¹ tn Heb “from days to days.”
²tn The exact sense of the Hebrew word áappayim (“two faces”) is not certain here. It most likely is used with the preceding expression (“one portion of two faces”) to mean a portion double that normally received. Although evidence for this use of the word derives primarily from Aramaic rather than from Hebrew usage, it provides an understanding that fits the context here better than other suggestions for the word do. The meaning “double” is therefore adopted in the translation above. Other possibilities for the meaning of the word include the following: “heavily” (cf. Vg, tristis) and “worthy” or “choice” (cf. KJV and Targum). Some scholars have followed the LXX here, emending the word to áepes and translating it as “but” or “however.” This seems unnecessary. The translators of the LXX may simply have been struggling to make sense of the word rather than following a Hebrew text that was different from MT here.
³tn Heb “Hannah.” Repetition of the proper name would seem redundant in contemporary English, so the pronoun (“her”) has been used in the translation.
⁴tn Heb “the LORD had closed her womb.” So also in v. 6.
⁵tn MT has a masculine form of the verb here (ya`aseh, “he used to do”); the subject in that case would presumably be Elkanah. But this leads to an abrupt change of subject in the following part of the verse, where the subject is the rival wife who caused Hannah anxiety. In light of v. 6 one expects the statement of v. 7 to refer to the ongoing actions of the rival wife: “she used to behave in this way year after year.” Some scholars have proposed retaining the masculine form but changing the vocalization of the verb so as to read a niphal rather than a qal (i.e., ye`aseh, “so it used to be done”). But the problem here is lack of precedent for such a use of the niphal of this verb. It seems best in light of the context to understand the reference to be to Hannah’s rival Peninnah and to read here with the Syriac Peshitta a feminine form of the verb (“she used to do”). In the translation the referent (Peninnah) has been specified for clarity.
⁶tn Heb “she”; the referent (Hannah) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁷tn Heb “she”; the referent (Peninnah) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁸tn Heb “why is your heart displeased?”
⁹sn Like the number seven, the number ten is sometimes used in the OT as an ideal number (cf., e.g., Dan 1:20, Zech 8:23).
¹⁰tc The LXX adds “and stood before the Lord,” but this is probably a textual expansion due to the terseness of the statement in the Hebrew text.
¹¹tn Or perhaps, “on his throne.” See Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §137f.
¹²tn Heb “bitterness of soul.”
¹³tn Heb “seed of men.”
¹⁴tn Heb “a razor will not go up upon his head.”
¹⁵tn Heb “Eli.” The pronoun (“he”) has been used in the translation in keeping with contemporary English style.
¹⁶tn Heb “No.”
¹⁷tn Heb “I am a woman difficult of spirit.” The LXX has “for whom the day is difficult,” apparently mistaking the Hebrew word for “spirit” (ruah) to be the word for “day” (yom) through graphic confusion of the letters res and yod and het and mem.
¹⁸tn Several medieval Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac Peshitta lack the words “and got something to eat.”
¹⁹tn Heb “knew.”
²⁰sn The Lord “remembered” her in the sense of granting her earlier request for a child. The Hebrew word zakar is often used in the OT for considering the needs or desires of people with favor and kindness.
²¹tn The explanation of the meaning of the name “Samuel” that is provided in v. 20 is not a strict etymology. It seems to suggest that the first part of the name is derived from the Hebrew root s’l (“to ask”), but the consonants do not support this. Nor is it likely that the name comes from the root sm` (“to hear”), for the same reason. It more probably derives from sem (“name”), so that “Samuel” means “name of God.” V. 20 therefore does not set forth a linguistic explanation of the meaning of the name, but rather draws a parallel between similar sounds. This figure of speech is known as paronomasia. (Cf. explanations of other biblical names, e.g. Moses, Babel, etc.)
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “what is good in your eyes.”
<sup>23</sup>sn The ephah was a standard dry measure in OT times; it was the equivalent of one-tenth of the OT measure known as a homer. The ephah was equal to approximately one-half to two-thirds of a bushel.
<sup>24</sup>tc The text is difficult here. MT has literally “and the boy was a boy.” If MT is correct the meaning apparently is that the boy was quite young at the time of these events. On the other hand, some scholars have suspected a textual problem, emending the text to read either “and the boy was with them” (so LXX) or “and the boy was with her” (a conjectural emendation). In spite of the difficulty it seems best to stay with MT here.
<sup>1</sup>sn Horns of animals have always functioned for them both as offensive and as defensive weapons. As a figure of speech the horn is therefore often used in the Bible as a symbol of human strength. So also in v. 10. The allusion in v. 1 to the horn being lifted high suggests a picture of an animal elevating its head in a display of strength or virility.
<sup>2</sup>tn The LXX has “and there is none righteous like our God,” apparently mistaking Hebrew sur (“rock”) for saddiq (“righteous”).
<sup>3</sup>tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts welo (“to him”) rather than weloá (“and not”) of the kethib and MT. Cf. LXX and Vg.
<sup>4</sup>tc Against BHS but with MT, read àad (“unto”) with what follows rather than with what precedes. For àad with the sense of “even” see Job 25:5.
<sup>5</sup>sn The number seven is used here in an ideal sense. Elsewhere in the OT having seven children is an evidence of fertility as a result of God’s blessing on the family. See, for example, Jer 15:9, Ruth 4:15.
<sup>6</sup>tn Heb “a seat of honor.”
<sup>7</sup>tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts the plural hasidayw (“his holy ones”) rather than the singular hasido (“his holy one”) of the kethib and MT.
<sup>8</sup>tc Read with the qere, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg the plural meribayw (“his adversaries”) rather than the singular meribo (“his adversary”) of the kethib and MT. Cf. the Syriac Peshitta and Vg.
<sup>9</sup>tc The LXX greatly expands v. 10 with an addition that seems to be taken from Jer 9:23-24.
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “the face of.”
<sup>11</sup>sn The Hebrew word mazleg occurs only twice in the OT, here and again in v. 14. Its exact meaning is not entirely clear, although from the context it appears to be a sacrificial tool used for retrieving things from boiling water.
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “living.”
<sup>13</sup>tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts loá (“no”) rather than the kethib and MT lo (“to him”).
<sup>14</sup>tc The words “these men” are absent from one medieval Hebrew manuscript, a Qumran manuscript, and the LXX.
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb “seed.”
<sup>16</sup>tn MT has a masculine verb here, but in light of the context the reference must be to Hannah. It is possible that the text of MT is incorrect here (cf. the ancient versions), in which case the text should be changed to read either a passive participle or better, the third feminine singular of the verb. If MT is correct here, perhaps the masculine is to be understood in a non-specific and impersonal way, allowing for a feminine antecedent. In any case, the syntax of MT is unusual here.
<sup>17</sup>tn Heb “his.”
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “with the LORD.”
<sup>19</sup>tn Heb “lie with.”
<sup>20</sup>tc For “these” (Hebrew áelleh) the LXX has “of the Lord” (Greek kuriou), perhaps through the influence of the final phrase of v. 24 (“the people of the LORD”). Somewhat less likely is the view that MT áelleh (“these”) is due to a distorted dittography of the first word of v. 24 (àal). Vg lacks the word.
<sup>21</sup>tn I.e., your father.
<sup>22</sup>tc MT has a plural “you” here, but the LXX and a Qumran manuscript have the singular. The singular is likely the correct reading; the verb “you have honored” later in the verse is singular even in MT.
<sup>23</sup>tn Heb “chop off your arm.”
<sup>24</sup>tc The LXX and a Qumran manuscript have the first person pronoun “my” here.
<sup>25</sup>tc The LXX, a Qumran manuscript, and a couple of old Latin manuscripts have the third person pronominal suffix “his” here.
<sup>26</sup>tn Heb “all the increase.”
<sup>27</sup>tn The text is difficult. MT literally says “they will die (as) men.” Apparently the meaning is that they will be cut off in the prime of their life without reaching old age. The LXX and a Qumran manuscript, however, have the additional word “sword” (“they will die by the sword of men”). This is an easier reading, but that fact is not in favor of its originality.
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “before Eli.”
<sup>2</sup>tc MT has wehiggadti lo. The verb is hiphil perfect 1cs, and apparently it should be understood as waw consecutive (“I will say to him”). But the future reference makes more sense if Samuel is the subject. This would require dropping the final yod and reading the 2ms wehiggadta. Although there is no external evidence to support it, this reading has been adopted in the translation. The alternative is to understand MT to mean “I said to him,” but for this we would expect the preterite with waw consecutive.
<sup>3</sup>tn The translation adopted above understands the preposition to have a causal sense. However, the preposition could also be understood as the beth pretii, indicating in a broad sense the price attached to this action. So GKC, §119p.
<sup>4</sup>tc Read with the LXX áelohim (“God”) rather than MT lahem (“to them”). MT seems to mean “they were bringing a curse on themselves.” But this meaning is problematic in part because the verb qll means “to curse,” not “to bring a curse on,” and in part because it takes an accusative object rather than the equivalent of a dative. This is one of the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or emendations of the scribes. The alleged reason that the ancient copyists altered the original statement about Eli’s sons cursing God to the less objectionable statement that they brought a curse on themselves was this: the scribes were concerned that such a direct and blasphemous affront against God could occur without an immediate response of judgment from God. They say that they therefore changed the text by deleting two letters (aleph and yod) from the word for “God,” with the result that the text then read “to them.” If this ancient scribal claim be accepted as accurate, it implies that MT here is secondary. The translation adopted above follows the LXX (Greek kakologountes theon) and a few manuscripts of the Old Latin in reading “God” rather than MT “to them.”
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “what is good in his eyes.”
<sup>2</sup>tc The LXX has a lengthy addition here: “And Samuel was acknowledged to be a prophet of the LORD in all Israel, from one end to the other. Eli was very old and, as for his sons, their way kept getting worse and worse before the LORD.” The Hebraic nature of the Greek syntax used here suggests that the LXX translator was accurately rendering a Hebrew variant and not simply expanding the text on his own initiative.
<sup>3</sup>tn The chapter division at this point is inappropriate. 1 Sam 4:1a is best understood as the conclusion to chap. 3 rather than the beginning of chap. 4.
<sup>4</sup>tn The translation adopted above understands the expression “the word of Samuel” as a subjective genitive (i.e., the word Samuel spoke), although it conceivably could be an objective genitive (i.e., the report about Samuel).
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “the stone, the help.” The second noun is in apposition to the first one and apparently is the name by which the stone was known. Cf. 5:1 and 7:12, where the first word of this expression lacks the definite article, unlike 4:1 where it has the article.
<sup>6</sup>tn MT has wattitos, from the root nts. This verb normally means “to leave,” “forsake,” or “permit,” but such an idea does not fit this context very well. Many scholars have suspected that the text originally read either wattet (“and it spread out”), from the root nth, or wattiqes (“and it grew fierce”), from the root qsh. The former suggestion is apparently supported by the LXX (eklinen, “it inclined”) and is adopted in the translation above.
<sup>7</sup>tn I.e., the Philistines.
<sup>8</sup>tn Or perhaps, “the same day.” On this use of the demonstrative pronoun see Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §143f.
<sup>9</sup>tc Read with many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the qere, and much versional evidence yad (“hand”) rather than MT yak.
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “his heart was trembling.”
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “set” or “fixed,” without vision.
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “place her heart.”
<sup>1</sup>tc The LXX adds “and they entered the temple of Dagon and saw.”
<sup>2</sup>tc MT has simply “Dagon” here, which does not seem to fit the context very well. We should probably read the word gew (“back”) before Dagon, understanding it to have the sense of the similar word gewiyya (“body”). This variant is supported by the following evidence: the LXX has he rachis (“the back” or “trunk”); the Syriac Peshitta has wegusmeh (“and the body of”); the Targum has gupyeh (“the body of”); Vg has truncus (“the trunk of”). On the strength of this evidence the translation adopted above reads “Dagon’s body.”
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “the hand of the LORD was heavy.”
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “from small and to great.”
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “to me.”
<sup>6</sup>tn Heb “my.”
<sup>7</sup>tn Heb “me.”
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “my.”
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “field.”
<sup>2</sup>tc The LXX adds “and their land swarmed with mice.”
<sup>3</sup>tc The LXX and a Qumran manuscript add “the covenant of the LORD.”
<sup>4</sup>tc The number 50,070 is surprisingly large, although it finds almost unanimous textual support in MT and in the ancient versions. Only a few medieval Hebrew manuscripts lack “50,000,” reading simply “70” instead. However, there does not seem to be sufficient external evidence to warrant reading 70 rather than 50,070. The translation adopted above reluctantly follows MT and the ancient versions here.
<sup>1</sup>sn The Semitic goddess Ashtart was associated with love and war in the ancient Near East. The presence of Ashtarot in Israel is a sign of pervasive pagan and idolatrous influences; hence Samuel calls for their removal. Cf. 1 Sam 31:10, where the Philistines deposit the armor of the deceased Saul in the temple of the Ashtarot, and 1 Kgs 11:5, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13, where Solomon is faulted for worshipping the Ashtarot.
<sup>2</sup>tc The LXX has “your God” rather than MT “our God.”
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “a lamb of milk.”
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “hand.”
<sup>1</sup>tc The numbers of v. 12 are confused in the Greek and Syriac versions. For “fifties” the LXX has “hundreds.” The Syriac Peshitta has “heads of thousands and heads of hundreds and heads of fifties and heads of tens,” perhaps reflecting influence from Deut 1:15.
<sup>2</sup>tc The LXX adds “because you have chosen for yourselves a king.”
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “and arise, go.”
<sup>2</sup>tc The Syriac Peshitta includes the following words: “So Saul arose and went out. He took with him one of the boys and went out to look for his father’s donkeys.”
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “our way on which we have gone.”
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “your word is good.”
<sup>5</sup>tc MT has a “him” (Hebrew ’oto) here, in addition to the “him” at the end of the verse. The ancient versions attest to only one occurrence of the pronoun, although it is possible that this is due to translation technique rather than to their having a Hebrew text with the pronoun used only once. The translation adopted above assumes textual duplication in MT and does not attempt to represent the pronoun twice. However, for a defense of MT here, with the suggested translation “for him just now—you will find him,” see S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2d ed. (1912; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1984), 72-73.
<sup>6</sup>tn Heb “to meet them.”
<sup>7</sup>tn Heb “uncovered the ear.”
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “all that is in your heart.”
<sup>9</sup>tn I.e., Samuel.
<sup>10</sup>tc This statement is absent in the LXX (with the exception of Origen), an Old Latin manuscript, and the Syriac Peshitta.
<sup>1</sup>sn I.e., Samuel poured the oil on Saul’s head.
<sup>2</sup>tc The words from “over his people Israel” through the words “as leader” at the end of the verse are not found in MT. However, these words are found in the LXX and in one manuscript of the Old Latin. It appears that the LXX preserves here a better text than MT, which likely has lost a portion of the original Hebrew text. MT apparently suffers from parablepsis, whereby a scribe’s eye jumped from the first occurrence of the word “leader” to the second occurrence of this word at the end of v. 1. This caused in MT the accidental omission of the intervening material. The translation adopted above follows the LXX for the recovery of this material absent in MT.
<sup>3</sup>sn In the Hebrew text the pronoun you is plural, implying a reference not only to Saul but also to those who were with him as well.
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “What shall I do with regard to my son?”
<sup>5</sup>tn I.e., Saul.
<sup>6</sup>tn Heb “turned his shoulder.”
<sup>7</sup>tn “God turned for him another heart.”
<sup>8</sup>tc A couple of medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the LXX, and the Syriac Peshitta have the singular “he” rather than the plural “they.”
<sup>9</sup>tn Heb “And we saw that they were not.”
<sup>10</sup>tc In the LXX and Vg the pronoun “you” is singular, referring specifically to Saul. In MT it is plural, including those who were with Saul as well.
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “hand.” So again later in this verse.
<sup>12</sup>tc Read with many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg loá (“not”) rather than MT lo (“to him”). Some witnesses combine the variants, resulting in a conflate text. For example, a few medieval Hebrew manuscripts have lo loá (“to him, ‘No.’”). A few others have li loá (“to me, ‘No.’”).
<sup>13</sup>tn Heb “the judgment of the kingship.”
<sup>14</sup>tc In place of MT kemaharis (“like one being silent”) the LXX has “after about a month” (hos meta mena), taking the expression with the first part of the following chapter rather than with 10:27. Some Hebrew support for this reading appears in the corrected hand of a Qumran manuscript of Samuel, which has here kemo hodes (“about a month”). However, it seems best to stay with MT here even though it is difficult.
<sup>1</sup>tc 4QSam<sup>a</sup> and Josephus (Antiquities 6.68-71) attest to a longer form of text at this point. The addition explains the practice of enemy mutilation followed by Nahash king of the Ammonites, and by so doing provides a smoother transition to the following paragraph than is found in MT. NRSV adopts this reading, with the following English translation: “Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.” This reading should not be lightly dismissed; it may in fact provide a text superior here to that of MT and the ancient versions. But the external evidence for it is so limited as to induce caution; the translation adopted above instead follows MT here. However, for a reasonable case for including this reading in the text see the following discussions: P. Kyle McCarter Jr., I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB 8, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 199, and Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary 10 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 103.
<sup>2</sup>tn Heb “lifted their voice and wept.”
<sup>3</sup>tn Or perhaps, “his oxen.” On this use of the definite article see Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §137f.
<sup>4</sup>tc The LXX and a couple of Old Latin manuscripts have 600,000 here, rather than MT 300,000.
<sup>5</sup>tc The LXX, a couple of Old Latin manuscripts, and a Qumran manuscript have 70,000 here, rather than MT 30,000.
<sup>6</sup>tn Heb “according to all that is good in your eyes.”
<sup>7</sup>tn Heb “Amon.”
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “listened to your voice.”
<sup>2</sup>tn Jerub-Baal is also known as Gideon (cf. Judg 6:32). The Book of Judges uses both names for him.
<sup>3</sup>tc MT has “Bedan” here. But a deliverer by this name is not elsewhere mentioned in the OT. With the LXX and the Syriac Peshitta we should probably read “Barak.”
<sup>4</sup>tc In the ancient versions there is some confusion with regard to these names, both with regard to the particular names selected for mention and with regard to the order of their mention. For example, the LXX has “Jerub-Baal, Barak, Jephthah, and Samuel.” But the Targum has “Gideon, Samson, Jephthah, and Samuel,” while the Syriac Peshitta has “Deborah, Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson.”
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “the mouth of the LORD.” So also in v. 15.
<sup>6</sup>tc The LXX has “your king” rather than MT “your fathers,” perhaps through influence from v. 14.
<sup>7</sup>tn Heb “swept away.”
<sup>1</sup>tc MT does not have “thirty.” A number appears to have dropped out of the Hebrew text here, since as it stands MT (lit., “a son of a year”) must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign. But such an age is contrary to the entire narrative of Saul’s activities. Although most LXX manuscripts lack the entire verse, some Greek manuscripts have “thirty years” here (while others have “one year”). The Syriac Peshitta, on the other hand, has Saul’s age as twenty-one here. But this seems impossible to harmonize with the implied age of Saul’s son Jonathan in the following verse. Taking into account the fact that in v. 2 Jonathan was old enough to be a military leader, some scholars prefer to supply in v. 1 the number forty. Whatever solution is proposed, the one thing that is clear is that MT is not likely to be correct here. The translation adopted above (“thirty”) is a possible but admittedly uncertain proposal.
<sup>2</sup>tc MT has “two years” here. If this number is to be accepted as correct, the meaning apparently would be that after a lapse of two years at the beginning of Saul’s reign, he then went about the task of consolidating an army as described in what follows. But if the statement in v. 1 is intended to be a comprehensive report on the length of Saul’s reign, the number is too small. According to Acts 13:21 Saul reigned for forty years. NIV, taking this forty to be a round number, adds it to the “two years” of MT and translates the number in 2 Sam 13:1 as “forty-two years.” While this is an acceptable option, the translation adopted above instead replaces MT’s “two” with the figure “forty.” Admittedly the textual evidence for this decision is weak, but the same can be said of any attempt to restore sense to this difficult text. The Syriac Peshitta lacks this part of v. 1.
<sup>3</sup>sn The reference to Israel “stinking” is figurative language to describe the repulsion that the Philistines felt against Israel as a result of this military incursion. The figure of speech is verbal hypocatastasis.
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “said.”
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “commanded.”
<sup>6</sup>tc The LXX and a couple of Old Latin manuscripts include the following words here: “on his way. And the rest of the people went up after Saul to meet the warring army. When they arrived from Gilgal…”
<sup>7</sup>tc Read with the LXX “their sickle” (to drepanon autou) rather than MT “plowshares,” which is a dittograph from earlier in the verse.
<sup>8</sup>tn The Hebrew expression used here (happesirah pim) is difficult for a number of reasons. First, this is the only place in the OT where the word pesirah occurs, and its meaning is very obscure. The idea of “bluntness” or “dullness” is a guess based on the context. In the absence of other occurrences of the word it is difficult to know exactly what to make of the word. Second, the word that follows it (pim) is apparently the plural for peh (“face”), but the plural of this word elsewhere takes a feminine rather than a masculine ending (piyyot or peyot or pipiyot, rather than pim). This is the singular occurrence of the plural of this word with a masculine ending. Third, if the words are in the construct relationship we should expect pesirat rather than pesirah, although this problem can perhaps be resolved by taking the feminine ending of this word to be in reality the definite article for the following word. In that case it is a matter of wrong word division on the part of copyists. With all things considered an element of doubt attaches to the expression so far as its meaning is concerned.
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “do.”
<sup>2</sup>tn Heb “in your heart.”
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “according to your heart.”
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “stand.”
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “a thing.”
<sup>6</sup>tn The Hebrew phrase used here is literally “the dread of God.” The translation adopted above understands this to mean that God was the source or cause of the dread experienced by the Philistines. This seems to be the most straightforward reading of the sentence. It is possible, however, that the word “God” functions here simply to intensify the accompanying word “dread,” in which case the meaning is instead “a very great panic.” It is clear that on some occasions in the OT references to God carry such a superlative nuance. For examples see Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. T. Muraoka, 2 vols., Subsidia biblica 14/1, 2 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991) §141n.
<sup>7</sup>tc The LXX includes the following words: “And all the people were with Saul, about ten thousand men. And the battle extended to the entire city on mount Ephraim.”
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “all the land.”
<sup>9</sup>tn Heb “the face of the field.”
<sup>10</sup>tc Read with the qere and several medieval Hebrew manuscripts wattaáornah (“and they beamed”) rather than MT wattiráenah (“and they saw”).
<sup>11</sup>tc The LXX has “saw” (eidon). Cf. v. 27.
<sup>12</sup>tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts wayya`at (“and they darted on”) rather than MT wayya`as (“and they did”).
<sup>13</sup>tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts hassalal (“the spoil”) rather than MT salal (“spoil”).
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “all that is good in your eyes.” So also in v. 40.
<sup>15</sup>tc The LXX includes the following words: “Whomever the Lord will indicate by the lot, let him die! And the people said to Saul, ‘It is not this word.’ But Saul prevailed over the people, and they cast lots between him and between Jonathan his son.”
<sup>16</sup>tn The wording here is such that apparently Jonathan is acquiescing to his anticipated fate of death. However, the words can also be understood as a question, “Must I now die?” (cf. NIV). In light of the context the former possibility seems more likely.
<sup>17</sup>tc Read with the LXX yiwwasea` (“he was delivered”) rather than MT yarsia` (“he acted wickedly”).
<sup>18</sup>tn In MT “son” is singular, referring only to Ner as the son of Ariel. But cf. 1 Sam 9:1, where Kish is also said to be a son of Abiel (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 6.130). Some scholars have wondered whether the text should read the plural “sons” here rather than the singular of MT.
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “the voice of the words of the LORD.”
<sup>2</sup>tn Heb “caused to hear.”
<sup>3</sup>tc The LXX has the plural here, “cities.”
<sup>4</sup>tc Read with the LXX and Vg wayyaáreb (“and he set an ambush,” from the root árb with quiesence of aleph) rather than MT wayyareb (“and he contended,” from the root ryb).
<sup>5</sup>tc Read with the Syriac Peshitta and Vg áespeka (“I sweep you away,” from the root sph) rather than MT áosipeka (“I am gathering you,” from the root ásp).
<sup>6</sup>tn Heb “your coming to.”
<sup>7</sup>tn The Hebrew text is difficult here. We should probably read wehammasmannim (“the fat ones”) rather than MT wehammisnim (“the second ones”). However, if MT is retained the sense may be as the Jewish commentator Kimchi supposed: the second-born young, thought to be better than the firstlings. (For discussion see S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 123-24.)
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “good.”
<sup>9</sup>tc MT has here the very odd form nemibza, but this is apparently due to a scribal error. Read instead the niphal participle nibza.
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “he turned and crossed over.”
<sup>11</sup>tc At the end of v. 12 the LXX and one Old Latin manuscript include the following words not found in MT: “to Saul. And behold, he was offering as a burnt offering to the LORD the best of the spoils that he had brought from the Amalekites.”
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “Saul.”
<sup>13</sup>tc Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts the singular (“he said”) rather than the plural (“they said”) of the kethib.
<sup>14</sup>tc Read with the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Targum the second person singular suffix (“you”) rather than the third person plural suffix of MT (“they”).
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb “the voice of the LORD.”
<sup>16</sup>tn The words “is better than” are not in the Hebrew text.
<sup>17</sup>tn Heb “the mouth of the LORD.”
<sup>18</sup>tn I.e., Saul. A Qumran manuscript and the LXX in fact include the word “Saul.”
<sup>19</sup>tn I.e., Saul.
<sup>20</sup>tn MT ma`adannot (lit., “bonds,” used here adverbially, “in bonds”) is difficult. The word is found only here and in Job 38:31. Part of the problem lies in determining the root of the word. Some scholars have taken it to be from the root `nd (“to bind around”), but this assumes a metathesis of two of the letters of the root. Others take it from the root `dn with the meaning “voluptuously,” but this does not seem to fit the context. It seems better to understand the word to be from the root m`d (“to totter” or “shake”). In that case it describes the fear that Agag experienced in realizing the mortal danger that he was in as he approached Samuel. This is the way that the LXX translators understood the word, rendering it by the Greek participle tremon (“trembling”).
<sup>21</sup>tn Heb “and Agag said.”
<sup>22</sup>tc The text is difficult here. With the LXX, a couple of Old Latin manuscripts, and the Syriac Peshitta we should probably delete sar (“is past”) of MT; it looks suspiciously like a dittograph of the following word (mar, “bitter”). This further affects the interpretation of Agag’s comment. In MT he comes to Samuel confidently assured that the danger is over (cf. KJV and NIV, “Surely the bitterness of death is past”). However, it seems more likely that Agag realized that his fortunes had suddenly taken a turn for the worst and that the clemency he had enjoyed from Saul would not be his lot from Samuel. The translation adopted above thus understands Agag to approach not confidently but in the stark realization that his death is imminent (“Surely death is bitter!”).
<sup>1</sup>tc The specific content of 1 Sam 16-18, which includes the David and Goliath story, differs considerably in the LXX as compared to MT, suggesting that this pericope circulated in ancient times in more than one form. The LXX for these chapters is much shorter than MT, lacking almost half of the material (39 of a total of 88 verses). Given the translation characteristics of the LXX elsewhere in this section, it does not seem likely that these differences are due to deliberate suppression of these verses on the part of the translator. It seems more likely that the Greek translator has faithfully rendered here a Hebrew text that itself was much shorter than MT in these chapters. Whether or not the shorter text represented by the LXX is to be preferred over MT in 1 Samuel 16-18 is a matter over which textual scholars are divided. The translation presented above generally follows MT for this section. For a helpful discussion of the major textual issues in this unit see the following contribution: Dominique Barthélemy, David W. Gooding, Johan Lust, and Emanuel Tov, The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism, Orbis biblicus et orientalis, no. 73 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).
<sup>2</sup>tc The Lucianic recension of the Old Greek translation includes the following words: “And the Lord said to Samuel.”
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “hear.”
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “in your hand.”
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “say.”
<sup>6</sup>tc In MT the verb is singular (“he said”). But read with many medieval Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions the plural (“they said”).
<sup>7</sup>tn Heb “he.”
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “saw.”
<sup>9</sup>tn The Hebrew text has “he will play with his hand.”
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “see.”
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “discerning of word.”
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “a man of form.”
<sup>13</sup>tn Heb “a kid of the goats.”
<sup>14</sup>tn I.e., Saul.
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb “he has found favor in my eyes.”
<sup>1</sup>tc The Greek manuscript tradition for the Goliath story differs considerably from MT. A number of verses are altogether absent from this story in the Greek evidence, and in other places significant portions of verses are lacking. These differences cannot all be accounted for simply by supposing that the Greek translator deliberately (or even accidentally) omitted the material in question, since such a notion conflicts with observable patterns elsewhere in the Septuagint of 1 Samuel. It seems more likely that the Greek translators had before them a Hebrew text that for some reason differed appreciably in this section from our Hebrew text. The difficulty lies in determining what significance to attach to these differences. Many scholars (e.g., McCarter, Klein) think that the shorter text of the LXX in these places is preferable to MT, which in their view has been expanded by incorporation of later material. Other scholars (e.g., Wellhausen, Driver) conclude that the shorter Greek text (or the Hebrew text that underlies it) is due to an attempt to harmonize certain alleged inconsistencies that otherwise appear in the account. Overall it seems preferable to stay with MT here, at least for the most part. However, the major textual differences between the LXX and MT will be mentioned in the notes that accompany the following translation so that the reader may be alert to the major problem passages.
<sup>2</sup>tn Heb “the man of the space between the two [armies].” Cf. v. 23.
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “his height was six cubits and a span.”
<sup>4</sup>sn Although the exact weight of Goliath’s defensive body armor is difficult to estimate in terms of modern equivalency, it was obviously quite heavy. Driver, following Kennedy, suggests a modern equivalent of about 220 pounds. (See Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 139.) Klein, taking the shekel to be equal to .403 ounces, arrives at a somewhat smaller weight of about 126 pounds. (See Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, in Word Biblical Commentary 10, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker [Waco, TX: Word, 1983], 175.) But by any estimate it is clear that Goliath presented himself as a formidable foe indeed!
<sup>5</sup>sn Greaves were coverings (probably lined for comfort) that extended from about the knee to the ankle, affording protective especially for the shins of a warrior.
<sup>6</sup>tn Read with the qere and many medieval Hebrew manuscripts àes (“wood”) rather than MT hes (“arrow”).
<sup>7</sup>sn I.e., about fifteen or sixteen pounds.
<sup>8</sup>tn The Hebrew text adds “and said to them.”
<sup>9</sup>tc Read with the ancient versions biheru (“choose,” from the root bhr) rather than MT beru. The root brh elsewhere means “to eat food”; the sense of “to choose,” required here by the context, is not attested for this root. MT apparently reflects an early scribal error.
<sup>10</sup>tc Some manuscripts of the LXX lack vv. 12-31.
<sup>11</sup>tc Read with the Lucianic recension of the LXX and the Syriac Peshitta besanim (“in years”) rather than MT baáanasim (“in men”).
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “and returning.”
<sup>13</sup>tn Heb “the watcher of the vessels.”
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “according to these words.”
<sup>15</sup>tn Heb “he is coming up.”
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “people.”
<sup>17</sup>tn Heb “according to this word.”
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “the anger of Eliab became hot.”
<sup>19</sup>tn Heb “wickedness of your heart.”
<sup>20</sup>tn Heb “according to this word.”
<sup>21</sup>tn Heb “the people.”
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “he took him.”
<sup>23</sup>tc The LXX includes here the following words not found in MT: “Should I not go and smite him, and remove today reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised one?”
<sup>24</sup>tn Heb “he had not tested.”
<sup>25</sup>tn This word (Hebrew yalqut) is a hapax legomenon; its exact meaning is not entirely clear. It is a receptacle of some sort and apparently was a common part of a shepherd’s equipment. Here it serves as a depository for the stones that David will use in his sling.
<sup>26</sup>tc Most LXX manuscripts lack v. 41.
<sup>27</sup>tc Many medieval Hebrew manuscripts have “the earth” (Hebrew haáares) instead of MT hassadeh (“the field”).
<sup>28</sup>tc Most LXX manuscripts lack the second half of v. 48.
<sup>29</sup>tc Most LXX manuscripts lack v. 50.
<sup>30</sup>tn Heb “his”; the referent (Goliath) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>31</sup>tc Most LXX manuscripts lack the words “drew it out from its sheath” in v. 51.
<sup>32</sup>tc Most of the LXX manuscript tradition has here “Gath.”
<sup>33</sup>tn Heb “his”; the referent (Goliath) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>34</sup>tc Most LXX manuscripts lack 17:55-8:5.
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “the soul of Jonathan was bound with the soul of David.”
<sup>2</sup>tn Heb “him”; the referent (David) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “it was good in the eyes of all the people.”
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “said.” So also in vv. 11, 17.
<sup>5</sup>tn Heb “he went forth and came in before the people.” Cf. v. 16.
<sup>6</sup>tc Much of the manuscript evidence for the LXX lacks vv. 17-19.
<sup>7</sup>tn Heb “who is my life.”
<sup>8</sup>tc The final sentence of v. 21 is absent in most LXX manuscripts.
<sup>9</sup>tn Heb “in the ears of.”
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “the king’s.”
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “the days were not fulfilled.”
<sup>12</sup>tc The final sentence of v. 29 is absent in most LXX manuscripts.
tn Heb “all the days.”
<sup>13</sup>tc Verse 30 is absent in most LXX manuscripts.
<sup>1</sup>tn Heb “with a great blow.”
<sup>2</sup>sn Teraphim were small statues that were representative of various Caananite deities in the ancient Near East. According to 2 Kgs 23:24 they were prohibited during the time of Josiah’s reform movement in the seventh century. In 2 Sam 19:13 the teraphim placed under cover in a bed were of sufficient size as to give the mistaken impression that David lay sick in the bed, thus facilitating his escape.
<sup>3</sup>tn The exact meaning of the Hebrew word kebir is uncertain; it is found in the Hebrew Bible only here and in v. 16. It probably refers to some sort of quilt, although BDB allow for the possibility that it may have been a fly-net used for covering the face as one slept.
<sup>1</sup>tc Read with the qere, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, and the ancient versions loá ya`aseh (“he will not do”) rather than the kethib of MT lo àaseh (“do to him”).
²tn Heb “and he will not uncover my ear.”
³tc The LXX and the Syriac Peshitta lack the word “again.”
⁴tn Heb “said.” So also in v. 25.
⁵tn Heb “whatever your soul says, I will do for you.”
⁶tn Heb “good.”
⁷tn Heb “from you and here.”
⁸tn Heb “from you and onward.”
⁹tn Heb “between me and between you.”
¹⁰tn The words “about it” are not present in the Hebrew text, although they are implied.
¹¹tn Heb “said.”
¹²tn Heb “send me.”
¹³tc Many medieval Hebrew manuscripts include the words “his son” here.
¹⁴tn Heb “son of a perverse girl of rebelliousness.” But an overly literal or domesticated translation fails to capture the force of Saul’s unrestrained reaction here. That Saul would address his own son with such language, not to mention Saul’s readiness to kill his son Jonathan over his friendship with David, indicates something of the depth of Saul’s hatred of David.
¹⁵tn Heb “all the days that.”
¹⁶tn Heb “a son of death.”
¹⁷tn Heb “him”; the referent (David) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
¹⁸tc Read with the LXX haáargab (“the mound”) rather than MT hannegeb (“the south”). The LXX also uses this word in v. 19 in reference to “the stone Ezel.” It is hard to see what meaning MT’s “from beside the south” would have as it stands, since such a location lacks specificity. NIV treats it as an elliptical expression, rendering the phrase as “from the south side of the stone.” This is perhaps possible, but it seems better to follow the LXX rather than MT here.
¹tn Heb “he.”
²tn The Hebrew expression peloni áalmoni refers to a particular, but unnamed, individual or place. It occurs in the OT only here, in 2 Kgs 6:18, and in Ruth 4:1, where Boaz uses it to refer to Naomi’s unnamed kinsman-redeemer. A contracted form of the expression, palmoni, appears in Dan 8:13.
³tn Heb “placed these matters in his heart.”
¹tn Heb “bitter of soul.”
²tn Heb “go forth.”
³tn Heb “all the days.”
⁴tc MT has lekullekem (“to all of you”). If this reading is correct, we have here an example of a prepositional phrase functioning as the equivalent of a dative of advantage, which is not impossible from a grammatical point of view. However, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg all have “and.” We should probably read a conjunction rather than a preposition on the front of this phrase.
⁵tn Heb “uncovers my ear.”
⁶tn Heb “small or great.”
⁷tn Heb “their hand is.”
⁸tc The number is confused in the Greek tradition. The LXX, with the exception of the Lucianic recension, has the number 305. The Lucianic recension, along with a couple of Old Latin manuscripts, has the number 350.
⁹tc Read with the LXX habti (“I am guilty”) rather than MT sabboti (“I have turned”). Cf. the Syriac Peshitta and Vg.
¹tn Heb “and David delivered.”
²tn Heb “in his hand.”
³tn MT nikkar áoto áelohim beyadi (“God has alienated him into my hand”) in v. 7 is a difficult and uncommon idiom. The use of this verb in Jer 19:4 is somewhat parallel, but not entirely so. Many scholars have therefore suspected a textual problem here, emending the word to sikkar (“he has shut up [i.e., delivered]”). This is the idea reflected in the translations of the Syriac Peshitta and Vg, although it is not entirely clear whether they are reading something different from MT or are simply paraphrasing what for them too may have been a difficult text. The LXX has “God has sold him into my hands,” apparently reading makar rather than MT nikkar. The translation adopted here is a rather free interpretation of the verb nikkar found in MT.
⁴tn Heb “they went where they went.”
⁵tn Heb “he.”
⁶tn Heb “saw.”
⁷tn Heb “strengthened his hand.”
⁸tn Heb “to all the desire of your soul.”
⁹tn Heb “know and see.” The expression is a hendiadys. So also in v. 23.
¹⁰tn Heb “established.”
¹sn The name Sela Hammahlekoth probably means in Hebrew “Rock of Divisions,” in the sense that Saul and David parted company there. This etymology assumes that the word derives from the Hebrew root hlq I (“to divide”). However, there is another root hlq, which means to be smooth or slippery. If our word is taken from this root it has the meaning “Slippery Rock.”
²tn Heb “to cover his feet.”
³tn Heb “the heart of David smote him.”
⁴tn Heb “it had pity,” apparently with the understood subject “my eye,” a common OT expression.
⁵tn Heb “there is not in my hand.”
⁶tn Heb “lifted his voice and wept.”
¹tn Heb “great.”
²tn Heb “good of insight.”
³tn Heb “David.”
⁴tn Heb “and David said to the young men.”
⁵tc The text is difficult here. MT and most of the early versions support the reading lehai (“to life,” or “to the one who lives”). But Vg has fratribus meis (“my brother”), and this seems to fit the context better than the other reading. While it is impossible to be certain about this reading, the translation adopted above follows Vg in reading “my brother.”
⁶tc Read with many medieval Hebrew manuscripts baánu (“we have come”) rather than MT banu (“we have built”).
⁷tn Heb “whatever your hand will find.”
⁸sn The seah was a dry measure equal to one-third of an ephah, or not quite eleven quarts.
⁹tn Heb “said.”
¹⁰tc MT has here “the enemies of David.” But most of the Old Greek tradition has simply “David,” with no reference to his enemies. In OT imprecations such as the one found in v. 22 it is common for the speaker to direct malediction toward himself as an indication of the seriousness with which he regards the matter at hand. In other words, the speaker invites on himself dire consequences if he fails to fulfill the matter expressed in the oath. However, in the situation alluded to in v. 22 the threat actually does not come to fruition due to the effectiveness of Abigail’s appeal to David in behalf of her husband Nabal. Instead, David is placated through Abigail’s intervention. It therefore seems likely that the reference to “the enemies of David” in MT of v. 22 is the result of a scribal attempt to deliver David from the implied consequences of this oath. The translation adopted above follows the LXX rather than MT here.
¹¹tn Heb “one who pisses against a wall.” So also in v. 34.
¹²tn Heb “I your handmaiden.”
¹³tn Heb “blessing.”
¹⁴tn Heb “are walking at the feet of.”
¹⁵tn Heb “the heart of my lord.”
¹⁶tn Heb “I have lifted up your face.”
¹⁷tn Heb “as a maidservant to wash.”
¹⁸tn Heb “going at her feet.”
¹tn Heb “you are sons of death.”
²tn Heb “smell.”
³tn Heb “my soul was valuable in your eyes.”
⁴tn Heb “his righteousness and his faithfulness.” The expression is a hendiadys.
⁵tn Heb “your life was great this day in my eyes.”
⁶tn Heb “may my life be great in the eyes of the LORD.”
⁷tn Heb “you will certainly do and also you will certainly be able.”
¹tn Heb “said to his heart.”
²tn Heb “a man and his house.”
³tn Heb “the number of the days.”
⁴tn Heb “days.” The plural of the word “day” is sometimes used idiomatically to refer specifically to a year. In addition to this occurrence in v. 7 see also 1 Sam 1:3, 21; 2:19; 20:6; Lev 25:29; Judg 17:10.
⁵tc Read with the LXX (epi tina) and Vg (in quem) áel mi (“to whom”) rather than MT áal (“not”). MT makes no sense here. Another possibility is that the text originally had áan (“where”), which has been distorted in MT to áal. Cf. the Syriac Peshitta and the Targum, which have “where.”
⁶tn Heb “all the days.”
⁷tn Heb “saying.”
⁸tn The expression “stink” is used figuratively here to describe the social and political rejection and ostracism that David had experienced as a result of Saul’s hatred of him.
⁹tc Many medieval Hebrew manuscripts lack the preposition “in.”
¹tn Heb “their camps.”
²tc Read with the LXX (eis polemon) and a Qumran manuscript ([m]lhmh) bammilhamah (“in the battle”) rather than MT bammahaneh (“in the camp”). While MT is not impossible here, and although admittedly it is the harder reading, the variant fits the context better. MT can be explained as a scribal error caused in part by the earlier occurrence of “camp” in this verse.
³tn Heb “all the days.”
⁴tn Heb “in Ramah and in his city.” The expression is a hendiadys.
⁵tn Heb “he was afraid, and his heart was very terrified.”
⁶tn Heb “a mistress of necromancy.”
⁷tn Heb “in a great voice.”
⁸tn Heb “gods.” In the following verse Saul understands the plural word to refer to a singular being. The reference is to the spirit of Samuel.
⁹tc With the exception of the Lucianic recension, the LXX has here “and tomorrow you and your sons with you will fall.”
¹⁰tn Heb “food.”
¹¹tn Heb “listened to your voice.”
¹²tn Heb “listened to your words that you spoke to me.”
¹³tc Read with many medieval Hebrew manuscripts wayyipseru (“and they pressed,” from the root psr) rather than MT wayyipresu (“and they broke forth,” from the root prs).
¹⁴tn Heb “he listened to their voice.”
¹⁵tn Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible mark this word as the half-way point in the book of Samuel, treating 1 and 2 Samuel as a single book. Similar notations are found at the mid-way point for all of the books of the Hebrew Bible.
¹⁶tn Heb “a calf of the stall.”
¹tn Heb “camps.”
²tn Heb “crossing over.” The participles used here apparently describe a mustering of troops for the purpose of inspection and readiness.
³tn Heb “these days or these years.”
⁴tn Heb “the leaders of the Philistines said.”
⁵tn Or perhaps, “our men.” On this use of the demonstrative pronoun see Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §143e.
⁶tn Heb “it is good in my eyes.” Cf. v. 7.
⁷tn Heb “your going forth and your coming in.” The expression is a merism.
⁸tn Heb “camp.”
⁹tc The LXX and a couple of Old Latin manuscripts include here the following words: “and you shall go to the place that I have appointed you. Don’t place a pernicious thing in your heart, for you are good before me.”
¹⁰tc With the exception of Origen and the Lucianic recension, the Old Greek tradition lacks the phrase “in the morning.” The Syriac Peshitta also lacks the phrase.
¹tn Heb “lifted up their voice and wept.”
²tn Heb “stood.” So also in v. 10.
³tn Heb “his spirit returned to him.”
⁴tn Heb “him.”
⁵tn Heb “David.”
⁶tn Heb “David.”
⁷tc Heb “with me.” The singular is used rather than the plural because the group is being treated as a singular entity, in keeping with Hebrew idiom. It is not necessary to read àimmanu (“with us”) rather than MT àimmi (“with me”), although the plural can be found here in a few medieval Hebrew manuscripts. Cf. the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and Vg, although these versions may simply reflect an understanding of the idiom as found in MT rather than a different textual reading.
⁸tc This clause is difficult in MT. The translation adopted above accepts the text as found in MT and understands this clause to be elliptical, with an understood verb such as “look” or “consider.” On the other hand, the LXX seems to reflect a slightly different Hebrew text, reading “after” (Greek, meta to paradounai) where MT has “my brothers.” The Greek translation presupposes a Hebrew text with áahare rather than áehay áet and yields the following translation: “You should not do this after the LORD has delivered us.” Although the Greek reading should be taken seriously, it seems best to follow MT here.
⁹tn Heb “a statute and a judgment.” The expression is a hendiadys.
¹⁰tn Heb “blessing.”
¹¹tn This sentence is not in the Hebrew text. It is added in the translation for the sake of clarity.
¹tn Heb “the Philistines.”
²tn Heb “the shooters, men with the bow.”
³tc The translation adopted here follows MT, which vocalizes the form as a qal. The LXX, however, treats the verb as a hiphil (pherousin, “they brought”).