correct so far as the sense is concerned, but it is quite unnecessary, as ישׁאל may be taken impersonally. האלהים בּדבר שׁאל is to be explained from the formula בּעלהים שׁאל (see at Jdg 1:1).
Chap. 17
Verses 1-3
2Sa 17:1-3Ahithophel's advice frustrated by Hushai. - 2Sa 17:1-3. Ahithophel said still further to Absalom, “I will choose out twelve thousand men, and arise, and pursue after David this night; and fall upon him when he is exhausted and weak, and fill him with alarm: so shall all the people that are with him flee; and I will smite the king alone (when he is alone), and will bring back all the people to thee.” הלּילה, the night, is the night following the day of David's flight and Absalom's entrance into Jerusalem, as we may see very clearly from 2Sa 17:16. This advice was sagaciously conceived; for if David had been attacked that night by a powerful army, he might possibly have been defeated. אשׁיבה, to bring back, may be explained on the supposition that Ahithophel regarded Absalom as king, and those who had fled with David as rebels, who were to be brought back under Absalom's sceptre. The following words, וגו הכּל כּשׁוּב, “as the return of the whole (the whole nation)is the man,” i.e., the return of all is dependent upon David, for whom thou liest in wait, are somewhat difficult, though the meaning of Ahithophel is evident enough from what precedes: viz., if he is beaten, they will all come over to thee; “the whole nation will be at peace” (שׁלוּם is used adverbially).[1]
Verses 4-5
Although this advice pleased Absalom and all the elders of Israel (present), Absalom sent for Hushai the Archite to hear his opinion. גּם־הוּא serves to strengthen the suffix in בּפיו (cf. Ewald, §311, a.).
Verses 6-9
In answer to Absalom's inquiry, “Shall we do his word (i.e., follow Ahithophel's advice) or not?” Hushai said, “The advice is not good that Ahithophel hath given this time;” and then still further explained (2Sa 17:8):
- ↑ Consequently no conjectures are needed as to the rendering of the words in the lxx, viz., καθὼς (al. ὅν τρόπον) ἐπιστρέρει ἡ νύμφη πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς· πλὴν ψυχὴν ἀνδρὸς ἑνὸς σὺ ζητεῖς, such as Ewald, Thenius, and Böttcher have attempted. For it is very obvious that ἡ νύμφη πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς owes its origin simply to a false reading of האישׁ הכּל as אישׁ הכּלּה, and that πλὴν ψυχὴν ἀνδρὸς ἑνός has been interpolated by way of explanation from nothing but conjecture. No other of the ancient versions contains the slightest trace of a different reading from that given in the text.
