The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Amnon and Tamar
2 Samuel 13:1–22 — Amnon and Tamar. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
1After some time, David’s son Amnon fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of David’s son Absalom.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·hî ’a·ḥă·rê- ḵên dā·wiḏ ben- ’am·nō·wn way·ye·’ĕ·hā·ḇe·hā tā·mār yā·p̄āh ’ā·ḥō·wṯ ū·šə·māh dā·wiḏ ben- ū·lə·’aḇ·šā·lō·wm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-it-came-to-pass after so: and-to-Absalom son-of-David a-sister beautiful, and-her-name Tamar; and-he-loved-her Amnon son-of-David.
Where the English smooths the original
Now began another part of Nathan’s prophecy, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, to be awfully fulfilled On David
Tamar means palm-tree . The Arabs still frequently give their daughters the names of trees distinguished for their grace, beauty, or fruitfulness.
not in an honourable way, to make her his wife, but in a lustful manner, to make an harlot of herGill reads Amnon's motive back from v. 15; the verb in v. 1 is neutral, so this is interpretation, not lexicography.
2Amnon was sick with frustration over his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and it seemed implausible for him to do anything to her.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lə·’am·nō·wn lə·hiṯ·ḥal·lō·wṯ way·yê·ṣer ba·‘ă·ḇūr ’ă·ḥō·ṯōw tā·mār kî hî ḇə·ṯū·lāh bə·‘ê·nê way·yip·pā·lê ’am·nō·wn la·‘ă·śō·wṯ mə·’ū·māh lāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-it-was-narrow to-Amnon, to-the-point-of-making-himself-ill, on-account-of Tamar his-sister; for a-virgin she, and-it-was-too-wonderful in-the-eyes-of Amnon to-do to-her anything.
Where the English smooths the original
The Hebrew literally is, and it was narrow to Amnon, even to becoming sick. To an Oriental a feeling of narrowness means distress, while in joy there is a sense of largeness and expansion.
The maidenly modesty of Tamar evidently raised an insuperable barrier to the gratification of his lusts.
Thus fleshly lusts are their own punishment, and not only war against the soul, but the body too, and are the rottenness of the bones.
3Now Amnon had a friend named Jonadab, the son of David’s brother Shimeah. Jonadab was a very shrewd man,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ū·lə·’am·nō·wn rê·a‘ ū·šə·mōw yō·w·nā·ḏāḇ ben- ḏā·wiḏ ’ă·ḥî šim·‘āh wə·yō·w·nā·ḏāḇ mə·’ōḏ ḥā·ḵām ’îš
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-to-Amnon a-friend, and-his-name Jonadab son-of-Shimeah brother-of-David; and-Jonadab a-man wise exceedingly.
Where the English smooths the original
Amnon had a friend — Say rather an enemy; for surely he proved himself to be such in a high degree, by the evil counsel he gave
Subtil - literally, wise. The word is generally used in a good sense, but here, and in Job 5:13 , it means crafty.
This narrative is a strong warning against the danger of evil companions. The clever but unprincipled friend is more likely to provide means for gratifying evil passions than help in resisting them.Cambridge elsewhere insists the word 'subtil' passes no judgment on Jonadab; the warning here is the commentator's application, not the Hebrew's verdict.
4and he asked Amnon, “Why are you, the son of the king, so depressed morning after morning? Won’t you tell me?” Amnon replied, “I am in love with Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yō·mer lōw mad·dū·a‘ ’at·tāh ben- ham·me·leḵ kā·ḵāh dal bab·bō·qer bab·bō·qer hă·lō·w tag·gîḏ lî ’am·nō·wn ’eṯ- way·yō·mer lōw ’ă·nî ’ō·hêḇ tā·mār ’ā·ḥî ’aḇ·šā·lōm ’ă·ḥō·wṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-said to-him: Why-so art-thou thin, O-son-of-the-king, in-the-morning in-the-morning? Wilt-thou-not tell to-me? And-Amnon said to-him: Tamar sister-of Absalom my-brother I am-loving.
Where the English smooths the original
he does not call her his sister, but Absalom's sister, to lessen his sin of unlawful love to her
for whereas in the day he had many diversions and refreshments, in the night he was pestered with tormenting thoughts and passions
There was probably a gathering of friends every morning at the young prince's house, and his cousin, attending this levee, noticed Amnon's melancholy, and, having forced a confession from him, is unscrupulous enough to suggest a plan that would make Tamar her brother's victim.
5Jonadab told him, “Lie down on your bed and pretend you are ill. When your father comes to see you, say to him, ‘Please let my sister Tamar come and give me something to eat. Let her prepare it in my sight so I may watch her and eat it from her hand.’”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
yə·hō·w·nā·ḏāḇ way·yō·mer lōw šə·ḵaḇ ‘al- miš·kā·ḇə·ḵā wə·hiṯ·ḥāl ’ā·ḇî·ḵā ū·ḇā lir·’ō·w·ṯe·ḵā wə·’ā·mar·tā ’ê·lāw nā ’ă·ḥō·w·ṯî ṯā·mār tā·ḇō wə·ṯaḇ·rê·nî le·ḥem wə·‘ā·śə·ṯāh hab·bir·yāh lə·‘ê·nay ’eṯ- lə·ma·‘an ’ă·šer ’er·’eh wə·’ā·ḵal·tî mî·yā·ḏāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Jonadab said to-him: Lie-down upon thy-bed and-make-thyself-ill; and-thy-father shall-come to-see-thee, and-thou-shalt-say to-him: let-come-I-pray Tamar my-sister and-let-her-feed-me bread, and-let-her-make before-my-eyes the-food, so-that I-may-see and-I-shall-eat from-her-hand.
Where the English smooths the original
That was the real pining of ungoverned and ungratified passion; this was a crafty feigning of sickness.
Here we see that there is no enterprise so wicked that it cannot be encouraged to further wickedness.
Ah! false, treacherous, and base flatterer! that could thus tempt thy prince to so vile a crime! More than the poison of asps is under the lips of such friends and counsellors.Benson's rhetoric is his own; the narrator never editorialises about Jonadab here, reserving judgment until 13:32-35.
6So Amnon lay down and feigned illness. When the king came to see him, Amnon said, “Please let my sister Tamar come and make a couple of cakes in my sight, so that I may eat from her hand.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’am·nō·wn way·yiš·kaḇ way·yiṯ·ḥāl ham·me·leḵ way·yā·ḇō lir·’ō·ṯōw ’am·nō·wn way·yō·mer ’el- ham·me·leḵ nā ’ă·ḥō·ṯî ū·ṯə·lab·bêḇ tā·mār tā·ḇō·w- šə·tê lə·ḇi·ḇō·wṯ lə·‘ê·nay wə·’eḇ·reh mî·yā·ḏāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Amnon lay-down and-made-himself-ill; and-the-king came to-see-him, and-Amnon said unto the-king: let-come-I-pray Tamar my-sister and-let-her-make-heart-cakes before-my-eyes, two of-them, and-I-shall-be-fed from-her-hand.
Where the English smooths the original
To the king Amnon spoke of Tamar as "his sister," a term artfully designed to hoodwink his father
is a heart-strengthening kind of pastry, a kind of pancake, which could be very quickly made.
heart cakes, as the word may be thought to signify; called so either from the form of them, such as We have with us, or from the effect of them, comforting and refreshing the heart
7Then David sent word to Tamar at the palace: “Please go to the house of Amnon your brother and prepare a meal for him.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ way·yiš·laḥ ’el- tā·mār hab·bay·ṯāh lê·mōr nā lə·ḵî bêṯ ’am·nō·wn ’ā·ḥîḵ wa·‘ă·śî- hab·bir·yāh lōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-David sent unto Tamar, to-the-house, saying: Go-I-pray to-the-house-of Amnon thy-brother, and-make for-him the-food.
Where the English smooths the original
It is strange that so wise and sagacious a person as David did not see through so vain a pretence; but that must be ascribed partly to the instincts of nature, which generally preserve near relations from such monstrous actions; and partly to God’s providence, which blinded David’s mind, that he might bring upon him the designed and threatened judgments.Poole's appeal to providence explains David's blindness theologically; the text itself gives no motive for the king's compliance, so this is inference.
Into the house : the inner part of the palace, where the women’s apartments were.
who also had a separate house and equipage, being the king's son, and his eldest son
8So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made cakes in his sight, and baked them.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
tā·mār wat·tê·leḵ bêṯ ’ā·ḥî·hā ’am·nō·wn wə·hū šō·ḵêḇ wat·tiq·qaḥ ’eṯ- hab·bā·ṣêq wat·tå̄·lōš wat·tə·lab·bêḇ lə·‘ê·nāw wat·tə·ḇaš·šêl ’eṯ- hal·lə·ḇi·ḇō·wṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Tamar went to-the-house-of Amnon her-brother, and-he lying-down; and-she-took the-dough and-she-kneaded and-she-made-heart-cakes before-his-eyes, and-she-boiled the-heart-cakes.
Where the English smooths the original
In obedience to the king's commands, and in affection to her brother, with an innocent breast, having no suspicion of any design upon her chastity
Some particular kind of cake or pudding is meant 2 Samuel 13:8 , called a לביבה lābı̂ybâh; according to some, it was, from its etymology, shaped like a heart.
Tamar, flattered by the invitation, lost no time in rendering the required service in the house of her sick brother.JFB's 'flattered' has no warrant in the Hebrew, which records only that she went; the adjective quietly assigns her a motive the text withholds.
9Then she brought the pan and set it down before him, but he refused to eat. “Send everyone away!” said Amnon. And everyone went out.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wat·tiq·qaḥ ’eṯ- ham·maś·rêṯ wat·ti·ṣōq lə·p̄ā·nāw way·mā·’ên le·’ĕ·ḵō·wl ḵāl ’îš mê·‘ā·lay hō·w·ṣî·’ū way·yō·mer ’am·nō·wn ḵāl ’îš mê·‘ā·lāw way·yê·ṣə·’ū
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-she-took the-pan and-she-poured-out before-him, and-he-refused to-eat. And-Amnon said: Bring-out every man from-upon-me! And-they-went-out every man from-upon-him.
Where the English smooths the original
This also seemed natural enough in a whimsical invalid, and for the same reason his next requirement, “Have out all men from me,” awakened no suspicion in the mind of Tamar.
For the wicked are ashamed to do that before men, which they are not afraid to commit in the sight of God.
Here the Syriac is probably right in understanding, not a pan, but the delicacy Tamar had been cooking.
10Then Amnon said to Tamar, “Bring the food into the bedroom, so that I may eat it from your hand.” Tamar took the cakes she had made and went to her brother Amnon’s bedroom.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’am·nō·wn way·yō·mer ’el- tā·mār hā·ḇî·’î hab·bir·yāh ha·ḥe·ḏer wə·’eḇ·reh mî·yā·ḏêḵ tā·mār ’eṯ- wat·tiq·qaḥ hal·lə·ḇi·ḇō·wṯ ’ă·šer ‘ā·śā·ṯāh wat·tā·ḇê ’ā·ḥî·hā lə·’am·nō·wn he·ḥā·ḏə·rāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Amnon said unto Tamar: Bring the-food into-the-inner-room, and-I-shall-be-fed from-thy-hand. And-Tamar took the-heart-cakes which she-had-made and-she-brought to-Amnon her-brother, to-the-inner-room.
Where the English smooths the original
It is probable that when Tamar first came, Amnon had received her in an outward room, but that, pretending now to be fatigued, he retired into his chamber
being quite innocent herself, and having no suspicion of a brother having any ill design upon her, she made no scruple of going into an inner chamber alone with him.
first sendeth all out of that room, and then riseth from his couch, and, upon some pretence, goes into another secret chamber, where he might have the better opportunity for his intended wickedness.Poole is reconstructing the floor plan; the Hebrew names only 'the inner room' and does not say how many chambers there were.
11And when she had brought them to him to eat, he took hold of her and said, “Come lie with me, my sister!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wat·tag·gêš ’ê·lāw le·’ĕ·ḵōl way·ya·ḥă·zeq- bāh way·yō·mer lāh bō·w·’î šiḵ·ḇî ‘im·mî ’ă·ḥō·w·ṯî
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-she-brought-near to-him to-eat, and-he-took-strong-hold of-her and-said to-her: Come, lie with-me, my-sister.
Where the English smooths the original
and when she handed him the food, he laid hold of her, and said
one would think the relation he observes she stood in to him would have checked him from making so vile a motion.
Let no one ever expect good treatment from those who are capable of attempting their seduction; but it is better to suffer the greatest wrong than to commit the least sin.Henry's note covers 13:1-20 as a block; his closing maxim is addressed to readers in general, not framed as counsel to Tamar, who had no choice to make.
12“No, my brother!” she cried. “Do not violate me, for such a thing should never be done in Israel. Do not do this disgraceful thing!
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’al- ’ā·ḥî wat·tō·mer lōw ’al- tə·‘an·nê·nî kî ḵên lō- yê·‘ā·śeh bə·yiś·rā·’êl ’al- ta·‘ă·śêh ’eṯ- haz·zōṯ han·nə·ḇā·lāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-she-said to-him: Nay, my-brother, do-not humble-me, for it-is-not done so in-Israel; do-not do this folly.
Where the English smooths the original
literally, do not humble me. It is to be regretted that the word should be changed, as it bears testimony to the nobleness of the Hebrew women, who regarded their chastity as their crown of honour.
Tamar's words are a verbal quotation from Genesis 34:7 . The natural inference is that Tamar knew the passage in Genesis, and wished to profit by the warning that it contained.
Israel was a holy nation, sanctified by the peculiar presence of Jehovah among them; and therefore all acts of unchastity were an offence against the true character and calling of the nation. Such acts might be common among heathen nations, but to Israel they were forbidden by the Law, which placed them on a loftier level of morality.
13Where could I ever take my shame? And you would be like one of the fools in Israel! Please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ā·nāh wa·’ă·nî ’ō·w·lîḵ ’eṯ- ḥer·pā·ṯî wə·’at·tāh tih·yeh kə·’a·ḥaḏ han·nə·ḇā·lîm bə·yiś·rā·’êl wə·‘at·tāh nā dab·ber- ’el- ham·me·leḵ kî lō yim·nā·‘ê·nî mim·me·kā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-I — whither shall-I-carry my-reproach? And-thou, thou-shalt-be like-one-of the-fools in-Israel. And-now, speak-I-pray unto the-king, for he-will-not withhold me from-thee.
Where the English smooths the original
denotes not merely one who is stupid and ignorant, but one who has abandoned the fear of God, and cast off the restraints of decency and morality.
She simply said this, as Clericus observes, "that she might escape from his hands by any means in her power
or because she thought her royal father could or would dispense with it, upon this extraordinary occasion, to save his first-born son’s lifePoole offers this as one of three possible explanations of Tamar's words; the other commentators uniformly prefer the reading that she was only buying time.
14But Amnon refused to listen to her, and being stronger, he violated her and lay with her.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·lō ’ā·ḇāh liš·mō·a‘ bə·qō·w·lāh way·ye·ḥĕ·zaq mim·men·nāh way·‘an·ne·hā way·yiš·kaḇ ’ō·ṯāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-was-not willing to-hear to-her-voice, and-he-was-stronger than-she, and-he-humbled-her and-he-lay-with her.
Where the English smooths the original
Amnon would not listen to her, however, but overpowered her, forced her, and lay with her.
His lust was so inflamed and enraged, that he could not attend to any arguments, though ever so forcible, that were offered to him
The remonstrances and arguments of Tamar were so affecting and so strong, that had not Amnon been violently goaded on by the lustful passion of which he had become the slave, they must have prevailed with him to desist from his infamous purpose.
15Then Amnon hated Tamar with such intensity that his hatred was greater than the love he previously had. “Get up!” he said to her. “Be gone!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’am·nō·wn way·yiś·nā·’e·hā gə·ḏō·w·lāh mə·’ōḏ kî śin·’āh śə·nê·’āh ḡə·ḏō·w·lāh haś·śin·’āh ’ă·šer mê·’a·hă·ḇāh ’ă·šer ’ă·hê·ḇāh qū·mî way·yō·mer- lāh ’am·nō·wn lê·ḵî
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Amnon hated-her a-hatred great exceedingly, for greater was the-hatred which he-hated-her than the-love which he-had-loved-her. And-Amnon said to-her: Arise, go!
Where the English smooths the original
This result shows that Amnon was governed, not by love, but by mere animal passion.Ellicott's preceding sentence quotes Tacitus by way of Kirkpatrick; the maxim is classical, not scriptural.
This sudden change, which may be fully explained from a psychological point of view, and is frequently exemplified still in actual life, furnishes a striking proof that lust is not love, but simply the gratification of the animal passions.
The horror of his guilt struck him with a sudden detestation of her whom he deemed the cause of it, and he hated his sister when he should have hated himself.
16“No,” she replied, “sending me away is worse than this great wrong you have already done to me!” But he refused to listen to her.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’al- ’ō·w·ḏōṯ wat·tō·mer lōw lə·šal·lə·ḥê·nî mê·’a·ḥe·reṯ haz·zōṯ hag·gə·ḏō·w·lāh hā·rā·‘āh ’ă·šer- ‘ā·śî·ṯā ‘im·mî wə·lō ’ā·ḇāh liš·mō·a‘ lāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-she-said to-him: Nay — concerning this evil, greater [is it] than the-other which thou-hast-done with-me, to-send-me-away. And-he-was-not willing to-hear to-her.
Where the English smooths the original
The Heb. text cannot be so translated, and is certainly corrupt. The Sept. is also confused, but its original reading as indicated by the Old Latin Version gives an excellent sense
do not add to the great wrong which thou hast done me the still greater one of thrusting me away.K&D reaches this by supplying an elided verb; Cambridge, Barnes and Pulpit all judge the Hebrew corrupt, so this rendering is a reconstruction.
because it exposed her to public infamy and contempt, as if she had been an impudent strumpet, and had either enticed him to the sin, or at least consented to it
17Instead, he called to his attendant and said, “Throw this woman out and bolt the door behind her!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
way·yiq·rā ’eṯ- na·‘ă·rōw mə·šā·rə·ṯōw way·yō·mer šil·ḥū- nā ’eṯ- zōṯ mê·‘ā·lay ha·ḥū·ṣāh ū·nə·‘ōl had·de·leṯ ’a·ḥă·re·hā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-called to-his-lad, the-one-serving-him, and-said: Send-out now this from-upon-me, outside — and-bolt the-door after-her.
Where the English smooths the original
Amnon doubtless intended to give the impression that Tamar had behaved shamefully towards him. The baseness of this insinuation is in keeping with his brutality.
the circumstance, therefore, of a prince giving an order so unusual shows the vehement perturbation of Ammon's mind.
using her and speaking of her in a very rude and scandalous manner, calling her this, leaving it to be supplied, as they would understand it, this base woman
18So Amnon’s attendant threw her out and bolted the door behind her. Now Tamar was wearing a robe of many colors, because this is what the king’s virgin daughters wore.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
mə·šā·rə·ṯōw way·yō·ṣê ’ō·w·ṯāh ha·ḥūṣ wə·nā·‘al had·de·leṯ ’a·ḥă·re·hā wə·‘ā·le·hā kə·ṯō·neṯ pas·sîm kî ḵên ham·me·leḵ hab·bə·ṯū·lōṯ mə·‘î·lîm ḇə·nō·wṯ- til·baš·nā
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-upon-her a-tunic-of-strips, for so did-the-daughters-of the-king, the-virgins, clothe-themselves — robes. And-his-attendant brought-her outside, and-bolted the-door after-her.
Where the English smooths the original
The expression is used elsewhere only of Joseph’s “coat of many colours” ( Genesis 37:3 ; Genesis 37:23 ), and probably means a long tunic with sleeves
Notwithstanding this dress, by which a king's daughter could at once be recognised, Amnon's servant treated Tamar like a common woman, and turned her out of the house.
not parted with as an innocent woman, cruelly injured, but thrust out as a prostitute that had seduced to sin, is the strongest image of innocence, barbarously abused, and insufferably insulted, that history affords usBenson is quoting Delaney, not writing in his own voice; the attribution is Benson's page, the words are Delaney's.
19And Tamar put ashes on her head and tore her robe. And putting her hand on her head, she went away crying aloud.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
tā·mār wat·tiq·qaḥ ’ê·p̄er ‘al- rō·šāh qā·rā·‘āh hap·pas·sîm ’ă·šer ū·ḵə·ṯō·neṯ ‘ā·le·hā wat·tā·śem yā·ḏāh ‘al- rō·šāh wat·tê·leḵ hā·lō·wḵ wə·zā·‘ā·qāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Tamar took ashes upon her-head, and-the-tunic-of-strips which was-upon-her she-tore, and-she-put her-hand upon her-head, and-she-went, going and-crying-out.
Where the English smooths the original
Went away shrieking as she went ; not lamenting with silent tears, but with loud passionate shrieks and wailing.
laid her hand upon her head (as a sign that a grievous trouble had come upon her, that the hand of God was resting as it were upon herK&D's reading of the gesture via Jeremiah 2:37 is one of three offered by the voices here; Barnes thinks it merely held the ashes on.
If David had foreseen this sad sight when giving way to his passion for Bathsheba, he would have felt that sin is indeed "folly," and that its pleasure is followed by shame and bitter anguish.
20Her brother Absalom said to her, “Has your brother Amnon been with you? Be quiet for now, my sister. He is your brother. Do not take this thing to heart.” So Tamar lived as a desolate woman in the house of her brother Absalom.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ā·ḥî·hā ’aḇ·šā·lō·wm way·yō·mer ’ê·le·hā ’ā·ḥîḵ ha·’ă·mî·nō·wn hā·yāh ‘im·māḵ ha·ḥă·rî·šî wə·‘at·tāh ’ă·ḥō·w·ṯî hū ’ā·ḥîḵ ’al- tā·šî·ṯî ’eṯ- haz·zeh lad·dā·ḇār lib·bêḵ tā·mār wat·tê·šeḇ wə·šō·mê·māh bêṯ ’ā·ḥî·hā ’aḇ·šā·lō·wm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Absalom her-brother said to-her: Has-Aminon thy-brother been with-thee? And-now, my-sister, be-silent — he is thy-brother; do-not set thy-heart to this thing. And-Tamar dwelt, and-desolate, in-the-house-of Absalom her-brother.
Where the English smooths the original
Absalom urged her to bear the outrage patiently, and avoid a public scandal; feeling sure that David would not be persuaded to inflict an adequate punishment on Amnon, and intending to watch his own opportunity for revenge.
i.e., as one laid waste, with the joy of her life hopelessly destroyed.
Desolate; neglected and forsaken by others, none now seeking her in marriage; and through shame and dejection of mind, giving herself up to solitude and retirement.
not seeing any company, being filled with grief and shame, and none applying to her as a suitor, knowing she was vitiated; how long she continued here, or lived after this, is not certain; no mention is made of her afterwards.
21When King David heard all this, he was furious.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ham·me·leḵ dā·wiḏ šā·ma‘ ’êṯ kāl- hā·’êl·leh had·də·ḇā·rîm way·yi·ḥar lōw mə·’ōḏ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-king David heard all these things, and-it-burned to-him exceedingly.
Where the English smooths the original
This want of justice in David's conduct, and favoritism to Amnon, probably rankled in Absalom's heart, and was the first seed of his after rebellion.Barnes bases this on the Septuagint plus, which he calls a good explanation; the Hebrew gives no reason for David's inaction.
at the same time it is nothing but a subjective conjecture of the translators, and does not warrant us in altering the text.
It would have been wise to have given proof that his repentance included the suppression of the crime to which his previous conduct had given encouragement.
22And Absalom never said a word to Amnon, either good or bad, because he hated Amnon for violating his sister Tamar.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’aḇ·šā·lō·wm wə·lō- ḏib·ber ‘im- ’am·nō·wn ṭō·wḇ lə·mê·rā‘ wə·‘aḏ- kî- ’aḇ·šā·lō·wm ’eṯ- śā·nê ’am·nō·wn ‘al- də·ḇar ’ă·šer ‘in·nāh ’êṯ ’ă·ḥō·ṯōw tā·mār
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Absalom spoke not with Amnon from-good and-unto-evil — for Absalom hated Amnon upon the-matter that he-had-humbled Tamar his-sister.
Where the English smooths the original
Though he outwardly expressed no dislike of the fact, yet he inwardly hated him.
But by the method Absalom pursued, Amnon was lulled asleep, in a belief that he would give him no trouble for what he had done.
Absalom's outward demeanour was one of utter indifference, concealing a cruel determination. It is strange how unlike the son was to the father.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The unit opens with וַיְהִ֣י אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן — “and it came to pass after so.” Ellicott warns that the formula “applies to the narrative which follows as a whole,” and Pulpit agrees it “has little chronological force”: it is a seam, not a date. But Benson and Gill both read the seam theologically. Benson: “Now began another part of Nathan's prophecy, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house.” Gill is blunter still — after the sin, the repentance, the pardon and Solomon's birth, “yet after all this the divine threatenings must take place.” K&D, working from the marriage to Maacah at Hebron, places the events no earlier than the twentieth year of David's reign. So: a chapter that begins with a vague connective is in fact the second instalment of a named judgment. ✦ The two commentators who see prophecy here are not reading it into the text; 2 Samuel 12:11 is the text they are reading it from.
Verse 2 gives the interior. וַיֵּ֨צֶר — “it was narrow to Amnon” — is, as Pulpit observes, the Hebrew idiom in which distress is confinement and joy is space. K&D renders it “he quite pined away,” and insists (against Luther) that this sickness is real; the pretence only begins at v. 5. And the one barrier is named with the verb וַיִּפָּלֵא֙ (pâlâʼ, H6381), “it was too wonderful” — the verb of what lies beyond human reach. K&D: “The maidenly modesty of Tamar evidently raised an insuperable barrier to the gratification of his lusts.”
Jonadab is introduced with two neutral words that the translators must gamble on. He is a רֵ֗עַ — Strong's “an associate (more or less close)” — and he is חָכָ֖ם מְאֹֽד, “very wise.” Barnes takes the gamble: “Subtil - literally, wise. The word is generally used in a good sense, but here, and in Job 5:13, it means crafty.” Cambridge refuses it: the word “pronounces no judgment on the way in which Jonadab misused his sagacity.” Benson will not even let the first word stand: “Amnon had a friend — Say rather an enemy.”
⚙ The narrator's restraint is the art here. He gives Jonadab the vocabulary of Proverbs and then lets us watch what that vocabulary does when the fear of the LORD is subtracted from it. The plan is a small masterpiece of applied psychology: it uses a real symptom (v. 2's wasting) as the raw material of a lie, it exploits a father's habit of visiting his sons, and it hands Amnon the one word he had refused to say. In v. 4 Amnon says “Tamar, sister of Absalom my brother” — Gill notices exactly why: “he does not call her his sister, but Absalom's sister, to lessen his sin.” In v. 5 Jonadab scripts him: “my sister Tamar.” Gill again: “the more to cover his ill design upon her.” Geneva draws the standing lesson: “there is no enterprise so wicked that it cannot be encouraged to further wickedness.”
Amnon performs the illness and makes his request to “the king” — the narrator's title, not “his father.” JFB catches the calculation in the wording: to the king Amnon spoke of Tamar as “his sister,” “a term artfully designed to hoodwink his father.” The request itself is built on a triple repetition English cannot keep: לְעֵינַי, before my eyes (v. 5, v. 6, and executed in v. 8), and מִיָּדָהּ, from her hand (vv. 5, 6, 10). And the food is לְבִבוֹת, heart-cakes — K&D, “a heart-strengthening kind of pastry”; Barnes, a word that “occur[s] nowhere else”; Gill, named “either from the form of them… or from the effect of them, comforting and refreshing the heart.”
Then David sends. וַיִּשְׁלַ֥ח (shâlach, H7971) is the verb, and it will return in Piel at v. 16 for the sending-away Tamar calls the greater evil. Poole finds David's blindness so implausible that he attributes it to providence — God “blinded David's mind, that he might bring upon him the designed and threatened judgments.” ✦ Poole's explanation is theological inference; the text gives the king no motive at all, which may be the harsher reading. Verse 8 then lists four feminine verbs in a row — took, kneaded, hearted, boiled — and Gill's note on her state of mind is the right one: she came “with an innocent breast, having no suspicion of any design upon her chastity.”
When the room is empty Amnon seizes her: וַיַּֽחֲזֶק־בָּהּ, Hifil of châzaq (H2388) — the verb of a strong grip. K&D: “when she handed him the food, he laid hold of her.” Gill registers the obscenity of the vocative: “one would think the relation he observes she stood in to him would have checked him.”
Tamar's answer is the theological centre of the unit, and it is argued, not merely felt. She names the act נְבָלָה (nebalah, H5039). Barnes: “Tamar's words are a verbal quotation from Genesis 34:7. The natural inference is that Tamar knew the passage in Genesis.” K&D concurs: the words “recall Genesis 34:7, where the expression ‘folly’ (nebalah) is first used to denote a want of chastity.” Her premise is national and covenantal — Cambridge: “Israel was a holy nation… therefore all acts of unchastity were an offence against the true character and calling of the nation.” Pulpit adds the Hebrew force BSB hides: “Do not force me; literally, do not humble me… it bears testimony to the nobleness of the Hebrew women, who regarded their chastity as their crown of honour.”
Her last argument — “speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from thee” — is the one the commentators unanimously refuse to take at face value. Ellicott: “she made any and every suggestion to gain time.” Cambridge: “hoping to escape immediate violence.” K&D quotes Clericus, “that she might escape from his hands by any means in her power,” and Josephus to the same effect. Poole allows one further possibility — that she thought “her royal father could or would dispense with it.” ⚙ Whichever is true, the Levitical prohibition (Lev 18:9, 11; 20:17) stands, and the narrator does not need to cite it; he lets Tamar's own phrase “such a thing is not done in Israel” carry the law. Then v. 14, and the narrative goes as flat as a police report: he would not listen, he was stronger, he humbled her, he lay with her. K&D's whole comment is one sentence long. The restraint is the judgment.
Verse 15 is the verse that redefines verse 1. The Hebrew piles the roots up: שִׂנְאָה … שְׂנֵאָהּ … הַשִּׂנְאָה (sinʼâh / sânêʼ, H8135/H8130) against אַהֲבָה … אֲהֵבָהּ (ʼahăbâh / ʼâhab, H160/H157) — hatred, hated, the hatred, greater than the love, he loved her. Ellicott quotes Tacitus by way of Kirkpatrick: “It is characteristic of human nature to hate one whom you have injured,” and concludes that “Amnon was governed, not by love, but by mere animal passion.” K&D says it most exactly: the reversal “furnishes a striking proof that lust is not love, but simply the gratification of the animal passions.” Benson locates the mechanism in conscience: “he hated his sister when he should have hated himself.”
Tamar protests, and here the text itself fails. Cambridge: “The Heb. text cannot be so translated, and is certainly corrupt”; Barnes: “The Hebrew text is probably corrupt”; Pulpit canvasses Philippsohn and Cahen and concedes “Flat as this is, no better rendering is possible”; K&D salvages a sense by supplying a verb. What survives every reconstruction is her claim: the expulsion is a greater evil than the rape. Poole explains why — being thrown out made it look “as if she had been an impudent strumpet, and had either enticed him to the sin, or at least consented to it.” K&D adds the legal point that seals it: she could not cry for help as Deuteronomy 22:27 requires, because Amnon had removed the witnesses himself.
Then the robe. כְּתֹ֣נֶת פַּסִּ֔ים — the phrase used elsewhere only of Joseph (Gen 37:3, 23, 32), as Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D all note. K&D draws the conclusion: “Notwithstanding this dress, by which a king's daughter could at once be recognised, Amnon's servant treated Tamar like a common woman.” And Tamar, torn robe, ashes, hand on head, “went, going and crying” — Cambridge: “Went away shrieking as she went; not lamenting with silent tears, but with loud passionate shrieks and wailing.” ⚙ She is the only person in this chapter who tells the truth out loud.
The unit ends by recording what three men did with what they knew. Absalom says הַחֲרִ֙ישִׁי֙ (Hifil of chârash, H2790) — be silent — and Cambridge reads his calculation: he urged her “to bear the outrage patiently, and avoid a public scandal; feeling sure that David would not be persuaded to inflict an adequate punishment on Amnon, and intending to watch his own opportunity for revenge.” Tamar sits שֹׁמֵמָה (shâmêm, H8076) — K&D: “as one laid waste, with the joy of her life hopelessly destroyed,” and he adds that the word cannot simply mean “solitary.” Poole: “none now seeking her in marriage.” Gill notes the silence that follows her: “no mention is made of her afterwards.”
David hears and is וַיִּ֥חַר לוֹ מְאֹד — it burned to him exceedingly — and does nothing. Barnes and Cambridge both record that the Septuagint supplies the reason here (“he did not vex the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn”); K&D, with more caution, calls that addition “nothing but a subjective conjecture of the translators,” which “does not warrant us in altering the text.” ✦ The honest position is K&D's: the LXX plus is an ancient explanation, not the Hebrew. Pulpit supplies the standard from within the book itself — Eli was punished for exactly this failure (1 Sam 2:34) — and Barnes supplies the consequence: David's want of justice “probably rankled in Absalom's heart, and was the first seed of his after rebellion.” Then the last silence, and the one that kills: Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad. Poole reads the Hebrew particle as adversative — “though Absalom hated him” — and Pulpit puts the family in one line: “It is strange how unlike the son was to the father.”
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested. Three things in this text seem to me to be doing the load-bearing work, and only the third is usually preached.
First: the chapter is an anatomy of how a word gets emptied. אָח and אָחוֹת — brother, sister — occur relentlessly here (H251 and H269 together appear in nearly every scene), and every single occurrence is a lie or a wound. Jonadab tells Amnon to say “my sister” so that the word will do work its speaker does not mean. Amnon says “lie with me, my sister.” Absalom says “he is thy brother; do not take this thing to heart.” Kinship language, in this chapter, is the instrument of the crime and then the instrument of the cover-up. Where a word of covenant is used to procure and then to silence, that is a specific and nameable evil, and Scripture names it by simply repeating the word until the reader flinches.
Second: the narrator gives Tamar the only theology in the chapter. Everyone else speaks strategy. Jonadab speaks tactics, Amnon speaks appetite, Absalom speaks containment, David says nothing at all that is recorded. Tamar alone argues from what Israel is: “such a thing is not done in Israel.” She appeals to the law, to shame, to his own future, and finally, desperately, to the king. She is the one person here who treats the covenant as real, and she is the one person here who is destroyed. That is not a problem for the text; it is the text's indictment of the house of David.
Third, and this is where I am least sure: the standard reading makes this chapter the payment of Nathan's bill (2 Sam 12:11), and Benson, Gill and K&D all read it that way. I think that is right but incomplete. Nathan's oracle is addressed to David, and the chapter is careful to punish David — his eldest dead within twenty verses, his favourite in exile, his throne lost for a season. But Tamar is not David's punishment. She is a person, and the narrative refuses to tidy her away into a lesson: she gets a name, a robe, a protest, ashes, a scream, and then a sentence that says she lived desolate and was never mentioned again. Any reading of this chapter that can account for David's chastisement but cannot account for Tamar has not read the chapter. Under Sola Scriptura the burden is on us to say what the text says about her, and what it says is that God let it be written down, in detail, under her own name, which is more than her father, her brother, or her rapist gave her.
Kinship was the word they used to get her into the room, and the word they used to keep her quiet after.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
Tamar's protest in v. 12, כִּי לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂה כֵן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — “for such a thing is not done in Israel” — with the noun נְבָלָה (nebalah, H5039), lands on Genesis 34:7, the rape of Dinah, where the phrase is coined. Barnes states the case: “Tamar's words are a verbal quotation from Genesis 34:7. The natural inference is that Tamar knew the passage in Genesis, and wished to profit by the warning that it contained.” K&D agrees that the words “recall Genesis 34:7, where the expression ‘folly’ (nebalah) is first used to denote a want of chastity,” and Ellicott has her “quoting the very words of Genesis 34:7… to recall the king's son to a sense of right.” ⚙ The parallel runs past the phrase: a violated daughter, a father who does nothing, a full brother who waits and then kills. Genesis 34 is the template of 2 Samuel 13, and Tamar is the only character who seems to know it.
Genesis 34:7 · Genesis 34:31
basis: Verifier on 2 Sam 13:12 ↔ Gen 34:7: shared H5039 nᵉbâlâh (in 13 vv), plus H3651 kên, H3588 kîy, H3808 lôʼ (all common). The machine tiers this structural. Barnes, Ellicott and K&D call it a verbal quotation; a 13-verse lexeme plus the identical idiom supports that, but the Verifier did not certify quotation, so the badge stays at the lower tier and the verbal claim is attributed to the commentators.
Verse 18's כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים (kᵉthôneth passîm, H3801 + H6446) is the phrase of Joseph's coat, and of nothing else in the Hebrew Bible. Ellicott: “The word is used only here and in connection with Joseph (Genesis 37:3; 37:23; 37:32).” Cambridge and K&D read it as a long sleeved tunic, the badge of the king's virgin daughters; Pulpit prefers a patterned garment “like those of the Scottish tartans.” The function is agreed: K&D — “by which a king's daughter could at once be recognised.” ⚙ And in both places the robe is a mark of a father's favour that gets torn: Joseph's is stripped and dipped in blood by brothers, Tamar's is rent by her own hands after a brother. Both garments then become evidence carried to a grieving father.
Genesis 37:3 · Genesis 37:23 · Genesis 37:31-33
basis: Verifier on 2 Sam 13:18 ↔ Gen 37:3: shared H6446 paç (in 5 vv — rare) and H3801 kᵉthôneth (in 26 vv). The rare lexeme paç occurs in only these two narratives, which is a genuine verbal link; it is an allusion, not a quotation, and no speech is being cited.
The verb behind “give me something to eat” in vv. 5, 6 and 10 is בָּרָה (bârâh, H1262), which Strong's glosses “to select,” and which the whole Hebrew Bible uses in only six verses. Two of them are in this unit. One is 2 Samuel 3:35, where David refuses to be fed after Abner's murder. One is 1 Samuel 17:8, Goliath's challenge. And one is Lamentations 4:10, where the hands of compassionate women “cooked (bâshal, H1310) their own children; they became their food.” ⚙ The Verifier pairs our unit with Lamentations 4:10 on both roots at once: bârâh and bâshal — precisely the two verbs of Tamar's cooking in v. 8. The link is lexical, not literary: Lamentations is not alluding to Tamar. But the pairing exposes the register the narrator has chosen. Women's hands preparing food is, in this rare vocabulary, where Israel's worst horrors are staged.
Lamentations 4:10 · 2 Samuel 3:35 · 1 Samuel 17:8
basis: Verifier THREAD CANDIDATES: 2 Sam 13 ↔ Lamentations 4:10 shares H1262 bârâh (in 6 vv — rare) and H1310 bâshal (in 24 vv); 2 Sam 3:35 shares H1262 bârâh with H3972 mᵉʼûwmâh and H3899 lechem; 1 Sam 17:8 shares H1262 bârâh. A real verbal link on a six-verse lexeme, with no quotation claimed in either direction.
Benson opens his note on v. 1 with it: “Now began another part of Nathan's prophecy, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, to be awfully fulfilled On David.” Gill lists the instalments — the child of the adultery dead, “and others here follow.” K&D, at v. 21, ties David's paralysis to the same root cause: “The fact that David was contented to be simply angry is probably to be accounted for partly from his own consciousness of guilt, since he himself had been guilty of adultery.” Pulpit agrees and sharpens it: David “could not… carry out the law against his firstborn for following his example.” ⚙ The link is not verbal but structural and it is named by four independent commentators: the sin of 2 Samuel 11 reappears as an inability to prosecute the same sin in 2 Samuel 13. The judgment is not that God struck David; it is that David could no longer act like a king.
2 Samuel 12:10-12 · 2 Samuel 11:4 · 1 Kings 1:6
basis: No Verifier-computed lexeme basis was supplied for this pair; the link is a shared narrative pattern (a royal taking, a covered-up sexual crime, an unpunished house) asserted by Benson, Gill, K&D, Barnes and Pulpit on the text of 2 Sam 12:11. Recorded as structural, with no quotation or verbal claim.
Every commentator here reaches for Leviticus 18:9, 18:11 and 20:17: Ellicott (“strictly forbidden in the Law”), Cambridge (“expressly forbidden by the Mosaic law”), K&D (who notes the penalty was death), Pulpit, Barnes. Cambridge and Barnes both raise the counter-evidence: Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings (Gen 20:12), and Tamar herself says the king “will not withhold me from thee.” ⚙ But we ran the pair, and the Verifier returns nothing: no shared original-language lexeme found in the index. That is worth recording honestly. The law is not quoted in this chapter. Tamar's argument in v. 12 is made from nebalah and from Israel's character, not from a statute — and Amnon's reply (v. 14) does not argue at all. The commentators' appeal to Leviticus is legally correct and exegetically unproven by the text's own wording.
Leviticus 18:9 · Leviticus 20:17 · Deuteronomy 22:25-27
basis: Verifier on 2 Sam 13:13 ↔ Lev 20:17: “no shared original-language lexeme found in the index — connection, if any, is thematic/structural and must be argued, not asserted.” The link is asserted by Ellicott, Cambridge, Barnes, Pulpit and K&D on legal grounds; flagged because the chapter never cites the statute. K&D's use of Deut 22:27 (Tamar could not cry out because Amnon dismissed the witnesses) is likewise commentary inference, not a textual citation.
Tamar's claim is jurisdictional: this is not done in Israel. Cambridge states the premise — “Israel was a holy nation, sanctified by the peculiar presence of Jehovah among them… Such acts might be common among heathen nations, but to Israel they were forbidden.” Paul makes the identical move in reverse at 1 Corinthians 5:1: a sexual sin within the family “such as is not so much as named among the Gentiles.” Both texts argue from the identity of the covenant community rather than from a penalty, and both then turn on the community's refusal to act — Paul's Corinthians are “puffed up” and have not mourned; David is “very wroth” and does nothing. ⚙ The formal parallel is mine; neither text cites the other.
1 Corinthians 5:1-2 · 1 Corinthians 5:13
basis: Cross-Testament Greek↔Hebrew: no shared Strong's number is possible and none is claimed. The recorded basis is a shared rhetorical structure — an appeal to the covenant community's distinctness as the ground of sexual prohibition, followed by the community's failure to discipline — grounded in Cambridge's note on v. 12. Never tiered verbal.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
Tamar's cry in v. 13 turns on חֶרְפָּתִי (cherpâh, H2781), which Strong's glosses “contumely, disgrace.” Barnes prefers “my reproach” to “my shame,” and cross-references Genesis 30:23, 34:14 and 1 Samuel 11:2. She has nowhere to take it: no court will hear her, her father will not act, her brother tells her to be quiet. ⚙ The Psalter gives that word to a sufferer who does have somewhere to take it — “the reproaches (cherpôth) of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me” (Ps 69:9) — and Paul applies precisely that verse to Christ in Romans 15:3. Hebrews completes the figure: Jesus “suffered without the gate,” and the church is called to go out to him “bearing his reproach.” Tamar is put outside a bolted door carrying a disgrace that was not hers. Christ goes outside a gate carrying a disgrace that was not his — and, unlike her, he carries it on purpose and it does not stay.
The Ps 69 → Christ reading is apostolic and ancient. The application to Tamar is mine, and I offer it as a figure, not as the text's own claim.
Psalm 69:9 · Romans 15:3 · Hebrews 13:12-13
The Verifier confirms the rare lexeme: פַּסִּים (paç, H6446, five verses in all) binds Tamar's robe to Joseph's, and Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, Pulpit and K&D all note the connection independently. Joseph as a type of Christ — the beloved son, stripped of his robe, sold by brothers, given up for dead, raised to the right hand of a throne and made the saviour of the very brothers who sold him — is one of the oldest figural readings in the church, and it is not controversial. ⚙ What this unit adds is the third robe. At the cross the soldiers would not tear the chitōn, the seamless tunic, but cast lots for it (John 19:23-24). Joseph's coat was torn by brothers and dipped in blood; Tamar's was torn by her own hands over ashes; Christ's was left whole while the body under it was broken. The garment that could not be divided belonged to the one person in the story who was.
Joseph-typology: ancient and widely held. The Tamar leg of this reading is mine and is figural; I do not claim the evangelist had 2 Samuel 13 in view.
Genesis 37:31-33 · John 19:23-24 · Isaiah 53:3
The unit ends on a failure of kingship. David hears, burns, and does nothing; Barnes reports the Septuagint's explanation and its consequence (“this want of justice in David's conduct… was the first seed of his after rebellion”), while K&D refuses to import the LXX plus into the Hebrew and grounds the paralysis in David's own guilt. Pulpit measures him by Eli (1 Sam 2:34). ⚙ 2 Samuel 13 is therefore an argument, by exhaustion, that the house of David cannot supply the judge that Israel needs — and it is Nathan's oracle that makes the failure structural rather than personal. Against that, the promise of 2 Samuel 7 keeps standing: a son of David whose throne is established forever. Isaiah names what that son will do with a case like Tamar's — he will not judge by what his eyes see (and this chapter is full of eyes) but “with righteousness shall he judge the poor (dal, the very word used of wasted Amnon in v. 4), and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.” The gospel writers place Jesus on that throne.
That the Davidic promise runs through and beyond David's failures to Christ is the ancient and widely held apostolic reading (Acts 2:29-31; Rom 1:3); the specific use of this chapter as the counter-case is my framing.
2 Samuel 7:12-16 · Isaiah 11:3-4 · Acts 2:29-31
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text. Verse 16 is genuinely broken and every voice here says so. Cambridge: “The Heb. text cannot be so translated, and is certainly corrupt,” and proposes the Old Latin witness to the Septuagint: “Nay, my brother, for greater will be this latter wrong…” Barnes: “The Hebrew text is probably corrupt, and the writer blends Tamar's words with his own narrative.” Pulpit canvasses Philippsohn and Cahen, concedes “Flat as this is, no better rendering is possible,” and points to the Vatican Septuagint. K&D alone defends the Masoretic reading by supplying an elided verb. Our literal rendering follows the Masoretic consonants and flags the difficulty rather than adopting any emendation.
Text, second case. At v. 21 the Septuagint and the ordinary Vulgate add a clause absent from the Hebrew: “he did not vex the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, because he was his firstborn.” Barnes calls it “a good explanation”; Ellicott and Cambridge both report it; K&D warns it “is nothing but a subjective conjecture of the translators, and does not warrant us in altering the text.” We have kept the Hebrew and reported the plus as a witness, not as Scripture. At v. 20 the Hebrew reads Aminon, not Amnon; Ellicott calls it a clerical error, Gill and Cambridge report the Jewish reading of it as a contemptuous diminutive, and Cambridge adds that it “may possibly be only an accidental variation.” We have not decided between them.
Lexicon. Three words in this unit are effectively unique and their meanings are therefore uncertain: lᵉbîbâh (H3834, the “heart-cakes”), masrêth (H4958, the “pan”), and the phrase kᵉthôneth passîm (H3801 + H6446). Barnes: the cake words “occur nowhere else, and the etymology is doubtful.” K&D calls masrêth a hapax and says the etymology “is uncertain.” Pulpit thinks the Syriac may be right that the word in v. 9 is not the pan but the dish of food. Our divergence notes give the range and do not pretend to resolve it.
Threads. Every verbal badge in this unit rests on a Verifier-computed shared lexeme with its frequency stated. The Genesis 34:7 link is the one place where we have deliberately under-claimed against three named commentators: Barnes, Ellicott and K&D call it a verbal quotation, the Verifier tiers it structural, and we have followed the Verifier. The Leviticus link is flagged because the Verifier finds no shared lexeme at all — the law is assumed by the commentators, never cited by the chapter. The 1 Corinthians 5 thread is cross-Testament and cannot carry a verbal tier in principle.
⚙ Synthesis. The grand commentary's reading of kinship vocabulary as the chapter's instrument of harm, the sola reading's insistence that Tamar is not reducible to David's punishment, and both novel Christ entries are this tool's own fallible work, built on the sourced interlinear and the named voices but not asserted by any of them. Where the commentators assign motives the Hebrew does not state — JFB's “Tamar, flattered by the invitation,” Poole's providential blinding of David, Gill's reading of Amnon's intent back into v. 1 — we have flagged the inference in an editorial note rather than repeating it as fact.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)