29 And to them which were in Rachal, and to them which were in the cities of the Jerahmeelites, and to them which were in the cities of the Kenites,

30 And to them which were in Hormah,

and to them which were in Chor-ashan, arto them which were in Athach,

31 And to them which were in

to all the places where David Dron, and

men were wont to haunt.

self and his

Verse 1. The Amalekites had invaded the south.'—The strength of the country, both of the Hebrews and of the Philistines, having been drawn northwards to the battle in Esdraelon, the Amalekites, as might be expected, eagerly availed themselves of the opportunity of invading the defenceless south. In this expedition, which has entirely the character of a nomade incursion into a settled country, they were not likely to overlook David's town, or to fail of avenging his recent expedition against themselves. 2. Slew not any.'-The men capable of bearing arms having gone to the war, there were probably none of those remaining in the town whom it was usual to put to death. In most cases the women and boys were spared, to be used as slaves, and the old people from the prevailing sentiment of respect to age. David, in his recent expedition against the southern tribes, did not spare any; while the Amalekites spared all. The reason of this difference, apparently to the disadvantage of David's humanity, is obviously that David had to do with armed men, whom it was not usual to spare, whereas the Amalekites found none but those whom it was unusual to destroy. This, and other war practices which occur in this chapter, such as the division of spoil, etc., have already been fully considered in the notes to Num. xxxi. and Deut. xx. To this we cannot here abstain from adding the excellent illustration to be derived from the instructions which the Khalif Abubekr addressed to Yezid, when about to send him at the head of an army into Syria. After advising him to behave kindly to his own troops, he says: When you meet your enemies, quit yourselves like men, and don't turn your backs; and if you get the victory, kill no little children, nor old people, nor women. Destroy no palmtrees (see note on Deut. xx. 19), nor burn any fields of corn. Cut down no fruit-trees, nor do any mischief to cattle, only such as you kill to eat. When you make any covenant, stand to it, and be as good as your word,' etc. (Ockley's Conquest of Syria, p. 24).

9. The brook Besor.'-The winter torrent now called Wady-Gaza, which is mentioned by Dr. Richardson as falling into the Mediterranean, a little to the south of Gaza, agrees exceedingly well with the situation which the history would seem to assign to the brook Besor. That so many of the men were tired by the time they got to the brook Besor proves that Ziklag, and consequently Gath, was a good distance to the north, and furnishes another argument for not placing it so far to the south as Calmet, T. H. Horne, and others, have done. The vicinity of a river was naturally selected as the resting-place of those who were unable to proceed farther.

13. My muster left me, because three days agone I fell sick. This Egyptian had probably been taken prisoner by the Amalekites in one of their predatory incursions into the Egyptian territory, and retained as a slave. We have often had occasion to observe that slaves are usually

treated with great kindness in the East; but it does still not unfrequently happen that, in rapid journeys over the deserts, slaves are abandoned, and often perish, because the inhuman master, or his party, will not consent to encumber themselves with the necessary conveyance of, or attendance on, a sick man. If he can, by his own exertions, keep up with his company, it is well; but if not, there is little hope for him. Old slaves-that is, those who have long been the property of a particular master, or have been reared in his family-are, we believe, scarcely ever thus treated; but slaves newly purchased or acquired do not often meet with equal indulgence. This young man of Egypt' would seem not long to have been a slave to his Amalekite master.

27. To them which were in Beth-el,' etc.-Bethel and the other principal towns in this list have already been noticed. South Ramoth' is mentioned in Josh. xix. 8, among

the cities of Simeon.

'Jattir' is included in Josh. xv. 48, among the towns of Judah in the mountains. Jerome reads it 'Jether,' as he well might, and identifies it with a large village, which existed in his time under the name of Jethira. It was in the interior of Daroma, near Malatha, about twenty miles (south-east, of course) from Eleutheropolis, which places it among the mountains, as the text referred to requires, to the south of Hebron, among the well-known haunts of David.

28. 'Aroer' was hardly the Aroer on the other side Jordan, as all the places mentioned seem to have been in the tribe of Judah or on its borders: the Septuagint reads Arouel' instead of Adamah' in the list of Judah's towns given in Josh. xv. (v. 22); and this may be the place intended.

'Eshtemoa' is mentioned next to Jattir in the list (Josh. xxi. 14) of the towns which Judah gave to the Levites, and, like it, is among the towns enumerated in the mountains of Judah. Jerome says that it was in his time a Jewish village of Daroma, to the north of another village called Anem (probably the Anim mentioned after Ashtemosh in Josh, xv. 50), which he seems to place to the east of Hebron, but modifies his statement by saying, that it was near another village of the same name, south of Hebron, which may make the result south-east, or even south-south-east. [For Anim, see Map of Ancient Palestine.] 29. Rachal' is nowhere else mentioned in the Bible, neither is Atach.

30. 'Chor-ashan' is doubtless the Ashan given to the tribe of Simeon in Josh. xix. 7, and perhaps the same as the village of Beth-Asau of Jerome's time, fifteen miles from Jerusalem. These presents, sent to the elders of so many important places, shew that David had a party of powerful friends in his own tribe.

178

1 Saul having lost his army, and his sons being slain, he

and his armourbearer kill themselves. 7 The Philistines possess the forsaken towns of the Israelites. 8 They triumph over the dead carcases. 11 They of Jabesh-gilead, recovering the bodies by night, burn them at Jabesh, and mournfully bury their bones. Now 'the Philistines fought against Israel: and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down "slain in mount Gilboa.

2 And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Melchishua, Saul's sons.

3 And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was sore wounded of the archers.

4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and 'abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.

6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his

armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.

7 ¶ And when the men of Israel that were on the other side of the valley, and they that were on the other side Jordan, saw that the men of Israel fled, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook the cities, and fled; and the Philistines came and dwelt in them.

8 ¶ And it came to pass on the morrow, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his three sons fallen in mount Gilboa.

9 And they cut off his head, and stripped off his armour, and sent into the land of the Philistines round about, to publish it in the house of their idols, and among the people.

10 And they put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth: and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth-shan.

11 And when the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead heard of that which the Philistines had done to Saul;

12 All the valiant men arose, and went all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and came to Jabesh, and 'burnt them there.

13 And they took their bones, and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

Verse 4. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.' -The account here given is very materially different from that which the Amalekite gives in the first chapter of the following book. The moral difference between the two accounts is however only the difference between two forms of suicide. The account of Josephus reconciles the two statements by supposing that Saul claimed the assistance of the Amalekite, after having made an ineffectual attempt at self-destruction. But there remain other discrepancies which are not obviated by this explanation; and, upon the whole, the general impression is more probably correct, in receiving the statement in the present chapter as the accurate account; and in regarding the story told by the Amalekite as trumped up with the view of recommending himself to the favour of David. The plain account therefore is, that Saul, being wounded, and fearing the most grievous insults if he fell alive into the hands of the Philistines, chose rather to die by his own hand. This is one of the very few instances of suicide which occur in the Scriptures. It is still a practice exceedingly rare among the Orientals, even in the most adverse circumstances of life, and with only prospects of death and misery before them. This appears to have been always the case in the East; the ancient history of which affords very few instances of self-murder, compared with that of the Western nations-the study of which has, unhappily, rendered the modern mind but too familiar with the historical celebrity of, and false principles connected with, a crime by which men affected to dare and to be superior to the calamities from which they shrank.

5. His armour-bearer. . . fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.'-The Jews think that this armour

bearer was Doeg the Edomite, who had been promoted to that office for his alacrity in obeying the king when commanded to slay the priests. They also suppose that the sword which Saul took was that of the armour-bearer, and that the latter employed the same weapon, so that both Saul and Doeg died by the very weapon by which the priests of the Lord had been slain, by the order of the one and by the hand of the other. That the weapon with which Saul slew himself was that of the armour-bearer, seems highly probable from the context; but we have no authority but this ancient tradition for supposing that the armour-bearer was Doeg.

10. They fastened his body to the wall of Beth-shan,' and the bodies of his sons also, as appears by verse 12. Josephus understands that the bodies were gibbeted on crosses outside the walls; but others conceive, as the text seems to require, that the bodies were fastened to, or suspended against, the wall by nails or hooks. It was a custom among some ancient nations to punish criminals convicted of capital crimes, by throwing them from the wall, so that they should be caught by hooks which were inserted in the wall below, and by which they often hung for a long time in exquisite tortures. Very possibly the remains of these unhappy princes were fastened by such hooks to the wall of Beth-shan.

-'Beth-shan.'-This place was known to the Greeks by the name of Nysa, and afterwards by that of Scythopolis, from the Scythians, who, when they overran Western Asia, took this city and retained it in their possession as long as they continued in that region. It is known at present by the name of Beisan, which is merely a softened form of its ancient Hebrew name. It is situated about

twelve miles to the south of the sea of Tiberias, and nearly two miles west of the Jordan. It was a place of such high repute among the Jews, that the Talmud says, that if the garden of Eden were in the land of Israel, Bethshan was its gate; and it is added, that its fruits were the sweetest in Israel. It remained a place of considerable importance in the fourth century, according to Jerome; but at present its site is only marked by a miserable village in the midst of extensive ruins. Burckhardt describes Beisan as situated upon rising ground, on the west side of the valley of the Jordan, where the chain of mountains (Gilboa) declines considerably in height and presents merely elevated ground, quite open towards the west, and the mountains do not begin again till one hour's journey to the south. The ancient town was watered by a river now called Moiet Beisan, or the Water of Beisan, which flows in different branches towards the plain. The ruins of Scythopolis are of considerable extent, and the town built along the banks of the rivulet and in the vallies formed by its several branches, must have been nearly three miles in circuit. The only remains are large heaps of black hewn stones, many foundations of houses and fragments of a few columns. In one of the valleys there is a large mound of earth, which appeared to Burckhardt to be artificial, and which was probably the site of a castle for the defence of the town. On the left bank of the stream there is a large khan, where the caravans repose that take the shortest route from Jerusalem to Damascus. The village of Beisan contains seventy or eighty houses. Its inhabitants are in a miserable condition from being exposed to the depredations of the Bedouins, to whom they also pay a heavy tribute. Dr. Richardson also, who calls the place an abominable sink of dirt and iniquity,' describes the village as a collection of the most miserable hovels, containing about 200 inhabitants, and, in looking at their wretched accommodation, and a Bedoween encampment that was spread out in the valley, we were not

surprised to hear that in these countries the dwellers in tents look on the dwellers in towns as an inferior class of beings.' He also says that his party found the weather hotter at Beisan than in any other part of Judæa. Masses of ejected lava lie scattered around the village, and the mountains have much the appearance of extinguished volcanoes. Captains Irby and Mangles found traces of the walls of the ancient fortress, on the hill mentioned by Burckhardt. They also discovered other remains, which appear to have escaped his researches, and which sufficiently attest the ancient importance of the place, when it was the largest city of the Decapolis, being also the only one west of the Jordan.

12. Burnt them,' etc. ... and took their bones, and buried them. This agrees with what was a common and honourable rite of sepulture among the nations of classical antiquity. This is the first time it is, as such, mentioned in Scripture; and from the Law we should certainly infer that it was considered ignominious by the Hebrews. Perhaps it was resorted to in the present instance to preserve the remains of Saul and his sons from any further insult. This rite, however, ultimately became honourable among the Jews; and perhaps the present instance gave the first impulse to the change of opinion (see the note on Jer. xxxiv. 5). But after the Captivity the practice was discontinued, and the ancient aversion of the Hebrews to this rite revived with such vigour, that their learned men spent much ingenuity in proving that it never had existed among them. Thus the Chaldee paraphrast alleges that the text means only that they burnt a light or lamp over them at Jabesh, such as they were accustomed to do over the bodies of kings. This, although a manifest misconstruction of the plain sense of the words, is very curious, as shewing that the subsisting Oriental practice of burning lights over the remains of princes and great men existed in the time of the Chaldee paraphrast, and was regarded by him and his contemporaries as being even in their time ancient.

15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.

16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD's anointed.

17 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his

son:

18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

19 The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen!

20 "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.

21 Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain, upon you, nor fields of offerings: for there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away, the shield of

Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil.

22 From the blocd of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty.

10

23 Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions.

24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel.

25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places.

26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

27 How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!

THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL.-The observations prefixed to the First Book of Samuel apply equally to that book and to this, leaving no occasion for introductory remarks upon the present book.

Verse 10. The bracelet that was upon his arm.'-We suppose that the armlet found on the person of Saul, and brought, together with his crown, to David, was one of the insignia of royalty, and not, as some have imagined,

worn by men, they have been in nearly all eastern countries marks of dignity, and, in some, of exclusively royal dignity. If we consult the numerous figures which the sculptures and paintings of ancient Egypt offer, we find armlets very frequent ornaments of the women; but among men they only appear on the figures of the kings.

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ARMLETS.

a mere personal ornament of value which the king happened to wear. This conclusion is amply supported by the ancient and still subsisting customs of the East. When

INDIAN ARMLETS.

D'Herbelot, in mentioning the investiture of Malek Rahim in the dominions and honours of his father (Alp Arslan) by the Khalif, Kayem Bemrillah, observes that the ceremony of investiture was in such cases effected by sending to the Sultan, who received that honour, toge ther with his patent, a crown, bracelets, and a chain. In India the armlet was a mark of sovereignty at the court of the Grand Moguls. It still is such in Persia, where no man but the king wears armlets. They figure conspicuously on the person, and even in the pictures of that potentate, and are, for their size, probably the most splen did and costly articles of jewellery in the world, the two