A.1 In addition to the two occurrences in the MT, the reading at 2Sm 17.16
in Codex L of twObr:(ab;@, 'in the plains', should
probably be understood as twOrbf(jb;@, 'at the fords',
a reading attested by many MSS. Caquot & Robert (1994:521)
do take the original in 17.16 as twObr:(a; and translate
the MT as 'les steppes'.
A.2 The MT reading at 2Sm 19.19 of hrFbf(jhf hrFb;(fw:'and the caravan crossed' should probably be restored, following the LXX, as hrb(h wrb(yw, 'and they crossed over the ford' (Driver
21913:335). See Versions A.3 and Exegesis
B.1. This emendation only requires the change of one letter - a he to a waw.
B.1 [nil]
A.1 hrFbf(j is cognate with the Heb verb
rba(
'to cross' or 'to travel [upon]'. The nouns derived from this verb in Heb are
rbf(jma, hrFbf@(;ma and
rbe(' , as well as some place names (e.g. MyrIbf(j,
Nu 27.12 etc.). Verbal cognates can be found in other languages, but there are few
cognates in other Semitic languages equivalent to a nominal form hrFbf(j.
A.2 hrFbf(j in RH (e.g. p.Nid 1.7) denotes
'passing by, ceasing' (Jastrow:1040). The lexeme hrb(h
also appears in RH, and Jastrow (359) glosses it as 'carrying'
(e.g. b.RH 27b) and 'leading across, passing' (e.g. p.Sanh 7.25b). It is also used
of shaving, denoting the passing of the razor across the hair (b.Naz 58b).
A.3 There is a possible Punic form of the cognate noun m(br
(cf. Hebrew rbf(jma) and an Aramaic incantaion
containing the noun m(brh (cf. Hebrew
hrFbf@(;ma), although alternative interpretations have been
suggested (see DNWSI:667).
A.4 In Akk the form abartum is used
both as a noun denoting 'the other bank, the other side' and in a prepositional sense
'across, on the other side' (CAD 1a:36), 'auf dem jenseitigem Ufer' (AHw:182).
The cognates eberta4m/eberta4n
(AHw:181; CAD 4:8—9) and ebertu I (AHw:4;
CAD 4:9-10) have the same meaning.
B.1 [nil]
A.1 + -h (BL:594 v)
B.1 [nil
A.1 The pl twOrbf(j is each time the nomen
regens of rbf@d:mi@ha 'wilderness' (2Sm 15.28; 17.16
[reading twOrbf(jba@]).
A.2 The verbs 'to wait [beside]' hhm hitp (2Sm
15.28) or 'to lodge [at]' Nw%l (2Sm 17.16) the
twOrbf(j are followed by the preposition b.
A.3 The verb rba(f governs hrFbf(j
as the direct object (2Sm 19.19).
B.1 [nil]
a. LXX: arabwq (2Sm 15.28; 17.16); e)lai/a
(Lucianic [b o c2 e2 and Mmg] 2Sm 15.28); leitourgi/a
and di/abasij (2Sm 19.19);
b. Pesh: pqa(ta4) (2Sm 15.28; 17.16);
ma(bra) (2Sm 19.19);
c. Targum: )rF#f$ym' (2Sm 15.28; 17.16);
I )tf@zygim; (2Sm 19.19);
d. Vulgate: campester (2Sm 15.28; 17.16); vadum (2Sm 19.19).
A.1 The LXX arabwq, Peshitta pqa(ta4)
'plain', Targum )rF#f$ym' 'plain' and Vulgate
campester 'field', all attest to the reading twObr:(a
at 2Sm 15.28; 17.16. The Hebrew tradition also presents a difference in reading,
the Versions being supported by the Qere of 2Sm 15.28 and some MSS
at 17.16.
A.2 The reading e)pi th~j e)lai/aj in the Lucianic
version of 2Sm 15.28 is part of a complex reading tradition and a series of doublets.
The source of the confusion lies in v. 30 where both the MT and the Greek have David
go up the Ascent of Olives (Mytiyz"@ha hl'(jmab;; e)n th~| a)naba&sei tw~n e)laiw~n).
In 2 Sm 15.17b it appears that the OG (e)pi th~j e)lai/aj) and
the OL (ad olivam) have read qxrmh tyb
'the last house' as rbdmh tyzb 'at the olive of the
wilderness' (transposing the phrase to v. 18; see Pisano 1984:132).
The reference to the wilderness is clarified by v. 23b where rbdmh
t) again seems to have been read as rbdmh tyz in
the Lucianic version. For these verses a misreading or scribal error in copying the
MT (J.F.Boettcher [p. 185] alone amongst commentators takes tyz
to have been the original reading in 17b), assisted by the mention in v. 30 of the
'Ascent of Olives', has brought about the Lucianic reading, and the mention of
rbdmh in v. 17 as well as in v. 23 suggests the latter has
influenced the former. In 2Sm 15.28 there is no word that could have been misread
as tyz and the Lucianic version must, therefore, be
harmonizing its translation here. For a detailed textual discussion, see Pisano
1984:130—36.
A.3 There appears to be a doublet in the LXX of 2Sm 19.19. In contrast to
the Pesh and Vg the LXX renders the verb plus noun as e)leitou&rghsan
th_n leitourgi/an, indicating that the translator read hdb(h
wdb(yw, a misreading of the resh for a daleth. This reading
would be facilitated by the knowledge that a ritual would be performed before the
crossing of a river. The LXX, however, resumes the verse with a correct translation
of hrFbf(j as di/abasij,
although it does not support the emendation of the MT by Driver
to hrb(h wrb(yw, 'and they crossed over the ford'
(21913:335). Commentators are divided as to which reading to adopt (see,
e.g., Exegesis B.2). Pisano (1984:145) notes
that the plural verb in the LXX e)leitou&rghsan attests
to a possible plural in the Hebrew and lends weight to the correction of hrb(y
to wrb(y (as in Driver 21913:335).
B.1 [nil]
A.1 [See K7rEdE@].
A.2 The term hrFbf(j only appears in the OT
in the prose narratives of 2Sm.
A.3 In its two occurrences in the MT, the hrFbf(j
is referred to as part of the wilderness east of Jerusalem. At 2Sm 19.19, the proposed
reading would also locate the hrFbf(j as being near
the Jordan.
B.1 [nil]
A.1 The hrFbf(j 'of the wilderness' near
Jerusalem probably refers to a crossing point of the river Jordan. Kyle
McCarter (1984:366, 388), however, follows the MT of 2Sm 17.16 and the Qere of
15.28 and translates the word as 'steppes' (cf. Caquot & Robert
1994:521). This is a possible interpretation of the word in the context of the wilderness
(rbf@d:mi), but if the emendation and interpretation
of 2Sm 19.19 is correct (A.2 below), then there is a greater chance that the word
hrFbf(j appears in these two passages also. All three passages are referring to the
same district.
A.2 For the noun rbf(jma, Dorsey infers that
the plural is used for the ford or crossing place of a river, and the singular for
the crossing place of a wady (1991:242). The same principle does not apply to
hrFbf(j, which is used in the singular at 2Sm 19.19 to
designate the crossing of the Jordan.
B.1 The interpretation of hrFbf(j at 2Sm 19.19
as 'ferry-boat' (hrb(h hrb(w, 'and the ferry-boat
kept passing over'), which is offered by Zorell (ad loc.)
and König, seems unlikely, since in its two other occurrences hrFbf(j
cannot mean 'ferry-boat' and the MT has probably arisen from the corruption of one
letter (see Introduction, Text Doubtful A.2 and Versions
A.3).
B.2 Kyle McCarter (1984:416) renders 2Sm 19.19 as
hdb(h wdb(yw, based on the LXX (in contrast
to the Tg and Vg). He argues that the infinitive phrases following (ryb(l,
tw#(l) all refer to work in
general, and therefore the main verb provides a suitable antecedent to them. Kyle
McCarter’s interpretation here and at 2Sm 15.28 and 17.16 would entail the non-existence
of the lexeme in the OT. While this is possible, its presence in RH does allow for
the possibility that it existed in the OT. Caquot & Robert
in contrast render 19.19 as 'l'équipe des passuers' (1994:546).
A.1 The lexeme hrFbf(j appears to be synonymous with the Heb rbf(jma, meaning a 'ford', but it is far less frequent, and in the OT is characteristic of the writer of 2Sm alone. Although it is possible that the lexeme may only appear in the OT through scribal correction, its presence in RH does suggest that the lexeme may have existed earlier. Its later use may, however, have affected the manuscript tradition and the word may have been added by later scribes.
B.1 [nil]