Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Chronicles 4:5
And the thickness of it [was] a handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; [and] it received and held three thousand baths.
5. the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies ] R.V. the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily.
three thousand baths ] In 1Ki 7:26, two thousand baths. Whether the textual corruption is to be attributed to 1 Kin. or to Chron. cannot be determined. The bath was a measure for liquids equal to about 8 gallons.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Three thousand baths – See 1Ki 7:23 note. It is quite possible that either here or in Kings the text may have been accidentally corrupted.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. It – held three thousand baths.] In 1Kg 7:26, it is said to hold only two thousand baths. As this book was written after the Babylonish captivity, it is very possible that reference is here made to the Babylonish bath which might have been less than the Jewish. We have already seen that the cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the Babylonish by one palm; see on 2Ch 3:3. It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity. The Targum cuts the knot by saying, “It received three thousand baths of dry measure, and held two thousand of liquid measure.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
[See comments on 2Ch 3:1].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(5) And the thickness . . . a cup.Identical with 1Ki. 7:26.
With flowers of lilies.See margin. Lily here is shshannh; in Kings, shshn. LXX., graven with lily buds. Syriac and Arabic, and it was very beautiful. Vulg., like the lip of a cup, or of an open lily.
And it received and held three thousand baths.Literally, holding (whole) baths: three thousand would it contain. The bath was the largest of Hebrew liquid measures. Perhaps the true reading is, holding three thousand baths, the last verb being a gloss borrowed from Kings. So Vulg. Syriac and Arabic omit the clause. The LXX. had the present reading. 1Ki. 7:26 reads, two thousand baths would it contain. Most critics assume this to be correct. Some scribe may have read alphm, thousands, instead of alpayim, two thousand, and then have added three (shlsheth) under the influence of the last verse. But it is more likely that the numeral three having been inadvertently omitted from the text of Kings, the indefinite word thousands was made definite by turning it into the dual two thousand Either mistake would be possible, because in the unpointed text alphm and alpayim are written alike. The Syriac has the curious addition, And he made ten poles, and put five on the right and five on the left, and bare with them the altar of burnt offerings. Similarly the Arabic version.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2Ch 4:5 And the thickness of it [was] an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; [and] it received and held three thousand baths.
Ver. 5. Three thousand baths. ] See on 1Ki 7:26 . There it is said “two thousand baths”: Dicendum hic addi, &c., salth Vatablus. This prophet addeth what is wanting in the other; ea enim est mens autheris huius libri, for that is the design of this our author.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
received and held three thousand baths. 1Ki 7:26 says 2,000; and it is alleged that “there must be a mistake in the figures”. But no: 1Ki 7:26 speaks of what it usually “contained”, while here it speaks of what it could actually “receive and hold”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
with flowers of lilies: or, like a lily flower
three thousand baths: In the parallel passage, it is said to hold only two thousand baths; which some think may be reconciled by supposing that the quantity of water which was commonly in it was 2,000 baths, but that, if filled up to the top, it would hold 3,000. But, as we have already seen that the Babylonish cubit was less than that of the ancient Hebrews, it might be the same with measures of capacity; so that 2,000 of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to 3,000 of those used after the captivity. The Targum cuts the knot: “It received 3,000 baths of dry measure, and held 2,000 of liquid measure.” See note on 1Ki 7:26. 1Ki 7:26
Reciprocal: 1Ki 7:25 – General 2Ch 4:21 – the flowers
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4:5 And the thickness of it [was] an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; [and] it received and held {d} three thousand baths.
(d) In the first book of the kings, 1Ki 7:26 , mention is only made of 2000, but the lesser number was taken there, and here according as the measures proved afterwards, is declared.