cheenc03a.pdf

'runners') is, as the present writer suspects, a mutilation
and corruption of Zsrephnthim (Zurephathifes).
These foreigners, however, were virtwllly Israelites ;
they had adopted Israelitish reverence for the persons
of the priests of Yahw*, whom they refused to massacre
at the bidding of the enraged king (v. q). It was
Doeg an ' Aramite' (see I S. 218 [TI. who. according
to the narrative, out of hatred for David
~erformed the dreadful act. for rhich, after David had
&me to the throne, a stern penalty was (not indeed by
David) exacted (9 S. 21).
The historical character of the massacre iaoart , . from
the details) cannot be doubted ; but the real cause of it
Had the priestly clan
ab, Philistines, is not clear.
of Gibeon, like Samuel (a typical
personage), ' rejected' Saul as king? Had they
really espoused the cause of a pietender, and so
done all in their power to paralyie Saul's patriotic
activity? However that may be, we must not forget the
arduous nature of the task to which Saul had braced
himtrlt He had to put an end to the dirartrous incursions
of a powerful enemy, the name of which is
given as Pelijtim (Ahhd@uhor) or PHlLlSTlNES [q.~.].
The correctnerr of this name is generally accepted, hut
has, elsewhere by the present writer (see PELETHITES.
ZAXEPHATH). been questioned. In particular, there
are passages in the narrative which is commonly used
as evidence for David's outlawrv. hut mav reallv be a
subsequent exp~oitr,~which force the p;esent writer to
hold that the Zarephathites-excluding those who had eapatriated
themselves and joined Saul's bodyguard-were.
together with their neighlaurs the ( Amalekites,' the true
enemies of Saul and for a time at least of David after
him isee PELETHITES. REHOBOTH. ZARBPHATHI. In a
word, the so-called ' Philistines ' &e Zariephathi;a, and
their centre was not the ' Philistian sea-coast' but the
NECEB [q-w.].
A striking account Is given by one of the narrators of
the opening of the war against the ' Philistines' (I S. 13)
--of course, before the massacre just refcrred to.
Jonathan (whore relation to Saul the writer assumes to
be weil-known) had offered an open insult to the
' Philistines ' (u. 3) ; we may perhaps suppore that it
was nn insult which affected their religion2 The
' Philistines ' mustered in force to avenge it. ARnghted
at their appearance, the Israelites took refuge in
mountain-hollows, or crossed aver into Gad and Gilead.
From the camp at Michmash (opposite Geba where the
outrage had been committed) the ' Philistines' plundered
the country, recure of meeting with no opposition,
because few of the Israelites had any weapons (I S.
13rg-*. ; cp FORK). Only six hundred men, we are
told, remained with Saul at 'the border of Gibeah';
hut one of these war no less than Jokthan. This brave
man, together with his armour-bearer, is said to have
performed a most audacious exploit (I S. 14 ; on the text
of w. 4 f see MICHMASH). His object was to surprise
the outpost of the enemy, whose duty it war to watch
the steep ravine between Geba on the S. and Mich-
mash on the N. (theW&dy es-Suwmi!). The two men
went secretly down into the valley below Geba, as if on
their way to the caves where the timid Israelites were
hidden. There is in fact a lilie of such caves on both
sides of the wady, and thry are practically impregnable
(cp MICHMASH). Greeted with scoffs by the enemy.
who noticed their first movementr, Jonathan and his
follower afterwards disappeared from view, and climbed
uo on the other ride.' The Philistine outwrt waz
thrown into confurion by the sudden appearance of the
two men. Jonathan, fatigued as he war with his climb.
smote right and left, and his armour-bearer quickly
despatched the woundel. The 'spoilers' fled in dismay,
and the general panic-so the legend rays-w&
heightened by an earthquake (see EARTHQUAKF.).
Then Saul, who had (somewhat strangely) been tarrying
under the pomegranate tree 'in the border of Geba'
(141; see GIBEAH, 5 I : MIGRON), arose, and discovering
the absence of Jonathan and his follower, applied to
the priest for guidance. Before there was time, however.
for Ahijah to bring fornard the EPHOD [q.~.], circumstances
had made theduty of theslowly moving king clear
to him. Promptly he led hie little band against the disordered
enemy. At once those Israelites who had been
~omplled to serve with the ' Philistines' withdrew, and
joined the patriots. The ,Philistines' were seen hurrying
wildly towards Bethel across the watershed and
down the steep descent of Aijaion. In hot chase the
Israelites followed them. The story is vividly told.
and is evidently ancient. How far is it trustworthy?
Certainly it cannot be a pure romance; hut Wincklrr
has called attention to somevery doubtful e1ementr. and
to these the preeent writer must now add the designation
of the oppressors of the lsraelites by the name of
' Philistines.'
We have alro an account of a battle between the
Israelites and the Philistines in the valley of Elah
(rath~r, ha-Elah), or, ar the scene appears to be
otherwise described, in Ephes-dammim (r S. 17.X).
The chief point in it, however, is the encounter of
David with Goliath, which appears to be a reflection
of the story of Elhanan and Goliath in 2 S. 2119, where
the scene of the combat is at Gob (=REHOBOTH).
Probably 'hi ha-ilih and @her-domrnin are corrliptions
respectively of '$me+ jerahme'al and '#me#
dmmmim, synonymous phrases (drommim = jrrohrne'~Iim)
for the valley of Jerdpeel (=the wady al-
Milh?). If is important to mention Ibis here, to
prepare the render for the change in our view of the
localities of the last fatal fight ('Gilboa') necessitated
by our criticism of the text (see 5 4). As har been
shown elsewhere, the piiod as well as the scene of the
traditional fight with Goiiath is misstated in I S. 18.
According to the statement in I S. 144rfi. Salt1 had
various other wars in which he was uniformly succesrfid.
Other It is doubtful from what source this parsge
IS derived. Evidently the writer is an
admirer of Saul, for he doer not scruple
to transfer exploits ascribed by tradition to David
(ZS. g,,)a to his predecerroi. ne text
s * ~ ~ (EY) ir "or ~ a probable i rendering ~ of ~31. ~ kc ~ the . passage needs rectification, and rhould probably
>p in the H?dad insoiption foltnd near Zcnjhli the woe run thus iree Cni. Bi6. l-
mtght me=" etcher 'prefect'or 'pdlar.' The meding 'pillar At#d ~hcu ,aul h> I ??l.m ?h- kingd.~. c %