Skip to content

shebanq
ubs

אַרְגַּז ’argaz – wagon-box (?)

Semantic Fields: Utensils   
Author(s): Eric G.L. Peels
First published: 2011-05-09
Last update: May 2025 (Marten van Dam)
Citation: Eric G.L. Peels, אַרְגַּז ’argaz – wagon-box (?),
               Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (sahd-online.com), 2011 (update: May 2025 (Marten van Dam)) (WORK IN PROGRESS)

Introduction

Grammatical type: noun masc.

Occurrences: 3x HB (0/3/0); 0x Sir; 0x Qum; 0x Inscr. (Total: 3)

  • Nebiim: 1 Sam 6:8, 11, 15.

Ketiv/ Qere: none.

1. Root and Comparative Material

A.1
Root. Klein renders ‘box, chest’, compares the cognates mentioned further on in this article, and notes: ‘Prob. derived from base רגז, and possibly meaning ‘‘that which sways’’.’1 However, nothing but etymologising suggests that an אַרְגַּז would be a swaying object. Equally fancy is the etymology proposed by HCHAT (‘von אָרַג zusschliessen’).2

A.2 Akkadian. Hitherto the possibility that Akkadian araziqqu (part of a wagon3), apparently a learned foreign term, is a corruption (metathesis) of a comparable word has not been considered.

A.3 Ugaritic. A relation with Ugaritic ʾarkd4 cannot be excluded. The meaning of this word is unknown, but it is a product of a craftsman (ḥrš5).

A.4 Postbiblical Hebrew. אַרְגַּז, ‘box, chest’6, apparently based on 1 Sam 6 itself, and therefore not really helpful.

A.5 Syriac. The form ܐܪܓܙܬܐ (ʾarguztā) in the Peshitta is regarded as a variant of ܪܓܙܬܐ (rgāztā) or ܪܓܘܙܬܐ (rgūztā) and translated as ‘a wallet of hair cloth or wool, a fodder-bag, nosebag; a plaited basket’,7 or as ‘box, chest'.7a However, all these renderings rest on guesses derived from 1 Sam 6. See Ancient Versions and Conclusion.

A.6 Classical Arabic. See Conclusion.

A.7 Rabbinical literature. The rare references to אַרְגַּז in the rabbinical literature are apparently based on the supposition that it means ‘box, chest’ in 1 Sam 6.8

2. Formal Characteristics

[Discussion will be added later.]

3. Syntagmatics

[Discussion will be added later.]

4. Ancient Versions

a. Septuagint (LXX) and other Greek versions (αʹ, σʹ, θʹ):

  • At 1 Sam 6:8 LXX renders בארגז with ἐν θέματι βερσεχθαν; θέμα meaning ‘coffer’, βερσεχθαν is seen as a representation of Hebrew בארגז. At 1 Sam 6:11, 15 LXX translates את ־ארגז with τὸ θέμα εργαβ - εργαβ is taken as a representation of Hebrew בארגז. So in all cases a double translation has to be assumed, testifying to the difficulty already the early Greek translators experienced with the word. The erroneous transliteration was taken over in the Ethiopic version.9

  • GELS-L: ‘treasure; pile; coffer [1 Sam 6:8]’;10 LSJ: ‘that what is placed or laid down; treasure; pile; position; burrial-place; case etc.’.11

  • α´ and σ´ render ƛαρναξ ‘coffer, box, chest’.12

b. Peshitta (Pesh):

c. Targum (Tg):

  • תיבתא, ‘box, chest’: all instances. Possibly this rests on nothing but etymologising, cf. Latin arca ‘box, coffer, pouch, coffin, ark’.

d. Vulgate (Vg):

  • capsella, ‘(little) box’, in all instances. Note that capsella is a diminutive form of capsus, ‘wagon-body’.

5. Lexical/Semantic Fields

[Discussion will be added later.]

6. Exegesis

6.1 Literal Use

A.1 אַרְגַּז occurs only thrice, in one and the same pericope (1 Sam 6), so it is practically a hapax legomenon, although neither Cohen, BHL, nor Greenspahn, HLBH, recognised it as such. Priests and diviners (6:2) advise the disheartened Philistines to put golden objects (הַזָּהָב כְּלֵי in 6:8, כְּלֵי ־זָהָב in 6:15), according to 6:4, 11, golden mice and images of their tumors, as a guilt offering on a new wagon (עֲגָלָה, 6:7), next to the ark (מִץִדּׂו, v. 8 [cf. Deut 31:26]; אִתֹּׂו, v. 15). In 6:8 אַרְגַּז is provided with the article and for this reason some scholars have surmised that it must have been an object belonging to the cart (‘wagon-chest’13). It is questionable, however, if the use of the article justifies this conclusion.14 The אַרְגַּז is placed (שׂים Hi., 6:8) on the wagon and is taken down on arrival in Beth-Shemesh (ירד Hi., 6:15).

The immediate context gives little hold to a positive identification of אַרְגַּז. No mention is made of the material the אַרְגַּז is made of, or which shape it had. As usual in such cases, scholars have had recourse to the ancient versions and to comparative linguistics in the hope to get a clearer picture of what is meant.

6.2 Figurative Use

A.1 Not attested.

6.3 Pictorial Material

A.1 No suggestions.

6.4 Archeology

[Will be added later.]

7. Conclusion

A.1 The available data is too scant to permit a confident determination of the kind of object an אַרְגַּז was. All attempts at identification rest either on etymologising or on renderings in the ancient versions which, however, are evidently guesses themselves.

A.2 Much approval was won by a suggestion of Morgenstern who draws a parallel between pre-islamic transportable tent-shrines and the Israelite tabernacle. He associates the Hebrew אַרְגַּז with Arabic riǧāzat, according to him a kind of ‘pouch, bag’ in which heavy stones were put as a counterweight to the tent. So the אַרְגַּז would have been a permanent device necessary for the transport of the tabernacle. The rocking motion of the pouches might explain the derivation of the word from the root רגז ‘to quiver, quake’. As a matter of fact the same solution had been proposed much earlier by others (see Bibliography).15

A.3 However, the meaning of the Arabic cognate is modified by those who adduce it. Morgenstern selects only one meaning of the word. The primary meaning is ‘palanquin’, a small type of camel litter for women, sometimes provided with a dome-like top. The saddle on which the women sat was called → כַּר.16 Others take the Arabic word to mean ‘saddlebag’17 which it is definitely not, not even if it sometimes metonymically may designate a special covering that was filled on one side with stones to balance the camel litter if it started to slant.18 In any case this is something completely different from the wagons drawn by oxen in 1 Sam 6. Moreover, it may be asked whether it is likely that precious golden objects would have been put into bags containing heavy stones as counterweights.

A.4 As a provisional rendering ‘box, chest’ might be retained because it is supported by ancient tradition which, however, rests ultimately on what was obviously a guess of the early Greek translators who expressed their uncertainty by also transcribing the unfamiliar term. The translator of the Peshiṭta does not know the word either and simply transcribes it. Rabbinic sources may have been etymologising on the basis of Latin arca ‘box, chest, ark’. No convincing Semitic etymology has been proposed. The root rgz ‘to shake, sway, be angry’ renders a useful solution only if one surmises that אַרְגַּז was a swaying object. Therefore Sapir’s hypothesis that we are dealing with an unknown Philistine (Anatolian) loanword may still be valid.19

Bibliography

For the abbreviations see the List of Abbreviations.

BDB, 919: ‘box, chest, or like receptable’, but also reference to Arab. riǧāzat ... ‘a garment containing stones, etc., as balance, makeweight’, etc.
Klein, CEDHL, 53: ‘box, chest’
CHALOT, 26: ‘saddlebag’
Alonso Schökel, DBHE,
DCH, vol. 1, 370: ‘box, or other kind of receptacle, perh. saddlebag’
FHAWAT, 22: ‘Behälter’
GB, 63: ‘Behälter, Sack od. dgl.’
HAHAT, 95: ‘Behälter, Sack od. dgl.’
HALAT, 81: ‘Satteltasche’
HAWAT, 26: ‘Wagenkasten’
HCHAT, Bd. 1, 135: ‘Kiste, Kasten’
KBL, 83: ‘Satteltasche, saddle-bag
LHA, 78: ‘repositorium pendulum, capsula in latere currus’
MHH, 67: ידוע בלתי קיבול כלי

Morgenstern 1942-43
J. Morgenstern, ‘The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘‘Tent of Meeting’’ ’, HUCA 17 (1942-43), 251-5

NIDOT, vol. 1, 498: ‘saddlebag; chest(?)’

Riehm 1884
E.A.C. Riehm, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums, Bd. 1, Bielefeld 1884, 811
Salonen 1951
Armas Salonen, Landfahrzeuge des alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki 1951, 28
Sapir 1936
E. Sapir, ‘Hebrew ʾargaz, a Philistine Word’, JAOS 56 (1936), 272-81
Smith 1899
H.P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, Edinburgh 1899 (many reprints), 45
Staubli 1991
T. Staubli, Das Image der Nomaden im alten Israel und in der Ikonographie seiner sesshaften Nachbarn (OBO, 107), Freiburg 1991, 126-33, esp. 129, Fig. 5 and Abb. 113-117
TLB
Loewenstamm, Blau, TLB, vol. 1, 265: ‘Recepticle of an unknown type’
TPC
Gesenius, Roediger, TPC, 1261: ‘arca, cista e vehiculi lateribus dependens, ita dicta quod commoveatur et agitetur 1 Sam. VI, 8. 11. 15.’ With reference to Arabic riǧāzat
Van Zijl 1988
A.H. van Zyl, 1 Samuel (PredOT), Nijkerk 1988, 91

  1. Klein, CEDHL, 53. ↩

  2. HCHAT, Bd. 1, 135. ↩

  3. CAD, vol. A/2, 239; Salonen, Landfahrzeuge, 28. ↩

  4. KTU 4.277:9. ↩

  5. cf. DUL, 103. ↩

  6. Jastrow, DTT, 115. ↩

  7. Payne Smith (Margoliouth), CSD, 528. ↩

  8. Sokoloff, SLB, 1432. ↩

  9. cf. Jastrow, DTT, 115. ↩

  10. cf. Leslau, CDG, 37. ↩

  11. GELS-L, 203. ↩

  12. LSJ, 788. ↩

  13. LSJ, 1030. ↩

  14. so BDB, 919; HAWAT, 26; Van Zyl 1988; cf. Smith 1899. ↩

  15. cf. GKC, §126 q-s; GBH, §137 f-i; IBHS, §13.5.1. ↩

  16. Morgenstern 1942-43. ↩

  17. For descriptions and illustrations of this type of domed litter, see Riehm 1884; Staubli 1991. ↩

  18. cf. KBL, 83; McCarter 1980; HALAT, 81. ↩

  19. Lane, AEL, 1036, 2885, also 649. ↩

  20. Sapir 1936. ↩

Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database