Kenites have been selected to serve as such a representative, since from the height of Peor many much more conspicuous tribes, both east and west of the Jordan, could be seen or imagined? More consistently, though of course unwarrantably, some Jewish writers (as Abarbanel and others) consider the Kenites here to mean the Ammonites. Hence it is also utterly against the context to assume that it was the Hebrews who caused the ruin of the Kenites; for though they executed punishment upon Moab, Edom, and Amalek, they were certainly not instrumental in the downfall of Asshur and Eber (ver. 24): a uniform plan, as is evident from all sides, is not carried out in the Supplements. The words are not a prediction of evil to the Kenites, but a promise of safety to be long continued to them,' says the author of the Commentary on Numbers in Canon Cook's Holy Bible—the only modern interpreter, as far as we are aware, who takes this view, which is alone borne out by the facts of history. If any relation be intended between this and the preceding oracle, it is that of antithesis contrasting the enmity of the Amalekites with the friendship of the Kenites, and comparing the satisfaction felt by the Hebrews at the annihilation of the one with the pity and sympathy evinced by them in the misfortunes of the others.-The first ancestor of the Kenites is 12 (ver. 22), of which word was formed the patronymic '??, also written? (1 Sam. xxvii. 10), or "?"? (1 Chr. ii. 55; Sept., Kivaio); but then ?? itself was used as the name of an individual (Judg. i. 16, P ), and conversely, what is more natural, i was employed to denote the whole tribe (ver. 22;

Whether אֲדֹמִי or מוֹאָבִי stands for אֱדוֹם or מוֹאָב Judg. iv.11), as

the name is to be connected with 12 lance (2 Sam. xxi. 16), so that it would mean lance-bearer, or with 2 in the sense of possession, like ? (Gen. xxxiv. 23, etc.), is doubtful.-If we consider this passage by itself, the simplest construction seems to be to take D as imperative Kal, which yields a good and poetical sense: 'Strong (') is thy dwelling place, and put thou thy nest in the rock, yet' etc., i.e., fortify yourselves as strongly as you may, yet, etc. We are certainly not compelled to interpret these words from the text of Obadiah (ver. 4),

and to ,(אִם תַּגְבִּיךָ ... וְאִם ... שִׂים קִנְךְ who freely adapted then

assume an irregular or Aramaic participle passive of Kal, Dinstead of D, for the existence of which a ketniv of the feminine () is but a feeble support (2 Sam. xiii. 32; Sept., freely, kai lav Ons; Vulg., sed si posueris, etc.); still less plausibly, therefore, has here been taken as the infinitive with the force of the finite verb.-7? is no doubt chosen as forming a paronomasia with P and P, and the same word has been preserved both by Obadiah and Jeremiah, although, in reproducing this verse, they apply it to the Edomites (Obad. 3, 4; Jer. xlix. 16, ); but the metaphor is by no means unusual and occurs, for instance, in the Assyrian Inscription of the 'Taylor Cylinder' (col. iii., lines 66–70), where Sennacherib records, 'In my fifth campaign the people of .... Kua and Kana, who had fixed their dwellings like the nests of eagles on the highest summits and wild crags of the Nippur mountains,' etc. (comp. also the same king's Inscription on the slab of the Kouyunjik bulls, § 38; Annals of Assur-nasir-pal, col. i., §§ 49, 50, 64, 65; see Rec. of the Past, iii. 44, 45; vii. 63).—The conjunction D can here have no other meaning but that of an adversative-except that (Gen. xxxii. 27; xlii. 15), or simply but or however: though the Kenites fix their abodes on rocky strongholds, they yet do not escape destruction (comp. Gen. xxviii. 17; Lev. xxi. 2; Num. xxvi. 65, where N is the preposition except; and Job xlii. 8, where it is the adverb only). The translation for Kain shall surely not be destroyed' (Keil, Geiger, and others), DN taken in the negative sense which it bears in oaths (xiv. 23, etc.), is syntactically not so simple, destroys the obvious antithesis to the preceding verse, and gives an incongruous sense. Kain ?, literally, 'shall be for destroying,' i.e., shall be destroyed, a not uncommon application of ' with the infinitive (comp. Deut. xxxi. 17,, he shall be consumed;' Josh. ii. 5; 2 Chr. xxvi. 5, etc.); which does not necessarily, as in the frequent phrase pyn nya (Deut. xiii. 6; xvii. 7; xix. 19, etc.), involve utter and permanent annihilation, but may merely mean serious loss and injury (comp. Isaì. iv. 4; vi. 13). —

6

6

The translation: How long? Asshur shall carry thee away,' is

U

not inadmissible (comp. Ps. iv. 3; lxxiv. 9, etc.), but seems here abrupt. The rendering of the Sept., kai tav yérŋtai tý Βεὼρ νοσσιά πανουργίας, and if to Beor a nest of cunning is

וְאִם יִהְיֶה לִבְמֹר קַן male, is evidently based on the reading

, that is, even if Beor most shrewdly chooses his dwelling, he will be carried away by the Assyrians, which may be meant to predict the destruction of Balaam's own house; whereas the version of the Vulg., et si fueris electus de stirpe Cin, quam diu poteris permanere'? pre-supposes

e., even if thou provest thyself. ותהיה לבחור קין the reading

to be a strong and elected band of Kain, thou shalt not be rescued. The text appears, from early times, to have been uncertain, but the received reading is evidently the most appropriate. The first part of the 22nd verse, in which the Kenites are not, as in the rest of the prophecy, addressed in the second person, implies an anallage; for it cannot be doubted that the suffix in 7an, 'until Asshur carries thee away captive,' refers to the Kenites; to apply it to the Hebrews (Hengstenb. and others), who are not mentioned in the whole oracle, would be as unsuitable in this speech, which begins, And he saw the Kenite,' as it is natural in a former prophecy introduced by 'And he saw Israel' (vers. 2, 5, 9); yet, contrary to logic and contrary to the plainest rules of construction, that explanation has been insisted upon, because it was believed that every single statement in these verses must import enmity against the Hebrews; and the sense is supposed to be this: Asshur carries Israel into captivity in defiance of right and mercy, thus commits grave sins against God's people, and must therefore himself sink into ruin (ver. 24; see supra). No dexterity or skill, even if ready to sacrifice all philological accuracy, can establish that unity or continuity of sense, which is irreparably destroyed by the appendages. Something of this irregularity has been felt by all careful and unprejudiced critics, though a clear result is impossible without distinguishing between the genuine and the interpolated parts of the piece; so, for instance, by Schultz (Alttestam. Theol., i. 93, 'The allusions to Asshur, very surprising in these verses, were probably added by the last redactor,' etc.), Vater, Lengerke, and others. Bertholdt, how

ever (Einleitung, Vol. III., pp. 792, 793), goes too far in placing the whole passage from ver. 14 to ver. 24 in the time after Alexander the Great; the objections to which this and analogous opinions are open will be apparent from our notes on these verses.

19. PROPHECY ON ASSYRIA.

XXIV. 23, 24.

23. And he took up his parable and said, Woe, who may live, when God doeth

this!

24. And ships from the coast of Kittim, They humble Asshur and humble Eber, And he also is for destruction.

What

'Until Asshur carrieth thee away captive.' Hebrew citizen in the time of Hezekiah could write or read these words without being agitated by the strongest and most conflicting emotions? They naturally prompted another prophecy, which, however, in a still higher degree than the preceding utterance, is covered by uncertainty and mystery. Will it be possible to lift the veil of so many ages ?

After an unbroken and almost unparalleled succession of brilliant victories and conquests, east and west of the Euphrates; after Assur-nasir-pal (Sardanapalus), as early as the first part of the ninth century, had exacted heavy imposts from Tyre and Sidon, Arvad, and other Phoenician towns; when his successor Shalmaneser II. had repeatedly, in the battle of Karkar and elsewhere, routed with terrible slaughter twelve allied kings of

Syria and the adjoining countries, among whom were Rimmon-Hidri (Ben-hadad) of Damascus and 'Akhabbu (Ahab) of the country of the Israelites' furnishing a force of ten thousand men and two thousand chariots," and had again and again defeated and weakened Hazael, Benhadad's successor, and levied tribute not only from the towns of Phoenicia, but also from Jehu, king of Israel, as the famous Black Obelisk of Nimroud explicitly records both in word and sculpture; after Pul, or Tiglath-pileser, had, by rigorous extortions, asserted his authority over King Menahem of Israel, Rezin of Damascus, and Hiram of Tyre, and had reduced Edom, Arabia, and Philistia to obedience and tributary dependence, had carried away large numbers of Hebrews from the northern districts, and even interfered in the internal affairs of the country so far as himself to appoint, after Pekah's assassination, Hoshea as king of Israel; when at last Sargon, among other acquisitions extending from Armenia and Media to Egypt and Libya, captured Samaria, and the ten tribes were deported to Halah, Habor, and the towns of the Medes: then the Assyrian

a Monolith Inscript. of Shalman., col. ii., §§ 90-100; Black Obelisk Inscript., Face D, lines 58-66; and Face A base, lines 87-89, Eightynine cities I took; a destruction I made of the kings of the Hittites.'

b Face B base, lines 97-99, 102– 104; Face C base, line 127, Epigraph ii., the tribute of Yahua (Jehu), son (a successor) of Khumri (Omri) -silver, gold, bowls of gold, vessels of gold, goblets of gold, pitchers of gold, lead, sceptres for the king's hand and staves;' see Comm. on Genes. pp. 290, 296; Records of the Past, iii. 99, 100; v. 32-41.

Supra, pp. 285, 286.

& Comp. the Inscript. of Tiglathpileser II. in G. Smith's, Assyrian

and

Discoveries, pp. 254-287; Rec. of the Past, v. 43-52, etc.; 'Pakaha, their king, they had slain . . . Husih to the kingdom I appointed; ten talents of gold, one thousand of silver... I received from them as their tribute;' comp. however, 2 Ki. xv. 30, where the Assyrian king's share in the appointment of Hoshea is not mentioned.

e See Comm. on Genes. p. 291; 'Annals of Sargon,' in Records of the Past, vii. 25-56, 'In the beginning of my reign-B.C. 721-I besieged the king of Samaria, occupied the town of Samaria, and led into captivity 27,280 souls; I took them to Assyria, and in their stead I there put people whom my hand had con