A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

V. 13. Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity, ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.

In the like figurative expressions to those by which in the preceeding verse he shewed what they should have done, he here shews what they had done, viz. the clean contrary to what God commanded and required of them; the termes being of themselves of an in∣different nature and applyable to denote ei∣ther good or bad, according to the matter of the things done, or the end for which they are done. The plowing that God then set them about was for good, & that they should be oc∣cupied therein, that which here they set them∣selves about, and were occupied in, is for bad; Ye have plowed wickedness. Which words may sound either that the p 1.1 field which they plowed, or that wherein they bestowed their labour was wickedness; or that that to which they directed their labour and for what they bestowed their pains, or q 1.2 the seed for sowing which they plowed, was ini∣quity or wickedness, or, that the result, or that which their labour produced, was wicked∣ness; in which way wickedness also may be taken for the r 1.3 punishment of iniquity, and signify their punishment, as in the other way their sin. s 1.4 Some by plowing understand here sowing; that plowing is comprehended and t 1.5 understood with it we may well think, because it is preparatory to sowing, and here follows reaping which is not without it.

The meaning of the expression according to its most obvious sound will be, that they v 1.6 rejecting the counsell of God, and contrary to his command, jointly and deliberatly set themselves in their Idolatrous courses to work wickedness. They that would not endure Gods easy yoke, nor do such service as he re∣quired, though tending and directing to their greatest happiness, both for the present and the future, willingly take on themselves the hard yoke of sin, and in the service thereof take such paines as by termes of the hardest labour are deservedly expressed, though to the pulling on themselves the greatest evils both present and future. They have plowed wickedness, w 1.7 That for rooting out of which they should have broken up their fallow ground that do they plow for to cause it to grow, and they have reaped iniquity. So ours translate it, with most others in the preter perfect tense, and so it is in the Hebrew

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Avlatah Ketsartem, ye have reaped &c. yet do others (according to that promiscuous use of tenses which we have else where seen) taking the preter tense as, to de∣note the certainty of the thing which shall be, put for the future, as if it already actually were, render it in the future as of that which were yet to come, ye shall reap; so Pagnin, and x 1.8 others, ideo iniquitatem metetis, therefore ye shall reap iniquity: and y 1.9 others, as if of what at present were, metitis ye ao reap, which though they might all be understood therefore alike, yet there being different expositions concerning the meaning of the words, one ren∣dring (distinction being made between them) seemeth to favour one, the other, another. The different expositions that we mean, are that z 1.10 some by reaping iniquity, will have to be understood their proceeding and persisting in their evil doings, till they have brought them (as it were) to a harvest and laid up as in provision the fruits thereof, so as to be still a description of their a 1.11 sins, and with this is most agreeable the rendring in the preter tense, ye have reaped, or in the present, ye do reap, &c. but b 1.12 others look on it as a descrip∣tion of the punishment of their sin or the reward which they shall reap of their evil doings worthy of them, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Av∣latah iniquity, may be put also for the c 1.13 pu∣nishment of iniquity, as d 1.14 words of that nature denoting sins are often used. To this way it is most agreeable to put it in the future tense, at least so to understand it, whether it be rendred in the preter or present, to denote that it was as certain, as if already, or that they had already had some e 1.15 tast or expe∣rience thereof. Both these were f 1.16 necessarily joined, and their ill reward shews that cer∣tainly their doings were ill, and ill doing will certainly procure an ill reward.

Such is also described in the next words, ye have eaten the fruit of lies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acaltem peri cachash, which words are still figurative, both the verb, ye have eaten, and the words joined with it, the fruit of lies. Ye have eaten, saith he, not that they did properly and really eat, but by eating may be meant, the doing of somthing in hope (or in doing somthing to hope) to find such satisfaction of ones desires, as an hungry man doth by eating: or it will be an expression of such effects pro∣duced by any thing done, as are answerable to those which a man findeth by eating, either for good or hurt, according to the nature or quality of what he eateth. Then by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Peri cachash, fruit of lies, (or a lie) may as Drusius observes, be understood a lie it self as if it should signifie that they used deceit and lies, as he saith, bread of deceit or lying, is taken for a lie it self. They are above accused of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cachesh, lying g 1.17 c. 4.2, as guilty of it in denying God and following Idols, and the being said to eat it, will be to shew their being much given to it, desiring it as an hun∣gry man doth meat. But, more distinctly, fruit of lies (or a lie, or lying) may signi∣fie h 1.18 such as is by deceit or lying, any false wayes or ill meanes, gotten, as bread of deceit or lying, Prov. 20.17. probably signifies. To which way I suppose agrees that expression in Kimchi which by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cachush, understands their lying against God, and i 1.19 denying him, to follow Idols, k 1.20 to whom they ascribed the good things which they enjoied, as rewards by them given them (c 2.5.12.) in which way the eating the fruit of a lie, will be either their setting their minds on them, and looking on them as things from which they look for satisfaction, or else that they did or should eat such fruit, i. e. bear the ill consequents which such things (which in our Prophets language above ch. 8.9. are certainly l 1.21 buds which yield no meal or yield bitter and deadly fruits) produce, both all evil works, and the severe judgments of God, which they draw on them, even death it self Rom. 6.22, 23.

Or secondly by the fruit of lies, may be understood (making one noun as an Epithet to the other) fruit that is but a lie, or, lying fruit (as the LXX have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) such as shall deceive the hopes of him that looketh for sa∣tisfaction from it. So will it denote that their hopes, and trust in those things which they did, should doe them hurt, but not profit them at all, nor yield them any satisfaction, as in like sense they are said to feed on wind, cap. 12.1. and those Isaiah 44.20. to feed on ashes, and they will be left at best like the hungry man that dreameth, and behold he eateth, but he awaketh, and his soul is empty Isaiah 29.8.

m 1.22 The like notion of failing or deceiving is the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cachesh or lying, used in above c. 9.2. where we render the new wine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yecachesh bah, shall fail in her.

These several wayes that the word may be used in, give occasion of several expositions, according to some of which they are also looked on as a description of their sin, ac∣cording to others of their punishment or ill consequents of their sinne; for the j••••d••ing of which we may observe as we did of the fore∣going verb, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acaltem, though of the forme of the preter tense, properly signifying ye have eaten, yet is differently

rendred in several tenses. Ye have eaten, say ours with the most, both ancient and mo∣derne in the preter tense: So the LXXII 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye have eaten lying fruit. The Syriack 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the vulgar Latin, comedistis frugem mendacii, ye have eaten the fruit of a lie, or, lying, and the Ms. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye have eaten the fruit of failing, frustration, or lying, to omit others more moderne. n 1.23 Others, in the present tense, comeditis, ye do eat the fruit of a lie: o 1.24 Others will have it to be meant as in the future, comedetis, ye shall eat, and so Grot. Pascemini fruge falsā, speciosâ sed non alente, ye shall feed on false fruit, such as makes a fair show but yeilds no nourishment; to which purpose I suppose tends that in the former and lesser editions of Vatablus, laborabit is penuriâ an∣nonae, that of R. Stephens in folio having it not.

Now then if the words be looked on as a declaration of their sin, it will be proper to take the verb in its stricter signification of the preter perfect tense, and by the fruit of lying most convenient to understand (according to what we said) either lies themselves, or such things as they got by lying, or ill meanes, by their denying God, and following Idols which to doe, they made as it were their meat, and with greediness followed. But if we take them as a description of the punishment of their sin, then taking the fruit of lies either for such evils as their lying wicked courses, and false dealing with God, should produce or bring on them, or were deserved by them, worthy of, or due to, them, or else the fru∣stration of all hopes of good and satisfaction which in their wicked rebellious courses they had promised to themselves, then will it be more convenient to render it as in the future, comedetis, ye shall eat, or if in the preter or present tense to understand them as of that which should be as certain to them, as if past or present, or that they had already in part felt it and should more hereafter feel, having no other fruit of their doings laid up in pro∣vision with them, but what was of such false lying, deceivable, unsatisfactory nature; which shall be for hurt, and not profit to them. This way of taking it as spoken in description of punishment to them seemes plainest, and is by most followed. They have the authority of the Chaldee paraphrast also on their side, which though not literally rendring the words yet gives his sense of them by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye have received the reward of your workes, having rendred the former, ye have thought (or plotted) violence (or rapine or oppression) ye have done wickedness; though p 1.25 some of great note incline rather to understand all these as expressions of their sins and perti∣nacy therein from the beginning and all along persisting therein, which is expressed by their plowing and sowing under it comprehended, and eating or laying up (as it were) and making use of, these depending one on another, and tending one to another, plowing and sowing, to reaping, and reaping to laying up, eating and enjoying, all of the same kind, and so all consummating wickedness, accord∣ing to the words of Abarbinel in respect to them and the foregoing words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all this is a para∣bolical expression of the evil of their doings, and so, that, ye have eaten the fruits of lies; for the words have relation (or connection) one to (or with) the other, plowing to reaping, reaping to eating.

The words are applicable to either of these wayes, and how according to either they may be understood and applyed we have in part shewed. Whichsoever of them we take, the next words shew the reason why it so came to pass, viz. that they either did so pertina∣ciously continue and go on in their evil courses, or did find such frustration in what they did, or so ill consequences on it, viz. because thou didst trust in thy wayes, in the multitude of thy mighty men: This made them do as they did, and this exposed them to what they did or should certainly find. Had they, as they ought, trusted in God and his waies, and relied on him for help and protection, they would have made his commandments the rule of their actions, and diligently occupied themselves therein, have plowed and sowed in righte∣ousness, and not doubted to have reaped in mercy, and to have found a bountiful recom∣pense of their labours from him; but now having forsaken him and trusting in their own false waies and relying on their own strength and the power and multitude of their mighty men, they plow and sow wickedness, reap ini∣quity, and eat the fruit of lies, give themselves up to run on in all evil waies, make it their meat to do such things, and therein promise themselves satisfaction; or, because they do so plow and sow wickedness through their false trust in their own way and their own strength, they shall reap the punishment of their ini∣quity, and be frustrate in all their hopes and expectations of good from what they do, and find those ill consequents which are farther de∣scribed in the following words: to which we might from these with good connection pass; but before we leave these, we shall speak some thing more of the expressions in them.

Because thou didst trust, &c. Here is on a suddain a change of numbers from ye, to thou which makes Kimchi to think that he turnes his speech from the people to the King Hosea, in whose time Samaria was destroyed and the ten tribes carried into captivity. But it is easily solved, by observing that rule which he and others give elsewhere (as we have seen) that when a people is spoken to, or of, either the singular or plural number is indifferently used, as they are looked on as one collective body or as more persons, and so is it by q 1.26 others observed here to be, and that the people in general are still spoken unto, and Abarbinel explaines it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and this hath been (or shall be) to thee ô Ephraim, because thou trustedst in thy way &c. By their way wherein they trusted, may be understood either more generally all those evil wayes that they took for saking Gods way, and yet thought to be secure in them, their projects and counsels which rejecting the counsel of God they tooke, their r 1.27 religion and their policy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Kimchi, the way of wickedness and wrong belief. Their Idolatrous wayes, worship of those calves which were from themselves (c. 8.6.) and those Idols which they substituted to them∣selves in place of God, as Patrons, bene∣factors &c. ch. 5-12. will necessarily be taken in under that name, and Abarb. more particu∣larly interprets it of the way that they took in going to Egypt and to Assyria (as c. 7.11.) viz. to procure help and forces, not turning to God by repentance, but thinking by their assistance to secure themselves against all evils on their falsifying his covenant by the Pro∣phet threatned, which then will be much the same with what follows, and in the multitude of thy mighty men. viz. s 1.28 either of those of their own that they had of their own peo∣ple, or such as they hired from other nations, as particularly Egypt whence they sought for help. So Kimchi, and to make up the sense, addes, and hast made flesh thy arme and not trusted in me, therefore art thou fallen, or as Abarbinel, but in truth, all this shall be vain trust, for it shall not at all profit them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before (or against) the enemy. Such trust we know is elsewhere attended necessarily with a curse, Thus, saith the Lord, cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arme, and whose heart departeth from the Lord, Jer. 17.5. yet out of such trust did they de∣part from the Lord, and obstinatly follow their own wayes. How therefore this curse should be executed on them, if the foregoing words, threatning that they should eat the fruit of a lie, do not sufficiently shew, the next words will, therefore shall a tumult arise among thy people, &c.

But before we proceed to those words, we shall yet by the way take notice of a great difference which is betwixt the LXX, and such as follow them, in the rendring some of the words of this verse, from the Hebrew, as by those that we have seen understood and ren∣dred; as first at the beginning of it, for ye have plowed wickedness; they have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quid reticuistis impietatem & iniquitates ejus vindemiâstis? the printed Arab. likewise fol∣lowing them in the signification of the words, though differing in the distinction of them, taking (as above we intimated) the last words of the preceeding verse into this, render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin translation ren∣ders, ô filii aequitatis, quare neglexistis impie∣tatem, iniquitates ejus tamen vindemiastis, O ye Children of righteousness, why have ye neglected (so he renders what is in the Greek been silent at) ungodlyness, yet have ye gathered the iniquities thereof? the main of the difference is in their rendring that word which is usually looked on as signifying plowing, by being silent at, (or neglecting, or not taking notice of). By the same signification they rendred the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Charash, above v. 11. where we noted that that root hath besides the notion of plow∣ing, that also, of being dumb or silent (as it signifieth in the Syriack and Arab. tongues) but why, as there, so here, they should choose to take that meaning of it, and not that of plowing, is that of which I know not what good account can be given. Concerning their ren∣dring likewise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ketsartem, ye have reaped, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which usually is restrained to gathering of grapes, we have also spoken on v. 12. where we have the like rendring, what may suffice. By their rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Avlathah, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, its iniquities itmay be thought that they took the last letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h to be an affixe fem: of the third person.

The following words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pericachash literally sounding the fruit of a lie, they render (as we have said) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lying fruit, and then the last words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ci batachta bedarceca berob gibboreca, because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multi∣tude of thy mighty men, they render (according to the Roman copy followed in our Polyglot bibles) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because thou hopedst (or trustedst) in thy sins, in the multitude of thy power (as if by their way they took to be meant their t 1.29 sinful wicked way and so gave the meaning rather

than the word; but other copies have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in thy chariots, so Jerom. hath it and so Cyril, and so the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quia spem collocasti in curribus tuis, in mul∣titudine exercitus tui, because thou trustedst in thy chariots, in the multitude of thine army; which makes v 1.30 some suspect as if they looked on it as written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beracheca, which would signifie in thy chariot, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bedarceca in thy way. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of thy power, which they put instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gibboreca thy mighty men, is perhaps well rendred by the Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thy army, it being as Drusius notes not unusual to put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pro exercitu & copiis militaribus, for an army and military forces, and so will it answer well in meaning to mighty men, though the forme of the noun be different. This we may observe of their words; on their meaning I shall not insist, seeing we follow it not.

We may likewise observe a difference be∣twixt the Syr. & other ordinary translations, though not as to the signification of the words, yet as to the distinction of the clauses of the sentence, he thus reading, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye have plowed sinne and iniquity, and have reaped and eaten the fruits of a lie, where if the conjunction in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and ye have reaped were omitted all might be regular according to the Hebrew, and the words placed in it as in that. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gib∣boreca thy mighty men, he also renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of your might.

Therefore shall a tumult arise among thy peo∣ple &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vekam, therefore shall arise; others and there shall: the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, u∣sually signifying, and, but otherwise used for an illative, and so by w 1.31 some noted here to be; by some it is quite omitted (as by the vulgar) but then must be understood, (these words declaring such punishment as is consequent on those wicked dealings of them before de∣scribed) because they so behaved themselves therefore shall it now be thus to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kam, there shall arise; so the LXXII. also and vulgar Latin, with most others of the an∣cienter, and more modern translations render it in the future tense; yet some modern, ex∣urgit, doth arise, others, surrexit, hath risen: but there is not need, I think, of any such alteration, as neither the grammar of the word, so nor the scope of the place requiring it, the words being a prediction of what should follow on their evil doings, which indeed for the certainty of its completion might be said already to be, or have been. A tumult, the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shaon, by the Chaldee, vulgar Latin, and others rendred likewise tumultus, x 1.32 a tumult, by others much alike y 1.33 conturbatio, and z 1.34 sonitus a noise, Drus. expounds it as importing, bellum, war; every battle of the warrior being with confused noise (Isaiah 9.5) there being usually both the voice of those that shout for mastery, and the voice of them that cry for being overcome (Exod. 32.18.) both, of the prevailing party to incourage one another in the pursuit, and to shake terror into those that are beaten, and of them crying out for fear of the enemy one to another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nusu, nusu, flee, flee, as R. Solomo speaks, and to a 1.35 one of these more particu∣larly do some apply the words, b 1.36 others to the other. Both usually go together, and c 1.37 both may be well comprehended; but the LXXII. render the word by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Syriack also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abdono, all signifying destruction. But this rendring will well be reconciled with the former by observing what R. Tanchum here notes, that d 1.38 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 devastation and desolation according to the use of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shaah, in Isaiah 6.11. wherein it is twice repeated in that signifi∣cation, and also according to others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a noise and murmuring, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the noise (or crying out) of the armies of the enemies against (or over) them: the one of these is a signe of the other, the noise of the pursuing enemy, of their flight and destruction, and if this be rendred by tumult or noise, with which the verb, shall arise, e 1.39 seemes best to agree, yet that it im∣ports together their destruction, f 1.40 destruction accompanyed with noise; it appeares by the following words, and all thy for tresses shall be destroyed &c.

This tumult it is said shall arise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beam∣meca, in, or among thy people, or peoples: for it is the plural number, which may be put, g 1.41 because they consisted of several tribes, and so were as several peoples; or h 1.42 to shew that not any tribe among them should be free from the calamity, but it should extend to all: and it being said that it should be in, or among their people, i 1.43 some look on it as meant of civil warres, intestine broiles, commotions and tumults among themselves, and the mis∣chiefs

consequent thereon, but those that we have seen and k 1.44 others, seem rather to respect that which is to be brought on them by the forrain enemy, and l 1.45 some look on both as included, they being in danger of the enemy, and perplexed for fear of him, dividing them∣selves in their counsels, and falling out at once among themselves to help forward the mischief, which, however we understand these words, as the next words declare, shall be great for (saith he) all thy fortresses shall be spoiled, &c. whether by the hands of such as raised civil broiles at home as we have seen some will, or of the forrain enemy as others, all their m 1.46 fortresses or such places as they built for their defence, against all enemies and thought to be secured by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(as the LXX.) murata tua thy walled places, which the printed Arab. render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mohassanateca, which may signifie the same, or fenced places. The Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Sy∣riac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the same word though the Latin translation of the first renders it n 1.47 arces tuae thy towers or castles, of the second, urbes tuae, thy cities, though I suppose both mean the same, viz. (as we said) o 1.48 such places as were fenced, the Ms. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which seemes to signifie, all the middle (or inward) parts of the houses which are usually most de∣fended, though I rather think here is an error of the scribe; and that for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be rather read by transposition of a letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is thy fortresses. How∣ever any translate it the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mibtsareca, seemes plainly enough to signify such places which are so fenced and fortifyed as that they within them, and what they there have, may be secured from such as shall assault them; the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Batsar, signifying (among other things) both munire, to fence and make strong, and also prohibere, arcere, to keep off from, and so the noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mibtsarim, places so ordered as to secure those in them, and hinder the access or outward violence of others. Such places it appeares they had, and trusted in them for security; but they having forsaken God, the only fortress and secure refuge of such as cleave to him and trust in him, and he having forsaken, and given up them, they all shall nothing avail them, for how strong soever they made them, 'tis said they shall all be spoiled, none escaping 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 col yusshad; the extent of which threat to every particular of them to express, Ar. Montanus nicely renders it p 1.49 omnes vastabitur, forcing the language in Latin that he may give literally as well the construction as the meaning of the Hebrew. Perhaps it were as well and as ex∣pressive, as to say in true Latin as Pagnin before had done vastabuntur shall be spoiled, or as q 1.50 others with respect to the word of the sin∣gular number, unaquaeque munitionum tua∣rum vastabuntur, every one of thy for∣tresses shall be spoiled.

Shall be spoiled, say ours and several others. The LXXII render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the La∣tin renders abibit, shall depart, i. e. shall faile, or peribit shall perish (as r 1.51 the word doth some∣times import.) The printed Arab. which u∣sually followes them in this book, renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall be spoiled, as ours render it from the Hebrew, and so also the Ms. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Chaldee also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which all properly signifie the same; viz. shall be spoiled, or pillaged, but the vulgar Latin, and others, vastabuntur, shall be laid wast, or destroied.

The Hebrew roote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shadad, (whence is this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yusshad) hath both these no∣tions viz. of preying, or spoiling, or pillaging, and also, destruction betwixt which if other∣where distinction may be made, yet here it need not be made, but the verb taken in such latitude as that which soever be put, the other may be understood with it. And that they shall not only be robbed or spoiled, but utterly de∣stroied, and laid wast (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 every one of their foretresses in which they trusted) by the de∣stroier which should come upon them, as Kim∣chi speakes, the following words declare, in which by comparison to a sad destruction of another place the grievousness of what shall befall them is plainly shewed: for they shall be spoiled or destroied, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ceshod Shalman Beth Arbel, as Shalman spoiled Beth-Arbel in the day of battle. So ours perspicuously render it, and literally enough, except we should more nicely say, s 1.52 as (or according to) the spoiling (or destruction) of Shalman, or Shalman's spoiling, or destroying of Beth-Arbel, and so the Ms. Arab. word for word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is all one in sense. But several of the ancient interpreters give farre different ren∣drings, or rather paraphrases, of the words as not so literally agreeable to them, so neither so perspicuous as to the meaning. It shall suffice to recite some of them without farther search into them, or their reasons in giving them.

The Chaldee thus paraphraseth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Latin translation in the Polyglot Bible renders sicut t 1.53 vastatur pacificus per insidias in die belli, i. e. as a peaceable man is destroied in time of war. And Mercer, with such a destruction, qualis fieri solet cum rebus pacatis derepente per insidias bellum movetur, i.e. as useth to be made, where things being in peace, on a suddain war is made by snares, (or treachery) which is not so neer to the words, as what our ordinary copies read. In this way Shalman and Arbel, are not looked on as proper names (although Petrus à Fig. in his comment put for the first Salma.) But rendred according to the signification which the words otherwise have, without any respect had to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 joined to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and according to this way doth R. Solomo expound them as spoilers which come suddenly on a people that sit in peace by way of ambush, so that they are not aware of them that they might flee before them, but they spoil (or destroy) all. Him I suppose Lyra also follows, in that note which he gives that Shalman it not a proper name but an appellative, signifying pacificum seu quietum, peacable or quiet and that in the Hebrew it is à domo insidiantis, from the house of him that lyeth in wait, so that the literal inter∣pretation is, as she that was peaceable (or at peace) was destroyed by the house of him that lay in wait: and so the sense, as a peaceable and quiet nation, not fearing danger, is destroyed by one lying in waite, and his family, suddenly falling in on a people not aware of it, who thought them∣selves to be in peace and quietness, as it is read of the destruction of Lachish, Jud. 18. Thus he; which he might have said was according to the Chaldee and R. Salomo, but not according to the Hebrew, but the Chaldee hath the li∣berty of a paraphrast. Among those, whose business is more pressely to follow and cleave to the words: the LXX (yet seeming here to take paraphrastical liberty) render according to the ordinary copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u 1.54 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which reading the printed Arab. also hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as prince Salman, of the house of Je∣roboam in the dayes of warre dashed the mother with the children: where in the first place we may observe that instead of what ours (with others) have, as Salman spoiled (or as Salman's spoiling) they have, as Prince Salman, which makes x 1.55 some think that instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ceshed as the spoiling, they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cesar, as the Prince: but then there wants a verb to make full sense, which therefore the Latin translator of the Arab. supplies by putting in Egit, as the Prince Salman did; but there is no story extant of any Prince Salman, that did so in or to the house of Jeroboam: and indeed Je∣roboam seemes to most to be a mistake in the writing for Jerubaal, as other copies have, and anciently had in St. Jerom's time, who takes notice of both, and preferres the latter, looking on them to have taken Arbel and Jerobaal for the same name; and then they referre it to that story recorded Judg. 8. con∣cerning what passed between Gideon and Zebah and Zalmunnah, so that Salman also here, should be the same with Zalmunnah there. And indeed the LXX do there also call him Salmana; but in the Hebrew there is a great difference in the writing betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shalman, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zalmunna, so that it will not be easy to think them the same; yet it is by them supposed, and then the sense according to them will be, that as Salmana the Captain of the Midianites, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did dash against the ground, the mother of the house of Jerubaal (i. e. Gideon) i. e. of the He∣brews with her children, so the Captain of the Assyrians should with cruelty and without all pity deal with them in his war against them, and dash in pieces the mother, with (or upon) her children. So Cyril; and to the same pur∣pose Theophylact, although Cyril say that others take it on the contrary, that not Sal∣mana did so deal with the house of Jerobaal, or those of Israel, but Jerobaal and his com∣pany with the house of Salmana: but he lookes on the former as more convenient. Yet seems the latter preferred by Jerom in the Vulgar Latin, which yet manifestly referres the words to the same story, rendring, Sicut vastatus est Salmana à domo ejus, qui vindieavit, (or as others judicavit) Baal y 1.56 i. e. as Salmana was de∣stroied by the house of him that revenged (or judged) Baal which is a periphrasis of Gideon, who had his name Jerubaal, as signifying, as he renders it, Jud. 6.32. ulciscetur de eo Baal, let Baal revenge himself of him and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is by him rendred passively, as he was de∣stroied, as it was by the other actively, as he did destroy, which according, as the sense should require might well enough be admitted, the words sounding, secundum vastationemaccor ding to the destroying of Salmana, which as it is dif∣ferently applyed to the persons, may signify as Salmana was destroyed, or, as he did destroy.

To these ancient Interpretations and expo∣sitions I willingly yield that reverence which

is due to them, for their antiquity and au∣thority, yet I must confess that I cannot find satisfaction from them, both by reason of the strange alteration of names in them, and be∣cause there is nothing in the history of Scrip∣ture which may make us think that either by Salmana, or Jerubbaal, was done any such thing as is here spoken of and alluded to, as well known to all. The like must I say of an∣other ancient version, viz. that of the Syriack which renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the spoiling of Shalmo from Bethil (or Bethel) in the day of battle, in which besides the change of the name Betharbel, into Bethel, the sense is left very obscure.

Divers moderne Interpreters therefore, of Christians, not content with those ancienter rendrings and expositions as well as Jews take other wayes of giving the meaning; as first those who by Shalman will have to be un∣derstood, Shalmaneser. Among the Jews Aben Ezra, saith, perhaps Shalman is Shalmaneser, and Betharbel, the name of a place; and so R. Tanchum (whose words because not before printed, that I know of, I put down) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for Shalman it is a proper name, and it is said that it is Shalmanetser, the king of Affyria, and that it is curtailed, and perhaps Shalmanetser is compounded of two names, the one of which is omitted because it was well known, and Beth-Arbel is the name of a country (or town,) and it is said to be the same which is now called Arbel: so that this name is curtail'd in the beginning as the former at the end, but where that place stood he tells us not. That there was a place by them so called is manifest, in that one of their Rabbins in the Mishna is called a 1.57 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arbeli, one of Arbel, and in some of their b 1.58 an∣cient authors is mention of linnen clothes that came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from Arbel. c 1.59 Dr. Lightfoot tells us that the city here so called is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arbel by Josephus said to be a city of Galilee, and that it was betwixt Zipporim and Tiberias, and that thence was that Misnical Doctor.

Of the same opinion with Aben-Ezra and R. Tanchum, are not a few of the moderne expositors, and as for the name of Shalman that it may be put for Shalmanezar, with the end of it cut of d 1.60 they produce examples as of Bamoth put for Bamoth-Baal, and of e 1.61 Ha∣math for Hamath-Dor; and as for Beth-Arbel, that it may be the same with Arbel the be∣gining Beth being omitted, they think proved by Aven, being put for the same with Beth∣aven, v. 8. of this chap. Then as for the place called Beth-Arbel, or Arbel, f 1.62 some say that it was in the border of Judea eastwards, or a place on the other side of Jordan, g 1.63 which Salmaneser took in the first year of King Hosea, when he warred against King Hoseah and made him tributary, and that there was another place in a great plain so called. They take notice likewise that 1 Macc. 9.2. there is a place in the Land of Judea called Arbela. But Grotius thinks it there false written, for rather Arbatti, from the Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which mentioned before c. 5.23. is there called Ar∣battis; but there is another place of that name, farre distant, in Assyria (viz. Arbela) famous afterward for the great defeat of Darius by Alexander, and that h 1.64 some think here meant, as if there Shalmaneser had obtained some great victory and cruelly used the inhabi∣tants. But if there were any example neerer home, as probably there might be, I scarce think the Prophet speaking to the people, would mention, for working on them, a thing done at so great a distance from them: any example neerer home, and better known to them would more move them, and such we may therefore think was some cruel execution done on some town of that name in their own Land or neer them. Our Bibles in the margin for the illustration of this place, re∣ferre us to 2 K. 18.34. where are named Hamath, Arpad, Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah, and Samaria it self, as places taken by the king of Assyria, and so chap. 19.13. where most of the same places are again named. And so do i 1.65 others also referre us to the same places. But neither is Beth-Arbel (or Arbel) there named, and the words there spoken are not in the name of Shalmaneser but of Sennaacherib who reigned after him. I sup∣pose therefore that all that they would have us to understand from those places cited, for the illustration of this, is, that several places were utterly dest••oied, not only by Sennache∣rib, but by other Kings of Assyria, and among them Beth-Arbel by Shalmaneser.

R. David Kimchies father by him cited, agreeing in the first place with them who think by Shalman to be meant Shalmaneser, yet as to the other name, Beth-Arbel, differs from them thinking it not to be the proper name of some other place but to be meant of

Samaria it self, as if it were so called from the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arab insidiari, to lay waite, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 El God, viz. the house against which God set laiers in waite, and took it, viz. caused it by them to be destroyed by reason of the wickedness of it. But this Abarbinel cen∣sures as no way congruous, inasmuch as he here threatens Samaria with like destruction, which had already happened to the place in∣stanced in; and how shall that be compared to it self as to another thing?

Others, as to that name, do not take it as one compounded word, making one pro∣per name, but dividing Beth from Arbel, ren∣der it k 1.66 the house of Arbel; or as l 1.67 others, fa∣num Arbel, the temple of Arbel, whether making Arbel the name of a man, or of an Idol god, or a town, which house or temple Shalmaneser destroyed: and if it were any strong house or temple or place of defence that was so destroyed, then may their for∣tresses to be destroyed well be compared to it. But Cappellus takes Arbel rather to de∣note the place whence Shalmaneser was, than a place that he destroyed, rendring the words, munitiones tuae vastabuntur sicut vastatione Salman domus Arbelis in die proelii i. e. thy fortresses shall be destroyed as by the destruction of Salman of the house of Arbel: and he expounds it as if it were a prediction by the Prophet, m 1.68 that Shalmaneser the King of the Assyria••s, qui forte Arbela oriundus fuit, who perhaps was from Arbela (or born there,) should destroy them. If this were the meaning, then were here no comparison of one place to another, and there∣fore he taking it so, would not have it read in the Hebrew text as it now is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ceshod, as by the destruction, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beshod, by, or with the destruction, viz. by which Salmaneser the Ar∣belite shall destroy them, affirming that de∣struction should by him be brought on them, not comparing it with such as he had brought on others. But this meaning ought not to be of that value to us, as that for its sake we should change the established and never doubted of reading of the text. By the same reason every one for introducing any where such a meaning as pleased him best, might alter the words as he pleased, of which there would be no end, and it would be a matter of very ill consequence: we must fit our meaning to the words, and not the words to our meaning.

Against the taking of Shalman for Shalmane∣ser Grotius suggests an objection from the time of this prophecy, his words are, Quidam per Salmanam Salmanasarem hic intelligunt, & ei putant victoriam aliquam ad Arbela contigisse; verum haec scripta sunt ante Salmanasaris tem∣pus; si modo notatio temporis initio scripti libri ad totum librum pertinet. Some by Salman here un∣derstand Salmaneser, and think him to have ob∣tained some victory at Arbela; but these things were written before Salmaneser's time, if the date of time at the beginning of the book belong to the whole book. I suppose he means because it is there said that he prophecied in the days of Je∣roboam the son of Joash, without mention of any other King of Israel who succeeded him, whence it may be concluded, and by some is, as there we noted, that most, if not all of Hoseah's prophesies were delivered and written in Jeroboam's time, which was before we find any mention of Shalmaneser: but the force of this argument will be taken off, if we consi∣der how long the Prophet Hoseah lived, as that he did not only foretel of the destru∣ction of Samaria and captivity of Israel, but also saw it accomplished, so that though he began to prophecy, and spake many things in the time of that Jeroboam, yet it is pro∣bable that he continued to preach and to prophecy concerning Israel in the time of other Kings thereof also, even of Hoseah the last of them, so that he might see and speak of things done by Salmaneser. But he seems rather inclinable to take the names for Zal∣munna and Jerobaal, and for taking away that difference which is between the Greek and the Hebrew, while the Hebrew reads only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth Arbeel, the house of Ar∣bel, but the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the house of Jeroboam (or as other copies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Jerobaal) adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of, and by house seem∣ing to understand his army, he thinks it pro∣bable, that for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beyad, per, by; by Jerobaal. But it will be too bold for us to follow his conjecture, as before we said, concerning that of Cappel∣lus; if we should give our selves that liber∣ty, we should have in this verse three different readings, one from the Greek in reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cesar for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ceshod, another from Cappellus reading for it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beshod, and another from Grotius in reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beyad for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beith; and why may not some others by the same authority make others both here or any where else, so that we shall not know where to fixe? It will be the only safe way to keep to our reading as we have it, and to lay any fault or incongruity which we meet with on the Expositions, not on the words read in the Text. If these that we have seen be liable to ex∣ceptions, as we see they are, there is yet an∣other way which seems freer from them, which is, not fastening on either of those fore∣mentioned stories to look on it as another dif∣ferent from them, which though not else∣where in Scripture recorded or mentioned, yet was then well known, and perhaps not

long before done; so taking Shalman to have been n 1.69 some great man of might, who in ho∣stile manner invading Beth Arbel, (whether we render it the house of Arbel, taking Arhel also for the name of a man then well known, as Kimchi thinks, or Beth Arbel for the name of a place, as o 1.70 others take it) prosecuted his victory with the greatest extremity of cruelty, signal to a proverb, wherein he nei∣ther spared sex nor age. To this way Abar∣binel also, having considered the others, in∣clines, as several p 1.71 other more modern Ex∣positors do.

The cruelty shewed in that destruction, and mentioned to bid them expect the like, is set forth in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Em al banim rutteshah, the mother was dashed in pieces upon her (or the) children, or as the Geneva English, and q 1.72 others, the mother with the children was dashed in pieces, the children being dashed in pieces against the ground, the mothers were also thrown and dashed upon them, or at once with them. The verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rutteshah is as R. Tan∣chum expresseth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a verb with which the agent is not named, i. e. r 1.73 a verb passive, and agrees with Em, the mo∣ther, shewing that she should be so used, but not mentioning by whom: but the Greek expresses it by the active, expressing the agent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) they dashed against the ground the mother upon the children, as the printed Arab. following them, and the Syriack also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the plural number they, viz. Shalman and his souldiers did dash &c. which alters not the sense, but yet gives us a dif∣ferent understanding from that of others, who so interpret it, as if the mother seeing her children lay dashed on the ground and ready to be slain, cast her self also out of anguish with violence against the ground upon them, which interpretation Kimchi also men∣tions. The Chaldee renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the mother was slain upon (or with) the children. In this sense of dashing, as taken in the notion of great cruelty, is the word elsewhere also in the Scripture, as 2 Kings 8.12. Isaiah 13.16, 18. Nahum 3.10. and in this Prophecy c. 13.16. yet are there amongst the ancient Jews, as by Kimchi cited, (and it is found in Baba Metsia c. 3.) who would here have it taken in another notion, viz of leading, parting with, or forsaking, much like as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Natash is used, as if it should sound, the mother with her children was left, or forsaken, viz. by the husband and father, being by the enemy pulled from them. But this seems a more frigid interpretation. The verb is, as by ours, so by most rendred in the signification of the preter tense, of which it is, yet by s 1.74 some in the future illidetur that shall be dashed. Both tend to the same scope, though in the one telling what was done in Beth Arbel, and bidding Israel in Sa∣maria and elsewhere to expect the like; in the other telling them what should be done in them, for making their destruction like to that of Beth Arbel: and why such severe things should befal them, the next words shew.

Notes

• p 1.1

  Ribera.
• q 1.2

  Rivet.
• r 1.3

  Trem.
• s 1.4

  Riv. &c. Arare, idem est quod seminare.
• t 1.5

  Petr. à Fig. Arastis & semi∣nastis from Kimchi.
• v 1.6

  Which for shewing this to respect some add sed. But ye &c. Pag. Pisc.
• w 1.7

  Mercer.
• x 1.8

  Vat. Grov.
• y 1.9

  Junius.
• z 1.10

  Calv.
• a 1.11

  Non de poenae sed de poccatis. Pisc.
• b 1.12

  Var. Drus.
• c 1.13

  Grot.
• d 1.14

  See Trem. as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and generally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & opus & mercedem operis designant.
• e 1.15

  Trem.
• f 1.16

  Id.
• g 1.17

  Which Abarb compares with this.
• h 1.18

  See Rivet.
• i 1.19

  Petr. a Fig.
• k 1.20

  Pare. Riv.
• l 1.21

  Dan.
• m 1.22

  Kimchi, Abarb. and see Habb. 3.17.
• n 1.23

  Jun. Tr. Castr.
• o 1.24

  Pagn.
• p 1.25

  Calvin. Riv.
• q 1.26

  Menoch. Grot.
• r 1.27

  Zanch.
• s 1.28

  In thy youth (or young men) & sociis tuis, and thy associats. Grot.
• t 1.29

  Nomine viae & viarum signisicantur peccata. Nobil.
• v 1.30

  Trem.
• w 1.31

  Calv. Grot. Zanch.
• x 1.32

  So the Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies.
• y 1.33

  Capito.
• z 1.34

  See Jerom. Ar. Mont. Grot. significat hostilem sonitum. Pet. à Fig. Barbaricum, quod eo barbari utantur. The MS. Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• a 1.35

  Viz. of the enemy, Jerom. Pet. à Fig. Sa.
• b 1.36

  Oecol. Pare. Riv. Tarnov.
• c 1.37

  Ribera.
• d 1.38

  See Heb. Concord.
• e 1.39

  Calv.
• f 1.40

  Full. cap. Concord. vastari seu desolari, sed proprie cum fragore, tumultu & repentino impetu ac irruptione.
• g 1.41

  Pet. à Fig.
• h 1.42

  Trem.
• i 1.43

  Dane.
• k 1.44

  Kimchi. Abarb. Sa. Menoch.
• l 1.45

  Tirin. tam domi quam foris, Trem.
• m 1.46

  See ch. 8.14.
• n 1.47

  Bibl. Polygl. Mercer. propugnacula tua.
• o 1.48

  Munitio, Arx munita, civitas munita & murata, Buxt. Lex. Chald. Rabb.
• p 1.49

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Collo in Arab. is indifferently construed with a verb either plural or singular, to the same sense, it being in forme singular, in signification plural.
• q 1.50

  Kimch. Jun. Trem. Zanch. Rivet. &c.
• r 1.51

  Steph. Lex. Kirch. concord. some copies have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall be inhabited. viz. by the enemy.
• s 1.52

  Drus.
• t 1.53

  Diripitur pacificus, Petr. à Fig.
• u 1.54

  Or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as in other copies. Drus.
• x 1.55

  Drus. Trem.
• y 1.56

  Ribera.
• a 1.57

  See Maimon. Preface in Zeraim.
• b 1.58

  See Buxt. Lexicon.
• c 1.59

  Cent. Chorogr. c. 85.
• d 1.60

  Lively, Riv.
• e 1.61

  See Mas. on Jos. 21. rag. 311.
• f 1.62

  See Index of proper names in the Bible.
• g 1.63

  Munst. Rivet. Tig. note 2 Reg. 17.3.
• h 1.64

  Ush. Annal. veteris Test. p. 94. Jun. Tr. Rivet.
• i 1.65

  Jun. Tr. Pisc.
• k 1.66

  Pagn.
• l 1.67

  Tig. Zanchi.
• m 1.68

  Capp. Crit. p. 363.
• n 1.69

  Kimchi. Drus.
• o 1.70

  Capito. Pare.
• p 1.71

  Calv. Pelic. Trem. Oecol. Pare. Ursin.
• q 1.72

  Jun. Trem.
• r 1.73

  This I note, because in Aben Ezra here seems a manifest errour in the print or scribe, while we read in him that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shem dabar, which denotes a noun substantive, which here it cannot be.
• s 1.74

  Pagn.