2 lines
1.3 KiB
HTML
2 lines
1.3 KiB
HTML
<p><a class="bibleref" title="1Chr.9.35-1Chr.9.44" href="/passage/?search=1Chr.9.35-1Chr.9.44">1 Chron. 9:35-44</a> are the very same with <a class="bibleref" title="1Chr.8.29-1Chr.8.38" href="/passage/?search=1Chr.8.29-1Chr.8.38">1 Chron. 8:29-38</a>, giving an account of the ancestors of Saul and the posterity of Jonathan. <i>There</i> it is the conclusion of the genealogy of Benjamin; <i>here</i> it is an introduction to the story of Saul. We take the repetition as we find it; but if we admit that there are in the originals, especially in these books, some errors of the transcribers, I should be tempted to think this repetition arose from a blunder. Some one, in copying out these genealogies, having written those words, <a class="bibleref" title="1Chr.9.34" href="/passage/?search=1Chr.9.34">1 Chron. 9:34</a> (<i>These dwelt in Jerusalem</i>), cast his eye on the same words, <a class="bibleref" title="1Chr.8.28" href="/passage/?search=1Chr.8.28">1 Chron. 8:28</a>. (<i>These dwelt in Jerusalem</i>), and so went on with what followed there, instead of going on with what followed here; and, when he perceived his mistake, was loth to make a blot in his book, and so let it stand. We have a rule in our law, <i>Redundans non nocet</i>—<i>Redundancies do no harm</i>.</p>
|