Robert Alter's Conjectural Emendation to 1 Samuel 30:20

Alter renders 1 Sam 30:20 thusly:

 

And David took all the sheep and the cattle. They drove before them that livestock and said, “This is David’s booty.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:303)

 

Alter explains his conjectural emendation to the text:

 

They drove before them that livestock. The Masoretic Text has the syntactically problematic “before that livestock” (lifney hamiqneh hahuʾ). This translation is based on a small emendation, lifneyhem (“before them”), assuming a haplography—an inadvertent scribal deletion of repeated letters, since the last two letters of lifneyhem (heh and mem) are also the first two letters of hamiqneh. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:303)

 

Robert Alter on 1 Samuel 26:22

 

And David answered and said, “Here is the king’s spear.” It is noteworthy that David does not immediately respond to Saul’s renewed profession of regret and good faith. (The Masoretic consonantal text, the ketiv, tries to rescue this lapse by representing these words as a vocative, “Here is the spear, king,” but the qeri, or pronounced Masoretic version, properly renders it as ḥanit hamelekh, “the king’s spear.”) In the encounter at the cave, David vowed he would not harm Saul’s descendants, though his actual words were not reported. Here, he first gives an impersonal order to have the spear brought back to Saul. It is only when he goes on to recapitulate his profession of innocence that he again addresses Saul. By this point, he no longer trusts any promises Saul may make not to harm him but hopes that God will note his own proper conduct and therefore protect him (verse 24). (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:290)

 

Roberto Flores on the Macuahuitl Being Called a "Sword" ("Espada")

  

Esta característica hace que, en el caso de los atributos que visten al ixiptla, sea imposible abordarlos únicamente desde su sentido utilitario. El xiuhcoatl que blande el ixiptla de Huitzilopochtli es un macuahuitl (‘una espada’), pero, al mismo tiempo, es un objeto flamígero de carácter solar (tonalli): un rayo de sol. Ambos sentidos coexisten durante el ritual de Panquetzaliztli. El primer problema para la semiótica es relacionar ambos sentidos: es decir, determinar cómo procede el tránsito de uno al otro, desde la constitución del atavío como signo. El segundo problema es elucidar el modo en que esa relación da lugar a la presencia viva del ente sobrenatural. Es decir, el primero es un problema de inmanencia en el estrato sígnico-textual, y el segundo, de trascendencia en el estrato de las prácticas enunciativas. En el ixiptla se produce el tránsito de un estrato a otro.

 

. . .

 

Para entender tanto los efectos de sentido de las magnitudes semióticas involucradas en el ixiptla de Huitzilopochtli (espada, rayo solar, deidad, etc.) como el sentido de la presencia viva, es preciso comenzar con una caracterización semiótica de sus formas apariencia y de re-presentación6 en el seno de una semiótica connotativa.

 

Al abordar el caso del ixiptla y su apariencia, resulta claro que es imposible dar cuenta de ellos en términos simplemente denotativos, como la función semiótica establecida entre una expresión y un contenido, sino que corresponde a un signo connotativo compuesto de tres estratos (Figura 1⁷). En el primero de ellos (E-₁), el xiuhcoatl es un signo denotativo cuyo sentido principal es el de ser una espada solar de carácter mágico religioso. Ese signo pasa a ser parte integral de la figura sensible (cualquiera que sea su manifestación: escultura, imagen grabada en piedra o pintada, el nombre mismo) de Huitzilopochtli (E₀), que es un texto dotado igualmente de un valor solar; al ser la espada emblema de la divinidad, la metonimia opera en dos isotopías figurativas: la celeste-ígnea y la guerrera. De esta manera, la figura de la espada pasa a connotar la figura de la divinidad: el signo connotativo opera en el plano de la expresión, al que se le asigna un contenido suplementario. Un segundo paso consiste en integrar un discurso totalizante y circunstanciado en una práctica significante (Fontanille, 2008, capítulo 1) (E₊₁) a partir de la constitución progresiva de las figuras de los estratos inferiores: de esta manera, es posible afirmar que el ixiptla, en primera instancia, está constituido por un sistema de connotaciones distribuidas en múltiples estratos. El procedimiento es recursivo. Puesto que una figura dada se compone mereológicamente de formantes figurativos, es posible que, a su vez, un formante esté compuesto de formantes de menor alcance: así, por ejemplo, un accesorio ritual como el xiuhcoatl tiene diversas partes funcionales, pero también simbólicas (empuñadura, filos de obsidiana, forma de serpiente, colores) que poseen sentidos específicos.

 

Ahora bien, el procedimiento analítico que conduce del signo a su presencia en situación no ha finalizado: no es posible afirmar que el sentido sobrenatural de xiuhcoatl sea el de la simple connotación; no se trata de una significación que se añada a un sentido de base y que se pase de un sentido literal a un sentido figurativo en contexto (la figura sobrenatural como contexto de la espada y el ritual como contexto de la figura). Hay un hiato que, en el recorrido de las connotaciones, aparece entre la figura material y la presencia divina. Para comprender la presencia viva, se requiere adjuntar un metalenguaje semiótico de carácter mítico. (Roberto Flores, “Presencia y experiencia de lo sobrenatural en los antiguos mexicanos,” Tópicos del Seminario 55 [January 26, 2026]: 84-85, 86-87)

 

 

English Translation:

 

This feature means that, in the case of the attributes that dress the ixiptla, they cannot be treated solely in terms of their utilitarian meaning. The xiuhcoatl wielded by the ixiptla of Huitzilopochtli is a macuahuitl (“a sword”), but at the same time it is a fiery, solar object (tonalli): a ray of sunlight. Both senses coexist during the Panquetzaliztli ritual. The first problem for semiotics is to relate the two senses: that is, to determine how the passage from one to the other takes place, starting from the constitution of the accoutrement as a sign. The second problem is to elucidate how that relationship gives rise to the living presence of the supernatural being. In other words, the first is a problem of immanence in the sign-textual stratum, and the second a problem of transcendence in the stratum of enunciative practices. In the ixiptla the passage from one stratum to the other occurs.

 

. . .

 

To understand both the sense-effects of the semiotic magnitudes involved in the ixiptla of Huitzilopochtli (sword, sun-ray, deity, etc.) and the sense of the living presence, it is necessary to begin with a semiotic characterization of its forms, appearance, and re-presentation6 within a connotative semiotics.

 

When tackling the case of the ixiptla and its appearance, it becomes clear that they cannot be accounted for in simply denotative terms — i.e., as the semiotic function established between an expression and a content — but correspond rather to a connotative sign composed of three strata (Figure 1⁷). In the first of these (E_-1), the xiuhcoatl is a denotative sign whose primary sense is that of a solar sword of magical-religious character. That sign becomes an integral part of the sensible figure (whatever its manifestation: sculpture, image carved in stone or painted, the very name) of Huitzilopochtli (E₀), which itself is also endowed with a solar value; since the sword is an emblem of the divinity, metonymy operates in two figurative isotopies: the celestial-fiery and the warrior. In this way, the figure of the sword comes to connote the figure of the divinity: the connotative sign operates on the plane of expression, to which a supplementary content is assigned. A second step consists in integrating a totalizing and circumstanced discourse into a signifying practice (Fontanille, 2008, chapter 1) (E₊₁) from the progressive constitution of the figures of the lower strata: thus it is possible to assert that the ixiptla, in the first instance, is constituted by a system of connotations distributed across multiple strata. The procedure is recursive. Because a given figure is mereologically composed of figurative formants, it is possible that, in turn, a formant is itself composed of formants of lesser scope: thus, for example, a ritual accessory such as the xiuhcoatl has various functional but also symbolic parts (hilt, obsidian edges, serpent shape, colours) that possess specific senses.

 

Now, the analytical procedure that leads from the sign to its presence in situation is not yet complete: one cannot assert that the supernatural sense of the xiuhcoatl is simply that of connotation; it is not a signification added to a base sense whereby one moves from a literal meaning to a figurative one in context (the supernatural figure as the context of the sword and the ritual as the context of the figure). There is a gap that, in the itinerary of the connotations, appears between the material figure and the divine presence. To understand the living presence, it is necessary to attach a semiotic metalanguage of a mythic character.

 

 

Jesús Erick González Rizo on the Tonaltec Variant of the Macuahuitl and it being called a sword ("Espada")

  

Características generales del macuahuitl

 

Sobre las dimensiones de esta arma, la menor o estándar era de entre 60-70 cm y se utilizaba con una mano (Garduño 2009: 109, 115); la mayor era conocida por los españoles como “espada a dos manos o mandoble”, midiendo aproximadamente 1.20 m. El macuahuitl llevaba filos de obsidiana, usualmente cuchillas prismáticas; éstas también se usaban más comúnmente como lancetas y navajas (Taube, 1991). El uso de las navajas prismáticas representó una innovación tecnológica muy importante, ya que por primera vez los ejércitos mesoamericanos disponían de una superficie cortante, eficaz y relativamente amplia. La creación de grandes cuchillos de obsidiana no era viable en las batallas debido a su fragilidad. Esta amplia superficie cortante es lo único que las asemejaba con espadas, pues en la práctica, no servían para apuñalar, sino sólo para cortar. El macuahuitl llevaba filos de obsidiana, generalmente cuchillas prismáticas, las cuales se utilizaban comúnmente como lancetas y navajas (Taube 1991).

 

. . .

 

En sus versiones más grandes, el macuahuitl debía manejarse con las dos manos debido a su peso. Era un arma diseñada solamente de ataque, no de defensa, ya que no podía resistir impactos directos como lo haría una espada. Esencialmente era un arma de corte que podía desgarrar tejidos –causando infecciones debido a las microlascas–, así como provocar pequeñas fracturas en los huesos, pero no era capaz de amputar miembros completos (Cervera Obregón 2007: 65). Entonces, probablemente, un guerrero portador de macuahuitl centraría su ataque fundamentalmente en los miembros del oponente, más que a su torso, que con frecuencia estaba mejor protegido. En ocasiones se le ha llegado a comparar con la espada hispana, incluso, se le ha llamado espada mesoamericana (Roper 1996); pero, el macuahuitl no tiene un equivalente exacto en el armamento hispánico, ya que no sirve para punzar. A diferencia del arco y la flecha o los lanzadardos (atlatl), cuyo uso era más amplio, incluso como instrumento de cacería, el macuahuitl no tenía otra finalidad más que la bélica.

 

En el mismo Lienzo de Tlaxcala se atestigua que el uso de porras de madera con remate y pomo esférico estaba mucho más extendido, que el del macuahuitl. Cabe mencionar que en la región Occidente muchas de las porras son representadas sin pomo.

 

. . .

 

El Macuahuitl tonalteca: singularidades y características

 

Sabemos que había guerreros tonaltecas bien entrenados para el uso del macuahuitl, tanto por las fuentes hispanas como por las indígenas. Del puño y letra de Nuño de Guzmán que los hispanos “juzgaban no haber visto más osados ni valientes indios que estos. Las armas que traían heran (sic) arcos y flechas y macanas y espadas de dos manos, de madera, y algunas hondas y rodelas, y muy emplumados y teñidos” (Razo y Cortés 1982: 40; véase también Iturriaga 2010: 19). La habilidad de los tonaltecas y forma de estas armas no sólo impresionó a Guzmán, sino también a los auxiliares tlaxcaltecas que lo acompañaban, ya que aparecen fielmente retratados en el lt. Incluso, Guzmán señala la agresividad de los guerreros tonaltecas que directamente, y en solitario, atacaban a los jinetes hispanos (Razo y Cortés 1982: 39). Sobre las espadas de dos manos o mandobles, se deduce claramente que se refiere a macuahuimeh de mayores dimensiones.

 

. . .

 

El Macuahuitl tonalteca: un análisis experimental

 

Tras el análisis iconográfico y la revisión de fuentes se procedió a realizar la fase experimental de esta investigación. Por la forma puntiaguda y el doble biselado, se planteó como hipótesis inicial que el macuahuitl tonalteca estuviera endurecido con tratamiento térmico, para poder usarlo como arma punzocortante, similar a una espada hispánica. Desde esta premisa, ambas armas: espada y macuahuitl tonalteca serían el fruto de una evolución convergente. Asimismo, el pomo esférico sería solo un elemento decorativo y el biselado ayudaría para mejorar el empuje del arma dentro del cuerpo del enemigo.

 

. . .

 

Conclusiones

 

El macuahuitl es un arma distintiva de la panoplia mesoamericana, de diseño original y uso distinto al de otros armamentos más conocidos (e.g. la espada europea). Surgió durante los siglos previos a la conquista hispánica y desapareció de los campos de batalla novohispanos en menos de un siglo tras el contacto. (Jesús Erick González Rizo, “La variante tonalteca del macuahuitl durante el Posclásico tardío. Una visión desde la arqueología experimental,” Anales de Antropología 58, no. 2 [July-December 2024]: 136-37, 138, 140, 141)

 

 

English Translation:

 

General characteristics of the macuahuitl

 

Regarding the dimensions of this weapon, the smaller or standard version measured between 60–70 cm and was used with one hand (Garduño 2009: 109, 115); the larger one was known to the Spaniards as a “two-handed sword or mandoble,” measuring approximately 1.20 m. The macuahuitl bore obsidian edges, usually prism-shaped blades; these were also more commonly used as lancets and knives (Taube 1991). The use of prism-shaped blades represented a very important technological innovation, since for the first time Mesoamerican armies had an effective and relatively broad cutting surface. Creating large obsidian knives was not viable for battle because of their fragility. This broad cutting surface is the only feature that made them resemble swords, because in practice they were not useful for stabbing, only for cutting. The macuahuitl carried obsidian edges, generally prism-shaped blades, which were commonly used as lancets and knives (Taube 1991).

 

. . .

 

In its larger versions, the macuahuitl had to be handled with both hands because of its weight. It was a weapon designed only for attack, not for defense, because it could not withstand direct impacts the way a sword would. Essentially it was a cutting weapon that could tear flesh—causing infections due to micro-flakes— and could produce small fractures in bone, but it was not capable of amputating whole limbs (Cervera Obregón 2007: 65). Therefore, a warrior armed with a macuahuitl would probably concentrate his attack mainly on an opponent’s limbs rather than the torso, which was often better protected. At times it has even been compared to the Spanish sword and has been called a Mesoamerican sword (Roper 1996); however, the macuahuitl has no exact equivalent in Hispanic weaponry, since it does not serve to puncture. Unlike the bow and arrow or the atlatl (spear-thrower), whose use was broader and even served as hunting tools, the macuahuitl had no purpose other than warfare.

In the same Lienzo de Tlaxcala it is attested that the use of wooden clubs with a terminal and spherical pommel was much more widespread than that of the macuahuitl. It is worth mentioning that in the western region many clubs are depicted without a pommel.

 

. . .

 

The Tonalteca macuahuitl: peculiarities and characteristics

 

We know there were Tonalteca warriors well trained in the use of the macuahuitl, both from Hispanic and indigenous sources. In the autograph of Nuño de Guzmán the Spaniards “judged they had not seen braver or more daring Indians than these. The weapons they carried were bows and arrows and macanas and two-handed wooden swords, and some slings and shields, and very plumed and painted” (Razo y Cortés 1982: 40; see also Iturriaga 2010: 19). The skill of the Tonalteca and the form of these weapons impressed not only Guzmán but also the Tlaxcalan auxiliaries who accompanied him, since they are faithfully portrayed in the painting. Guzmán even notes the aggressiveness of the Tonalteca warriors who directly and alone attacked the Hispanic horsemen (Razo y Cortés 1982: 39). Concerning the two-handed swords or mandobles, it is clear he is referring to macuahuimeh of larger dimensions.

 

. . .

 

The Tonalteca macuahuitl: an experimental analysis

 

After the iconographic analysis and review of sources, the experimental phase of this research was undertaken. Because of the pointed shape and double bevel, the initial hypothesis proposed that the Tonalteca macuahuitl had been hardened by heat treatment so it could be used as a thrust-cutting weapon, similar to a Spanish sword. From this premise, both weapons—the sword and the Tonalteca macuahuitl—would be the result of convergent evolution. Likewise, the spherical pommel would be only a decorative element and the beveling would help improve the weapon’s thrust into an enemy’s body.

 

. . .

 

Conclusions

 

The macuahuitl is a distinctive weapon of the Mesoamerican panoply, of original design and use different from better-known weapons (e.g., the European sword). It arose during the centuries before the Hispanic conquest and disappeared from the battlefields of New Spain in less than a century after contact.

 

Note on the Text of 1 Samuel 30:15 in the LXX Traditions

  

15. At the end of the verse LXX^L adds “and he swore to him.” Omit with LXX^B, MT. (P. Kyle McCarther Jr., 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary [AYB 8; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 432)

 

Jewish/Rabbinical Sources on the Nations/Gentiles Receiving Privileges Reserved for Israel Due to the Latter's Sin (cf. Matthew 21:43)

  

21:43: The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people that will produce fruits.

 

The expression is comparable to what we find in b. Ḥag. 5B: (“My soul will weep because of גוה,” Jer 13:17.) What does “because of גוה” mean? R. Samuel b. Isaac (ca. 300) said, “Because of the ‘highness’ of Israel, which was taken from them and given to the nations of the world מפני גאוותן של ישראל שניטלה מהם ונתנה לאומות העולם.” (See the unabbreviated passage at § Luke 15:10.)—See also 1 Sam 15:28.—‖ Midrash Esther 1:2 (85A): R. Aibo (ca. 320) said, “It says, ‘For the kingdom is Yahweh’s, and he rules over the nations’ (Ps 22:29) and you say, ‘On the throne of his kingdom’ (Esth 1:2)? Yet in the past the kingdom (sovereignty) was with Israel. But when they sinned, the kingdom was taken from them and given to the nations of the world. This is what ‘I sold the land into the hand of wicked people’ (Ezek 30:12) means.”—R. Isaac (ca. 300) said, “Into the hand of wicked administrators; tomorrow, if Israel repents, God will take the kingdom from the nations of the world and give it back to the Israelites. When? ‘And liberators will go up … and the kingdom will fall to Yahweh’ (Obad 21).” ‖ Midrash Psalm 75 § 5 (170B): When the Israelites had sinned, (the ten horns attributed to them in Scripture) were taken from them and given to the nations of the world. See Dan 7:7: “(The fourth animal) had ten horns.…” As long as the horns of the godless continue to exist, the horns of Israel will be cut off (see Lam 2:3). But when he exalts the horns of the righteous, the horns of the godless will be cut off. See Ps 75:10: “All the horns of the godless I will cut off,” and immediately (v. 10): “The horns of the righteous will be exalted.” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1004)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 94: Polygamy and the Scriptures with J Celene Anderson

  

Episode 94: Polygamy and the Scriptures with J Celene Anderson