Even as a title Shiloh cannot be legitimately supported. It has been taken as an abstract noun put for a concrete, ' till re.it (or a rest- or peace- giver) come.' This interpretation has been adopted by Vater, Justi, Rosenmiiller, Winer, Baumgarten- Crusius, Hengstenberg, Reinke, Gesenius (Lex.), Murphy, and others, though many of these wTiters understand by the pcacc-giver Solomon or some other earthly ruler, not the Messiah. But the philological difliculties in its way are very great. The form .1^!? presupposes a verb 'f^v or V-y wliich does not exist. It cannot be legitimately derived from .iSy. Besides, this verb is so often associated with the idea of careless, worldly ease, that a title of the Messiah is not very likely to have been derived from it.
A ditierent justification of Shiloh = Messiah is attempted in tlie Targum pseudo-Jonathan, and tlie AIT rh-a may rest on it. It makes it mean 'his son.' But there is no Heb. word Vv.
Even could these difliculties be surmounted, a greater one remains in the way of the AV and RV rendering. The announcement of the Messiah by name or title is out of place in a patriarchal blessing. Even a late editor would not so glar- ingly have violated the proprieties of time. The absence of NT reference is also strongly against such an interpretation.
(2) ' Until lie come to Shiloh.' This has much in its favour. Sliiloh, wherever else it occurs, denotes the Ephraimite town. It is natural to take it so here. Tlie construction of the sentence and the parallelism both suggest this rendering. In 1 S 4'^ the very phrase occurs, n^p ^i3;!.
Taken so, tlie clause is understood to refer to the assembling of Israel as a nation at Sliiloh (Jos 18'), when Judah may be supposed to have lost the pre-eminence or tribe-leadership held by it in the wanderings (Nu 10'^ Jg V- '", Jos 15). This interpretation does not necessarily afl'ect the Messianic character of the whole passage, though it no longer attaches the thought to tlie word Shiloh. The Wew is undoubtedly an attractive one. We see Judah, the honoured of his brethren, marching in triumphal progress to the national sanctuary, and there laying down the emblems of authority in order to enjoy the fruits of peace, while the nations around bow submissive to his sway. And if, as seems not unlikely, an etlbrt was made to constitute Shilnh a jiolitical as well as a religious centre, thus anticipating Jerus., tliLi interpretation becomes still more attractive.
The objections to it are twofold. First, djs' and pcno seem to suggest sovereignty rather than mere tribal pre-eminence (see art. Lawgiver, vol. iiL p. 83*). The historical difficulty is still greater. ^fo particular place is assigned to Judah in the histories in connexion with Shiloh. Indeed its rflle took it, not to ShUoli, but to Hebron and its ni-ighbourhood. To obviate this difficulty some commentators supply a general subject to the verb, 'till one or the people come-' But, even so, an
SHILOH
SlILMEATH
501
objection remains. It is out of keeping with the spirit of the patriarchal blessings to affix a limit to the prosperity of a tribe. In the case of Juiiah especiallj', we should expect a further outlook, and it seems too violent to explain ' Judah will lead till Caua^in is subdued and after.' [Cf., however, tlie use of ly in Ps 110' 112' ; see Oxf. Ileb. Lex. s. iv, U. \h\
Many good names, however, support the render- ing just discussed. Among them are Eiclihorn, Ileruer, Ewald, Bleek, Delitzsch, Dillmann [pro- visionally ; but thinking (so also Holz.) that a really sjitisfactory explanation is not to be found], S. Davidson, Strack (and Rodiger, Thcs., giving pro- minence to the idea of peace or rest in Shiloh). Intluenced by the objections stated above, Hitzig, Tuch, and G. Baur would translate '?'iy as lonq as, on the analogy of Hor. Od. iii. 30. (7-9) ; cf. V'crg. jEn. ix. 446--449. But Shiloh had been destroyed long before Judali obtained real supremacy. It is as a fallen rival to Jerusalem that propliets allude to the place.
(3) 'Until that which is his shall come.' This follows the reading rAy, a poetical equivalent of iS i^'Si- It was presumably the reading of the LXX (and Theod. ), who render ?a)s Si* l\Ori to, aroKciiMci'a airnf, ' till the things reserved for him come.' This is adoijted, with some hesitation, by Driver. But, a.s Dillm. says, c* for the relative in an apparently Jud:ean text would be very strange. Ihe inde- terminate expression of the Messianic hope is in its favour.
(4) ' Until he come whose it is.' This follows a variant reading of LXX 6 dir^KeiTai, a reading lend- ing itself so readily to Christian exegesis that we do not wonder at its adoption by the Fathers, e.g. Justin, Ap. i. 32 (supplying shortly after t4 (3affiX«o>'), ignat. P/iil. (longer form), Iren. IV. x. 2, Origen (frequently). It was adopted also by Onkelos ('the Messiah, whose is the kingdom'), the Peshitta, and Saadya (lutli cent.). The ren- dering is, however, a doubtful one, tliough it is adopted hy Gunkel ; for tlie subject 'it' (mn) is missing : Onkelos' version is a paraphrase which may or may not be legitimate. Ezk 2P* (Ileb.) presents a somewhat similar plira.se iS nyx ><3 ij; E?T ?r ; but the subject in the relative clause is here expressed. Still, whether original or not, this reading seems to express a right sense; cf. (6) below.