The objections to this interpretation are set forth at length by Hengstenberg (C/i rittto/ni/7/ of the Old Test, ii, 1 (I, 41, Keith's transl.), and the reasons in its favor, with an account of the various interpretations which have been suggested by others, are well given by Davidson (lutrndiiction to the Old Test, i, 199-210). As they are not of a grammatical character, they will be considered below.
(2.) But an exposition of far more weight, both from its intrinsic fitness and from the catalogue of distin- guished names which have espoused it, is that which traces the term to the root nbo, quievit, to rest, to be at peace, and makes it equivalent to pcicijicator, peace- muker, or pacifier, and the allusion is either to Solomon, whose name has a similar signification, or to the expected Messiah, who in Isa. ix, G is expressly called the '' Prince of Peace." This was once the translation of (iesenius, though he afterwards saw reason to abandon it (see his Lexicon, s. v.), and it is at present the translation of Hengstenberg in his Christolor/y of the Old Text. p. ()9, and of the grand rabbi Wogue, in his translation of Genesis, a work which is approved and recommended by the grand ral)bins of France (Le Penlaleuqve, ou les Cinq lAvres de Mo'ise [Paris, 18()0]).
But, on the other hand, if the original Hebrew text is correct as it stands, there arc three oi)jections to this translation, which, taken collectively, seem fatal to it. 1st. The word Siiiloii occurs nowhere else in Ilel)rew as the name or appellation of a ))erson. 2d. The only other Helirew word, a|)parently, of the same form, is (iiloh (.)osh. XV, 51 ; 2 Sam. xv, 12); and this is the name of a city, not of a person. 3(1. The idea conveyed by the proposed interpretation is that of canning or effectin;/ peace — an idea for which the Hebrew has an approjiri- ate form of expression, and which, in this word, would normally be tlblZT'O, mashUh. The actual form, how- ever, is diverse from this; and though several examples are adduceil by the advocates of this inter()rctation of analogous derivations from a triliteral root, as "IIT*" from inD, -."tt5''= from ^lUS, "lIU'^p from l^p, etc., yet it is certain that the original characteristic of this form
is a passive instead of an active sense, which nb^'U re- quires according to the exegesis proposed. We must therefore understand the term as expressing the gentle character of the Messianic sway in general. The other objections will be considered below.
(3.) The next best translation of Shiloh is perhaps that of "rest," from the same root, taken passively. The passage would then rim thus: '"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah . . . till rest come [till he come to rest], and the nations obey him;" and the reference would be to the Messiah, who was to spring from the tribe of Judah. This translation deserves respectful consideration, as having been ultimately adopted by (iesenius. It was preferred by Vatcr, and is defended by Knobel in the Exegetisches Handbuch (Gen. xlix, 10). This import of the term, however, would rather require a fern, than a masc. form. It likewise remains subject to the objection that Shiloh occurs nowhere else in the Bil)le in this sense, and that the import thus becomes neither apt nor noteworthy. To say nothing of other objections, one circumstance seems decisive, so clearly decisive that Hofmann has given up this last inter- pretation and embraced the common one. pronouncing the interpretation which makes Shiloh a city "the most impossible of all." The circimistance is this, that Shiloh, originally Shilon, and making its adjective "Shilonite," belongs to a class of nouns in Hebrew which are never appellatives or common nouns, but always proper names either of persons or of ])laces; and this is unaffected by a variation in the etymology, whether we derive it, with almost all authorities, from nbtlj (shalah), or whether, with Riidiger, from the root of Solomon's name, cbui (sh(duin), reckoning that there has been a change of the letters m and n.
(4.) A less obvious and more difficult derivation is from SNO, with a substitution of "^ for N; thus yielding the meaning of the desired or expected one. This, how- ever, is so much more inapt, that we may say the choice lies between two of the above interpretations, which we accordingly discuss more in detail.
II. Exegetical and flistorical Considerations. — 1. On the Interpretation of Shiloh as the Well-knoicn Place of that Name. — The explanation of this, as given hy Kodi- ger, in his continuation of Gesenius's Thesaurus, is " that the tribe of Judah should go before the other tribes, and have the supreme command in the war waged with the Canaanites (see Judg. i, 1 sq. ; coinp. xx, 18; Numb, ii, 1 sq. ; X, 14); and that this war could not be said to be tinished and the victory to be gained till after the victorious Jews had entered Shiloh, a city standing al- most in the centre of the land west of Jordan, and had there set up the sacred ark; then, at length, when the peoples of Canaan had been reduced to obedience, Judah ceased to be leader in tlie war, ami the tranquillized country was portioned out among the tribes." It is not very easy to see how this parajjlirase arises out of the words of the text; nor, should we even admit that it does, do we seem to have attained to any very satisfac- tory meaning. But, apart from any special objections to some particular exposition, we urge against this translation :