« ElőzőTovább »
were more honourable than the thirty and there, is the same man with Jashobeam, who yet attained not unto the three mentioned is first before them here. before them; certainly there was a first But, instead of bydw in Chronicles, we order of three, superior in honour to this have in Samuel nawawtwo words, which second three: which first order of three have greatly perplexed the commentators, must be Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah. and yet seem not properly accounted for. The first is mentioned corruptly, but the As to those, who have been led away by the second and third clearly and expressly in strange version of the Vulgate in this place, Samuel ; whereas, in Chronicles the two first and have applied these words to David, inare mentioned clearly and expressly, and geniously making David the first of his own the third is omitted.
mighty men; I suppose, nothing need be Thus then we have the whole thirty-seven said to weaken their opinion: and indeed it mighty men enumerated, and ranked in is too absurd to be answered seriously. their order-Joab the captain-general—a There are others, who suppose the proper double series of three generals (the three name of this general to be expressed either most honourable next to Joab making the in the two words nawa 20-or in the word first series ; and the more honourable than onnor in 1979. But that Adino is not the thirty, but less honourable than the first the proper name will easily be concluded three, making the second series) and then from its situation in the middle of his chathe body of thirty. But this arrangement of racter (contrary to the settled rule), and these several heroes will receive additional more especially from its being a corruption confirmation from a farther examination of of a regular verb, as will be seen hereafter. these two chapters.
To which it may be added—that no such 3. The next observation must be with man as Adino the Eznite is mentioned anyregard to the name of the first general of where else in Scripture; which he most the first series, mentioned in the verse now probably would have been, had that been before the letters of which in Chronicles the true name of the person here meant: and Samuel are at present very different. because we find the names of the inferior
If we consult the form constantly ob- generals frequently mentioned in other served through the remainder of the chapters, places. That 'pann Tachmoni is not the we shall find the first thing that occurs of proper name is plain, because it is the either of the mighty men is his name, as we family or local name; as is evident from its might naturally expect it should be; and, in termination and situation, and from a comgeneral, first his proper name, and then his parison with the more correct text in Chrofamily or local name. This being the case, nicles. And that Jashob-bashebet is not the we might reasonably expect to find the proper name, may be inferred, because it is proper name of this hero recorded in the not expressed as such in any ancient version
ning of his character in both places; -because it may be inferred from the conespecially as his family or local name is fusion in all the versions, that the corruption actually expressed in both. In Chronicles (which is so great in the remainder of this we have his proper name so expressed, and verse) begins in these words—and because it find it to be Jashobeam, orat”; and that this is certain (from 1 Ch. xi. 11, compared with was in fact his proper name is certain from xxvii. 2) that the true name was Jashobeam ; 1 Chron. xxvii. 2—where we learn, that this and therefore these two words must have mighty man was the first officer or captain been corrupted. of the body of 24,000 men, who, during the But do not the same men appear frefirst month of the year, were in waiting quently in Scripture to have two names ? If upon the king-Over the first course, for the so, this general might be called both Jashofirst month, was DYIV Jashobeam. After beam and Jashobbashebet. In answer to this Jashobeam, who was over the first month, it may be observed, first, that men have not are mentioned Eleazar the son of Dodi for two names in Scripture so frequently as is the second month, Benaiah for the third, supposed; a variation of their name being Asahel for the fourth, &c. Men, whose certainly owing sometimes to a mistake of names follow that of Jashobeam in the the transcriber. Besides, where a second history now before us; and therefore prove name has been given, it has been generally --that Jashobeam, who is first before them more distinguished from the former than these two are from one another: as Jethro in the words just cited. Chief of the princes and Reuel, Solomon and Jedidiah, Simon and is a wrong version of von Un, and he that Peter, &c. And therefore, when we have sat in the seat of wisdom is rather more imtwo names, varying but little from each proper than the former; since now (when other, evidently belonging to the same derived from 30 and used substantively) person, we may reasonably suppose the one signifies the act of sitting, and perhaps a to have been accidentally varied from the seat or chair is never its proper signification. other; and that they were not both original, But, admitting that, the word "onn never unless we have an express authority given signifies wisdom; that being expressed by in the text for such small variation,
the regular noun yon. But, even admitBut that nothing of this kind appears ting that both these words might so signify here is certain; and that the following heroes elsewhere, they could not here, as we should have only one proper name is certain also. then have no proper name at all; and conAnd therefore, as the proper name of this sequently one of David's generals would be hero is given twice exactly the same, Jasho- recorded in a catalogue that was to do beam; and that in places where the text in honour to his name, without any name to be the concomitant words is well preserved; we so honoured : which is sufficiently absurd. must conclude, that Jashob-bashebet, which But though this version of Queen Elizadiffers from Jashobeam only in the end of the beth's is so defective in this place; yet, in name, has been corrupted from Jashobeam, the older English version of Coverdale especially as the corrupted name only appears before-mentioned, the words are here very here, in a text which is greatly corrupted in remarkably translated, Jasabeam the sonne of other instances.
Wachmoni, the chefest amonge thre. But lastly it may be objected, there is no If we consult the several editions of the necessity for supposing Jashob-bashebet to be LXX, they evidently help us in assigning the proper name of this mighty man; as it this name of Jashobeam to this hero. The might be intended, in conjunction with the Alexandrian has leßoodai and the Vat. following words, to express the quality or leßoode, in which words are preserved the dignity of the person spoken of. For thus three first letters 10", only the two last transQueen Elizabeth's version, 1599, He that posed; but the Complutensian has the three sat in the seat of wisdom, being chief of the letters right leoBaad. And in Chronicles princes, was Adino of Ezni.
the LXX is almost as clear as the original; To this it may be answered first, that there Alexandrian leßaau O83' (Chron. xxvii. 2, is not mentioned through the whole Bible IoBoaz D810) Vat. Ieoeßada, Ald., leoßaal, any such man, as Adino of Ezni; and that Comp., leoßaav. To which may be added there will appear a necessity for admitting the testimony of Josephus, Ipwtos Mev ovv Adino Exni to have been a corruption of legoalpos (0309) vlos Axapavi (3930) p. 401; two common words. So that Calmet might Edit. Haverc. have spared the following improper observa- Upon the whole, then, there seems to be tion on Jashobeam, in his Dictionary of the an absolute necessity for admitting, that this Bible:-“We cannot see, from whence they proper name has been corrupted into Jashobtook Adino the Eznite, which is entirely bashebet in Samuel from Jashobeam ; as it superfluous in this place." It is true, as now stands, and evidently has ever stood in containing a proper name, the words are Chronicles. And this (considering how superfluous; but it seems no difficult matter many mutilations equally great, and indeed to discover from whence they came, as they greater, must be allowed) will probably be are absolutely necessary to complete the admitted by all but such as are determined sentence in the quality of common words. to maintain the absolute integrity of the
In consequence then of this necessity, we present Hebrew text, in opposition to the are obliged to look out for some other proper clearest proofs of the contrary. And such name; and fortunately we have the con- a corruption would probably be admitted current testimony of two other texts (and upon these several evidences; even though one of them almost an exact copy of the the variation of the latter part of the word present) to prove, that the mighty man here could no otherwise be accounted for, than meant was Jashobeam. But there is an in- by the fallibility of the copyist, and the plain accuracy through the whole of this version conviction that so the thing is, which is
frequently all the satisfaction that can be time the mistakes here supposed were made. obtained.
But it will certainly be allowed, that each But here there seems a way of account- line might be of the length here assigned it; ing for this mistake of the transcriber, by and the insertion of each word, here supremarking that the word nava occurs in the posed, is a strong argument that the lines line immediately preceding this proper name. were so. And perhaps the reader will be And therefore it seems not irrational to sup- fully convinced of this, when it is observed, pose, that the transcriber, being to write that, since assigning the number of words bywa, regularly writ the three first letters here given to each line, I have found a very 90"; and then, instead of continuing the extraordinary confirmation of this supposiword, carelessly cast his eye upon the word tion in “ Lewis's Hebrew Antiquities,” nawa in the line immediately above (which book vii., chap. 13 ; which author, treating following a word that begins like 90° might of the manner in which the ancient Jews the more easily mislead the eye) and tran- transcribed the holy books, says, Thirdlyscribed it in here, instead of the remaining the length of the line was to be of THIRTY syllable of the proper word.
letters. Now this is most exactly the numThat the word nava is not a corruption of ber of letters assigned to the first line of the a patronymic in this place, is plain from last instance; and thirty-one is the number 1 Chron. xxvii. 2 ; where we are told, that of letters assigned to the first line of the Jashobeam's father was segar, Zabdiel, a former. word not at all similar. And therefore, as Taking it for granted that enough has nawa is so confined between 20° the three first been said to prove, that the name of this letters of the true proper name, and von mighty man must have been originally in the family or local name ; there is no great Samuel Jashobeam, as we find it twice in room for indulging conjecture with regard Chronicles, and having also endeavoured to to it, as there would be if it stood in a account for the corruption; it may be time to general sentence of common words : and proceed from his proper name to the name of the only probable account of it seems to his family or country. And this may be be (as before observed) that it was carelessly easily ascertained, since it is nearly the same transcribed in here from the line above. in both places; the one having 'yonn and
That the supposition of such an accident the other progn ya. The name here in as this may appear the more rational, besides Samuel was at first ponn, the article is at the several preceding reasons, I shall now the beginning having been corrupted into a produce (from this same book, and but two n; for the word 72 in Chronicles is regularly chapters before) one clear instance of such a supplied in Samuel by that article. A mistake or dislocation ; which does not ap- parallel instance of this remarkably occurs pear to have been considered as such, but in the very next verse; where my in has been given up by some, under the more Chronicles is 'Tx ya in Samuel. general name of a corruption.
This last instance will be one proof among [See notes on xxi. 19, p. 645.]
a thousand, of the insertion or omission of The conclusion from hence is that if the vau in the middle of a word, at the d'art may have been, and most probably pleasure of the transcriber; as above, in was, inserted from the line immediately ponn and '91930. It may also be remarked, under, nava most probably was inserted from that though Jashobeam is here said to be the line immediately over what was then the son of Hachmoni, yet his father's name transcribing, thus,
was Zabdiel ; and therefore the Hachmonite, or the son of Hachmoni, must have been the
name of his family, tribe, or country (for it )
these from another), just as the Ahohite, or
the son of Ahohi, is the family or local name It may be here objected, that, in order to of the next hero—Eleazar the son of Dodi. recommend the two preceding suppositions, 4. In the second observation the order of the lines have been made to consist of such the thirty-seven mighty men was found to a particular length, as it is impossible for us be, Joal, the captain general, a double series to know they actually did consist of, at the of three, and a body of thirty; the first
ובאש שרוף ישרפו בשבת : is impossible sometimes to distinguish one of | שמות הגברים אשר לדוד ישב בשבת)
series of three consisting of Jashobeam, will be obvious to infer, that the same may Eleazar, and Shammah, and the second of have been the case in this 8th verse. And Abishai, Benaiah, and Asahel. This then indeed it must have been the case: since prepares the way to an easy solution of the Jashobeam was not more the third captain next difficulty ; which arises not only from than Abishai; but as Abishai was the fifth, the reading pown, tertius, in Samuel and Jashobeam was the second; be being the D'enten, triginta, in Chronicles, but from that first captain of the first series, and inferior variety of meanings put upon both words by only to Joab the captain-general. But different commentators. The truth is, both though Jashobeam was not the third captain, words are corrupted; and, instead of sig- he was head of three ; and therefore the true nifying either tertius or triginta, should be reading here also must have been oben, both dhun, tres ; since we see Jashobeam tres, agreeably to which the Vulgate renders was the head or captain of three, being the this word tres, and the Complutensian copy first of the first series of three.
of the LXX very justly reads here, 7pWtos That the termination of the similar words των τριων; and also Theodotion, πρωτος των Tebw, tres, osos, tertius, and o'umu, triginta, r outos. is frequently exchanged by mistake, might This alteration being admitted, it will of be proved by many instances; two of which course follow, that one mistake has also been (at least) appear in other parts of this very made in this verse in Chronicles, which has chapter in Samuel. For d'wmw, triginta and been faithfully preserved in every other robo, tertius in the 13th and 18th verses will word; and that is in b'u'un. That this be proved to have been originally now, tres, word has been mistaken for poswn is demonin Samuel, as they are now truly read in strable from the 13th verse in Sam.; and that their corresponding verses in Chronicles. It the same must have been the case in Chromay not be improper to consider here the nicles, is also certain from what has been necessity of thus correcting out in the already established as to this verse in Samuel. 18th verse, as it will lead us the more easily But this point is farther confirmed by reto see the same necessity in this 8th verse. flecting, that Jashobeam was not truly head
Abishai then, who in the 18th verse is or captain of the thirty ; because the thirty said to be oyun DN7, the third head or cap- were not more under him, than under any tain, was not so in fact; for, being the first other general of the two series; but were captain of the second series, he must bave less under him, than under Joab, who was been the fifth captain, Joab and the three the head or prince over the whole thirty-seven. captains of the first series being before him. The clearness therefore of the history in this The reading then must have been at first in point will oblige us to allow a mistake of
, , , , tres, since that and that only is true ; for we three; which mistake will be proved to have see that Abishai was properly head of three, obtained elsewhere in this very chapter, and being the first captain of the second ter- must be allowed to have obtained here also nary. Thus in the Bomberg edition of the for the sake of truth, and to make a proper Hebrew Bible (1517) we have taken in the harmony with the passage in Samuel. margin ; and in the Complutensian edition of It may just be remarked that the mistake 1515 (the oldest printed copy extant) Town of a 17 for a is not uncommon; the son is read in the text itself, without any various and successor of Rehoboam is called, in reading in the margin. These arguments, 1 Kings xiv. 31, D'ON, Abiam ; but in added to that drawn from the same passage 2 Chron. xii. 16, TIN, Abiah, a corruption, in Chronicles, where this very word town which is frequently repeated in the history is read in the text universally, must be of that king. And the cause of so easily allowed fully sufficient to prove it should mistaking these two letters 17 and D (as well have been also own in Samuel. And as as of others, which differ chiefly in their such it is remarkably rendered in Coverdale's being open or closed at bottom) probably English version before-mentioned, abisai the was, that the blackness of the line, which brother of Joab the sonne of Zeru ja was one also was ruled to direct the pen, sometimes apchefe amonge thre.
peared like the transverse bottom-stroke of If then this word vos son is certainly a a letter: for the best Jewish manuscripts corruption from when in the 18th verse, it were ruled before writing, as appears from
,השלשה thirty , in Chronicles for ,השלשים, השלשה the text
. הוא ערינו העצנו ing of
Lewis's Hebrew Antiquities, book vii., These several letters then being frequently chap. 23.
changed, let us suppose these alterations 5. The next difficulty in the corrupted here, and the word_1?ty will be 17173 ; which text in Samuel lies in fixing the true read- is very near 1719, and doubtless was care.
lessly writ instead of it, as it must have Among the many different versions of been 7710 originally here, as well as in these words, the English is—The same was Chronicles. For that this word must have Adino the Eznite. But that Jashobeam been a verb of the same sense with 771 is the Hachmonite should be the same with plain from the substantive that follows it; Adino the Eznite, is not only highly impro- which at present is less understood (if posbable, but evidently impossible. Besides ; sible) than 13'ty with all its corruption. I if these words should be thus rendered, or shall only add here—that this will not be in any manner like it, there would be in the considered as taking improper liberty, or sense such an hiatus, as no ellipsis can assuming a license for supposition, by any excuse — Jashobeam the Llachmonite, the who have carefully attended to the much same was Adino the Eznite
greater corruptions that frequently occur, against 800, whom he slew at one time. and consequently to the greater liberties that
As these words then cannot be proper must be taken elsewhere : and in this very names, or a proper and local name, they chapter we have mistakes much less probable must be a corruption of common words ; and than that just mentioned, such as of such words, as complete the sense of this, (Sam. xxi.) instead of 18, &c., &c. and answer to the sense of the other pas- Le Clerc observes, Quid sibi velint 1]'TY sage. I only say—answer to the sense, 291, nemo dixerit ; and adds, Hic deforbecause it is impossible to bring one of the mantur verba in Paralipomen, seu male dewords to resemble its corresponding word in scripta fuerint, seu fugientibus literis satis letters, on account of their absolute dis- commode legi non potuerint. But though he similitude. Nor is there any necessity for pronounces both these words inexplicable, endeavouring it; since a verbal sameness is and will have them to have been both not observed in every other part of these greatly mistaken ; yet we need desire this to two chapters, instances to the contrary being be admitted only as to the first word : for very numerous.
the second will probably be found to require The first of these three words is 817, no change at all, the true reading 13927 being which is the same in both passages. The retained in all the best copies. second, being somewhat alike in both as to
The word 1997 having the pronoun sufform, though different in some letters; and fixed at the end and the article prefixed at being only writ properly in the first passage, the beginning (as it sometimes is prefixedthe word there must be the standard and see among other instances 70, Lev. correct the last. That it is truly writ in xxvii. 23), answers exactly in form and force Chronicles is plain, because it makes a to n nk in the correct passage. It will regular sense in the original, and is uni- therefore be allowed, that yie was, and conformly translated; and indeed is the very sequently is, a true Hebrew noun; when it word, which would have been expected in appears, that it is a noun in the Arabic lanthat place, as it occurs in several other places guage just in the same sense with nn. in company with the same words as here. That this is the case may be proved from the
How unlike soever the words nw and concurrent authorities of Castell, Schindler, 1979 may appear at first sight, it must be Golius, and Giggeius. Castell gives the considered, that they consist of letters which word 72, as not occurring in the Hebrew have been frequently mistaken for each Bible; but after the word ** sets down the other elsewhere, and therefore they may
attraxit ramum, the rehave been so here. (And we should constantly remember—that the similar letters
gular noun from which wać (7**) he were much less distinguishable formerly renders thyrsus. Schindler also gives us up, when expressed in manuscripts, than they and says-Arab. cum 9 punctato sang ramavit, are at present when printed from types
et inde 751 ramus.
In Golius we have prepared with great exactness and a just hos percussit baculo vel gladio, vicit pugdistinction), &c., &c.
nans, &c., under which verb is the noun