Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

were more honourable than the thirty and yet attained not unto the three mentioned before them; certainly there was a first order of three, superior in honour to this second three which first order of three must be Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah. The first is mentioned corruptly, but the second and third clearly and expressly in Samuel; whereas, in Chronicles the two first are mentioned clearly and expressly, and the third is omitted.

there, is the same man with Jashobeam, who is first before them here. But, instead of Dy in Chronicles, we have in Samuel na -two words, which have greatly perplexed the commentators, and yet seem not properly accounted for. As to those, who have been led away by the strange version of the Vulgate in this place, and have applied these words to David, ingeniously making David the first of his own 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 nw or in the word first series; and the more honourable than or in . 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 confirmation from a farther examination of these two chapters.

3. The next observation must be with regard to the name of the first general of the first series, mentioned in the verse now before us; the letters of which in Chronicles and Samuel are at present very different.

more especially from its being a corruption of a regular verb, as will be seen hereafter. To which it may be added-that no such man as Adino the Eznite is mentioned anywhere else in Scripture; which he most probably would have been, had that been the true name of the person here meant: 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 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 beginning of his character in both places;-because it may be inferred from the conespecially as his family or local name is actually expressed in both. In Chronicles we have his proper name so expressed, and find it to be Jashobeam, D; and that this was in fact his proper name is certain from 1 Chron. xxvii. 2—where we learn, that this mighty man was the first officer or captain 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? upon the king-Over the first course, for the so, this general might be called both Jashofirst month, was Dr 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

fusion in all the versions, that the corruption (which is so great in the remainder of this verse) begins in these words-and because it is certain (from 1 Ch. xi. 11, compared with xxvii. 2) that the true name was Jashobeam; and therefore these two words must have been corrupted.

If

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, 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 n (when other, evidently belonging to the same derived from 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 " never unless we have an express authority given signifies wisdom; that being expressed by in the text for such small variation. the regular noun. But, even admitting that both these words might so signify elsewhere, they could not here, as we should then have no proper name at all; and consequently one of David's generals would be recorded in a catalogue that was to do honour to his name, without any name to be so honoured: which is sufficiently absurd.

But that nothing of this kind appears here is certain; and that the following heroes have only one proper name is certain also. And therefore, as the proper name of this hero is given twice exactly the same, Jashobeam; and that in places where the text in the concomitant words is well preserved; we must conclude, that Jashob-bashebet, which differs from Jashobeam only in the end of the name, has been corrupted from Jashobeam, especially as the corrupted name only appears here, in a text which is greatly corrupted in

other instances.

But lastly it may be objected, there is no necessity for supposing Jashob-bashebet to be the proper name of this mighty man; as it might be intended, in conjunction with the following words, to express the quality or dignity of the person spoken of. For thus Queen Elizabeth's version, 1599, He that sat in the seat of wisdom, being chief of the princes, was Adino of Ezni.

To this it may be answered first, that there is not mentioned through the whole Bible any such man, as Adino of Ezni; and that there will appear a necessity for admitting Adino Ezni to have been a corruption of two common words. So that Calmet might have spared the following improper observation on Jashobeam, in his Dictionary of the Bible: "We cannot see, from whence they took Adino the Eznite, which is entirely superfluous in this place." It is true, as containing a proper name, the words are superfluous; but it seems no difficult matter to discover from whence they came, as they are absolutely necessary to complete the sentence in the quality of common words.

In consequence then of this necessity, we are obliged to look out for some other proper name; and fortunately we have the concurrent testimony of two other texts (and one of them almost an exact copy of the present) to prove, that the mighty man here meant was Jashobeam. But there is an inaccuracy through the whole of this version

But though this version of Queen Elizabeth's is so defective in this place; yet, in the older English version of Coverdale before-mentioned, the words are here very remarkably translated, Jasabcam the sonne of Hachmoni, the chefest amonge thre.

If we consult the several editions of the LXX, they evidently help us in assigning this name of Jashobeam to this hero. The Alexandrian has Ießooda and the Vat. Ießoode, in which words are preserved the three first letters w, only the two last transposed; but the Complutensian has the three letters right Ieoßaa0. And in Chronicles the LXX is almost as clear as the original; Alexandrian Ießaap D (Chron. xxvii. 2, Ioßoaμ Dy) Vat. Ieσeßada, Ald., Ieoßaad, Comp., Ieoßaav. To which may be added the testimony of Josephus, IIpwтos μev ovv Ieσσaiμos (D) vios Аxaμan (") p. 401; Edit. Haverc.

Upon the whole, then, there seems to be an absolute necessity for admitting, that this proper name has been corrupted into Jashobbashebet in Samuel from Jashobeam; as it now stands, and evidently has ever stood in Chronicles. And this (considering how many mutilations equally great, and indeed greater, must be allowed) will probably be admitted by all but such as are determined to maintain the absolute integrity of the present Hebrew text, in opposition to the clearest proofs of the contrary. And such a corruption would probably be admitted upon these several evidences; even though the variation of the latter part of the word could no otherwise be accounted for, than by the fallibility of the copyist, and the plain 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 remarking that the word naw occurs in the line immediately preceding this proper name. And therefore it seems not irrational to suppose, that the transcriber, being to write Dy, regularly writ the three first letters ; and then, instead of continuing the word, carelessly cast his eye upon the word naw in the line immediately above (which following a word that begins like might the more easily mislead the eye) and transcribed it in here, instead of the remaining syllable of the proper word.

and the insertion of each word, here supposed, is a strong argument that the lines were so. And perhaps the reader will be fully convinced of this, when it is observed, that, since assigning the number of words here given to each line, I have found a very extraordinary confirmation of this supposition in "Lewis's Hebrew Antiquities," book vii., chap. 13; which author, treating of the manner in which the ancient Jews transcribed the holy books, says, Thirdlythe length of the line was to be of THIRTY letters. Now this is most exactly the numThat the word now 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, Zabdiel, a word not at all similar. And therefore, as naw is so confined between 2 the three first letters of the true proper name, and the family or local name; there is no great room for indulging conjecture with regard to it, as there would be if it stood in a general sentence of common words: and the only probable account of it seems to be (as before observed) that it was carelessly transcribed in here from the line above.

former.

Taking it for granted that enough has been said to prove, that the name of this mighty man must have been originally in Samuel Jashobeam, as we find it twice in Chronicles, and having also endeavoured to account for the corruption; it may be time to proceed from his proper name to the name of his family or country. And this may be easily ascertained, since it is nearly the same in both places; the one having That the supposition of such an accident the other. The name here in as this may appear the more rational, besides Samuel was at first, the article at the several preceding reasons, I shall now the beginning having been corrupted into a produce (from this same book, and but two; for the word 1 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 has been given up by some, under the more Chronicles is in Samuel. general name of a corruption.

and

in

This last instance will be one proof among a thousand, of the insertion or omission of

[See notes on xxi. 19, p. 645.] The conclusion from hence is—that if the vau in the middle of a word, at the may have been, and most probably pleasure of the transcriber; as above, in was, inserted from the line immediately" and ". It may also be remarked, under, na most probably was inserted from that though Jashobeam is here said to be the line immediately over what was then transcribing, thus——

the son of Hachmoni, yet his father's name was Zabdiel; and therefore the Hachmonite, or the son of Hachmoni, must have been the name of his family, tribe, or country (for it

ובאש שרוף ישרפו בשבת : אלה is impossible sometimes to distinguish one of שמות הגברים אשר לדוד ישב (בשבת)

תחכמני

It may be here objected, that, in order to recommend the two preceding suppositions, the lines have been made to consist of such a particular length, as it is impossible for us to know they actually did consist of, at the

these from another), just as the Ahohite, or the son of Ahohi, is the family or local name of the next hero-Eleazar the son of Dodi.

4. In the second observation the order of the thirty-seven mighty men was found to be, Joab, the captain general, a double series of three, and a body of thirty; the first

And

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. 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, tertius, in Samuel and Jashobeam was the second; he being the Doh, 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 on, both, 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, πршτоs των τριων; and also Theodotion, πρωτος των T OUTOS.

That the termination of the similar words moho, tres, who, tertius, and D, triginta, is frequently exchanged by mistake, might be proved by many instances; two of which (at least) appear in other parts of this very chapter in Samuel. For D, triginta and , tertius in the 13th and 18th verses will be proved to have been originally, tres, in Samuel, as they are now truly read in their corresponding verses in Chronicles. It may not be improper to consider here the necessity of thus correcting in the 18th verse, as it will lead us the more easily to see the same necessity in this 8th verse.

That this

is demon

This alteration being admitted, it will of course follow, that one mistake has also been made in this verse in Chronicles, which has been faithfully preserved in every other word; and that is in o'when. word has been mistaken for strable from the 13th verse in Sam. ; and that the same must have been the case in Chronicles, is also certain from what has been already established as to this verse in Samuel. But this point is farther confirmed by reflecting, 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, 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 have 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

, השלשה thirty, in Chronicles for, השלשים, השלשה the text, as it is still in the margin

obtained elsewhere in this very chapter, and must be allowed to have obtained here also for the sake of truth, and to make a proper harmony with the passage in Samuel.

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, being the first captain of the second ternary. Thus in the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Bible (1517) we have in the margin; and in the Complutensian edition of It may just be remarked that the mistake 1515 (the oldest printed copy extant) of a 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, DN, Abiam; but in added to that drawn from the same passage 2 Chron. xii. 16, TN, Abiah, a corruption, in Chronicles, where this very word which is frequently repeated in the history is read in the text universally, must be allowed fully sufficient to prove it should have been also now in Samuel. And as such it is remarkably rendered in Coverdale's English version before-mentioned, Abtsai the brother of Joab the sonne of Zeru Ja was one also chefe amonge thre.

If then this word is certainly a corruption from in the 18th verse, it

of that king. And the cause of so easily mistaking these two letters and (as well as of others, which differ chiefly in their being open or closed at bottom) probably was, that the blackness of the line, which was ruled to direct the pen, sometimes appeared like the transverse bottom-stroke of a letter for the best Jewish manuscripts were ruled before writing, as appears from

Lewis's Hebrew Antiquities, book vii., chap. 23.

These several letters then being frequently changed, let us suppose these alterations here, and the word will be ; which

5. The next difficulty in the corrupted text in Samuel lies in fixing the true read- is very near , and doubtless was carelessly writ instead of it, as it must have originally here, as well as in For that this word must have

. הוא ערינו העצנו ing of

Among the many different versions of been these words, the English is The same was Chronicles. Adino the Eznite. But that Jashobeam been a verb of the same sense with 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 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 Hachmonite, the who have carefully attended to the much same was Adino the Eznite

against 800, whom he slew at one time.

אשר

greater corruptions that frequently occur, 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 we, &c., &c. and answer to the sense of the other pas- Le Clerc observes, Quid sibi velint sage. I only say answer to the sense,, nemo dixerit; and adds, Hic deforbecause it is impossible to bring one of the words to resemble its corresponding word in letters, on account of their absolute dissimilitude. Nor is there any necessity for endeavouring it; since a verbal sameness is not observed in every other part of these two chapters, instances to the contrary being

very numerous.

The first of these three words is N, which is the same in both passages. The second, being somewhat alike in both as to form, though different in some letters; and being only writ properly in the first passage, the word there must be the standard and correct the last. That it is truly writ in Chronicles is plain, because it makes a regular sense in the original, and is uniformly translated; and indeed is the very word, which would have been expected in that place, as it occurs in several other places

in

ערינו

mantur verba in Paralipomen, seu male de-
scripta fuerint, seu fugientibus literis satis
commode legi non potuerint. But though he
pronounces both these words inexplicable,
and will have them to have been both
greatly mistaken; yet we need desire this to
be admitted only as to the first word: for
the second will probably be found to require
no change at all, the true reading
retained in all the best copies.
The word

being

having the pronoun suffixed at the end and the article prefixed at the beginning (as it sometimes is prefixedsee among other instances, Lev. xxvii. 23), answers exactly in form and force tons in the correct passage. It will therefore be allowed, that was, and consequently is, a true Hebrew noun; when it appears, that it is a noun in the Arabic language just in the same That this is the case may be proved from the concurrent authorities of Castell, Schindler, Golius, and Giggeius. Castell gives the word, as not occurring in the Hebrew Bible; but after the word sets down the

. חנית sense with

with the same words as here. company How unlike soever the words and may appear at first sight, it must be considered, that they consist of letters which have been frequently mistaken for each other elsewhere, and therefore they may Arabic verba attraxit ramum, the rehave been so here. (And we should constantly remember that the similar letters gular noun from which() he were much less distinguishable formerly renders thyrsus. Schindler also gives us 7, when expressed in manuscripts, than they and says-Arab. cum punctato ramavit, et inde ramus. In Golius we have are at present when printed from types prepared with great exactness and a justo percussit baculo vel gladio, vicit pugdistinction), nans, &c., under which verb is the noun 4 Q

VOL. II.

&c., &c.

« ElőzőTovább »