Page:03.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.B.vol.3.LaterProphets.djvu/223

 same persons as the singers Obededom and Jeiel (יעיאל), supposing that the latter name is wrongly written in one of the passages. This, however, is incorrect, for the identity of the name Obededom is no sufficient ground for supposing the persons to be the same, since in 1Ch 16:38 the singer Obededom and the doorkeeper Obededom the son of Jeduthun seem to be distinguished. And besides that, Obededom and his colleagues could not possibly at the same time as porters precede, and as singers come after, the priests and the ark, and there is consequently no reason to doubt that the name יחיּה is correct.

Verse 25
1Ch 15:25 narrate the further proceedings connected with the bring of the ark to Jerusalem; cf. 2Sa 6:12-19. By the words וגו דויד ויהי the account of the execution of the design is connected with the statements as to the preparations (vv. 2-24): “And so were David ... who went to bring up the ark.”

Verse 26
When God had helped the Levites who bare the ark of the covenant of Jahve, they offered seven bullocks and seven rams, i.e., after the journey had been happily accomplished. Instead of this, in 2Sa 6:13, the offering which was made at the commencement of the journey to consecrate it is mentioned; see on the passage.

Verse 27
The discrepancy between 1Ch 15:27 and 2Sa 6:14 is more difficult of explanation. Instead of the words יהוה לפני בּכל־אז מכרכּר דּוד, David danced with all his might before Jahve, we read in the Chronicle בּוּץ בּמעיל מכרבּל דויד, David was clothed with a robe of byssus. But since מכרכר differs from מכרבל only in the last two letters, and כר might be easily exchanged for בל, we may suppose that מכרבל has arisen out of מכרכר. Bertheau accordingly says: “Any one who remembered that in this verse David's clothing was spoken of might write מכרכר as מכרבל, while the words עז בכל, which were probably illegible,were conjecture to be בוץ במעיל.” This opinion would be worthy of consideration, if only the other discrepancies between the Chronicle and Samuel were thereby made more comprehensible. That, besides David, the bearers of the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah are mentioned, Bertheau thinks can be easily explained by what precedes; but how can that explain the absence of the יהוה לפני of Samuel from our text? Bertheau passes this over in silence; and yet it is just the absence of these words in our text which shows that בוץ במעיל מכרבל cannot have arisen from an orthographical error and the illegibility of עז בכל, since יהוה לפני must have been purposely