1Ch 11:31 | KD | STEP | In the second class of heroes, to which Abshai (Abishai) and Benaiah belonged, cf. , is spoken of. They were not equal to the preceding three in heroic deeds, but yet stood higher than the list of heroes which follows in and onwards. אבשׁי, as and , while in and elsewhere he is called אבישׁי, was one of the three sons of Zeruiah ( ). It is difficult to explain השׁלושׁה ראשׁ, “he was the chief of the three,” instead of which we find in השׁלשׁי, i.e., השּׁלשׁי, “chief of the body-guard” (knights). But owing to the succeeding שׁם (ולו) בּשּׁלושׁה ולא, where Samuel also has בּשּׁלשׁה, and to the recurrence of השׁלושׁה on two occasions in (cf. 2 ), it does not seem possible to alter the text with Thenius. Bertheau proposes to get rid of the difficulty by taking the word שׁלושׁה in two different significations-on the one hand as denoting the numeral three, and on the other as being an abstract substantive, “the totality of the thirty.” He justifies the latter signification by comparison of with , and of with , from which he deduces that שׁלושׁה and שׁלושׁים denote a larger company, in which both Abishai and Benaiah held a prominent place. But this signification cannot be made good from these passages. In both clauses of (and ) השּׁלשׁים and השּׁלשׁה are contrasted, which would rather go to prove the contrary of Bertheau’s proposition, viz., that השּׁלשׁה, the three, cannot at the same time denote the whole of the thirty, השּׁלשׁים. The truth of the matter may be gathered from a comparison of with 1Ch 11:15. In השּׁלשׁה is synonymous with השּׁלושׁים מן השׁלושׁה, ; i.e., the three in are the same men who in , where they are first met with, are called three of the thirty; and consequently השּׁלשׁה, the three (triad), and , can only denote the triad of heroes previously named. This is placed beyond doubt by a comparison of with , since the הגּבּרים שׁלושׁה, the triad of heroes, , corresponds to the simple השּׁלשׁה of 1Ch 11:25. The only remaining question is, whether by this triad of heroes we are to understand those spoken of in , - Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah, - or the three whose names are not given, but whose exploit is narrated in -19. But the circumstance that the names of the three latter are not mentioned goes decidedly to show that השּׁלשׁה in does not denote that nameless triad, whose exploit is manifestly adduced incidentally only as a similar case, but the three most valiant, who held the first rank among David’s heroes. Bertheau’s opinion, that in one triad of heroes is distinguished from another, cannot be regarded as well-founded, for the three of whom Abishai was chief are not distinguished, and are not different from the three to whom, according to , he did not attain. Nor is there greater reason to believe that the triad of and is different from that in and , among whom Benaiah made himself a name, and to whom he did not attain. The fact of being chief or prince over the three is not irreconcilably contradictory to the statement that he did not attain to them, i.e., did not come up to them in heroic strength, as is shown by the two classes being connected in . As to the rank which the triad held in the regular forces of David, we know nothing further than that Jashobeam was, according to , leader of that part of the army which was on duty during the first month. Eleazar the son of Dodo, and the Hararite Shammah the son of Aga, are not mentioned anywhere but in our list. Abishai, on the contrary, who had already distinguished himself by his audacious courage in David’s struggle with Saul (1Sa 26:6.), conducted together with Joab the war against Abner (2 Sam 2:24-3:30). Afterwards, in David’s war with the Ammonites, he was under Joab in command of the second half of the host (2Sa 10:10.); in the war against Absalom he commanded a third part of the host (1Ch 18:2.); and in the struggle with the rebel Sheba he commanded the vanguard of the royal troops sent against the rebel (1Ch 20:6.); and in general held, along with Joab the commander-in-chief, the first place among David’s captains. In this position he was chief of the three heroes before mentioned, and their leader (שׂר), and among them had made himself a name. ולא, , is an orthographical error for ולו, as in fifteen other passages, according to the Masora. See on and Isa 63:9.

‏ 1 Chronicles 11:31

In 1Ch 11:20-25 the second class of heroes, to which Abshai (Abishai) and Benaiah belonged, cf. 2Sa 23:18-23, is spoken of. They were not equal to the preceding three in heroic deeds, but yet stood higher than the list of heroes which follows in 1Ch 11:26 and onwards. אבשׁי, as 1Ch 2:16 and 2Sa 10:10, while in 2Sa 23:18 and elsewhere he is called אבישׁי, was one of the three sons of Zeruiah (1Ch 2:16). It is difficult to explain השׁלושׁה ראשׁ, “he was the chief of the three,” instead of which we find in 2Sa 23:23 השׁלשׁי, i.e., השּׁלשׁי, “chief of the body-guard” (knights). But owing to the succeeding שׁם (ולו) בּשּׁלושׁה ולא, where Samuel also has בּשּׁלשׁה, and to the recurrence of השׁלושׁה on two occasions in 1Ch 11:21 (cf. 2 2Sa 23:19), it does not seem possible to alter the text with Thenius. Bertheau proposes to get rid of the difficulty by taking the word שׁלושׁה in two different significations-on the one hand as denoting the numeral three, and on the other as being an abstract substantive, “the totality of the thirty.” He justifies the latter signification by comparison of 1Ch 11:21 with 1Ch 11:25, and of 2Sa 23:19 with 1Ch 11:23, from which he deduces that שׁלושׁה and שׁלושׁים denote a larger company, in which both Abishai and Benaiah held a prominent place. But this signification cannot be made good from these passages. In both clauses of 1Ch 11:25 (and 2Sa 23:23) השּׁלשׁים and השּׁלשׁה are contrasted, which would rather go to prove the contrary of Bertheau’s proposition, viz., that השּׁלשׁה, the three, cannot at the same time denote the whole of the thirty, השּׁלשׁים. The truth of the matter may be gathered from a comparison of 1Ch 11:18 with 1Ch 11:15. In 1Ch 11:18 השּׁלשׁה is synonymous with השּׁלושׁים מן השׁלושׁה, 1Ch 11:15; i.e., the three in 1Ch 11:18 are the same men who in 1Ch 11:15, where they are first met with, are called three of the thirty; and consequently השּׁלשׁה, the three (triad), 1Ch 11:21 and 1Ch 11:25, can only denote the triad of heroes previously named. This is placed beyond doubt by a comparison of 1Ch 11:24 with 1Ch 11:25, since the הגּבּרים שׁלושׁה, the triad of heroes, 1Ch 11:24, corresponds to the simple השּׁלשׁה of 1Ch 11:25. The only remaining question is, whether by this triad of heroes we are to understand those spoken of in 1Ch 11:11-14, - Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah, - or the three whose names are not given, but whose exploit is narrated in 1Ch 11:15-19. But the circumstance that the names of the three latter are not mentioned goes decidedly to show that השּׁלשׁה in 1Ch 11:20-25 does not denote that nameless triad, whose exploit is manifestly adduced incidentally only as a similar case, but the three most valiant, who held the first rank among David’s heroes. Bertheau’s opinion, that in 1Ch 11:20-25 one triad of heroes is distinguished from another, cannot be regarded as well-founded, for the three of whom Abishai was chief are not distinguished, and are not different from the three to whom, according to 1Ch 11:21, he did not attain. Nor is there greater reason to believe that the triad of 1Ch 11:20 and 1Ch 11:21 is different from that in 1Ch 11:24 and 1Ch 11:25, among whom Benaiah made himself a name, and to whom he did not attain. The fact of being chief or prince over the three is not irreconcilably contradictory to the statement that he did not attain to them, i.e., did not come up to them in heroic strength, as is shown by the two classes being connected in 1Ch 11:21. As to the rank which the triad held in the regular forces of David, we know nothing further than that Jashobeam was, according to 1Ch 27:2, leader of that part of the army which was on duty during the first month. Eleazar the son of Dodo, and the Hararite Shammah the son of Aga, are not mentioned anywhere but in our list. Abishai, on the contrary, who had already distinguished himself by his audacious courage in David’s struggle with Saul (1Sa 26:6.), conducted together with Joab the war against Abner (2 Sam 2:24-3:30). Afterwards, in David’s war with the Ammonites, he was under Joab in command of the second half of the host (2Sa 10:10.); in the war against Absalom he commanded a third part of the host (1Ch 18:2.); and in the struggle with the rebel Sheba he commanded the vanguard of the royal troops sent against the rebel (1Ch 20:6.); and in general held, along with Joab the commander-in-chief, the first place among David’s captains. In this position he was chief of the three heroes before mentioned, and their leader (שׂר), and among them had made himself a name. ולא, 1Ch 11:20, is an orthographical error for ולו, as in fifteen other passages, according to the Masora. See on Exo 21:10 and Isa 63:9.