Juízes 18:30

Set up the graven image. — If this pesel was in the form of a calf, the tradition of this cult may have given greater facility to the daring innovation of Jeroboam (1 Reis 12:30). In any case, it would make the inhabitants more ready to accept a cherubic symbol of Jehovah; for we may fairly assume that the “image” was not dissociated from the worship of God, whether as Elohim or Jehovah. Jonathan and the Danites both acknowledged Him under the name Elohim (Juízes 18:5; Juízes 18:10), and Micah, in spite of his images, acknowledged God as Jehovah (Juízes 17:2; Juízes 17:13; Juízes 18:6), to whom, indeed, the very name of Jonathan (“gift of Jehovah”) bore witness. Whether this, or rather the smallness of Dan, is the reason for its exclusion from Apocalipse 7:4 must remain uncertain. The Fathers thought, for this reason, that Antichrist would spring from the tribe of Dan.

Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh. — The extreme reluctance to admit this fact — the disgrace involved against the memory of Moses by this rapid and total degeneracy of his grandson — is probably the reason why up to this point in the narrative the name has been withheld. There can, however, be no doubt that Jonathan was the young Levite who has all along been spoken of. The reading of MANASSEH for MOSES is by the confession of the Jews themselves due to the same cause. Moses is in Hebrew מֹשֶׁה‎, Manasseh is מְנַשֶּׁה. It will thus be seen that (without the points) the names only differ by the letter n (נ). But in what is called the Masoretic text — i.e., the text edited by the Jewish scribes — the נ is not boldly inserted, but is timidly and furtively suspended — thus MSSH — and is called nun thaîûyah (n suspended). This was done to conceal from the uninitiated the painful fact. It was known to St. Jerome, and accordingly the Vulg. reads “son of Moses,” which is also found in some MSS. of the LXX. Theodoret has “son of Manasseh, son of Gershom, son of Moses.” The Jews distinguish between the “text” (Kethib “written”) and the margin (Keri “read”), and Rabbi Tanchum admits that here “Moses” is written, though “Manasseh” is read. The Talmud says that he was grandson of Moses; but “because he did the deeds of Manasseh” (the idolatrous king, 2 Reis 21), “the Scripture assigns him to the family of Manasseh” (Babha Bathra, f. 109, 2); and on this a later Rabbi remarks that “the prophet” — i.e., the sacred author — “studiously avoided calling Gershom the son of Moses, because it would have been ignominious to Moses to have had an ungodly son; but he calls him the son of Manasseh, suspending the n above the line to show that he was the son of Manasseh (in a metaphorical sense) by imitating his impiety, though a son of Moses by descent.” The Talmudists account for the distasteful tact by saying that the degeneracy was due to the wife

of Moses, who was a Midianite, so that there was a taint in the blood of the family. It is not, however, the sacred author who is guilty of this “pious fraud,” but the Masoretic editors. The rarity of the name Gershom (which means “a stranger there,” Êxodo 2:22) would alone be sufficient to betray the secret. The extravagant and superstitious letter-worship of the scribes did not suffice to prevent them from tampering with the letter, any more than it prevented the Rabbis from entirely explaining away the obvious spirit of the Law which they professed to adore. The only uncertainty in the matter is whether this wandering Levite, this young Jonathan who for less than thirty shillings a year becomes the priest of an idolatrous worship, was the actual grandson, or only a later descendant of Moses, since the Jews often omit steps in their genealogies. There is, however, no reason why he should not have been the actual grandson, since he is contemporary with Phinehas (Juízes 20:28), who was, without any question, the actual grandson of Aaron. This rapid degeneracy may perhaps account for the obscuration of the family of Moses, which never seems to have subsequently risen into any importance, and of which no more names are preserved. Jonathan’s name is excluded, perhaps deliberately, from 1 Crônicas 23:15. Or is he indeed Shebuel, as St. Jerome avers, probably from Jewish tradition? — and has his name been purposely altered? It is probably from a similar dislike to reveal the disgrace which thus fell on the family of the great law-giver that Josephus entirely omits the story. It is impossible that he should not have been perfectly acquainted with it. The identity of Jonathan with Shebuel in 1 Crônicas 23:16 is asserted in the Targum, which says that “Shebuel, that is, Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, returned to the fear of Jehovah, and when David saw that he was skilful in money matters, he appointed him chief over the treasures.”

Until the day of the captivity of the land. — (1) If the expression meant “the captivity,” as ordinarily understood, the meaning could only be that these descendants of Moses continued also to be priests of the calf-worship for nearly two centuries, until the ten tribes were carried captive by Shalmaneser and Tiglath-pileser. (Comp. 1 Crônicas 5:22.) If so, there would be a strong additional reason for identifying this worship with the calf-worship, and the fact might then be supposed to account for there being no mention of non-Levitic priests at Dan, but only at Bethel (1 Reis 12:33). (2) Some suppose that we should read “ark” (aron) for “land” (arets). (See 1 Samuel 4:21.) But this conjecture of Houbigant is not supported by a single MS. or version. (3) It is far from impossible that “the captivity” may mean the Philistine captivity, which resulted from their terrible sack of Shiloh after the battle of Aphek (1 Samuel 4:11; 1 Samuel 4:22). It is called “a captivity” in the passage which so graphically describes the scene in Ps. 88:58-61. Otherwise we may suppose (4) that “the land” has here a circumscribed sense, and that “the captivity” alluded to is one inflicted on the Danites by the kings of Zobah. or some other Syrian invasion (1 Samuel 14:47). The third explanation is, however, rendered almost certain by the following verse.