It is agreed among all that he is sometimes called “father” who has given origin to some, whether immediately or mediately, and that all those [descendants] are called “sons.” But he who gives origin immediately is properly the father, and because from him they thus spring, [they are] properly sons; the rest [are so called] as it were improperly — like a grandfather, great-grandfather, grandsons, great-grandsons, and likewise other ancestors or descendants. It may therefore seem to someone, with Vatablus, that not all those nine are properly, or immediately, sons. First, because, since “his son” is sometimes added and sometimes omitted, it seems to be signified that he to whom it is added is the immediate son of the one just named — and so that Bared is the son of Suthala, Thahath the son of Bared himself, and so of the others; for why otherwise would this distinction of speech be employed? Then, [because at] Numbers 26 Bared is not called “son of Ephraim,” but Becher; nor Thahath, but Theben [Tahan]. Thirdly, several brothers would have the same proper name, and those all surviving; for among those nine [there are] two Suthalas [and] two Thahaths. Fourthly, our text seems accurately to signify that Zabad is the son of the later Thahath, and likewise Suthala the later [son] of Zabad, and of this Suthala [that] Ezer and Elad [are the sons] — because of all these it says, not simply “his son,” but, with the phrase changed, “and the son of this one.” Fifthly, often elsewhere, in the same manner of speaking, it is narrated that one is the son of him who immediately preceded — as in the same 1 Paralipomenon 5, verses 4 & 5, as is understood from [the man] whom [the Assyrian] is there said to have carried away captive…
(col. 9)
…whom the King of the Assyrians is there said to have carried away captive; for that happened only after several generations of Reuben himself.
Yet I would think that all are immediate sons of Ephraim. First, because, since no better reason is brought forward, the proper signification of words is always to be retained in the Scriptures — as the rule of St. Augustine holds, which I set forth in another place; and nothing compels us [to take] “father” here either for “grandfather” or for “great-grandfather,” as will be clear from the refutation of the [reasons] which have been objected. Then, because either the first alone would properly be his son, or, by equal reasoning, all the rest — most of all down to the last two. For in the Hebrew, of those others, in one and the same manner of speaking, is said beno, that is, “his son”; and in the Greek likewise υἱὸς αὐτοῦ. But it cannot be said that only the first is his son, because [otherwise] Ephraim would have seen not only the third and fourth, but the fifth and sixth generation of his descendants — and indeed in such a way that his descendants were all fit to bear arms when they broke out into the borders of the Gethites. All the rest, therefore, are his sons — except that the author of the Hebrew traditions in the Paralipomenon thinks the last two are sons of the later Suthala, because, namely, that customary little appendage “his son” is not added to them. But from that it is rather gathered that they are sons not of Suthala, but of Ephraim himself. For either they are the sons of no one — since in these [two] that appendage is entirely omitted — or it will have to be repeated and understood from the preceding [names]; and then, why should he not make, in these, the same sense which he made before in the others? And therefore it can much less be said — as Lavater insinuates in that passage — that these two are not sons of Suthala, but of Zebad, and brothers of Suthala himself. Finally, when it is said, “having gone in to his wife after some consolation received from [his] brethren,” is it not signified that he had lost his own crop [offspring], and therefore made a new sowing? For otherwise some would survive for him from Suthala — the grandsons Bared and Thehen (Numbers 26, verses 35, 36). To the contrary reasons, therefore, I reply — and indeed thus:
To the first: Scripture is sometimes wont to express specifically, by certain added particles, what it [first] said generally — either for the sake of greater clarity, or from the idiom and simplicity of the Hebrew speech. And so, although it would have been enough to have said “sons,” yet that “his son” is added to several of them. Just as also in the same book, 1 Paralipomenon chapter 4, verse 24, when it treats of one father, Saul, it is said, “Sellum his son, Mapsam his son, Masma his son,” as Abulensis rightly proves there.
To the second: those [names] were of a double form — as [with] very many others in the Scriptures: Jacob [and] Israel, Esau [and] Edom, Seir, Azarias [and] Ozias, Daniel [and] Celeab, the son of David (1 Paralipomenon 3, verse 1; and 2 Kings [2 Samuel] 3, verse 2); Suppim [in] this 7th chapter of Paralipomenon (verse 12), [and] Muppim [in] Genesis 46, verse 21 — yet in such a way that between the two forms there is not very much [difference]. For Bered and Becer differ by only two letters, just as by one Chatan and Chathat — although in the former of these [pairs] there is also a transposition of one letter. Thus the sons of David, Elisua and Nepheg (2 Kings [2 Samuel] 5, verse 15), are called (1 Paralipomenon 3, verse 7) Elisama and Naphes, as indeed some copies of the book have it; Ir, in the same 7th chapter (verse 12), [is] Iri at verse 7; Sallum, in the same 7th chapter, [is] Sellum [at] Genesis 46, [verse] 24.
(col. 10)
Yet in the Numbers book [the name] fell out among the Seventy at Becer, and for Cathan is written Ταναχ; just as also, a little later, for Heran (or Eran), ἰεδὲρ — who [in] Paralipomenon chapter 7, verse 26, [is] Hadan (as pleases some) and, in our [Latin] text, not badly, Laadan. But of this [more] below, question 7.
To the third: that several brothers are called by the same name is indeed very rare — as I say in [my comment on] the 2nd Epistle of John — yet not unusual. For in the same 1 Paralipomenon chapter 3, verses 6 & 8, among the sons of David [there is] a double Elisama, [and] a double Eliphalet (or Eliphelet). I remember that similar [things] are noted also in profane history — as in Spartianus, the brothers of Antoninus. And I have already one or two domestic examples [at hand]. Moreover, Vatablus records that certain sisters sometimes had the same name as their brothers (1 Paralipomenon 7, verse 15), concerning Huppim and Suppim. Yet, so that there might be some distinction between them, the four Hebrew Punctators [Masoretes] seem here — and, more clearly, the Seventy — to have applied some little changes, when the [Hebrews] name them Schutablach and Sebuthelach, but these [the Greeks] σωταλὲθ, σωθελὶ, θαδὲ θαλὲ. Certainly, in the year of the Lord 1276, the Batavian Lady Margaret is said to have brought forth 365 children, and they were baptized by the Most Reverend Guido; and to all the males the name “John” was given, [and] to all the girls “Elizabeth” — as her epitaph shows, in the church of Loosduinen; all of which P. Bertius cites (folio 219).
To the fourth: the sense of our text is understood from the Hebrew and Greek set forth above; for “his son” and “the son of this one” signify the same thing.
To the fifth: when one and the same phrase can, in Scripture, have several senses, whether in this or that place it has this or that [sense] is to be decided from the circumstances and adjuncts. For the Assyrian captivity, placed there [in 1 Chron 5], leads us to the other sense; but here there is no circumstance of that kind.