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 thaīûyah (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 Kings 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,” Exodus 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 (Judges 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 1Chronicles 23:15-16. 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 1Chronicles 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. 1Chronicles 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 (1Kings 12:33). (2) Some suppose that we should read “ark” (aron) for “land” (arets). (See 1Samuel 4:21-22.) 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 (1Samuel 4:11; 1Samuel 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 (1Samuel 14:47). The third explanation is, however, rendered almost certain by the following verse.

These verses seem to tell us that Jonathan's descendants were priests to the tribe of Dan until the captivity 2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 17:6; and that the graven image was in their custody until David's time, by whose order, perhaps, it was destroyed, though the idolatrous worship continued, or was revived, at Dan.

30, 31. the children of Dan set up the graven image—Their distance secluded them from the rest of the Israelites, and doubtless this, which was their apology for not going to Shiloh, was the cause of perpetuating idolatry among them for many generations.

and Jonathan the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan: not to the whole tribe, but to that part of it which resided in this city, called Dan; and this Jonathan seems to be no other than the Levite Micah took into his house, and made a priest of; and whom the Danites took with them to Laish, to be their priest, who is said to be the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh: now Gershom was the son of Moses, and this man is thought by some to be a grandson of his; and with this agrees the time in which he lived, for as Phinehas the grandson of Aaron was now living, Judges 20:28 so might a grandson of Moses; and though he is called a young man, he might be a younger son of Gershom's; nor is his being a Levite any objection, since it is a clear case that Moses made no provision for his family, so disinterested was he, which may be observed against the deists: and it is remarkable that the "nun", or "N" in Manasseh, is suspended over the other letters in our printed copies of the Hebrew Bible, and so without it may be read, Moses; and the Jews (c) have a notion, that this was done for the honour of Moses, and to observe that he was more like a son of Manasseh than of Moses; though rather this being the first letter of "to forget", may suggest, as Alting (d) observes, that he had forgot the virtues of his grandfather; and the Vulgate Latin version reads, the son of Moses; and some (e) are of opinion that this is the true reading of the text; though it may be that another Gershom than the son of Moses, and another Manasseh we know nothing of, are here intended, so Marcus Marinus (f): however, this man, and his sons in succession after him, were priests in Dan:

until the day of the captivity of the land; not till the captivity of Sennacherib or Salmaneser, when Dan, with the rest of the ten tribes, were carried captives, as Jarchi; for this idolatry, and these idolatrous priests, can hardly be thought to be continued here through the times of Samuel, David, and Solomon: nor is it to be understood of the captivity of Israel by Jabin king of Canaan, as Ben Gersom; for as the other is too long a time, this is too short, since it is clear, by the next verse, that this idolatry continued all the time the house of God was at Shiloh; and which directs us to the captivity here spoken of, when the ark was carried captive by the Philistines, and the house of Shiloh was forsaken; which is the sense of Kimchi, R. Isaiah, and Abarbinel; and may be illustrated and confirmed by some passages in Psalm 78:58.

(c) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 109. 2.((d) Shiloh, l. 4. c. 28. p. 334. (e) See Dr. Kennicott's Dissertation 2. p. 51, &c. (f) Apud Glassium in Philolog. Sacr. l. 1. tract. 1. sect. 2.

(n) Thus instead of giving glory to God, they attributed the victory to their idols, and honoured them therefore.

(o) That is, till the Ark was taken, 1Sa 5:1.