Save

Luxuriant and Well-Fatted: The Meaning of מעדנת in 1 Sam 15:32

In: Vetus Testamentum
Author:
Suzanna R. Millar New College, University of Edinburgh Edinburgh United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Suzanna R. Millar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7209-1891
Online Publication Date:
17 Nov 2022
Open Access

Abstract

The meaning of מעדנת in 1 Sam 15:32 is disputed, variously being translated “trembling,” “in chains,” or “cheerfully.” Based on linguistic and contextual evidence, I argue that it is best translated “luxuriantly” or “well-fatted,” and depicts Agag like a fattened animal going to slaughter.

Keywords: 1 Samuel; Amalekites; linguistic analysis; animals; human sacrifice

The infamous slaughter of the Amalekites (1 Sam 15) ends with the Amalekite king, Agag, approaching Samuel for execution (15:32–33). At the climactic moment of Agag’s approach, though, the Hebrew is obscure. It reads וילךְ אליו אגג מַעֲדַנֹּת “and Agag went to him maʿădannōt” (15:32b). The syntax and context suggest that מַעֲדַנֹּת is an adverb describing Agag’s movements, but its meaning is unclear. Modern and ancient translations offer various alternatives (e.g., NRSV “haltingly”; JPS “in chains”; ESV “cheerfully”).1 In this article, I will suggest another possibility: that מַעֲדַנֹּת should be translated “luxuriantly,” with connotations of being “well-fatted.” I will first explain the linguistic basis for this meaning, then demonstrate its fit within the literary context: Agag is correlated with the best fattened animals and brought to Samuel for sacrifice. Even if this denotation is not accepted, such connotations may reverberate around the word.

1 Linguistic Evidence

Three alternative derivations have been proposed for ‪מַעֲדַנֹּת‬: (1) ‪מעד‬, (2) ‪ענד‬, and (3) ‪עדן‬.2

1.1 מעד

Some commentators take מעדנת as derived from מעד “to totter, shake.”3 They suggest revocalising as מְעֹדַנִּת—a defectively spelt adverb on the morphological analogy of אֲחֹרַנִּית “backwards” (from אחר “to go behind”) and קְדֹרַנִּית “mourningly” (from קדר “to be dark”).4 The sense would be “shakingly,” suggesting Agag’s fear. This is supported by the LXX translation τρέμων, and some Vulgate manuscripts, which offer tremens. However, this emendation can only remain speculative. It requires a particular interpretation of Agag’s psychological state, which may fit with LXX (where he seems fearful) but not MT (where he seems confident).5 Furthermore, the form מְעֹדַנִּת is not known elsewhere. Only two other words occur with this morphology, one of which is a hapax legomenon (קְדֹרַנִּית; only in Mal 3:14). It is far from certain that this word existed,6 and we can make good sense of the text without emendation.

1.2 ענד

If the vowels are not emended, מַעֲדַנֹּת seems to be a feminine plural noun (sg: מַעֲדָן), formed on the maqtāl nominal pattern,7 functioning as an adverbial accusative.8 Interpreters have hypothesised two possible derivations. The first is the root ענד, which occurs twice as a qal verb (Job 31:36; Prov 6:21), probably meaning “to bind.” The expected nominal form would be מַעֲנַדּוֹת; here we require a metathesis of ד and נ. This possibility may be supported by the single other occurrence of מַעֲדָן in feminine plural (the masculine plural will be discussed below): Job 38:31 reads התקשׁר מַעֲדַנּוֹת כימה, usually understood as “can you bind the chains of Pleiades?” Thus, in 1 Sam 15:32, Agag goes to Samuel “in chains” (so Kimhi בקשׁרים “in bonds”).9

However, there are several problems with this interpretation: It is derived from a rare root,10 with metathesised consonants. If the metathesis is the result of an oral or written error,11 it would be surprising to find it independently occurring twice, in the only two occurrences of the term. It could be instead a historic metathesis which solidified into the lexeme’s conventional form, though this is relatively rare in biblical Hebrew nouns.12 Importantly, unlike the other proposed translations of 1 Sam 15:32, “in chains” does not seem to have been recognised by ancient interpreters. It does not have any versional support, suggesting that ancient translators were unaware of it or rejected it. Additionally, מַעֲדַנֹּת occurs in a Masoretic list of homonymous doublets (i.e., words with two occurrences with different meanings),13 indicating that the Masoretes did not consider it to have the same meaning in Samuel and Job.14

Furthermore, the interpretation of Job 38:31 is not wholly secure. According to Driver, the translation “chains” “can hardly be accepted.”15 It is not supported by the Peshitta or Vulgate,16 and while it is suggested by LXX (δεσμός) and some Targum manuscripts (שׁושׁילא), these interpretations could be, as Driver notes, “guesses of translators at their wits’ ends.”17 There is no evidence of an ancient mythology of Pleiades in chains.18 It is possible that the word in Job is derived from another root, known from Ugaritic ʿdn “host” and Arabic ʿadanatu(n) “company, party of men,” thus referring to the company of stars which make up Pleiades.19 This would make little sense in 1 Sam 15:32.

1.3 עדן

A final possibility is to derive מַעֲדַנֹּת from עדן. This interpretation does not require transposition of consonants or repointing of vowels, and thus is the textually simplest option. Excluding this verse, forms from this root occur nine times in the Hebrew Bible,20 including the alternative (i.e., masculine) plural of מַעֲדָן (מַעֲדַנִּים; Gen 49:20; Lam 4:5; Prov 29:17).21 We also find related people and place names (most famously, the Garden of Eden), and cognate forms in other Semitic languages.22 While there is not enough semantic data to be certain, common to these uses seem to be ideas around luxury, abundance, and indulgence.23 מַעֲדַנִּים refers to luxury foods (Gen 49:20; Lam 4:5); according to TDOT it “clearly means ‘selected delicacies.’”24 I suggest that this core semantic content is important for interpreting Agag’s movements. This has, however, been missed by most commentators, even when they recognise this root here, for example translating as “cheerfully” or “delicately.”

(a) Several translators present Agag going “cheerfully” to Samuel.25 Support for meaning this comes from some Semitic cognates26 and from Prov 29:17. In Prov 29:17, the well-disciplined son gives מַעֲדַנִּים to his father’s being, usually translated as “delight” or similar. However, this is a semantic extension away from the basic meaning of מעדן as “fine food” or “selected delicacies,” and (as TDOT notes), we “weaken the vitality of the metaphor by rendering it abstractly.”27 Furthermore, after the annihilation of his people, it is unlikely that Agag would be delighted, even if (as possibly suggested by his subsequent words in MT) he anticipates his imminent release (see further below). An alternative is to take מַעֲדַנֹּת as “delicately,” centralising the daintiness of “selected delicacies.”28 Such connotations may be present in some versions: Symmachus uses ἁβρός, Aquila τρυφερός, and the Targum מפנק. However, delicacy is not suggested by the literary context here, nor does it seem central to the meaning of עדן.

(b) Rather, we should take seriously this root’s connotations of luxury, fatness, and indulgence. מַעֲדַנִּים are fine foods. In Lam 4:5 they are implicitly eaten by the purple-clad elites, and in Gen 49:20 the “king’s delicacies” (מַעֲדַנֵּי־מלךְ) are connected with his fatty food (שׁמנה לחמו). So too עֲדָנִים “luxuries” can refer to consumables, swallowed by king Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 51:34) and paralleling “fatness” (דשׁן; Ps 36:9[8]). The verbal form עדן (hithpael) is the climactic culmination in a list of feasting verbs: “they ate and were filled and became fat and luxuriated” (ויאכלו וישׁבעו וישׁמינו ויתעדנו; Neh 9:25). The Garden of Eden may be known for its abundant and luscious foods (Gen 2:8–9).29 The versions may also suggest this understanding. Aquila’s τρυφερός could be translated as “luxurious, voluptuous” (LJS). The root in the Targum—פנק—is elsewhere connected with fatty foods (Tg. Isa. 55:2; Jer 31:14; Lam 4:5). Most explicitly, Vulgate has pinguissimus “very fat.”30 I suggest that the sense of fatness is relevant here, and helps construct the elite Agag as a surrogate for a prized animal, ready for slaughter.

I therefore propose translating מַעֲדַנֹּת as something like “luxuriantly” or “well-fatted.” Even if this translation is not accepted, there is conceivably a wordplay.31 מַעֲדַנֹּת might be translated as, e.g., “in chains,” yet bring connotations of fatty foods via the homonym. These connotations are strengthened by the literary context.

2 Contextual Evidence

Samuel R. Driver proposed a translation similar to this, stating “[t]he most obvious rendering is voluptuously.” However, he rejected this because it “is not probable in view of the context.”32 On the contrary, though, I argue that luxuriance and fatness are contextually resonant, both in the immediate literary context and more broadly.

2.1 Immediate Literary Context

In 15:32, Agag is summoned by Samuel (v. 32a), he approaches מַעֲדַנֹּת (v. 32b), and then he speaks (v. 32c). Unfortunately, Agag’s words contain textual problems: In MT, he says אכן סר מר המות “surely, the bitterness of death has passed.”33 This Hebrew probably underlies the Vulg and Targ too,34 but LXX and Pesh seem to be based on the Hebrew אכן מר המות “surely, death is bitter.”35 The discrepancy involves the lexemes סר and מר, which are visually very similar in square script and thus raise various possibilities of orthographic corruption.36 I do not think it possible to resolve this textual issue conclusively. I suggest, though, that my translation of מַעֲדַנֹּת is fitting for either option.

Some proposed translations of מַעֲדַנֹּת are only appropriate for one interpretation of Agag’s words. Thus “cheerfully” (1.3a above) is most appropriate if Agag anticipates his release (with MT), and “trembling” (1.1) if Agag anticipates his death (with LXX). “In chains” (1.2)—which does not suggest Agag’s psychological state—could fit with either. And so, I suggest, could “luxuriantly/well-fatted”. If Agag says “surely, the bitterness of death is passed,” then he may have an optimism veering on arrogance. This would be expected of a ruler who walks luxuriantly and well-fatted, used to evading trouble. He would be similar to the elites of Amos 6:4–7, who lead lives of indulgence and feasting, but “are not grieved by the ruin of Joseph.” Indeed, several biblical texts correlate indulgent, luxurious lifestyles with arrogant dispositions (Deut 32:13–15; Ezek 16:13–15; Prov 30:8–9; Ps 73:3–7).37 Conversely, if Agag says “surely death is bitter,” then a poignant juxtaposition emerges between his body and his words. His body is luxuriant, fat, and thus life-filled, while his words are moribund. Furthermore, his flesh is fatty like fine food (מעדן), like livestock ready for slaughter. But unlike sacrificial animals, who are silent (Isa 53:7) or unintelligible (1 Sam 15:14), he speaks human words lamenting his fate (cf. Judg 11:37–4038).

Indeed, additional clues in the immediate literary context imply animal sacrifice, supporting these connotations of “well-fatted.” In commanding הגישׁה לי את אגג “Bring to me Agag” (1 Sam 15:32a), Samuel uses a verb (נגשׁ hiphil) often elsewhere employed for bringing sacrificial offerings.39 He echoes Saul, who has twice recently used a similar imperative (הגישׁו) to command that animals be brought for slaughter (13:9; 14:34). After he arrives, Agag is killed (15:33).40 The verb which describes his death—וישׁסף—is best interpreted in relation to the root ‪שׁסע‬,41 which elsewhere refers to tearing up an animal:42 Samson tears up (שׁסע) a lion like a goat (Judg 14:6); the priest tears up (שׁסע) a bird before sacrificing it (Lev 1:17). The versions here maintain the sense of animal dismemberment for sacrifice.43 All this happens “before Yahweh at Gilgal.” This is a cultic location, connecting this event with a series of fateful sacrifices that have framed and punctuated Saul’s reign (1 Sam 11:15; 13:8–14; cf. 9:11–10:1; 14:32–35).

2.2 Broader Literary Context

This brings us to the broader literary context, which similarly resonates with the sense “luxuriant, well-fatted.” The chapters surrounding 1 Sam 15 attend to the bodies of their protagonists. Saul is unusually tall (9:2), the potentially positive implications of which are complexified by his decline and by correlation with the giant Goliath (17:4).44 Agag too may carry the over-large and aberrant body of the foreigner, in contrast to the “small” (16:11; 17:14) and beautiful (16:12) David. A large, luxuriant, well-fatted body may be a sign of a corrupt elite lifestyle,45 in contrast to the fasting of soldiers (1 Sam 14:24; 2 Sam 11:11; 23:13–17). Eli’s sons are condemned for fattening themselves on the choice parts of the offering (1 Sam 2:29), and Eli himself is heavy (כבד), crushed by his own bodyweight (4:18). Royals are particularly guilty. The wicked Nabal holds the “feast of a king” (25:36), and the corrupt “king like the nations” will employ a surfeit of “cooks and bakers” (8:13). Agag may represent such a monarch.

Furthermore, as noted above, Agag does not just correspond with indulgent elites, but with fattened animals. 1 Samuel 15 brings them into conceptual correspondence: Agag and various prized animals are together spared from destruction (15:9). This listing suggests that its items are somehow equivalent and belong in a common category. The animals are luxuriant and well-fatted, likely the property of elites—the “best of the flock and herd” (מיטב הצאן והבקר). “Rams” are specified, using a term—כרים—that elsewhere occurs in an elite context (2 Kgs 3:4; Jer 51:40; Ezek 27:21; Amos 6:4) and/or is explicitly connected with fatness (Deut 32:14; Isa 34:6; Ezek 39:18).46 Perhaps also specified are “the fat ones” (השׁמנים), though the text here is difficult.47 When Agag walks towards Samuel מַעֲדַנֹּת, he becomes like one of these creatures—luxuriant and well-fatted like they.48 Fattened animals are prized sacrificial offerings; indeed, Saul’s claim (whether or not we believe him) is that he spared these animals for sacrifice (15:15, 21).49 The twist is that the livestock are not in fact killed (for God does not delight in “the fat of rams”; חלב אילים; 15:22). Instead, Agag comes to the priest at a cultic site, approaches מַעֲדַנֹּת—like a fattened animal—and is slain before Yahweh.

The literary context thus attends to large elite bodies, connects Agag to fattened animals, and makes him the victim of sacrifice. Thus, it is no surprise if he comes to Samuel like the best of the animals, luxuriant and well-fatted (מַעֲדַנֹּת).

3 Conclusion

I have argued that מַעֲדַנֹּת in 1 Sam 15:32 should be translated “luxuriantly,” with implications of being “well-fatted.” This makes good sense of the linguistic and contextual evidence, and should thus be considered above—or at least alongside—the alternative proposals. Even if this translation is not accepted, connotations of luxuriance and fatness may be present in the root. If this is the case, it contributes to the highly problematic portrayal of foreigners in 1 Sam 15. This chapter includes an abhorrent command of ethnic cleansing,50 and the fate of Agag is a stark example of cruelty against the outsider. By fattening Agag, the text taps into xenophobic tropes of the foreigner with a monstrous body. By connecting him with animals, it dehumanises him, delegitimising him as an object of moral concern, and offering sacrifice as a performative apparatus for his slaughter.

Bibliography

  • Alter, Robert. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: Norton, 2009.

  • Auld, A. Graeme. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012.

  • Bodner, Keith. 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary. Hebrew Bible Monographs. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2009.

  • Bratcher, Robert G. “How Did Agag Meet Samuel? (1 Sam. 15:32).” BT 22 (1971): 167–168.

  • Budde, D. Karl. Die Bücher Samuel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1902.

  • Clines, David J. A. Job 38–42. WBC 18B. Nashville: Nelson, 2011.

  • Dahood, Mitchell J. “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography XI.” Bib 54 (1973): 351–366.

  • Doak, Brian R. Heroic Bodies in Ancient Israel. Oxford: OUP, 2019.

  • Driver, Godfrey R. “Two Astronomical Passages in the Old Testament.” JTS 7 (1956): 1–11.

  • Driver, Samuel Rolles. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel: With an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions and Facsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps. 2nd revised and enlarged ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Driver, Samuel Rolles, and George Buchanan Gray. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job: Together with a New Translation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Firth, David G. 1 and 2 Samuel. ApOTC. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2020.

  • Fraine, Joseph de. “Le Roi Agag Devant La Mort (1 Sam 15,32b).” EstEcl 34 (1960): 537–545.

  • Frendsdorff, S. Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Massora). Hanover: Hahn, Hofbuchhandlung, 1864.

  • Garsiel, Moshe. “Wordplays, Puns and Puns Upon Names: As a Literary and Rhetorical Device in the Book of Samuel.” Beit Mikra 44 (1998): 1–14. (Hebrew)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gilmour, Rachelle. Divine Violence in the Book of Samuel. New York: OUP, 2022.

  • Gordis, Robert. The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies. Moreshet Series 2. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gordon, Robert P. 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster, 1986.

  • Guillaume, Alfred. Studies in the Book of Job with a New Translation. ALUOSSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1968.

  • Gunn, David M. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story. JSOTSup 14. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980.

  • Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job. OTL. London: SCM, 1985.

  • Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.

  • Hertzberg, Hans W. I & II Samuel. OTL. London: SCM, 1964.

  • Kalimi, Isaac. Metathesis in the Hebrew Bible: Wordplay as a Literary and Exegetical Device. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2018.

  • Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin. “עדן.” TDOT 10:481–490.

  • Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. 2nd ed. WBC 10. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2008.

  • Kugler, Gili. “Metaphysical Hatred and Sacred Genocide: The Questionable Role of Amalek in Biblical Literature.” Journal of Genocide Research 23 (2021): 1–16.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lagarde, Paul de. Prophetae Chaldaice. Lipsiae: In aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1872.

  • Marcus, David. 1 Samuel. Vol. 3 of The Masorah of the Former Prophets in the Leningrad Codex. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020.

  • McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel: A New Translation, with Introduction, Notes & Commentary. AB 8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980.

  • Millard, Alan R. “The Etymology of Eden.” VT 34 (1984): 103–106.

  • Shivtiel, Avihai. “Metathesis.” Pages 634–635 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by Geoffrey Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. The Indiana Literary Biblical Series. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stone, Ken. “Animal Difference, Sexual Difference, and the Daughter of Jephthah.” BibInt 24 (2016): 1–16.

  • Talmon, Šemaryāhû. “1 Sam. XV 32b: A Case of Conflated Readings?” VT 11 (1961): 456–457.

  • Tatlock, Jason. “The Deuteronomistic Endorsement of Sacrificing Errant Individuals as Reflected by the Hebrew Terms Herem and Bi’er.” JSS 65 (2020): 297–324.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Thierry, Gerard J. “Remarks on Various Passages of the Psalms.” Pages 77–97 in Oudtestamentische Studiën XIII. Edited by Pieter A. H. de Boer. Leiden: Brill, 1963.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tsumura, David Toshio, “Scribal Errors or Phonetic Spellings? Samuel as an Aural Text.” VT 49 (1999): 390–411.

  • Welton, Rebekah. He Is a Glutton and a Drunkard: Deviant Consumption in the Hebrew Bible. BibInt. Leiden: Brill, 2020.

1

LXX, Vulg, and Targ are discussed below; the word is not represented in Pesh. See further Bratcher, “Agag”; Fraine, “Agag”; Talmon, “Conflated.”

2

BDB and HALOT each offer all three suggestions.

3

Seminally, Lagarde, Prophetae. So Klein, Samuel, “trembling and hesitant”; Driver, Samuel, “totteringly”; Firth, Samuel, “trembling”; Bratcher, “Agag,” “trembling”; SCB, GNT “trembling”; NRSV “haltingly”; NEB “with faltering step.”

4

GKC §100g explains these words by the double addition of two adverbial endings ָן and ִית. Cf. also JM §102b.

5

The difference depends on the interpretation of Agag’s speech in 15:32c. See further below.

6

So Fraine, “Agag,” 541.

7

GKC §85g; JM §88Le.

8

GKC §188q; JM §102d.

9

McCarter, Samuel, “in fetters”; Auld, Samuel, “in bonds”; Fraine, “Agag,” “chargé de chaines”; NIV, CEV, ISV, JPS “in chains.”

10

Noted by Budde, Samuel, 122.

11

Habel (Job, 522–523) and Hartley (Job, 500) suggest an error in Job 38:31 and propose reading as מענדת. Regarding Samuel, Tsumura (Scribal, 408) suggests that מַעֲדַנֹּת is a “phonetic spelling” for מענדת.

12

Shivtiel (“Metathesis”) notes that it occurs only in “a few nouns.” Neither he nor Kalimi (Metathesis, 17–22) lists this term as an example.

13

Marcus, Masora, 245–246. The list occurs in the Masoretic treatise ספר אכלה ואכלה, published by Frensdorff (Ochlah, here §59).

14

Driver and Gray, Job, 306; Gordis, Job, 450.

15

Driver, “Astronomical,” 3.

16

Pesh has “face” (ʿapy); Vulg has “shining stars” (micantes stellas).

17

Driver, “Astronomical,” 3.

18

Clines, Job, 1063; Driver, “Astronomical,” 3.

19

Driver, “Astronomical,” 3; Guillaume, Job, 131. Interpreters have also sometimes taken it from the root עדן, to mean “sweet influences” (KJV) or similar, referring to the influence of Pleiades over the onset of spring (Nachmanides, Gersonides).

20

The occurrences are: the hithpael verb עדן (Neh 9:15); the adjective עָדִין (Isa 47:8), and the nouns עֲדָנִים (sg not attested; 2 Sam 1:24; Jer 51:34; Ps 36:9), עֶדְנָה (Gen 18:12), and מַעֲדַנִּים (sg not attested; Gen 49:20; Lam 4:5; Prov 29:17).

21

Cf. the double gender possibility of the morphologically equivalent noun מַטְעָם— masculine (Gen 27: 4, 7, 9, 14, 17, 31) and feminine (Prov 23: 3, 6).

22

Kedar-Kopfstein, “‪עדן‬,” 482.

23

Cf. BDB עֵדֶן “luxury, dainty, delight”; עָדַן “luxuriate”; עֶדְנָה “delight”; עָדִין “voluptuous”; מַעֲדָן “dainty (food), delight.”

24

Kedar-Kopfstein, “עדן,” 485.

25

Bodner, Samuel, “confidently”; ESV, NASB, ASV “cheerfully”; NTL “full of hope”; GHCL “with joy.”

26

Kedar-Kopfstein, “‪עדן‬,” 482: “Middle Heb. ʿiddûnîm ‘delights,’ ʿdn piel and Syr. pael, ‘delight, make pleasant.’”

27

Kedar-Kopfstein, “‪עדן‬,” 485.

28

Alter, David, “with mincing steps”; KJB “delicately”; YLT “daintily.”

29

Millard (“Etymology,” 103) argues that Eden’s etymology is from this root, meaning “abundant, lush.”

30

Many Vulgate manuscripts conflate this with translation (1.1) above, giving pinguissimus et tremens. Talmon (“Conflated,” 456) suggests that tremens is “probably a secondary intrusion.” Pinguis commonly translates Hebrew שָׁמֵן (Gen 49:20; Num 13:21) and שֶׁמֶן (Prov 21:17; Isa 25:6), and is used for fattened animals, translating מריא (1 Kgs 1:9; Isa 1:11) and בריא (1 Kgs 4:23; Ezek 34:20).

31

Wordplays have been found throughout Samuel (see, e.g., Garsiel, “Wordplays”). In this chapter, the place name טְלָאִים (15:4) may be a pun between the location Telem (Josh 15:24) and a word for “lambs” (Isa 40:11), given the centrality of animals to the chapter.

32

Driver, Samuel, 129–130.

33

Followed by Bodner, Samuel; Firth, Samuel; Hertzberg, Samuel.

34

Vulg has Siccine separat amara mors? (Douay-Rheims: “Doth bitter death separate in this manner?”). Targ has apparently taken סר (“to turn aside”) as שׂר (“prince, lord”) and offers בבעו רבצני מריר מותא (“Please, my lord, death is bitter”). This is followed by de Fraine (“Agag,” 543), who restores the Hebrew אָנֹכִי שָׂר מֹרֶה־מוֹת, “je suis un prince, qui montre comment il faut mourir.”

35

Followed by Brachter, “Agag”; McCarter, Samuel; Klein, Samuel. LXX has Εἰ οὕτως πικρὸς ὁ θάνατος, “Is this the bitterness that will be death?” (probably understanding אכן as הֲכֵן, turning the statement into a question). Pesh has šryr’yt mryr mwt’, “Indeed, death is bitter.”

36

The possible original lexemes סר מר may have been conflated through quasi-haplography (to just מר). An original מר may have been corruptly duplicated through a quasi-dittography (to סר מר). Two separate traditions—סר and מר—may have arisen through orthographic corruption, later being brought together (to סר מר; so Talmon, “Conflated”).

37

See Welton, Glutton, 146, 156–157.

38

Jephthah’s daughter weeps for two months before being sacrificed like an animal on her father’s altar. See further Stone, “Animal.”

39

E.g., Exod 32:6; Lev 2:8; 8:14; Amos 5:25; Mal 1:7–8; 2:12; 3:3; 2 Chr 29:23.

40

Before killing Agag, Samuel explains his death in legal terms, justifying it through lex talionis (15:33a). The death thus has both legal and sacrificial overtones.

41

BDB, HALOT. שׁסף is a hapax legomenon without clear Semitic cognates. An alternative is to take וישׁסף as an incorrectly vocalised shaphel from סוף. In qal, סוף means “to come to an end,” so shaphel would mean “to bring to an end.” Thierry, “Remarks,” 88, followed by Dahood, “Lexicography,” 362; Tatlock, “Deuteronomistic,” 307; noted in HALOT. However, the shaphel is extremely rare in biblical Hebrew, and there is no other evidence of its existence for this root.

42

The only other occurrence of שׁסע is obscure: In 1 Sam 28:8[7], David “persuades[?]” his men.

43

For וישׁסף, LXX has σφάζω, which often translates the Hebrew שׁחט, “to slaughter (an animal),” and sometimes זבח, “to sacrifice.” Pesh and Targ use פשׁח, “to tear.” In Pesh, this verb is particularly used of dismembering animals (Pesh Judg 14:6; 1 Sam 11:7), including in a sacrificial context (Pesh Exod 29:17; 1 Kgs 18:23, 33). Vulg has in frusta concidit, “cut in pieces,” which elsewhere refers to preparing an animal for sacrifice (Vulg Exod 29:17; Lev 1:6; 8:20; 9:13).

44

Doak, Heroic, 132–135.

45

Welton, Glutton, 161–170.

46

Thus Welton (Glutton, 163) translates כרים as “well fed lambs.”

47

MT has המשׁנים, “double, second,” which is difficult to understand (unless possibly referring to double portions). I assume an error via metathesis of שׁ and מ, supported by the Pesh (wdšmjn’), Targ (ושׁמיניא), and DeRossi’s manuscript 594, and followed by most interpreters. An alternative is הַמַּשְׁמַנִּים (cf. Neh 8:10; McCarter, Samuel).

48

Cf. the colocation of שׁמן and עדן in Gen 49:20 and Neh 9:25.

49

Scholars disagree about whether Saul genuinely intends to sacrifice the animals (Gilmour, Violence, 93–94; Gunn, Saul, 71) or not (Gordon, Samuel, 57; Sternberg, Poetics, 506–511).

50

Kugler, “Metaphysical.”

Title:
Luxuriant and Well-Fatted: The Meaning of מעדנת in 1 Sam 15:32
Article Type:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/15685330-bja10123
Language:
English
Pages:
205–215
Keywords:
1 Samuel; Amalekites; linguistic analysis; animals; human sacrifice
In:
Vetus Testamentum
In:
Volume 74: Issue 2
Received:
05 Sep 2022
Accepted:
27 Sep 2022
Publisher:
Brill
E-ISSN:
1568-5330
Print ISSN:
0042-4935
Subjects:
Hebrew Bible, Biblical Studies, General, Jewish Studies

Content Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 413 203 31
PDF Views & Downloads 699 251 22