hoc (sounded), baculus. And with which words are exactly the same in 1 Chron. xi. 20. These two instances then, so exGolius, Schindler, and Castell agrees Gig- tremely pertinent, added to that third correct geius; who, in his Thesaurus, gives us instance in the corresponding place of ver. 11, lødl, baculus, hastile; and, ramus, are certainly sufficient to show the necessity of reading in 2 Sam. xxiii. 8; instead thyrsus. To these several authorities may of a word at present unintelligible, begun be added that of St. Jerom, who in the Vulg. with the same remarkable letter as the has rendered the word by lignum; which, regular word, and carried on in letters that being nearly the same in sense with the are very easily mistaken for each other, and thyrsus, ramus, baculus, and hastile of the are confessedly so mistaken in other places. Arabians, is a strong argument that was 6. The difficulty next occurring is in the an Hebrew noun so signifying, though (like number, eight hundred, since the many other words) it may occur but once in correct passage reads, three hun

This then being the case, there seems no doubt, but many of the numbers, which now appear almost incredible in some places and contradictory in others (as in the place now I shall only add, with regard to the word before us), are owing to mistakes in some of , that in the 18th verse of this same the similar letters. One or two material chapter we read of Abishai, mistakes of this kind, rationally accounted

for, will sufficiently confirm this point, and it is a point of no small importance.

The first instance shall be the remarkable contradiction between 2 Kings viii. 26, and 2 Chron. xxii. 2; which has so much perplexed the commentators, that Walton (Prolegom., p. 36) puts it among the quædam аñoра [see notes on 2 Chron. xxii. 2].

reiseve his Shafte (Spere) on thre hundrid woundid men in one tyme. Indeed our present English version in Samuel renders, whom he slew, but such a version seems not to be defensible; and so the authors of it thought by putting the word slain in the margin, and by translating it in Chronicles against 300 men slain.

The reasons against rendering, whom Another very remarkable example of this he slew, are, first, that there being then no kind occurs in the 3d chapter of the Book noun after the numeral, the sentence would of Numbers. We read in ver. 11th, And be incomplete, he lift up his spear against these were the sons of Levi; Gershon, Ko- 300 whom he slew at one time. hath, and Merari.-22 The Gershonites And secondly, because of the almost inwere 7,500.-28 The Kohathites, 8,600.- credible nature of the action, a man's killing 34 The Merarites, 6,200.—39 All the Le- 300 men with his own single spear, which vites were 22,000. But the sum total of the incredibility is removed by considering t preceding numbers, instead of being really as a noun of the signification assigned it in 22,000, will be found to be 22,300, &c. [see the following observations. Were not these notes on Numb. iii. 22, vol. i., p. 514]. reasons strongly against it, might be adThe Hebrew numbers having therefore mitted as a verb, with its signification of been certainly expressed formerly by letters, occidit; and we might suppose the pronoun this is a sufficient vindication of the pre- understood before the verb here, as in ceding solution of the difficulty as to the other places. Thus Exod. iv. 13, TI NI TÍU 800 and 300 men. And how easy a mistaken, mitte, quæso, per manum (quam, vel of 500 might be in our way of expressing illius quem) mittes; and Exod. xv. 13, numbers, will immediately appear upon a 1, duxisti in misericordia tua setting down the very same numbers 800 populum hunc (quem) redemisti. and 300. But that the number in Samuel was originally 300, as well as in Chronicles, will be farther evident from an argument that falls more properly under the next article.

But the true sense of the word in this place seems to have been preserved only in the Vatican edition of the LXX in Samuel, where it is rendered ΣΤΡΑΤΙΩΤΑΣ [against 7 The word is read the same in both this meaning of see note of Gesen. on passages, and properly. For though it 2 Sam. i. 19, p. 491]. For however some carries with it a difficulty at first sight, as lexicographers may refuse the active sense being singular; yet there are many instances of occidere or vulnerare to the verb in where a numeral, or a conjunction of numerals, expressive of very many, take after them and agree with a noun that is singular. One example of this we find in Gen. v. 4, And the days of Adam, after he begat Seth, were 800 year (not years)

Kal, yet they all allow it in Pihel; but these two conjugations are the same in the preter tenses without points; and indeed this active sense is allowed the word here according to the common interpretation-whom he SLEW. Castell informs us, that this verb in Arabic

signifies descendit, castrametatus fuit, grassatus fuit, protexit, &c. This idea of the

verb is farther deducible from the nouns derived from it; and thus the following nouns of this verb are rendered by Giggeius, in his Thesaurus

المحله and المحل

, just as we say, 800 year, and 800 pound; not years, and pounds. Another example may be 1 Sam. ix. 22, ' ' about thirty man. The regularity of this singular noun being admitted, the next consideration must be, the true meaning of it. Here the versions are widely different; and the general run of them make strange statio, castra work, by rendering, occisus or vulneratus. For, according to this rendering, Jashobeam vir validus et audax; which latter obtained his pre-eminence by bravely lifting remarkable signification is confirmed by up his spear against 300 men, after they Castell, and greatly recommends the Vat. were dead, or at least, after they were version of by ETPATIOTHE. This verb wounded. Thus we have the word rendered then having the ideas of fighting, warring, here in a MS. English version of 1408, this and wounding so evidently annexed to it;

telum, missile

and

and the Arabic noun from its verb signifying | occisus nor that of vulneratus can take place vir validus et audax; the Hebrew noun here, if we consider the context. The Isfrom its verb will regularly answer to Erpa- raelites were assembled to attack the BenTIWTηs, or miles. This then being some-jamites at Gibeah the third time, and the times the sense of this noun, we may con- sons of Benjamin went forth to meet the clude it to be the proper translation of it in people, and were drawn off from the citythis place; so that Jashobeam lifted up his then follow the words here cited; and what spear against three hundred fighting men propriety can there be in rendering them, and (or, three hundred soldiers) at one time. they began to smite of the people the wounded or slain? Can we suppose any of the Israelites (who now advanced to attack the Benjamites) to be slain or wounded, before the battle begun? And yet we seem obliged to suppose thus much, if the word

But it may be said, if soldiers had been here meant, why was not the Hebrew noun for soldiers here made use of? The answer is, that if □ be not that Hebrew noun, there seems to be no other for it in the Bible. In 2 Chron. xxv. 13, the two words which we translate by the term soldiers are 17, the sons of a troop; and what we term fighting men, 1 Kings xii. 21, are literally those that do the war. The noun then, coming from a verb, whose sense in Hebrew is vulneravit, occidit, and which in Arabic has the military ideas which are always affixed to Erpariwτns, or a soldier, must be properly expressed by that word; especially as there is no other word for it in the Hebrew language.

be taken here in the sense usually contended for. Thus the Chaldee version is here rendered, Et cœperunt ad occidendum ex populo occisos; and thus the LXX, by rendering the original words, ŋpέavto TUTTELV EK TOV λaov трavμarias. The Vulgate endeavours to make sense here, by the insertion of three verbs, neither of which are in the original. And our English translators, who were sensible how improper the word slain or wounded would be in this place, have inserted one verb by rendering

But this is too material a point to be, and kill. passed over, without some farther observa- But this is endeavouring to make good tions; since many of the places, where this sense in English at the expense of the orinoun occurs, seem to have been misunder-ginal language, which (every one must see) stood by every interpreter, for want of con- will not admit such a translation; and it sidering it in the sense here contended for. must be observed, that the English transSuch an assertion as this will require some lators, being sensible also of the impropriety proofs to support it; and probably the several of this version, have rendered the words in texts here subjoined will be fully satisfactory. the margin, To smite of the people wounded. We may previously remember, that the But this and every other impropriety will sense given at present to the noun is the perhaps be removed by translating the word passive sense of interfectus or vulneratus;, milites; for the sentence will be then, which it is still allowed to have, where the Et MILITES cœperunt percutere (or, et context requires it: but that the following cœperunt percutere MILITES) ex populo, sicut texts are produced as requiring the active sense of interficiens or vulnerans, or rather miles, and that the including this latter sense, where necessary, does no more exclude the former, when necessary in other places, than the participle, confodiens, in Ezek. xxix. 9, prevents from being confossus in Ezek. xxxii. 26.

primo die et secundo, in stratis-quasi tri-
ginta viros in Israele. And that this is the
proper version of the word in this place
seems to be farther evident from the 39th
verse; where we read in mon bon por
N ohwo in una, Et Benjamin percutere
cœpit MILITES, inter viros Israelis, quasi
triginta viros.

The first instance may be Judges xx. 31, The next instance may be taken from

אתה דכאת כחלל רהב בזרוע עזך11 .occurs in the following manner, Psalm lxxxix חללים where .פורת איביך ויחלו להכות מהעם חללים כפעם בפעם במסלות כשלשים

The better to illustrate these N, which words are rendered by the words, it must be observed, that in the Book LXX, Και ηρξαντο τύπτειν εκ του λαου τραυ- of Psalms and Proverbs each verse consists ματιας καθώς απαξ και απαξ εν ταις οδοις— generally of two parts called hemisticks; ώσει τριακοντα άνδρας εν τω Ισραήλ. Now one of which is exegetical of the other, it seems evident, that neither the sense of either by expressing the same sense in dif

ferent words, or explaining one assertion by its opposite or contrary. Let us now see how this rule has been observed as to this verse; which is evidently of that kind, which expresses in its two parts the same sense in different words.

Tu confregisti, quasi occisum (vulneratum)
Egyptum;

In brachio roboris tui, dispersisti inimicos

tuos.

But the translation here proposed will receive additional confirmation from observing,

Lord strong and mighty, &c., are frequent appellations in the books of Scripture, but that, as this part of the Psalm evidently alludes to the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, so the images and ideas in this verse are evidently taken from the sublime ode, which was sung after that wonderful event. For we read in Exod. xv. 3, The Lord is a man of war (tu tanquam miles). 6 Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power; thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy―Tu, tanquam miles, confregisti Ægyptum; in brachio roboris tui, dispersisti inimicos tuos. Thus again we read, of the strange woman, or harlot, in Prov. vii. 26,

The LXX read, Ev etatteivwσas, ws тpav-not only, that the Lord mighty in battle, the ματιαν υπερηφανον εν τω βραχιονι της δυναμεως σου διεσκορπισας τους εχθρούς σου. And I believe all the other versions render the word here either tanquam vulneratus or tanquam occisus. But probably neither of these senses will be thought very applicable, when we reflect that , Rahab, here is a name for Egypt or the Egyptians; and that the Psalmist in this verse alludes to the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. For, is there propriety in saying, that God destroyed the Egyptians like dead men, or like wounded men? Were not the Egyptians destroyed? Did they not perish? Did not Pharaoh and all his host die in the Red Sea? And can their destruction by death be compared to itself? Can it be said with a 40 p’osri nýon D, which words the any dignity, that men slain were destroyed LXX have translated, IIoλλovs yap тpwσaσa like men slain? Or lastly, as these Egyp- καταβεβληκε, Και αναρίθμητοι εισιν ους πεφοtians were thus totally destroyed, can it be veUKE. The learned reader will readily observe said, that they were destroyed like wounded that rpwoaσa can no more be the true men?—which certainly is to compare great version of here, than can be inthings with small, with a peculiar impro- terpreted by avapibunтo, which it never is priety. Our common English version is, but in this place; and here Symm. and Theod. Thou hast subdued Egypt, AND DESTROYED render it xvpot, as the sentence requires it IT; thou hast scattered thine enemies abroad should be. Since the noun, which is exwith thy mighty arm. But the last trans-pressive of multitude in the second hemistick, lators, seeing the absolute unlawfulness of and answers to 7, multos, in the first, is translating, and destroyed it; have ren- certainly, omnes, or plurimos, which in dered the verse, Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, As ONE THAT IS SLAIN; thou hast The Arabic version, following the LXX, scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm. reads, Quoniam sauciavit multos et deprædata Without any more previous observations est eos; neque recensetur numerus illorum, then, let us now see how this verse will be quos enecavit. The Syriac has, Quia copiam expressed, with the signification of at occisorum prostravit, et fortissimi sunt omnes present contended for, Tu, tanquam miles, quos necavit. The Chaldee Paraphrase, confregisti Egyptum; in brachio roboris tui | Quoniam multos interfectos dejecit, et fortes dispersisti inimicos tuos. It is impossible sunt omnes interfecti ejus. And the Vulnot to observe, how exactly the hemisticks gate, Multos enim vulneratos dejecit, et now answer to each other; since every fortissimi quique interfecti sunt ab ea. This expression in one has its corresponding expression in the other, Tu, tanquam miles, in brachio roboris tui-confregisti, dispersisti— Ægyptum, inimicos tuos.

this version of the LXX is entirely omitted.

last sense has been followed by our English translators thus, For she hath cast down many wounded; yea, many strong men have been slain by her. But is the correspondency of the two hemisticks, which very perfectly obtains in the original of this verse, at all illustrated by any of these versions? For the more successful recommendation of leave the determination to the learned this translation, let us subjoin the former reader; and shall observe, that the transla

Tu, tanquam miles, confregisti Ægyptum;
In brachio roboris tui, dispersisti inimicos

tuos.

I

, יפלו בחוריה ברחבתיה וכל אנשי מלחמתה ידמו ביום ההוא | tion of this verse by the very learned Albert

Here we see that in two texts prophetically declaring the same circumstances of the same destruction, we have juvenes in one expressed by the same word for juvenes in the other; and then the word D, which is here rendered milites in one, expressed by viri belli in the other.

Schultens is, Nam multos ad lanienam pro- Cadent JUVENES ejus in plateis ejus, et omnes jectos (profanatos) cadere fecit, et numerosi VIRI BELLI EJUS succidentur in illo die. omnes trucidati ejus. We learn from hence, that as this celebrated professor of the oriental languages was not pleased with the common translations of , vulneratos or occisos, by rendering it ad lanienam projectos; so neither was he pleased with that version of his own (as we may easily suppose he could not) and therefore we see he has rendered it by profanatos in a paren

thesis.

But, let us proceed to the other instances in this same chapter. In verse the 47th we

which words have, וכל הלליה יפלו בתוכה read

From all this uncommon fluctuation then been generally rendered et omnes interfecti in the best expositors we may be led to ejus cadent in medio ejus. But what can be suspect some general mistake; and perhaps the meaning of interfecti ejus or interfecti it will appear to have been, in the sense of Babylonis? or is there propriety in sayingthe word. For if we here again render interfecti ejus interficientur ? The whole this word milites, we shall find every part of verse is, Propterea ecce dies veniunt, et the hemisticks perfectly to correspond; thus, multos agrees with omnes or plurimos, milites with fortes or fortissimi, dejecit with interfecit or interfecti sunt ab ea:

Multos enim milites cadere fecit;

Et fortissimi quique ab ea interfecti sunt. In Jeremiah li. we seem to have several instances, where this word should be rendered as before. In verse 4 we read

visitabo super sculptilia Babylonis, et omnis terra ejus confundetur; and the next words in this solemn denunciation of vengeance seem only properly translated by--et omnes milites ejus cadent in medio ejus. There are some commentators indeed, who seeing the impropriety of interfecti, have rendered the word here saltatores; but this comment seems to deserve no farther notice, than to shew that the authors of it were not satisfied with the common interpretation.

, which words have been usually rendered, et cadent interfecti. But, as the verb signifies to fall mortally, or to be If we proceed from this 47th only to the slain in battle (Josh. viii. 24, 25; Judg. 49th verse, we shall find farther reason for viii. 10; xii. 6; xx. 44, 46), the question is, allowing this translation of by milites. whether cadent (interficientur) interfecti is The intermediate verse is, Et laudabunt not an improper expression. Or rather, as super Babylonem cœli et terra, quia ab the words immediately preceding areaquilone venient ei vastatores, ait Dominus.

גם בבל לנפל חללי ישראל penitus delete omnem ejus erercitum, The follows verse 19th, כל צבאה

the question may be, whether nam cadent › pa ba o. These words have milites be not a much more significant and been variously interpreted, and yet have proper version than et cadent interfecti; been generally (perhaps it might be said when the substantive last preceding was the singular noun exercitus or militia.

universally) misunderstood by commentators. Our English translation is, As Babylon hath caused the slain of Israel to fall; so at Babylon shall fall the slain of all the earth.

But let us take the context with it. The prophet here foretells the fall of Babylon; and in the conclusion of the 3d verse we The impropriety of causing those who had read, unn muna ba ibon, Et ne been slain to fall, or to be slain, induced our parcalis super juvenibus ejus, penitus delete translators to place in the margin, Both omnem ejus exercitum. Then follows the Babylon is to fall, O ye slain of Israel; and 4th verse, A DIPTDI D’TW) YIN, with Babylon, &c. But this address to the Nam cadent milites in Chaldæorum terra, et slain is certainly the greater impropriety; transfigentes gladio (cadent) in plateis ejus. and the former English version is confirmed That the word should be here rendered by the LXX, who read, Kai ye Baẞvλwv milites, seems farther deducible from the πεσειν εποίησε τους τραυματίας Ισραηλ, και εν 30th verse of the preceding chapter, which | Βαβυλωνι πεσουνται τραυματίαι πάσης της verse, treating of the very same destruction yns. The English and Greek versions seem with the verse before us, has these words, right here in the form and disposition of the