Page:02.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.A.vol.2.EarlyProphets.djvu/468

 Israel “from opposite to Gibeah” (who now attacked in the rear the Benjaminites who were pursuing the flying army of Israel); “and the contest became severe, since they (the Benjaminites) did not know that the calamity was coming upon them.”

Verse 35
And Jehovah smote Benjamin before Israel (according to His promise in Jdg 20:28), so that the Israelites destroyed of Benjamin on that day twenty and five thousand and an hundred men (i.e., twenty-five thousand and upwards). This was the result of the battle, which the historian gives at once, before entering more minutely into the actual account of the battle itself. He does this in Jdg 20:36-46 in a series of explanations, of which one is attached to the other, for the most part in the form of circumstantial clauses, so that it is not till Jdg 20:46 that he again comes to the result already announced in Jdg 20:35.

Verses 36-38
The Benjaminites, for instance, saw (this is the proper rendering of ויּראוּ with vav consec., which merely indicates the order of thought, not that of time) that they were beaten, and the man of Israel vacated the field before Benjamin (מקום נתן, to give place by falling back and flying), because they relied upon the ambush which they had placed against Gibeah. The Benjaminites did not perceive this till the ambush fell upon their rear. But the ambush itself, as is added in Jdg 20:37 by way of further explanation, hastened and fell (fell as quickly as possible) into Gibeah, and went thither and smote the whole town with the edge of the sword. To this there is added the further explanation in Jdg 20:38 : “And the arrangement of the Israelites with the ambush was this: multiply, to cause smoke-rising to ascend (i.e., cause a great cloud of smoke to ascend) out of the city.” The only objection that can be raised to this view of הרב, as the imperative Hiphil of רבה, is the suffix ם-attached to להעלותם, since this is unsuitable to a direct address. This suffix can only be explained by supposing that there is an admixture of two constructions, the direct appeal, and the indirect explanation, that they were to cause to ascend. If this be not admitted, however, we can only follow Studer, and erase the suffix as an error of the pen occasioned by the following word משׂאת; for the other course suggested