It may be worth while to refer to a few authorities agreeing in the general interpretation here given, though differing as to details. Vatablus (Crit. Sac. ad loc.) men- tions a Jewish tradition (R. Judah, as cited by Kimchi ; comp. Scaliger, Elench. Trihceres. Serrar. p. 26) that the daughters of the Rechabites married Levites, and that thus their children came to minister in the Temple. Clarius (ibid.) conjectures that, the Rechabites them- selves were chosen to sit in the great council. Sanctius and Calmet suppose them to have ministered in the same way as the Nethinim (Calmet, Diss, sur les Re- c/iab. 1726). Serrarius (Triheeres.) identifies them with the Essenes; Scaliger (loc. cit.) with the Chasidim. in
RECHABITE
956
RECHAC
whose name the priests offered special daily sacrifices, and who. in this way. were "standing before the Lord" continually.
rV.It remains for us to see « nether there arc any traces of their after-history in the Biblical or later writers. It is believed that there are such traces, and that they con- firm the statements made in the previous paragraph.
1. We have the singular beading of Psa.lxxi in the
) Sdl'iC, v'liJV 'lu)l'UCUji, KUl TtJ)> TTfllO-
rui}' <i<\iKt\c)7irT~3)-i'Tior). which, however, is evidence merely of a tradition in the 3d century B.C. indicating thai the "sons of Jonadab" Bhared the captivity of Is- rael, and took their place among the Levitical psalm- ists \\ ho gave expression to the sorrows of the people. The psalm itself belongs to David's time. See Psalms.
2. I here is the significant mention of a son of Rechab in Nrli. iii. 14 as co-operating with the priests. Levites, and princes in the restoration of the wall of Jerusalem.
3. The mention of the house of Rechab in l Chron. ii, 55, though nol without difficulty, points, there can be little doubt, to the same conclusion. The Reehabites
have I ome scribes (B>1310, sopherim). They give
themselves to a calling which, at the time of the return from Babylon, was chiefly, if not exclusively, in the hands of Levites. The other names (Tirathites. Shimeath- ites. and Suehathites in the A. V.) seem to add nothing to our knowledge. The Vulg. rendering, however (evi- dence of a traditional Jewish interpretation in the time of Jerome), gives a translation based on etymologies, more or less accurate, of the proper names, which striking- ly confirms the view now taken: "Cognationes quoque Scribarumhabitantium inJabes,canentesatqueresonan- tes, et in tabernaculis commorantes." Thus interpreted, the passage points to a resumption of the outward form of their old life and its union with their new functions. The etymologies on which this version rests are, it must be confessed, very doubtful. Scaliger (Elench. Trihcer. Serrar.c.23) rejects them with scorn. Pellican and Calmet, on lite other hand, defend the Vulg. rendering, and Gill (ad foe.) does not dispute it. Most modern in- terpreters follow the A. V. in taking the words as prop- er names. It deserves notice also that while in 1 Chron. ii. 54, 55 the Kechabites and Netophathites are men- tioned in close connection, the "sons of the singers" in Neh. \ii. 28 appear as coming in large numbers from the villages of the same Netophathites. The close juxtaposition of the Reehabites with the descendants of David in 1 Chron. iii, 1 shows also in bow honorable an esteem they were held at the time when that book Was compiled.
1. The account of the martyrdom of James the .lust given by Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. ii 23) brings the name of the Reehabites once more before us, and in a very strange connection. While the scribes and Pharisees were stoning him. '-one of the priests of the Bonsoi Rechab, the son of Rechabim, who are mentioned by Jererniah the prophet," cried out, protesting againsl the crime. Stanley (Sermons and Essays on th \pos- tnlir \:/. . p. :;:;.;.. struck with the seeming anomaly of a priest. -not only not of Levitical. but nol even of Jew ish descent," supposes the name to have been used Loose- Heating the abstemious life of dames and other Nazarites, and points to the facl thai Epiphanius (Har,
lx.wiii. 1 l i ascribes to sum the brother of dames,
the words which Hegesippus puts into the mouth of the Rei habite,asa proof that it denoted merely thi Naz- aritisb form of life. Calmet (loc.cit.) supposes the man to have been one of the Rechabite Nethinim, whom the informant ol Hegesippus took, in bis ignorance, for a pri.-i. I lie view which lias been here taken presents, it is believed, a more satisfactory solution. It was hard- ly pos.-ible thai a writer like Hegesippus, living at a time when the details of the Temple services were fresh
in the memories of i, should have thus spoken oi I he
Rechabim unless there had been a body of men to whom the name was commonly applied. He uses it as a man
would do to whom it was familiar, without being struck by any apparent or real anomaly. The Targum of Jon- athan on Jer. xxxv. 19 indicates, as has been noticed, the same fact. We may accept Hegesippus therefore as an additi tl witness to the existence of the Reeha- bites as a recognised body op to the destruction of Jeru- salem, sharing in the ritual of the Temple, partly de- scended from the old "sons of Jonadab," partly recruited by the incorporation into their ranks of men devoting themselves, as did dames and Simeon, to the same con- s' crated life. The form of austere holiness presented in the life of Jonadab, and the blessing pronounced on his descendants, found their highest representatives in the two brothers of the Lord.