[451]. Aroer had belonged to Reuben (Josh. xiii. 16), Hormah, Ziklag, Chor-ashan, and Ramoth of the south to Simeon (Josh. xix. 4-8.) It is curious that no mention should be made of Beth-lehem, and it is therefore possible that ‘Beth-lehem’ should be read in place of ‘Beth-el’ in 1 Sam. xxx. 27. The Septuagint has Baith-Sour.
[452]. Boaz, the grandfather of Jesse, is said to have been the son of Salmon or Salma, who, according to 1 Chron. ii. 50, 51, was the founder of Bethlehem, and the son of Caleb.
[453]. Criticism has seen in the story told by the Amalekite a second version of the death of Saul inconsistent with that which precedes it. The inconsistency certainly exists, but that is because the Amalekite’s story was a fabrication, the object of which was to gain a reward from David. There was this much truth in it, that Saul had been wounded and had desired death; the Amalekite could easily have learned this from those who had witnessed the last scene of Saul’s life. But the fact that he had robbed Saul’s corpse shows that he must have come to the ground after the flight of the Israelitish soldiers; he was, in fact, one of those Bedâwin thieves who, in Oriental warfare, still hang on the skirts of the battle in the hope of murdering the wounded and plundering the dead when it is over and the victors are pursuing the vanquished.
[454]. The translation is that of the Revised Version, with a slight change in the 21st verse. The contrast between the preservation of the text in this Song and in that of the Song of Deborah is great, no passage in it being corrupt, and points to the more archaic character of the latter, as well as to a confirmation of the fact that the Song of the Bow was learnt in the schools from the time of its composition.
[455]. Ish-Baal or Esh-Baal, ‘the man of Baal,’ is called Ishui in 1 Sam. xiv. 49 (where the name of Abinadab is omitted; see 1 Chron. viii. 33). Later writers changed Baal into Bosheth, ‘Shame,’ in accordance with the custom which grew up when the title of Baal came to signify the god of Phœnicia, rather than Yahveh of Israel.
[456]. That the reign of David ‘in Hebron’ continued for five years after the death of Esh-Baal seems the most probable way of explaining the statement in 2 Sam. ii. 10, that the reign of Saul’s son lasted only two years. It is certainly preferable to the usual supposition that ‘two’ is a mistake for ‘seven.’
[457]. The author of the books of Samuel did not know his age (2 Sam. ii. 10). In 1 Sam. xiv. 49 Ishui is named before Melchi-shua, but in 1 Chron. viii. 33 Esh-Baal is the youngest of Saul’s children. That Esh-Baal did not take part in the battle of Gilboa would suit equally well with either hypothesis. Abner, the son of Ner, the son of Abiel, was the great-uncle of Esh-Baal (1 Sam. xiv. 50, 51). As he was still in the prime of life when he was murdered, it is reasonable to suppose that his great-nephew was very young.
[458]. 1 Chron. ii. 16.
[459]. If, as is probable, we should read ‘Geshurites’ for ‘Ashurites’ in 2 Sam. ii. 9, Esh-Baal would have claimed rule over Geshur, and consequently would have been as much involved in war with the king of that country as he was with David. We subsequently find the Aramæans in alliance with the Ammonites (2 Sam. x. 6, etc.), and the king of Ammon was the ally of David against Esh-Baal (2 Sam. xi. 2). It is probable that in 1 Sam. xiv. 47, ‘Aram’ must be read for ‘Edom,’ the geographical position of which was not between Ammon and Zobah (see above, p. [368]); if so, Esh-Baal, in asserting his authority over Geshur, would only have succeeded to his father’s conquests.