, 64, 484, 740) voc, cons. II 35 (750) voc, cons. III 1 (758), cons. III 3 (758) G, voc, cons. III 3 (758, 759) G, voc, cons. III 13 (6, 105) voc, cons, b. III 3 (6, 105) voc, cons. III 15 (426) voc. III 21 (10, 428) voc, cons. IV 1 (10, 429) cons. IV 2 (429) G, voc, b. IV 3 (197) G, voc, b. IV 13 (427, 428) voc, cons, a. IV 16 (12, 636) G, cons, b. V 4 (639) G, voc, b2. VI 4 (134). voc, cons, a, b. VI 8 (615) cons. VI 19 (233) G, voc, cons. VI 19 (233), voc, cons. VII 6 (197), cons. VII 16 (27, 28), voc, cons. VII 17 (27, 28) voc, a, b. VIII 16 (407, 633) G, voc, cons. VIII 16 (633) G, voc, cons. IX 3 (109) cons. IX 4 (109) voc, cons. IX 8 (10, 284, 485) G, voc, cons. IX 9 (10, 284, 485) voc, cons. IX 12 (136) G, voc, cons, a. IX 13 (136) voc, cons. IX 16 (163) cons. (plus). IX 20 (445, 446) b. IX 20 (445, 446) voc, cons. IX 21 (445, 446) voc. IX 24 (38, 145, 254, 457, 493) voc. IX 24 (38, 145, 254, 457, 493) voc, b. IX 24 (38, 145, 254, 457, 493) voc, cons. IX 24 (38, 145, 254, 457, 493) G, voc, cons. IX 25 (38, 145, 254, 457, 493)» G> voc, b. IX 25 THE MASORETIC TEXT - Wutz corrupt text of the original translation. This remains with him an unproved supposition, which finds no support in M. We shall see that this supposition can only be the result of the rest of Wutz's suppositions. It may generally be observed that Wutz rejects correctly various text-alterations of the modern commentators. Wutz determines that we are firstly concerned with an extensive change of letters, amonst which are cases of haplography and dittography; that secondlv the vocalisation is wholly uncertain, and that thirdly we (38, 145, 254, 457, 493) voc, cons, b. IX 26 (38, 145, 254, 457, 493), G, voc, cons. X 9 (248), voc, b. X 10 (284, 363) voc, cons, a, b. X 12 (362 et seq., 688), voc, cons.2, b. X 13 (362 et seq., 688), voc, cons. X 22 et seq (106) voc. X 24 (249). XI 5 (64, 69) voc, cons. XI 7 (639, 640) voc, cons, a, b. XI 7 (639, 640) G, voc, cons. XI 14 et seq (249). XII 2 (128, 129) G, voc, cons2. XII 2 (128, 129) voc, cons, b. XII 3 (128,129) G, voc, cons. XII 3 (128,129) G, voc, cons.4 XII 14 (6, 132,1133), voc, cons2, b. XII 15 (6, 132, 133), cons.2 XII16 (6, 132, 133) cons11, a. XIII 1 (248) cons. XII 3 (99, 100) G, voc, b. XIII 3 (99,100), voc, b. XIII 6 (65), voc, cons. XIII 6 (65),? G, voc, cons. XIII 7 (65), voc, cons. XIII 7 (65) cons. XIII 8 (65) G, voc. XIII 16 (109) G, voc, cons.3 XIII 19 (108, 109), voc, cons. XIII 20 (108, 109) voc, b. XIII 21 (108,109) G, cons. XIII 21 (108, 109) voc, cons. XIII 21 (108, 109) voc, cons3, a. XIII 21 (108, 109) cons. XIII 21 (108, 109) voc, cons. XIV 1 (136) voc, cons. XIV 13 (235), voc, cons. XIV 14 (235), voc, cons. XIV 15 (13, 636) voc. XIV 16 (13, 636), G, voc, cons. XIV 18 (169) G, cons2. XIV 18 (169), voc, cons2. XIV 20 and 21 (98), voc, cons, a. XIV 20 and 21 (98) G, voc, cons2. XIV 24 (426, 427) voc. XIV 24 (426, 427), G, voc. XIV 25 (14, 427). XIV 26 (427) voc, b. XIV 26 (427) G, b. XIV 34 (496) voc, cons, a. XIV 36 (656, 657) voc, cons, b. XIV 36 (656, 657) voc. XIV 38 (657) cons. XIV 39 (657), G, voc, cons. XIV 45 (65) voc, cons. XIV 45 (65) G, voc. XIV 45 (65), G, cons. XV 4 (197), voc, cons2, a. XV 9 (220) voc, cons3. XV 9 (220) voc, cons. XV 9 (220), voc, cons. XV 20 (93) voc. XV 23 (677, 678), cons. XV 23 (677, 678) voc, cons. XV 23 (677, 678), voc, cons. XVI 5 (402) G. XVI 11 (721), G, voc. XVI12 (720, 721), voc, cons. XVI 19 (234. 74°) voc- XVI 19 (234, 740), voc, cons. THE MASORETIC TEXT - Motives for the amendment must enlarge considerably the thesaurus of words. He shows the extensions as Semitic with Arabic, Aramaic and New-Hebrew roots. A great hindrance however to this method of work is, in our opinion, that the technics must be learned from the text treated on. The material of the pre-masoretic texts, as we have determined by the studies of Kahle, shows no extensive technics of text-tradition. Only in respect of the vocalisation and of the letters ) and 1 we can state uncertainty, which cannot be called a technics of tradition of handwritings. The transcription hypothesis gives a few possibilities, but can impossibly supply a technics. Therefore in Wutz' alterations the transcription has been a long way from being always the indicator. We see that Wutz must continually depart from the textual criticism in order to make the amendments acceptable. The harmonie contents, of ten in a rational sense; the unity of the different stories ; the supposition that the so-called original text must have been a sound and to us comprehensible text appear to turn the scale for many alterations 1. It may be called a merit that no phantasies have further built on this hypothetical foundation, only certain rules, (the "technics"), which are systematically applied and are of a purely textual critical character. Their pnncipal character is — very correctly — respect for text and letter. By this Wutz's construction shows a few valuable characteristics. It escapes him however, that he is caught in a vicious circle, when he (Vorwort "System. Wege", page XVII) speaks in his final conclusion, which gives a remarkable agreement of G with M, of: Bestatigung der Richtigkeit der Methode". This agreement is no more than an agreement of G, revised by Wutz, with M, revisedby Wutz ï We find no answer to the following questions: May we expect a harmonie text as the original one? May we expect unity in the original texts? How are the alterations and how is the limiting in word-thesaurus of M to be explained? What is the intrinsic value of G? What is the relationship of G, S and Tg and their relation to M? 1 Comp. in "System. Wege": II 11, 32, UI 13, IX 3, X 12 ( Das Verhalten von G verrat aber nur die Unmöglichkeit, dem Text einen brauchbaren Sinn abzugewinnen, womit auch für uns die Verdorbenheit des Textes dokumentiert ist".), XI 15. Even the grammatical correctness is mentioned as a reason for alteration, XIII 21. THE MASORETIC TEXT - Motives for the amendment In the preceding chapters we have endeavoured to give an answer to the last two questions, whilst the intrinsic value was casually mentioned. From the data in our possession it is not permissible to alter the text of M without giving the reason why M has become what it is at the moment1. Wutz 2 has to accept that a hidden fault is sheltering, which has already crept into all the texts. The grounds on which he amends, are naturally the same as those which we have given as his starting point. In the evolution of no language is the limitation of the word-thesaurus to be indicated in such a degree, as Wutz would have us accept; rather the contrary. The fact that his enlargement of the word thesaurus of the original text is based on Arabic, Aramaic and New-Hebrew roots, which were living languages during the Masoretic period, make the limitation by the Masorites very improbable. Etymology is also a bad guide. Reduction is not yet explanation, verba valent usu. The first question, according to our opinion, must be answered in the negative. We must reject as motives for text amendment: the signification, the most rationally constructed sense of the text; grammatical correctness and agreement with the general style of the writers 3. Indeed all these motives are factors 4, which may only 1 Comp. here also H. Junker, "Konsonantenumstellung als tehlerquelle und textkritisches Hilsmittel im alten Testament", in Z.A.W. Beiheft 66 (1936), page 162—174. "In der Textkritik genügt es nicht, den vermeintlichen Fehler zu verbessern; befriedigend ist die Lösung erst dann, wenn man auch die Entstehung des Fehlers auf eine wahrscheinliche Weise erklaren kann". 2 "System. Wege", page 36. 3 See chapter I. After Wellhausen and Driver nearly all commentators. Bertram also agrees (Z.A.W. Beiheft 66, page 97"—109), when observing: "Sinngemassheit und leichte Erklarbarkeit, das sind die beiden Forderungen, die grundsatzlich bei einer Konjektur zu stellen sind". 4 Comp. Frankel's "Vorstudien", page 132, who writes over the grammar: "Die alten Sprachen bieten im Allgemeinen das Phanomen dar, dass sie wahrend der Zeit ihrer Blüte nicht als das Product freier Geistesthatigkeit, sondern als ein dem Leben Inharirendes, mit ihm zu einem Ganzen Verwachsenes betrachtet wurden. Daher auch keine Forschung und abstracte Feststellung der Formen und Constructionen .... Für das Leben bedurfte auch die Sprache .... keiner objectiven Feststellung Kahle's demand for a grammar of the Pre-Masoretic Hebrew is clearly comprehensible; a grammar however plays only a subordinate part. THE MASORETIC TEXT - Motives for the amendment be constructed from the text. They themselves are subordinate to the text and so can never give it another form. The reason that our first question must be answered negatively, lies principally in the character of the tradition. The research into the old versions gives as result that the translator is narrator. Himself a Semite, he is closely related to the form of the story to be translated. The translation shows traces of oral tradition bef ore written determination, the Hebrew stories also belong to oral tradition. Now the examination of M shows inconsequences of grammatical nature, stories which are loosely connected; at the same time we hit against technical terms and geographical difficulties. In our part M therefore offers no smoothed out text, but indicates original local (dialect) differences, and contemporary existing traditions, which have remained extant. M is no copied text which receives the privilege of validity, but a living tradition which will not allow itself to be altered. Besides this, seeing that the oral tradition has played such an important part, we must consider the active character of the language itself. The gestures, the facial mimicry of the narrators, and the leaps of thought have not been handed down to the text. The narrator throws himself thoroughly into his story; thinks in leaps and bounds; explains aside the separate facts1. There is no single reason, why unity and uniformity in the original text should be accepted. Wutz and Kahle are of different opinion in this, as Kahle reproaches M of having forced that uniformity. On the grounds of these facts and from the above mentioned considerations we are consequently able to determine that M must be taken as the starting point for exegesis. Tradition is a being bound to a definite form, and where this form appears to be the story, the tradition is guarantee for considerable correctness . Absolute certainty is out of our reach, with regard to the data at our disDosal. The old versions are of very little value for the de- 1 Comp. Wellhausen, op. cit. Einleitung, quoted in chapter I; and especially the majestic work of Johs. Pedersen, "Israël, its life and culture" 1926. In the treatment of the composition of Samuel we hope to return to this. 2 In order to avoid misunderstanding we will state here that form is not something of less value than "contents". Form and contents are in essential relationship to each other. THE MASORETIC TEXT - Motives for the amendment termination of the reading. The explainer must endeavour to understand the narrator's world of thought from the text given, and it is only possible for us to make an amendment of the text if we are of a certain congeniality with that world 2. The great difficulty which is caused by the understanding of another world than ours, will make the explainer often admit: non possum. 1 Comp. for the meaning of this term „congeniality": W. B. Kristensen, "Over waardeering van historische gegevens" in "Onze Eeuw", Sept. 1915, page 415—440, Bohn, Haarlem, and J. de Zwaan, "Paulus als geestelijk hervormer", chapter I, 1932, Paris, Amsterdam. CHAPTER VI ANNOTATIONS TO THE MASORETIC TEXT dies diern docet Only when the composition in connection with the character of the Semitic narration is examined, is a complete discussion of the text possible. Now in conclusion we give here only a few annotations. The many amendments which have been proposed, are not discussed. From the results obtained from the preceding chapters, it indeed arises that arguments denved from the old versions and grammatical correctness or logical exactness cannot possess great power of conviction and they occur greatly manifold. A discussion would therefore be monotonous. That does not imply that the researchers, consciously or unconsciously, do not often give very sound arguments for their interpretatio, which is difficult to keep separate from recensio and emendatio. We shall return several times, in our next research, to the, in many respects excellent, work of many of them 1. _ In the following annotations we have taken into account, what de Lagarde has expressed as follows: "wo ich meiner sache nicht sicher war, habe ich lieber ganz geschwiegen als vermuthungen zu markte gebracht, welcher vater wird sich einbilden, dass andern die kinder eefallen, zu welchen er selbst kein zutrauen hat?" 2. 1 Besides the Standard works of Wellhausen and Driver we must especially name: "Randglossen zur Hebraischen Bibel" von A. B. Ehrlich (Band II igio Leipzig), "Kritische Untersucbungen zu den Büchern Samuelis H Tiktin (1922, Göttingen) and the commentaries of A. Klostermann (1887) K. Budde (1902), A. Schulz (1919—2°) and W- Caspari (1926). Schulz has compiled an almost complete list of literature (part IQ2°' page 297 et seq.), completed by J. de Groot until 1934 in "I Samuel in the series "Tekst en Uitleg" (i934 Groningen), page 32 et seq. 2 "Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien , 1 3. Leipzig, page 4 of the preface. ANNOTATIONS TO THE MASORETIC TEXT I i. D'SIX D'nonn-p. ha-Ramataiim is another name for haRamata, v. 19 and elsewhere. d'six is an apposition. Comp. dt6n IÏIN3X in Pss. LIX 6, LXXX 5, 8, 15, 20, LXXXIV 9. In the mountains of Ephraim therefore lies a place : ha-Ramataiim Sofim, i.e., on account of v. ib, "Sofim are its inhabitants". From this place, descending from those Sofim, ben—Suf, the Efratiet Elkana comes. I 5. D'SN nriN. Unam facierum \ facies in the signification of "image", "kind", "sort". '3 introducés the explanatory sentence. inN is "to give the preference to"; v. 8 shows clearly, that Hannah, not Elkana, grieved at being childless. For Elkana there was no reason for grief; he possessed sons. run nx is placed 'ante the verb in the subordinate sentence, as Hannah has full emphasis. This nuance is lost in the alteration. The translation reads : "but to Hannah he gave a gift of doublé character, because Hannah was his favourite, and Jahu had closed her womb". I 7 presumes a leap of thought, rwy — nrf?V, whereby mimicry and gesture may have played a part. i 8 alludes to v. 5: p dïd : "am I not so good to you as if you had more than ten sons?" I 12. nvn, comp. X 9, XIII 22; Gen. XXVII 33. I 13 and 15 2. 21? "the soul in its inner value". nn "the motive power of the soul", mi ntfp signifies "the executive power is greatly hindered"; comp. wed mD in v. 10. I 16. jnj signifies "to surrender to; to give into the power of", comp. Deut. II 33, 36, Jos. X 12 and elsewhere, "to give to possess to". The translation reads : "do not reckon me among the category of the wicked". I 18. ml? r6vpn N? rpjSl. "And concerning her exterior — < mimicry > — it was no longer so". I 20. DTO nispn. The plural "days" signifies "the year", comp. II 19. nspn is "the turn". The translation reads : "the period of the new year". 1 So Thomas Erpenius (1584—1624) in "Samuelis libri duo Ebraice etLatine ad usurn academiarum". Lugduni Batavorum 1621. (In the library of the University of Leyden, Warner). a See j. Pedersen, "Israël", 1926, page 102 et seq. 6 ANNOTATIONS TO THE MASORETIC TEXT I 23. tuttin mrv op' *|N. A liturgical addition or an utterance of believe of the narrator. I 28. f tnn^wn. Pregnant manner of speech "and now, on my side, I will fulfill my vow by giving him to Jahu". Comp. Exod. XII 36, where the Egyptians comply with the request of the Israelites by giving, is past part. "asked, being necessary", comp. II King VI 5. inntin is hitpal. 3rd pers. plur. Subject are Hannah and Samuel. II 2. -jrta pN 'D. The translation of this verse reads : "no one is kadös like Jahu, — indeed, no one except Thou! — and no one is a rock as our God!" '3 is an emphasising partiele. Also II 16 and elsewhere. II 3. min ï>N. The verb VT means "to meddle with". The translation reads : "a God of the active meddling, participation". rvMy fóv "and wicked actions will not be lasting". II 4. DTin. The plural is connected with the collective rwp. II 17. DWN. Hofni and Pinhas are meant here. The servants were not the guilty ones. II 20. For these singular and plural see chapter III, page 32 et seq. II 21, comp. I 20. -t^m tnni. Frequent Standard combination. II 25. V?5>. "If a man sin against a man, the genius 1 will mediate for him; but if a man sin against Jahu, who can intercede for him?" '3 in the subordinate sentence introducés the observation of the narrator. II 27. rob. \ rvn signifies : "belonging to, subjected to". II 29. f is an indication of the genitive. II 32. Subject is jiya. TïVD is concretely and personally thought of, and therefore the same as the Deity who inhabits it. ]ll?ö IX signifies "the pressure which procédés from" etc., comp. for the active meaning of ix. Jes. V 30 and ix "enemy". Whether we must speak here of two roots VK, as given by Gesenius-Buhl, must here remain undecided. III 13. on!> D^pD. "They make themselves a n??p". The curse is a concrete thine. 1 Comp. B. D. Eerdmans on Levit. XXIV 15 et seq. in Alttestamentliche Studiën" IV, 1912 Giessen, Töpelmann, page 119. ANNOTATIONS TO THE MASORETIC TEXT III 21. mrv 1313. An addition, to show clearly that bNIDtv 131, IV 1, is equal to : "the word of Jahu". IV 1. iryn is in apposition with pttn. IV 2. troJ. "And the conflict cast them down, viz: Israël was beaten". Comp. X 2 and XII 22. IV 8. 131D3. The journey over the desert is the same for the Israelites as the journey out of Egypt which is the reason that there is no precise distinction. IV 13. *]ii -p. M reads "f in analogy with v. 18. iND3rrby nsxa "]H3 however should be read. *pi3 means : "in the manner of", comp. Gen. XIX 31. Therefore the translation reads : "in his chair, as it were, on the look-out". IV 18. T 1J73. "In sight of the side of the gate". uw may be the gate of the temple. IV 19. ibb is a contracted form of the infinitive mbb. V 8. 3D\ 33D means : "to go round, to march round about, to keep the round-table meal at the sacrificing" and is also a cultic term. Comp. Jos. VI 3 et seq. nj is subject of nDM*l, collectivum, even though only the prince of Gath is mentioned. The translation reads : "And Gath said: let the Ark go round", i.e. do a cultic act with the Ark, and thus worship its Deity. V 9. Dnb nrutn. ini? signifies "to burst open". In this manner a making heavier of the punishment of v. 6, viz: the negative result of the carrying out of Gath's proposal. VI 4. rfob. The suffix 3rd pers. plur. refers to the mice. In thispericope there is no mention of the plague of mice, but of a plague which also affects the mice. And the dead mice corrupt the fields. VI 5. D3n33J> Images must be made of the disasters : of the emerods and of the corpses of the mice. The Ark (the God) of Israël is supposed to be the cause of what the gifts represent. By those gifts He is honoured as the mighty bringer of these disasters. Comp. v. 9. VI 18. (>3N. A punning with "tanm of v. 19. 6* ANNOTATIONS TO THE MASORETIC TEXT IX 4. "D1PV The subject is a collectivum. IX 14. "Wn lira and IX 18 "iiwn -pro. According to v. 25 the sacrificial height and the chamber for the sacrificial meal lie outside the small town. 1DC means "gate", "gateway", where the city life (judgments etc.) takes place; in this way "city" also. IX 24. Et quod super eum. Euphemistic expression for that part in which the strength dwells. □ny is past part. The translation reads : "and the butcher heaved the thigh and what there is above and placed < this > before Saul. < Samuel> then said: 'Look here what is left and is placed before you, eat now. Truly unto this time it has been kept for you, where upon I have called together the people for the sacrificial meal'." XI 5. ipl. The ox is a milch-cow as well as a draught-animal. XI 11. runan "pro. The meaning is the centre of the enemy's army. XII 15. Our scheme of time does not fit in with the Hebrew manner of relating. Here only a fact is stated : "Then the hand of Jahu is against you and against your fathers". Comp. XIII 13. XIII 3. means "pillar", "sign of victory" and (or) "image of God", cf. T. DHiyn ii?w: "Listen Tbrim!" The contents of the proclamation follows in v. 4, rendered with the words of the people. XIII 6. 1X1. The plural by the collectivum as subject: tt^N. The translation reads : "and the population (Israël) saw that they were in difficult straits; — truly! the soldiers < Philistines > pressed on! — and then they hid themselves" etc. XIII 7. vov DnaiTI. "Tbrim also went over the Jordan". oyn signifies "the soldiers". XIII 8. ^>m. Ketib must be read hoe loco. XIII13. 'D. An emphasising partiele, the sentence is without time. XIV 7. The small abrupt sentences spoken by the armourbearer indicate the activity of the story. Narrator and listeners take part in the event. ANNOTATIONS TO THE MASORETIC TEXT XIV 10. ï^2>. A punning. XIV 18. 'J31. The translation of this verse reads : "and Saul said to Ahija : "Bring the Ark of God — the Ark of God was there viz: on that day — nearer to me and also the sons of Israël". XIV 20. oyn. The nif'al of pyr signifies "to send forth the battle-cry", comp. Jos. VIII 16, Judg. VI 34, 35, XVIII 22, 23. XIV 21. ^ rvn means "to serve". It is now necessary to mention that they were also with them in the camp of the army; T1D signifies "round about", "in the neighbourhood" and serves to indicate that the camp of the army was, for the Philistines, near their homes. The war was viz:, not carried on by "slaves". md does not occur in the meaning of "to run over". XIV 22. As XIII 6 : "the population". XIV 24. buj means : "to approach the enemy", "to attack violently". '3'ND TiïDpJi. The assuming of the r^N is a consecration to gain strength 1. The translation reads : "wherewith I take vengeance on my enemies". XIV 25. pxn fel, comp. v. 29. The expression is in agreement with the fact that the soldiers, the population and the deserters are spoken of. XIV 26. 'ji pxi uon "|i>n rum. This short pregnant manner of speaking is in agreement with the tension of the story. means "the coming and going man"; "the travelier", comp. II Sam. XII 4. The translation reads: "Imagine! — they are on the way — there is honey — and yet no one who —" etc. XV 9. DWQnï. Here the name of an animal is meant. The translation of Kimhi "cattle of the second calving", as the second litter should be better than the first, is made improbable in the following word Dnrin. Besides this the supposition is without foundation, see also Gen. XXX 41, 42, where the second calvings were not the best 2, and the position of the first born as sacrifice to the Deity. DWDn are the cattle which have calved for the second time, (called in Dutch : "schotten"). 1 See Pedersen, "Der Eid bei den Semiten", 1914, Strassburg, page 122, 2 Comp. G. Dalman, "Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina", 1928, Gütersloh, I 1. page 268 et seq. ANNOTATIONS TO THE MASORETIC TEXT XV 22. The caesura is placed after x. XV 32. nJiUö. Caught alive, this position is like that of bitter death. Agag is already as a prisoner in death, as to be carried into the country of the enemy is the same as to be carried into death. nJlPtt signifies : "(a man) of bonds", "tied". Comp. Maimonides "with bound hands", see Levy Wörterbuch, 2 1924, s.v. pl?0. Therefore Agag now speaks : "The bitterness of death has now left me . 1 Comp. A. Weiser in Z.A.W. 1930. INDEX of passages from I Samuel I—XVI1 I Page v. i io, 13, 14, 16, 19, 22, 31, 44. 45, 47. 49. 52, 81 v. 2. 13, 29, 45, 55, 57, 61 v. 3- 17. 45. 46, 49. 51 v. 4. 29, 51 v. 5. 17, 29, 53, 55, 57, 81 v. 6. 14, 29, 55 v. 7. 14, 24, 29, 81 v. 8. 14, 46, 57, 81 v. 9. 17. 53. 57 v. 10. 14, 21, 24, 81 V. II. JJ, 17, 46, 53, 5j, 61 v. 12. 18, 5j, 81 v. 13. 26, 32, 48, 61, 81 v- i4- 17. 57 v. 15. 14, 61, 81 v. 16. 12, 18, 35. 53. 61, 81 v. 17. 28, 44, 52, 54, 55, 57 v. 18. 2j, sj, 61, 81 v. 19. 14, ij, 44, 49, 57, 6j, v. 20. 14, 35, 46, sj, 61, 81, 82 v. 21. 49, 57, 61 v- 22- 53. 57 v- 23. j 4^ v. 9. si, 47• 48, 58 v. 10. 17, 36, 48 v. 11. 58 V. 12. 14, 18 > 29 v. 13. 14, 18, 29, 52, 53, 55, 58, 62, 82 v. 14. 14, 18, 52, 58 v. 15. 10, 13, 14, 16, 58 v. 16. 53, 62 v. 17. 23, 55, 58 v. 18. 29. 49, 52 v. 19. J3, 14, 36 v. 20. v. 21. 23, 29, 32, 45, 48, 49, 53, 54, 56, 83 IV v. 1. 15, 32, 44, 45, 46, 47• 48, 49, 53, 54, 56, 62, 83 v. 2. IS, 24, 36, 52, 56, 62, 83 v. 3. 15, 23, 24, 45, 46, 52, 53, 57, 58 v. 4. 11, 15, 23, 29, 45, 46, 5i, 53 v. 5. 53, 55 v. 6. 12, 25, 49, 54 Page v. 7. 11, 15. 53, 58 v. 8. 11, 15, 28, 37, 83 v. 9. 15 v. 10. 29, 48, 56 v. 11. n, 23 v. 12. 10, 15, 23, 30, 45, 47 v. 13. 11, 15. 18, 36, 51, 62 v. 15. 36, 49, 54, 58, 63 v. 16. 28, 59 V. 17. II, 24, 56, 63 v. 18. II, 15, 63, 83 v. 19. 11, 15, 3°, 83 v. 20. 36 v. 21. 11, 15, 25. 3o, 51, 54 v. 22. 15, 23, 24, 30, 46 V v. 1. 11, 44, 46, 50 v. 2. 11, 46 v. 3. 24, 36, 46, 49, 5i, 59, 63 v. 4. 18, 30, 36, 55. 57, 59. 63 v. 5. 17, 18, 27, 36, 59. 63 v. 6. 56, 59. v. 7. J5, 17, 18• 30 v. 8. 23, 36, 47. 48, 83 v. 9. 17, 3o, 59, 63, 83 v. 10. 11, 23, 27, 36, 50, 63 v. 11. 11, 17, 18■ 33, 36, 46, 49, 54. 63 v. 12. 55 VI v. 1. 46, 5<5 v. 2. i8, 36, 37. 55 v. 3. 15, 17. 19. 23, 3o, 46, 57, 59, 63 v. 4. 15, 19, 36, 51. 54, 59, 83 v. 5. 17, i8, 46, 48- 54. (>3. 83 v. 6. 15. 19. 37. 63 v. 7. 19. 32, 52, 55 v. 8. 15, 19, 23, 46, 55 v. 9. I7- 46, 83 v. 11. 24> 46, 54, 55 v. 12. 37 v. 13. 28, 30, 46, 5i, 57, 63 v. 14. 46, 63 INDEX Page v. 15- 14, 24, 55, 63 v. 17. 15, 24, 30, 50 v. 18. 12, 15, 19, 29, 30, 46, 47, 5i, 57. 83 v. 19. 15, 32, 37, 49. 56, 59. 83 v. 20. 15, 25, 37, 46, 59. 63 v. 21. 23, 46 VII v. 1. 10, 15, 25, 47, 57, 59 V. 2. 12, 15, 28, 30, 63 v. 3- 15, 18, 47, 63 v. 4. 22, 63 V. 5- 24 v. 6. 15, 24, 37, 51, 59 v- 7- 24. 54, 55 v. 8. 24, 65 v. 9. *5, zp, 24, 30, 54, 55 v. 10. J5, 24, 28, 36, 63 v. 11. 13, 25, 46 v- I2- 25. 37. 47. 55. 59 v- J3- X5. 56, 65 v. 14. 26, 37, 44, 50, 55, 56 v. 15. 30 v. 16. 26, 56, 63 VIII v- 2- 45, 63 v- 3- *5 v- 4- 30, 5J, 65 v. 5- 30, 65 v. 6. 30 v- 7- 5-r, 63 v- 8- 13, 15, 18, 59 v. 11. 12, 24, 59 v- I2- *5, 30, 55, 59, 65 v- *3- 19. 37 v. 15. 15 v- l6- X5, 63 v- *7- X5, 26, 57, 63 v- l8- J5, 55, 59 v. 19. 30, 54 v- 20. x9, 63 v- 21. J2, 24 Page IX v. 1. 10, 23. 25, 29, 30, 31. 45, 56 v. 2. 63 V. 3. 30 V. 4. 2*3, 22, 23, 25, 50, 63, 84 V. 5- 10, 15, 19, 25, 30 v. 6. 11, 19, 29, 30, 51, 37, 63 v. 7. 11, 15, 19, 23, 37, 46, 55, 63 v. 8. 11, 19, 37, 64 v. 9. 11. 17, 30, 51, 59 v- IO- 11, 19. 52, 57 v. 33, 34. 56 v. 12. 15, 27, 52, 56, 59, 64 v. 13. 26, 27, 52, 54, 57, 59, 64 v. 14. 37, 84 v. 15. 12, 24, 59 v. 16. 15, 17, 19. 55, 56 v. 17- 15, 17. 19. 24. 30 v. 18. 37, 52, 64, 84 v. 19. 37, 64 v- 2°- 15. 27, 30, 52, 56 v- 2I- 37, 55 v. 22. 19, 37, 64 v- 23- 27, 59 v. 24. 15, 19, 27, 48, 54, 57, 59, 64, 84 v. 25. 64, 84 v. 26. 52, 59, 64 v. 27. j6, 27, 52, 52, 54, 64 X v. 1. 19, 28, 37, 52, 56, 59 v- 2- 45, 50, 64, 83 v. 3. zo, 11, 19, 64 v. 4. 16, 59 V. 5. xo, II, 17, 19, 25, 32, 35, 37, 47. 49, 55, 64 v. 6. 17, 19 v. 7. zj, 17, 19, 52 v. 8. 25 v. 9- 13, 81 v- IO- 17, 19. 33, 34, 64 INDEX Page v. 11. 17. 54, 56, 64 V. 12. I7> 64 V. 13. 17, 19. 24 v. 14. I6> 64 v. 15. j6> 28 v. 16. 47, 48, 54 v. 17. 24, 54, 55 v. 18. 56, 59 v. 19. *5. *6. 52, 64 v. 21. J3, 5J. 52. 53, 59 v. 22. JJ, 15, 24, 33, 34, 37, 38, 48, 59, 64 v. 23. 64 V. 24. -TÖ, 64 v. 25. 3°, 59, 64 v. 26. 15, 16, 25, 33, 35, 39, 46, 47, 56 v. 27. -T9» 54 XI v. 1. 10, 25, 45, 54, 56 v. 2. 16, 31, 5i, 59 v. 3. Jö, 31, 56 v. 4. J2, 24, 25, 47, 59 v. 5. 56, 64, S4 v. 6. -r-r, 15, 17, 46, 59 v. 7. 17, 24, 28, 3i, 49, 5i, 64 v. 8. J2, 45, 49, 54, 55, 64 v. 9. *9, 26, 33, 35, 59, 64 v. 10. 27, 49 v. 11. J6, 30, 33, 35, 38, 56, 65, 84 v. 12. 16, 31, 33, 59 v. 13. 38, 44, 50, 65 v. 14. 65 v. 15. 14, 48, 5°, 51, 54, 65 XII v. 1. 56 v. 2. 27, 57, 65 v. 3. 16, 19, 24, 31, 38, 56, 59, 65 v. 4. 27, 28, 48, 56, 65 v. 5. 15, 19, 28, 33, 48, 56, 65 Page v. 6. 16, 31, 38, 59, 65 v. 7. 23, 59 v. 8. 24, 31, 33, 35, 38, 47, 49, 60, 65 v. 9. z5, 38, 45, 49 v. 10. 19, 22, 23, 24, 33, 47 v. 11. 12, 23, 28, 44, 45, 50 v. 12. 17, 27, 30, 52, 65 v. 13. 26, 28, 54 v. 14. 23, 28, 46, 60 v. 15. 17, 19, 23, 28, 38, 65, 84 v. 16. 27, 38 v. 17. 12, 23, 28, 33, 35 v. 18. 31, 33, 35 v. 19. 16, 24, 31 v. 21. i6j 26, 52 v. 22. 15, 19, 23, 36, 83 V. 23. 27, 38, 56 V. 24. 26, 31, 57 XIII v. 1. 16, 38, 52 v. 2. zo, 19, 25, 31, 38, 45, 47, 49, 52, 56 v. 3. 10, 12, 13, 25, 32, 47, 49, 50, 51, 65, 84 v. 4. 27, 32, 84 v. 5. 26, 31, 38, 45, 46, 49. 56, ÓO v. 6. j6, 2S, 33, 52, 54, 65, 84, 85 v. 7. 2S, 50, 65, 84 v. 8. -TÖ, 25, 60, 65, £4 v. 9. 14, 32, 52, 60 v. 10. *9. *7. 52 v. 11. V. 12. 24, 38 V. 13. *5, 23, 31, 46, 53, 60, 65, 84 V. 14. 17, 19, 23, 31, 57 v. 15. 28, 33, 48, 49, 5i, 56, 65 v. 16. 28, 56, 60 v. 17. 13, 33, 34, 38, 45, 65 v. 18. 12, 20, 38, 46, 51, 65 INDEX Page v. 19. 16, 33 v. 20. 16, 19, 20, 38, 60, 66 v. 21. 20, 66 v. 22. 49, 66, 81 v. 23. 20, 34, 35, 66 XIV v. 1. 20, 26, 25, 66 v. 2. 25, 26, 33, 47, 5-T, 54, 66 v. 3. J5, 20, 25, 3j, 45, 46, 51 v. 4. Z3, 26, 28, 31, 38, 45, 52, 57, 66 v. 5. 20, 38, 54, 66 v. 6. 16, 38, 66 v. 7. 17, 27, 31, 52, 60, 66, 84 v. 8. 25, 66 v. 9. 60, 69 v. 10. 23, 60, 55 v. 11. 66 v. 12. 20, 66 v. 13. jr6, 24, 31, 33, 33, 60, 66 v. 14- 33, 3#, 54, 60 v. 15. 24, 46, 31, 54, 57, 60, 66 v. 16. j6, 38, 66 v. 17. 45, 66 v. 18. 11, 20, 24, 39, 45, 46, 51, 60, 66, 85 v- 19- 16, 20, 39 v- 2°- 3*, 85 v. 21. J2, x6, 25, 26, 30, 39, 50, 66, 85 v- 22- 3-r, 33, 54, 57, 85 v- 23- 28, 32, 48, 49, 56 v. 24. 33, 39, 48, 54, 56, 55 v. 25. 16, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39, 56, 60, 66, 85 v. 26. 20, 32, 46, 56, 66, 55 v- 27- 20, 39, 66 v. 28. 25 v. 29. j6, 60, 83 v- 3°- 27, 66 v- 31- 10, 45, 48 v- 32- 20, 33, 39, 66 v- 33- 25, -#7. 48, 66 v- 34- 27. 28, 51, 54, 66 Page v. 35- 23, 28 v. 36. 11, 15, 20, 28, 39 v- 37- 11, 15, 23, 39 v. 39. 60, 67 v- 4°- 27, 3J, 67 v. 41. 27, 32, 33, 46, 49, 54, 56 v. 42. 16, 37, 49, 56, 60, 67 v. 42. j6, 25 v. 44. JJ, 3J, 48, 60 v. 45. i\r, 17, 23, 27, 28, 54, 66, 67 v. 47- 20, 39, 44, 56, 67 v. 48. 10, 20, 39, 45, 67 v- 49- 23, 45 v- 50- 45, 56 v- 5i- 45, 56 v. 52. 56 XV v. 1. J5, 16, 20, 26, 32, 54 v. 2. 20, 25, 3J, 60 v. 3- 26, 33, 31, 52, 56, 37 v. 4. J3, 20, 26, 3J, 39, 5j, 54, 60, 67 v. 5- 16, 39 v. 6. Z3, 20, 32, 33, 37. 5-T, 54, 57. 60 v- 7- -ro, X3, 25, 45 v- 8. r6, 52-, 56 v- 9- 20, 3J, 39, 67, 55 V. 10. iy v. 11. J5, j6, 20, 24, 67 V. 12. 16, 28, 39, 45, 52, 34, 56, 60 v- r3- 23, 27, 54, 55 v. 14. 16, 60 V. 15. 23, 51, 60 V. 16. 25 v- *7- J6, 25, 39, 49 v. 18. 20, 33, 39, 31, 60, 67 v- I9- 12, 13, 24, 38, 60 v- 2°- 23, 27, 56, 67 v- 21 • 23, 33, 66 v- 22. .T3, 16, 23, 86 v. 23. 16, 39, 49, 34, 56, 60, 67 INDEX Page v. 24. 16, 17, 31 v. 25. 26, 46, 60 v. 26. 26, 32, 60 v. 27. 49> 6° v. 28. r6, 25, 60, 67 v. 29. 25, 16, 32, 56, 57, 67 v. 30. 24, 25, 49, 52, 60, 67 v. 31. 48 v. 32. 20, 28, 39, 54, 67, 86 v. 33. 31, 32, 49 v. 34. 32, 48, 5i v. 35- 20 XVI v. 1. 16, 17, 27, 45, 46, 60, 67 v. 4. 20, 25, 33, 39> 45. 46, 54> 55. 60, 67 v. 5. 14, 20, 67 v. 6. 27, 4°. 44 Page v. 7. 2"5, j6, 32, 40, 46, 60 v. 8. 12, 17, 24, 27, 28 v. 9. 27, 23 v. 10. 17, 23, 24, 48 v. 11. 20, 27, 28, 52, 34, 67 v. 12. 13, 26, 40, 46, 48, 60 v. 13. 15, 17, 28, 32 v. 14. 15, 17. 24. 67 v. 15. 11, 17, 28 v. 16. 11, 17, 23, 28, 32, 46, 61, 67 v. 17. 27 v. 18. 40, 56, 61, 68 v. 19. 10, 28, 40, 61, 68 v. 20. 17, 28, 32, 68 v. 21. 61 v. 22. 12, 27, 28 v. 23. 10, 11, 24, 26, 28, 32, 46, 61 STELLINGEN i Kittel's editio tertia van Biblia Hebraica verbindt nog steeds interpretatie» en emendatio met editio op onwetenschappelijke wijze. ir Jesaja VII 10 e.v. wordt beheerscht door vs. 9b en vormt één geheel met de voorafgaande verzen. III Lukas XV 11—32 kan niet verstaan worden zonder de beteekenis van het begrip rj Pao de la rov &eov en biedt derhalve geen christologische gegevens welke van die der andere synoptische gelijkenissen afwijken. IV Bij het verschijnsel: overname van godsdienstige voorstellingen moet de mentaliteit van dengene die overneemt belangrijker object van onderzoek genoemd worden dan de zgn. oorsprong der voorstellingen. V Bij de academische opleiding tot predikant dient exegese van het Oude en Nieuwe Testament belangrijker plaats in te nemen dan welk ander onderdeel der theologie. VI Typologie, een vorm van allegorie, is bij de exegese volstrekt af te wijzen. VII Ten onrechte maakt Ursinus in den titel zoowel als in den inhoud van het derde deel van de Heidelbergsche Catechismus één motief voor het christelijk handelen tot grondmotief. VIII De Christenheid moet haar geloof in de openbaring van God in Jesus Christus onderscheiden van haar belijdenisgeschriften, evenals de Islam de shahada onderscheidt van de verschillende 'akïda's, welke van polemisch karakter zijn, beïnvloed door tijd en plaats. IX De Zending is gegrond op de openbaring in Christus en behoort daarom de wezenlijke en gezamenlijke uiting der kerken te zijn. X Christelijk jeugdwerk is meer „Jugendpflege" dan „Jugendbewegung". P. A. H. DE BOER RESEARCH INTO THE TEXT OF I SAMUEL I-XVI A CONTRIB UTION TO THE STUDY OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL AMSTERDAM - H. J. PARIS RESEARCH INTO THE TEXT OF I SAMUEL I-XVI A CONTRIB UTION TO THE STUDY OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL RESEARCH INTO THE TEXT OF I SAMUEL I-XVI A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL PROEFSCHRIFT TER VERKRIJGING VAN DEN GRAAD VAN DOCTOR IN DE GODGELEERDHEID AAN DE RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT TE LEIDEN, OP GEZAG VAN DEN RECTOR MAGNIFICUS Dr J. A. J. BARGE, HOOGLEERAAR IN DE FACULTEIT DER GENEESKUNDE, VOOR DE FACULTEIT DER GODGELEERDHEID TE VERDEDIGEN OP VRIJDAG 20 MEI 1938, DES NAMIDDAGS TE 3 UUR DOOR PIETER ARIE HENDRIK DE BOER GEBOREN TE WOUBRUGGE AMSTERDAM — H. J. PARIS — MCMXXXVIII The science of Exegesis has a beginning but no end, and this study is only my first step on the endless path. A first step however is important for the further continuation of the way, and for that reason it seems to me to be a good plan to publish this study, so that criticism may show me, whether it is either a good step — albeit a feeble one — or one in the wrong direction. It was originally my intention to examine the composition of the Books of Samuel, but as the question of the composition can only be dealt with when the problem of the textual criticism has been discussed, this must wait until later. The textual treatment is important to our insight into the composition of the contents of the Books. On the other side the character of the semitic narration is important to the textual treatment, so that in a certain sense, one might speak of a reciprocal influence. Gaarne maak ik van deze gelegenheid gebruik mijn groote dankbaarheid aan de Leidsche Universiteit te betuigen voor het vele waarmede Zij mij verrijkt heeft. Aan de hoogleer ar en van de theologische faculteit zoowel als aan enkele hoogleeraren der litteraire faculteit, wier college's en privatissima ik mocht volgen, blijf ik groote erkentelijkheid schuldig voor de wijze waarop Zij mij in de theologie en in de semietische wereld hebben ingeleid. Vermelde deze bladzijde slechts de namen van drie Hunner, professor A. Eekhof, zoo vroeg reeds heengegaan, professor W. Brede Kristensen, rude donatus, wiens eerbied voor het verleden een nooit genoeg begrepen les is, en professor B. D. Eerdmans, mijn promotor, die mij eerbied voor den text leerde. Het noemen van Leiden's roemrijke Universiteit is tevens een dankbare en blijde herinnering aan het Leidsche studentenleven, waarin vooral het coll. theol. c.s. C.R.P.C. mij veel studiezin en vriendschap gaf. Dit boekje draag ik op aan mijn Ouders en aan mijn Vrouw, zonder wier trouwe liefde mij het ontstaan niet denkbaar is. Berkenwoude Z.H., Mei 1938. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION lation 1. The religious attitude of the Greek translation is quite a different one from that of M. "Die Septuaginta gehort mehr in die Geschichte der Auslegung des Alten Testaments als in die des alttestamentlichen Textes". Wellhausen says at the end of his foreword on the text of Samuel (page 33): — "Ehe mit ihnen die Probe gemacht werden kann, bedarf es jedoch noch einer Verantwortung hinsichtlich der Behandlung der Peschito, des Targums und der Vulgata. Ich habe diese sowohl durch ihren Text als ihre Hermeneutik in engem Zusammenhange stehenden Versionen mehr benutzt, um an ihnen die LXX zu prüfen, denn als selbstandige Zeugen. Als solche sind sie nur nach genauen Einzelstudien zu gebrauchen, welche ich deshalb nicht gemacht habe, weil ich den Gewinn für nicht so bedeutend erachtete, dass es nicht gerathen ware, hinsichtlich der beiden ersteren auf bessere Texte zu warten". Driver is to be credited with having studied the other versiones antiquae well. Yet these versions in the textual criticisms after Driver are only insufficiently treated. In the following examination we will tracé the value of Tg, S and G in reference to the text of M 2, in order to obtain an answer to the question of the original text and the value of M as a starting point of exegesis. Our examination extends over only sixteen chapters and the conclusions made are only valid for this part. We shall follow, in the method of working closely that which is claimed by Nyberg in the preface of his study on Hosea 3. Nyberg 1 See his contribution in Beiheft 66 of Z.A.W. 1936. "Das Problem der Umschrift und die religionsgeschichtliche Erforschung der Septuaginta" page 97—109 and in "Imago Dei. "1932. "Der Begriff der Erziehung in der griechischen Bibel", in "Theologische Rundschau" N.F. 5th Year 1933- pages 173—186 with list of literature, in Z.A.W. N.F. 13, 1936: "Die religiöse Umdeutung altorientalischer Lebensweisheit der griechischen Uebersetzung des alten Testaments". 2 The text of the Vulgate is excluded from this examination as it lies in a world apart from the Semitic. The examination of this calls for an extra study, which we do not consider ourselves equal to. See Stummer's interesting article in Beiheft 66 of Z.A.W. 1936, p. 233—239: "Hauptprobleme der Erforschung der alttestamentlichen Vulgata". 3 H. S. Nyberg, "Studiën zum Hoseabuche" 1935. Uppsala. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION disputes the light manner in which the amendments are made. Even though Kittel's third edition of the text may be called a tremendous advance, on certain points Nyberg's criticism holds good. The apodictic use e.g. of l =legendum, by which different suppositions are tacitly made; the voluntary use of the versiones antiquae make him exclaim: "lm alten Testament wird immer noch so korrigiert und konjiziert, wie es der selige N. W. Ljunberg im Horaz tat 1872!" He is strongly opposed to the ideas of the written tradition and against those who are of the opinion that the text has been purely mechanically copied, without being understood. The Eastern knows only the oral tradition; the art of writing is the work of the scribe and not of the people. Therefore a "lebendiger Umformung" must be taken into account, not graphical errors. Neither is the great antiquity of G an argument for its better text. Nyberg opposes emphatically that the whole of the Old Testament was written in one uniform language. One is apt to be deceived by the similarity in punctuation and grammar. This appearance of uniformity was caused by the Jerusalem tradition, which gave the definite form, but in reality we are concerned with the local and temporary different strata of the Hebrews. The object of the textual criticism he sees in the written amendment of the oldest written tradition of the Jewish community. Nyberg's theory, that the recension should first be determined, then the interpretation taken in hand and the amendment postponed as long as possible, seems to us to be of considerable importance. The plan of this study is therefore mainly a historical one. The actual criticism of the text can only be embarked on, when the history of the text has proved its value. To this end the versiones antiquae must first be submitted to examination, then the intrinsic value of M ascertained. On the grounds of the results made by this study, a few annotations to the text will be included with the last chapter. CHAPTER II THE TARGUM Proper Names1. We begin with comparing the proper names. Of the good hundred and fifty proper names contained in these chapters, more than two thirds are similar, of which seventy five are literally similar and about forty are in Aramaic writing. As in other Aramaic texts, as far as we can see, the use of 7 and » is insignificant. Herewith is connected the manner of writing TTr in XVI 19 and 23. Also the ommission of n in II 27, the addition of n'3 (I 1, IX 4, XIII 2, XIV 48, XV 7) belong to the Aramaic idiom. Whereas it is possibly somewhat different with the addition nm NB1V (IV 12, IX 1 and 4), where, the same as with the addition >33 (XI 1 and in certain places for the name of Israël) can be thought of the desire to elucidate, which we shall also observe further on. There is only one place where the name is missing in the translation: I 1; there we read 'TD^nö instead of nrsix. This difference, however, does not appear to be an omission but an endeavour to circumscribe the text of M. In D'Six the verb nsï "to see" is read, "pupils" is added, the final d of OTiCin is used as an abbreviation of JD. The fact that in the same verse in ryrc "12 "seer" is not read, seems to make it propable that we should find a rabbinical exegesis in the alteration mentioned. The addition of "from the pupils of" fits absolutely into such a sphere. The same with IX 5: instead of rpx. The additions are further of the following nature: the definite article XIII 3; p is joined to IX 1 and 4; for elucidation: KttHpö in "House of Jahu" III 15, NDi>a XI 1, XIV 31. This last passage is as much addition as alteration. X 3 has "level" instead of |iï>N, XIV 31 retains p^K, but adds The most important addition belongs to X 5, where is replaced by 1 Person and place names are, here and further, understood by "proper names". THE TARGUM - The name of God mm JUVW nm ; an exegetical observation, which identifies this hill with that of VII i. The name of God. There are many alterations in the names of God. We often find mrr instead of dt6n : III 3 (twice); IV 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21; V i, 2, 10 (twice) 11; IX 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; X 3, 5, 7; XI 6; XIV 18 (twice), 36, 37, 44, 45; XVI 15, 16, 23. Once ruw occurs in IV 4. It is a difficult undertaking to give an explanation for the frequent alterations. We know that the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton was forbidden. M places the vowels of 'JiK and of dt6n under the name of God. The menace of Deut. XXVIII 58 .and 59 seems, with Exod. XX 7 and Levit. XXIV 11 et seq. to be the cause of this interdiction. The above quoted alteration shows that the tetragrammaton was not avoided. From the fact that we have to do with an interdiction, it appears that the actual pronunciation was well known 1. It was only transmitted to the most worthy pupils and was lost in the post-Talmudic period. In "Kyrios als Gottesname" Baudissin 2 tries to prove, that G which renders the tetragrammaton with xvqmq, is not alone still ignorant of the pronunciation 'adönai, but is itself the cause of it. The translation of Levit. XXIV 15, 16 however, shows quite clearly, that the actual pronunciation was forbidden even then: ovojmQmv öè rö övofia xvqlov duvar 0) •fyavarovcrdco gives a new signification, which is not in agreement with the Hebrew text (apj). The Tg also gives a signification which presumes the interdiction: «n 3. Grether 4 is of the opinion that the significance had already been forgotten for a long time, as the tetragrammaton may be replaced everywhere by xvqioq. We must probably think of the following state of affairs: the tetragrammaton is pronounced in the principal didactic use of Tg as 'adönai and is therefore more indirect than dt6n which is given the same value as nin\ As the connection between name 1 Comp. L. Blau, "Das altjüdische Zauberwesen" 1898, page 129 et seq. 2 Re-edition of O. Eissfeldt. 2ig2Ó/2g. Giessen, Töpelmann. 3 The root ttHS = to separate, explain, state. Comp. J. Levy, Wörterbuch, second edition 1924. 4 O. Grether "Name und Wort Gottes im Alten Testament" 1934- THE TARGUM - Difference tates the reading. XVI13 already calls David by his name. XVI 20 extends with pi?o. Difference. The differences as well as the additions show that the translation is at the same time an exegesis. Here we also find the indirect form of expression, which we treat under one head, whilst the other differences will be discussed in the order of the text. I 3 does not call the sons of Eli priests, but uses the general term 1'CötPD. iPDtf is the technical term for the service of the servants bef ore the face of God or of the king. I 5 reads Tra, "an excellent portion", and is therefore explanatory. In I 9 ntlfö occurs as "doorpost" and as the roll with Deut. VI 4-9 and XI 13-21 on the doorpost. The signification of amulet was apparently predominant in the time or in the district of the translators, therefore another word is chosen : xs'D "TOD that as exactly as possible indicates a fixed place. Indirect method of expression. I 11: "If thou hast seen", becomes passive and therefore more impersonal, more indirect: "if it is revealed to you", the same as : "if my memory is risen unto you". More indirect also is the translation of I 19, II 21 (by which the old signification is lost, that fertility is the gift of Deity). III 10, VIII 21, IX 9 (to ask the instruction of Jahu), 16, 17, X 5 : the ancient expression for prophetism is replaced by KnSD niPD, the same as X 10, 11, 12. Herewith is connected the change of DW3J in priaifö, X 12 and 13. X 6 and 10 make DK rm indirect, also XI 6, XVI 13, 14, 15, 16. Besides : X6, 7, XI7, XII12, XIV 45, XV 10, XVI 1, 8, 9, 10. At the same time we find an indirect method of translation in I 14 (by a more complicated command). II 35 alters iV and ursj in tna^D and NJTlin, also XIII 14 and XIV 7. V 5 alters the anthropomorphic expression ~p into an expression taken from the war «nnn, the same as V 7, 9, 11, VI 3, 5, 9, XII 15. In this way ns is replaced by NïD'E XII 12, XV 24. I 11 translates by exaggeration "to forget" by "reject". At the same time this verse extends with BO'N 02 U3 12 and "I will give THE TARGUM - Difference him so that he may serve". I 12 is also more detailed: "Eli was waiting for her until she ceased". 116 exaggerates by translating jm by ob af. ("to be ashamed") and "m by te Elaboration weakens the style. I 23 explains most obviously, with "pit. I 28 again translates tow hif. by 1DS, by which the difficulty of M is escaped; v. 28b: "for he shall be serving for Jahu all the days that he shall be standing serving for Jahu". Free translation of II 10 gives ncAö instead of pp, influenced by the afterwards usual connection of "kingdom" and Messiah. II 11 elucidates with "during the life of Eli". II13 gives an explanation by translating nsü. II 15 feels the difficulty concerning the Tora and alters reMf into wti?. II 18 explains na "lïSN with "garment of Byssus". II 22 is also softened by translating nf instead of niN3Xn. II 24 facilitates the reading by pjTT. II 27 replaces the interrogative by the fixed form : inf. absolute with verb. finit., by which a more harmonious text is obtained, which however diminishes its active character. II 29 reads suff. 3rc^ pers. plur. with which is more logical. II 30 weakens the cultic term "]^n to the general VW, also II 35. ^ nW>n is replaced by "My judgements are the Truth", a more worthy expression. II 32 facilitates with an elucidating paraphrase. II 33 alters the difficulty in (youths). II 35 explains in Messianic sense by translating NE"p 13^0. The freedom in priestly affairs, which in later times could hardly be understood, causes the alteration II 36 rroro in 'Jl mtsö ( the watch"). III 1 elucidates, the same as II 11. prn disappears for nNlUl, the same as in III 7. '» in is given exactly by 'H NITD:. We also find exaggeration and weakness in III 12 .WW "IWN, III x3 1H2 ; fJl and for bbp and III 14 l°°k through the fingers" for 123. IV 13 facilitates with bv- V 4 facilitates by replacing pjn by t\u. V 5 avoids for priest of a heathen Deity and translates Niao, the same as V 7, VI 2. V 7 has for that reason also nwt> instead of DV^K, the same as VI 5, VII 3, VIII 8. The right of existence of other Gods for other countries is denied. V 11 weakens the text with "tumult of the city", without a clear reason. THE TARGUM - Difference VI 3 elucidates the pregnant sense of 1>T by the translation: "and thou shalt feel enlightened (healed), why should not his vexation be lefted from thee?" VI 4 harmonises in a logical sense by reading ddW>. VI 6 translates Wv by Ja ins itpe. ("to be rewarded"). VI 7 has 2 NTO "they have pulled (a yoke)", 2 objecti. Free clear rendering. In VI 7 indicates the inclination to be explicit. VI 8 gives the explanation of rJHN in xnun, a well known word. In VI 18 TPp for "iBD indicates the signification of nnp, XIII 2 uses this word even for "tent". VII 9 shows a weakening in n>¥ for pyr. In VIII 13 bw must again do service to translate the special word npl. VIII 20 elucidates with IX 5 translates rpx as in I 1 by jrii. IX 6 explains the old term wa as "H xu:, so "OD: becomes DïDp njna. In the same spirit also IX 7, 8, 10 : for IX 7 with *too for rriB>n makes the signification purely ritual. IX 16 has instead of TJJ, also X 1, XIII 14, harmonisations of the different stories. IX 17 gives a weakened style, where: "he shall hold the reins of my people" is translated by the less plastic "he shall take on the government". IX 22 nrott^ is translated by the word that also serves in this part as the translation of nan : NnnnDN "eating house", "round table" whilst sacrificing. X 13 knows this word also for nni. IX 24 has tot "side", euphem. for penis, instead of Possibly this is a literal translation and is the link with the penis the part of the victim which is filled with most strength. X 3 makes the old term 'Ji o'nï>N-(>N clear by adding and by the alteration tnp. X 6 and 10 weaken irijnm by rQBTïï in the same spirit as the alterations in X 5 and elsewhere. X 7 elucidates in the same way. X 27 avoids the cultic term and circumscribes with the standing expression rvoi>Ba (to show the usual honour). XI 9 elucidates with the plural. XII 3 explains freely with "to cast the eyes down" etc. XII 5 explains with the plural. XII 10 follows the kerë. XII 15 explains the pregnant text of M with 'l mm N03. XII 22 facilitates with Nin. XIII 10 avoids -pa by translating d^bq ^nv as in X 27. XIII THE TARGUM - Difference 20 and 21 give the instruments, of which the signification remains vague, in different succession. XIII 23 facilitates by rendering 3X0 as "army", the same as XIV 1. XIV 3 explains with for ww. XIV 5 explains pivïa with the verb JOD, see XIII 18 : "that looketh to". XIV 12 avoids the difficulty of M by translating raxö by xmQD "the watch". XIV 18 harmonises by translating UI DP. XIV 19 no more knows the old custom or translates weakly -|T rpN by ntisn anp. XIV 26 facilitates by: a hole (ravine) [with honey], 1TIÖ is a weak translation of WO. XIV 27 explains m!)' by xrp beehive . njfoni is read as and translated by njlNm. XIV 32 facilitates by the general term rus. XIV 36 extends the signification by giving ^Dp instead of rn. XIV 47 gives instead of w a kind of justification TTiD (declaring guilty). XIV 48 explains with "and he gathered the troops" (pwö, the plural of NrmtPÖ is intended) and smote . . . XV 1 tries to make a connection with the events of the preceding chapters by altering into "|rvw£ (in thy youth). XV 2 weakens the style with "Dl. XV 4 also with IM3. In XV 6 is read in -jSDN the root nSD and translated >xntr. In the same verse tid is translated by mr and by BhSPN, an exemple of a certain freedom, by which the simple comprehensibleness must have played a part, comp. XV 2 and 4, in respect of nps. XV 9 does not translate i>jn for tTD, reads !MW, by which the difficulty of M is explained; v. 9b translates nDQJ rofóö doublé by d-ivt DPTD ("of the despised things" etc.), whereas D'tf (to abhor) and 1D3 (to despise) are synonyms, so that the root OND in DQJ is read. XV 11 and 35 alter the repenting of the Deity in: "I return uponMy word", a weakening of the plastic strength. XV 18 harmonises in a logical sense by reading the suff. 2nd person, sing., instead of the suff. 3r(i person plur. XV 32 elucidates nnVD by NpJ9D (effeminate, adorned like a woman) and renders the end freely : "if you please, my lord, (I ask for) the bitterness of death", proud and provoking language towards Samuel, a digression over the signification of NpJ2?3. XVI 4 has instead of the old characteristic awe of the Man of God the colourless ts^D, also XVI 5 instead of unp twice pr. XVI 11 elucidates 3DJ by "iffiiDJ: "we will not sit down at the table . THE TARGUM - Character and value Af ter the examination of these chapters there is no reason to doubt, we^ther we have to do either with a translation of M or with one of another Hebrew text. Difference, plus and minus find an explanation in other causes than that of a text divergent from the one offered to us by M. These causes may be classed under the heading "didactic". Very of ten the Aramaic translation succeeds the Hebrew verse in the codices. The Targum, viz.: was used in the Synagogue and school for the people and pupils who had almost or totally forgotten the Hebrew language. This is the reason of the circumscriptions, elucidations, simplifications, translations of unknown names and a few discourses intended for instruction. Nevertheless, next to the Targum the Hebrew text remains the bearer of the religious authority. The Targum was only used as a help in teaching, therefore nearly nothing is omitted in the translation and it is nearly literal. Difference and plus indicate the explanatory element, which is naturally fluent. The explanations harmonise the stories and bear the mark of the time of their origin. This is shown clearly in the ideas which the translation reflects of God, the priesthood and prophetism. Whether the alterations which we have observed in the old religious customs, have their origin in the more uniform ideas of God than of no longer understanding, is difficult to say. Possibly we must take both causes into account. Perhaps the religious ideas may have brought about certain alterations; the frequent use of mp and of passive sentences, however is not explained with this. That the explanation "by deference the distance from the deity is increased" does not say everything, is also quite clear by the passages in which we find a direct translation I ioa, 27, II 17, III 9. The Aramaic language gives the appearance of a weakening in style. This is shown by the making of many sentences indirect, as well with the name of God as elsewhere. The cause is the indistinctness of delineation, the weakening of the plastic strenghth of the older Semitic languages. The value with reference to M is not important to the textual criticism. We find indications where the difficulties and uncertainties in the traditional Hebrew text lay in the Targum-period. The solution of the difficulties is of great value for determining the intrinsic value of the translation, but not for the determination of the Hebrew text. THE PESITTO - Difference in proper names XIII 8, XIV 33, XV 16, 17, 28, 30, Jonathan XIV 28, Judah XVI 4, by which the last place gives a suggestion of Christian influence. XIII 3 adds "and all Israël" whilst IV 6 and XIV 21 have not these addition. anil7 in XIII 3 is understood as a denomination apart, something like: "the people of the other side". Gibea is translated in X 5, 26, XI 4, XIII 2 and XIV 2 by | } . The name is also known VII 1. Raraa is also rendered by the equal sounding j JSX) j so that here we find the translation of "height". The names of the places were therefore not known as such to the translator(s). The doublé name "Gibea of Elohim of Saul of Benjamin" also indicates a more literal signification of nVDJ. The name Ichabod IV 21 and XIV 3 is translated by t~> -» ol» . IV 21b gives the same sense as M. It is remarkable that Exod. VI 20 gives the same name for -oav. From this it can be deduced that the letter d is read as r. The explanation is, however, unknown to us. VII 11 knows the place ~D no more than Tg does. The name also occurs in VII 12 and is regarded as |B7V We do not know the explanation of this simplification. IX 1 exchanges r with d, a reading fault. Not much certainty exists with these letters, comp. IV 21, XV 7. IX 4 gives rvshv> as J'^jo o_^ , which signifies "coals". Payne Smith reads "tyrants, the strongmen". IX 5 exchanges 3 and "i, a simple reading fault. H.l. is therefore not read the root r\BX. Lakis instead of Jabesh, XI 1 et seq. gives more difficulties. Lakis occurs as the name of a place on the plains of Judah, was formerly a Canaanite city, Jos X 3, and elsewhere, but not in Gilead. Here perhaps we have to assume an intentional alteration in connection with XXXI 11 et seq., where the inhabitants of Jabesh drag away the bodies of Saul and his sons and burn them. S thinks the burning strange, as this was an aggravation of the mortal penalty according to Lev. XX 14, XXI 9, Jos. VII 25, Gen. XXXVIII 24, because the inhabitants of Jabesh once THE PESITTO - Minus had been saved by Saul. XI 9 has two additions which are connected with this, and . XIII 5 S has no al- teration of names. XIV 2 does not know jruo but gives the explanation of the place — after having translated niHJ by | kiO ï — by \n ^^ > a freedom which is only possible by oral rendering of a geographical text of a district unknown to the translator. XIV 4 has instead of roD, the same as Tg; a name derived from the situation : | v po "to climb", "to attack". XV 4, as well as Tg does not consider as a proper name. The story now yields names which more or less resemble those of M. We will proceed to tracé what is omitted, added and altered apart from the proper names. Minus. The connecting partiele 1 is very often not translated : II 15, 25, III 5, XIV 1, XV 1, 3, 25, 26, XVI 12, 23, whilst it is added in I 13, 26, VII 14, 16, VIII 17, IX 13, XIII 11. The Hebrew article not only represents the copulative, but introducés also the coordinate and subordinate sentence, the principal clause when this is put in the second place, etc. The Syriac 0 was not always able to support these senses, possibly by reason of Greek influence. There are indeed cases, where the pregnant use of } is rendered by o • XII 24 may also be mentioned here, where it translates "O and XII13 where it translates "WN. XIV 21 gives o as translation of }. The use of 3, and "itrN are included under 1 , the accusative or the genitive. XII 21 in this way avoids a difficulty in M. XIII 11 misses the first '3 probably under the influence of what directly THE PESITTO - Minus, Plus ^ in agreement with v. 13 a, and in contradiction with v. 13 b. In XII 14 and 15 " na is omitted and simplified by the suffix of the verb. Here as well as in the Tg is to be thought of awe for anthropomorphism. It is however possible that the free translation may also be the cause, as in XII 17, where the parenthesis "that thou hast done in the eyes of Jahu" is missing. XIII 6 simplifies and weakens the active expression of intensity by omitting BOJ "O "f? "is <2 and translating the colourless (Aaj t O . XIII 7 omits the difficulty, mn. XIII 16 considers DDV NXOJn DJ?ni, as a repetition of v. 15, superfluous. XIV 1 misses the introduction of the new story (ovn Wi). S continues immediately and lays the connection very closely with chapter XIII. XIV 4 omits and does not interrupt the story. See also Difference. XIV 34 misses and DrfoNl whilst the thread and the meaning of the story remain undisturbed. XIV 35 omits v. b, thereby avoiding the difficult sense, without disturbing the story. XIV 36 misses nW>. XIV 45 simplifies the exclamation of the people by omitting nïrun. XV 2 misses the exact indication "ibw, XV 12 XV 32 omits the difficulty (nïWÖ DN ^*l). The omitting of XVI13 is also facüitation, comp. XXX 25. XVI 15 and 16 omit v. 15 b and v. 16 a. JTP is also missing; only run of v. 15 b is translated. The plasticity of M's method of narration has become considerably weakened by this simplification, but it is in agreement with logical expectations. These demand a short observation of the servants. XVI 20 misses 1J2, XVI 23 m, both simplifying without damaging the explicitness of the story. Plus. The Syriac often uses the possessive suffix, that anticipates, (comp. C. Brockelmann, "Syrische Grammatik" 4i925, page 83 and 89.) With this is connected the repeated addition of ©v\ , of a pronoun with suffix or of a suffix alone: I 17, 28, III I, IV 8,16, VI 13, VII 2, 10, X 1, 8, 15, XI 7, XII, 4, 5, 11, XIV 8, 23, 25, 43, XVI 8, 11, 19, 22. These additions are therefore a phenomenon of this later Semitic language; in some cases we can also speak of a elucidation e.g. VI 13. THE PESITTO - Plus I 2 adds the article to the numeral, the same as Tg, comp. I 24, VI 18, IX 1 and 6. I 4 repeats the verb "to give". I 6 understands the signification of mx by j!.^ "*° anxi°us'• is the translation of tjn, comp. our "in respect of". The use of the synonyms ^ j and >so I 5 and 6 as a translation of Dm shows that we have not to assume with a literally similar translation. I 7 does not alter M. II 13a makes the story fluent, as Tg, explains nNO, whereby "taking from" is added. The second addition ^>0 shows that the following part is not con- sidered a citation; it is directly added by S to the context. II 16 adds which facilitates the text. II 18 translates ~\Vi in a, whilst it is missing in b. II 31 elucidates with |j po poj and JJo • Under the influence of III 12 et seq., II 32 explains by giving pj?ö the suffix second person. II 35 adds ;*_/] . The explanation of such an enlargement must not be sought for in dittography but in the desire to be explicit, to lay the stress on certain important passages. In this case Christian exegesis is not an impossibility for this emphasis. III 1 adds op ■ The story mentions this epitheton every now and then. III 13 elucidates with "towards the people". III 18 extends with . III 21 adds twice, which is connected with the altered interpunction. IV 4 adds by which the signification dwell- ing in the thunderclouds" is changed into "living on"; comp. II Sam. VI 2, where the two representations are connected in M x. IV 10 elucidates with "the people of Israël" and "in Israël". 1 Comp. Th. C. Vriezen, "Onderzoek naar de Paradijsvoorstelling bij de oude Semietische Volken". 1937. Wageningen, especially page 199 et seq. THE PESITTO - Plus IV 12 as Tg adds whilst ^ makes the sentence more fluent. IV 19 elucidates the term rM mn by "she was ready to give birth to". IV 21 and 22 also elucidate with oOQ-*. . see also Proper names. V 4 explains jnsa as "door-post of the chief entrance", whilst the addition "and the body of Dagon was left" elucidates. V 7 elucidates the pregnant p->3 with ^QJ] 100» ■ V 9 enlarges the story with "and they began (to desert) their dwellings". VI 3 elucidates with pron. second pers. plur. masc. VI 13 with "and the men of the place", VI 18 adds the distributive in agreement • • with the story; comp. v. 17. VII 2 explains with (about) for the number of years. VII 9 adds .V , comp. III 1, two different manners of use of a known word-group, especially in proper names. Also VII 15, VIII 4, XI 11, XIV 21. VIII6 partly repeats v. 5, asaresult of the narrating of the translation. VIII12 facilitates in logical sense byadding jioJjÖ s^'y'O . VIII 19 elucidates the independent Kby adding |_o , the same as XII 12. IX 3 fills in the gap in the story: "andSaul stood up and went and took with him one of the boys (servants) and he went out to seek his father's she-asses". The direct and abrupt style, which contains leaps of thought, is here made logical and harmo- nious. IX 5 adds the active partiele of |j , for elucidation. IX 1 and 6 also elucidate with , v. 6 also with 1 ^ • IX 9 extends with ^jo t . IX 17 gives an enlargement of the story for elucidation :"those whom the Lord had chosen". IX 20 adds K ^ to Israël. X 25 weakens the ■ THE PESITTO - Plus style with o\, |o • XI 2 adds ■ XI 3 elucidates with J^, | J | O and ^ yj o\ J1 J o . XI 7 streng- thens the sense with w XI 12 elucidates by JJ . XII 3 « repeats harmoniously o | O | ^ comp. Tg. XII 6 adds tn > 001. in the spirit of II 2- XII 8 adds "country", comp. III 1 and elsewhere. XII 18 translates 1 for the aoristus broadly, but correctly by o< (then). XII 19 extends with the adjective "great", XII 24 with "and with all your soul". XIII 2 with y > XIII 5 with (■Wö)- XIII 13 elucidates with the enlargement s>0 |o . XIII 14 gives an explanation in and ^ . XIV 3 already mentions the place, to which Jonathan returns. XIV 4 is the same as I 1, IX 1 a.o., precise by the addition of 11. ^ j . XIV 7 gives the known expression in full : "all that is in your heart, do". XIV 13 gives the subject of the verb "to fall", by which the alteration of the subject in the second half of the verse is clearly given. XIV 20 extends with . XIV 22 with "for the sons of Israël." XIV 44 elucidates with "(do so) to me." XIV 40 strengthens with and Vi\ . Also XV 2 and 4 with v)fvi\0 and otXs , whilst "to the conflict" is an exten- sion. XV 9 and 33 add "king" to Agag. XV 9 besides "in their eyes". XV 24 elucidates and therefore weakens the style, by adding for "mouth". THE PESITTO - Difference, interpunction, exchange of place XV 26 elucidates the pregnant text of M by adding JJ» . XV 29 translates freely and adds a repetition of DJl, whilst is the same as tt»K. XVI 7 elucidates the concise text with j the same as the Tg. XVI 13 adds to Rama "to his house". XVI16 elucidates with the repetition of XVI 20 makes the story more fluent by adding "and he loaded". XVI 23 explains the spirit of God as "the evil (spirit)", comp. XVI 16. Difference. Besides the general observation that the Syriac has a preference for nominal sentences, which in Hebrew describe mostly situations but in Syriac have lost this pointe, we can bring a few differences under one heading. In the first place a difference in interpunction. This occurs in I 13, 26, II 18, 26, 28, III 31, XIII 3, 4, 9, XIV 23, 25, XV 34. Most passages give no difference in signification and indicate merely a certain freedom in the translation, which gives the same story that M offers, not literally, but in contents, e.g. II 28, where is drawn into the preceding word. III 21b is taken into chapter IV, by which the difficulty in connection of the stories is solved. This alteration is therefore of an exegetical nature and the reason of the alteration again lies in the endeavour to translate one story. The point at which chapter IV ought to begin, is of course of no importance to our examination, only that S endeavours by addition and alteration to obtain a fluent story. In XIII 3 and 4 "all Israël" is taken into the final of v. 3, by which v. 4 is left out. XIV 25 and 26 are of the same nature as III 21; here also the sense is made fluent. XV 34a is the final of v. 33 in S, which is of no importance to our examination. The freedom in respect of the literality of the translation is shown from the exchange of places of names and words: II 8, VI 7, 19, X 5, XIV 41, XV 1, 6 and XVI 23. Saul precedes Jonathan in XIV 41, which is more logical, but in conflict with the nature of the story which is related to Jonathan. The Hebrew THE PESITTO - Difference XIV 19. XIV 18 solves the difficulty of M (\m) by translating yctx XIV 21 explains with different interpunction, which makes the sense more fluent. XIV 24 alters "the men of Israël" into "Saul", the reason possibly being that the verb is in the singular. The signification does not alter. 1 in viöpJi is translated as an adverb of time, whilst the signification in M is different. The signification of "vow" is not given in this way. The form naNHwi is at the same time simplified by 00 Jo XIV 25 alters the explanation for the thread of the story by adding . XIV 27 reads elucidatingly as the Tg nnxm. XIV 32 explains win with o ~vv\ > |("to seize greedily"). XIV 36 elucidates in a rational sense even the old formula, . XIV 37 colourlessly translates by bo] . XIV 47 narrates further and replaces 1WV with the logical result "to conquer". XIV 48 explains iwy Si by conceiving, as well as X 26 as a known factor ("army") and rendering ntrj? by ^ \ -» ("to collect"). XV 4 explains ~riN as ("with"). XV 5 escapes the difficulty by giving 3"P1 as ("to judge, rule"). XV 9 is translated as follows : —"the unblemished animals of sheep and cattle and of fat and fattened animals", .... "but everything that was despised and rejected in their eyes, they destroyed." Therefore as in the Tg instead of DQJ is read the root OND. XV 12 translates T with , which means "place, land". The Arabic signification "monument, remainder" may also be included in this. XV 17 gives a weakened translation of by |of . XV 18 harmonises as the Tg. XV 23 elucidates with the free rendering : "for the sin of sorcery is resistance; and sorcery is hardened injustice". Idolatry and the worship of idols (terafim) the without motive in the story. XV 32 alters Agag's saying by are enlargement of the thought : "it is pleasant ..." etc. XVI 4 THE PESITTO - Character and value, Peters weakens the old characteristic : "awe of the Man of God" by translating oxxaJ instead of Tin, comp. Tg. XVI 6 elucidates ui as ioj?| ("in like manner", "according to"). XVI 7 translates ^ nNT exactly with ^ ("^° see with") and adds for elucida- tion >°] , the same as >3 is considered too pregnant and is circumscribed by W • XVI 18 elucidates -iNn w by calling to mind v. 12, by which the alteration in KtSL*. c>\Of*j. XVI 19 reads rONi>ö as *^0, possibly a reading fault or the result of a free method of translation. ftrca "WN is changed in the sense of the story in to -A iuw ("he is convenient to me"; "I can use him"), an example, wherein not the literality of the translation is aimed at, but the clearness of the thread of the story. The research into sixteen chapters is insufficiënt for a definite characterisation, however, there are important indications which justify a provisional sketch, the more so, as we merely make incidental remarks on the intrinsic value of S and confine ourselves to the character and value with reference to M. We shall show our result after having made a few observations on the important study of Curt Peters 1 which has Tg and S as its subject. Peters starts from Baumstark's result 2: S ranges itself amongst the witnesses for the Palestine Targum and by this preserves old material. He wishes to prove that in S, more exactly said in its "Grundschicht", we have a form of the Targum tradition. On the ground of an examination of the Pentateuch, in which he 1 C. Peters, "Peshitto und Targumim des Pentateuchs". Le Museon, Tome XLVIII 1935, page 1—54. 2 A. Baumstark, "Wege zum Judentum des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters in "Bonner Zeitschrift für Theologie und Seelsorge" 1928, page 24 et seq. "Peshittha und palastinensisches Targum" in "Bibl. Zeitschrift" 1931. page 257 et seq. THE PESITTO - Character and value has discussed the cases S = Tg > M, he comes to the following conclusions : — in S as well as in Tg we have an explanation of the contents of the translated text, and in some cases it remains uncertain, whether we have to assume an explanatory enlargement, or that another "Vorlage", than M offers, must be taken into account. Most cases however are explanatory or an extension of the text. "Fraglich dagegen bleibt es, ob gemeinsame Vorlage oder vielmehr Uebersetzungstechnik der Grund der Peshitto und Targum gemeinsamen Abweichung von MT ist". The first conclusion is that there is a thread of connection between S and Tg ; the second is that S has certain elements of specific targumatic nature in common with Tg. Peters does not consider the explanation of these facts due to chance; there is too much material for that. S must have been related from the very beginning with the Palestine Targum. S is not a translation of M which has later been treated targumistically (that is unheard of), but originally an aramaic Targum, which later lost much of its targumistic character by being brought closer to M. Here and there elements of the old Targum have remained. In the third place S is connected with forms of Targum tradition (Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragmententargum = Tg. jerus. z. Pentat, Kahle, "Masoreten des Westen" II). By this the mutual relationship of these Targumim becomes an important question. S appears to belong to an old stratum of the Targum. Baumstark has already shown that S excels the material of Kahle in many places, e.g. Gen. XXXI 20, 25, XXXVIII 23 S = Onkelos = Jonathan > Kahle = M. Such places as these show important evidence for the origin of S from a form which lies still behind the text-figure of the Genizafragments, a form of the Palestinean, westaramaic Targum. In agreement with this we are of the opinion that in the examined part of S there is a continual endeavour to be elucidatory and explanatory. By this comes a weakening of the power of expression in some cases, by the later language 1 as well as by the inclination, 1 Comp. the strong reduction of the gutturals in the later languages. The Jewish Aramaic folk-dialect, which stands behind Babli, also knows this, according to Th. Nöldeke "Mandaische Grammatik", Halle 1875, page 57 et seq. Comp. further C. Brockelmann "Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen", I 1908 Berlin, page 126 et seq. G. Dalman "Grammatik d. jüd. Aramaisch" 21905 Leipzig, page 57 et seq. THE PESITTO - Character and value to give a general word the preference instead of a specific term. In some cases the old signification is only partly understood and sometimes not at all or is put into an altered and simplified translation. In the nature of the differences, additions and omissjons, we can fix an agreement with the Tg. The term "thread of connection" however we avoid, as this pretends to solve the problem of dependency. The cause of the agreement seems to us to lie in: a) Both are translations. There is in our part of the work no single reason to think of another "Vorlage", than that which M offers as text, neither was this the case with Tg. b) Both are translations in a Semitic language, which is later than the Hebrew of M. The difference between Tg and S can be indicated by the foliowing character sketch : S endeavours to translate the difficulties more than Tg does and does not find it necessary to be literal and precise, by which the image of the letters also plays a part, and the story and the clearness of it give cause for more omissions, additions and differences. Yet S is a simpler translation than the Tg. We must accept with S as well as with Tg an old oral tradition and tradition exists by the grace of being bound to a definite form. For Tg this form is the story as well as the wordgroup and letter image of M which has always existed in Judaism next to Tg. Yes, M even remained the Holy Scripture. For S this form is chiefly the story. Thus we conceive, that paraphrase, addition and alteration occur if the story is defective or indistinct. That S practises a greater accuracy and is therefore simpler than Tg is especially clearly shown in II 1—10, the so-called "Psalm of Hannah". As there is no tracé of a Pre-S, which was later worked out according to M, and as the targumistic elements are found in the character of S itself and therefore are not derived from Tg, it seems to us unjust to fix an alternative, as Peters does: S iseither an original translation of M and later worked into the targumistic, or was originally an aramaic Targum and is later worked into concordance with M. The examination of our part indicates a translation of M which shows a less actual Targum-character. The cause for this quality will be found in the time of origin, as well as in the reason for translating. S is for use in the Christian community, becomes a completely independent substitution of M THE PESITTO - Character and value and thus becomes Holy Scripture itself. Peters' suppositions concerning the chronology can never be a certainty, as the data for his conjectures are too vague. The agreement of certain translations can never decide over the question of dependence. The value of S with reference to M may be placed higher than that of Tg. In S we find the striving towards a faithful rendering, which indicates to us the importance of the story with reference to the form of the tradition 1. 1 We hope in our research into the composition to build up on this result. CHAPTER IV THE SEPTUAGINTA Proper names. Although the language of G may bear a clear Semitic stamp it remains of a different nature, which is also shown in the manner of writing. This rest, with the Semitic languages, on the rendering of consonants, whilst the vocals were mediums of later penod, Greek confers the equal signification to the vowel as to the consonant in setting thoughts in writing. From this it already follows that we shall not be able to speak of great literal agreement as was the case in Tg and S. Moreover the gutturals give much difficulty in the rendering in Greek writing. We meet with a good thirty "literally" similar names. By far the most of them have been subjected to changes, mostly of the following nature : omission or circumscription of the gutturals; alteration of accent; difference of vowel and changeable rendering of some consonants. Only a good thirty names show either translation of the signification or another name; these we will discuss last. In I i, 19, IV i, V 1, XI 13 the article is combined with the name and is not considered as a separate article. From this it appears that G translated a Hebrew text, not an Aramaic. In Agna&ai/.i I 1, 19 we find no endeavour to explain the geographical difficult : R a m a in Benjamin and Suf in Ephraim, as given by Tg and S. G shows a less exact knowledge of, or interest in, the geography. There is no fixed system to be discovered m the mannei 01 rendering the gutturals. e serves for **, but also for ^ (XIV 47, XVI 6), V and even for the final n (XII 11). ??. is also given by rj, 11, var. A1: s, and by a VII 14. a serves furthier for N; X, N, V, P, V, and ü; ?? for N and V (117 "Israël", 119 "Samuel" and such names). 1 For these signa see the abbreviations in ed. Rahlfs. THE SEPTUAGINTA - Proper names The accent may be of influence here, comp. VIII 2, IX i, X 2, XI 8, XII ii, XIII 2, XIV 48, 50, 51, XV 12, XVI 1, 4. The quiescent N is not rendered, e.g. ZaovX. V in XIII17 is alsorendered by y whilst y is further a rendering of J. We can therefore with regard to the differences (comp. e.g. IV1, XIV 4 and XV 12) speak of a more or less phonetic method of writing, without any definite system. The research into the rendering of n and n strengthens this observation. In I 1, var. 0\ I 2 Hannah, I 3 Ocpvi and (friveeg, XI 1, XII 9, 11, XV 7, XVI 1, 4 n is missing or is indicated by s. Here we are concerned with the relationship between n and n, more or less a guttural, and must take a spiritus asper in the places where the sign is missing, n is also given by y. I 1, IX 1. The variants of this last place have %. k for n is probably brought about as % n as well as D spirans renders x: IX 1, XIII 2, 5 (twice), XIV 3, 31, 49 (twice). With recitation, dictating and circumscribing, by which we are forced to think of memory work, this is a comprehensible equalisation. In other places we find n as y\ X 2, XIV 3 (twice), 18, 50 (twice). As the pronunciation which may have been locally different, is unknown to us, there is little to say of which is rendered by The method of writing Zrjhm/u I 24 (twice), II 24, III 21, IV 3, 4, 12, is not explainable. Should one be primarily inclined to accept fx as addition between two vowels, an examination makes this subposition improbable, comp. Jos. XXII 9, 12, Judg. XXI 12, I Kings XIV 2. We also find the addition /i in other names, e.g. Jos. XV 44 B : y.eiï.a/i (A : xeïXö.) . The change of vowels is very often the result of a transposition of accent, e.g. I 1 Oevvava, I 3 Oiveec, by which an equalisation of toneless final vowels. The same weakening which we observed in the gutturals, we also find in being the spirant of the 3, as first letter, e.g. I 1, 3, II 27. The supposition of Kahle2, that the Masorites have determined the doublé pronunciation of nsDUD is not proved by b. Beraköt 15b. The conclusion that one is warned of the weakening of the exact pronunciation is in agreement with the line of development of the oral language. The other examples 1 Comp. St. Mark XV 34 oaflax&a.vi, x for p. • P. Kahle, "Masoreten des Westens" I page 48 et seq. THE SEPTUAGINTA - Proper names, the name of God quoted by Kahle indicate also this evolution, which is equally stated in other groups of languages. VI 9, 14, 18 vocalise nu without observing the etymology. nn is vocalised as status absolutus and the close connection with tyotp makes aafxvQ of this word, by the transposition of accent. The names in IV x, V 1, VI 21, VII 11, XIII 5, 18, XVI 1 and 4 are also of the same nature. The names of God. and their forms with suffix, prefix, copulative and in statu constructu occur in the part examined, seventy-three times. nini and its forms with prefix and copulative two hundred and five times. The Standard translation of DTi^N etc. is êsog, that of ni/T xvqioq. As in S no distinction exists between the two names. ■&eoq occurs equally as the translation of niiv : II 1, 24, III 7, IV 3, V 3, XIV 3, as xvQiog as dv^N : II 25, IV 22, V 2, VI 5, X 26, XI 6, XIV 15. The indirect manner of expression plays no part in G. Only once we find èvwmov aov instead of mriv I 11. Seven times &eog is added, of which three times in greater addition: V 11, XIV 41, XVI 7, see Plus, three times for extension af ter xvgiog : I 3, 20, XV 25 and once for elucidation IX 7. We find xvqioq twenty seven times more than in M of which it is nineteen times in greater addition, see Plus, seven times for extension: I 11, II 23, with "the people of Israël", VI 3 with^eog, VI 3, 13, 20 with the ark (of the Covenant), XIII 13 in connection with an alteration, see Difference, XIV 26 with "oath" and XVI 12. Not as a name of God I 8 for Elkana, XVI 16 for Saul. nw is missing seven times, twice with its context, I 28, II 8, comp. Minus, once in the doublé name ~pn!?t< nw XIII 13, further III 3 after temple , and VI 1, 8, 11 after "ark". is missing six times, IV 4, XIII 13 after "ark", XII 14 after mn\ XIV 18 replaced by ê aeXxa > aehaa ) laxifi > laveijx > lcl/lieiv ; eaaaxe/i > aaXa^ELfj,. By this Wutz determines that M has D»W incorrect, which should be trstatP. As one may also accept an exchange of places of ur and y (e) and consider K as a mistake for A, this explanation is equally possible : eaoaxe/j, > oeafa/j, by which M need not be altered. The alteration of 'J'ö* in laxtfi has against it, that in other places the literal translation does occur. On the grounds of this uncertainty we must determine that the alterations can not be explaind by a so-called technics of transcription. X 2 G has uaxo/ievovq jieyaxa instead of an enlargement which anticipates the stories to come, of the groups of prophets. The name of the place is therefore left out. XI 13, B*, has "Samuel instead of "Saul", also XI 15, by which the emphasis is laid on the fact that Samuel anoints the king and not the people. XII 11, as S, has Barak in the summing up of the judges, whilst Jerubba'al and Bedan are missing. XIII 3, XIV 21 translate oi öovkoi whilst M has nnnun, which XIII 7 translates literally ol dia^mvovreg. Probably we have here a wrong reading of 1 and 1 2. 1 F. Wutz, "Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus", Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament, ed. Kittel, N.F. Heft 9» Lieferung I 1925, Lf. II 1933. Page 15, 22 and 27. 2 I KingsVIIl34, 36, XVI 2 (Af), where SouAos for DV (the peopleof Israël) occurs, are explanatory alterations. THE SEPTUAGINTA - Minus XIII 18 reads tls an improvement or elucidation. Sapiv does not know the Masoretic vocalisation; it is not to be decided whether the guttural is not read. XIV 2 exchanges 1 and 1, comp. XIII 3. IV 21 and XIV 3 show difference in translation of the name "Ichabod": Oval paQ%a(}a>& and Icoxa^d. IV 21 does not understand the name and translates out of the meaning of the story. XIV 3 remains closer to the text. The uncertainty is shown from the variants. As in S the agreement with the rendering of the name Johebed is remarkable. XIV 15 gives a circumscribed explanation of the name min. XIV 18 has icpovö instead of "Ark of God", where the subordinate phrase, in M as well as in G is an explanatory note. We must accept the existence of more arks 1. G is hoe loco correcting in the sense of the later idea of the Ark. XV 3 and 8 read a proper name in the form of the verb tnn. XV 4 has èv FalyaXoit; instead of D^DD, a harmonisation with XIII 15. XV 15 reads A[iabjK in agreement with v. 18. Minus. We have already observed that the translators did not have literal rendering as motive for translation, but that the thread of the story was the cause for omissions, additions and differences. Herewith the following inaccuracies are connected in geographical particulars and definition of time. DC is missing in I 28, II 14, IV 4, VII 6, IX 6 and XI 15; inn bv II 11, mnun XIII 18, the second part of the name: Gibeat-Sauls XV 34, Dvn VI 18 and IX 9, mnao V 3, nW>n XIV 34. The diaspora does not regard these matters, as they do not blur the story. Weakening in the language has the result that the understanding of totality is not always more feit, viz: the omission of io I 4, II 22 (twice), IV 13, VI 4, VIII 4, 7, XI 2 and XV 6. We shall also find weakness with the collectives, comp. S. The article embraces, I 3 and II 16, besides the Hebrew article: Ninn and wsn, whilst IV 4, VI 13, IX 27, X 21 (twice) and XI 7 omit it entirely. IV 4 in this way weakens the concrete expression, the same as XI 7. VI 13 has thought of a status constructus-iorm, comp. the addition of xvqiov, by which IX 27 1 Comp. Arnold, "Ephod and Ark" Harv. Theol. Stud. III 1917. Dispute of Arnold's ideas by Budde Z.A.W. 1921. The equalisation Ark = Ephod remains very uncertain. THE SEPTUAGINTA - Minus and X 21, although wrongly, leave out the article. In I 1 the numeral is missing, as Greek does not give the quality of an article to a numeral, also VI 7* IX 26 omits DiTJitf, which M yet elucidates with "he and Samuel". G harmonises with v. 27, where there are three persons. XIII 1 is completely missing, thus avoiding the difficulty. 1 is missing in I 17, XIII 2, XIV 4, XV 3, and XVI 11, without altering the meaning. As in S, the Greek copulative does not always answer to the signification of}. III 14 lacks p!?l, as G reads p tól, xai ovö'ovTwg, which is combined with v. 13. The expression of activity run is missing in XIII 10, XV 12. Also x; in XV 30. IV 2 omits 3 (about) from before the numeral. The places where '3 is not rendered are more important: II 1 weakens the style. IX 12 makes the story more probable in a logical sense by the omission of "ïnö (wherefore the haste?). The surprising part of the story however is somewhat lost. X 1 gives an elucidatory addition for which '3 is the motive, but by which the direct expression is blurred. XII 21 makes the text more fluent, but at the same time poorer, by leaving out this small word, as it just takes a remarkable and independent place as a partiele of emphasis, a significance which ensues from the causal con- junction. Also XIII 6. In II 23 the second is missing, a correction or mistake caused by the word following. II 27 translates freely and omits, with regard to the clearness, the superfluous vbx, whereas the interrogative partiele must remain silent for the frequent strengthening manner of expression : infin. absol. plus verb. finitum. Rational alteration therefore in a grammatical sense, as in Tg. II 28 weakens the plasticity by omitting III 4 omits ^ and makes the calling by Jahu similar to the following. III 18 is in one luie with II 27, also IV 3, where the omission of causes a more business-like method of narrating, IX 13, 18, 20, where aov has already been put, XII 12, XIII 9. IX 10 omits the suffix of tot to be understood by the other alterations in the attitude between Saul and the little servant, see below and comp. S. X 7 lacks the dativus ethicus-, possibly this omission is brought about by the preceding "|V. XIV 7 also, where the omission is connected with the free translation. X 19 weakens the text by leavmg out the suffix with êeog, whilst the following explanation of the name of THE SEPTUAGINTA - Minus God is plus suffix. In the same manner XIII 13, where still greater changes take place; see below. X 21 corrects by not translating the suffix of nnsitfD. Further omissions are as follows: I 5 lacks D'SN which, according to M, belongs to nnN. The added sentence indicates the emergency-solution of G. nXr]v (ort) is no translation of '3 D2N but a result of the addition. I 9 lacks "and af ter the drinking", for which the gradual transition to the folio wing story comes in its place. I 11 simplifies Hannah's prayer by omitting "and not forget thine handmaid", without damaging the sense. I 16 lacks 'DV31 possibly due to the alteration. I 22 is a link lost in the narrating : VPtom. I 24 misses the emphasis on the being "full-grown" of Samuel; G indicates the father as the leading figure who also slaughters and sacrifices. In I 28 nirvi» ovr ïnnun is missing in order to make as little separation as possible between Hannah's words. II 2 misses "]rt>3 fN 13, v. 3 the second nnru; v. 8b, v. 10a and b show also omissions and additions which are evidence for the circumscription of this poetical part. II 13 translates nif nar merely by ■dvovTeg. II 14 misses the name of an utensil in the summing up. II 15 omits Tl DN-,3, possibly with reference to the Pentateuch. In II 17 the nuance is lost, that the sin is not actually committed by the Dnyj but by the sons of the priest, as OTONn is omitted. II 21 lacks the technical term "inrn, in Hebrew a Standard combination : -&ni mm. I 22b is completely missing, possibly a compromising sin in the time and the country of the translator(s). In connection with this II 23 omits o^in D3nn nN. II 30 weakens the expression by omitting the infin. absol. II 31b and 32a show an omission, which may have its origin in the difficulty and undesireability of tiyö *ix, or in the repetition of "jrv33 ]pf. In II 36 Dnï>—|33l is missing, probably in connection with the repetition in the oratio directa at the end of the verse. III 6 lacks Dp1l, where the addition "Samuel" is connected with and so breaks the Standard combination : 1^1 op1!. At the same time the translation blurs '33 into