Page:02.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.A.vol.2.EarlyProphets.djvu/620

This page needs to be proofread.

one, viz., that Samuel “talked with Saul concerning the deep religious and political degradation of the people of God, the oppression of the heathen, the causes of the inability of the Israelites to stand against these foes, the necessity for a conversion of the people, and the want of a leader who was entirely devoted to the Lord.”^[1]

Verses 26-27

“And they rose up early in

↑ For הגּג על עם־שׁאוּל וידבּר the lxx have καὶ διέστρωσαν τῷ Σαοὺλ ἐπι τῷ δώματι καὶ ἐκοιμήθη, “they prepared Saul a bed upon the house, and he slept,” from which Clericus conjectured that these translators had read לשאול וירבדו (וירבּדוּ or ויּרבּדוּ); and Ewald and Thenius propose to alter the Hebrew text in this way. But although וגו ויּשׁכּימוּ (1Sa 9:26) no doubt presupposes that Saul had slept in Samuel's house, and in fact upon the roof, the remark of Thenius, “that the private conversation upon the roof (1Sa 9:25) comes too early, as Saul did not yet know, and was not to learn till the following day, what was about to take place,” does not supply any valid objection to the correctness of the Masoretic text, or any argument in favour of the Septuagint rendering or interpretation, since it rests upon an altogether unfounded and erroneous assumption, viz., that Samuel had talked with Saul about his call to the throne. Moreover, “the strangeness” of the statement in 1Sa 9:26, “they rose up early,” and then “when the morning dawned, Samuel called,” etc., cannot possibly throw any suspicion upon the integrity of the Hebrew text, as this “strangeness” vanishes when we take וגו כּעלות ויהי as a more precise definition of ויּשׁכּימוּ. The Septuagint translators evidently held the same opinion as their modern defenders. They took offence at Samuel's private conversation with Saul, because he did not make known to him the word of God concerning his call to the throne till the next morning; and, on the other hand, as their rising the next morning is mentioned in 1Sa 9:26, they felt the absence of any allusion to their sleeping, and consequently not only interpreted ידבר by a conjectural emendation as standing for ירבד rof, because מרבדּים רבד is used in Pro 7:16 to signify the spreading of mats or carpets for a bed, but also identified וישׁכמו with ישׁכבו, and rendered it ἐκοιμήθη. At the same time, they did not reflect that the preparation of the bed and their sleeping during the night were both of them matters of course, and there was consequently no necessity to mention them; whereas Samuel's talking with Saul upon the roof was a matter of importance in relation to the whole affair, and one which could not be passed over in silence. Moreover, the correctness of the Hebrew text is confirmed by all the other ancient versions. Not only do the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic follow the Masoretic text, but Jerome does the same in the rendering adopted by him, “Et locutus est cum Saule in solario. Cumque mane surrexissent;” though the words “stravitque Saul in solario et dormivit” have been interpolated probably from the Itala into the text of the Vulgate which has come down to us.

[1] For הגּג על עם־שׁאוּל וידבּר the lxx have καὶ διέστρωσαν τῷ Σαοὺλ ἐπι τῷ δώματι καὶ ἐκοιμήθη, “they prepared Saul a bed upon the house, and he slept,” from which Clericus conjectured that these translators had read לשאול וירבדו (וירבּדוּ or ויּרבּדוּ); and Ewald and Thenius propose to alter the Hebrew text in this way. But although וגו ויּשׁכּימוּ (1Sa 9:26) no doubt presupposes that Saul had slept in Samuel's house, and in fact upon the roof, the remark of Thenius, “that the private conversation upon the roof (1Sa 9:25) comes too early, as Saul did not yet know, and was not to learn till the following day, what was about to take place,” does not supply any valid objection to the correctness of the Masoretic text, or any argument in favour of the Septuagint rendering or interpretation, since it rests upon an altogether unfounded and erroneous assumption, viz., that Samuel had talked with Saul about his call to the throne. Moreover, “the strangeness” of the statement in 1Sa 9:26, “they rose up early,” and then “when the morning dawned, Samuel called,” etc., cannot possibly throw any suspicion upon the integrity of the Hebrew text, as this “strangeness” vanishes when we take וגו כּעלות ויהי as a more precise definition of ויּשׁכּימוּ. The Septuagint translators evidently held the same opinion as their modern defenders. They took offence at Samuel's private conversation with Saul, because he did not make known to him the word of God concerning his call to the throne till the next morning; and, on the other hand, as their rising the next morning is mentioned in 1Sa 9:26, they felt the absence of any allusion to their sleeping, and consequently not only interpreted ידבר by a conjectural emendation as standing for ירבד rof, because מרבדּים רבד is used in Pro 7:16 to signify the spreading of mats or carpets for a bed, but also identified וישׁכמו with ישׁכבו, and rendered it ἐκοιμήθη. At the same time, they did not reflect that the preparation of the bed and their sleeping during the night were both of them matters of course, and there was consequently no necessity to mention them; whereas Samuel's talking with Saul upon the roof was a matter of importance in relation to the whole affair, and one which could not be passed over in silence. Moreover, the correctness of the Hebrew text is confirmed by all the other ancient versions. Not only do the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic follow the Masoretic text, but Jerome does the same in the rendering adopted by him, “Et locutus est cum Saule in solario. Cumque mane surrexissent;” though the words “stravitque Saul in solario et dormivit” have been interpolated probably from the Itala into the text of the Vulgate which has come down to us.

[1]