hymn (1 Chron. xvi. 8-36) which David caused to be sung by Asaph and his brethren in praise of the Lord, after the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem into the tabernacle prepared for it (1 Chron. xvi. 7). If it was not composed by David for this ceremony, but has been substituted by the chronicler, in his endeavour to represent the matter in a vivid way, from among the psalms sung in his own time on such solemn occasions, for the psalm which was then sung, but which was not communicated by his authority, nothing would be altered in the historical fact that then for the first time, by Asaph and his brethren, God was praised in psalms; for the psalm given adequately expresses the sentiments and feelings which animated the king and the assembled congregation at that solemn festival. To give another example: the historical details of the last assembly of princes which David held (1 Chron. xxviii.) are not altered if David did not go over with his son Solomon, one by one, all the matters regarding the temple enumerated in 1 Chron. xxviii. 11-19.
There now remains, therefore, only some records of numbers in the Chronicle which are decidedly too large to be considered either accurate or credible. Such are the sums of gold mentioned in 1 Chron. xxii. 14 and xxix. 4, 7, wThich David had collected for the building of the temple, and which the princes of the tribes expended for this purpose; the statements as to the greatness of the armies of Abijah and Jeroboam, of the number of the Israelites who fell in battle (2 Chron. xiii. 3, 17), of the number of King Asa's army and that of the Cushites (2 Chron. xiv 7 f.), of the military force of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xvii. 14-18), and of the women and children who were led away captive under Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 8). But these numbers cannot shake the historical credibility of the Chronicle in general, because they are too isolated, and differ too greatly from statements of the Chronicle in other places which are in accordance with fact. To estimate provisionally and in general these surprising statements, the more exact discussion of which belongs to the Commentary, we must consider, (1) that they all contain round numbers, in which thousands only are taken into account, and are consequently not founded upon any exact enumeration, but only upon an approximate estimate of contemporaries, and attest nothing more than that the greatness of the armies, and the multitude of those who had fallen in battle or were taken prisoner, was estimated at so high a number; (2) that the actual amount of the mass of gold and silver which had been collected by David for the building of the temple cannot with certainty be reckoned, because we are ignorant of the weight of the shekel of that time; and (3) that the correctness of the numbers given is very doubtful, since it is indubitably shown, by a great number of passages of the Old Testament, that the Hebrews have from the earliest times expressed their numbers not by words, but by letters, and consequently omissions might very easily occur, or errors arise, in copying or writing out in words the sums originally written in letters. Such textual errors are so manifest in not a few places, that their existence cannot be doubted; and that not merely in the books of the Chronicle, but in all the historical books of the Old Testament. The Philistines, according to 1 Sam. xiii. 5, for example, brought 30,000 chariots and 6000 horsemen into the field; and according to 1 Sam. vi. 19, God smote of the people at Beth-shemesh 50,070 men. AVith respect to these statements, all commentators are now agreed that the numbers 30,000 and 50,000 are incorrect, and have come into the text by errors of the copyists; and that instead of 30,000 chariots there were originally only 1000, or at most 3000, spoken of, and that the 50,000 in the second passage is an ancient gloss. There is, moreover, at present no doubt among investigators of Scripture, that in 1 Kings v. 6 (in English version, iv. 26) the number 40,000 (stalls) is incorrect, and that instead of it, according to 2 Chron. ix. 25, 4000 should be read; and further, that the statement of the age of King Ahaziah at 42 years (2 Chron. xxii. 22), instead of 22 years (2 Kings viii. 26), has arisen by an interchange of the numeral signs D and 2. A similar case is to be found in Ezra ii. 69, compared with Neh. vii. 70-72, where, according to Ezra, the chiefs of the people gave 61,000 darics for the restoration of the temple, and according to Nehemiah only 41,000 (viz. 1000 + 20,000 + 20,000). In both of these chapters a multitude of differences is to be found in reference to the number of the exiled families who returned from Babylon, which can only be explained on the supposition of the numeral letters having been confounded. But almost all these different statements of numbers are to be found in the oldest translation of the Old Testament, that of the LXX., from which it appears that they had made their way into the MSS. before the settlement of the Hebrew text by the Masoretes, and that consequently the use of letters as numeral signs was customary in the pre-Masoretic times. This use of the letters is attested and presupposed as generally known by both Hieronymus and the rabbins, and is confirmed by the Maccabean coins. That it is a primeval custom, and reaches back into the times of the composition of the biblical books, is clear from this fact, that the employment of the alphabet as numeral signs among the Greeks coincides with the Hebrew alphabet. This presupposes that the Greeks received, along with the alphabet, at the same time the use of the letters as numeral signs from the Semites (Phoenicians or Hebrews). The custom of writing the numbers in words, which prevails in the Masoretic text of the Bible, was probably first introduced by the Masoretes in settling the rules for the writing of the sacred books of the canon, or at least then became law.
After all these facts, we may conclude the Introduction to the books of the Chronicle, feeling assured of our result, that the books, in regard to their historical contents, notwithstanding the hortatory-didactic aim of the author in bringing the history before us, have been composed with care and fidelity according to the authorities, and are fully deserving of belief.
As to the exegetical literature, see my Handbook of Introduction, § 138.
N order to show the connection of the tribal ancestors of Israel with the peoples of the earth, in chap. i. are enumerated the generations of the primeval world, from Adam till the Flood, and those of the postdiluvians to Abraham and his sons, according to the accounts in Genesis; in chap, ii.-viii., the twelve tribal ancestors of the people of Israel, and the most important families of the twelve tribes, are set down; and finally? in chap, ix., we have a list of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the irenealo^ical table of Kin" Saul. The enumeration of the tribes and families of Israel forms, accordingly, the chief part of the contents of this first part of the Chronicle, to which the review of the families and tribes of the primeval time and the early days of Israel form the introduction, and the information as to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the family of King Saul the conclusion and the transition, to the following historical narrative. Now, if we glance at the order in which the genealogies of the tribes of Israel are ranged, — viz. (a) those of the families of Judah and of the house of David, chap. ii. 1-iv. 23; (b) those of the tribe of Simeon, with an account of their dwellingplace, chap. iv. 24-43; (c) those of the trans-Jordanic tribes, Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, chap. v. 1-2(5; (J) of the tribe of Levi, or the priests and Levites, chap. v. 27-vi. 60; (e) of the remaining tribes, viz. Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, cis-Jordanic Manasseh, Ephraim, and Aslier, chap. vii.; and of some still remaining families of Benjamin, with the family of Saul, chap, viii., — it is at once seen that this arrangement is the result of regarding the tribes from two points of view, which are closely connected with each other. On the one hand, regard is had to the historical position which the tribes took up, according to the order of birth of their tribal ancestors, and which they obtained by divine promise and guidance; on the other hand, the geographical position of their inheritance has been also taken into account. That regard to the historical position and importance of the tribes was mainly determinative, is plain from the introductory remarks to the genealogies of the tribe of Reuben, chap. v. 1, 2, to the effect that Reuben was the first-born of Israel, but that, because of his offence against his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, although they are not specified as possessors of it in the family registers; while it is narrated that Judah, on the contrary, came to power among his brethren, and that out of Judah had come forth the prince over Israel. Judah is therefore placed at the head of the tribes, as that one out of which God chose the king over His people; and Simeon comes next in order, because they had received their inheritance within the tribal domain of Judah. Then follows Reuben as the first-born, and after him are placed Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh, because they had received their inheritance along with Reuben on the other side of the Jordan. After Reuben, according to age, only Levi could follow, and then after Levi come in order the other tribes. The arrangement of them, however — Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephrairn, Asher, and again Benjamin — is determined from neither the historical nor by the geographical point of view, but probably lay ready to the hand of the chronicler in the document used by him, as we are justified in concluding from the character of all these geographical and topographical lists.
For if we consider the character of these lists somewhat more carefully, we find that they are throughout imperfect in their contents, and fragmentary in their plan and execution. The imperfection in the contents shows itself in this, that no genealogies of the tribes of Dan and Zebulun are given at all, only the sons of Naphtali being mentioned (vii. 13); of the half tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan we have only the names of some heads of f athers'-houses 1 (v. 24); and even in the relatively
1 It may perhaps be useful to notice here our author's use of the words Geschlecht, Yaterhaus, and Familie, and the rendering of them in English. As he states in a subsequent page, the Geschlechter are the larger divisions of copious lists of the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin, only the genealogies of single prominent families of these tribes are enumerated. In Judah, little more is given than the families descended from Pharez, chap. ii. 5-iv. 20, and a few notices of the family of Shelah; of Levi, none are noticed but the succession of generations in the high-priestly line of Aaron, some descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, and the three Levites, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, set over the service of song; while of Benjamin we have only the genealogies of three families, and of the family of Saul, which dwelt at Gibeon. But the incompleteness of these registers comes still more prominently into view when we turn our attention to the extent of the genealogical lists, and see that only in the cases of the royal house of David and the high-priestly line of Eleazar do the genealogies reach to the Babylonian exile, and a few generations beyond that point; while all the others contain the succession of generations for only short periods. Then, again, in regard to their plan and execution, these genealogies are not only unsymmetrical in the highest degree, but they are in many cases fragmentary. In the tribe of Judah, besides the descendants of David, chap, hi., two quite independent genealogies of the families of Judah are given, in chap. ii. and iv. 1-23. The same is the case with the two genealogies of the Levites, the lists in chap. vi. differing from those in chap. v. 27-41 surprisingly, in vi. 1, 28, 47, 56, Levi's eldest son being called Gershom, while in chap. v. 27 and 1 Chron. xxiii. 61, and in the Pentateuch, he is called Gershon. Besides this, there is in chap. vi. 35-38 a fragment containing the names of some of Aaron's descendants, who had been already completely enumerated till the Babylonian exile in chap. v. 29-41. In the genealogies of Benjamin, too, the family of Saul is twice entered, viz. in chap. viii. 29-40 and in chap. ix. 35-44. The genealogies of the remaining tribes are throughout defective in the highest degree. Some consist merely of an enumeration of a number of heads of houses or families, with mention of their the tribes tracing their descent from the sons of the twelve patriarchs; the Vaterhiiuser are the subdivisions descended from their grandsons or greatgrandsons; while the Familien are the component parts of the Vaterhiiuser. The author's use of these words is somewhat vacillating; but Geschlecht, in this connection, has always been rendered by " family," Vaterbaus by " father's-house," Familie by " household," and Familien gruppen by " groups of related households." — Tu.
dwelling-place: as, for instance, the genealogies of Simeon, chap. i\\ 24-43; of Reuben, Gad, half Manasseh, chap. v. 1-24; and Ephraim, chap. vii. 28, 29. Others give only the number of men capable of bearing arms belonging to the individual fathers' -houses, as those of Issachar, Benjamin, and Asher, chap, vii. 2-5, 7-11, 40; and finally, of the longer genealogical lists of Judah and Benjamin, those in chap. iv. 1-20 and in chap. viii. consist only of fragments, loosely ranged one after the other, giving us the names of a few of the posterity of individual men, whose genealogical connection with the larger divisions of these tribes is not stated.
By all this, it is satisfactorily proved that all these registers and lists have not been derived from one larger genealogical historical work, but have been drawn together from various old genealogical lists which single races and families had saved and carried with them into exile, and preserved until their return into the land of their fathers; and that the author of the Chronicle has received into his work all of these that he could obtain, whether complete or imperfect, just as he found them. Nowhere is any trace of artificial arrangement or an amalgamation of the various lists to be found.
Now, when we recollect that the Chronicle was composed in the time of Ezra, and that up to that time, of the whole people, for the most part only households and families of the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin had returned to Canaan, we will not find it wonderful that the Chronicle contains somewhat more copious registers of these three tribes, and gives us only fragments bearing on the circumstances of pra>exilic times in the case of the remaining tribes.
Vers. 1-4. The patriarchs from Adam to Noah and Ms sons. — The names of the ten patriarchs of the primeval world, from the Creation to the Flood, and the three sons of Noah, are given according to Gen. v., and grouped together without any link of connection whatever: it is assumed as known from Genesis, that the first ten names denote generations succeeding one another, and that the last three, on the contrary, are the names of brethren.
Vers. 5-23. The peoples and races descended from the sons of Noah. — These are enumerated according to the table in Gen. x.; but our author has omitted not only the introductory and concluding remarks (Gen. x. 1, 21, 32), but also the historical notices of the founding of a kingdom in Babel by Nimrod, and the distribution of the Japhetites and Shemites in their dwellingplaces (Gen. x. 5, 9-12, 186-20, and 30 and 31). The remaining divergences are partly orthographic, — such as b3fl, ver. 5, for bun, Gen. x. 2, and KDjn, yer. 9, for HD^}, Gen. x. 7; and partly arising from errors of transcription, — as, for example, HB^., ver. 6, for t\Sn} Gen. x. 3, and conversely, E^V"), ver. 7, for Q^, Gen. x. 4, where it cannot with certainty be determined which form is the original and correct one; and finally, are partly due to a different pronunciation or form of the same name, — as OB^BnJPI, ver. 7, for tW"]fi, Gen. x. 4, the a of motion having been gradually fused into one word with the name, EPJW, ver. 11, for E'Hv, Gen. x. 13, just as in Amos ix. 7 we have D*JW3 for D^3; in ver. 22,?3*8 for biy, Gen. x. 28, where the LXX. have also EvdX, and •jBfoj ver. 17, for 6PD, Gen. x. 23, which last has not yet been satisfactorily explained, since 3JfiPD is used in Ps. cxx. 5 with I'll? of an Arabian tribe. Finally, there is wanting in ver. 17 D*]K *J2R before pV, Gen. x. 23, because, as in the case of Noah's sous, ver. 4, where their relationship is not mentioned, so also in reference to the peoples descended from Shem, the relationship subsisting between the names Uz, Hul, etc., and Aram, is supposed to be already known from Genesis. Other suppositions as to the omission of the words D"JK *XK are improbable. That this register of seventy-one persons and tribes, descended from Shem, Ham, and Japhet, has been taken from Gen. x., is placed beyond doubt, by the fact that not only the names of our register exactly correspond with the table in Gen. x., with the exception of the few variations above mentioned, but also the plan and form of both registers is quite the same. In vers. 5-9 the sections of the register are connected, as in Gen. x. 2-7, by spJS\; from ver. 10 onwards by *vj, as in Gen. ver. 8; in ver 17, again, by ^2, as in Gen. ver. 22; and in ver. 18 by "1?J, and ver, 19 by i?, as in Gen. vers. 24 and 25. The historical and geographical explanation of the names has been given in the commentary to Gen. x. According to Bertheau, the peoples descended from the sons of Noah amount to seventy, and fourteen of these are enumerated as descendants of Japhet, thirty of Ham, and twenty-six of Shem.
These numbers he arrives at by omitting Nimrod, or not enumerating him among the sons of Ham; while, on the contrary, he takes Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, and Joktan, all of which are the names of persons, for names of peoples, in contradiction to Genesis, according to which the five names indicate persons, viz. the tribal ancestors of the Terahites and Joktanites, peoples descended from Eber by Peleg and Joktan.
Vers. 24-27. The patriarchs from Shcm to Abraham. — The names of these, again, are simply ranged in order according to Gen. xi. 10-2G, while the record of their aires before the berrettino" and after the birth of sons is omitted. Of the sons of Terah only Abram is named, without his brothers; with the remark that Abram is Abraham, in order to point out to the reader that he was the progenitor of the chosen people so well known from Genesis (cf. chap. xvii.).
Vers. 28-34. The sojis of Abraham. — In ver. 28 only Isaac and Ishmael are so called; Isaac first, as the son of the promise. Then, in vers. 29-31, follow the posterity of Ishmael, with the remark that Ishmael was the first-born; in vers. 32 and 33, the sons of Keturah; and finally in ver. 34, the two sons of Isaac. — Ver. 29 ff. The names of the generations (nnpin) of Ishmael (Hebr. Yishmafel) correspond to those in Gen. xxv. 12-15, and have been there explained. In ver. 32 f. also, the names of the thirteen descendants of Abraham by Keturah, six sons and seven grandsons, agree with Gen. xxv. 1-4 (see commentary on that passage); only the tribes mentioned in Gen. xxv. 3, which were descended from Dedan the grandson of Keturah, are omitted. From this Bertheau wrongly concludes that the chronicler probably did not find these names in his copy of the Pentateuch. The reason of the omission is rather this, that in Genesis the greatgrandchildren are not themselves mentioned, but only the tribes descended from the grandchildren, while the chronicler wished to enumerate only the sons and grandsons. Keturah is called EO^a after Gen. xxv. 6, where Keturah and Hagar are so named. — Ver. 34. The two sons of Isaac. Isaac has been already mentioned as a son of Abram, along with Ishmael, in ver. 28. But here the continuation of the genealogy of Abraham is prefaced by the remark that Abraham begat Isaac, just as in Gen. xxv. 19, where the begetting of Isaac the son of Abraham is introduced with the same remark. Hence the supposition that the registers of the posterity of Abraham by Hagar and Keturah
(vers. 28-33) have been derived from Gen. xxv., already in itself so probable, becomes a certainty.
Vers. 35-42. The posterity of Esau and Seir. — An extract from Gen. xxxvi. 1-30. Ver. 35. The five sons of Esau are the same who, according to Gen. xxxvi. 4 f., were born to him of his three wives in the land of Canaan. JW1. is another form of &% Gen. ver. 5 (Kethibh).— Vers. 36, 37." The grandchildren of Esau. In ver. 36 there are first enumerated five sons of his son Eliphaz, as in Gen. xxxvi. 11, for *Wf is only another form of toy (Gen.). Next to these five names are ranged in addition P?®V1 J^P™., " Timna and Amalek," while we learn from Gen. xxxvi. 12 that Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, who bore to him Amalek. The addition of the two names Timna and Amalek in the Chronicle thus appears to be merely an abbreviation, which the author might well allow himself, as the posterity of Esau were known to his readers from Genesis. The name Timna, too, by its form (a feminine formation), must have guarded against the idea of some modern exegetes that Timna was also a son of Eliphaz. Thus, then, Esau had through Eliphaz six grandchildren, who in Gen. xxxvi. 12 are all set down as sons of Adah, the wife of Esau and the mother of Eliphaz. ( Vide com. to Gen. xxxvi. 12, where the change of Timna into a son of Eliphaz is rejected as a misinterpretation.) — Ver. 37. To Keuel, the son of Esau by Bashemath, four sons were born, whose names correspond to those in Gen. xxxvi. 13. These ten (6 + 4) grandsons of Esau were, with his three sons by Aholibamah (Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah, ver. 35), the founders of the thirteen tribes of the posterity of Esau. They are called in Gen. xxxvi. 15 *JO '&)?£ l^y, heads of tribes ((pvXap^ot) of the children of Esau, i.e. of the Edomites, but are all again enumerated, vers. 15-19, singly.1
1 The erroneous statement of Bertheau, therefore, that " according to Genesis the Edomite people was also divided into twelve tribes, five tribes from Eliphaz, four tribes from Reuel, and the three tribes which were referred immediately to Aholibamah the wife of Esau. It is distinctly stated that Amalek was connected with these twelve tribes only very loosely, for he appears as the son of the concubine of Eliphaz," — must be in so far corrected, that neither the Chronicle nor Genesis knows anything of the twelve tribes of the Edomites. Both books, on the contrary, mention thirteen grandsons of Esau, and these thirteen grandsons are, according to the account of Genesis, the thirteen phylarchs of the Edomite people, who are distributed according to the three wives of Esau; so that the thirteen families may be grouped together in three tribes. Nor is Amalek connected only in a loose way with the other tribes in
— Vers. 38-42. When Esau with his descendants had settled in Mount Seir, they subdued by degrees the aboriginal inhabitants of the land, and became fused with them into one people. For this reason, in Gen. xxxvi. 20-30 the tribal princes of the Seirite inhabitants of the land are noticed; and in our chapter also, ver. 38, the names of these seven "VJft? *33, and in vers. 30-42 of their sons (eighteen men and one woman, Timna), are enumerated, where only Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, also mentioned in Gen. xxxvi. 25, is omitted. The names correspond, except in a few unimportant points, which have been already discussed in the Commentary on Genesis. The inhabitants of Mount Seir consisted, then, after the immigration of Esau and his descendants, of twenty tribes under a like number of phylarchs, thirteen of whom were Edomite, of the family of Esau, and seven Seirite, who are called in the Chronicle T^jfe 03, and in Genesis ''"in, Troglodytes, inhabitants of the land, that is, aborigines.
!{ we glance over the whole posterity of Abraham as they are enumerated in vers. 28-12, we see that it embraces (a) his sons Ishmael and Isaac, and Isaac's sons Israel and Esau (together 4 persons); (b) the sons of Ishmael, or the tribes descended from Ishmael (12 names); (c) the sons and grandsons of Keturah (13 persons or chiefs); (d) the thirteen phylarchs descended from Esau; (e) the seven Seirite phylarchs, and eighteen grandsons and a granddaughter of Seir (2G persons). We have thus in all the names of sixty-eight persons, and to them we must add Keturah, and Timna the concubine of Eliphaz, before we get seventy persons. But these seventy must not by any means be reckoned as seventy tribes, which is the result Bertheau arrives at by means of strange calculations and errors in numbers.1
Genesis: he is, on the contrary, not only included in the number of the sons of Adah in ver. 12, probably because Timna stood in the same relationship to Adah the wife of Esau as Hagar held to Sarah, but also is reckoned in ver. 16 among the Allufim of the sons of Eliphaz. Genesis therefore enumerates not five but six tribes from Eliphaz; and the chronicler has not "completely obliterated the twelvefold division," as Bertheau further maintains, but the thirteen sons and grandsons of Esau who became phylarchs are all introduced; and the only thing which is omitted in reference to them is the title *Q}pN iby "02 it being unnecessary in a genealogical enumeration of the descend-
1 That the Chronicle gives no countenance to this view appears from Bertheau's calculation of the 70 tribes: from Ishmael, 12; from Keturah, 13; from Isaac, 2; from Esau, 5 sons and 7 grandchildren by Eliphaz (Timna,
Upon this conclusion he founds his hypothesis, that as the three branches of the family of Noah are divided into seventy peoples (which, as we have seen at page 51 f., is not the case), so also the three branches of the family of Abraham are divided into seventy tribes; and in this again he finds a remarkable indication a that even in the time of the chronicler, men sought by means of numbers to bring order and consistency into the lists of names handed down by tradition from the ancient times."
Vers. 43-50. The kings of Edom before the introduction of the kingship into Israel. — This is a verbally exact repetition of Gen. xxxvi. 31-39, except that the introductory formula, Gen. ver. 32, " and there reigned in Edom," which is superfluous after the heading, and the addition " ben Achbor" (Gen. ver. 39) in the account of the death of Baal-hanan in ver. 50, are omitted; the latter because even in Genesis, where mention is made of the death of other kings, the name of the father of the deceased king is not repeated. Besides this, the king called Hadad (ver. 46 f.), and the city \pa (ver. 50), are in Genesis Hadar (ver. 35 f.) and 1V9 (ver. 39). The first of these variations has arisen from a transcriber's error, the other from a different pronunciation of the name. A somewhat more important divergence, however, appears, when in Gen. ver. 39 the death of the king last named is not mentioned, because he was still alive in the time of Moses; while in the Chronicle, on the contrary, not only of him also is it added, Tin DD^, because at the time of the writing of the Chronicle he had long been dead, but the list of the names of the territories of the phylarchs, which in Genesis follows the introductory formula rriocJ \h$\ is here connected with the enumeration of the kings by vrn, " Hadad died, and there were chiefs of Edom." This may mean that, in the view of the ver. 36, being included in the number), and 4 grandsons by JReuel — 16 in all; from Seir 7 sons, and from these 20 other descendants, 27 in all, which makes the sum of 70. But the biblical text mentions only 19 other descendants of Seir, so that only 26 persons came from Seir, and the sum is therefore 12 + 13 + 2 + 16 + 26 = 69. But we must also object to other points in Berthcau's reckoning: (1) the arbitrary change of Tirnna into a grandchild of Esau; (2) the arbitrary reckoning of Esau and Israel (= Jacob) without Ishmael. Was l£sau, apart from his sons, the originator of a people? Had the author of the Chronicle cherished the purpose attributed to him by Bertheau, of bringing the lists of names handed down by tradition to the round or significant number 70, he would certainly in ver. 33 not have omitted the three peoples descended from Dedan (Gen. xxv. 3), as he might by these names have completed the number 70 without further trouble.
chronicler, the reign of the phylarchs took the place of the kingship after the death of the last king, but that interpretation is by no means necessary. The i consec. may also merely express the succession of thought, only connecting logically the mention of the princes with the enumeration of the kings; or it may signify that, besides the kings, there were also tribal princes who could rule the land and people. The contents of the register which follows require that WJ should be so understood.
Vers. 51-54. The princes of Edonu — The names correspond to those in Gen. xxxvi. 40-43, but the heading and the subscription in Genesis are quite different from those in the Chronicle. Here the heading is, u and the Allufim of Edom were," and the subscription, " these are the Allufim of Edom," from which it would be the natural conclusion that the eleven names given are proper names of the phylarchs. But the occurrence of two female names, Timna and Aholibamah, as also of names which are unquestionably those of races, e.g. Aliah, Pinon, Teman, and Mibzar, is irreconcilable with this interpretation. If we compare the heading and subscription of the register in Genesis, we find that the former speaks of the names " of the Allufim of Edom according to their habitations,1 according to their places in their names," and the latter of "the Allufim of Edom according to their habitations in the land of their possession." It is there unambiguously declared that the names enumerated are not the names of persons, but the names of the dwelling-places of the Allufim, after whom they were wont to be named. We must therefore translate, u the Alluf of Timna, the Alluf of Aliah," etc., when of course the female names need not cause any surprise, as places can just as well receive their names from women as their possessors as from men. Nor is there any greater difficulty in this, that only eleven dwelling-places are mentioned, while, on the contrary, the thirteen sons and grandsons of Esau are called Allufim. For in the course of time the number of phylarchs might have decreased, or in the larger districts two phylarchs may have dwelt together. Since the author of the Chronicle has taken this register also from Genesis, as the identity of the names clearly shows he did, he might safely assume that the matter was already known from that book, and so might allow himself to abridge the heading without fearing any misunderstanding; seeing, too, that he does not enumerate *Bw of Esau, but Di1K *BE>K, and Edom had become the name of a country and a people.
The list of the twelve sons of Israel (ii. 1, 2) serves as foundation and starting-point for the genealogies of the tribes of Israel which follow, chap. ii. 3-viii. The enumeration of the families of the tribe of Judah commences in ver. 3 with the naming of Judah's sons, and extends to chap. iv. 23. The tribe of Judah has issued from the posterity of only three of the five sons of Judah, viz. from Shelah, Pharez, and Zerah; but it was subdivided into five great families, as Hezron and Hamul, the two sons of Pharez, also founded families. The lists of our three chapters give us: (1) from the family of Zerah only the names of some famous men (ii. 6-8); (2) the descendants of Hezron in the three branches corresponding to the three sons of Hezron, into which they divided themselves (ii. 9), viz. the descendants of Ram to David (ii. 10-17), of Caleb (ii. 18-24), and of Jerahrneel (ii. 25-41). Then there follow in chap. ii. 42-55 four other lists of descendants of Caleb, who peopled a great number of the cities of Judah; and then in chap. iii. we have a list of the sons of David and the line of kings of the house of David, down to the grandsons of Zerubbabel; and finally, in chap. iv. 1-23, other genealogical fragments as to the posterity of Pharez and Shelah. Of Hamul, consequently, no descendants are noticed, unless perhaps some of the groups ranged together in chap. iv. 8-22, whose connection with the heads of the families of Judah is not given, are of his lineage. The lists collected in chap. iv. 1-20 are clearly only supplements to the genealogies of the great families contained in chap. ii. and iii., which the author of the Chronicle found in the same fragmentary state in which they are communicated to us.
Vers. 1,2. The twelve sons of Israel, arranged as follows: first, the six sons of Leah; then Dan, the son of Rachel's handmaid; next, the sons of Rachel; and finally, the remaining sons of the handmaids. That a different place is assigned to Dan, viz. before the sons of Rachel, from that which he holds in the list in Gen. xxxv. 23 ff., is perhaps to be accounted for by Rachel's wishing the son of her maid Bilhah to be accounted her own (vide Gen. xxx. 3-6).
Vers. 3-5. The sons of Judah and of Pharez, ver. 3 f. — The five sons of Judah are given according to Gen. xxxviii., as the remark on Er which is quoted from ver. 7 of that chapter shows, while the names of the five sons are to be found also in Gen. xlvi. 12. The two sons of Pharez are according to Gen. xlvi. 12, cf. Num. xxvi. 21.
Vers. G-S. Sons and descendants of Zerah. — In ver. 6, five names are grouped together as D^3 of Zerah, which are found nowhere else so united. The first, Zimri, may be strictly a son; but ^OJ may perhaps be a mistake for ^T, for Achan, who is in ver. 7 the son of Carmi, is in Josh. vii. 1 called the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah. But *tt? (Josh.) may also be an error for *1BT, or he may have been a son of Zimri, since in genealogical lists an intermediate member of the family is often passed over. Nothing certain can, however, be ascertained; both names are found elsewhere, but of persons belonging to other tribes: Zimri as prince of the Simeonites, Num. xxv. 14; as Benjamite, 1 Chron. viii. 36, ix. 42; and as king of Israel, 1 Kings xvi. 9; Zabdi, 1 Chron. viii. 19 (as Benjamite), and xxvii. 27, Neh. xi. 17. The four succeeding names, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara, are met with again in 1 Kings v. 11, where it is said of Solomon he was wiser than the Ezrahite Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Machol, with the unimportant variation of yT\7 for jm. On this account, Movers and Bertheau, following Clericus on 1 Kings iv. 31 (v. 11), hold the identity of the wise men mentioned in 1 Kings v. 11 with the sons (descendants) of Zerah to be beyond doubt. But the main reason which Clericus produces in support of this supposition, the consensus quatuor nominum et quidem unius patris jiliorum, and the difficulty of believing that in alia familia Hebraa there should have been quatuor fratres cognomines quatuor filiis Zeraclii Judo3 flii, loses all its force from the fact that the supposition that the four wise men in 1 Kings v. 11 are brothers by blood, is a groundless and erroneous assumption. Since Ethan is called the Ezrahite, while the last two are said to be the sons of Machol, it is clear that the four were not brothers. The mention of them as men famous for their wisdom, does not at all require that we should think the men contemporary with each other. Even the enumeration of these four along with Zimri as rnt \)3 in our verse does not necessarily involve that the five names denote brothers by blood; for it is plain from vers. 7 and 8 that in this genealogy only single famous names of the family of Zerah the son of Judah and Tamar are grouped together. But, on the other hand, the reasons which go to disprove the identity of the persons in our verse with those named in 1 Kings v. 11 are not of very great weight. The difference in the names jm and jnm is obviously the result of an error of transcription, and the form *01J??J] (1 Kings v. 11) is most probably a patronymic from rnr, notwithstanding that in Num. xxvi. 20 it appears as *rnt? for even the appellative n!?$, indigena, is formed from rnt. We therefore hold that the persons who bear the same names in our verse and in 1 Kings v. 11 are most probably identical, in spite of the addition bino *ja to Calcol and Darda (1 Kings v. 11). For that this addition belongs merely to these two names, and not to Ezrah, appears from Ps. lxxxviii. 1 and Ixxxix. 1, which, according to the superscription, were composed by the Ezrahites Heman and Ethan. The authors of these psalms are unquestionably the Heman and Ethan who were famed for their wisdom (1 Kings v. 11), and therefore most probably the same as those spoken of in our verse as sons of Zerah. It is true that the authors of these psalms have been held by many commentators to be Levites, nay, to be the musicians mentioned in 1 Chron. xv. 17 and 19; but sufficient support for this view, which I myself, on 1 Kings v. 11, after the example of Hengstenberg, Beitrr. ii. S. 61, and on Ps. lxxxviii. defended, cannot be found. The statement of the superscription of Ps. lxxxviii. 1 — " a psalm of the sons of Koran" — from which it is inferred that the Ezrahite Heman was of Levitic origin, does not justify such a conclusion.1 For though the musician Heman the son of Joel was a Korahite of the race of Kohath (1 Chron. vi. 18-23), yet the musician Ethan the son of Kishi, or Kushaiah, was neither Korahite nor Kohathite, but a Merarite (vi. 29 ff.). Moreover, the Levites Heman and Ethan could not be enumerated among the Ezra-
1 The above quoted statement of the superscription of Ps. lxxxviii. 1 can contain no information as to the author of the psalm, for this reason, that the author is expressly mentioned in the next sentence of the superscription. The psalm can only in so far be called a song of the children of Korah, as it bears the impress peculiar to the Korahite psalms in contents and form.
hites, that is, the descendants of Zerah, a man of Judah. The passages which are quoted in support of the view that the Levites were numbered with the tribes in the midst of whom they dwelt, and that, consequently, there were Judsean and Ephraimite Levites, — as, for example, 1 Sam. i. 1, where the father of the Levite Samuel is called an Ephrathite because he dwelt in Mount Ephraim; and Judg. xvii. 7, where a Levite is numbered with the family of Judah because he dwelt as sojourner p3) in Bethlehem, a city of Judah, — certainly prove that the Levites wore reckoned, as regards citizenship, according to the tribes or cities in which they dwelt, but certainly do not show that they were incorporated genealogically with those tribes because of their place of residence.1 The Levites Ileman and Ethan, therefore, cannot be brought forward in our verse a as adopted sons of Zerah, who brought more honour to their father than his proper sons " (Ilengstb.). This view is completely excluded by the fact that in our verse not only Ethan and Ileman, but also Zimri, Calcol, and Dara are called sons of Zerah, yet these latter were not adopted sons, but true descendants of Zerah. Besides, in ver. 8, there is an actual son or descendant of Ethan mentioned, and consequently *jj3 and P cannot possibly be understood in some cases as implying only an adoptive relationship, and in the others actual descent. But the similarity of the names is not of itself sufficient to justify us in identifying the persons. As the name Zerah again appears in chap. vi. 26 in the genealogy of the Levite Asaph, so also the name Ethan occurs in the same genealogy, plainly showing that more than one Israelite bore this name. The author of the Chronicle, too, has sufficiently guarded against the opinion that Zerah's sons Ethan and Pieman are identical with the Levitical musicians who bear the same names, by tracing back in chap. vi. the family of these musicians to Levi, without calling them Ezrahites.2 But to hold, with Movers, S. 237, that the recurrences of the same names in various races are contradictions, which are to be explained only on the supposition of genealogical combinations by various authors, will enter into
1 Not even by intermarrying with heiresses could Levites become members of another tribe; for, according to the law, Num. xxxvi. 5 ff., heiresses could marry only men of their own tribe; and the possibility of a man of Judah marrying an heiress of the tribe of Levi was out of the question, for the Levites possessed no inheritance in land.
the head of no sensible critic. We therefore believe the five persons mentioned in our verse to be actual descendants of the Judaean Zerah; but whether they were sons or grandsons, or still more distant descendants, cannot be determined. It is certainly very probable that Zimri was a son, if he be identical with the Zabdi of Josh. vii. 1; Ethan and Ileman may have been later descendants of Zerah, if they were the wise men mentioned in 1 Kings v. 11; but as to Calcol and Dara no further information is to be obtained. From vers. 7 and 8, where of the sons (*J3) of Zimri and Ethan only one man in each case is named, it is perfectly clear that in our genealogy only individuals, men who have become famous, are grouped together out of the whole posterity of Zerah. The plural *J2l in vers. 7 and 8, etc., even where only one son is mentioned, is used probably only in those cases where, out of a number of sons or descendants, one has gained for himself by some means a memorable name. This is true at least of Achan, ver. 7, who, by laying hands on the accursed spoils of Jericho, had become notorious (Josh. vii.). Because Achan had thus troubled Israel P5?)> he is called here at once Achar. As to Carmi, vide on iv. 1. — Ver. 9. The only name given here as that of a descendant of Ethan is Azariah, of whom nothing further is known, while the name recurs frequently. Nothing more is said of the remaining sons of Zerah; they are merely set down as famous men of antiquity (Berth.). There follows in
Vers. 9-41. The family of Hezron, the first-born son of Pharez, which branches off in three lines, oricnnatino; with his three sons respectively. The three sons of Hezron are Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai; but the families springing from them are enumerated in a different order. First (vers. 10-17) we have the family of Ram, because King David is descended from him; then (vers. 18-24) the family of Chelubai or Caleb, from whose lineage came the illustrious Bezaleel; and finally (vers. 25-41), the posterity of the first-born, Jerahmeel. — Ver. 9. S? T^ "WK, what was born to him. The passive stands impersonally instead of the more definite active, " to whom one bore," so that the the tribe of Judah had been admitted into their guild by the Levitic musical schools, and on that account had been received also into their family, and so had been numbered with the tribe of Levi, is thus completely refuted, even were it at all possible that members of other tribes should have been received into the tribe of Levi.
following names are subordinated to it with fit*. The third person singular Niph. occurs thus also in iii. 4 and xxvi. 6; the construction of Niph. with FR? frequently (Gen. iv. 18, xxi. 5, and elsewhere). Ram is called, in the genealogy in Matt, i. 3, 4, Aram; comp. D"J, Job xxxii. 2, with DTK, Gen. xxii. 21. W>3 is called afterwards 3?2; cf. on ver. 18.
Vers. 10-17 The family of Ram (vers. 10-12), traced down through six members to Jesse. — This genealogy is also to be found in lluth iv. 10-21; but only here is Nahshon made more prominent than the others, by the addition, u prince of the sons of Judah." Nahshon was a prince of Judah at the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt (Num. i. 7, ii. 3, vii. 12). Now between him, a contemporary of Moses, and Pharez, who at the immigration of Jacob into Egypt was about fifteen years old, lies a period of 430 years, during which the Israelites remained in Egypt. For that time only three names — Ilezron, I\am, and Amminadab — are mentioned, from which it is clear that several links must have been passed over. So also, from Nahshon to David, for a period of over 400 years, four generations — Salma, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse — are too few; and consequently here also the less famous ancestors of David are omitted. KD& is called in Ruth iv. 20, 21. m£fc and pDptP. In vers. 13-15, seven sons and two daughters of Jesse, with those of their sons who became famous (vers. 16, 17), are enumerated. According to 1 Sam. xvii. 12, Jesse had eight sons. This account, which agrees with that in 1 Sam. xvi. 8-12, may be reconciled with the enumeration in our verse, on the supposition that one of the sons died without posterity. In 1 Sam. xvi. 6 ff. and xvii. 13, the names of the eldest three — Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah — occur. Besides *B^j we meet with the form vw"N (ver. 13); and the name fiDB> is only another form of npptPj which is found in 2 Sam. xiii. 3 and in 1 Chron. xx. 7, and is repeated in 2 Sam. xiii. 32 and xxi. 21 in the Kethibh (*J,W). The names of the other three sons here mentioned (vers. 14 and 15) are met with nowhere else. — Ver. 16 f. The sisters of David have become known through their heroic sons. Zeruiah is the mother of the heroes of the Davidic history, Abishai, Joab, and Asahel (cf. 1 Sam. xxvi. 6; 2 Sam. ii. 18, iii. 39, viii. 16, and elsewhere). Their father is nowhere mentioned, u because their more famous mother challenged the greater attention" (Berth.). Abigail was, according to 2 Sam. xvii. 25, the daughter of Nahash, a sister of Zeruiah, and so was only a half-sister of David, and was the mother of Amasa the captain of the host, so well known on account of his share in the conspiracy of Absalom; cf. 2 Sam. xvii. 25, xix. 14, and xx. 10. His father was Jether, or Jithra, the Ishmaelite, who in the Masoretic text of 2 Sam. xvii. 25 is called, through a copyist's error, v&OfeWl instead of TWW^n; see comm. on passage.
Vers. 18-24. The family of Caleb. — That 3?3 is merely a shortened form of *?&3, or a form of that word resulting from the friction of constant use, is so clear from the context, that all exegetes recognise it. We have first (vers. 18-20) a list of the descendants of Caleb by two wives, then descendants which the daughter of the Gileadite Machir bore to his father Hezron (vers. 21-23), and finally the sons whom Hezron's wife bore him after his death (ver. 24). The grouping of these descendants of Hezron with the family of Caleb can only be accounted for by supposing that they had, through circumstances unknown to us, come into a more intimate connection with the family of Caleb than with the families of his brothers Ram and Jerahmeel. In vers. 42-55 follow some other lists of descendants of Caleb, which will be more fully considered when we come to these verses. The first half of the 18th verse is obscure, and the text is probably corrupt. As the words stand at present, we must translate, " Caleb the son of Hezron begat with Azubah, a woman, and with Jerioth, and these are her (the one wife's) sons, Jesher," etc. n\J3, filii ejus, suggests that only one wife of Caleb had been before mentioned; and, as appears from the "and Azubah died" of ver. 19, Azubah is certainly meant. The construction fix Tyfcl, a he begat with," is, it is true, unusual, but is analogous to \0 ^V^, viii. 9, and is explained by the fact that TWl may mean to cause to bear, to bring to bearing; cf. Isa. lxvi. 9: therefore properly it is, u he brought Azubah to bearing." The difficulty of the verse lies in the nijPTVlfcO n$K? for, according to the usual phraseology, we would have expected taBfy instead of n#K. But n$K may be, under the circumstances, to some extent justified by the supposition that Azubah is called indefinitely " woman," because Caleb had several wives. HftPlHWj gives no suitable meaning. The explanation of Kimchi, u with Azubah a woman, and with Jerioth," cannot be accepted, for only the sons of Azubah are hereafter mentioned; and the idea that the children of the other wives are not enumerated here because the list used by the chronicler was defective, is untenable: for after two wives had been named in the enumeration of the children of one of them, the mother must necessarily have been mentioned; and so, instead of rMSL \ve should have had nniTJJ »J3, Hiller and J. H. Michaelis take T\m as explicative, " with Azubah a woman, viz. with Jerioth; " but this is manifestly only the product of exegetical embarrassment. The text is plainly at fault, and the easiest conjecture is to read, with the Peschito and the Vulgate, riK intra instead of n«1 n#K, " he begat with Azubah his wife, Jerioth (a daughter); and these are her sons." In that case n$K would be added to n^ttg, to guard against nyiTj; being taken for ace. obj. The names of the sons of Azubah, or of her daughter Jerioth, do not occur elsewhere. — Ver. 19. When Azubah died, Caleb took Ephrath to wife, who bore him Hur. For n"J-^ we find in ver. 50 the lengthened feminine form nj7^ 5 °f- a^so lv' 4. From Hur descended, by Uri, the famous Bezaleel, the skilful architect of the tabernacle (Ex. xxxi. 2, xxxv. 30). — Vers. 21-24. The descendants of Ilezron numbered with the stock of Caleb: (a) those begotten by Ilezron with the daughter of Machir, vers. 21-23; (b) those born to Hezron after his death, ver. 24. — Ver. 21. Afterwards ("|ns)? i.e. after the birth of the sons mentioned in ver. 9, whose mother is not mentioned, when he was sixty years old, Hezron took to wife the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, who bore him Segub. Machir was the first-born of Manasseh (Gen. 1. 23; Num. xxvi. 29). But Machir is not called in vers. 21 and 23 the father of Gilead because he was the originator of the Israelite population of Gilead, but 2X has here its proper signification. Machir begot a son of the name of.Gilead (Num. xxvi. 29); and it is clear from the genealogy of the daughters of Zelophehad, communicated in Num. xxvii. 1, that this expression is to be understood in its literal sense. Machir is distinguished from other men of the same name (cf. 2 Sam. ix. 4, xvii. 27) by the addition, father of Gilead. Segub the son of Hezron and the daughter of Machir begat Jair. This Jair, belonging on his mother's side to the tribe of Manasseh, is set down in Num. xxxii. 40 f., Deut. iii. 14, as* a descendant of Manasseh. After Moses' victory over Og king of Bashan, Jair's family conquered the district of Argob in Bashan, i.e. in the plain of Jaulan and Hauran; and to the conquered cities, when they were bestowed upon him for a possession by Moses, the name Havvoth-Jair, i.e. Jair's-life, was given. Cf. Num. xxxii. 41 and Deut. iii. 14, where this name is explained. These are the twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead, i.e. Periia. — Ver. 23. These cities named Jair's-life were taken away from the Jairites by Geshur and Aram, i.e. by the Arameans of Geshur and of other places. Geshur denotes the inhabitants of a district of Aram, or Syria, on the north-western frontier of Bashan, in the neighbourhood of Hermon, on the east side of the upper Jordan, which had still its own kings in the time of David (2 Sam. iii. 3, xiii. 37, xiv. 23, xv. 8), but which had been assigned to the Manassites by Moses; cf. Josh. xiii. 13. The following '131 rnp-nx must not be taken as an explanatory apposition to "VKJ rrirmx: "Jair's-life, Kenath and her daughters, sixty cities" (Berth.). For since BfiNft refers to the collective name Jair, Geshur and Aram could not take away from Jair sixty cities, for Jair only possessed twenty-three cities. But besides this, according to Num. xxxii. 42, Kenath with her daughters had been conquered by Nobah, who gave his own name to the conquered cities; and according to Deut. iii. 4, the kingdom of Og in Bashan had sixty fenced cities. But this kingdom was, according to Num. xxxii. 41 and 42, conquered by two families of Manasseh, by Jair and Nobah, and was divided between them; and as appears from our passage, twenty-three cities were bestowred upon Jair, and all the rest of the land, viz. Kenath with her daughters, fell to Nobah. These two domains together included sixty fenced cities, which in Deut. iii. 14 are called Jair's-life; while here, in our verse, only twenty-three cities are so called, and the remaining thirty-seven are comprehended under the name of Kenath and her daughters. We must therefore either supply a 1 copul. before ruf?~riK5 or we must take 'P'flN in the signification " with Kenath/' and refer "V? DHSte to both jair's-life and Kenath. Cf. herewith the discussion on Deut. iii. 12-14; and for Kenath, the ruins of which still exist under the name Kanuat on the western slope of the Jebel Hauran, see the remarks on Num. xxxii. 42. The time when these cities were taken away by the Arameans is not known. From Judg. x. 4 we only learn that the Jair who was judge at a later time again had possession of thirty of these cities, and renewed the name Jair's-life. n?^"'53 is not all these sixty cities, but the before-mentioned descendants of Hezron, who are called sons, that is offspring, of Machir, because they were begotten with the daughter of Machir. Only two names, it is true, Segub and Jair, are enumerated; but from these two issue the numerous families which took Jair's-life. To these, therefore, must we refer the n?s~73. — Ver. 24. After the death of Hezron there was born to him by his wife Abiah (the third wife, cf. vers. 9 and 21) another son, Ashur, the father of Tekoa, whose descendants arc enumerated in chap. iv. 5-7. Hezron's death took place nmBK $02, « in Caleb Ephrathah." This expression is obscure. According to 1 Sam. xxx. 14, a part of the Negeb (south country) of Judah was called Negeb Caleb, as it belonged to the family of Caleb. According to this analogy, the town or village in which Caleb dwelt with his wife Ephrath may have been called Caleb of Ephrathah, if Ephrath had brought this place as a dower to Caleb, as in the case mentioned in Josh, xv. 18 f. Ephrathah, or Ephrath, was the ancient name of Bethlehem ((ion. xxxiii. 19, xlviii. 1), and with it the name of Caleb's wife Ephrath (ver. 19) is unquestionably connected; probably she was so called after her birthplace. If this supposition be well founded, then Caleb of Ephrathah would be the little town of Bethlehem. Ashur is called father (*3K) of Tekoa, i.e. lord and prince, as the chief of the inhabitants of Tekoa, now Tekua, two hours south of Bethlehem (vide on Josh. xv. 59).
Vers. 25-41. The family of Jeraluneel, the first-born of Hezron, which inhabited a part of the Negeb of Judah called after him the south of the Jerahmeelites (1 Sam. xxvii. 10, xxx. 29). — Ver. 25. Four sons were born to Jerahmeel by his first wife. Five names indeed follow; but as the last, '"^N, although met with elsewhere as a man's name, is not ranged with the others by 1 copul., as those that precede are with each other, it appears to be the name of a woman, and probably a D has fallen out after the immediately preceding D. So Cler., J. H. Mich., Berth. This conjecture gains in probability from the mention in ver. 26 of another wife, whence we might expect that in ver. 25 the first wife would be named. — Ver. 26. Only one son of the second wife is given, Onam, whose posterity follows in vers. 28-33; for in ver. 27 the three sons of Ram, the first-born of Jerahmeel, are enumerated. — Ver. 28. Onam had two sons, Shammai and Jada; the second of these, again, two sons, Nadab and Abishur. — Ver. 29. To Abishur his wife Abihail bore likewise two sons, with whom his race terminates. — In vers. 30, 31, Nadab's posterity follow, in four members, ending with Ahlai, in the fourth generation. But Ahlai cannot well have been a son, but must have been a daughter, the heiress of Sheshan; for, according to ver. 34, Sheshan had no sons, but only daughters, and gave his daughter to an Egyptian slave whom he possessed, to wife, by whom she became the mother of a numerous posterity. The |W *p3 is not irreconcilable with this, for *J>2 denotes in genealogies only descendants in general, and has been here correctly so explained by Hiller in Onomast. p. 736: quicquid habuit liberorum, sive nepotum, sustulit ex unica filia Acldai. — Vers. 32 and 33. The descendants of Jada, the brother of Shammai, in two generations, after which this genealogy closes with the subscription, " these were the sons of Jerahmeel."1 — In vers. 34-41 there follows the family of Sheshan, which was originated by the marriage of his daughter with his Egyptian slave, and which is continued through thirteen generations. The name of this daughter is in ver. 25 f. not mentioned, but she is without doubt the Ahlai mentioned in ver. 31. But since this Ahlai is the tenth in descent from Judah through Pharez, she was probably born in Egypt; and the Egyptian slave Jarha was most likely a slave whom Sheshan had in Egypt, and whom he adopted as his son for the propagation of his race, by giving him his daughter and heir to wife. If this be the case, the race begotten by Jarha with the daughter of Sheshan is traced down till towards the end of the period of the judges. The Egyptian slave Jarha is not elsewhere met with; and though the names which his posterity bore are found again in various parts of the Old Testament, of none of them can it be proved that they belonged to men of this family, so as to show that one of these persons had become famous in history.
Vers. 42-55. Other renowned descendants of Caleb, — First of all there are enumerated, in vers. 42-49, three lines of descendants of Caleb, of which the two latter, vers. 46-49, are the issue of concubines. — The first series, vers. 42-45, contains some things which are very obscure. In ver. 42 there are mentioned, as sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel, Mesha his first-born,
1 Berth eau reckons up to "the concluding subscription in ver. 33" the following descendants of Judah: " Judah's sons = 5; Hezron and Hamul = 2; Zerah's sons = 5; Karmi, Akar, and Azariah=3; Ram and his descendants (including the two daughters of Jesse, and Jeter the father of Amasa) = 21; Kaleb and his descendants =10; Jerahmeel and his descendants = 24: together = 70." But this number also is obtained only by taking into account the father and mother of Amasa as two persons, contrary to the rule according to which only the father, without the mother, is to be counted, or, in case the mother be more famous than the father, or be an heiress, only the mother.
with the addition, " this is the father of Ziph; and the sons of Mareshah, the father of Hebron," as it reads according to the traditional Masoretic text. Now it is here not only very surprising that the sons of Mareshah stand parallel with Mesha, but it is still more strange to find such a collocation as " sons of Mareshah the father of Hebron." The last-mentioned difficulty would certainly be greatly lessened if we might take Hebron to be the city of that name, and translate the phrase " father of Hebron," lord of the city of Hebron, according to the analogy of " father of Ziph," " father of Tekoa" (ver. 24), and other names of that sort. But the continuation of the genealogy, u and the sons of Hebron were Korah, and Tappuah, Rekem, and Shema" (ver. 43), is irreconcilable with such an interpretation. For of these names, Tappuah, i.e. apple, is indeed met with several times as the name of a city (Josh. xii. 17, xv. 34, xvi. 8); and Rekem is the name of a city of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 27), but occurs also twice as the name of a person — once of a Midianite prince (Num. xxxi. 8), and once of a Manassite (1 Chron. vii. 16); but the other two, Korah and Shema, only occur as the names of persons. In ver. 44 f., moreover, the descendants of Shema and Rekem are spoken of, and that, too, in connection with the word 1 vin, " he begat," which demonstrably can only denote the propagation of a race. We must therefore take Hebron as the name of a person, as in v. 28 and Ex. vi. 18. But if Hebron be the name of a man, then Mareshah also must be interpreted in the same manner. This is also required by the mention of the sons of Mareshah parallel with Mesha the first-born; but still more so by the circumstance that the interpretation of Mareshah and Hebron, as names of cities, is irreconcilable with the position of these two cities, and with their historical relations. Bertheau, indeed, imagines that as Mareshah is called the father of Hebron, the famous capital of the tribe of Judah, we must therefore make the attempt, however inadmissible it may seem at first sight, to take Mareshah, in the connection of our verse, as the name of a city, which appears as father of Hebron, and that we must also conclude that the ancient city Hebron (Num. xiii. 23) stood in some sort of dependent relationship to Mareshah, perhaps only in later times, although we cannot at all determine to what time the representation of our verse applies. But at the foundation of this argument there lies an error as to the position of the city Mareshah. Mareshah lay in the Shephelah (Josh. xv. 44), and exists at present as the ruin Marasch, twenty-four minutes south of Beit-Jibrin: vide on Josh. xv. 44; and Tobler, Dritte Wanderunrj, § 129 and 142 f. Ziph, therefore, which is mentioned in 2 Chron. xi. 8 along with Mareshah, and which is consequently the Ziph mentioned in our verse, cannot be, as Bertheau believes, the Ziph situated in the hill country of Judah, in the wilderness of that name, whose ruins are still to be seen on the hill Zif, about four miles southeast from Hebron (Josh. xv. 55). It can only be the Ziph in the Shephelah (Josh. xv. 24), the position of which has not indeed been discovered, but which is to be sought in the Shephelah at no great distance from Marasch, and thus far distant from Hebron. Since, then, Mareshah and Ziph were in the Shephelah, no relation of dependence between the capital, Hebron, situated in the mountains of Judah, and Mareshah can be thought of, neither in more ancient nor in later time. The supposition of such a dependence is not made probable by the remark that we cannot determine to what time the representation of our verse applies; it only serves to cover the difficulty which renders it impossible. That the verse does not treat of post-exilic times is clear, although even after the exile, and in the time of the Maccabees and the Romans, Hebron was not in a position of dependence on Marissa. Bertheau himself holds Caleb, of whose son our verses treat, for a contemporary of Moses and Joshua, because in ver. 49 Achsa is mentioned as daughter of Caleb (Josh. xv. 16; Judg. i. 12). The contents of our verse would therefore have reference to the first part of the period of the judges. But since Hebron was never dependent on Mareshah in the manner supposed, the attempt, which even at first sight appeared so inadmissible, to interpret Mareshah as the name of a city, loses all its support. For this reason, therefore, the city of Hebron, and the other cities named in ver. 43 ff., which perhaps belonged to the district of Mareshah, cannot be the sons of Mareshah here spoken of; and the fact that, of the names mentioned in vers. 43 and 44, at most two may denote cities, while the others are undoubtedly the names of persons, points still more clearly to the same conclusion. We must, then, hold Hebron and Mareshah also to be the names of persons. Now, if the Masoretic text be correct, the use of the phrase, " and the sons of Mareshah the father of Hebron," instead of " and Mareshah, the sons of the father of Hebron," can only have arisen from a desire to point out, that besides Hebron there were also other sons of Mareshah who were of Caleb's lineage. But the mention of the sons of Mareshah, instead of Mareshah, and the calling him the father of Hebron in this connection, make the correctness of the traditional text very questionable. Kimchi has, on account of the harshness of placing the sons of Mareshah on a parallel with Mesha the first-born of Caleb, supposed an ellipse in the expression, and construes '"ID £31, et ex filiis Ziphi Mareshah. But this addition cannot be justified. If we may venture a conjecture in so obscure a matter, it would more readily suggest itself that ncho is an error for PtfO, and that IftM *3K is to be taken as a nomen compos., when the meaning would be, " and the sons of Mesha were Abi-IIebron." The probability of the existence of such a name as Abihebron along with the simple Hebron has many analogies in its favour: cf. Dan and Abidan, Num. i. 11; Ezer, xii. 9, Neh. iii. 19, with Abi-ezer; Nadab, Ex. vi. 23, and Abinadab. In the same family even we have Abiner, or Abner, the son of Ner (1 Sam. xiv. 50 f.; 2 Sam. ii. 8; cf. Ew. § 273, S. OSS, 7th edition). Abihebron would then be repeated in ver. 43, in the shortened form Hebron, just as we have in Josh. xvi. 8 Tappuah, instead of En-Tappuah, Josh. xvii. 7. The four names introduced as sons of Hebron denote persons, not localities: cf. for Korah, i. 35, and concerning Tappuah and Eekem the above remark (p. 68). In ver. 44 are mentioned the sons of Rekem and of Shema, the latter a frequently recurring man's name (cf. v. 8, viii. 13, xi. 44; Neh. viii. 4). Shema begat Raham, the father of Jorkam. The name DflfS is quite unknown elsewhere. The LXX. have rendered it 'Ie/cXav, and Bertheau therefore holds Jorkam to be the name of a place, and conjectures that originally Dfij* (Josh. xv. 5G) stood here also. But the LXX. give' also 'IetcXav for the following name DjTI, from which it is clear that we cannot rely much on their authority. The LXX. have overlooked the fact that Dpn, ver. 44, is the son of the Hebron mentioned in ver. 43, whose descendants are further enumerated. Shammai occurs as a man's name also in ver. 28, and is again met with in iv. 17. His son is called in ver. 45 Maon, and Maon is the father of Bethzur. WJP3 is certainly the city in the mountains of Judah which Eehoboam fortified (2 Chron. xi. 7), and which still exists in the ruin Betsur, lying south of Jerusalem in the direction of Hebron. Maon also was a city in the mountains of Judah, now Main (Josh, xv. 55); but we cannot allow that this city is meant by the name |to, because Maon is called on the one hand the son of Shammai, and on the other is father of Bethzur, and there are no 'well-ascertained examples of a city being represented as son (|3) of a man, its founder or lord, nor of one city being called the father of another. Dependent cities and villages are called daughters (not sons) of the mother city. The word |to, " dwelling," does not per se point to a village or town, and in Judg. x. 12 denotes a tribe of non-Israelites.
concubine of this name bore three sons: Haran, of whom nothing further is known; Moza, which, though in Josh, xviii. 26 it is the name of a Benjamite town, is not necessarily on that account the name of a town here; and Gazez, unknown, perhaps a grandson of Caleb, especially if the clause " Haran begat Gazez" be merely an explanatory addition. But Haran may also have given to his son the name of his younger brother, so that a son and grandson of Caleb may have borne the same name. — Ver. 47. The genealogical connection of the names in this verse is entirely wanting; for Jahdai, of whom six sons are enumerated, appears quite abruptly. Hiller, in Onomast., supposes, but without sufficient ground, that W is another name of Moza. Of his sons' names, Jotham occurs frequently of different persons; Ephah, as has been already remarked, is in i. 33 the name of a chief of a Midianite tribe; and lastly, Shaaph is used in ver. 49 of another person. — Ver. 48 f. Another concubine of Caleb was called Maachah, a not uncommon woman's name; cf. iii. 2, vii. 16, viii. 29, xi. 43, etc. She bore Sheber and Tirhanah, names quite unknown. The masc. T>J instead of the fern. HTt^ ver. 46, is to be explained by the supposition that the father who begat was present to the mind of the writer. Ver. 49. Then she bore also Shaaph (different from the Shaaph in ver. 47), the father of Madmannah, a city in the south of Judah, perhaps identical with Miniay or Minieh, southwards from Gaza (see on Josh. xv. 31). Sheva (David's Sopher (scribe) is so called in the Keri of 2 Sam. xx. 25), the father of Machbenah, a village of Judah not further mentioned, and of Gibea, perhaps the Gibeah mentioned in Josh. xv. 57, in the mountains of Judah, or the village Jeba mentioned by Robinson, Palest, ii. p. 327, and Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, S. 157 f., on a hill in the Wady Musurr (vide on Josh. xv. 57). This list closes with the abrupt remark, " and
Caleb s daughter was Achsah." This notice can only refer to the Achsah so well known in the history of the conquest of the tribal domain of Judah, whom Caleb had promised, and gave as a reward to the conqueror of Debir (Josh. xv. 16 ff.; Judg. i. 12); otherwise in its abrupt form it would have no meaning. Women occur in the genealogies only when they have played an important part in history. Since, however, the father of this Achsah was Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who was about forty years old when the Israelites left Egypt, while our Caleb, on the contrary, is called in ver. 42 the brother of Jerahmeel, and is at the same time designated son of Hezron, the son of Pharez (ver. 9), these two Calebs cannot be one person: the son of Hezron must have been a much older Caleb than the son of Jephunneh. The older commentators have consequently with one voice distinguished the Achsah mentioned in our verse from the Achsah in Josh. xv. 16; while Movers, on the contrary (Chron. S. 83), would eliminate from the text, as a later interpolation, the notice of the daughter of Caleb. Bertheau, however, attempts to prove the identity of Caleb the son of Hezron with Caleb the son of Jephunneh. The assertion of Movers is so manifestly a critical tour de force, that it requires no refutation; but neither can we subscribe to Bertheau's view. He is, indeed, right in rejecting Ewald's expedient of holding that vers. 18-20 and 45-50 are to be referred to Chelubai, and vers. 42-49 to a Caleb to be carefully distinguished from him; for it contradicts the plain sense of the words, according to which both Chelubai, ver. 9, and Caleb, vers. 18 and 42, is the son of Hezron and the brother of Jerahmeel. But what he brings forward against distinguishing Caleb the father of Achsah, ver. 49, from Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel, ver. 42, is entirely wanting in force. The reasons adduced reduce themselves to these: that Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the conqueror and possessor of Hebron, might well be called in the genealogical language, which sometimes expresses geographical relations, the son of Hezron, along with Ram and Jerahmeel, as the names Ram and Jerahmeel certainly denote families in Judah, who, originally at least, dwelt in other domains than that of Caleb; and again, that the individual families as well as the towns and villages in these various domains may be conceived of as sons and descendants of those who represent the great families of the tribe, and the divisions of the tribal territory. But we must deny the geographical signification of the genealogies when pressed so far as this: for valid proofs are entirely wanting that towns are represented as sons and brothers of other towns; and the section vers. 42-49 does not treat merely, or principally, of the geographical relations of the families of Judah, but in the first place, and in the main, deals with the genealogical ramifications of the descendants and families of the sons of Judah. It by no means follows, because some of these descendants are brought forward as fathers of cities, that in vers. 42-49 towns and their mutual connection are spoken of; and the names Caleb, Ram, and Jerahmeel do not here denote families, but are the names of the fathers and chiefs of the families which descended from them, and dwelt in the towns just named. We accordingly distinguish Caleb, whose daughter was called Achsah, and whose father was Jephunneh (Josh. xv. 16 ff.), from Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel and the son of Hezron. But we explain the mention of Achsah as daughter of Caleb, at the end of the genealogical lists of the persons and families descended by concubines from Caleb, by the supposition that the Caleb who lived in the time of Moses, the son of Jephunneh, was a descendant of an older Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel. But it is probable that the Caleb in ver. 49 is the same who is called in ver. 42 the brother of Jerahmeel, and whose descendants are specified vers. 42-49; and we take the word ri3? " daughter," in its wider sense, as signifying a later female descendant, because the father of the Achsah so well known from Josh. xv. 16 ff. is also called son of Jephunneh in the genealogy, chap. iv. 15.
Vers. 50-55. The families descended from Caleb through his son Hur. — Ver. 50. The superscription, " These are the sons (descendants) of Caleb," is more accurately defined by the addition, " the son of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah; " and by this definition the following lists of Caleb's descendants are limited to the families descended from his son Hur. That the words 'W WJ3 are to' be so understood, and not as apposition to 3?3, " Caleb the son of Hur," is shown by ver. 19, according to which Hur is a son of Caleb and Ephrath. On that account, too, the relationship of Hur to Caleb is not given here; it is presupposed as known from ver. 19. A famous descendant of Hur has already been mentioned in ver. 20, viz. Bezaleel the son of Uri. Here, in vers. 50 and 51, three sons of Hur are named, Shobal, Salma, and Ilareph, with the families descended from the first two. All information is wanting as to whether these sons of Hur were brothers of Uri, or his cousins in nearer or remoter degree, as indeed is every means of a more accurate determination of the degrees of relationship, Both |3 and *lyjn in genealogies mark only descent in a straight line, while intermediate members of a family are often omitted in the lists. Instead of "NT??, "nmpn might have been expected, as two sons are mentioned. The singular |3 shows that the words are not to be fused with the follo\ving into one sentence, but, as the Masoretic punctuation also shows, are meant for a superscription, after which the names to be enumerated are ranged without any more intimate logical connection. For the three names are not connected by the 1 copul. They stand thus: " sons of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah; Shobal... Salma... Hareph." Shobal is called father of Kirjath-jearim, now Kureyet el Enab (see on Josh. ix. 17). Salma, father of Bethlehem, the birth-place of David and Christ. This Salma is, however, not the same person as Salma mentioned in ver. 11 and Ruth iv. 20 among the ancestors of David; for the latter belonged to the family of Ram, the former to the family of Caleb. Hareph is called the father of Beth-Geder, which is certainly not the same place as Gedera, Josh. xv. 36, which lay in the Shephelah, but is probably identical with Gedor in the hill country, Josh. xv. 58, west of the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem (vide on chap. xii. 4). Nothing further is told of Hareph, but in the following verses further descendants of both the other sons of Hur are enumerated. — Vers. 52 and 53. Shobal had sons, rriruftn ^n n^'-in. These words, which are translated in the Vulgate, qui videbat dimidium requietionum, give, so interpreted, no fitting sense, but must contain proper names. The LXX. have made from them three names, 'Apaa teal Alal teal ') Aynxavld, on mere conjecture. Most commentators take n$r\r\ for the name of the man who, in chap. iv. 2, is called under the name Reaiah, iT&o, the son of Shobal. This is doubtless correct; but we must not take fifcpn for another name of Reaiah, but, with Bertheau, must hold it to be a corruption of i"1^"!, or a conjecture arising from a false interpretation of ninjBn ^n by a transcriber or reader, who did not take Hazi-Hammenuhoth for a proper name, but understood it appellatively, and attempted to bring some sense out of the words by changing ITfrO into the participle nNi. The ^ro?D *#3 *n ver. 54 corresponds to our rrirutpn "vn, as one half of a race or district corresponds to the other, for the connection between the substantive nirtttsn and the adjective ^n^en cannot but be acknowledged. Now, although nrMO signifies resting-place (Num. x. 33; Judg. xx. 43), and the words " the half of the resting-place," or a of the resting-places/' point in the first instance to a district, yet not only does the context require that Hazi-Hammenuhoth should signify a family sprung from Shobal, but it is demanded also by a comparison of our phrase with TirUDn '•vn in ver. 54, which unquestionably denotes a family. It does not, however, seem necessary to alter the ffinjBn into ^njran; for as in ver. 54 Bethlehem stands for the family in Bethlehem descended from Salma, so the district Hazi-Hammenuhoth may be used in ver. 52 to denote the family residing there. As to the geographical position of this district, see on ver. 54. — Ver. 53. Besides the families mentioned in ver. 52, the families of Kirjath-jearim, which in ver. 53 are enumerated by name, came of Shobal also. 'P TftriQVfcb is simply a continuation of the families already mentioned, and the remark of Berth., that u the families of Kirjath-jearim are moreover distinguished from the sons of Shobal," is as incorrect as the supplying of 1 cop. before '£>n W in ver. 52 is unnecessary. The meaning is simply this: Shobal had sons Reaiah, Hazi-Hammenuhoth, and the families of Kirjath-jearim, viz. the family of Jether, etc. David's heroes, Ira and Gareb, xi. 40, 2 Sam. xxiii. 38, belonged to the family of Jether (*?Kn). The other three families are not met with elsewhere. n?$?, of these, the four families of Kirjath-jearim just mentioned, came the Zoreathites and the Eshtaulites, the inhabitants of the town of Zoreah, the home of Samson, now the ruin Sura, and of Eshtaol, which perhaps may be identified with Um Eshteyeh (see in Josh. xv. 33). — Vers. 54 and 55. The descendants of Salma: Bethlehem, i.e. the family of Bethlehem (see on ver. 52), the Netophathites, i.e. the inhabitants of the town of Netophah, which, according to our verse and Ezra ii. 22, and especially Neh. vii. 26, is to be looked for in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem (cf. ix. 16); a family which produced at various times renowned men (cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 28 f.; 2 Kings xxv. 23; Ezra ii. 22). The following words, '* '3 ni"ipy? i.e. a crowns of the house of Joab," can only be the name of a place which is mentioned instead of its inhabitants; for T\Y\\^V occurs elsewhere, sometimes alone, and sometimes in conjunction with a proper name, as the name of places: cf. Num. xxxii. 34 f.; Josh. xvi. 2, 5, 7, xviii. 1)5. Hazi-Hammanahath is certainly to be sought in the neighbourhood of Manahath, viii. 6, whose position has, however, not yet been ascertained. *jnjn is on]y another form of TO"!?-? an(i is derived from the masculine of the word. The Zorites here spoken of formed a second division of the inhabitants of Zoreah and the neighbourhood, along with the Zoreathites descended from Shobal, ver. 53. — Ver. 55. u And the families of the writers (scribes) who inhabited Jabez." The position of the town Jabez, which is mentioned only here, and which derived its name from a descendant of Judah, has not yet been discovered, but is to be sought somewhere in the neighbourhood of Zoreah. This may be inferred from the fact that of the six N£?;^ *33, two are always more closely connected with each other by 1 cop.: (1) Bethlehem and Netophathite, (2) Ataroth-beth-Joab and Hazi-Hammanahath, (3) the Zorites and the families of the Sopherim inhabiting Jabez. These last were divided into three branches, MPqW* DYlJfBP, Dsn:nb>, i.e. those descended from Tira, Shimea, and Suchah. The Vulgate has taken these words in an appellative sense of the occupations of these three classes, and translates canentes et resonantes et in tabernaculis commemor antes. But this interpretation is not made even probable by all that Bertheau has brought forward in support of it. Even if DVDVP might perhaps be connected with H3D, and interpreted u dwellers in tabernacles," yet no tenable reason can be found for translating CWJJTH and EWWBB* by canentes et resonantes. TiyDK* from nyotf. " that which is heard," cannot signify those who repeat in words and song that which has been heard; and Tijnn no more means canentes than it is connected (as Bertheau tries to show) with 0*}$?, " doorkeepers " (the Chaldee JHfl being equivalent to the Hebrew "W); and the addition, " These are the Kenites who came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab " (IP tfia, to issue from any one, to be descended from any one), gives no proof of this, for the phrase itself is to us so very obscure. &?\> are not inhabitants of the city Kain (Josh. xv. 57) in the tribal domain of Judah (Kimchi), but, judging from the succeeding relative sentence, were descendants of Keni the father-in-law of Moses (Judg. i. 16), who had come with Israel to Canaan, and dwelt there among the Israelites (Judg. iv. 11, 17, v. 24; 1 Sam. xv. 6, xxvii. 10, xxx. 29); and Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab, i.e. of the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv. 6), is probably the grandfather of Jonadab the son of Rechab, with whom Jehu entered into alliance (2 Kings x. 15, 23). But how can the families of Sopherim inhabiting
Jabez, which are here enumerated, be called descendants of Salma, who is descended from Hur the son of Caleb, a man of Judah, if they were Kenites, who issued from or were descendants of the grandfather of the family of the Rechabites? From lack of information, this question cannot be answered with certainty. In general, however, we may explain the incorporation of the Kenites in the Juda3an family of the Calebite Salma, on the supposition that one of these Kenites of the family of Hobab, the brother-in-law of Moses, married an heiress of the race of Caleb. On this account the children and descendants sprung of this marriage would be incorporated in the family of Caleb, although they were on their father s side Kenites, and where they followed the manner of life of their fathers, might continue to be regarded as such, and to bear the name.
Chap. iii. The sons and descendants of David. — After the enumeration of the chief families of the two sons of Hezron, Caleb and Jerahmeel, in chap. ii. 18-55, the genealogy of Ram the second son of Hezron, which in chap. ii. 10-17 was only traced down to Jesse, the father of the royal race of David, is in chap. iii. again taken up and further followed out. In vers. 1-9 all the sons of David are enumerated; in vers. 10-16, the line of kings of the house of David from Solomon to Jeconiah and Zedekiah; in 17-21, the descendants of Jeconiah to the grandsons of Zerubbabel; and finally, in vers. 22—24, other descendants of Shechaniah to the fourth generation.
Vers. 1-9. The sons of David: (a) Those born in Hebron; (h) those born in Jerusalem. — Vers. 1-4. The six sons born in Hebron are enumerated also in 2 Sam. iii. 2-5, with mention of their mother as here: but there the second is called 3N?3; here, on the contrary, ^W, — a difference which cannot well have arisen through an error of a copyist, but is probably to be explained on the supposition that this son had two different names. In reference to the others, see on 2 Sam. iii. The sing. VP i?W "1E>N after a preceding plural subject is to be explained as in ii. 9. W, without the article, for VDBte, 2 Sam. iii. 3, or WW??, 1 Chron. v. 12, is surprising, as all the other numbers have the article; but the enumeration, the first-born, a second, the third, etc., may be justified without any alteration of the text being necessary. But the difference between our text and that of 2 Sam. in regard to the second son, shows that the chronicler did not take the register from 2 Sam. iii. The preposition? before Dip^ax seems to have come into the text only through a mistake occasioned by the preceding W3K?j for no reason is apparent for any strong emphasis which might be implied in the? being placed on the name of Absalom. The addition of iri^'X to HOT (ver. 3) seems introduced only to conclude the enumeration in a fitting way, as the descent of Eglah had not been communicated; just as, for a similar reason, the additional clause "the wife of David" is inserted in 2 Sam. iii. 5, without Eglah being thereby distinguished above the other wives as the most honoured. The concluding formula, u six were born to him in Hebron" (ver. 4), is followed by a notice of how long David reigned in Hebron and in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam. ii. 11 and 55), which is intended to form a fitting transition to the following list of the sons who were born to him in Jerusalem. — Vers. 5-8. In Jerusalem thirteen other sons were born to him, of whom four were the children of Bathsheba. The thirteen names are again enumerated in the history of David, in chap. xiv. 7-11, while in the parallel passage, 2 Sam. v. 14-16, only eleven are mentioned, the two last being omitted (see on the passage). Some of the names are somewhat differently given in these passages, owing to differences of pronunciation and form: nyn'j is in both places JfiteP; JJDSrvs, between Ibhar and Eliphalet, is in chap. xiv. more correctly written JjV^yN. Elishama is clearly a transcriber's error, occasioned by one of the following sons bearing this name. BpErb^ shortened in xiv. 6 into ^2?^, and n:i:? are wanting in 2 Sam. v. 15, probably because they died early. VJyX, ver. 8, 2 Sam. v. 16, appears in chap. xiv. 7 as invV^; the mother also of the four first named, JWWTB, the daughter of Ammiel, is elsewhere always jn^vo, e.g. 2 Sam. xi. 3, and 1 Kings i. 11, 15, etc.; and her father, Eliam (2 Sam. xi. 3). FT^'ro has been derived from jnera. and SflBTD is softened from JQBfaa; but D^« has arisen by transposition of the two parts of the name ^N^y, or Ammiel has been altered to Eliam. Besides these, David had also sons by concubines, whose names, however, are nowdiere met with. Of David's daughters only Tamar is mentioned as a their sister," i.e. sister of the before-mentioned sons, because she had become known in history through Amnon's crime (2 Sam. xiii.). Vers. 10-16. The kings of the house of David from Solomon till the exile. — Until Josiah the individual kings are mentioned in their order, each with the addition foSl, son of the preceding, vers. 10-14; the only omission being that of the usurper Athaliah, because she did not belong to the posterity of David. But in ver. 15 four sons of Josiah are mentioned, not u in order to allow of a halt in the long line of David's descendants after Josiah the great reformer " (Berth.), but because with Josiah the regular succession to the throne in the house of David ceased. For the younger son Jehoahaz, who was made king after his father's death by the people, was soon dethroned by Pharaoh-Necho, and led away captive to Egypt; and of the other sons Jehoiakim was set up by Pharaoh, and Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar, so that both were only vassals of heathen lords of the land, and the independent kingship of David came properly to an end with the death of Josiah. Johanan, the firstborn of the sons of Josiah, is not to be identified with Jehoahaz, whom the people raised to the throne. For, in the first place, it appears from the statement as to the ages of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, 36, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 2, 5, that Jehoahaz was two years younger than Jehoiakim, and consequently was not the first-born. In Jer. xxii. 11 it is expressly declared that Shallum, the fourth son of Josiah, was king of Judah instead of his father, and was led away into captivity, and never saw his native land again, as history narrates of Jehoahaz. From this it would appear that Shallum took, as king, the name Jehoahaz. Johanan, the first-born, is not met with again in history, either because he died early, or because nothing remarkable could be told of him. Jehoiakim was called Eliakim before he was raised to the throne (2 Kings xxiii. 24). Zedekiah was at first Mattaniah (2 Kings xxiv. 17). Zedekiah, on his ascending the throne, was younger than Shallum, and that event occurred eleven years after the accession of Shallum = Jehoahaz. Zedekiah was only twenty-one years old, while Jehoahaz had become king in his twenty-third year. But in our genealogy Zedekiah is introduced after Jehoiakim, and before Shallum, because, on the one hand, Jeh)iakim and Zedekiah had occupied the throne for a longer period, each having been eleven years king; and on the other, Zedekiah and Shallum were sons of Hamutal (2 Kings xxiii. 31, xxiv. 18), while Jehoiakim was the son of Zebudah (2 Kings xxiii. 36). According to age, they should have followed each other in this order — Johanan, Jehoiakim, Shallum, and Zedekiah; and in respect to their kingship, Shallum should have stood before Jehoiakim. But in both cases those born of the same mother, Hamutal, would have been separated. To avoid this, apparently, Shallum has been enumerated in the fourth place, along with his full brother Zedekiah. In ver. 6 it is remarkable that a son of Jehoiakim's son Jeconiah is mentioned, named Zedekiah, while the sons of Jeconiah follow only in vers. 17 and 18. Jeconiah (cf. Jer. xxiv. 1; shortened Coniah, Jer. xxii. 24, 28, and xxxvii. 1) is called, as king, in 2 Kings xxiv. 8 ff. and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9, Jehoiachin, another form of the name, but having the same signification, " Jahve founds or establishes." Zedekiah can only be a son of Jeconiah, for the 133 which is added constantly denotes that the person so called is the son of his predecessor. Many commentators, certainly, were of opinion that Zedekiah was the same person as the brother of Jehoiakim mentioned in ver. 15 under the name Zidkijahu, and who is here introduced as son of Jeconiah, because he was the successor of Jeconiah on the throne. For this view support was sought in a reference to ver. 10 ff., in which all Solomon's successors in the kingship are enumerated in order with i^. But all the kings who succeeded each other from Solomon to Josiah were also, without exception, sons of their predecessors; so that there U3 throughout denotes a proper son, while King Zedekiah, on the contrary, was not the son, but an uncle of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). We must therefore hold rpp-n» for a literal son of Jeconiah, and that so much the more, because the name fi*i?Tf differs also from VIJ?!?, as the name of the king is constantly written in 2 Kings xxiv. 17 ff. and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10. But mention is made of this Zedekiah in ver. 16 apart from the other sons of Jeconiah (vers. 17 and 18), perhaps because he was not led away captive into exile with the others, but died in Judah before the breaking up of the kingdom.
Vers. 17-24. The descendants of the captive and exiled Jeconiah, and other families. — Ver. 17. In the list of the sons of Jeconiah it is doubtful if "1BK be the name of a son, or should be considered, as it is by Luther and others, an appellative, " prisoner," in apposition to 8M3^j u the sons of Jeconiah, the captive, is Shealtiel" (A. V. Salathiel). The reasons which have been advanced in favour of this latter interpretation are: the lack of the conjunction with?KWN£>; the position of W3 after 'nbxw, not after "iBN; and the circumstance that Assir is nowhere to be met with, either in Matt. i. 12 or in Seder olam zuta, as an intervening member of the family between Jeconiah and Shealtiel (Berth.).
But none of these reasons is decisive. The want of the conjunction proves absolutely nothing, for in ver. 18 also, the last three names are grouped together without a conjunction; and the position of V2 after 'rbtiW is just as strange, whether Shealtiel be the first named son or the second, for in ver. 18 other sons of Jeconiah follow, and the peculiarity of it can only be accounted for on the supposition that the case of Shealtiel differs from that of the remaining sons. The omission of Assir in the genealogies in Matthew and the Seder olam also proves nothing, for in the genealogies intermediate members are often passed over. Against the appellative interpretation of the word, on the contrary, the want of the article is decisive; as apposition to nJ?5!, ^ should have the article. But besides this, according to the genealogy of Jesus in Luke iii. 27, Shealtiel is a son of Neri, a descendant of David, of the lineage of Nathan, not of Solomon; and according to Hagg. i. 1, 12, Ezra iii. 2, v. 2, and Matt. i. 12, Zerubbabel is son of Shealtiel; while, according to vers. 18 and 19 of our chapter, he is a son of Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel. These divergent statements may be reconciled by the following combination. The discrepancy in regard to the enumeration of Shealtiel among the sons of Jeconiah, a descendant of Solomon, and the statement that he was descended from Neri, a descendant of Nathan, Solomon's brother, is removed by the supposition that Jeconiah, besides the Zedekiah mentioned in ver. 16, who died childless, had another son, viz. Assir, who left only a daughter, who then, according to the law as to heiresses (Num. xxvii. 8, xxxvi. 8 f.), married a man belonging to a family of her paternal tribe, viz. Neri, of the family of David, in the line of Nathan, and that from this marriage sprang Shealtiel, Malchiram, and the other sons (properly grandsons) of Jeconiah mentioned in ver. 18. If we suppose the eldest of these, Shealtiel, to come into the inheritance of his maternal grandfather, he would be legally regarded as his legitimate son. In our genealogy, therefore, along with the childless Assir, Shealtiel is introduced as a descendant of Jeconiah, while in Luke he is called, according to his actual descent, a son of Neri. The other discrepancy in respect to the descendants of Zerubbabel is to be explained, as has been already shown on Hagg. i. 1, by the law of Levirate marriage, and by the supposition that Shealtiel died without any male descendants, leaving his wife a widow. In such a case, according to the law (Deut. xxv. 5-10, cf. Matt.
xxii. 24-28), it became the duty of one of the brothers of the deceased to marry his brother's widow, that he might raise up seed, i.e. posterity, to the deceased brother; and the first son born of this marriage would be legally incorporated with the family of the deceased, and registered as his son. After Shealtiel's death, his second brother Pedaiah fulfilled this Levirate duty, and begat, in his marriage with his sister-in-law, Zerubbabel, who was now regarded, in all that related to laws of heritage, as Shealtiel's son, and propagated his race as his heir. According to this right of heritage, Zerubbabel is called in the passages quoted from Haggai and Ezra, as also in the genealogy in Matthew, the son of Shealtiel. The faa seems to hint at this peculiar position of Shealtiel with reference to the proper descendants of Jeconiah, helping to remind us that he was son of Jeconiah not by natural birth, but only because of his right of heritage only, on his mother's side. As to the orthography of the name PNTPNt^, see on Hagg. i. 1. The six persons named in ver. 18 are not sons of Shealtiel, as Kimchi, Ililler, and others, and latterly Ilitzig also, on Hagg. i. 1, believe, but his brothers, as the cop. 1 before □"J^pO requires. The supposition just mentioned is only an attempt, irreconcilable with the words of the text, to form a series, thus: Shealtiel, Pedaiah his son, Zerubbabel his son, — so as to get rid of the differences between our verse and Hagg. i. 1, Ezra iii. 2. In vers. 19 and 20, sons and grandsons of Pedaiah are registered. Nothing further is known of the Bne Jeconiah mentioned in ver. 18. Pedaiah's son Zerubbabel is unquestionably the prince of Judah who returned to Jerusalem in the reign of Cyrus in the year 536, at the head of a great host of exiles, and superintended their settlement anew in the land of their fathers (Ezra i.-vi.). Of Shimei nothing further is known. In vers. 196 and 20, the sons of Zerubbabel are mentioned, and in ver. 21a two grandsons are named. Instead of the singular |3* some mss. have *33&, and the old versions also have the plural. This is correct according to the sense, although |?1 cannot be objected to on critical grounds, and may be explained by the writer's having had mainly in view the one son who continued the line of descendants. By the mention of their sister after the first two names, the sons of Zerubbabel are divided into two groups, probably as the descendants of different mothers. How Shelomith had gained such fame as to be received into the family register, we do not know. Those mentioned in ver. 20 are brought together in one group by the number " five." ^Dn 3B^ " grace is restored," is one name. The grandsons of Zerubbabel, Pelatiah and Jesaiah, were without doubt contemporaries of Ezra, who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon seventy-eight years after Zerubbabel.
After these grandsons of Zerubbabel, there are ranged in ver. 21b, without any copula whatever, four families, the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc.; and of the last named of these, the sons of Shecaniah, four generations of descendants are enumerated in vers. 22-24, without any hint as to the genealogical connection of Shecaniah with the grandsons of Zerubbabel. The assertion of more modern critics, Ewald, Bertheau, and others, that Shecaniah was a brother or a son of Pelatiah or Jesaiah, and that Zerubbabel's family is traced down through six generations, owes its origin to the wish to gain support for the opinion that the Chronicle was composed long after Ezra, and is without any foundation. The argument of Bertheau, that '" since the sons of Rephaiah, etc., run parallel with the preceding names Pelatiah and Jesaiah, and since the continuation of the list in ver. 22 is connected with the last mentioned Shecaniah, we cannot but believe that Pelatiah, Jesaiah, Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah are, without exception, sons of Hananiah," would be well founded if, and only if, the names Rephaiah, Arnan, etc., stood in our verse, instead of the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., for Pelatiah and Jesaiah are not parallel with the sons of Arnan. Pelatiah and Jesaiah may perhaps be sons of Hananiah, but not the sons of Rephaiah, Arnan, etc. These would be grandsons of Hananiah, on the assumption that Rephaiah, Arnan, etc., were brothers of Pelatiah and Jesaiah, and sons of Hananiah. But for this assumption there is no tenable ground; it would be justified only if our present Masoretic text could lay claim to infallibility. Only on the ground of a belief in this infallibility of the traditional text could we explain to ourselves, as Bertheau does, the ranging of the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., along with Pelatiah and Jesaiah, called sons of Hananiah, by supposing that Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah are not named as individuals, but are mentioned together with their families, because they were the progenitors of famous races, while Pelatiah and Jesaiah either had no descendants at all, or none at least who were at all renowned. The text, as we have it, in which the sons of Rephaiah, etc., follow the names of the grandsons of Zerubbabel without a conjunction, and in which the words iTO?P 'J3*, and a statement of the names of one of these Ds^ and his further descendants, follow the immediately preceding n^D^ \33? has no meaning, and is clearly corrupt, as has been recognised by Heidegger, Vitringa, Carpzov, and others. Owing, however, to want of information from other sources regarding these families and their connection with the descendants of Zerubbabel, we have no means whatever of restoring the original text. The sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., were, it may be supposed, branches of the family of David, whose descent or connection with Zerubbabel is for us unascertainable. The list from n*B"i »J3, ver. 21b, to the end of the chapter, is a genealogical fragment, which has perhaps come into the text of the Chronicle at a later time.1 Many of the names which this fragment contains are met with singly in genealogies of other tribes, but nowhere in a connection from which we might draw conclusions as to the origin of the families here enumerated, and the age in which they lived. Bertheau, indeed, thinks M we may in any case hold Hattush, ver. 22, for the descendant of David of the same name mentioned in Ezra viii. 2, who lived at the time of Ezra;" but he has apparently forgotten that, according to his interpretation of our verse, Hattush would be a great-grandson of Zerubbabel, who, even if he were then born, could not possibly have been a man and the head of a family at the time of his supposed return from Babylon with Ezra, seventy-eight years after the return of his great-grandfather to Palestine. Other men too, even priests, have borne the name Hattush; cf. Neh. iii. 10, x. 5, xii. 2. There returned, moreover, from Babylon with Ezra sons of Shecaniah (Ezra viii. 3), who may as justly be identified with the sons of Shecaniah mentioned in ver. 22 of our chapter as forefathers or ancestors of Hattush, as the Hattush here is identified with the Hattush of Ezra viii. 2. But from the fact that, in the genealogy of Jesus, Matt, i., not a single one of the names of