.^^^^fWpHmcerS^ ^OtOG/CAL SEtt«^ \3-A-5 .C776 A Intcrnatbnal Crttical €ammtninx^ on tlje Pol^ Striptur^s of llj£ #lb aittr |Ub3 Ctstamtnts. UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopeedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York ; The Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew, 0.iford ; The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D., Sometime Master of University College, Durhatn. The International Critical Commentary On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments EDITORS' PREFACE THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, written by British and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The Speaker's Cotmnentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), The Expositor s Bible, and other similar series, have their special place and importance. But they do not enter into the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum A. T. ; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T. ; Meyer's Kritisch-exegedscher Komtnetitar ; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Comme?ifar iiber das A. T. ; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's Handkommentar zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Ha?idkommentar zum N. T Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English-speaking public ; others are in process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enter- prise, when it is practicable to combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholarship, and in a measure lead its van. The International Critical Commentary Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., in America, and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., for the Old Testament, and the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., for the New Testament, in Great Britain. The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discuss- ing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from matter of a more general character ; and in the Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical and Archaeological questions, as well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will con- stitute a uniform series. The International Critical Commentary ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS THE OLD TESTAMENT GENESIS. The Rev. John Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor oi Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyteriaji Churoii of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready. CXODUS. The Rev. A. R. S.Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. LEVITICUS. J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. NUMBERS. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. \_Now Ready. DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt, Regius Pro- fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready. JOSHUA. The Rev, George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, United Free Church College, Glasgow. JUDGES. The Rev. George Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol- ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Ncnu Ready. SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Professor of Old Testament I-iterature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [Noiv Ready. KINGS. The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. CHRONICLES. The Rev. Edv^^ard L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. \Now Ready. EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L.W. Batten, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of St. Mark's Church, New York City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. PSALMS. The Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Fro- fessor of Theological Encyclopeedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Read" PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. JOB. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of He- brew, Oxford. The International Critical Commentary ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. ISAIAH. Chaps. XL-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. Peake, M. A., D.D., Dean of tlie Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England. JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Inter- pretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. Charle.s F. BURNEY, D. Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College, Oxford. DANIEL. The Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor of Helirew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York City. AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime Presi- dent of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [A^(nv Ready. MICAH TO HAGGAI. Prof. JOHN P. SMITH, University of Chicago; Prof. Chari.es p. Faonani, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New York; W. Haye.s Ward, D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York; Prof. Jui.U'S A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Prof. H. G. Mitchell, D.D., Boston University. ZECHARIAH TO JONAH. Prof. II. G. Mitchell, D.D., Prof. John P. Smith and Pruf. J. A. Bewer. ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Baton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart- ford Theological Seminary. \Nov} Ready. ECCLESIASTES. Prof. George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli- cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. \^A'o-u> Ready. RUTH. SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev. CHARLES A. BRir.d.s, D.D., D.Ivitl., Graciuate Professor f)f Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. THE NEW TESTAMENT ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. WiLi.our.Hnv C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. \ Now Ready. ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. GouLD, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa- ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. \^A^o~lu Ready. 8T. LUKE. The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., iometime Master of University College, Durham. \_N^m> Ready. The International Critical Commentary ST. JOHN. The Very Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., Dean of St. Patrick's and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin. HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, ana the Rev. WlL- LOUGHBY C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. ACTS. The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. ROMANS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. Headlam, M.A., D.D., Principal of King's College, London. lA^o'cu Ready. CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. Arch. Robertson, D.D., LL.D., Lord Bishop of Exeter, the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D.,and Dawson Walker, D.D., Theological Tutor in the University of Durham. GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. Abbott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now Librarian of the same. \^t\ow Ready. PHILIPPIANS AND PHJLEMON. The Rev. Marvin R. Vincent, D. D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. \Now Ready. THESSALONIANS. The Rev. James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. Walter Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. HEBREWS. The Rev. A. Nairne, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King's College, London. ST. JAMES. The Rev. James H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism in Harvard University. PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. Charles Bigg, D.D., sometime Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. [AW* Ready. THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Rev. E. A. Brooke, B.D., Fellow and Divinity Lecturer in King's College, Cambridge. REVELATION. The Rev. Robert H. Charles, M.A., D.D., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES The International Critical Commentary i OF Pfi/S^ .MAY 7 1957 A \% CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF CHEONICLES EDWARD LEWIS CURTIS, Ph.D., D.D. I PROFESSOR OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF YALE UNIVERSITY AND ALBERT ALONZO MADSEN, Ph.D. PASTOR OF THE FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH AT NEWBURGH, N. Y NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1910 Copyright, iqio, by CHARLES SCRIBXER'S SONS Published June, igio TO BENJAMIN WISNER BACON FRANK CHAMBERLAIN PORTER AND WILLISTON WALKER OF THE FACULTY OF THE YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL THIS WORK IS DEDICATED IN RECOGNITION OF AFFECTIONATE COMRADESHIP DURING MANY YEARS PREFACE THIS Commentary has been prepared not less for the readers of the Revised Version of the English Bible than for those of the Hebrew Text. Hebrew words, it is true, appear at times in the main comment. They have been frequently intro- duced to illustrate the origin of different readings arising through a similarity of letters; then their force is clear without a knowledge of the language. They also appear in connection with certain genealogies, notably those of i Ch. VH, VHI, where without their introduction critical comment would be impossible. Else- where in ignoring them the reader unacquainted with Hebrew will find the comment clear though less ample. The Books of Chronicles are secondary; they are of interest mainly through the new view which they give of Israel's history compared with the earlier narratives. This fact has been con- stantly kept in mind in the preparation of this Commentary. Certain readers will doubtless feel that conclusions in details should have been given with more dogmatism and that the word "prob- ably" should less often occur. But about many matters of detail I am far from certain, although I have no doubt of the general historical, or rather unhistorical, character of Chronicles. I have aimed also to make the work comprehensive in giving the opinions of others. In regard to the literary structure of i and 2 Chronicles I cannot follow the view of those who regard the author throughout as a mere copyist, nor yet of those who hold that apart from his Old Testament quotations he composed freely with no recourse for information to other written sources. I have given the view of a free composition but allowed a recourse to non-canonical written sources. I have given marks of unity of style in portions alleged by some to come from other writers, although I am fully aware viii PREFACE thai if the Chronicler were a copyist these marks of unity might be due to his main source. I have little sympathy with that sub- jective criticism which prescribes beforehand an author's scheme of composition and then regards all contrary to this scheme as interpolations or supplements. Inconsistencies or redundancies are not proofs of a lack of unity of authorship, especially in the work of the Chronicler. Agreeably to the other volumes of this series, Yaliweh appears regularly as the name of Israel's deity. But this transliteration of Yodh (^) by y and Waw (1) by w has not been applied in other I)roper names, since in a commentary on books containing so many proper names as i and 2 Chronicles, designed to be used in connection with the Revised English Version, it seemed best to retain the spelling of the proper names given in that version. Medial Alepli (S) and initial, medial, and final 'Ayin (j,*) in italicised names on their first appearance, but not necessarily on their immediate repetition or in juxtaposition with the Hebrew letters, have been represented by the smooth and rough breathings ("). The hard letters Heth (n), Telh (D), SadJie {'i), and Koph (p) have been represented by h, i, z, and k. (The introduction of s instead of z would have been too violent a change.) But none of these marks have been introduced, except incidentally, in the Roman type, and in some familiar names like that of Israel they do not appear. Modern geograj^hical names appear in the spelling of the authorities cited. The comi)Ietion of this volume had already been much delayed through serious illness, when in January, 1906, I suddenly lost tlie sight of nearly one-half the field of vision in both eyes. I felt then that I should relinquish my task, but Professor Briggs, the general editor, persuaded me to continue it and kindly allowed me to use the services of an assistant. I was fortunate in securing those of Doctor Madsen, a pupil of Prof. C. C. Torrey. He has worked jointly with m.c upon the book since that date, and while I am solely respon.sible for the work, his name properly appears upon the title-page. The parts which he has especially prepared under my direction arc sections seven, eight, and of nine the Literature, of the Introduction, the commentary and notes on PREFACE ix I Ch. XXI-XXIX, which had formed the subject of his doctor's thesis, and the textual notes on 2 Ch. XX-XXXVI. He has also amplified my own comment and textual notes on other portions and contributed notes on the composition of i Ch. I-IX, XV, XVI, and 2 Ch. I-IX. He worked out the restoration of the genealog}^ of Zebulun, i Ch. VII, and I am also indebted to him for most efficient aid in preparing the manuscript for the press and in proof-reading. I wish also to express my appreciation for assistance rendered in many ways by Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University. Too much cannot be said of the care exercised by the publishers in carrying this work through the press. This volume has many shortcomings, but I trust that it will fill a needed place, since nothing similar has been published in English later than Zoeckler's commentary in Lange's Commentary in 1876. EDWARD LEWIS CURTIS. New Haven, Conn., May, 1910, CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE vii ABBREVIATIONS INTRODUCTION: Name and Order § 2 § 3 § 4 § S § 6 § 7 § 8 § 9 The Relation of Chronicles to Ezra and Nehemiah 2 Date 5 Plan, Purpose, and Historical Value 6 The Religious Value 16 Sources 17 Peculiarities of Diction 27 Hebrew Text and the Versions 36 The Higher Criticism and Literature .... 44 COMMENTARY ON 1 CHRONICLES: I-IX. Genealogical Tables with Geographical AND Historical Notices 57 X-XXIX. The History of David 180 COMMENTARY ON 2 CHRONICLES: I-IX. The History of Solomon 313 X-XXXVI. The History of Judah from Rehoboam until THE Exile 362 ADDENDA 527 INDEXES 529 ABBREVIATIONS. A ARV. ARVm. AV. D Dtic. ERV. EVs. I. TEXTS AND VERSIONS. Arabic Version. American Revised Version. American Revised Version, marginal reading. Authorized Ver- Deuteronomlc por- tions of the Old Testament, or their author. Deuteronomic. Elohistic (Ephra- imitic) portions of the Hexateuch, or their author. English Revised Version. English Versions. = Received Greek Version, (of I Esd.) = The Greek te.xt of I Esdras (prob- ably original Sep- tuagint and avail- able for 2 Ch. 35. 36). (gConip. H Hex. J JE Original Greek where leading MSS. (uncials) are corrupt. Sinaitic codex. Alexandrian codex. Vatican codex (as pub. by Swete). Complutensian edi- tion (1514-17). Lucianic recension (Lagarde's edi- tion). Basilian - Vatican codex (= XI Holmes and Par- sons). Hebrew consonant- al text. Holiness Code of the Hexateuch. Hexateuch. = Yahwistic (Judaic) portions of the Hexateuch, or their author. The narrative of J and E combined. XIV Kt. m M NT. OT. P ABBREVIATIONS Knhib, the He- Qr. = Q«re, the Hebrew brew text as writ- text as read. ten. Old Latin Version. R RV. = Redactor, or editor. = Revised Version. The Massoretic RVm. = Revised Version, pointed te.xt. marginal r e a d - Kittel's primary ing Midrashic source of the Chronicler. Kittel's secondary » = Syriac P e s h i 1 1 o Version. Midrashic source of the Chronicler. »■'' = Ambrosian codex. New Testament. Ul = Targum or .Aramaic Old Testament. Version. Priestly portions of B = Vulgate Version the He.xateuch, or B* = Amiatine codex. their author. Vrss. = Versions, ancient. II. BOOKS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. Am. = Amos. Ez. = Ezekiel. Ezr. = Ezra. BS. = The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira, Gal. = Galatians. or Ecclesiasticus. On. = Genesis. i,2Ch. Ch. Col. I, 2 Cor. Ct. = 1,2 Chronicles. = id., taken together. = Colossians. = I, 2 Corinthians. = Canticles = The Hb. Heb. Hg. Ho. = Habakkuk = Hebrews. = Haggai. = Hosea. Song of Songs. Is = Isaiah. Dn. = Daniel. Dt. = Deuteronomy. Jb. Je. = Job. = Jeremiah. Ec. = Ecclesiastes. Jn. = John. Eph. = Ephesians. Jo. = Joel. I, 2 Esd. = 1,2 Esdras. Jon. = Jonah. Est. = Esther. Jos. = Joshua. Ex. = Exodus. Ju. = Judges. ABBREVIATIONS XV I, 2K. = I, 2 Kings. Ps. = Psalms. K. = id., taken together. Rev. = Revelation. La. = Lamentations. Rom. = Romans. Lk. = Luke. Ru. = Ruth. Lv. = Leviticus. I, 2S. = 1,2 Samuel. Mai. = Malachi. S. = id., taken together. I, 2 Mac. = I, 2 Maccabees. S.-K. = The books of Sam- Mi. = Micah. uel and Kings Mk. = Mark. taken together. Mt. = Matthew. I, 2 Thes. = I, 2 Thessalonians. Na. = Nahum. I, 2 Tim. = 1,2 Timothy. Ne. = Nehemiah. Tob. = Tob it. Nu. = Numbers. Wisd. = Wisdom of Solo- Ob. = Obadiah. mon. PhU. a= Philippians. Zc. = Zechariah. Pr. '^ Proverbs. Zp. = Zephaniah. III. AUTHORS AND WRITINGS. AHT. = Ancient Heb. Tra- Ball = C. J. Ball. ditions, see Horn. SBOT. = id., Genesis in Sa- AJSL. = American Journal cred Books of the of Semitic Lan- OT. guages and Lit- Baud. = W. von Baudissen. eratures. BDB. = Hebrew and Eng- ATC. = Apparatus for the lish Lexicon of Textual Criticistn the OT., edited by of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., F. Brown, S. R. see Tor. Driver, C A. Briggs. Ba. = W. E. Barnes, Be. = E. Bertheau, Die Chronicles in The Biicher der Chro- Cambridge Bible. nil^ in Hand- Baed. = Karl Baedeker, buch zum A. T. Palestine and Bennett = W. H. Bennett. Syria (cited in SBOT. = id., Joshua in Sa- second and fourth cred Books of the editions). OT. XVI Bn. ABBREVIATIONS Arch. Boch. Boe. Bu. SBOT. Bue. Buhl GAP. Bur. CHV. Cor. COT. ■■ J. Benzinger, Die B ilche r de r Konige and Die BUcher der Chro- nik in Kurzer Hand - Com men- tar. ■■ id., Hebrdische Ar- chceologie. ■ S. Bochart. : F. Bottcher. K. Budde, Richter und Samuel in Kurzer H and- Commentar zum A. T. id., Samuel in .S'(/- cred Books of the OT. A. Biichler. F. Buhl. id., Geograpliie des Alteii Paliistina. C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Kings. Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehe- miah, see Tor. C. H. Cornill. The Cuneiform In- scriptions and the OT. (Eng. trans, of A'/ir.2), see Sch. Dav. = A. B. Davidson. Syn § = id., Hebrew Syn- tax. DB. = Dictionary of the Bible, usually Hastings'. Del. Del. Par. Dill. Dr. Dt. Gn. LOT. TH. TS. EBi. EHSP. Ew. E\v. § Hist. Exp. Expos. T. GAP. - Franz Delitzsch (alw. when not followed by Par., V. i.). - Friedrich Delitzsch. = id.. Wo lag das Parodies? - August Dillmann. = S. R. Driver. = id., Deuteronomy \n The International Critical Commen- tary. ■■ id. , Genesis in Westminster Com- mentaries. -- id., An Introduction to the Literature of the OT. ■■ id., A Treatise on tlie Use of the Tenses in Hebrews. ■■ id., Notes on tlie Hebrew Text of the Books of Sam- uel. Encyclopcrdia Bib- lica. Early Hist, of Syria and Pal., see Pa. H. Ewald. id., Hebrew Gram- mar. id., History of Is- rael (Eng. trans, of his Geschichte d. V. Israel). The Expositor. Tlie Expository Times. Geographie des Al- ien Palastina by F. Buhl. ABBREVIATIONS XVI 1 GAS. = George Adam H-J. = W. R. Harvey- Smith. Jellie. HGHL. = id., The Historical HJP. = History of the Jew- Geography of the ish People, see Holy Land. Schiir. J. = id., Jerusalem front Holz. = H. Holzinger. the Earliest Times Gn. = id., Genesis in Kur- to A. D. 70. zer Hand-Com- Ges. = W. Gesenius, He- mentar. brew Grammar, Horn. = F. Hommel. ed. E. Kautzsch AHT. = id.. Ancient He- (Eng. trans, by brew Traditions. Collins and Cow- HPM. — History, Prophecy ley). and the Monu- GFM. = George Foot ments, see McC. Moore. Hpt. = Paul Haupt. Gin. = C. D. Ginsburg. HWB}^ = Gesenius' Hebrd- GI. = E. Glaser. isches und Ara- Skiz. = id., Skizze der mdisches Hand- Geschichte und worterbuch ilber Geographic Ara- das A. T., ed. biens, vol. II. Buhl. Graf = K. H. Graf. GB. = id., Gesch. Bilcher d. A. T. = G. B. Gray. = id., Hebrew Proper JBL. = Journal of Biblical Gray HPN. JE. Literature. = Jewish Encyclopae- dia, Nu. Gu. On. Names. = id.. Numbers in In- ternational Criti- cal Commentary. = H. Gunkel. = id.. Genesis in Jen. Kosmol. J. H. Mich. = P. Jensen. = id.. Die Kosmolo- gie der Babylonier. = J. H. Michaelis, Uberiores Adnot. in Chron. = FI. Josephus. = Antiquities. Hafidkommentar z.A. T. Jos. Ant. BJ. = Bell. Jud. HC. = Kurzer Hand- c. Ap. = contra Apionem. Commentar zum JPT. = Jahrbiicherfiir prat- A. T. es tantische The- HCM. = Higher Criticism ologie. and the Mo7iu- JQR. — Jewish Quarterly ments, see Sayce. Review. Hdt. = Herodotus. Hitz. = F. Hitzig. Kamp. = A. Kamphausen. XVlll ABBREV lATIONS KAT.'' = Die Keilinschriften HPM. = id., History, Proph- u. d. A. T., see ecy and the Mon- Winck. uments. Kau. = E. Kaulzsch, Die Mov. = F. C. Movers. heilige Schrift d. MiiNDPV. = Mittheilungen und A. T. Nachrichten des KB. = Keilinschriftliche Deulschen P al- Bihliothek. dstina-Vereins. Ke. = C. F. Keil, Chroni- MVAG. = Mitt heilun gen cles in Biblical der vorderasiati- Commentary on schen Gescllschaft. the OT. Kennic. = B. Kennicott. NCB. = NewCentury Bible. Ki. = R. Kittel. Now. = W. Nowack. BH. = id., Biblia Hebra- Arch. = id., Lehrbuch d. ica. Hebrdischen Ar- GescJi. = id., Geschichte der Hehrder. chdologie. Kom. = id., Die Biicher der Oe. = S. Oettli, Die Chronik'mHand- Biicher der Chro- kommentar ziim A. T. nik in Kurzge- fasster Kommen- SBOT. = id., Chronicles in tar. = Orientalische Lit- Sacred Books of OLZ. the OT. teratur-Zeitung. Klo. = August Kloster- Onom. = Onomastica Sacra Koe. § mann. = Fr. E. Konig, Lehrgebdiide der OTJCr- (ed. Lagarde). = Old Testament in the Jewish Hebrdischen Church, see Sprache. WRS. Kuenen = A. Kuenen. Einl. = id., Historisch- kritische Einlei- Pa. = L. B. Paton. tung in die Biicher EHSP. = id.. The Early His- d.A.T. tory of Syria and Palestine. PRE. = Herzog's Real-En- LOT. = An Introduction to cyclo pddie fiir the Literature of protestantische the OT., see Theologie und Dr. Kirche. Ptol. = Claudius Ptolemy. Mar. = J. Marquart. McC. = J. F. McCurdy. Ri. = E. Richm. ABBREVIATIONS XIX HWB. = id., Handworler- List. = id., Die Listen der bucli d. bibl. Al- Biicher Ezra und terth. Nehemiah. Rob. = Edward Robinson. SS. = C. Siegfried and B. BR. or Res. = id., Biblical Re- Stade, Hebrdisch- searches in Pal- es Worterbuch. estine, etc., also St. = B. Stade. Later Biblical Re- Gesch. = id., Geschichte des searches, i.e., Vol. Volkes Israel. Ill of second ed. SBOT. = id., with Sw., The Books of Kings in Sayce = A. H. Sayce. Sacred Books of HCM. = id., Higher Criti- the OT. cism and the Sw. = F. Schwally, v. s. Monuments. SWP. = Survey of Western Pat. Pal. = id.. Patriarchal Pal- estine. Palestine. SBOT. = The Sacred Books Th. = O. Thenius. of the Old Testa- TKC. = T. K. Cheyne. ment, ed. by Paul Tor. = C. C. Torrey. Haupt. ATC. = id., Apparatus for Sch. = E. Schrader. the Textual Crit- COT. = id., Cuneiform In- icism of Chroni- scriptions and the cles-E z r a-Nehe- Old Testament. miah in OT. Se- Schiir. = E. Schiirer. mitic Studies, Gesch. = id., Geschichte des Harper Memo- jiidischen Volkes rial II. im Zeitalter Jesu CHV. = id.. The Composi- Christe. tion and His- HJP. = id., History of the torical Value of Jewish People in Ezra -Nehemiah the Time of Jesus in Zeitschrift filr Christ (Eng.tra.ns. die altest. Wis- of the second ed. senschaft, Bei- of the above). hefte 2. Sk. = J. Skinner, Kings Trom. = A. Trommius. in New Century Concord. = id., Concordantice Bible. GracoB in Septua- Sm. = H. P. Smith, The Books of Samuel ginta Interpretes. in International We. = Julius Wellhausen. Critical Commen- Com p. = id.. Die Composi- tary. tion des Hexa- Smd. = R. Smend. teuchs. XX ABBREVIATIONS DGJ. = id., De Gentibus et Familiis Judcris ZA. = Zeitschrift fiir As- syrlologie. qua: in i Chr. 2. 4 ZAW. = Zeitschrift fiir die numerantur Dis- Altteslamentliclie serlatio. Wissenschaft. Prol. = id., Prolegomena to the History of Israel. ZDMG. = Zeitschrift der Deutsclien Mor- genldjidischen TS. = id., Der Text der Gesellschaft. BUcher Samuel is. ZDPV. = Ze it s chr if t des Winck. = Hugo Winckler. Deutsche n Pal- Gescli. Isr. = id., Geschichte Is- dstina-vereins. raels. Zoe. = Otto Zockler, The KAT? = id., with H. Zim- mern, Keilin- schiften u. Alte Testament. Books of Chroni- cles in Eng. trans, of Lange's Com- mentary. WRS. = W. Robertson Smith. Numerals raised above the Hne im- OTJC.^ = id.. Old Testament mediatel} foil owing the abbreviation in the Jewish indicate the edition of the work Church. cited. IV. GENERAL, ESPECIALLY GRAMMATICAL. abs. = absolute. art. = article. abstr. = abstract. Assy. = Assyria, Assyrian ace. = accusative. ace. cog. = cognate ace. Bab. = Babylonian. ace. pers. = ace. of person. B. Aram. = Biblical Aramaic. ace. rei. = ace. of thing. ace. to = according to. c, cc. = chapter, chapters. act. = active. c. = circa, about. adj. = adjective. caus. = causative. adv. = adverb. 16" 26*^) as required of the servants of the tabernacle and the ark in P. Goliath the Gittite slain by Elhanan the Bethlehemite (2 S. 2i'») becomes Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite (i Ch. 20'). This removes the discrepancy with the story of David's conquest (i S. 17). David's sons are changed from "priests" (2 S. 8") into "the first at the hand of the king" (i Ch. 18"). A non-Levitical priesthood supported by David was unthinkable to the Chronicler. 14 CHRONICLES Yahweh, who led David to number Israel (2 S. 24'), since a direct divine temptation was not agreeable to the later theology, becomes Satan (i Ch. 21'); and agreeably to the later angelology the de- stroying angel is placed between the earth and the heaven (i Ch. 21") instead of remaining simply by the threshing-floor of Oman the Jebusite (2 S. 24"). The price paid by David for the threshing- floor is changed from fifty shekels of silver (2 S. 24") into six hun- dred shekels of gold (i Ch. 21"), since, forsooth, the former sum was too paltry to be given by such a monarch as David for the future site of the Temple. Fire also is said to have fallen from heaven and kindled David's sacrifice, and also Solomon's, at the dedication of the Temple (i Ch. 212" 2 Ch. 7'). This is a mark of the later wonder-seeking theology. The high place at Gibeon where Solomon sacrificed is explained as the seat of the brazen altar and the tabernacle (2 Ch. i'-'), particulars unexpressed in the parallel narrative in i K. (3^). Thus the act of Solomon is kept within the priestly law. The gift of cities by Solomon to Hiram, King of Tyre (i K. 9'° ° ), becomes, to preserve, doubtless, the in- tegrity of the Holy Land, the reverse — a gift of cities by Hiram to Solomon (2 Ch. 8' ' ). The removal of Pharaoh's daughter from the city of David into her house newly built by Solomon (i K. 9") is motived because the place in proximity to the ark must be kept holy (2 Ch. 8"). These striking glosses and changes by no means exhaust the number made by the Chronicler. Wherever he makes use of the earlier canonical narratives they are present in a greater or less degree. Thus the entire history of the kingdom of Judah has suflfered reconstruction, and it is clear that the Books of Chronicles are a tendency writing of little historical value. The picture which they give of the past is far less accurate or trustworthy than that of the earlier Biblical writings; indeed, it is a distorted picture in the in- terest of the later institutions of post-exilic Judaism; and the main historical value of these books consists in their reflection of the notions of that period. Yet at the same time some ancient facts, having trickled down through oral or written tradition, are doubt- less preserved in the amplifications and embellishments of the Chronicler, These we shall have occasion to point out in our PLAN, PURPOSE, AND HISTORICAL VALUE 15 commentary. They are few indeed compared with the products of the imagination, and must be sifted like kernels of wheat from a mass of chaff (c/. S. A. Cooke, Notes on OT. History, p. 67). The following new material, exclusive of names and notices in the genealogical section, i Ch. 1-9, has been presented by Kittel, by the use of heavy type, in his commentary as historical: (i) the additions to the list of David's heroes (i Ch. ii"b-n); (2) the family of Rehoboam (2 Ch. ii's-"); (3) the name of the father of the mother of Abijah (2 Ch. 132); (4) the number of Abijah's wives and children (2 Ch. 13"); (s) the teaching delegation sent by Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 17'-'); (6) details of the military might and building operations of Uzziah (2 Ch. 26»-»» J-I2. 14 (.)j (7) the same of Jotham (2 Ch. 27'b-6; v. ' in part only); (8) the invasion of the Edomites and Philistines in the reign of Ahaz (2 Ch. 28'"); (9) the conduit built by Hezekiah (2 Ch. 32'<">); (10) the place of Hezekiah's grave (2 Ch. 3233b); (n) the enlargement of the wall of Jerusalem by Manasseh (2 Ch. 33"). Of these (4) and (5) are probably of no historic worth; others are doubtful; some may be ac- cepted, especially (6)-(ii). (See the commentary in locis.) Genuine history has also been found in these additions of the Chronicler: (i) Abijah's victory (2 Ch. 13'-"); (2) Asa's victory (2 Ch. 148-" <«-»)); (3) Jehoshaphat's victory (2 Ch. 20"-"); (4) Uzziah's resistance to the priests (2 Ch. 26"-"); and (5) the repentance of Manasseh (2 Ch. 33"-'0- The ground urged for this, as far as the victories are concerned, is that the continued existence of the little kingdom of Judah for three hundred and fifty years with enemies on the south and revolted Israel on the north is hardly to be explained except on the hypothesis of some such suc- cesses as the Chronicler describes (2 Ch. 13'^- i48ff- ('S- ' 20'" ), gained by Judah (Ba. pp. xxx-xxxiii). This is a plausible but a specious argument. The kingdom of Judah was too poor a country to be very attractive to its neighbours or to entice distant hordes to make such invasions. Raids may have been made into Judah and some reminiscences of these may be behind these stories (see commentary), but nothing further can be aflBrmed. The motive for (4) and (5) is so strong that no historical prob- ability on the ground of their record can be asserted. A change of religious policy by Manasseh in his old age, considering how his reign is viewed by the prophets, is utterly unlikely. Winckler, in connection with his theory of the contact of the kingdoms of northern Arabia with Israel, has found historical reminiscences in the Chronicler's allusions to the Meunim (2 Ch. 26' I Ch. 4" 2 Ch. 20' (g), the Arabians (2 Ch. ly" 21" 14"), and the Hagrites (i Ch. s'"- "■ "). The basis for this inference is the claim that the chronology of the appearance of these people in Ch. is correct. They are mentioned just when historically they might be expected {Musri, Meluhha, Ma'in, MVAG. 1898, pp. 42 /.; KAT.' pp. 142/., l6 CHRONICLES 144). On the other hand it is strange that the older and more historical Books of Samuel and Kings contain none of these notices or similar ones, and it is readily credible that these names might have been current in post-exilic times (if not certain that they were), and thus at hand for the Chronicler to introduce as the enemies of Israel (We. Prol. p. 208; Noeldeke, EBi. I. col. 274). § 5. THE RELIGIOUS VALUE. The religious value of Chronicles lies in the emphasis given to the institutional forms of religion. Forms, ceremonies, institu- tions of one sort or another, are necessary for the maintenance of religious life. The Chronicler, it is true, overemphasised their importance and his teachings are vitiated by a false doctrine of divine interference without human endeavour, and a false notion of righteousness consisting largely in the observance of legal forms and ceremonies. Yet in his own time, unless he had been a direct forerunner of Christ, he could not have been expected to give a diiferent message, and in his day his message rendered a most important service. He belonged not only to the same school of writers as the author or authors of the Priestly element of the Pen- tateuch, but was kindred with the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, and especially Malachi. "The course of events since the restora- tion had made the Temple with its high priest and its sacrificial system a centre for the community much more than it had been before, but this very fact had a providential significance in view of the future. It was essential for Israel's preservation that the ceremonial obligations laid upon it should be strictly observed, and that it should hold itself aloof socially from its heathen neigh- bours" (Dr. Minor Prophets, II. in NCB. p. 297). However nar- row the Chronicler's teachings maybe considered and however arti- ficial their products, without the shell of the Judaistic legalism and ecclesiasticism it is difficult to see how the precious truths of divine revelation in Hebrew prophecy could have been preserved. Other- wise amid the encroaching forces of the Persian, Greek, and Ro- man civilisations they would have been dissipated and no place would have been prepared for the appearance of Christ and the growth of Christianity. The work of the Chronicler fostered the SOURCES 17 needed spirit of Jewish exclusiveness in its list of genealogies; it en- hanced Jerusalem as the rallying-point and centre of Jewish life; it favoured the maintenance of a hierarchy and emphasised the out- ward forms of religion in sacrifices and national festivals, but all this contributed largely to the religious solidarity and strength of the people and gave them a tough quality. Through these writings the past also was idealised and glorified as a norm for present activity and future development. Nothing better than the authority of the past could have served in those days to intensify the loyalty and devotion of the ancient Jew. The divine law of retribution and special providence, which the Chronicler taught, was a most powerful factor also for preserving the Jewish Church. It must also never be forgotten that it was under the tutelage of men like the Chronicler that the Maccabees were nour- ished and that the heroic age of Judaism was inaugurated. § 6. SOURCES. A. The source of canonical material. According to the sketch just given the Chronicler supplemented and in a measure revised the history of Israel narrated in the canonical books, es- pecially I and 2 S. and i and 2 K. These then constitute a main source of his work. The following are the parallels between his and the earlier writings. (These parallels include the Chronicler's modifications of the canonical material and hence are not as re- stricted as some Hsts which omit all observations and additions of the Chronicler. For these details see commentary.) I Ch. V-*, Gn. s»-« lo'. " jS-23 " lo'-^- 6-8- 13-18a. 22-29_ " I^*-", " IlI»-28, C/. 175. 25l2-16a. 1-4. 19-26^ ^y. 16"" 21= '■. 254. 6a. 10-14. 20-28. 3I-43_ 2222b-26 j?x. i'-5 and elsewhere. 23-4, " 382-'- 2"- 4612=' Nu. 26" «•. 4612I' Nu. 2621 Ru. 4'8. 2«-8, Jos. 71 I K. 5" (431). 29-", Ru. 419-22 I S. i6«-9 2 S. 2'8 1726. i8 I AND 2 CHRONICLES I Ch . 3'-'. 2 s. 3^' 5> >•-", cf. 13'. " 3.0-.., I and 2 K. " 4", Gn. 46" Ex. 6>5 Nu. 26'= '•. " 4""*'i Jos. 19'-'. " 5'. Gn. 469 Nu. 26S ' . (< 52.. M, cf. 2 K. 15" '• M i7« 18". (( 5"-» (61-3), Ex. 6'6- '«• "• » Nu. 3"- >». . " II'O", " 23'-"- I3I.U, " 6'-". I4I.7. 8-17, " cll-18. W-2S, 15. 16, " 6'=-". 17. " 7- 18, " 8. 19, " 10. 20'-', " 11' 12^-". 20*-', " 2l'S-JS. 21, " 24. J Ch. j6-13 I K. 3*->s. lU-17 " io»-". l'«-2" (2), " rl5-30 (1-1«). 3'-5S « 6, 7"-". 5'-7", " 8. 711 -« " 9.-'. 8, " 9>» ". gl-lJ. U-S8, " io«-l»- M-«». 9"-", " II"-". IO'-II<, " I2'-S<. 125- »• »->• " 14='-". I3I. J. W. M (I4>), " i5>- 5. 7. 8. I4I. I (!. 3)^ 15"-", " i5>'-'«. i6'-« »-'<, " 15"-". iSJ-«, " 22»-». 20"- 21', " 22*'-" <">>. 2li-10. 20 2 K. 8"-". 22«-«. 7-9, " 826-29 9H-28 lo'5-l«. 22'«-23*', " II (11'-"). 2^1-14. M-27^ " 12'-'" (ll='-12'0 I2'«-»<"-") 2C1-4. 11. 17-28 " i4'-'< "-'<>. SOURCES 19 Ch 26«-4. 21-23, 27I-3. 7-9, " 14^'- 22 152-7. " ir33-36. 38_ 281-4. 26. 27, " 162-4. 19. 20. 291. 2, " l82. 3. 321-2., " l8'3-I937. 3221-33, " 20. 33I-IO. 20-25, 34.. 2. 8-32, " 2l'-'- 18-24. " 22, 23I-'. 351. 18-24. 26. 27 36I-I " 23-1-23. 28. 29-34_ 365. 6. 8-12 3622. 23, Ezr. i'-3». 8-19 The simplest explanation of the parallels (and the true one already assumed above and now universally accepted) is the direct quotation or paraphrase of the canonical books by the Chronicler and their modification by him, or, what amounts to the same thing, by a forerunner whose work he copied (a view mentioned below though not accepted). The evidence for this direct use is very clear. It is seen in the verbal agreements which appear in every parallel. (See commentary.) Cor- ruptions in the earlier te.xts are also repeated in the later. Cf. in i Ch. ij?pn lo'o, T\-\'i-2 iii5, 3Dn 1414, 'dSi 1710, -inx 1721, n.-iox ja iSn^nx (''2n) 1816, ny ? 1913, oo'?cn 20'; in 2 Ch., 'ui niDoS and "'Ji3 Sy 4", >i^i 4>7, TvSj; 721. The canonical text is also sometimes so closely followed as to introduce irrelevant expressions. Cf. i Ch. 650 <66) 655b (70b) (but present form possibly due to transcriber, v. in loco) 141 (nij?) 15" 201 (now David was abiding in J.) 20^ (the staff, etc.). The variations also between the two texts show the dependence of one upon the other. Chronicles, as might be expected from its less frequent transcription, in many instances preserves the more original reading {cf. i Ch. i' " 2'^ S^'- 34 jqi- s. 4. 7 HlO. 29 136. 8. 9 f. 147 ;n^S>'3, 12. 16 I7I2 t. 21 187-11. 17 ig9. 18 aO^ 2 Ch. 2l' "8) 4i«). An antiquated term is often replaced by a later one {cf. i Ch. 1012 138 1529 ? 194 2l2. 2. 4). Statements jarring the Chronicler's sense of religious propriety or doing violence to his conception of the course of history were omitted or modified (see § 4, pp. 9-15). Other departures from the text are such as might be expected from one who was not a servile copyist. The Chronicler abridges frequently {cf. I Ch. 11-4. 24-27. 34-42 23-4 2 Ch. i«-i3 31-79. 15-17 71-3 36111), and Occasion- ally introduces words to emphasise an idea or to give clearness, and also pious phrases {cf. i Ch. ii^ 1526 iS^- i^ 2 Ch. 18"). 20 I AND 2 CHRONICLES This direct use, however, was formerly questioned, because the variance between the parallels seemed destructive to the infallible inspiration of the Chronicler. Hence arose the theory (held by many commentators, and represented in its final and most perfect form especially by Keil) that the Chronicler and the writers of the canonical books both used common sources, and that the parallels were independent extracts from common sources, each made from a point of view peculiar to itself (Keil, Intro. § 141). To illustrate this view: In the account of Saul's death (2 S. 31 and I Ch. 10) there is agreement almost word for word until the treatment of the corpse of the King. The writer of i S. says: The Philistines cut off his head, stripped off his armour and put his armour in the house of As- taroth, and then fastened his body to the wall of Bethshean. The Chron- icler says: They took his head and his armour and they put his armour in the house of their gods and fastened his head in the temple of Dagon. The original source of both of these accounts Keil held must have con- tained an account of both head and trunk, which the author of i S. followed as far as the trunk was concerned and the Chronicler as far as the head. Again in comparing 2 Ch. 2 with i K. 5'5-32 ci-is)^ Jn the former we read that when Solomon purposed to build the Temple he sent to Hiram, King of Tyre, and asked for a cunning workman and for timber and hewers of timber, promising much grain and wine and oil in return, while in i K. only timber and cutters of timber are requested and no promise of oil is mentioned. Here again Keil held that these are extracts from a common source, one writer emphasising one particular and the other another. This supposition of Keil (an unnatural one compared with that of direct use and really not worthy of further consideration) breaks down completely if the results of recent scholarship in reference to the sources of the canonical books can at all be trusted, since these sources always appear in Chronicles in the same combinations in which they are found in the canonical books, and never ap]:)arcntly otherwise; i.e., they appear always edited and not in their original form. The names in i Ch. i'-' are grouped as they appear in Gn. lo-"- 22", a combination of three sources, P, J, and R (Dr. Cn.). Gleanings from Gn. 35, 38, 46 representing P, J, and R appear in i Ch. 2. (No one, however, has ever seriously argued that the Chronicler had access to the sources of the Pentateuch, since, forsooth, to Keil and those of his school the Pentateuch had no sources in the modern sense.) SOURCES 21 In I Ch. iS II 2 S. 8 is a combination of three sources. Glosses in 2 S. 5' •'■ 2,V' (Budde, SBOT.) are reproduced in i Ch. ii^ 's. The parallels with 2 S., however, are not favourable for presenting combina- tions because underlying 2 S. is almost entirely a single source. In i and 2 K. it is different, and here, following the analysis of Stade and Schvvally {SBOT.), a number of sources appear combined in nearly every parallel in 2 Ch. In i^-^^ \\ i K. 3^-'5 three; in i"-'' || i K. I026-39 three; in c. 2 || i K. s'^-") "is) two; in 3'-5' || i K. 6, 7'3-5> three; in 5^7'° || i K. 8 three; in g'-^s |1 i K. lo'-'" two; in lo'-ii^ || I K. i2'-2' four; and thus in a similar manner throughout the entire list of parallels. (The analyses of Ki., Kau., Sk., give a similar result.) The Chronicler then used our present canonical books and not their sources for all matter common to both works. He might still, however, have used their sources for material not found in the canoni-cal books, but of this there is not the sHghtest evidence and in form all new material (excluding genealogical matter and the list of David's additional heroes, i Ch. n^'fa-") jg of the compo- sition or style of the Chronicler. B. Sources alleged by the Chronicler. After the manner of the author of i and 2 K., the Chronicler refers to written sources. These are of two classes; first, those with general titles: (a) A Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, for the reigns of Jotham, Josiah, and Jehoiakim (2 Ch. 27^ 35" 36*). (b) A Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, for the reigns of Asa, Amaziah, Ahaz, and Heze- kiah {v. i. (o)) (2 Ch. 16" 25''^ 28^' 32=2). (c) A Book of the Kings of Israel, for genealogies (i Ch. 9') and the reigns of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 2034) (z'. i. (m)) and Manasseh (2 Ch. 2^'''). (d) A Mid- rash of the Book of the Kings, for the reign of Joash (2 Ch. 24"). Secondly, those with specific prophetic titles: (e) The history (lit. words or acts, so also below) of Samuel the seer, (f) The history of Nathan the prophet, (g) The history of Gad the seer. These three are given for the reign of David (i Ch. 29"). (h) The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite. (i) The visions of Iddo the seer. These two and also (f.) are given for the reign of Solomon (2 Ch. 9"). (j) The history of Shemaiah the prophet, (k) The history of Iddo Ihe seer. These two are given for the reign of Rehoboam (2 Ch. i2'5). (1) The Midrash of the prophet Iddo for the reign of Abijah (2 Ch. 13-). (m) A history of the prophet Jehu which 22 I AND 2 CHRONICLES is inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel, for the reign of Je- hoshaphat (v. s. (c)). (n) A writing of Isaiah the prophet, for the reign of Uzziah (2 Ch. 26"). (o) The vision of Isaiah the prophet in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, for the reign of Hezekiah (v. s. (b)). (p)? A history of the seers for particulars concerning Manasseh (2 Ch. ^y). Authorities thus are given for the history of all the kings of Judah except Jehoram, Ahaziah, Amon, Jehoiachin, and Zede- kiah. (Naturally none are given for Athaliah and Jehoahaz.) Also the following works are referred to : (q) A genealogical regis- ter compiled in the day of Jotham and Jeroboam II (i Ch. 5"). (r) The later history of David? (i Ch. 23"). (s) The chronicles (lit. words) of David in which the census taken by Joab was not entered (i Ch. 27=*). (t) A collection of lamentations (2 Ch. 35"). The first three of these works (a) (b) (c) are generally allowed to represent a single work whose full title was. The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, or Judah and Israel, and the title of which in (c) is abbreviated — Israel representing the entire people and not specifically the N. kingdom, since under (c) the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Manasseh are treated. This work, which is cited as an authority for reigns as early as that of Asa and as late as that of Jehoiakim, was clearly a comprehensive one, but not the canonical Books of Kings, because it is cited for matters not in those books — i.e., genealogies (i Ch. 9'), the wars of Jotham (2 Ch. 27') and the prayer of Manasseh (2 Ch. ^y^) and the abominations of Jehoiakim (2 Ch. 36'). Neither was it the sources mentioned in i and 2 K. for the political history of Israel and Judah, since they were two distinct works. It may, however, have been a work dependent upon those sources (Be. p. xl.; Graf, GB. p. 192; Dr. EBi. I. col. 768, LOT.'' p. 532), or since the real historical material derived from this book apart from that in the canonical books is extremely meagre it may have been dependent upon those books, a Midrash or commentary on them (Kucnen, Einl. p. 160). In their earliest form i and 2 K. may have contained fuller information than in their present Massoretic form. A war- rant for this inference lies in the occasional fuller text of (5, which implies an earlier, fuller Heb. text (Bu. Gesch. Altheh. Lit. p. 229). SOURCES Winckler gives the following genesis of Ch.: — Pre-exilic chronicles of Israel and Judah. Exilic, lost book of Kings. Midrash. Legends of Prophets. Midrash. 23 Chronicles. Musri, Meluhha, Main, MVAG. 1898, p. 42. In reality no one can decide the exact basis of any unknown work. Many and extensive volumes may lie before an author whose work is restricted and meagre. Whether the Midrash (e) was the same as this Book of Kings is uncertain. The peculiar title would suggest a distinct work (so Be., Zoe., Oe., Ki.); on the other hand it is not apparent why if, as its title shows, it was a comprehensive work dealing with the kings generally, it should not be the same work as the one just mentioned (so Ew. Hist. i. p. 187; We. Prol. p. 227; Francis Brown, DB. I. P..395; Dr. (the probability) EBi. I. col. 768). The word Midrash (smc 2 Ch. 13" 24=" f from ttm to seek) in Rabbinic literature denotes an exposition, an exegesis. This frequently took the form of stories (such as those of Judith, Tobit, etc.), and the probability is that the Midrash of Kings was a reconstructed history of Israel embellished with marvellous tales of divine interposition and prophetic activity, such as have been reproduced in Ch. The prophetic writings (e) to (p) are not in all probability distinct works, but are illustrations of the usual Jewish manner of citing sections of comprehensive works. As in the NT. we read, "Have ye not read in the Book of Moses in the place concerning the Bush" (Mk. 1226), oj- more aptly, "Know ye not what the scripture saith in Elijah" (Rom. ii^). The "histories" of Nathan, Gad, and the others are then the sections of which Nathan, Gad, etc., were the catchwords in the Book of Kings, i.e., the Midrash with the possible exception of (n) where the reference is probably to the Book of Isaiah (cc. 36-39), and also (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i), not unlikely refer to sections of our canonical books {v. commentary). This is proved l&rst because the history of the prophet Jehu (m) 24 I AND 2 CHRONICLES and the vision of Isaiah (o) are expressly mentioned as in this Book of Kings, and secondly because the Chronicler never cites the au- thority of the Book of Kings and the history of a prophet for any one reign except where they are coupled together. The main sources used by the Chronicler are then, in all likelihood, only two, the canonical books and this Midrashic History of Israel, and if this latter was dependent upon the canonical books then in reality he had no really historical material apart from those books in their original form (v. s.). Whether the Midrashic history contained all his extra-canonical genealogical material, or whether he gath- ered some from elsewhere through written or oral sources, it is im- possible to determine. It is also possible that the Chronicler has cited sources simply to produce the impression that he is writing with authority, and that their titles are mere literary adornments suggested by those in the Book of Kings. This is essentially the view of Torrey, who, speaking of the comprehensive work so generally held to have been used by the Chron- icler, says, "It is time that scholars were done with this phantom ' source,' of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external evidence is limited to the Chronicler's transparent parading of 'authorities'; while the evidence against it is overwhelming" {AJSL. XXV. p. 195). The uniformity of the Chronicler's non-canon- ical material certainly supports this view, yet at the same time it is also plausible that the Ciironicler may have had before him one or more sources from which he derived subject-matter which he freely composed in his own way. Certainly some of the now historical rem- iniscences preserved in Chronicles were, in all probability, derived from written sources. Eliminating the canonical quotations, the remainder of Chroni- cles is so marked and homogeneous in style that it has been usually (and properly) treated as the work of a single author, i.e., the Chronicler. (Thus \Vc. Prol. p. 227; Dr. EBi. I. Art. Chronicles; and especially Torrey, AJSL. xxv. Nos. 2, 3, 1909.) In recent years, however, this remainder has been analysed into sources. This ])rcsentation has such scholarly support that it is worthy of statement, and throughout our commentary we give, with criticism, its conclusions. In an article published in iSqg (in Z.XW.) Riuhlor, a German scholar, argued that our jircsent i and 2 Ch. arc a revised edition of a work that SOURCES 25 originally made no distinction between the priests and the Levites. This distinction he held was introduced later by the Chronicler, who magnified the position of the Levites and brought in the Levitical musi- cians. Under the influence apparently of Biichler's investigations, Benzinger, in his commentary (appearing in 1901), presented also the view that the Chronicler was much more an editor and mere compiler than in any way an independent writer. This result was reached through a study of the parallels with i and 2 S. and i and 2 K. Some of these parallels agree essentially verbally with their source, others show a considerable departure from the canonical text. These latter are held to come not from the hand of the Chronicler but from a fore- runner whose work he copied; and as the Chronicler was only in the main a mere copyist in his treatment of the canonical writings, so like- wise, it was inferred, must he have been in his treatment of his other source or sources. Hence his work contains almost no original composi- tion beyond inserted notices respecting Levites and musicians. (Movers had presented in 1833 essentially this view, U72tersHchu)!ge!i,pp. 163^.) Thus in i Ch. 10-29 only cc. 23-27 are from the Chronicler. Of the re- mainder, cc. 10, II, 13, 14, 17-19 are from S. Chapter 12 reveals no special interest in anything Levitical; and c. 15 records six Levitical families instead of the usual three and modest numbers, hence, except a paragraph concerning Levitical singers (vv. '^"-'), both of these chap- ters are not from the Chronicler; c. 12 coming from uncertain sources and c. 15 from the work of a forerunner. Chapter 21 contains, with the absence of a sufficient theological motive, too great departures from 2 S. to have been written by the Chronicler; hence it is from another work, which appears continued in cc. 22, 28, 29. This work is ad- mitted to be of the same vein and spirit of the Chronicler, showing an interest in the religious cultus alleged to have been developed by David, but is held to differ from the Chronicler's work: (i) in its more modest presentation of contributions for the Temple, 29'-^ (to be compared with 22'^-'^ a paragraph owing to the great numbers assigned to the Chron- icler); (2) in the Deuteronomic colouring and in the lack of interest in P, since no objection is raised to David's sacrifice at the threshing-floor of Oman. In 2 Ch. 1-9, which presents a history of Solomon's reign, following, with the single exception of a paragraph on Solomon's chariots and horses, the order of i K., the departures from the canonical text (2 Ch. i>8-2" (2I")) are supposed to be too great to have come from the Chronicler, since the Tyrian artist is Huram-Abi, instead of Hiram (2 Ch. 2>2 (13) (see commentary), i K. 7'3), with his mother a Danite instead of a widow from NaphtaH (2 Ch. 2"("' i K. 7'^), and he is a worker not simply in metals but weaving, etc., and the place Japho, unnamed in i K., is mentioned. Wanting also are the numbers of the workmen given in 26 I AND 2 CHRONICLES I K. 5"'- <"' ' and the embassy from Hiram to Solomon (i K. 5'). The Deuteronomic reason for building the Temple, i.e., a dwelling-place, is changed also into a priestly one, i.e., a place of worship (2 Ch. 2' '< > 1 K. 5" <"). In the description of the Temple and its furniture, owing again to the variations from the account given in i K., the Chronicler is held to have had another source before him, and in part is this held also of the dedication. The remainder of 2 Ch. (cc. 10-36) is assigned by Benzinger to different sources, according to the character of the material. The Chronicler throughout is a copyist. He only composes introductory and concluding sentences and notices of the Levites. Kittel, in his commentary (1902), accepts the theory of Benzinger and builds largely upon his conclusions. He endeavours also to unify the various sources, and distinguishes (with a variety of type and letters on the margin) the work of the Chronicler and his predecessors. He warns one, however, against regarding the conclusions thus e.xpressed as final. He points out, by his mechanical devices: (i) the material derived from the canonical books; (2) material next in age of various sort and origin, yet mostly of historical value (v. s. p. 15); (3) material from a Levitical writer, a forerunner of the Chronicler, who wrote between 500 and 400 B.C.; (4) Midrash material of two sorts (M and M-), taken in all likelihood from the cited sources of the Chronicler; and finally (5) material of a period later than the Chronicler, added by another Levite. This theory of the composition of Chronicles, as we have said, rests on the assumption that the Chronicler was essentially a mere copyist; but even if at times he follows most closely his canonical sources there is no reason why at other times he should not have been as free and original as the Levite who is introduced as his forerunner. Exact con- sistency is not necessary to the Oriental mind, and especially to a writer like the Chronicler. A Deuteronomic colouring, along with a colouring of the Priests' Code, implies no diversity of authorship, since every Jew would be naturally versed in Deuteronomy as a people's book, one probably read and studied far more by every pious Jew than the Priests' Code, even by a Levite. Neither also, with a variety of traditions before him, is there any reason why the same writer might not differently at times enumerate Levitical families or statistics concerning the Temple. The unity of style and composition, so individual and marked, already mentioned, is against this patchwork theory of composition, although its possibility in view of our limited knowledge cannot be denied. PECULIARITIES OF DICTION 27 § 7. PECULIARITIES OF DICTION. In common with other late books of the OT., Ch. (including Ezr.-Ne.) exhibits many peculiarities of phraseology and syntax. Many old words are made to do service in new ways either rare or unknown in the older language, and new words, the product of the late religious organisation and view-point, appear frequently. Also the incoming Aramaic, already a well-knowTi language, had its influence on the Hebrew of the Chronicler, as is shown both by the presence of Aramaic loan-words and by many common Ara- maic constructions. The many peculiarities of sjmtax, which are against the common usage of the earlier writers, indicate that the compiler and author, who was bilingual, either used Hebrew with some difficulty or that the language itself was decadent in his day. In addition to its common late characteristics, this group of writ- ings has marked peculiarities of style and vocabulary. Words and phrases not found at all elsewhere are met frequently both in pas- sages from older sources which have been worked over and, par- ticularly, in additions bearing the certain marks of the compiler. No OT. writer reveals himself more certainly. The reader feels almost instinctively when he passes from an excerpt from an older source to a paragraph by the compiler himself. Sentences are often awkward and unnecessarily involved. The author's pet phrases are introduced without stint and almost without fail on every possible opportunity. No doubt many of the marks of slovenly and careless composition which are so common are due to copyists' errors (see § 8 Text), but so many of them are certainly original that the compiler cannot be vindicated as a careful com- poser. Probably not a few errors of his text which have been ascribed to copyists were simply due to his own carelessness when copying from his sources. The following list contains the more marked peculiarities of the Chronicler's writings, including new words and phrases, old ones with a new or unusual sense, and s\Titactical usages peculiar to him, and also all of these found frequently in other late books as well as occasionally in earlier writings, but which are particular favourites with the Chronicler, hence characteristic of his style. For con- 28 I AND 2 CHRONICLES vcnicnce those found only in Ch.-Ezr.-Xc. are marked with an asterisk (*). It should be borne in mind, however, that words or expressions marked rare or peculiar may have been common usage in the Chronicler's day, this statement being due merely to our meagre supply of literature of that period. 1. Sax howbeil, but, 2 Ch. i* 19' t,^^'' Ezr. 10", also Dn. 10" -' f. (In older Heb. with an asseverative force, verily, 0/ a truth Gn. 42" 2 S. 145 I K. I*' 2 K. 4'< and with slight adversative force, nay, but Gn. i7'9 (P) to 2. r-ip.N letter, 2 Ch. 30'- « Ne. 2'- » ' 6'- "• ", also Est. 9=* " f. 3. ^',ri!< possession, i Ch. 7" 92 2 Ch. ii'< 31' Ne. 11' and often in Ez. and P. 4. ncN promise or command, sq inf., i Ch. 21" 27-' 2 Ch. i" 14' 21^ 2921. 27. 30 ^ii. u ^j'l Ne. 9'S also 2 S. 24" 2 K. 8" Dn. Est. and elsewhere. 5' V,^.!^ * purple, 2 Ch. 2« f (a late form of ]'^p.>'), cf. Aram. H3iJ"<.n Dn. 5'- '6 29. 6. nis-jN /amfj, designating districts of Israel's territory i Ch. 13' 2 Ch. II-' 155 cf. Gn. 26'- ', including Israel's territory Ezr. 3' (text dub.) 9'- 2- " Ne. lo^'; in any sense pi. is almost wholly late I Ch. i4'7 22* 29'" 2 Ch. 9" 12^ 13' 155 1710 20=' 32" " '' 34" Ezr. 9' Ne. g^" 10", v. No. 91. 7. ncu'N wrong-doing, guiltiness, i Ch. 21' 2 Ch. 24" 2S"'- "■ "■ " 3^^ Ezr. 9^- '• "■ " 10' 0 " i, infreq. elsewhere. 8. "^i^a Niph. separate oneself (reflex, of Hiph.), i Ch. 12' Ezr. 6=' 9' iQii. i« Ne. 92 10=9, also Nu. 16=' (P) t; be separated * 1 Ch. 23" Ezr. 108 t- 9. yyy, V3 byssus, i Ch. 421 15=7 2 Ch. 2" 3>* 512, also Est. i« 8" and Ez. 27" (where Cor. strikes out with (S) f- ID. ni3 spoil, booty, 2 Ch. 14" 25" 28" Ezr. 9' Ne. 3", also Dn. 11=' m Est. 9'»- '*• '« t- 11. ij) p33 * skilled, skilled (in), 1 Ch. 15- 25'- » 2j'- 2 Ch. 26* 34'=! (kindred meanings mostly late). 12. ."in'3 castle, palace; of Temple, i Ch. 29'- " f; of fortress near Temple, Ne. 2" 72 f ; Shushan the palace, Ne. i' Est. 12 ' 2' » ' 3" 8'< 98- " '2 Dn. 82 f. 13. n'":">/3 * fortresses, 2 Ch. i7'2 27' f- 14. n^N ro fathers' houses, families, clans, 1 Ch. 4" + 21 t. Ch. Ezr. 2" 10" Ne. 7" 10", also often in P. 15. D'nSsn n>3 house of God 1 Ch. 6" 9'' " ^ + 51 1. in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., also of sanctuary at Shiloh Ju. 18". 16. 0'-in3, p^ — , * chosen, 1 Ch. 7" 922 i6<' Ne. 5" |. PECULIARITIES OF DICTION 29 17. inj troop, of divisions of the army i Ch. 7^ 2 Ch. 25' '"■ " 26", also Jb. 2925 Mi. 4i<. 18. noiJ * body, corpse, i Ch. lo'^ f (late, cf. NH. and Aram.). 19. -\i)i * treasury, i Ch. 28" also 2820 (restored text) f {cf. NH.; a loan-word from or through Persian). 20. KnJC common-land, suburbs, i Ch. 5I6 6" + 40 t. i Ch. 6, 13^ 2 Ch. ii'* 31", also in Ez. and often in P. 21. inT Niph. hasten one's self, hurry, 2 Ch. 262", also Est. 6'^ |, Qal 'Est. 3«8» t (NH. id.). 22. D^Jicrn * drachmcp, Ezr. 2" = Ne. 7'° Ne. 7"- '' fl O'J.i"'."!!:*.,* i Ch. 29^ Ezr. 827 -j-. 23. ni,T« chT seefe Yahweh in prayer and worship, i Ch. 16" (=Ps. 105O 28' 2 Ch. 1214 143 6 1512 1612 229 265; dmSnO-i) 'i, 2 Ch. 193 26* 3o'9; mniS 'i I Ch. 22" 2 Ch. 15" 20' Ezr. 62'; dtiSnV n 2 Ch. i7< 312' 34' Ezr. 42. 24. l^^ip * commentary, exposition, 2 Ch. 13^2 24^' f. 25» '^'^P n'lin holy adornment, only 2 Ch. 20=' in prose, elsewhere in poetry i Ch. 1629 = Ps. 96' Ps. 29= t- 26. Ti'n * how, I Ch. i3'2, also Dn. iqI' f (an Aram. form). 27. nini(S) SSn * praise Yahweh, of technical Levitical function, i Ch. 16* 5« 235- 30 25' 2 Ch. 5"- " 20" 2g3« 3021 Ezr. 3"'- "■ " Ne. 5", cf. I Ch. 29'3 2 Ch. 2021 t; ^^^ * abs. i Ch. 23= 2 Ch. 7« 8'* 2313 2930 _5i2 Ne. 122'' -j-^ ^;. No. 47. 28. fcn ^rga/ number, i Ch. 29'" 2 Ch. ii^' 311", also Je. 49" -j-; multitude, 2 Ch. 1123 (corrupt v. in loco) 13' 14"' 202- 12. 15. 24 32^ also Dn. ii'" "• i'- '2- is and freq. in Ez., but only excep- tionally in early prose. 29. V. kind, 2 Ch. i6», also Ps. 14413- " f (also in B. Aram. Dn. 36- '• 10. 15 +■)_ 30. n:r * Hiph. rejects (= earlier Qal), i Ch. 28' 2 Ch. ii" 29I' f. 31. in be enraged 2 Ch. 261'- " t (weaker in earlier usage). 32. Pl?iD refined, i Ch. 28' « 29^ also Is. 25^ Ps. 12' t- 33 • ""^J * come out, appear, of leprosy, 2 Ch. 261 ' f. 34. rrnann * binders, joints, i Ch. 223 2 Ch. 34'! f- 35- ^\T} * W' ^ Ch. 1 62' Ne. 81", Ezr. 6" (Aram.) f (an Aram. word). 36. r^h month numbered not named, i Ch. 1215 272- 3. t. b. 7. s. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 2 Ch. 23 4- 12 t. 2 Ch., Ezr. 3' + 10 t. Ezr., Ne. 7^2 82- H, also I K. 1232. 33 Je. i3 Ez. and oft. in P. 37. nrn seer, 1 Ch. 21' (= 2 S. 2411) 2929 2 Ch. 929 i2'5 192 2925 33I8. la^ also 2 K. 1713 Is. 29'» 3019 (2816 cf BDB.) Mi. 3' Am. 712, and applied to singers * 1 Ch. 25^ 2 Ch. 2939 35'^ f. 38. prnpn strengthen omself, 2 Ch. i' i2'3 1321 158 (= take courage) 17' 2i< 23' 25" 276 Ezr. 72' (= gain strength, also i S. 30' 2 S. 30 I AND 2 CHRONICLES 3« I K. 20" Dn. 10" (= gain strength) f; sq. ^^p" ivUhstand, 2 Ch. 13'- « t; 3? sq- ^old strongly with, i Ch. ii'» 2 Ch. i6» also Dn. 10=' t- (Use in earlier books, put forth strength, use one's strength.) 39' ^Cin strength, of royal power, 2 Ch. 12' 26'«, also Dn. 11' f. 40. N'^n * be sick, 2 Ch. i6'2 f (usually nSn). 41. D^.'^ns * sickness, sufferings, 2 Ch. 242s f. 42. npSnc * division, course, technical term of organisation of priests and Levitcs, i Ch. 23' 24' 26'- "s- i» 27'- '• '• '■ <• *■ <■ »• •• '• •■ 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. n. 16 28'- "• 2' 2 Ch. "5" 8'^- '* 2^' ^i'- '■ "• "■ " 35«- to Ezr. 6" (Aram.) Ne. ii" f- 43" '!?■?'!' * ^ooe/, as sacred. instrument for use by priests only, i Ch. 1^8 1524. 28 i66- « 2 Ch. 5'2- " i3'2- '< 2o2» 29M- "• " Ezr. 3"' Ne. i2'5- '?^ n3''Dn >nSN"i^3 according to the good hand of my God upon me, Ne. 2« Ezr. 7' 8" cf. Ne. 2'"; + nin^, Ezr. 7"; om. naion, Ezr. 76. 46. nij Hiph. praise, of ritual worship, i Ch. i6<- '■ «• '* ^^ <' 23" 253 2913 2 Ch. 5" 7'- « 20" 312 Ezr. 3" Ne. 11" 12" ", also freq. in Ps. and rare in earlier wTitings v. No. 47; Hithp. give thanks, in ritual worship, 2 Ch. 30" f J confess Ezr. 10' Ne. i« 9=- ', also in P, H, and Dn. 47. SSni nmn thank and praise, i Ch. i6« 23" 25' 2 Ch. 5'» 31' Ezr. 3" Ne. 122* cf. i Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 7«, v. Nos. 46, 27. 48. D113 ai'' * day by day (= earlier o^'' o^^), i Ch. 1 2- 2 Ch. 8" 24" 30" Ezr. 3<- *■ 69 (Aram.) Ne. 8" f- 49- ^Dl'?^ * be enrolled by genealogy, i Ch. 4" 5'- '■ " 7'- '• »• *' 9'- »* 2 Ch. 12" 3i'«- "• "■ " Ezr. 2«2 = Ne. 7" Ezr. 8'- » Ne. 7' f- B""! genealogy, Ne. 7' f- 50. nnSin generations, i Ch. i" 5' "]■■ *■ » 8=' 9' »• 26", also Ru. 4" and freq. in P. 51. jaj * Hiph. use the right hand, i Ch. 12' f. 52. tv^ * fl^cff, decrepit, 2 Ch. 36" f i^f- r 17' + 33 t. Ch., and Ezr. 3'; esp. with a|r set the fieart, 1 Ch. 29" 2 Ch. i2'< 19' 20" 30" Ezr. 7">. PECULIARITIES OF DICTION 31 55. 0:2 gather, Qal i Ch. 22' Ne. i2«< Ps. 33' Est. 4'« Ec. 2^ =6 35 ■]-. 56. PJ3 Niph. be humbled, humble oneself, i Ch. 20^ 2 Ch. 7'^ i25- '• '• 12 13I8 30" 32^6 33I2. 19. 23. 23 3^27. 27 ^g'^ t, alsO Lv. 26^1 (H) I S. 713 etc.; Hiph. humble, subdue, i Ch. 17'" iS' (= 2 S. 8>) 2 Ch. 2818, also Ju. 423 Dt. 93 Is. 255 Jb. 4012 Ps. 81" io7'2 f- 57. n^ijD * bowl, I Ch. 28'7. n- n- 17. n. u Ezr. ii"- "> 8" f- 58. 'r'anps * bemantled, i Ch. 152? f (c/. B. Aram, n';'^-); Dn. 321). 59. S^pio * crimson, carmine, 2 Ch. 2«- '^ 3", possibly also Ct. 7^ for *"?■??» t (S' Persian loan-word). 60. 303 writing, i Ch. 281' 2 Ch. 21" 35* Ezr. 2«2 = Ne. 7" Ezr. 4', also Ez. 139 Dn. lo^' Est. i^s 312- » 4' S'- »• '■ " 927 t- 61. naiPO'I' Dn*? of rox£^5 of shew-bread only, i Ch. 9^2 232= Ne. io'< f; 'en \rhv I Ch. 28'6 2 Ch. 29'8 f; '^7 nDiya 2 Ch. 13" t; ^>nn'^ 2 Ch. 2' t; '^^ Lv. 246- ' (P) f- (Earlier form was Dijsn anl:.) 62. ajS * Hiph. je5/, 2 Ch. 3618 f (c/. NH. Hiph. ii., © and & Ethpa. i(i.). 63. J)?*? Hiph. mock, deride, always in bad sense, 2 Ch. 30'" Ne. 2'' 3'', ' also Jb. 2i3 Ps. 228 Pr. 18' (for M y'-JPN c/. BDB.) f (c/. NH. jJ.). 64. "I'cSn * scholar, i Ch. 25* t (late and NH.). 65. n^'^S chamber, cell, of the rooms of the Temple, i Ch. 928- 33 2328 2812 2 Ch. 3111 Ezr. 829 iqs Ne. lo's. 39. 40 1^4. 6. s. 9 x^ also oft. in Ez.; of room at high place i S. 9=2 and i'^ (g (accepted as original We., Dr., Klo., Bu.) f- The word is used in the sense of store-rootn only in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. Cf. J^puv, No. 77. 66. T nSd consecrate, i Ch. 29^ 2 Ch. 13' 16^3 29", also Ez. 4326 Ex. 28" 299- 29- ". 35 3229 Lv. 8" 16" 21' Nu. 33 (all P), and Ju. 175- 12 I K. 13". 67. moSp kingdom, sovereign power, i Ch. ii'" + 27 t. Ch., Ezr. i' 45. «. 6 yi gi Ne. 935 1222, also 26 t. Est., 16 t. Dn., Ex. 4^*, 5 t. Ps., 3 t. Je., and elsewhere. (In earlier writings usually •"i3'^pn or njiSc.) 68. Sjp commit a trespass, i Ch. 2^ 525 iqI' 2 Ch. 122 26i6- »» 2819. 22 29' 30' 36>* Ezr. io2- 1" Ne. i* 132^, also freq. in Ez. and P; Sy_p trespass, i Ch. 9' lo'^ 2 Ch. 2819 2919 3310 3614 gzr. 92- * io«, also Dn. 9' Jb. 213^ and freq. in Ez. and P. 69. KSD Niph. be present, i Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 5" 2929 3021 311 3432. 33 357. 17. 18 Ezr. 825, also Est. i' 4'* and Gn. 1915 (J) i S. 1315. le 2i< f- 70. 3jjjn'< offer free-will-offerings,* 1 Ch. 295- s- 9. 9. 14. 17. :? Ezr. i« 268 36 -j-j q^e;' oneself, volunteer, 2 Ch. 171^ Ne. 112, also Ju. js. 9 -j-. (Cf same in B. Aram. Ezr. 7'3. ". le. le •]-,) 71. pj sheath, i Ch. 2127, also Dn. 715 (Aram.) f (NH. ic/.; a Persian loan-word). 32 I AND 2 CHRONICLES 72. ipn nan /?an';' Dn> jnj ^n-e /Ae/r pledge to send away, Ezr. 10"; *? 3.'7 irjj 5e< //i« /icar/ to do a thing, i Ch. 22" 2 Ch. 11", also Dn. 10" Ec. I''- '" 7=' 89- 16 j-. 79. 3'rPJ * Nethinim, i Ch. 9= Ezr. 2"- " '» = Ne. 7"- «» '* Ezr. 77. 21 (Aram.) g"- 20. 20 J^g, ^S6. 31 iqH ii3. 21 -j-^ 80. Tcp * enumeration, census, 2 Ch. 2'^ f. 81. n^oj' service of God, i Ch. 6" 3' 9" i^- =8 2t,"-*- =«■ 2»- 28. 32 24'- " 251. 1. 6 268 28'3- 13 M u. 15. 20. 21. 21 29' 2 Ch. S'< 12* 24'2 29M 31-- "• =' 35^- '"• "■ ■' Ne. io33 J, also oft. in Ez. and P. 82. S\"5 T'3"n>' proclaim, 2 Ch. 30* 36-2 = Ezr. i", Ezr. 10" Ne. 8", also Ex. 366 (?) t. 83. "»'!7 * help, I Ch. 123' 39 -j- (text dub., cf. textual notes; if correct Aram, loan-word). 84. ■*•>; help of divine assistance, i Ch. 12" i52« 2 Ch. 14"' "> iS^' 25* 26' 32', also freq. in ?s., less freq. in earlier books; Niph. i Ch. 520 2 Ch. 26". 85. irVp mxt to (in a series), 2 Ch. i7'5 i* "s 31I6 Ne. 32 2 + 13 t. Ne. 3, 13", esp. late. 86. il-Sj, ''^''-Sj; according to the guidance of, i Ch. 252 2 3. «. « 2 Ch. 231S 26" 292' Ezr. 3'o, also Je. 5" t,;^^^. 87. ^'7?'?'^ * exceedingly, i Ch. 14= 22^ 23" 29'- 2s 2 Ch. i' i6'2 1712 20" 268 t- 88. 10? rise (for earlier ai,-"), i Ch. 20' 21' 2 Ch. 202^ Ezr. 2" = Ne. 7" Ne. 8^, also Est. 4" and freq. in Dn. 89. "1'"?^? appoint, institute, establish (in earlier books station), i Ch. 6i« 1516. 17 i6i7 (= Ps. 10510) i7i< 222 2 Ch. 8'* 9» 11" « i9»- » 20" 24" {cf. Ezr. 2") 25s- '< 3o» 312 338 352 Ezr. 3' Ne. 4* 6' 7* 10" 12" 13"- '», alsoDn. 11" " '\ wa^e a 5/a«Dj; * peoples of the lands, 2 Ch. 13' 32"- i' ('Nn'i>j) Ezr. 33 9'- 2- " Ne. g^° 10", v. No. 6. 92. ni -\xj; possess power, be able, i Ch. 29'^ 2 Ch. 2° 1321' 22', also Dn. iqS- 16 116 I; om. r\2 2 Ch. 14'" 20" f. 93. jnjJS u'es<, I Ch. 728 i2'6 26'«- 18- 30 2 Ch. 323" ;iT,^^, also Is. 43^ 45' 5919 Dn. 8^ Ps. 75' 10312 1073 and Ju. 2033 (corrected text, cf. Moore, Ju.) f- 94. 11331 nuT r/c/z€5 a«i honour, i Ch. 2912- 2s 2 Ch. i'- '2 175 jg' 322', also I K. 313, Pr. 3i« S's Ec. 6^ f. 95. P''i?V * ancient, i Ch. 422 f (an Aramaism, cf. Dn. 7^ '3- 22). 96. "^^ mn^ inp n^n the fear of Yahweh came upon, 2 Ch. i4'3 17"' 197 2o2'J (d'h^s nns) f (elsewhere 'Ui Sdj). 97. iBD * set free from duty, i Ch. 933 2 Ch. 23' f. 98. 13-13 * some sort of open portico, i Ch. 26'^ '« f (probably Persian loan-word; cf. cine 2 K. 23"). 99. n>'t:*sp * hip or buttock, i Ch. 19^ (2 S. 10^ nnipipr) f. 100. a:n'rx3 * cymbals, i Ch. 138 is'^ 's- 2* i65- "2 25'- e 2 Ch. 512- n 2925 Ezr. 310 Ne. 122' f. loi. -i^DX he-goat, 2 Ch. 2921 Ezr. 6" (Aram.) 835, also Dn. 8^- ^- » 21 -j-. 102. l^x * need, 2 Ch. 2'* f (Aram. word). 103. ^5r> receive, take, accept, i Ch. 12'' 21" 2 Ch. 29'^ 22 gzr. 83", also Pr. 192" Jb. 2'" '" Est. 4' 923 27 -j- (a common Aram, word, cf. Dn. 26 6' 7'8 t). 104. ni3« ^B'Ni heads of fathers' (houses), i Ch. 7" S^- i"- '3. 28 ^9. 33. 34 1512 239- 24 24''- 31 2621 26. 32 271 2 Ch. i2 198 232 2612 Ezr. I* 2" 312 42- 3 81 io'« Ne. 763- " 813 1113 1212 22. 23^ also Ex. 625 Nu. 3i2« 3228 361- 1 Jos. 141 1951 211 1 (all P) t; the phrase with n''3 expressed i Ch. 515- 2^. 2^ y2. 7. 9. ao gu 24^, also Ex. 61^ Nu. i* 72 17I8 251* Jos. 22^; t'Ni (alone in same sense) i Ch. 5'- '2 73 828 _j_ and (appar. combined with the idea oi first in a series) 11. 19. 20 105. 3^*^ abundantly, i Ch. 438 12" 223- 3. <■ 5. s, i4. 15 292. 21 2 Ch. ii' = 92' (= I K. I027) 2841891- 9 Il23 14H 1^9 168 175 l8l- 2 2025 24'! 24 273 2935 308- 13. 24 -^ji -^2^- 29 Ne. 925, also Zc. I4'<. 106. U1, X13T ten thousand, myriad, i Ch. 29"- ' Ezr. 2«' = Ne. 78' Ezr. 269 Ne. -j'-"- ", also Ps. 681' Dn. 1112 Ho. 812 Jon. 411 f- 107. i^iDi property, goods, i Ch. 2731 281 2 Ch. 2025 2ii^- '^ 31' 322' 35' Ezr. !«■ 6 821 108, also Dn. iii3- 24. 28^ and On. i25 136 31I8 36' 466 Nu. i632 353 (all P), and Gn. 1411 12 is is. 21 i^u -|-. 108. >c'i Hiph. act wickedly, 2 Ch. 2o35 223 Ne. 933, also Jb. 3412 Ps. 1066 Dn. 9* ii32 121" (i s. 14" corruption, cf. Sm. Sam.) f. 109. nVnj nncr great joy, i Ch. 29' 2 Ch. 3026 Ezr. 312- " 622 Ne. 812 12", a common expression of the Chronicler. 34 I AND 2 CHRONICLES no. It? * priftce, chief, ruler, of religious oflBce, i5"- "• " 24* » 2 Ch. 35' cf. I Ch. i5»- » '• 8 »• i» (Is. 43" corrupt), and esp. D'jnsn nr * c/jjc/s of the priests, 2 Ch. 36X Ezr. 8"- " iC f- 111. TiiB'c * 5m^er, i Ch. 618 9" + 11 t. Ch., Ezr. 2" "• '» = Ne. yit. 67. 72 Ezr. 7' io2« Nc. 7' + 12 t. Ne. f- 112. n"f'n-^* * act of slaying, 2 Ch. 30" t- 113. n^u" * Niph. be negligent, 2 Ch. 29" f. 114. nSr weapon, 2 Ch. 23"i 32' Ne. 4"- ", also Jb. 33" 36" Jo. 2' f; sprout Ct. 4". 115. N''>'9p' hec^r me (beginning a speech), i Ch. 28' 2 Ch. 13* 15' 2o2» 28" 29» t; cf. Gn. 23« (hear us), vv.»- "■ "• » (all P). 116. ^^y^y^' * gate-keepers, of Temple, etc., a sacred function, i Ch. 9" + 19 t. Ch., Ezr. 2« '» = Ne. 7« " Ezr. 7' 10" Ne. 7' + 7 t. Ne. (also 2 S. iS** but corrupt for "^y.'^^ and 2 K. 7"'- " but of secular function). Also the following list of syntactical peculiarities appear either exclusively in Ch. (including Ezr.-Ne.) or are frequent else- where only in late books. 117. Sentences are often abbreviated in a peculiar manner, producing an awkward reading; a the subject omitted (where earlier writers would not venture to do so), i Ch. 9"'' 2 Ch. 18' *"•* (i K. 22* otherwise) 19"' 35^'; b expressed without a verb, I Ch. IS"" 2 Ch. iiwb (?) 15' 16^"- ''»• b 21I' 26"t' 28«*> 29* 30' "b. Cf Ew. Syn. § 303 b. 118. The inf. cstr. is often used almost as a subst., i Ch. 7'- '• •• " 9« 23" 2 Ch. 3' 24'* (cf. Ezr. 3") ^^^ Ezr. i" Ne. 12". Cf. Ew. Lehrb. § 236 a. 119. The art. n for the relative (derived from its demonstrative use), I Ch. 2628 298 17 2 Ch. i< (r?.:i?) 29" Ezr. 8=* 10'* '". This use is very doubtful in early writings, viz. in Jos. 10" i S. 9'* {cf. Dr. Notes on Sam.). Cf. Ew. Syn. § 331 fc, also foot-note on p. 209, Koe. iii. § 52, Ges. § 1381. 120. The relative omitted (in prose almost entirely confined to Ch.- Ezr.-Ne.), i Ch. g^*> 12^ is'*'' 29' (but v. in loco) "> 2 Ch. i3» (cf. Je. 5') i4'» (cf. Is. 40") 15" i6« 20« 24" 28' 29" 3o">'-"» 31'"' Ezr. I' « Ne. 8'« 13". Cf Ew. Syn. § 223 b, Ges. § 121. nn in two strange idioms is almost equivalent to the relative what, I Ch. 15" (nj>rN-)2c';') 2 Ch. 30' (';??';') f- See textual notes on these passages. 122. The relative v combined with the prep. 2, 1 Ch. 25* (v. in /«<» 27". PECULIARITIES OF DICTION 35 123. The combination of two plural forms (contrary to better usage), I Ch. 7* ' "• " etc., also No. 91 above. Cf. Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrdge, p. 23. ^ ■, t 124. Words repeated, often strengthened by hj, to express the idea ol all considered distributively, i.e. every, as -i>"i'i -»i"-:', ^""aVi ^r^^^y, -,^1 -,>>', Dv^ Dv, I Ch. 26" 28'^- » 2 Ch. 8'^ 11'^ 19^ 28« 31" 32" 34" 35'^ Ezr. io» Ne. i3«, also Est. i«- =»■ « 2»- '^ 3<- 12. 12. 12. 12. u 43 89- 9- >' !'■ "• " 9"- "■ '^ Ps. 45" 87S i45>'. 125. Subordinate temporal and causal clauses are placed at the beginning of the sentence (where in the earlier language either they were introduced later, or, if placed at the beginning for sake of greater prominence, ■'n>i was prefixed), i Ch. ai'^ 2 Ch. 513 71 127- 12 158 2O20- «. 23 22^ 24'<- 2=b. 25 261»- ''*> 29"- » 311- S 331^ 34" Ezr. 9'- »■ ' lo', also Est. 9'- ^ Dn. S'"- " 10"'. ub. u. .9b ji2. < i2Vb. c/. Dr. A''o/e5 on Sam., on i S. 17". 126. The inf. (with S prefixed) at the end of a sentence, i Ch. i5'«- .9. 21 22^ (S'l.JnS) 255 2 Ch. 5" 22"> 25" (2 K. 14'° otherwise) 3619 end Ezr. 3'2. Also prepositions in usages either new or much more fre- quent than in earlier books. 127. S iy a strengthened form of ij? (in earlier ^\Titings either alone would serve); before a subst. i Ch. 4" 12" ^^ 23" 28' 2 Ch. 1412 i6>2- " 17" 268- « 28' 293" 31"' 36'^ Ezr. 3'' 9* « 10'^ t; before an inf. i Ch. 5' ^3' ^S^" 2 Ch. 24'° 268- '^ 29" 31' 322* (2 K. 20' *: alone) Ezr. lo'S also Jos. 13' Ju. 3' i K. 18" t- 128. S as the sign of the ace. (from Aram, influence) : a with certain verbs (contrary to earlier usage), tin.-; frequently, S^n only in Ch.-Ezr., Pin i Ch. 26" 29'^ i:»? i Ch. 292« Ne. ii^, nin 2 Ch. 32'', also I Ch. i63' i8« 25' 29"- " 2 Ch. 5" 6^^ 17' 24= 34" Ezr. 8'^ b at the end of an enumeration, i Ch. 28' ^ 2 Ch. 2412b 26i*i> 2823; c marking the definite object after an indefinite I Ch. 29' 8 2 Ch. 2'2 23'; d after the sufl&x of a verb (as in Syriac) i Ch. 5^ 23" 2 Ch. 255- i- 28'S cf. Ne. 9=^; e defining the suffix of a noun i Ch. 7' 2 Ch. 3i'«- '« Ezr. 9' io». Cf. Ges. § 117M. 129. S with the inf., expressing tendency, intention, obligation (less freq. in earlier writings), i Ch. 6=^ 9^ 1°'' 22^ 2 Ch. 2« 8" 11^ 192 265 3121 3619 Ne. 8"b; esp. after r^^ or n':' it is not possible {permitted) to, there is no need to, 'S ]^n i Ch. 23^^ 2 Ch. 5" 208 229 3515 Ezr. 9>5, N nS I Ch. 5' is'' 2 Ch. la'^Ezr. 68 (Aram.). Cf Dav. Syn. § 95 b, Ges. § 114^, Dr. TH. §§ 202-206. 36 I AND 2 CHRONICLES 130. ^3';' as regards all, that is all (in adding a summary or a further specification), i Ch. 13' 2 Ch. 512 25s 28" 31" :i^» (so also 2 K. 2i») Ezr. i', also freq. in P. Cf. Ew. ^yw. § 310a. Also*? of " introduction," i Ch. 5' 7' 28'*> »' 29'"' 2 Ch. 7" C? wanting in I K. 9») Ezr. J-". 131. iD^U D>'— la-'':' (S omitted in earlier language, cf. Ex. 5'^), i Ch. 16" 2 Ch. 8'^ 3i'6 f. 132. pnS * witlwiU or 50 //za< «o/, i Ch. 22' 2 Ch. 14'- 20^ 21"' 36" Ezr. 9" t- 133. «'?'? * -without, 2 Ch. 15' ' 3 f . 134. ^?'^^'P * 2 Ch. ii'2 i6« Ne. 5'8 f. 135' ''J;- '^^ concerning, 2 Ch. 32", also Ps. iiq"' (used difTerently in Is. 59" 63') f. 136. 3 of accompaniment (without a verb), i Ch. i5'» =0 s'- 22 i6' 25«'' 2 Ch. 5'2> 76 13'" 35H Ezr. 3>2''. § 8. HEBREW TEXT AND THE VERSIONS. The Hebrew Text.— The text of Chronicles is in fair con- dition, though by no means up to the standard of many of the older Old Testament books. The late date of composition, together with the fact that these books probably were less read, hence less copied, than most of the Jewish Scriptures, would lead us to expect a better text. The many lists of proper names, where the context could not assist the scribe to the true reading, are responsible for a large number of the textual errors, but the narrative portions also are not free from serious corruptions showing that the text must have been handled freely for a considerable time. The late recep- tion of Chronicles into the OT. Canon {cf. Wildeboer, Origin oj the Canon 0/ the OT. p. 152) allows for a considerable period of such freedom. The Hebrew mss. contain few variants and these involve largely only the Massoretic accentuation, and give little aid for restoring the true text. Baer, in his edition of the text {Liber Chronicorum), notes nineteen variations l:)etwccn the oriental (Babylonian) and occidental (Palestinian) texts, only fourteen of which concern the consonantal reading. Of these six are due to the confusion of 1 and ^, three to unimportant omissions of letters, and the remainder are equally insignificant. In seven instances the Qr. of the oriental text calls for the occidental reading. HEBREW TEXT AND THE VERSIONS 37 In the case of those portions of Chronicles which are parallel to the older canonical books the textual critic is particularly fortunate. The text of the sources with their versions may be used in addition to the versions of Chronicles as an aid for restoring the original text of Chronicles, as vice versa Chronicles is often useful for the criti- cism of the text of the older books, frequently preserving the orig- inal reading {v. p. 19). These older books, however, must be used with extreme caution for the purpose of emending the text of Chronicles, since many changes are due to the intention of the Chronicler. The text of the older books was already in a corrupt state when the Chronicler used them as sources. Frequently he made changes in the interest of better sense, doing the best he could with a difficult or corrupt reading, and often he simply incorpo- rated from his source an early corruption. The task of the textual critic of Chronicles is not to restore the original source reading of a given passage, but only to rewrite the text as nearly as possible as it came from the hand of the Chronicler. The failure to observe this principle has often caused confusion. The Greek Versions. — The Greek version of the books of Chronicles (commonly supposed to be the Septuagint rendering of these books) is an extremely literal translation, belonging in this regard in the same category with the Greek of Ezekiel, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. The Massoretic text is followed so closely that there can be no doubt that its translator had our Hebrew recension before him. We are not so well supplied with old Greek mss. as in the case of many Old Testament books, but we possess a complete text of Chronicles in the uncials A (V century), B (IV centur}'), and N (VIII-IX centuries), and for i Ch. 9" to irpcoi to 19" S(IV century) is also available. Numerous cursives (about thirty) dating between the tenth and fifteenth centuries should be added to this list, but how many of these have any independent value has not yet been determined. In addition to this ordinary Greek version, the first book of Esdras, which begins with the translation of the last two chapters of 2 Ch., is an important witness for obtaining the original text of these chapters. This translation is much freer than the received text and has a different Hebrew recension behind it. The book is 38 I AND 2 CHRONICLES preserved in the uncials A, B, and N (except most of last chapter, cj. Holmes and Parsons), but not in X; also in nearly thirty cursives. Before any critical use can be made of these two versions — for they are distinct versions — their respective ages must be deter- mined. That our received text of Ch. is really the translation of Theodotion has been maintained by such scholars as Grotius (1644), Whiston (1722), Pohlmann (1859), ^^^ Sir Henry Howorth (1893, 1901-2), but the evidence has been set forth most convinc- ingly by C. C. Torrey (see AJSL. vol. XXHI. pp. 121 jf., and especially ATC. pp. to ff.). He maintains that i Esd. represents the only extant remains of the real Septuagint of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., and this was later supplanted by the version of Theodotion, whose origin was soon forgotten and which was therefore accepted as the true Septuagint. The argument has generally been that since our Greek version bears the marks of late origin compared with the version preserved in i Esd., and since Theodotion's translation of Daniel supplanted the older translation, it is plausible to sup- pose that the same thing has occurred here and our received text is really the rendering of Theodotion. Torrey, in addition to this, has collected much direct evidence that the received text is Theodotion's, and this he states along the following lines {A TC. pp. 60 ff.). (i) Theodotion's habit of transliterating words of difficult or uncertain meaning, and often without any apparent reason, is one of his most striking characteristics {cf. Field, Hexa- pla, I. pp. xxxix-xlii, also Swete, Introduction, p. 46) and this is also the common practice of the translator of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. Seventy such words are listed and they appear regularly dis- tributed throughout these books. Some of them are identical with transliterations by Theodotion elsewhere. (2) Unusual translations in the Theodotion rendering of Daniel are duplicated in the Chronicler's books. (3) According to the custom of this translator, gentilic names are transliterated exactly instead of being given the Greek adjective ending, though these have often been substituted later in the MSS., especially in L. In view of our meagre supply of extant passages from Theodotion's transla- tion (Daniel being merely a revision of the old Greek), from which HEBREW TEXT AND THE VERSIONS 39 his characteristics must be determined, this evidence is surprisingly strong. Moreover, evidence is not entirely lacking that the Greek ver- sion of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. current before the time of Theodotion and apparently accepted as the Septuagint was not our "canonical" version, but a somewhat free translation of a different Hebrew recension and of which i Esd. formed a part. If our Greek was the accepted Septuagint in the time of Josephus, it is not surprising that he should have culled the story of the three youths from I Esd. (Afit. xi. 3, 2-8 = 1 Esd. 3-4), since this story is wanting else- where, but it is strange, as has frequently been noticed, that he should have quoted in other places from i Esd. in preference to the authoritative Septuagint version. In Ant. xi. i, i. Ku/jo? 6 ^aaiXeix; Xeyei 'ETrei' /ue 6 ^eo9 0 ixe- 12b-I6a jr! l6'''"'- '^ J^S-?*. . (b-I2a jQ2b-Il 20'"'- ^*- "-" 21"- "'• 24.^"'' 2'\^''" '• '<-'^- 2". 27 26'"'"" 42 I AND 2 CHRONICLES 2qs 32"''- "» 33". These excerpts, however, must be compared with more recent editions of the Latin fathers before they can be trusted. In the case of i Esd. we are better off, the Old Latin being preserved in three mss. (Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat. iii, the Madrid MS. E. R. 8, and a Lucca ms., cj. Swete, Introduction, p. 95). This version is of some value for recovering the Syro-Palestinian tra- dition of the Septuagint. The Latin version of Jerome, commonly called the Vulgate, was a new translation made from the standard Hebrew text of the end of the fourth century A.D., and independent of the Septuagint. Its late origin detracts from its critical value for textual purposes. By comparing it with the Theodotion Greek it frequently aids in the removal of corruptions which made their way into the Hebrew text at a comparatively late date. Its chief value, however, lies in the realm of interpretation, where it supplies an early rendering of the consonantal Hebrew text for the most part as it now stands, which is often superior to the modem influenced by Massoretic tradition. The Syriac Versions. — The first Syriac translation of Chron- icles is now a part of the Peshito, but originally Chronicles was not received into the Syriac Canon. Indeed, when the book was sub- sequently translated it did not meet with general acceptance. This Syriac version seems to have been the work of Jews of Edessa. While in most Old Testament books the Peshito follows the He- brew text faithfully and even literally, with here and there extensive influence from the Septuagint, Chronicles stands alone as the trans- lation of a mere Jewish Targum and exhibits all the faults which might be expected from such origin. One of its most striking characteristics is found in the fact that the text has very frequently been conformed to the text of Samuel and Kings. This is even true of extended passages, as where i K. 12"" followed by i K. 14' ■• are substituted for 2 Ch. ii'-i2'^ The substitute has the authority of the best mss. and must be accepted as the original Syriac text, i.e., the original translators had the text of S.-K. before them. Numerous other instances might be cited where the text agrees with S.-K. against Ch. in which we may possess the original Syriac text, but where its testimony is absolutely worthless for the HEBREW TEXT AND THE VERSIONS 43 criticism of the Hebrew text. Since there can be no doubt that either the translators, or perhaps some later copyist, frequently conformed Chronicles to its sources, the Peshito (^) may never be died in support of readings of S.-K. as original in Chronicles. This fact, together with the character of its origin, makes the Peshito text of Chronicles practically worthless for critical pur- poses. For discussion, see Frankel, JPT. 1879, pp. 508/. The Peshito text of Chronicles is available in a number of edi- tions, but all go back to the Paris Polyglot of 1645. The London Polyglot (Walton's), pubhshed shortly after, reproduces the Paris text without change. The first edition was printed from a very poor MS., "Syr. 6" of the Bibliotheque Nationale. Recently W. E. Barnes has published the variant readings of the mss. avail- able to-day, and of the printed editions (An Apparatus Critic us to Chronicles in the Peshitta Version, 1897). Walton's edition cor- rected by this apparatus furnishes a good Peshito text. The Syriac version of Paul of Telia was made in 616-7 a.d., from a Greek ms. ultimately derived from the Septuagint col- umn of Origen's Hexapla. This was first made known to Europe by Andreas Masius, who died in 1573, and he had a ms. which, with other books, contained Chronicles, but this has disappeared. The British Museum possesses a catena (Add. 12,168) contain- ing fragments of Chronicles and the Books of Esdras. The fragments of Chronicles are found on Foil. 57a-6oa (Wm. Wright, Cat. of Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. Part II. p. 905), just published by Gwynn {Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible, 1909, Part II. pp. 5-17). The portions of i Esd. and Ne. were published by Torrey {AJSL. Oct. 1906, pp. 69-74), but the MS. contains nothing of i Esd. i. The Syro-Hexaplar text of I Esd., however, is found elsewhere and has been pub- lished by Lagarde {Libri veteris testamenti apocryphi syriace), hence we have its testimony for the recovery of the original Septuagint text of 2 Ch. 35, 36 (i Esd. i). The Arabic Version.— The Arabic version of Chronicles is available in printed form in the Paris and London Polyglots (v.s.), but is of little or no critical value. It is far removed from the orig- inal Hebrew, and as a translation of the Peshito text (cf. Burkitt, 44 I AND 2 CHRONICLES DB. I. p. 137) simply duplicates the testimony of that uncertain version {v. s.). The Ethiopic Version.— The Books of Chronicles are not extant in the Ethiopic version, which, however, does contain the first Book of Esdras. This is of value for regaining the Egvptian recension of that portion of the Septuagint {v. s.). The Targum. — The Aramaic paraphrase of Chronicles, like the Targums of the other books of the Hagiographa, never had official significance and was a commentary rather than a translation. It was made from our Massoretic text and possesses little critical value. The text was first published by Matthias Friedrich Beck from an Erfurt MS. in 1680 and 1683. Later (17 15) David Wilkins pubHshed the Aramaic text from a ms. in the Cambridge Library with a parallel Latin translation (Paraphrasis Chaldaka in Librum priorem et posteriorem Chronicorum). It was also published by Lagarde in his Hagiographa Chaldaice, Leipzig, 1873. For a full discussion see Kohler and Rosenberg, Das Targum der Chronik, in Jiid. Zeiischrift, 1870, pp. 72/., 135/., 263/. § 9. THE HIGHER CRITICISM AND LITERATURE. The Books of Chronicles, from their supplementary and, through their genealogical material, their unedifying character, have never been a favourite field of study and investigation, hence their litera- ture has always been relatively meagre. The books also, in their variations from the other canonical writings, presented to early students peculiar difliculties. Jewish scholars in the period of the Talmud regarded them with suspicion, and later shrank from the many problems which their genealogies presented {JE. IV. p. 60; R. Simon, Hist. Crit. da V. Test. I. IV.). Jerome, on the other hand, was extravagant in their valuation, declaring, "He who thinks himself acquainted with the sacred writings and does not know these books only deceives himself " (Epist. ad Paulinum de Studio Scripturarum). And again, "All knowledge of the Scrip- ture is contained in these books" {Praf. in libr. Paralip., Epist. ad Domyiionem). This valuation rested, however, without doubt upon an allegorical interpretation and not upon any apprehension of the real character of i and 2 Ch. No one seems to have fol- THE HIGHER CRITICISM 45 lowed Jerome in his estimate, and while the books were gen- erally vindicated by the few Jewish and Christian scholars who commented upon them through the general assertion that they rested upon authentic sources and by explaining away all appearances of error, yet at the same time their discrepancies were made the basis of arguments against the authority of the sacred Scriptures {cf. Calmet, Comm. in V. T. IV. p. 510). (Spinoza had ridiculed the attempts of Jewish scholars to remove the discrepancies between the narratives of Chronicles and those of the earlier books and ex- pressed his wonder that they had been received into the sacred Canon by those who rejected the Apocryphal books, Trac. Theol. Politici, cc. ix. and x.) G. F. Oeder in his Freie Untersudnmgen iiber einige Buclier des A. T. (1771) spoke of their many corruptions (Ke.). But for real criticism and a worthy explanation we begin naturally with the introduction of Eichhorn (i 780-1 782, 3rd ed. 1803). Eichhorn went beyond the simple assertion of the Chronicler's use of au- thentic and reliable sources to a theory upon which the varia- tions and agreements between Chronicles and the earlier books might be explained. In regard to the genealogies he recognised that the Chronicler drew from the earlier canonical books, but along with them he held that he had access to registers carefully kept by the Levites and preserved in the Temple, serving as titles to inheritances. These registers, subject to copyists' mis- takes, were not always repeated in their complete form and many pedigrees were abridged, hence the genealogical variations in i Ch. The basis of the Chronicler's description of David and Solomon was an old life of those two monarchs, also the basis of the narra- tives in I and 2 S. and i K., which in the course of transmission through many hands had suffered many changes, and in which the Chronicler also made changes, such as his introduction of Satan, the kindling of sacrifices by fire, etc.; also from historic records the Chronicler mentioned the lists of the priests and Levites, the contributions for the Temple, and other things of a similar nature. The various works cited by the Chronicler such as "the words of Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the Seer" (2 Ch. 12"), "the Mid- rash of the prophet Iddo" (2 Ch. 13^^) " the words of Jehu" (2 Ch. 46 I AND 2 CHRONICLES 20"), the wTiting of "Isaiah the son of Amoz" (2 Ch. 26"), and the works mentioned in 2 Ch. 32" 33^^'-, Eichhom regarded as dis- tinct writings of contemporaries of Israel's kings, now lost; while the Midrash of the Book of Kings and the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Ch. 252* 27' 28'^ 35" 36') and the Book of the Kings of Israel (2 Ch. 20") were secondary works; the last two being one and the same work and identical with the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah cited in i and 2 K. (Einl.' ii. 595). Eichhom held strongly to the reliability of i and 2 Ch., owing to the careful use of historical soxirces by the author. This representative view of Eichhom was sharply criticised by De Wette (in his Beitrdge zur Einleitung, 1806). He, by com- parison, showed that Eichhom's supposition of the Chronicler's use of the underlying sources of i and 2 S. and i and 2 K. was untenable. No real evidence was present that both the authors of the canonical books and the Chronicler had drawn their material from the same source; but far more likely all common passages were due to the use by the Chronicler of the canonical books. De Wette then examined the variations between the writings and he showed that through the Chronicler came marks of his late period, slovenly or careless writing, confusions and alterations of mean- ing, and that his additions were marked by a preference for the concerns of the Levites, a love of marvels, apologies and pref- erence for Judah and hatred of Israel, and embellishments of the history of Judah. Thus the unreliability of the Chronicler was abundantly showTi. Of the Chronicler's sources De Wette made little. "Several writers," he said, "might have taken part in producing our present Chronicles. Who will contend about that ? But as the work lies before us it is entirely of one character and one individuality and thus may be assigned to one author " {Beitrdge, p. 61). The ques- tion of the reliability of the Chronicler was largely bound up in that of the Pentateuch, and of the general view of the Old Testament Scriptures. Scholars or writers of a so-called rationalistic tend- ency disparaged these books and accepted the conclusions of De Wette (a good e.xample is seen in F. W. Newman's History of the Hebrew Monarchy, 1847), while on the other hand conservative or THE HIGHER CRITICISM 47 orthodox scholars held the general view of Eichhom in regard to sources and defended the trustworthiness of i and 2 Ch. through- out. Even upon those of a freer tendency, De Wette's work made less of an impression than might have been expected. Bertholet, who was willing to accept De Wette's low estimate of the historical worth of Chronicles {Einl. III. p. 983), argued in behalf of the use of common sources by the writers of Kings and Chronicles. Ewald also, who had a clear conception of the general character of the books, still in his history used them as a source of information very nearly upon a par with the other Old Testament books. The view in general was that the Chronicler, while often introducing the notions of his own age, yet carefully followed his sources, which, though more free and homiletic than the older canonical books in their treatment of history, yet were scarcely inferior as records of history — though when the two could not be reconciled the former were to be received as of greater authority. (C/. Bertheau's treat- ment throughout his commentary, 1854, 1873; Dillmann, PRE. II. p. 694, 1854, PRE.^ p. 224, 1878.) De Wette's work was answered twelve years later in a small treatise by J. G. Dahler {De Librorum Paralipotnenon Auctoritate atque Fide Historica Argentorali, 18 19). Each alleged discrepancy, taken up in order from the beginning of i Ch. and through the two books, was examined by itself and explained away or harmonised; and the author concluded concerning the Chronicler: "Absolvenduin eum esse ah istis in- pistis criminationibus , el fidem ejus historicam , puram esse atque integram ." Dahler, as most of the apologists who followed him, overlooked the fact that the judgment of a work must be determined by the impression made by its phenomena grouped as a whole and that phenomena taken singly can ordinarily be explained away. It had been the great merit of De Wette's treatise that he "shaped the superabundant material to convey the right impression." Dahler's work was refuted by C. W. P. Gramberg in Die Chronik nach ihrem geschichtlicJiem cliaracter and Hirer Glaubiviirdi gheit gcprilft (Halle, 1823). This work was of little weight, owing to its charge of extreme falsification by the Chronicler. In 1833, C. F. Keil published his apology for Chronicles — Apologetischer Versuch iiber die Biicher der Chronik und iiber die Integretdt des Buches Ezra. This work, essentially in its main contentioil, reproduced later in his OT. Intro, and Commentary on i and 2 Ch., held, as already noted above (see p. 20), that the Chronicler did not draw his material from 48 I AND 2 CHRONICLES the earlier canonical books of the OT., unless in the list of the patriarchal families (i Ch. 1-22), and hence the parallelism between i and 2 Ch. and I and 2 S. and i and 2 K. is due to common sources underlying each (the view of Eichhorn). Cf. examples mentioned above, p. 20. The varied charges brought by De Wette were refuted in detail and the Chronicler was absolved from all error of statement, although later Keil recognised in one instance that he was guilty of misapprehension {Intro. II. p. 82). In 1834 appeared Kritische Uiitersuchung iiber die biblische Chronik, by F. C. Movers, a German pastor residing near Bonn. This work, although defending in a large measure the historical reliability of i and 2 Ch., since the author held to the Mosaic origin of the Levitical institutions, was characterised by much critical acumen. In the matter of sources the author advanced views practically identical with those current at present. He held that the Chronicler used first of all the canonical books, and secondly one other source, the Midrash or Com- mentary upon the Book of Kings. This Book of Kings was neither our Book of Kings, nor the "Chronicles" or Annals mentioned in Kings, but a work which the authors of Samuel and Kings had used, and whose author had made use of the Chronicles or .\nnals mentioned in Kings. But the Midrash or Commentary on this Book of Kings was a post-exilic work more didactic than purely historical, a connecting link between the canonical Scriptures and the Apocrypha. Of this work and of the canonical Scriptures the Chronicler was essentially a copyist. Movers' view in this respect is that of Benzinger and Kittel, already mentioned (see p. 25). The problem of Chronicles was also discussed in detail by K. H. Graf, in his Die Geschichtlichen Bticlier d. AT. (1866). Graf examined the narratives of Chronicles in the light of those of the canonical books, and his conclusions were similar to De Wette's respecting the work as a tend- ency writing largely unhistorical in character. He differed from Movers, holding that the Chronicler was not a mere copyist and that to him as an independent writer belonged the characteristics of his work and not to a Midrashic source. On the other hand, he rejected the notion that he had no other sources than the canonical books and allowed historical reminiscences in his new material. The next most fruitful discussion of our problem is Wellhausen's brilliant chapter on Chronicles in his Prolegomena zurGeschichte Israels (i8y8, 1883, Eng. trans. 18S5). There the position of De Wette is restated and the Chronicler's work is ex- hibited essentially in the character which we have given, although we are inclined to find more of historical reminiscence in certain instances than Wellhausen allows, but his sketch of the Chronicler's work as a whole is correct. For the recent views of Benzinger and Kittel respect- ing the composition of Chronicles see pp. 25 /. LITERATURE 49 LITERATURE. (Authors of the most important works are indicated by the heavy type.) Text. — S. Baer and F. Delitzsch, Liher Chronicorum (1888) (text with critical and Massoretic appendices by Baer and an introduction by Del.); David Ginsburg, aoinai o^'NOj mm (1894), pp. 1676- 1808 (text based upon the Bomberg Bible of 1524-5, with variant read- ings in the foot-notes); R. Kittel, The Books of Chronicles in Hebrew (1895) (in Haupt's Sacred Books of the OT.) (the unpointed text, with critical notes trans, by B. W. Bacon); R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, II. (1906) pp. 1222-1320 (text with foot-notes citing variants in MSS., Vrss., and Bibl. sources). Translations and Commentaries. — Hieronymus (d. 420), Qunes- tiones Hebraicce in Paralipomena in appendix to vol. III. of his works (pub. in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 23, coll. 1365-1402); Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (ist half of 5th cent.), Quaestiones in Paralipomena (pub. in Migne's Patrologia Grceca, vol. 80, coll. 801-58); Procopius Gazseus (ist half of 6th cent.), Cominentarii in Paralipomena (pub. in Migne's Patrologia Crceca, vol. 87, part I. coll. 1201-20); Rabanus Maurus (c. 776-856), Commentaria in libros duos Paralipomenon (pub. in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 109, coll. 279-540); David Kimhi (i 160-1235) (Kimhi's commentary on Ch. was pub. in the Rabbinic Bible of 1547 and elsewhere); Levi ben Gerson (1288-1344) wrote com. on Ch. (Rich. Simon, Hist. Crit. p. 28); Alphonsus Tostatus (Tostado), Comment, (on hist, books of the Bible, 1507); R. Joseph fil. David Aben Jechija {Comment, in Hagiogr. 1538) (Carpzov); R. Isaac bar R. Salomo Jabez (Hagiogr. Constantinople) (Carpzov); Basil. Zanchius, In omnes divinos libros notationes (1553); Erasmus Sarcerius (1560) (Carpzov); Vict. Strigel, Libb. Sam., Reg., et Paralipom. (1591); Lud. Lavater, Comm. in Paralip. (1599); Sebastian. Leonhardus (1613) (Carpzov); Nir. Serarius, Commetit. in libr. Reg. et Paralip. (1617); Casp. Sanctius, Comment, in 4 libr. Reg. et 2 Paralipom. (1625); Jac. Bonfrerius, Comment, in libr. Reg. et Paralip. (1643); Hug. Grotius, Annotatt. in Vet. Test. (1644) (Paralip. in edition of 1732 (Basil) vol. I. pp. 175-89); Arthur Jackson, Help for the Understanding of the Holy Scrip.; or Annot. on the Hist, part of the OT. 2 vols. (1643 and 1646); Thomas Malvenda, Commentaria in sacram Scripturam (1650); Christ. Schotanus, in Biblioth. historic? sacrce V. T. vol. II. (1662); D. Brenius, Annot. Paral. (in Opera Theologia, 1666, foil. 21-23); Fran. Burmann, Comment. . . . Paralip. . . . (1660-83); Jacob Cappel, Observationes in Lib. Paralip. (in Comment, et Not. Crit. in V. T. by Lud. Cappel, 1689, pp. 651-4); S. Patrick, A Commentary upon tlie Historical Books of the OT. (1694; Ch. in new edition, vol. II. (1842) pp. 464-618); Jo. 50 I AND 2 CHRONICLES Clericus, Commentarius in Veins Test. vol. II. (1708) pp. 519-640; Matthew Henry, An Exposition 0/ the Historical Books of the O. T. (Ch. in vol. II. 1708); H. B. Starck, Notce sel. crilt. philoll. exegg. in loca duhia ac difficiliora Pent., . . . Chron., . . . (1714); J. H. Michaelis and Ratnbach, Annott. in Paral. (1720) (in Uberiores Adnotationes in Libros Hagiographos V. T., J. H. Mich, wrote on i Ch. and Rambach on 2 Ch.); S. J. Mauschberger. Comm. in LL. Paralip. . . . (1758); J. D. Michaelis, Uehersetzung des AT. mit Anmerkk.fiir Ungelehrte, vol. XII. (1785) pp. 151-310 (the trans.) and pp. 171-304 of app. (notes); A. Calmet, Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libros Testamenti, vol. IV. (1791) pp. 512-827; Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible (Ch. in vol. II. 1821); F. J. V. Maurer, Commentarius Grammaticus Criticus in Vetus Testamentum, vol. I. (1835) pp. 232-44; J. Benson, The Holy Bible with Critical, Explanatory and Practical Notes (Ch. in vol. II. 1850, pp. 233-388); Chr. Wordsworth, Kings, Chronicles, etc.- (186S) (vol. III. of The Holy Bible with Notes and Introductions); C. F. Keil, Bilcher der Chronik (1870) (in Biblischer Kommentar iiber d. AT. Eng. trans, by Andrew Harper, 1872); B. Neteler, Die Biicher der biblischen Chronik (1872); E. Bertheau, Biicher der Chronik'^ (1873) (in Kurzgef. Exeget. Handbuch zum AT.); George Rawlinson, Chronicles (1873) (in vol. III. of The Holy Bible, edited by F. C. Cook); 0. Zbckler, in Lange's Bibelwerk (1874) (Eng. trans, by J. G. Murphy); E. Reuss, Chronique ecclesiastique de Jerusalem (1878) (La Bible, IV. part); Clair, Les Paralipomenes (1880); Vilmar, Josua bis Chronika (1882) (in , Prakt. Erkl. der Heil. Schrift herausgegehe?t von Chr. Milller); C. J. Ball, in Bishop Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (1883); P. C. Baker, /. and II. Chronicles (in The Pulpit Commentary of Spence and Exell), 2 vols. (1884); S. Oettli, Biicher der Chronik (1889) (in Kurzgef. Exeget. Kommentar z. AT.); M. J. Tedeschi and S. D. Luzzatto, Com- mentar zu den BB. Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah und Chronik (1890); J. Robertson, in Book by Book (1892), pp. 111-19; W. H. Bennett, The Books of Chronicles (1894) (in The Expositor's Bible); E. Kautzsch, Die Heilige Schrift des Alien Testaments (1894), translation, pp. 936- 1012, critical notes in supplement, pp. 91-98; R. G. Moulton, Chroni- cles (1897) (The Modern Reader's Bible); W. E. Barnes, The Book of Chronicles (1900) (Cambridge Bible); I. Benzinger, Die Biicher der Chronik (1901) (in Kurzer Hand-Cotnmentar z. AT.); A. Hughes- Games, The Books of Chronicles (1902) (Temple Bible); R. Kittel, Die Biicher der Chronik (1902) (in Handkommentar 2. AT.); R. de Hummelaucr, Comment, in Librum I Paralipom. (1905); W. R. Harvey- Jellic, Chronicles (1906) (The Century Bible). Critical Discussions.— Richard Simon, Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament (1685), Book I. Chap. iv. pp. 27 /.; Joh. Gottlob Carpzov, Introductio ad Libros Canonicos Bibliorum Veteris Testamenti (1731), LITERATURE 5 I Part I. pp. 279-303; J. G. Eichhorn, Einl.^ II. (1803) pp. 579-6oi; W. M. L. de Wette, Kritischer Versuch uber die Glaubenswiirdigichkeit der Bilcher der Chronik (1806) (Beitrage zur Einl. in d. AT. vol. I.); L. Bertholdt, Einl, Part 3 (1813), pp. 963-91; J- G. Dahler, De lihrorum Paralipom. aiictoritate atque fide historica (1819); C P. W. Gramberg, Die Chronik nach ihrem geschichllichen Charakter und Hirer GlaubwiirdigkeU iieu gepruft (1823); C. P. W. Gramberg, de geloofwaar- digheid en het belang van de Chron. voor de Bijb. Gesch. (1830); Die Bilcher der Chronik. Ihr Verhaltniss zu den Biichern Samuels und der Konige; ihre Glaubwurdigkeit, und die Zeil ihrer Abfassung, in Theolo- gische Quartalschrift (Tubingen, 1831), pp. 201-82; C. F. Keil, Apolo- getischer Versuch uber die Chronik (1833); F. C. Movers, KriUsche Untersuchungen uber die biblische Chronik (1834); W. M. L. de Wette, Einleitung in d. AT.^ I. (1852) pp. 237-259; T. H. Home, Introduction to the Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures^" (1856), vol. II. pp. 673-688; K. H. Graf, Die Gefangenschajt und Bekehrung Manasse's, 2 Chr. ^s, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1859), pp. 467-94; J- Bleek, Einl. (i860) pp. 371-401 (4th ed. 1878, Eng. trans, from 2nd ed. 1869); Gerlach, Die Gefangenschajt und Bekehrung Manasse's, in Theol. Studien u. Kritiken (1861), pp. 503-24; W. H. Green, Date of Books of Chronicles, in Princeton Review, XXXV. (1863) p. 499; K. H. Graf, Die Geschichtlichen Bilcher d. AT. (1866) pp. 114-247; Abr. Rahmer, Ein Lateinischer Commentar aus dem 9. Jahrhund. z. d. Biichern d. Chronik kritisch verglichen mit d. Judischen Quellen (1866); De Wette- Schr. Einl. (1869) §§ 224-33; H. Ewald, History of Israel,'^ I. (1869) pp. 169/.; Kohler and Rosenberg, Das Targum der Chronik, in JUd. Zeitschrift (1870), pp. 72/., 135/-. 263/-; J- Wellhausen, De Gentibus et Familiis Judais quce i Chr. 2. 4. enumerantur (1870); C. F. Keil, Einl.3 (1873) §§ 138-144 (Eng. trans, from 2nd ed., 1870); W. R. Smith, Chronicles, Books of, in E^icycl. Britannica^ (1878); R. O. Thomas, A Key to the Books of Samuel and the Corresponding Parts of Chronicles (1881); Frz. Delitzsch, The Book of the Chrotticles, in Sunday School Times (1883), Nov. 24, pp. 739/; G. T. Ladd, The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture (1883), I. pp. 108/., 373/., 546 #., 686/.; E. Schrader, COT. [1883] (1888) II. pp. 52-59; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena (1883), pp. 176-237, Eng. trans. (1885) pp. 171-227; J. L. Bigger, The Battle Address of Abijah, 2 Chr. 13: 4-12, in OT. Student, vol. 3 (1883-4), pp. 6-16; F. Brown, The Books of Chronicles with Reference to the Books of Samuel, in Andover Review, I. (1884) pp- 405-26; Mtihling, Neue Untersuchungen uber die Genealogien der Chronik i, 1-9, und deren Verhaltniss zum Zweck dieses Buches, in Theolog. Quartalschrift (1884), pp. 403-50; W. H. Brown, The OT. Explained, Giving the Key to the Harmony of the OT. Writings, and espec. the Books ofK., Ch., etc. (1885); Comely, Hist, et crit. Introductio in V. T. libros sacros Compen- 52 I AND 2 CHRONICLES dium, II. I (1887), pp. 311/.; A. Kuenen, Onderzoek^ I. (1887) pp. 433-520, German trans., Einl. part I, div. 2 (1890), pp. 103-89; M. S. Terry, Chronicles and llw Mosaic Legislation (1888), in Essays on Pentateuchal Criticism (edited by T. W. Chambers, and republished under title Moses and his Recent Critics, 1889), pp. 213-45; E. Alker, Die Chronologic der BUcher Konige und Paralipomenon . . . (1889); B. Stade, Gesch^ (1889) I. pp. 81-84; C. H. Cornill, Einleitung (1891), pp. 268-276, Eng. trans. (1907) pp. 225-39; L. B. Paton, Alleged Dis- crepancies between Books of Chronicles and Kings, in Presbyterian Quarterly (Richmond, Va.), vol. 5 (1891), pp. 587-610; G. Wildeboer, Origin of tlie Canon of the OT. [1891] (1895) pp. 142 /., 152, 162; K. Budde, Verinutungen ziim " Midrasch des Buches der Konige," in ZAW. vol. 12 (1892), pp. 37-51; A. C. Jennings, Chronicles, in The Thinker, vol. 2 (1892), pp. 8-16, 199-206, 393-401; C. G. Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures (1892), pp. 447 ff., 454, 483; H. E. Ryle, Canon of the OT. (1892) pp. 138/., 145, 151, 162; W. R. Smith, OTJC.^ (1892) pp. 14 ff., 1S2 ff.; H. Winckler, Alttestamentliclie Untersuchungen (1892), pp. 157-67 {Betnerkungen 2. chronik als geschichtsquelle); A. C. Hervey, The Book of Chronicles in Relation to the Pentateuch (1893); H. H. Howorth, The True Septuagint Version of Chronicles-Ezra~Nehemiah,\n The Academy (1893), vol. 44, pp. 73/.; E. Konig, Einl. (1893) § 54; W. Sanday, Inspiration (1893) (Bampton Lectures), pp. 102, 244, 253/"., 398, 443, 455; H. Varley, The Infallible Word . . . the Historical Accuracy of the Books of Kings and Chronicles (1893); R. B. Girdlestone, Deuierographs, Duplicate Passages in the OT., their bearing on tfte Text and Compilation, etc. (1894); T. F. Wright, Chronicles, in New Church Review, I. (1894) pp. 455-6; W. Bacher, Der Name der Bilcher der Chronik in der Septuaginta in Z.AW. vol. 15 (1895), pp. 305-8; S. R. Driver, The Speeches in Chronicles, in Flxp. 5th series, vol. i. (1895) pp. 241-56, vol. 2, 1895, pp. 286-308; Valpy. French, The Speeches in Chronicles; a reply, in Exp. 5th series, vol. 2 (1895), pp. 140-152; ¥.Yi,a.\]\tn, Paralipomena, in Kirchenlexikon, vol. 9 (1895), pp. 1479/.; S. Krauss, Bibl. Volkertafel in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, in Monatsschrift fUr Geschichte u. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, vol. 39 (1895) pp. i-ii, 49-63; G. Wildeboer, Lit. d. AT. (1895), pp. 404-420; W. E. Barnes, The Midrashic Element in Chronicles, in E.Kp. 5th series, vol. 4 (1896), pp. 426-39; G. B. Gray, HPN. (1896) pp. 170-242; W. E. Barnes, The Religious Standpoint of the Chronicler, in AJSL. XIII. (1896-7) pp. 14-20; W. E. Barnes, Chronicles a Targum, in Expos. T. VIII. (1896-7) pp. 316-19; T. K. Cheyne, On 2 Ch. 14 : 9, etc., in Expos. T. VIII. (1896-7) pp. 431/; H. L. Gilbert, Forms of Names in I. Chronicles 1-7, in AJSL. XIII. (1896-7) pp. 279-98; Fr. Hommel, Serah the Cushite, in Expos. T. VIII. (1896-7) pp. 378/.; W. E. Barnes, .An Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta LITERATURE 53 Version (1897); W. D. Crockett, A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, in the Text of the Version of 1884 (1897); W. E. Barnes, Errors in Chronicles, in Expos. T. IX. (1897-8) p. 521; John F. Stenning, Chronicles in the Peshitla, in Expos. T. IX. (1897-8) pp. 45-7; W. Bacher, Zii I. Chran. 7 : 12, in ZAW. vol. 18 (1898), pp. 236-8; F. Brown, Chronicles I. and II., in DB. I. (1898) pp. 389-397; A. Klostermann, Die Chronik, in PRE.^ III. (1898) pp. 85-98; Schiirer, Gesch.^ (1898) II. pp. 309, 339/., III. p- 3"> Eng. trans, (from. 2nd ed.) II. i. pp. 309, 340, iii. p. 162; W. J. Beecher, Is Chronicler Veracious Historian for Post-exilian Period? in Tlie Bible Student and Religious Outlook (Columbia, S. C), vol. 3 (1899), pp. 385-90; Adolf Biichler, Zur Geschichte der Tempelmiisik und der Tent pel psalmen, in ZAW. vol. 19 (1899), pp. 96-133, 329-44; Grigor Chalateanz, Die Bucher Paralipom. nach der dltesten. Armen. Uebers., etc. (1899); Hope W. Hogg, The Genealogy of Benjamin; a Criticism of I. Chron. VIII., in JQR. XI. (1899) pp. 102-14; A. van Hoonacker, Le Sacerdoce Levitique dans la Loi et dans VHistoire (1899), pp. 21-116 {Les pretres el les levites dans le livre des Chroniques); E. Kautzsch, The Literature of the OT. (1899) pp. 1 21-8 (trans., with revision, from supplements to Die Heil. Schr. d. AT.'); J. Koberle, Die Tempelsdnger im AT. (1899) pp. 81-150 {Chronika); O. Seesemann, Die Darstellungsweise der Chronik, in Mitth. u. Nachr.f. d. Evang. Kirche in Russland, 55 (1899), pp. 1-16; W. R. Smith and S. R. Driver, Chronicles, Books of, in EBi. I. (1899) coll. 763-72; T. G. Soares, The Import of Chronicles as a Piece of Religio-historical Literature, in Am. Jour, of Theo. III. (1899) pp. 251- 74; M. Berlin, Notes on Genealogies of the Tribe of Levi in i Chron. 23-26, in JQR. XII. (1900) pp. 291-8; J. A. Howlett, Wellhausen and the Chronicler, in The Dublin Review, vol. 126 (1900), pp. 391-41 1; K. D. Macmillan, Note Concerning the date of Chronicles, in Presby- terian and Reformed Review, XI. (190c) pp. 507-11; Hope W. Hogg, The Ephraimite Genealogy (i Ch. 7 : 20/.), in JQR. XIII. (1900-01) pp. 147-54; G. O. Little, The Royal Houses of Israel and Judah (1901); J. Marquart, The Genealogies of Benjamin, in JQR. XIV. (1902) pp. 343-51; J. W. Rothstein, D. Genealogie d. Kgs. Jojachin und seiner Nachkommen (i Chron. 3 : 17-24) in Gesch. Beleuchtung (1902); W. H. Bennett, Chronicles in JE. IV. (1903), PP- 59-6.3; Mos. Fried- lande,, Genealog. Studien z. AT. D. Verdnderlichkeit d. Namen in d. Stammlisten d. Biicher d. Chronik (1903); C. C. Torrey, The Greek Versions of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archa;ology, XXV. (1903) pp. 139/; W. J. Beecher, The Added Section in I Chron. XI-XII, in Tlie Bible Student and Teacher, vol. i. New Series (1904), pp. 247-50; R. St. A. Macalister, The Royal Potters 1 Chron. 42', in Expos. T. XVI. (1905) PP- 379/-; R. St. A. Macalister, The Craftsmen's Guild of the Tribe of Judah, in 54 I AND 2 CHRONICLES Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1905), pp. 243-253, 328-342; P. Asmussen, Priesterkod. u. Chr. in ihrem Verh. zii einand., in Tfteolog. Studien u. Kritiken (1906), pp. 165-179; G. Tandy, / a. II Chron., an Elementary Study in Criticism (Interpr., Oct.) (mentioned in Theolog. Jahresbe., 1906); S. A. Cook, Critical Notes on OT. Hist. (1907), pp. 67 n. I, 98 n. 3, 104 n. i, 114/., 118 n. 1, H. H. Howorth, Some Unconventional Views on the Text of the Bible. VII Daniel and Chronicles, in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaology, XXIX. (1907) pp. 31-38, 61-69; S. K. Mosiman, Ziisammenstellung u. Ver- gleichung d. Paralleltexte d. Chr. u. d. dlteren Bucher d. AT. (1907); S. R. Driver, LOT.^^ (1908) pp. 516-540; C C. Torrey, Tlie Ap- paratus for tlie Textual Criticism of Chronicles-Ezra-N ehemiah, in Harper Memorial II. (1908) pp. 55-1 11; W. E. Barnes, The David of the Book of Samuel and the David of the Book of Chro7iicles, in Exp. 7th Series. No. 37 (1909), pp. 49-59; A. Klostermann, Chronicles, in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyl. vol. III. (1909) pp. 68-71; C. C. Torrey, The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator, in AJSL. XXV. (1909) pp. 157-73, 188-217. A COMMENTARY ON 1 CHRONICLES COMMENTARY ON 1 CHRONICLES I-IX. GENEALOGICAL TABLES WITH GEOGRAPH- ICAL AND HISTORICAL NOTICES. I. Primeval genealogies with a list of kings and phylarchs of Edom.— This chapter serves to introduce the genealogies of the tribes of Israel by showing Israel's place among the nations and thus corresponds to the ethnic discussions with which mod- em writers frequently open their histories. Its matter is derived entirely from Gn. 1-36. All the genealogies of those chapters are included in this compilation except that of the descendants of Cain (Gn. 4i«-"). The author's method of abridgment, in giving lists of names (vv. >-" et al.) without stating their relation to one another, shows that he assumed his readers to have been thor- oughly familiar with the narratives of Genesis. While the source is clear, the question has recently been raised whether the chapter is substantially in the form in which it was left by the Chronicler or whether an original nucleus by him received numerous additions until the genealogical material of Gn. was exhausted. Ben- zinger maintains that the original text comprised only vv. '-^^ (»='' =^-''- sib. The Vatican text of (& lacks vv. "-^s, which are in the Hexapla under the asterisk (Field), and a sort of doublet exists in vv. '^-'^ and vv. -^ "-^. These facts have furnished the ground for assuming the secondary character of vv. "-'. But the significant words vlbs "L-fifi AiXafi (coi 'kffaoiip, found in this lacuna of (6^, are certainly a remnant of v. " — so marked in Swete's edition— thus making it extremely probable that the original (& contained the whole passage. (This omission by Origen is only one of many illustrations which might be cited of the poor quality of the text which he had; see Tor. ATC. pp. 94/-) The parallels, vv. "'' and vv. '^ ^, are not indicative of two sources, since in one the compiler is tracing the collateral lines, while in the other it is his purpose to give the lineal descent of Abraham. The transposition 57 58 I CHRONICLES of vv. "-" (= Gn. 25'2-'«) and vv. «" (= Gn. 25'<) has no significance, since it is easily explained, the descendants of Ishmael, the first-born, being placed first and those of Isaac, by the compiler's habit, come last. Equally trivial is the repetition of the substance of v. '*• in v. "». The descendants of Esau (vv. '^ " ) are as much in place here as the descend- ants of Ishmael and of Abraham by Keturah. Hence there is little cause to doubt that the first chapter of the Chronicler's history has come down to us in essentially the same form in which it left his hand. 1-4. The ten antediluvian patriarchs and the three sons of Noah. — This list of names is a condensation of Gn. 5 by the omission of the chronological statements and those of descent from father to son; and the list in Gn. is apparently modelled after the Babylonian one of ten ancient kings which has been preserved by Berossus (Dr. Gn. p. 80, KAT.^ pp. 531/., Gordon, Early Trad, of Gn. pp. 4Sff.). The names appear in some instances to have been derived from the Babylonian list and are also directly connected in a large measure with the names found in the genealogies of Gn. 4 (J). — 1. Adam] i.e., man or mankind, an appropriate name for the first man, the father of the human race; hence a proper name (Gn. 4" 5'-', RV. wrongly in Gn. 3" ^\ v. DIN, 3. BDB.).— 5e//z] (Gn. 4" '■ 5' « f) derived in Gn. 4^ proba- bly from mere assonance, from n^tS^ "to appoint," hence, "sub- stitute"; the meaning or derivation is otherwise entirely obscure. — Eyiosh'] (w'IjS) (Gn. 4'" 5' ^ f) poetical word for man and probably in folk-lore a name like Adam for the first man. The third Babylonian name Amelon or Amilarus has also the same meaning. — 2. Kenan] ([^"''5) (Gn. 5' ' f) to be connected with Kain (j"»p) (Gn. 4' * ), with the meaning of "smith," and thus corresponding with the fourth Babylonian name Ammenon, which is equivalent to "artificer." — MahalaVel] (Gn. 5" " , also a Judah- ite, Ne. w f). The meaning is "praise of God." It is possibly a Hebraised form of the fifth Babylonian name Megalarus, a cor- ruption of Melalarus. — Jared] (Gn. 5" " , also a Calebite 4" \), from the root meaning to go down, but the significance of the name is not apparent. — 3. Hanoch] EVs. Enoch (Gn. 5'* "■, also the first- bom of Cain, Gn. 4" ' , also a son of Reuben, i Ch. 5'). He, from his "translation," is the most notable of the ten patriarchs (Gn. I. 1-4.] ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS 59 5'<). The name may mean "dedication," and might in the story of Cain be connected with the building of the first city (Gn. 4''), or if derived from parallel Babylonian king Enmeduranki. who probably was the mythical high priest of a place linking heaven and earth, the name might imply dedication to the priesthood. This, considering Enoch's religious character, is more plausible. The initiation of Enoch into heavenly mysteries, according to the later Jewish story, probably arose from a connection between him and the Babylonian parallel, since the latter was the possessor of such knowledge. — Methushelah] (Gn. 521 «■ f), "man of missile." The corresponding name in Gn. 4' Ms Methushael = Babylonian mutu- sha-ili, "man of God." The corresponding name in the Babylo- nian hst Amempsmus= amel-Sin, "man of the god Sin"; hence "missile," shelah, is probably another title of Sin, i.e., of the moon- god. — Laniech] (Gn. 4'8« 5"^ f). The important position of the Lamech in the line of Cain, where he is the father of the representa- tives of three social classes — nomads, musicians, and smiths — and in the line of Seth, where he is the father of Noah and grandfather of the representatives of the three races of mankind, reveals the probable identity of the two persons in origin, but whence the name is derived is still obscure, probably from an ancient Babylonian god. — 4. Noah] (Gn. 52'^- and frequent in story of the flood, Gn. 6-10, Is. 54' Ez. 141^- "). The Noah of Gn. 5" (J) is clearly the husbandman who produced wine (Gn. 9^°^ ), and thus gave man rest, refreshment, and comfort in his toil. Why the hero of the flood also bore this name is not clear, since no certain connection is discernible between the name Noah (n3) and Ut-napishiim, the name of the Babylonian hero of the deluge. — Shem] (w. ■'• ^* Gn. ^32 510 yi3 gi8, 23. 26 f. jqi. 21 f. 31 jiio f. -j-) mcans rcnown, i.e., glory, and apparently was a name of Israel (r/. Gn. 9=« Blessed be Yah- weh the God of Shem, i.e., of Israel). — Ham] (v. » Gn. 5" 6^" 7" gi8 lo'- «■ so) superseding possibly the name Canaan in an earlier list of Noah's three sons {cf. Gn. 9" J) is possibly derived from Kemet the Egyptians' name of their country {DB., art. Ham; EBi. II. col. 1204 absolutely denies this connection). Ham stands for Egypt in Ps. 78^' 105" " 106==. Thus Ham appro- priately represented the peoples southward from Palestine. — 6o I CHRONICLES Japheth] (v.* Gn. 5" 6'° 7" 9" " ^' 10' ' " f)- According to Gn. 9" the word is from the root (nnS), meaning " to be open " (so BDB., Margoliouth in DB. suggests a derivation from "2^ "to be fair)," but the real origin is still obscure. It primarily comes without doubt from some appellation of the peoples or country lying to the north and west of Israel, because in those directions the descendants of Japheth are found (w. ^■''). Japheth may have represented originally the Phoenicians, since the expression dwelling in the tents of Shem (Gn. 9") points to a land ad- jacent to Palestine {DB. Extra vol. p. 80). 2. irn] so too Gn. 5' '^^ , but 24" Ne. 9* f). Their lo- cation is uncertain. — 15. The Hivite] mentioned frequently and I. 17-23.1 DESCEJ>JDANTS OF SHEM 65 usually taken as a petty people of central Palestine connected with Gibeon, Jos. 9' 11", also with Shechem, Gn. 34^, with Her- mon, Jos. II', and Mt. Lebanon, Ju. 3'. Perhaps in these last two passages Hittites should be read {EBi. II. col. 2101). The following five names do not occur in other lists and are geograph- ical, representing the inhabitants of five cities of northern Palestine. — The Arkite] of Arka, mentioned frequently in Assy. ins. and a city of importance in the Roman period, the birthplace of Alexan- der Severus (a.d. 222-235), the mod. Tell Arka, about twelve miles north of Tripolis (EBi. I. col. 310). — The Sinite] of a place not positively located but appearing in the Assy. ins. Siannu grouped with Arka {EBi. IV. col. 4644). — 16. The Arvadite] of Arvad (Ez. 27 « "), mentioned in the Amama letters and frequently in Assy, ins., the mod. Ruad, twenty-five miles north of Arka (Baed.< p. 354). — The Zemarites] (Gn. lo'^ -j-) of a city or fortress Simirra, mentioned frequently in Amama letters as Siiniur and Assy, ins., known to the Greeks, the mod. Sumra (Baed.' p. 351), six miles south of Arvad. — The Hamathite] of the well-known and fre- quently mentioned Hamath on the Orontes, fifty miles east-north- east of Arvad, mod. Hama (Baed.< pp. 368/.). 9. s.-i^Di] Gn. 10' n.-2Di. — N=ni] Gn. nr;-ii. — 10. maj] -;iS, Kt. d^tiS. Ki. prefers the latter on the basis of ^^^, but Di . is transliterated in the same manner elsewhere. — 12. DTe'Ss dcd Wii n-;'N Dnnsa pni]. This transposition seems required by .\m. 9' Dt. 2-^ Je. 47^ and, in spite of all the Vrss. giving the present order, is regarded as the original in Gn. io'« by Dill, and Ball (SBOT.), not, however, by Holz. Ki. assumes it to have been the original order in our text, but it is more probable that the Chronicler had our present Gn. text before him. 17-23. — The Semites. — These verses, wanting in (^^ and placed by Ki. as a subsequent addition (but v.s.), were taken orig- inally without change from Gn. lo""^ vv. "'' ' (Ch. v.") P, v\'. '<■" (Ch. w. '*-") J. The Semites geographically were, in the main, in a central zone between the Japhethites and the Hamites. Political considerations and a knowledge of racial affinities as well as the geographical situation may have influenced their grouping. 66 I CHRONICLES — 17. 'Elam] mentioned frequently in Assy. ins. Elarna, Elatnnm, Elamlu, and in the OT. (Gn. lo" 14'- » Is. 11" 21' 22' Je. 25" 4934.39 (seven times) Ez. 32" Dn. 8'), a land and people east of Baby- lonia, lying directly at the head of the Persian Gulf to the north and east. Civilisation early flourished there, and about the twenty-third century b. c. an Elamitic suzerainty was exercised over Babylonia. Racially the Elamites were entirely distinct from the Semites. Their inclusion among the Semites was due either to their proximity to Assyria (Dr. Gn.) or because in very early times the land was peopled in part at least by Semites (Del. Par. p. 321). — Asshur] the kingdom and people of Ass)Tia, fre- quent in inscriptions and OT., situated in the upper portion of the Mesopotamian valley about the middle course of the Tigris. The people were closely akin to the Phoenicians, Arameans, and Hebrews. As conquerors from the fourteenth to the eighth cen- turies B.C. they have well been called the Romans of the East. — ArpacJishad] (vv. "• " Gn. lo"- " nio-is -j-) obscure, formerly identified with ' Appaira'^iTt^ (Ptol. vi. i. 2), the hill country of the upper Zab, in Assy. ins. Arrapha (Del. Par. pp. 124 /.), Arhaha (Sch. COT. I. p. 97), but this does not explain the final syllable; hence a compound of f]"iS=Arabic RiJ "boundar}'" and Keshed = Chaldeans, hence boundary or land of the Chalde- ans (Sch. COT. I. p. 98); or after the Assyrian Arba-kisddi, " land of the four sides or directions " (Del. Par. p. 256) ; or of four banks, i.e., of Tigris and Euphrates (Jen. ZA. xv, p. 256); or a contraction of Ar = Ur, the ancient home of Abraham and pa the Egyptian article and Keshed, i.e., Arpachshad, Ur of the Chaldeans (Horn. AHT. p. 292); or a contraction through copyist's error of "]5"iX representing Arrapha, etc. (see above) and Keshed, the passage having originally read Elam and Asshur and Arpach and Keshed (Cheyne, EBi. I. col. 318). This last would ])e the most plausible were it not for the appearance of Arpachshad in Gn. ii"-". — Liid] (Gn. 10" Is. 66" Ez. 27'° 30' f) naturally Lydians of Asia Minor, Assy. Luddu, also obscure since it is difficult to see why in this connection they should be men- tioned between Arpachshad and Aram, and they were not at all a Semitic people. Jensen would identify them with a land of I. 17-23.] DESCENDANTS OF SHEM 67 Luddu mentioned in Assy. ins. and apparently on the upper Tigris [Deutsche Lit. Ztg. 1899, No. 24, v. Gu. Gn.). — Aram] frequent in OT. and ins.; not a land, rather the name of a Semitic people dwelling north-east of Palestine widely spread. Their inscriptions of the eighth century B.C. have been found at Zenjirli in the extreme north of Syria, and inscriptions at Tema, north of Medina, show them to have been in north-western Arabia about 500 B.C. Other inscriptions show them to have been on the lower Tigris and Euphrates. Indeed, in Babylonia and Assyria a large portion of the population, if not the larger, was probably Aramean at a very early date. But their especial land was Mesopotamia, yet while the Assy. ins. never place them west of the Euphrates, that was their home par excellence in the OT. They are distinguished by special names as " Aram of the two rivers" (Gn. 241" Dt. 235(4) Ju. 3') (rivers uncertain, naturally the Euphrates and Tigris, but according to some the Euphrates and Chabor), "Aram of Damascus" (2 S. 8='), "Aram of Zobah" (2 S. lo^- «). From their position or other causes their language became widespread, both as a language of commerce and diplomacy (Is. 36"), and after the exile it supplanted Hebrew as the language of the Jews (Noeldeke, EBi. I. col. 276 ff.). — The four following peoples or districts are in Gn. the sons of Aram, which statement was probably originally here {v. i.). — 'Uz\ (v. "2 Gn. 222' ^6-8 Jb. I' Je. 252° La. 4=' f). The connection here and in Gn. 22=', where Uz is a son of Nahor, suggests a people or district to the north-east of Palestine, while its appearance in the list of the Horites (Gn. 36^8) and in connection with Edom (La. 42') suggests a tribe or locality south-east of Palestine. The name has not yet been clearly identified in the Assy. ins. (but see Del. Par. p. 259). — Hul\ (Gn. 10" -j-) unidentified although possibly to be seen in HalVa (Del. Par. p. 259), a district near Mt. Masius. — Gether] (Gn. 10" -j-) unidentified. — Meshech] in Gn. 10" Mash f, which is without doubt the true reading, representing the district of Mt. Masius. (On Meshech see v. K) — 18. Shelah] (v. 2< Gn. io2< ii'2 "■ '4- 15 1). Cf. V. \ Since Shelah is the second element of Methuselah (cf. v. =), it is probably the name of a god. {Cf. Mez, Gesch. d. Stadt Harran, p. 23, v. Gu. on Gn. 11".) — 68 I CHRONICLES Eber] an cpon}-m simply derived from Hebrews ("'"2V) or from the geographical term indicating the early home of the Hebrews "beyond the river," i.e., the Euphrates (Jos. 24' ' ) or Jordan, cf. "beyond the Jordan" (pi'' n l^y) Gn. so"- " Jos. 175 Dt. I'- « et al. (some thirty times), BDB.— 19. Peleg] (v. " Gn. io» iii«. 17. 18. 19 -j-) derivation and representation uncertain. Sayce connects with the Babylonian palgu, "a canal," and makes llie land Babylonia divided by canals (Expos. T. viii. p. 258). Hommel compares the land of el aflag in central Arabia (Gu. Gn.). Usually the division of the land is interpreted as referring to the dispersion of population, Gn. 9" io« ii'. — Joktan\ This ap- pears in the primitive tribe Kahtan of Arabian genealogists, but this fact is usually assumed to be derived from the OT. and thus of no historical value. The name then in its Biblical origin is still entirely obscure, but the thirteen sons, vv. '"'-", are clearly Arabian tribes or localities, only a few of whom can now be definitely identified. — 20. Almodad] unidentified, a compound possibly of hi< "God" and TTIfi fr. TIT either active or passive God loves or is loved (BDB.), or the word means the family Mandad in ins., especially the Gebanites in their relation to the kings of Ma'in (Gl. Skiz. ii. p. 425). It is possibly to be connected with places in Hadramaut (see Holz. Gn.). — Sheleph] appears in tribal and local names Sale/, Salf, near Yemen (Gl. ib.). — Hazarmaveth] mentioned in Sab. ins. and preserved in the mod. Hadramaut, the name of a district in southern Arabia a little east of Aden. — Jerah] (Gn. 10" f) not clearly identified (but see Gl. ib.). — 21. Hadoram] (Gn. 10", in i Ch. i8"'2Ch. io'« names of persons). Possibly Dauram in the neighbourhood of Sand. — Uzal] (Gn. 10" Ez. 27" f) generally identified with Sand, capital of Yemen. Glaser disputes this and seeks it near Medina (EBi. IV. col. 5239, Gl. Skiz. ii. pp. 427 ff.). — Diklah] (Gn. lo-' f) uniden- tified.— 22. 'Ebal] ('Obal Gn. 10") usually connected with the local name Abil in Yemen. — AMma^el] (Gn. io«« f) unidentified. — Sheba]. See v. ». Perhaps here a colony of the main people is meant. — 23. Ophir] (Gn. 10"). Whether this Ophir is the same as the land of gold and the terminus of the voyages of Solomon's fleet is uncertain. BDB. regards it as an entirely I. 17-23.] DESCENDANTS OF SHEM 69 distinct place. Others identify the two and place Ophir on the eastern coast of Arabia stretching up the Persian Gulf {EBi. III. col. 3513 ff.). — Havilah]. See v. ^ This must be a Havilah con- nected with the district in Arabia. — Jobab] (Gn. 10='', elsewhere name of a person, cf. i<<) generally regarded as unidentified. Glaser discusses the sons of Joktan with the following conclusion: "Almodad, Shalaf, Hadramaut, and Jarah represent the entire southern coast of Arabia from Bab-el-Mandeb to beyond Mahra; Hadoram, Uzal, and Diklah the Serat range from San'a to Medina; Obal, Abimael, and Sheba the Tihama from 'Asir and from Hidjaz (eventually from Yemen) and the Sabderland ; Ophir, Hawilah, and Jobab, eastern and central Arabia unto 'Asir- Hidjaz" (Skiz. ii. pp. 435/.). 17. D1N1] ®* (= (6) and Gn. io=3 + oix ij3i, which should be sup- plied (and the following i dropped), since these words have probably fallen from the text by a copyist's error (Ki., Bn.), although it is pos- sible that the Chronicler assumed that the relation of Uz, etc., to Aram would be understood, and hence the omission, cf. v. * (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.). 01 iKiixm.si for yiyi is doubtless a corruption of ^nsi;? d-\ni before which ^J3 must have fallen out. — '\t^)] six MSS., §, and Gn. rev A district Mash appears well attested by the cuneiform inscriptions. ^8'D appears in v. ^ Gn. lo^ Ps. 1205, and from greater familiarity was probably inadvertently substituted by a copyist (Bn.), yet perhaps already in the Chronicler's text of Gn., since ® there has MofTox- — 18. nS^'] (B^^ + tov Kaivai' /cat Kaivav eyevvriffev as (& of Gn. lo-^. This plus is certainly not original here. Note the addition of Kaivav in • »' 's- "). — Reii] (Gn. ii'^. n. so. u -j-) probably the name of a god {EBi. IV. col. 4087, cf. Mez above, v. '»). — Serug] (Gn. ii^" s'- « » f) a district and city, Sarugi in Assy, ins., near Haran, well known to Arabic and Syriac writers of the Middle Ages. — N'ahor] (Gn. 11", etc., fifteen times, Jos. 24'). The name of a deity (Jen. ZA. xi. p. 300, Skipwith, JQR. xi.p. 254) and also without doubt a tribe whose city was Haran. — Terah] (Gn. II" 25. 2G. 27. 28. 31. 32 Jqs. 24= f) idcntificd with an ancient deity {Tarhu, Turgii) whose worship was widespread in north- em Mesopotamia and adjoining districts and whose name has been preserved apparently in the element TapK of many Cilician Greek names (Jen. ZA. vi. p. 70, Hitliler, p. 153). — 27. Abram that is Abraham]. In the narratives of Gn. the progenitor of Israel is first known as Abram (ii"-i7') until (17=') his name is changed to Abraham, and henceforward he is known by the latter name. The name Abram is equivalent to Abiram, "the (divine) father is lofty," and Abraham is only another way of spelling the name, although it is possible that two persons, of the two different names, may have been fused into one, "Abram a local hero of the region of Hebron" and "Abraham the collective name of a group of Aramean people, including not only the He- braic clans but also the Ishmaelites and a number of other desert tribes" (Pa. EHSP. p. 41). The historical character of Abraham is maintained by Ewald {Hist. i. pp. 300 ff.), Kittel (Gesch. i. § 16), Cornill (Hist. People 0/ Is. p. 34), Hommel (AHT. pp. 146/.), McCurdy (HP.\f. §§ 444-448), Ryle (in DB.), and others, l)ut the basis for this Ix'lief seems somewhat sentimental. I. 24-33.] ABRAHAM, ISHMAEL, AND KETURAH 7 1 Abraham's character is a creation of the prophetic period and he seems to have been created to connect together the peoples kindred to Israel in a genealogical system of relationship. It is possible that he came from an ancient deity worshipped in southern Judah, especially at Hebron. A suggestive name for this deity is seen in Ram (D-l) lofty {cf. "Elyon" most high, Gn. 14"). A southern Judean clan bore the name of Ram (2"). Sarah (princess), the wife of Abraham, has been clearly identified as a goddess (Jen. ZA. xi. p. 299). 24. Ki. after his view of <^^ inserts ^J3 before DU' {v. s.).—27. Kin a-i3N] wanting in <$^ and so omitted by Bn., but original (& probably supported 1^ (cf. ®aln). 28-33. Sons of Abraham, Ishmael, and Keturah.— 28. The sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael]. This statement has no exact parallel in form in Genesis. Isaac, although the younger, is mentioned first, since Israel came from him. Vv. "-31 are con- densed from Gn. 25'='^- (P) and vv. ^'^-^^ from Gn. 25'-^ (J). The change of order from that of Genesis introducing the sons of Ishmael before those of Keturah is noticeable.— /^aac] probably represents a tribe whose original name may have been Isaac-el (^Spn^*^) corresponding to Ishmael, Israel, etc. This tribe seems to have dwelt in southern Judah, since the home of the patriarch is placed there. Why the tribe should form a link in the genealogy and become prominent in the story is not clearly kno\vn. The relationship between Israel and Edom clearly demanded for both a common father, and he might well be seen in an ancient tribe which had been absorbed into both. A deity has been found also in Isaac through the expression "Fear [of] Isaac" (Gn. 3i« ") (Luther, ZAW. xxi. p. -jt,).— Ishmael] (Gn. i6"- ''■ '« et al.) the personification and without doubt the ancient historical name of a group of tribes regarded as near kinsmen of Israel dwelling in the northern part of the Sinaitic Peninsula and, according to the sons mentioned below, extending further into Arabia. — Nebaioth] (Gn. 2513 28' 36' Is. 60' t)» and Kedar] (Gn. 25'^ Is. 2ii« 42" 60^ Je. 21° 49" Ez. 272' t). Both of these tribes are mentioned in 72 I CHRONICLES Assy. ins. among the conquests of Ashurbanipal (Del. Par. pp. 296 /., 299). The latter appears the more widely spread and prominent; both dwelt at some distance east of Edom and Moab and the latter at the time of Ashurbanipal e.xtended up to the Hauran. Whether the Nebaioth were the later Nabateans is uncertain. (See EBi. III. col. 3254.). — Adhbe'el] (Gn. 25" f ) also in Assy. ins. with home south-west of the Dead Sea toward the Egyptian frontier (Del. Par. p. 301). — Mibsam] (Gn. 25'', also in the genealogy of Simeon i Ch. 4" f) not mentioned elsewhere. — 30. Mishma'] (Gn. 25'^, likewise in the genealogy of Simeon I Ch. 4«- " ■\) possibly the name is preserved in Jebel Misma , one hundred and sixty miles east of Teima, or in another Jebel Misma one hundred and twenty miles north-west of it (Dill., see Dr. Gn. p. 242). — Dumah] (Gn. 25'^ Is. 21", perhaps there Edom, Jos. 15" in Judah, where we should probably read Rumah ■\) the oasis Duma now usually called dl-Jbf, on the southern border of the Syrian desert, mentioned by Ptolemy and Arabic geographers (Dr. ib.). — Massa'\ (Gn. 25'^ |) in Assy. ins. and located near the Nebaioth (Del. Par. pp. 302 /.). — Hadad] (Gn. 25'*) not identified. — Temal (Gn. 25'* Jb. 6'' Is. 2i'< Je. 25"f) mod. Teima, south-east from the northern end of the Elamitic Gulf.— 31. Jetur and Naphish] (Gn. 25'^ i Ch. 5" q. v. f).— Kedniah] (Gn. 25 '^ ■}•) not identified. — 32. Keiiirah] (Gn. 25' < f). The name means "frankincense" and might appropriately be chosen as the name of the mother of tribes trading in or producing that commodity. The sons of Keturah were tribes dwelling east and south-east of Israel which the Hebrew historian recognised as kin to Israel but held them less closely related than those called Ishmaelites (v. s.), and hence the Chronicler called their mother a concubine, a term not used of her in Gn., or else from the feeling that Sarah properly was Abraham's only wife.— Zimran] (Gn. 25^ -j-) usually connected with the city Zabram (Ptol. vi. 7. 5) west of Mecca on the Red Sea. As a tribal name it may have been derived from Zemer ("IDT), mountain goat. Very likely the same people appear in the "Zimri" (Je. 25"). — Jokshan] (Gn. 25^ ^ -j-) unknown. — Medan] (Gn. 25' f). Comparisons of doubtful worth have been made with a Wady I. 24-33.] ABRAHAM, ISHMAEL, AND KETURAH 73 Medan near Dedan and with a Yemenite god Madan (EBi. III. col. 3002). This probably is not a real name but has arisen by a copyist's error from the k)llmving word. — Midian] (Gn. 25= and frequently) a well-known people early disappearing from history, dwelling east of the Gulf of Akaba, whose nomad branches made forays into Edom (Gn. 36" Nu. 22^- '') and across Gilead into Palestine (Ju. 6-8). The name Midian appears in M.o8iava on or near the Gulf of 'Akaba (Ptol. vi. 7. 2), mod. Madyan {EBi. III. col. 3081). — Jishak'\ (Gn. 25^ f) unidentified unless with Yasbak, a district in northern Syria mentioned in Assy. ins. {KB. I. p. 159). — Shimh] (Gn. 25^ f) the tribe of Job's friend Bildad (Jb. 2"). This has been identified with Suhii of the Assy, ins., a district on the Euphrates near Haran, but this is doubtful. — Sheba and Dedan]. Cf. v. \ Different sources give different genealogical relationships. The Chronicler has here omitted from his source the sons of Dedan, given in Gn. 253^. — 33. 'Ephah] (Gn. 25^ Is. 6o«, cf. in Judah and Caleb i Ch. 2'^ '■) probably the Hayapa, a north Arabian tribe mentioned in Assy. ins. (Del. Par. p. 304). It dwelt in the district of Midian (Noeldeke, EBi. III. col. 3081).— '£/'/?er] (Gn. 25s name in genealogy of Judah i Ch. 4", Manasseh 5^^ -f) possibly a dit- tography of the previous 'EpJiaJi. This tribe and the three fol- lowing, Hanoch, Abida' , and Eldaah (Gn. 25^ f except Hanoch cf. V. ', a Reubenite 5'), have not yet been clearly identified. {Cf. Gl. Skiz. p. 449.) 28-31. This condensation has retained of Gn. 2512- i^^ only the first two words nnSin n'^vs, the suffix d-;- also being added, D.'^n'^in. Vv. 29b-3i follow the text of Gn. 25"b-i6a to nSxi almost exactly. — 29. Sn^tni] so too Gn. 2513, but (S> l^a^e{ai)r]\ in both places.— 30. yvi'r:] Gn. 25'^ 'Ci. — n'J'd] Gn. 'D-1. — Tin] some mss. -\- annas U'j'^id] have no direct verbal parallel in Gn. The remainder of w. 52-" follow the text of Gn. 252-', beginning with per pn, except that Itfp' 2 Ch. 31", Zerah 2' 4" 6« 9" 2 Ch. i4« '•^\ Shammah I S. 16' 2 S. 23"- », probably i Ch. 27^ (BDB.). All of these sons of Eliphaz and Reu'el are given in Gn. 36'' <^- as chiefs of Edom; and also in Gn. 36'8 Jeush, Jalam, and Korah. — 38. Seir'\ in Gn. 362° called the Horite, showing that the writer there had in mind the earlier inhabitants of the land of Edom. Hence they properly are sons of the country Seir rather than of the race Edom. Seir, the territorial name meaning "hairy," is probably equivalent to "wooded," "covered with brushwood." The name appears in the Sdaira of the Egyptian inscriptions {EBi. II. coll. 1182/.).— Lotow] (Gn. 362»- " f) possibly to be con- nected with Lot (Gn. II" 12* et al.), derived from the ancient name of the country east of the Jordan; in Egyjitian inscriptions Riilen, Luten (Pa. EHSP. pp. 38, 59, 127,).— Shobal] (v. '" Gn. 36=°- " ", in Caleb 25°", in Judah 4'- ^ |). On meaning of name as young lion cf. Gray, HPN. p. 109. — Ziheon^^ (v. ■"> Gn. 36'- H. 20. 24. 29 -j-)_ The name means hyena (Gray, HPN. p. 95). — 'Anah] (v. •"> Gn. 36^ '^- i^. 20. 21. 25. 29 -|-)_ xhe present text of Gn. gives Anah (36^) a daughter of Zibeon and (36^0 ^ son of Zibeon. — DisJion] (Gn. 36=', son of Anah 36"- " i Ch. i*'- «, chief Gn. 36" f). The name means pygarg, a kind of antelope or gazelle {cf Dt. i4').—Ezer] (v. ^^ Gn. 3,6^'- "• 30 f).— r)w/iaw] (v.*-- Gn. 362'- ". 30 -j-) clearly a mere variant of Dishon. — 39. Lotan]. Cf. v. ". — Hori] (Gn. 36", a Simeonite Nu. 13* |). As a clan name this is striking. Perhaps originally in Gn. it was the Gentilic adjective. (On meaning cf. Dr. Dt. 2'\). — Homam] (Hemam Gn. 36" f). This name possibly has connection with Heman 2« since Zerah was Edomitic as well as Judaic, cf v. ". —Timna']. Cf. v. =«.— 40. Shobal]. Cf. \.'\—Aljan] ('Alwan Gn. 36" t) possibly to be compared with 'Eljoii, the Most High, the name of a deity. — Manahath] (Gn. 36" f). Cf. 1 Ch. 2" 8« but probably with no connection with the foregoing. — Ebal] (Gn. 36" t). Cf. with possible identification in name (not 76 I CHRONICLES locality) with 'Ebal of i-^ — Shephi] (Shepho Gn. 36" f)- Cf- for meaning ''Eti' bareness, bare height. — Onam] (Gn. 36", a chief of Judah i Ch. 2" ^'f). Probably the name is identical with Onan, Gn. 38* i Ch. 2^. — Zibe'on]. Cf. v. '8. — Aijah] (Gn. ^6'*, father of Rizpah 2 S. 3' 2i''- '» " f) meaning hawk, cf. Lv. ii'« Dt. 14".— '.4«aA]. Cf.y.'K Gn. 36^' adds: "This is Anah who found the hot springs ( ?) in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father." — 41. 'Atiah]. Cf. v. ". — Dishon]. Cf. v. ". — Hamran] (Hemdan Gn. 362« f). The form in Chronicles suggestive of "lian he-ass, Hamor the father of Shechem, considering the other animal names in this section, is not improbably the true one. — Eshban] (Gn. 36'^ f). — Jilhran] (Gn. 36", also man or clan of Asher i Ch. 7" f ). Cf. Jether, a common n3.me.— Cher an] (Gn. 362' f). — 42. Ezer]. Cf. v. '«. — Bilhan] (Gn. 36", a Zebulunite i Ch. 7"'t). Some connect with Bilhah the concubine of Jacob (Stade, Gesch. i. p. 146, A. i). — Zawan] (Gn. 36" I). — Jaakan] (Akan Gn. 36" f) perhaps arisen from and Akan (jpyi) or possibly to be connected with "the sons of Jaakan" Nu. t^t,^'^- Dt. 10'.— Dishan]. Cf. v. ^".—'Uz]. Cf. V. '\—Aran] (Gn. 362' f). 34. Sntj'M vz-;] (^^ 'la/cw^ k. 'Hcrov, * /cat Uffav k. Ia(cw/3. The intro- ductory Kai of the latter points to ^ as original (8. This is adopted by Ki. and Bn. since the son of the promise, though the younger, precedes in V. ". — 36. •>flS] about thirty mss. and Gn. 36" ^cs. » 'tv— 38. ]V>^](& and Gn. 3621 n instead of n, so Ki. SBOT., Ball, SBOT., on Gn. 36='. Ki. Kom. retains '>■«.— 39. acini] Gn. 36=2 Kt. onini, Qr. D3''n\ (g in both places Ai/iA", hence Bn., Ki. BH. DC^'^1. — 40. j;S'] many MSS., (8^ and Gn. 36" p^'^j?, adopted by Ki. and Bn. — or] Gn. icr. (S* 'Zu/3 is probably a mu- I. 43-54.] RULERS OF EDOM 77 tilation, = -\DV = ids', v. s. v. 'b. — 41. jv^m-,!] (JJal _i_ ^^i EXt^afia OvyaTTjp Ava, r/. Gn. 362'. — }->cn] (6'' 'E/iepihv, *(!-) A;aa5a(/i). Many MSS. and Gn. 36^^ H^D, favoured by Ki. holding the root icn better suited for a proper name. — 42. Jpy] twenty-two MSS. and Gn. 36'' ]py^ but read with Os"'-)^ IJ^ ^^ jpy,,^ c/. Nu. 333"- Dt. io«. A correspondence between the three lines of descent from Noah through Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and the three lines from Abraham through Isaac, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah, has been found. As the descendants of Noah appear in seventy peoples, so likewise the descendants of Abraham may be reckoned as seventy tribes, Ishmael furnishing twelve; Keturah, thirteen; Isaac, two; Esau, sixteen (five sons and eleven grandsons); Seir, twenty-seven (including Timna v.") (Be.). Another reckoning omits Timna (v. ") but includes Ishmael (Oe.). Others reject the idea of seventy tribes having been designed by the Chronicler (Ke., Zoe.). This latter appears quite probable. 43-51a. The kings of Edom. — Taken from Gn. 36"-" (J generally but Dr. P). Since no king is the son of his predecessor and their residences change, it is probable that these kings were rulers and comparable to the judges in Israel or represented dif- ferent dynasties frequently changed as in northern Israel. The phrase before there reigned a king of the children of Israel (v. ") may either mean before a king reigned in Israel, i.e., before Saul, or before a king of Israel reigned over Edom, i.e., before the con- quest of Edom by David (2 S. 8>'). This latter interpretation is to be preferred (Buhl, Edomiter, p. 47, Dill., Holz., Gu.). — 43. Bela the son of Be or]. The name is so similar to " Balaam the son of Beor" (Nu. 22-24) that some have regarded the two per- sons as identical {EBi. I. col. 524, Gray, N'u. p. 324). Bela also son of Benjamin, 8', Reubenite 5'. — Dinhabah] (Gn. 36" f) location unknown. — 44. Jobab] (Gn. 36", cf. v. ") otherwise unknown. — Zerah] Cf. v. ". — Bozrah] (Gn. 36" Is. 34' 63' Je. 49"- " Am. 1 12 f) mod. Busaireh, twenty miles south-east of the Dead Sea and thirty-five miles north of Petra (Dr. Gn.). — 45. Husham] (Gn. 36^^ '• f cf. Hashum Ezr. 2" Ne. 7"). — Teman]. Cf. \.^\ — 46. Hadad] (Gn. 36" ', cf. also vv. " ', an Edomite who troubled Solomon i K. ii'< «• f) the name 78 I CHRONICLES of an Aramean deity found in the names Ben-hadad, Hadad- ezer. — Bedad] (Gn. 36" f) possibly to be connected with a range of hills called el-Ghoweithe, on the eastern side of the upper Amon (Dr. Gn., Gu. Gn.). — 47. Samlah] (Gn. 36" '■ f). — Masrekah] (Gn. 36" f ). The name may mean " place of choice vines," cf. Nahal Sorek "wady of choice vines" (Ju. 16'). — 48. Sha'ul] (Gn. 36" ' ) the same name as that of Saul, King of Israel, and also of clans of Simeon (4") and of Levi (6» (">). — Rehoboth] (Gn. 36", name of a well Gn. 26", and Assyrian city Gn. 10" f). — The River] is certainly not the Euphrates and the place Rahaba a little south of the mouth of the Habor (Dr. Gn.), but the river of Egypt, i.e., the Wady el-Arhh (Gn. 15") (Winck. Gesch. Isr. I. p. 192). — 49. Ba al-hanan] (Gn. 36" ' , an official of David i Ch. 27" f). The name "Baal is gracious," a synonym of Hannibal {cf. also Elhanan, Johanan), points to the worship of Baal in Edom (Dr. G«.). (Still "Baal" is more a generic title than that of a specific deity.). — Achbor] (Gn. 36" ' , also a cour- tier of Josiah 2 K. 22'' '* and perhaps Je. 26" 36" f, BDB.). The name means "mouse." — 50. Hadad] (Hadar Gn. 36", but some forty mss. and Samaritan mss. read Hadad). Cf. v. <•. — Pai] (Pa u Gn. 36" f). Perhaps we should follow (^ of Gn. and read Pe'or (TlJJS), a mountain and city north-east of the Dead Sea not definitely located {cf Nu. 23" Dt. 3"). The mention of his wafe and her maternal ancestry is striking; pos- sibly through this connection he laid claim to the kingship. The names occur only here and in Gn. 36", e.xcept Mehetabel, "God confers benefits," which is the name of an ancestor of the false prophet Shemaiah (Ne. 6'°). — Me-zahab] means "waters of gold." — 51*. And Hadad died] not in Gn., probably a copyist's or the Chronicler's blunder, thinking that the list of kings con- tinued. 51''-54. Tribal chiefs of Edom.— Taken from Gn. 36'° " with briefer introductory formula and omission of the concluding sum- mary. \\'hy the Chronicler should have given these a.s ckiliarchs, tribal chiefs, when he omitted in the previous lists this title given in Gn. 36"" *'■"', is not clear unless he felt that they were the followers of the kings. This list has been differentiated from the I. 43-54.] RULERS OF EDOM 79 previous ones because the chiefs were heads of territorial subdivisions and not purely tribal and possibly ruled after the conquest by Israel (Dr.).— SI**. The chief of Timna] and similarly in the names following.— ri/zma']. Cf. v. ^\—Aljah] ('Alwah Gn. 36*° f) perhaps identical with 'Alwan v. 40. — Jetheih] (Gn. 36'° f)-— 52. OhoHbamah] (in Gn. 36^- »• '*• >« " the wife of Esau, 36*' as here ^).—Elah] probably the seaport usually called Elath.—Pinon] (Gn. 36*') probably Punon of Nu. 33*' ' , between Petra and Zo'ar (Onom. 299, 123).— 53. Kenaz]. Cf. V. ".—Tetnan]. Cf v. ^^.—Mibsar] and Magdi'el] (Gn. 36*2 f) both in the Onom. (277, 137) located in the district of Gebal (south of the Dead Sea), and the former, under the name of Mabsara, as a considerable village belonging to Petra.— 7raw] (Gn. 36*')- A king of Edom ' Arammu is said to be mentioned in Assy. ins. (Ball, Gn. p. 94). 43. Snib'^ . . . D^sSsn] o'?nn with the succeeding relative clause as a footnote. Ki. Kom. follows % which is better, since -'^3] ($ BdXaK, ® ajr^'a were influenced by the simi- larity to the names in Nu. 22 (cf. Sayce, art. Edom in Z)S.).— 46. 113] '] Qr., some MSS., H and Gn. 36M n>lS. (& T€e0a{i)fi here and in Gn. = a name like DPmjJ, hence Ki. has a lacuna in the te.xt.— 47. Vv. <'b.49a in (gB foUo^ y. 5u.-_50. Sya |jn] many MSS., «, Gn. 36" + ii3Dy 13.— Tin] Gn. "nn, but there some MSS. of ^ and of the Samaritan Pentateuch Tin which, as the dynastic name of Edom, Ball, SBOT. adopts. Ki. influenced by vtoj BapaS of (6^ corrects to mn. — >>'i3] many MSS., H, Gn. u'c 'fl and so Bn. More likely lyfl - lyo.— V. "t is wanting in (6^, and so considered a later addition from Gn. by Bn., but the con- fusion of the Vatican text at this point discredits its value.— 51. pdm Tin] wanting in Gn.— The text of Gn. 36^'- iiry 'Di'-x nice' nSxi DnDC3 oncpcS onnfjrcS allows the phylarchs to have been contempora- neous with the kings previously recorded, while its substitute ^diSn vn^i oiiN suggests that they followed the kings (Be.). This is given directly in IS, Adad autem morluo duces pro regibus in Edom esse coeperuvt ; so also in SI. Probably, however, the Chronicler's change was simply that of condensation without introducing an exact order of succession. — n^Sj.'] Qr., many MSS., H, S, Gn. 36" ni^y. Zebulun (7«-" corrected text, see on c. 7), Dan (7'= corrected text), Naphtali (7'^), Manasseh (7'''"), Ephraim (7=°-"), and Asher (7=°-"'), com- pleting the circle with Benjamin (cc. 8, 935-44) ^nd the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (9''0 unless this list came from another and later hand. Asher should appear earlier in the list, but see comment on i Ch. 730-31^ (Jn 27'« » Asher is wanting.) More space is given to the descendants of Judah than to those of any other tribe, one hundred verses in all, while the tables of the house of Levi occupy eighty-one, Benjamin fifty, and a scant eighty-six suffice for the other ten tribes combined. Before inquiring further into the question of authorship — or, more properly, editorship — it may be observed that this is exactly what should be expected from the Chronicler. Chronicles-Ezra- Nehemiah is primarily a Levitical history of the Judean people. In the body of the work events of the N. kingdom are ignored, except as they touch Judean affairs. Hence it is not strange that the Chronicler should have collected the most genealogical notices for Judah and Levi. Benjamin also would receive special attention, since according to the post-exilic conception that tribe remained loyal to the house of David and was part of the S. kingdom {v. EBi. art. Benjamin, § 7). The analysis of these chapters depends upon the idea of the Chron- icler's character and purpose. With the premise that he intended these chapters only to serve as an introduction to his history of the Davidic kings, the task of striking out those parts of the genealogies carried down beyond the time of David becomes merely mechanical. But this premise cannot he sustained only on the ground that these tables precede the n. 1-2.] THE SONS OF ISRAEL 8l Davidic history. Nor can an analysis be based on the presupposition that the Chronicler would be careful to avoid conflicting details either in his own composition or in the matter he incorporated, since all that Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. reveals about his character as a writer stamps him as anything but consistent. The first chapters do not appear to be only an historical introduction cast in a genealogical mould, but also a genealogical and geographical preface to the succeeding chapters. As such they served a useful purpose, especially for a period of Hebrew history without a chronological era. As a reader consulting a modern history of Israel for information concerning one of the kings can turn to the chronological appendix first to learn the dates of his reign which suggest the general setting, so the reader of Chronicles could learn the chronological position by consulting the table of the kings (3"' 1 ), or, if it were a high priest, the table of the high priests (6' "■ (5" » ) ). Furthermore the Chronicler may have introduced some genealogies without any particular reason aside from his own interest in them. C. i clearly shows that he used practically all the genealogies he had for the early history, hence it is reasonable to suppose that the following chapters contain pretty much everything he was able to find. He seems to have considered it more important that a genealogy should be preserved than that it should be consistent with others already incorporated. An account of the geography of many of the tribes was also of interest to the reader of the Chronicler's history. This was probably suggested by the account of the distribution of territory in Jos. 12-24, which precedes the history of the Hebrews in Palestine recorded in Ju.-S.-K. These geographical notices are omitted strangely enough from the records of those tribes which occupied what was known as Galilee in the later times, viz., Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, and Asher. A possible explanation may be found in the fact that this territory is not involved in the Chronicler's history. Instead of giving the dwelling-places of Judah and Benjamin he inserts the inhabitants of Jerusalem (9' "■), their com- mon great city. II. 1-2. The sons of Israel.— These are introduced as a basis for the subsequent enumeration of the famihes of Israel. They are given as follows, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, the si.x sons of Leah, Dan, son of Bilhah Rachel's maid, Joseph and Benjamin, sons of Rachel, Naphtali, also a son of Bilhah, and Gad and Asher, sons of Zilpah Leah's maid. The position of Dan before the sons of Rachel, instead of after, is strik- ing. Otherwise the order is the same as in Gn. 35"''" and Ex. i'-« (omitting Joseph), late priestly narratives (P), where Dan follows Benjamin. The tribes, however, are not enumerated uniformly in 82 I CHRONICLES the Old Testament, cj. Gn. 46''-» 49'" Nu. i»-" «"-" 13*" 26'-*» Dt. 33« ^< c/ a/. (For a full exhibition of the orders of arrangement, of which there are some seventeen different ones in the Bible, and for a discussion of the subject, see EBi. art. Tribes by G. B. Gray, also art. in Exp. Mar. 1902.) II. 3-IV. 23. The genealogies of Judah. — This passage con- tains: (i) the descendants of Judah to Hezron's sons Jerahmeel, Ram, and Caleb (2'-'); (2) the descendants of Ram down to David and his nephews (2'"-"); (3) descendants of Caleb, including the family of a son born to Hezron in his old age (2"-^*); (4) the descendants of Jerahmeel (2"-"); (5) a supplementary table of Jerahmeelites (2"-"); (6) supplementary tables of Calebites (2"-"); (7) supplementary tables of the descendants of Ram (c. 3); (8) a second genealogy of Judah (4'"). At first sight we seem to have here a confused mass of genealogical matter accumulated through various insertions (the view of Bn., Ki.). Both 2'8 ^- and 2^^ ^- contain tables of Calebites, but if either were a later addition we should expect the interpolator to have placed his supplement in direct connection with the other, but now they are separated by vv. ''-'". Similarly we should expect c. 3, if secondare', to be placed after 2'"-". On the other hand, as the work of the Chron- icler, the order is natural. First he gives his primary genealogical material in the order Ram, Caleb, and Jerahmeel, and then appends supplementary matter (t;. /.) concerning each in reverse order. This reversal of order is the Chronicler's habit (r/. i< ^- " " et a!.). (2' gives the sons of Hezron as Jerahmeel, Ram, and Chelubai (oi'?3). Since Ram is considered first (2'° " ), we should expect his name to appear after that of Chelubai, according to the Chronicler's habit of consider- ing the last first (v. s.). The name Ram may have fallen from the text of V. ' by haplography, since the first word of v. 'o is also Ram, being reinserted later in its present place. In that case final ^ of ^3iS3 represents the initial 1 of Di pni. One is tempted to find support for this suggestion in (8°'^ where Kal ^Apd/x actually follows 6 XaXi^, but since 6 'Pa/i also precedes it, the former could be due simply to dit- tography. However, it is not necessary to suppose that the Chronicler would be consistent with his usual scheme.) The first table of Caleb's descendants (2" " ) is regarded as secondary, by Benzinger, who finds the original list of Calebites in vv. «-"». This is possible, especially if only one table of Calebites is ascribed to the Chronicler, but against it may be urged that as Jerahmeel of the sons of Hezron comes first in v. ', the Chronicler would be likely to place the n. 1-2.] THE SONS OF ISRAEL 83 list of his descendants last. Since the position of Ram's descendants seems to be firmly fixed (2'" «•), the proper place for the table of the Calebites is between these two, that is, just where it is found. Benzinger has also unnecessarily considered the passage concerning the family of Segub (22'-") to be out of place, but this passage forms a necessary intro- duction to V. " (corrected text v. i.). Although the latter is a doublet to V. '3'', since Ashur is probably the same name as Hur, and Ephrathah is to be identified with Ephrath, the Chronicler who differentiated Hur and Ashur elsewhere (4^') may have done so here also. Then 221-23 was introduced by the Chronicler in this place because the birth of Segub, Hezron's death, Caleb's marriage to his father's wife, and the birth of Ashur are successive events in Caleb's life. This is further attested by the chronological order shown in v. ", and Azubah diid, and Caleb took, etc. On this principle vv. '8-24 constitute a perfect unity. 2J4-41 is doubtless an appendix to the descendants of Jerahmeel, since V. '">^ these were the sons of Jerahmeel, is certainly a closing formula. Hence we have an appendix for each of the three sons of Hezron, Jerahmeel {2^*-*^), Caleb (2"-"), and Ram (c. 3). The first of these was probably put in the form of an appendix either because the compiler recognised the variant tradition regarding the genealogy of Sheshan (cp. v. 34 and v. ^i) or because he differentiated the two Sheshans, hence w. ^ s. had no direct connection with Jerahmeel. The second appendix with its geographical names and the third with its list of kings constitute proper material for postscripts. The reverse order of these additions is so suggestive of the Chronicler that it is safe to ascribe them to his original compilation in the absence of any strong evidence to the contrary. The first verse of 4'-23 is regarded by Benzinger as a superscription in which five descendants of Judah, Perez, Hezron, Caleb (so read for Carmi, v. i.), Hur, and Shobal, are co-ordinated as sons, while according to 2' "• they are members of a descending line. He further supposes that the Chronicler then took these up in reverse order. He strikes.out as secondary the verses which interrupt this scheme, viz. vv. ^-m- is- 21-23. It is doubtful, however, if v. • ever was intended as a superscription to vv. 2-23. This verse is directly connected with v. 2, with which it shows the Judean descent of the Zorathites, cf. 2". The Chronicler apparently used the device of putting the first five descendants in juxtaposition as a convenient abridgment {cf. ii ^- 24 ff), since their relationship was well known or could be learned from c. 2. Where he passes beyond well- known names (v. 2) the relationship is indicated. The following genealogies seem to be nothing more than short tables of Judean families which the compiler considered worth preserving. There is no good reason why they could not have come from the Chronicler, nor is there much ground upon which to argue for their authenticity. On the age of the material, see c. 4. 84 I CHRONICLES The source from which the Chronicler derived those genealogies not found in the OT. is uncertain. There is little likelihood that he had a book of Judean genealogies. More probably he used all the material which came to hand, connecting the names when possible with one of the older branches of the family^ Identity of names was sufficient for this purpose (see below on 2=°). II. 3-8. Sons of Judah. — These verses, e.xcept v. «, contain gleanings from the historical books. The writer seems hard put to find descendants for certain branches of Judah. — 3. The sons of Judah Er, Onan, etc.], derived from On. 38, cf. Gn. 46"'. — And Er the first born of Judah, etc.\ This remark is taken ver- batim from Gn. 38', hence Bn. without reason infers the passage secondary to Ch. The omission to record the similar fate of Onan, Gn. 38'", is noticeable. Here, however, as elsewhere the Chronicler assumes that his readers are familiar with the narratives of the Hexateuch. The story of the untimely death of Er and Onan implies that two of the ancient clans of Judah early disap- peared.— The Canaanite mothers Shu a and Tamar indicate a union of Israelite Judean stock with Canaanites. Reminiscences of early tribal history were thus preserved in folk-tales. For descendants of Shelah cf. 4=' 9* Ne. ii\ — 4. And Tamar his daughter-in-law bore to him Perez and Zerah] derived from Gn. ^8'3-3». Perez and Zerah were the youngest clans of Judah. Zerah, perhaps the autochthonous, was according to Stade of pure Canaanitish stock originally and at first surpassed Perez, but later declined (Ge5r/?. I. p. 158). — 5. The sons of Perez: Hezron and Hatnul], also a direct quotation from Gn. 46'=, cf. Nu. 26='. On Hezron see vv. ' " . Beyond the family of the Hamulites, Nu. 26^', no descendants of Hamul are given elsewhere in the Old Testa- ment. (On the name see textual notes.) — 6. The sons of Zerah : Zimri and Ethan and Heman and Calcol and Darda *]. Zimri is Zabdi of Jos. 7' '» (for change of spelling see text. note). Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, Calcol, and Darda sons of Mahol, are men- tioned in I K. 5" (4^') as distinguished wise men whom Solomon surpassed. Hence since Ezrahite (''n"'iTS) might be explained as a descendant of Zerah (BDB.) and may be regarded as an attrib- utive of Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the Chronicler evidently n. 3-8.] SONS OF JUDAH 85 placed these wise men as descendants of Zerah (Meyer, Entst. Jiid. p. 161). This identification has generally been accepted (Be., Ke., Mov., but not by Zoe.). Ethan and Heinan occur also in I Ch. as the names of two Levitical singers of the time of David, Ethan=Juduthun, 6" <<«> 15" '^ and an Ethan is also given among the ancestors of Asaph, i Ch. 6" '«', and Heman 1 Ch. 6^^ <"' i64i. 42 25'- ■'-6. From the point of view of the Chronicler, since this Ethan and this Heman are Levites they cannot have been identical with those of our passage. Pss. 88 and 8g, however, according to their titles are maschils of Heman the Ezrahite and Ethan the Ezrahite. Since Ps. 88 is also Korahite it is probable that Ezrahite Ethan and Heman in the titles of these Psalms repre- sent both the Levitical singers and the wise men of i K. 5" (4^'). In short, the one Ethan and the one Heman of Israel's early tradi- tions, synonyms of wisdom, seem each in the genealogical system or notes of the Chronicler to have been evolved into two persons. Ewald (Hist. III. p. 278) thought that the two great singers of the tribe of Judah were taken by the Levitical music schools into their company and family and were afterward in the titles of Pss. 88, 89, reckoned to the tribe of Levi. When these wise men lived, whether they were cotemporaries of Solomon or traditional wise men of a more ancient past, we have no means of knowing. Ac- cording to Seder Olam Rabba (ed. Meyer, p. 52), they prophesied in Egypt. (For a fanciful interpretation of their names connecting them with Job and his three friends see Klo. on i K. 5".) — 7. And the sons of Carmi]. The plural (''32) sons of is sometimes used in genealogical lists when only one son or descendant follows, if. vv. 8. 30. 31. 42 Gn. 36" 46" Nu. 26K—'Achar the tronblcr of Israel, etc.] 'Achan Jos. y- 's- '« =" "^^ 22" (see text. note). The brevity of this notice of Achar and the omission of Zabdi the connecting link between Achar and Carmi is another assumption of familiarity with the narratives of the Hexateuch. — 8. ' Azariah\ Nothing further is known of this Azariah. Whether the Chronicler meant an immediate or remote descendant of Ethan cannot be deter- mined. The name is very common. No other Zerahites are given elsewhere in the Old Testament except Sibbecai the Hushathite, and Maharai the Netophathite, two of David's captains, 27"- ". 86 I CHRONICLES 3. }:v>;'] (S Sauaj = rv^-. — 5. Sicm] the root Sen with the meaning spared BDB. is favoured by the name ni'^cn' on a seal {EBi., art. Hamul). (6 Efiovr)\ (^ lefwvr]\ by dittography of the preceding I) = S-icm = Snichi from icn + 't'n brother-in-law of God. This seems a more likely derivation, cf. 4^, but the meaning is dub., see Ki. SBOT., Kom., SS., We. DC J., p. 22. — 6 . ncr] Jos. 7' >i3:, <& Zafipp{e)t in both passages. The confusion of 3 and n is phonetic, of i and i graphic. — 1!^^^^^] many MSS., <&•- + MSS., &, (3, I K. 5" yi-ni, adopted by Ki. — 7. According to Jos. 7' Carmi was the son of Zabdi = Zimri {v. s.), hence 'cna ^■lot ^J3i may have fallen from the text or the Chronicler assumed this relationship was known. — "ij;"] Jos. 7' p;?. In the former we have an assimilation of the name of the man to that of the valley of Achor (Dill.) or the latter arose from a "scribal error, c/. (6^ in Jos. Axa/>. 9-55. The Hezronites. — Whatever may have been the relative position of this clan of Judah in the early history of the tribe, to the Chronicler Hezron was the all-important clan. Of it he reckoned by descent not only the royal family of David but also the great clans of Jerahmeel and Caleb. The accounts given of them are evidently from various sources. V. ' (excepting the word Ram, see below) is derived from some old source other than the Old Testament. Vv. '"•" appear to be taken directly from Ruth. Vv. ''•" in contents are drawn from i and 2 S. Vv. "", regarded by Ki. as an insertion (but see above), are derived partially from the Hexateuch, although considerable matter is new. Vv. "-" are entirely independent of anything elsewhere in the Old Testament. Of these, vv. "-33^ according to Ki., who follows We., represent early material, vv. "*' late, v\. "-" early, v. " late, v. *' early, v. ** late, w. <» ' early, v\'. "" late. 9. The sons of Hezron. — Hezron] vv.' " " " » 4<, appears also as a son of Reuben Gn. 46' E.\. 6'< Nu. 26" i Ch. 5', and as the name of a place indicating the southern boundary of Judah Jos. 15' (cf. also Kerioth-hezron Jos. 15"). jl^iiT! is to be con- nected with "1^'n enclosure (HWB.'', BDB.). A Hezronite then is a villager or dweller in a permanent settlement, a kraal, in con- trast to movable encampments, ^^'n appears in the names of several localities of southern Judah and Simeon besides the two mentioned; Hazar-addar Nu. 34*, Hazar-gaddah Jos. 15", Hazar- susah in Simeon Jos. 19', cf. 1 Ch. 4", Hazar-shual in southern n. 9-17.] THE GENEALOGY OF DAVID 87 Judah Jos. 15=' = I Ch. 4'^ Ne. 11", in Simeon Jos. 19^ Names from this root are also common elsewhere {v. BDB.). Under Hezron then we may have indicated only semi-nomads inhabiting a fixed abode and the name may have come from no political clan but only from a social class from which the Hezronites of Nu. 26' ■ " were evolved, and which occasioned this son of Perez and likewise the son of Reuhen.— J era hmeel], vv. " b. „. <2^ represents a clan dwelling in the days of David in southern Judah, i S. 27" 2oJ9. — Ram] as a second son of Hezron is suspicious because (i) the Old Testament elsewhere knows of no Judean clan Ram co- ordinate with Caleb and Jerahmeel, (2) the descendants of Ram, which follow w. '"-'^ are given not in families and cities as in the case of those of Jerahmeel and Caleb, vv. "" "<<• «-«', but simply in the pedigree of David. Ram is plainly intro- duced as a son of Hezron by the Chronicler from Ru. 4". The original statement from another source was evidently, and the sons of Hezron Jerahmeel and Chelnbai, and this was the intro- duction to vv. "-"■ *^-**- *'■ ■", where the descendants of Jerah- meel and Caleb are given. — Chelubai], equivalent to Caleb w. '8-" q. V. 10-12. The ancestry of David. — Ram begat 'Aminadab, etc.]. Omitting the words prince of Judah, derived from Nu. i% this pedigree of Jesse is taken verbatim from Ru. 4' "'-12a. it is ap- parently artificial, for i and 2 S. know only of Jesse the father of David the Bethlehemite. Salma or Salmon was the reputed founder of Bethlehem, cf. vv. " ". Nashon the son of Aminadab, according to P, was the prince of Judah during the Exodus, Nu. i^ 2' et al. Out of these materials the author of Ruth, or some other genealogist, with the added names of Boaz and Obed, possibly ancestors of Jesse, constructed this genealogy, placing Ram as the son of Hezron at its head. Two facts probably led to the selection of Ram: (i) in genealogical lore, the ancient Ram was the son of Jerahmeel i Ch. 2=8, but David plainly was not a Jerahmeelite, hence the father's name could not be used in his pedigree, and we have not Hezron, Jerahmeel, Ram, but simply Hezron, Ram; and (2) the appropriate meaning of the word "lofty," cf. We. DGJ. pp. 17/., Bertholet, Com. on Ru., p. 69. 88 I CHRONICLES 13-17. The family of Jesse. — 13. And Jesse begat his first born Eli'ab, etc.]. According to i S. 16'° '■ 17" Jesse had eight sons, Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah, and four others whose names are not mentioned, and David the youngest. & gives eight here, adding EUhu from 27", which ^ there has probably by cor- ruption (2S"»^S becoming iri'''?i<, (^ EXtayS). Was the number eight or seven? According to Budde (SBOT.) the sections con- taining I S. 16"' ' 17'' are among the latest additions to the book from a Midrash after 400 b. c. Another Midrash, equally current then, may have been followed by the Chronicler or invented by him, giving the number seven and also the names of the three sons, Nethaji'el, Raddai, and Ozem, which are not given elsewhere. The genuineness of the name Nethan'el is doubtful, since (accord- ing to Gray, HPN. p. 233) it is of post-Davidic formation. Raddai and Ozein (see v. ") could well be genuine as far as their forms go. — 16. And their sisters Zerinah ayid Abigail]. These are recorded for the sake of their distinguished sons. According to 2 S. 17" 1^ Abigail was the daughter of Nahash and hence she has been regarded as a step- or half-sister of David (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., et al.). Probably, however, the || of 2 S. 17" is corrupt and Jesse should be substituted for Nahash (05, B, We. TS., Klo., Bu. SBOT.). — And the sons of Zeruiah Abishai* Jo^ab and 'Asah^el]. These heroes are repeatedly named as sons of their mother I S. 26^28. 2'8,etc. The name of their father is nowhere men- tioned. Of the three brothers, Asahel according to the narrative of 2 S. 2"-" was clearly the youngest, but which of the other two was the older is uncertain. The order here suggests AbisJiai; that of 2 S. 2'«, Joab. — 17. And Abigail bore 'Amasa and the father, etc.] derived from 2 S. 17". — The Ishmaelite] the true reading {v. i.). 9. 13^3] (S-^ XaXe/3 = z^:^, » Xa/SeX.— 10. "ja] (S tov oXkov = n>3.— 11. m'^z' bis] <& and Ru. 4=' jisStt' but Ru. 4=» n:;'-;-, cf. \Vc. DGJ. p. 37. — 13. 'C-n] many mss. (Kennic.) '!:•> which may be simply a correction from the preceding ^v\ v. '=. Since the author would be likely to use the same spelling, 'i"}* has been taken for an original 'CM, SS., Ki. SBOT. — 3^r^^^1]. (S A/x. is a phonetic error common in ^). Here the Arameans adjoining Geshur are evidently meant. — Kenath and her daughters sixty cities] a district perhaps the modern Kanawat east of Argob in Bashan {cf. Nu. 32"). When these were lost to Israel is unknown, probably before the reign of Omri, since from then on the border fortress between Israel and Syria was Ramah (St. Gesch. I. p. 150). — All these were the sons of Machir] the summary of a section originally larger probably than vv. ^i". The introduction in the midst of a list of Hezronites from the three sons, Jerahmeel, Ram, and Caleb, of those through another son by a later marriage renders the contents of w. ^'-^ surprising, and especially are they strange in connecting in any way the Hezron of Judah with members of the tribe of Manasseh. Whether the historical fact of the incorporation of Judaites with Manassites lies back of this or whether the whole notice arises from a misunder- standing of genealogical material is uncertain. In the latter case Hezron may represent a Reubenite clan of that name {cf. 5') which coalesced with Gileadites (Meyer, Entst. Jnd. p. 160, Steuernagel, Einw. Isr. Stdnime, p. 19). In the former case it is possible that in post-exilic times a colony of Jews had settled east of Jordan in 92 I CHRONICLES Gilead, and that through this fact arose this genealogical connection between Hezron of Judah and Machir (Bn.). In Jos. 19" men- tion is made of Judah [on] the Jordan, which has been thought to point to such a colony (yet the phrase may be a corruption). Judas Maccabeus undertook a campaign in that district in order to rescue Jews from the hand of the heathen. Ki., on the other hand, holds vv. "i- to contain ancient material referring to a union of families of Manasseh, refugees from northern Israel, with those of Judah about 600 b. c; cf. the emphasis placed upon the cities of Jair in Dt. — 24. And after Hezron died Caleb went in unto Ephrath the wife of his father *] another genealogical notice of the setdement of the district of Bethlehem by the Calebites, cf. w. "• ". The taking of a father's wife was asserting claim to the father's possessions {cf. 2 S. 16" i K. 2''-"), and well expressed the legitimacy of Caleb's residence in northern Judah. — And she bore Ashhitr] clearly a repetition of v. "^ Ashhiir and Hur must be identical. — The father of Teko'a]. Hur was probably the e.xilic or post -exilic founder of Tekoa, or the family settled there. Tekoa, mod. Tekua, is about five miles south of Bethlehem. The place is frequently mentioned (4' 2 Ch. ii« 20" 2 S. 14' Am. i' Je. 6-t). 18. myn^ nsi na=N nan;? nx "fSin jnsn p aSoi] (5^ reproduces Si. A has for TiStn eXa^ev; & for '.in. js ; 'pni, tn. B combines ^*, tBi, and & accepit uxorem nomine Azubah de qua genuit Jerioth. This Ki. {SBOT.) follows, niyn> pn tiSim nrs nai-j? n.s npS, but in Kom., BH. he follows 0 pn ^nu's '•; p. We. {DCJ. p. ^2>) reads p3 n^i"'T instead of '•> Pxi. iH yields And Caleb son of Hezron begat of Azubah his wife and of Jerioth (AV., RV., Kau., Be., Oe.). Caleb then has children of two wives, but the context suggests those of only one wife, Azubah, '«''• 'S". J. H. Mich, met this difficulty by regarding Jerioth as another name for Azubah, the waw in pni being explicative. Ke. and Zoe. follow 0 regarding Jerioth the daughter of Caleb and mother of the sons of V. '"». On the whole, we prefer the reading of We., preferred by Bn. It still leaves the harsh construction of njvp pn after tSih denot- ing the mother and not the child (ns'x is probably a gloss to render this obvious). A parallel construction, however, may be found in Is. 66», where •\^'' Hiph. has the force to cause to bear, or px may be taken as equivalent to pkd, cf. JD iSiii 8'. — 24. n-ax pixn pu-ni ppidx a'^oa] IH adhered to by Ke., AV., RV. is clearly corrupt. (S has ^\dev XaX^)3 n. 25-41.] DESCENDANTS OF JERAHMEEL 93 eti 'Ex nmsN ^Sj Na, We. DGJ.. pp. 14/., Ki.— iinc-vs] = mn-a'N, We. DGJ. p. 15, SS., cf. SyatTN = Syaa-^s gss gS9^ iina'^x 718. In vv. "■ " 4^ he is called -nn, c/. S>'3 - Spasi-N 8'". 25-33. The families of the Jerahmeelites. — Jerahmeel in the time of David was an independent clan like that of Caleb, in- habiting the Negeb of Judah (i S. 27'° 30"). It is not mentioned in subsequent history. Whether it played any part in the post- exilic Jewish community, or whether this genealogy having been preserved with that of Caleb was therefore recorded by the Chroni- cler, we do not know {v. s. on vv. "-2^). All the names given are comparatively early ones and favour the antiquity and historicity of the list.— 25. Ram] v.", cf. vv. »• "> Jb. 32'. A possible con- nection has been seen between this family and Abram. The name by some is supposed to represent an ancient deity {v. s. i"). — Bii- nah and Oren f ]. — Ozem] v. '^ f. — His brother *]. So we must probably read in place of the proper name Ahijah. — 26. ' Atarah\ This name of the mother of the most widely extended family of the Jerahmeelites is to be compared for its original meaning and derivation with Hezron, v. ', and probably arose from the Jerah- meelites inhabiting Ataroth (miDy), protected places (We. DGJ. p. 15). Ataroth alone appears as a local name, Nu. 32' " Jos. 16', and also in combination Jos. 16* 18" Nu. 32=5 i Ch. 2". That Atarah was a second wife probably shows that the earlier sons of Jerahmeel represented nomad families, while her descendants those of a more settled life. — Onam] v. ", also the name of a family of Edom I" On. 36^3 -j-^ perhaps connected with Onan the son of Judah, V. '. — 27. Ma'az and Jamin and 'Eker]. Maaz and Eker are mentioned only here. Jamin is among the sons of Simeon, Gn. 46'°.— 28. Shammai]. Cf. 2'^. ss. 4o. 45 ^n.—Jada] v. ", for compounds of root from which it comes {]!T), see i". — Nadab] v. '° a frequent name. — Abishur] v. " f. — 29. Abihail * ] name of the wife also of Rehoboam 2 Ch. ii'' and a man's name, a Levite Nu. 3=^ a Gadite i Ch. 5'% and the father of Esther Est. 216 g=9 ^,—Ahban and Molid f]-— 30. Seled ^\—Appaim] v. 3> f .— 31. Jish'i] 23' 4^'>- « 52^ f , a name thus of frequent occurrence. — Sheshan] vv. ='• ''■ '^ ■\.—Ahlai] iV f-— 32. Jether] a frequent 94 I CHRONICLES name. — 33. Peleth] Nu. i6' a Reubenite. Possibly there is con- nection with Beth-pelet a city of southern Judah, Jos. 15" Ne. II". — Zaza]f. — These were the sous 0/ Jerahme'el] the conclusion of this list of Jerahmeelites. None of these families or persons are mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament (except Sheshan below), and hence nothing more can be said concerning them. The fact that Onam is also the name of a family of Edom and Ja- min of one of Simeon suggests a close relationship with those tribes. 25. n>nn] the name of a fifth son, Ahijah, AV., RV., Kau., V, 21; the name of the mother of the preceding four sons, a D following dxn having fallen out, the text having stood 'NC dxn Ozem of Ahijah, Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe. (S> d8€\3N] read with many mss., d"^ '?>n^jx. — 30. d^dh] also v. ". Ki. emends to onoK after (&^ 'Ecppdi/x, ^ y^L^f^;^^, since a name a-.sK is suspicious. We. DGJ., but (6^ may be a corruption of A it has been assumed that Alilai was a daughter of Sheshan, "sons" there indicating only descendants (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.) This is possible, but for w. "■" the Chronicler probably had an entirely different source from that of w. "-•'. (Ki. regards them as a late section added to the work of the Chronicler, giving another and fuller story of the lines of descent from Sheshan and placed here as an appendix to the families of the Jerahmeelites.) — Jar hi]. Of this Egyptian nothing further is known, and also nothing further of the four- teen descendants recorded in vv. "<'. Although many of the names occur elsewhere, in no case can they be probably identified with those persons. We do not know also when Elishama' (v. <■), whose pedigree is so carefully recorded, flour- ished. Since Sheshan is the tenth in descent from Judah, older n. 42-65.] DESCENDANTS OF CALEB 95 commentators thought of him as residing in Egypt not far from the period of the Exodus and placed the period of Ehshama four- teen generations later or near the close of the period of the Judges (Ke.). More likely Elishama represents some one near the time of the Chronicler. If, however, Jarha lived as early even as 1000 B. c, and Elishama about 600 B. c, there is nothing in the charac- ter of the names given against the genealogy being genuine. They stand in sharp contrast with others which appear to be made up from names current in the Chronicler's own time (Gray, HPN. P-235)- 42-55. Families of Caleb.— C/. w. ''-''*. Vv. «-«• *■>■ ■"• '<" belong together and come apparently from the same source as w. 26.33_ Vv. "• <' 60a^-66 appear also of common origin, and belong to the late material of i Ch. (We., Ki.). — 42. The brother of Jerahmeel] v. '. — Mesha*] an early family of Caleb (if text is not altered) of which nothing further is known; in 2 K. 3^ the name of akingofMoab. ^ has Maresha, see below. — Ziph] two places of this name are given among the towns of Judah: one Jos. 15", still unidentified, the other Jos. 15^^ cf. i S. 23 '< ^- 26^, the modern Tell Ziph one and three-quarters hours south-east of Hebron (Baed." p. 170). This latter is here referred to. — Maresha^] the name of a well-known town of the Shephelah, Jos. 15^^ 2 Ch. 11 » 149 '■ 20" Mi. I '5 1, the modern Merash (Baed." p. 116). It is difficult, however, to bring this place in connection with Hebron, although Hebron may in some way have been colonised therefrom. Well- hausen regards the name, from the preceding words "sons of," as purely gentilic, and not to be connected with the town. Proba- bly both Mesha and Maresha are due to dittographies from v. "' and the verse originally read Sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel, . . . his first-born the father of Ziph and the father of Hebron. The name of this first-born may He hidden in Mesha or Maresha. — 43. And the sons of Hebron]. The descendants now given are mostly, if not all, geographical names. — Korah]. The connection suggests a town of southern Judah, although mentioned elsewhere in the OT. only as a family or descendant of Levi. — Tapptiah] equivalent to Beth-tappuah Jos. 15", the mod. Taffuh west of Hebron {SWP. III. pp. 310, 379; Baed.^ p. 152). — Rekem] 96 I CHRONICLES Otherwise unmentioned, probably a to\.Ti of southern Judah. A town of this name is given as belonging to Benjamin Jos. i8'", also the name of a king of Midian Nu. 31' Jos. 13". — Shanm] perhaps the same as Eshtemoa' (Hithp. of same stem) Jos. i^^" 21", cf. the mod. Semua identified with Eshtemoa (Rob. Res. II. p. 194). The location of Eshtemoa in the immediate neighbour- hood of Hebron favours this identification.^ — 44. Raham]. The root (cni) appears in Jerahmeel. — Jorkeam] probably Jokdean Jos. 15", mentioned before Juttah, mod. Yata, east of Hebron (Baed." p. 169). — Shammai] (in v. " a Jerahmeelite tribe, in i" Edomite), not identified as a geographical name, perhaps gentilic; a name of common occurrence, cf. v. -\ — 45. Ma on] Jos. 15" I S. 252, mod. Main south of Hebron {SWF. III. pp. 404, 415; Baed.= p. 144). — Beth-ziir] Jos. 15^8 2 Ch. 11' Ne. 3'*, mod. Beii Sur, four miles north of Hebron {SWP. III. p. 311 ; Baed.< p. 112). — 46. And Ephah the conciib-ine of Caleb* elc.]. This verse is entirely obscure. Neither Ephah, Haran, Moza, nor Gazaz can be identified with any places, families, or persons mentioned elsewhere. Ki. joins with v. "« and marks as a later addition to i Ch. — 47. Jahdai]. The connection with the foregoing is not given and the name has been taken as that of another wife or concubine of Caleb; more probably Jahdai is a descendant of Caleb whose name in the original connection has fallen from the text. Of the following sons none are otherwise known unless Pelet is identical with Beth-pelet a town of southern Judah Jos. 15". The verse according to We. and Ki. is to be connected with v. "=■. — 48. Maacah] entirely unknown, since this cannot be connected with the Aramean Maacah or with various persons mentioned else- where in the Old Testament of the same name (3' 7" 8" 11", etc.). — Sheber f] and Tirhanah |] are equally unknown. — 49. And Shaaph begaf*], a continuation of v."". — Madmannah] from Jos. 15" a well-known town of southern Judah, possibly Umm Deinneh, twelve miles north-east of Beersheba {SWF. III. pp. 392, 399). — 5'//et'a f] except Qr. 2 S. 20", entirely unknown. — Machbena] perhaps the same as Cabbon, a city of southern Judah Jos. is*" (BDB.). — Gibe a] possibly the same as Gibeah Jos. 15", mod. Jeba, eiglit miles west of Bethlehem (SW F. III. p. 25), although a n. 42-55.] DESCENDANTS OF CALEB 97 locality further south would be more natural. The name "hill" can readily be thought of as belonging elsewhere. — And ' Achsa was the daughter of Caleb]. Thinking that the Chronicler dis- tinguished more than one Caleb and that the son of Hezron differed from the son of Jephunneh Mov. regarded this clause as an inter^ polation from Jos. 15'% cf. Ju. i'^ It is wanting in §. Ke., recog- nising two Calebs, ben Hezron and ben Jephunneh, held the latter, the father of Achsa, to have been a descendant of the former, and bath, daughter, here to signify in a wide sense female descendant. The original framers of these genealogies probably sought no explanation of a Caleb ben Hezron and a Caleb ben Jephunneh, but identified the two and gave Achsah as a daughter in each case. — 50. These were the sojis of Caleb]. This summary looks backward, not forward, cf. v. '^b^ a^d closes the list of pre- exihc Calebites in their ancient homes in the vicinity of Hebron. The sons of Hur the first-born of Ephratha]. These words intro- duce a new paragraph giving the Calebites of the post-exilic period (see above vv. " ' ). — Shobal the father of Kirjath-jearim, 51, Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Beth-gader]. These three, sons of Hur, are either the post-exilic founders of the three towns mentioned, or an adoption of the reputed founders of those places by the later Calebite settlers. According to Ru. 4=° '■ Salma was the great-great-grandfather of David. — Beth-gader] pT;^ Jos. 12"), Gedor, see 4*. — 52. And the sons of Shobal . . . were Re'ajah*, half of the Manahtites^]. This passage is utterly obscure. The emendations are derived from v. ^* 42. — 53. The Ithrites and the Puthites and the Shumathites and the Mishrdites]. Nothing further is known of these families of Kirjath-jearim. Two of David's heroes were Ithrites 2 S. 23'8 1 Ch. ii^"; their connection, however, may have been with Yattir i S. 30" (Klo., Sm.). — And from these went forth the Zorathites and the Eshta'olites]. From these families or the Mishraites alone came the inhabitants of Zorah (mod. Surah, SWP. III. p. 158) Jos. 19^' Ju. 13^ 25^ etc., and of Eshta'ol (mod. Eshua near Surah, SWP. II. p. 25) Jos. 15" 19" Ju. 13", etc. — 54f . The sons of Salma] the heading of the following places and families. On Salma cf. vv. " ^i. — Netopha- thites] Ne. 12=', cf 2 S. 23=' 2 K. 25", the inhabitants of Netophah, 98 I CHRONICLES Ezr. 2" Ne. 7»«, probably a village near Bethlehem, identified with the ruin f/w Toba north of Bethlehem {SWP. III. p. 52), or pos- sibly Beit Netlif (Rob. Res. II. pp. 16/., but see Bacd.* p. 124). — Ataroth-beth-jo\ih] an unknown place. — Half the Manahtites tlie Zorites]. Cf. v.". One half of this otherwise unkno\\Ti family seems to have dwelt at Kirjath-jearim and the other at Zorah. — And families of the scribes inhabiting Jabez, Tirathites, Shima- thites, Sucathites]. The mention of the scribes shows clearly that we have a post-exilic notice, since it is doubtful whether families of them existed earlier. The location of Jabez is unknown, cf. 4' ' . In the three families Jerome recognised three different classes of religious functionaries, H canentes atqiie resonantes et in tahernaculis commorantes. ® explains somewhat similarly, except that the Sucathites are those "covered" with a spirit of prophecy. Be. follows in, except that he regards the first class as gate-keepers (Aram, ynn =Heb. nj/'y')- ^Vc. {DGJ. pp. 30/.) finds underlying the three names rij?"iri a technical term for sacred music, n*?12*ky the Halacha or sacred tradition, and n^lil' which he connects, following Be. and H, with nwlD booth (so also Ki.). Buhl (HWB.^^) derives the last two names from unknown places. Ke. interprets as descendants from the unknown Tira, Shemei and Sucah. Bn. finds too obscure to explain. — These are the Kenites who camefrotn Hammath f the father of the house of Rcchab] an obscure statement. The Rechabites, Je. 35* «•, probably became an integral part of the post-exilic Jews, and families of scribes, perhaps from their ancient loyalty to Yahweh (2 K. 10'^ ■■), seem to have been reckoned as belonging to them along with their other connection with Salma. That the Rechabites were also Kenites (Ju. I" 4" I S. 15') is not improbable. An indication of their position in post-exilic Judaism may be seen in the fact that one of their number, Malchijah ben Rechab, was the overseer of one of the Judcan districts, Ne. y*. 42. pnan 'as ncns ij3i t\v 'jn nih n;3 jrcs ':'Nrn-\> ins 2*^3 'j^i]. This text is probably corrupt. (6 has nns instead of >;:"3 which Ki. follows and strikes out '3n before jnan as a gloss (Kom., BH.). yv-'p following "^NDm^ may have arisen from the preceding jtss^Sn v. <• (a similar confusion from the present text appears in i&, where in place of m. 1-24.] DESCENDANTS OF DAVID 99 psfiD, the text has jrotr^SN), and ncns may be a transmuted dittography of yv"a with 'J3i added. Under this conjecture the original text as far as can be restored was jn^n ^ni in ^^n Nin nja . . . Sxcm'' ^nx aSo >J3. A first-born who occupied perhaps first the district of Ziph, or small town Ziph, and later Hebron, is a not unnatural supposition from the story of Caleb's relation to Hebron given in Jos. 14' ^- 151'. It is also possible that w^n has fallen out before nsy-ia through the simi- larity of names. — 44. Dyp-c] cf. D>npi Jos. 1556. The two names are without doubt identical. — 47. jtr'ij] (U* Trjpa-w/ji., cf. ^ Zwyap, which, even if corrupt, supports p in the •*■ text, hence Ki. y^-'.i. — 48. ^S>]. The subject nayn requires ni'^j, Ges. § 145M. — 49. lyc nSm] to be read IJitt' 17M, since 1^!:' has already been mentioned in v. *', and v. " most probably is its continuation, We. Z)G/. p. 19, Ki. — 50. p] some MSS., (6, "B 'J3, required since several sons of Hur are enumerated. — 51. xd'jb'] (S^"^ ^a\u}fiti)v. — 52. nx-in] read niNi. This correction is made ac- cording to 4^, since the former is meaningless, so Ki. — mnjcn] \nnjDn according to v. ^K — 55. i3t'i] Qr. ''2Z'i\ III. 1-24. The descendants of David. 1-9. David's children. — The sources of this Hst are 2 S. 32-' ^M-u j^'. With the e.xception of Amnon, Adonijah, Absalom, Solomon, and the daughter Tamar, these children are known only by name. Some names have suffered in our passage through transcription. Instead of Daniel v. ' we should read after 2 S. 3^ Chileah (v. i.). Otherwise the names of the sons bom in Hebron present no variations. Of those bom in Jerusalem the Chronicler gives Shim'a (Sj;t:tr) v. ', for Shammua (yiDt^) 2 S. 5'^ Elish- amd (j;otr''^S) V. « for Elishud {-^y^^b^) 14^ 2 S. s'' which should be read here (Bn., Ki.). The textual corruption in this latter case is very evident, since Elishamd appears as the name of a son in V. 8 2 S. 5'=. The two names Eliphelet (t^'^S'^^S) v. «, and Nogah (riJJ) V. ', which are wanting in 2 S., have clearly been developed in transcription and should be struck from the text (Ki.). Instead of Eljadd (yT^^X) (v. « 2 S. 5'^), the original true name probably was Bdaljadd (yT'^^i), given in 14', the change having been made to avoid the use of Baal (Ki., Dr. TS.). Bath- shu'a (yitTTin) V. \ instead of Bath-sheba' (yZw* i13) 2 S., i K., is a phonetic variation arising from the similar sound of 2 bh and T w. The length of David's reign in Hebron and of that in Jerusalem are taken from 2 S. 5^ lOO I CHRONICLES 1. fnana n'^xi] 2 S. 3- jnanj d^j3 nnS nV-vi. — I'^tj] on con- struction, see Dav. Syn. § 8i R. 3. — -ii32n] 2 S. 11^33 ^n'v — >j8'] read with OS ''jc'ri, cf. other ordinals with art. 2 S. 3' has inj2'ci.->'N»ji] a corruption of 3n':'d of 2 S. where (6 has Ao\oi/ict = hn'^i, so also (S'^'- here, but " Aafj.vnj\. These variations point to a corruption of 2n'^3 into hnSt into Sn^ji, so Ki. In favour of this are the errors of trans- mission in vv. 6( (v. 5.). The name of the second son of David still remains doubtful, however, since the name 3nSo occurs nowhere except in 2 S. 3' and ax*^ looks like a dittography, see Stenning, DB., art. Chileab.— S>JON^] 2 S. + Saj nc-s, but (S there agrees with Ch.— 2. D1^:;'3N'^] twenty mss. and 2 S. omit '^. — 3. ^•jox'^] 2 S. 3^ Sa^as p, but (6 there read 'x'^. ^ has been corrected from l| of 2 S. — irrs] 2 S. 3' nt's Til. # corrected from 2 S. — 4. iS nSi: n-yz'] 2 S. nnS n'?'' n^.s. ^ conflates. — 5. 'uin'^si] cf. 14* = 2 S. 5'*. — ^i^Vij] point with many MSS. ■n'^^j, Ges. § 6gt. — xysi:'] 14' 2 S. 5" "idk', c/. i S. 16'. — yvi' r^'-] one MS., H, 2 S. II and i K. i >'3U' P2, '3i (v. s.). — ri;'rn] must be read npac after striking out njji ioSdiSni {v. s.). 10-14. The line of descent from Solomon to Josiah. — These are the kings of Judah who reigned during this period. 15-16. From Josiah to Jehoiachin. — 15. The sons of Jo- siah]. The four sons are mentioned because with Josiah the regular succession from father to son of the kings of Judah ceased. Their names and order of enumeration present difficulties. Three sons of Josiah are mentioned in 2 K. whose births were in the fol- lowing order: Jehoiakim, 2 K. 23=^; Jehoahaz, 2 K. 23"; Zedekiah, 2 K. 24'8. According to Je. 22" Shallum was another name of Jehoahaz. The Chronicler then has either given Johanan an otherwise unknown eldest son of Josiah, and has misplaced in re- spect to birth Shallum, \\\\o should be recorded as older than Zede- kiah (Shallum and Zedekiah were sons of the same mother Hamu- tal, 2 K. 23" 24'»), or Johanan stands for Jehoahaz (as a copyist error, Ki.) and Shallum was regarded as still a difTerent son. — 16. The sons of Jehoiakim]. On the plural sons cf. 2'. — Jeconiah] Je. 24' 29=, called also Coniah, Je. 22=*- " 37', the king Jehoiachin 2 K. 24»-'5. — Zedekij3i, the verse mentioning only the sons of Hananiah,'"ija being repeated through copyist error. Instead of lJ->x read n^JiN. In v. " eliminate n^j'ci:' ij3i as copyist error and read t^iani. Skj"! is an equivalent for Snjii and in place of the unexampled nn2 read ^>^Iy and instead of nnj?j read nnj^j. In V. -2 read •'J31 instead of ]2^. The remaining names of the section, in vv. "'•, are correctly transmitted and full of meaning. In ^rp_i>*?N "Unto Yahweh are mine eyes" is a confession and prayer of trust in Yahweh for the fulfilment of promised deliverance from present humiliation. 17. idn] read iDNn, the preceding word ending in n has caused the loss of the art. — 18. nxxjirn] has been identified with isars' of Ezr. i' (v. s.). A comparison of the Greek MSS. of i Esd. 2>' and 2 Esd. i' shows that SavajSao-irapos was the original form in ; is noticeable. The name is equivalent to DXy^ meaning He causeth pain. — 10. And Ja'bez called on the God of Israel saying, Oh that thou wouldest surely bless me and enlarge my border and that thy hand woidd be with me and thou wouldest keep back evil so that no sorrow shoiddest befall me!]. A prayer that the evil signified by his name might be averted. — And God granted that which he asked]. This ex- plains V. «". 3. DH'j? ''3X n'-xi] some MSS. ^i2 instead of ox and others os—'ja; (g Kal oJJTOi viol Airdv; B ' *^i 1 tV]? ^tnols ^t\aiO, And these are the sojis of Aminadah; B Ista quoqiie stirps Etam. Something Io8 I CHRONICLES seems to have fallen from ^. Kau. follows (&. Ki. ';!< iin 'ja h'^ni DQ'i' (And these are tJie sons of Hur the father of Etam) (also Bn.). — 'jiflS'^xn] may be read the Zelelponite or taken as a personal name Zelelponi, meaning, Give shade thou that turnest to me (BDB.). It is better to see in ''JiD a dittography from the following Snub. The name then is SSxn or perhaps S'^x. One is tempted to write SnSs shade of God. — 6. qthn] some MSS., ® 2tnN, B Oozam. — 'i-cnNn] perhaps a corruption of 'iincNn the Ashhurites {v. s.). — 7. inxi] read with Qr. "insi, (5 Kal Zdap. — pPNi] 21 + y•\p^, adopted by Klo. PRE.^ iv. 94, followed by Ki., Bn. — 8. Ki. following Klo. inserts y^y among the sons of fip, also suggesting as possible that naasn = y^'P — 9. T3>"] in popular etymology derived from as;? (v. s.). It is not necessary to suppose with Klo. that the name read 3S>\ cf. T". — 10. on] a particle of wishing, BDB. cn ib (3), Ges. § 1516, or of con- dition with conclusion suppressed, Oe., Kau., Ges. § 167a. — nj'-^p niB'jri] is difficult to translate. (& yvCiaiv = n;n^. The readings ni',12 and nsnr; have been suggested. Ki. thinks an error lies in the verb and reads 'D n''7Qi. Better retain M. — "'3x^ \iSaS] noun-suffix as object of inf., Ges. § 115c; penult syllable closed, Ges. § 6ia. 11-15. The sons of Caleb. — 11. And Calub] i.e., Caleb (cf. 2' and above on v.'). — Of Shiihah f nothing is known. (^ has in place of the brother of Shiihah, "the father of Achsah" Jos. 15", clearly a makeshift in an obscure passage. Buhl {HWB.'^^) suggests the reading Hushah, cf. v. *. — Mehir f] and Eshton f ] are also entirely obscure. — 12. Beth-rapha] a place or family otherwise unknown. A Benjaminite Rapha is mentioned 8', and Kapha collective sing., or plural Raphaim (mss. vary), 20< refer to the giant aboriginal race of Palestine. A vale (.t!Cy) of Rephaim near Jerusalem is also mentioned, Jos. 15' i8'« 2 S. 5"- ". — Paseah'] a post-exilic family name of Nethinim, Ezr. 2*9 Ne. 7", cf. Ne. 3«. — Tehimmh ^father of the city Nahash\ This looks like a reference to some post-e.xilic Jewish settlement, but is utterly obscure. — Recah f ]. (S®^ (probably original (&, see text, n.) have Recab, and this probably furnishes the true reading and explana- tion of the families given in vv. " ' . They were Recabites, cf. 2". — 13. And the sons of Kenaz OthnVel and Seraiah]. Cf. Ju. i>» where Othniel is called the son of Kenaz, and is either the nephew or brother of Caleb (Moore in loco favours the latter). Othniel probably represents a clan. Seraiah (not an infrequent name IV. 1-23.] GENEALOGIES OF JUDAH I09 from the time of David onward) as the brother of Othniel is mentioned only here. It smacks so strongly of an individual and the later period of Israel's history that it probably represents a post-exilic connection, cj. v. 14 (r/. Gray, HPN. p. 236). — And the sons of Othni'el Hathath f] entirely obscure. — 14. And Meonothai f] (TlJiyOI) probably represents inhabitants of Ma' on, cf. 2". One would expect a connection with Othniel to have been indicated. Possibly Hathath represents a mutilation by copyist of Me onothai or its original, or perhaps and Me ono- thai has fallen from the text after Hathath {v. i.). — Ophrah] entirely unkno\\Ti. The word occurs as the name of the city of Benjamin, Jos. 18" i S. 13", and also as that of one of Manasseh Ju. 6". — And Seraiah begat Joab the father of the Ge-harashim] i.e., Valley of Craftsmen, for they were craftsmen]. Ge-harashim is mentioned with Lod and Ono Ne. ii'^, and it may be identified with the ruin Hirsha east of Lydda (DB.). Of this Joab nothing further is known. Probably a Kenizzite Othnielite Seraiah was the reputed father of a Joab who established a post-exilic colony or settlement of craftsmen near Ono and Lod. Indeed in post- exilic times if not earlier the Kenites, whom some have regarded as the smiths or craftsmen of ancient Israel (Sayce, Art. Kenite, DB.), may have been reckoned as Calebites. — 15. And the sons of Caleb the son of Jephimneh] Nu. 32''' Jos. i4«- ". The link con- necting Caleb with Kenaz is apparently omitted as well known. The enumeration of descendants of Othniel before those of Caleb son of Jephunneh is in accordance with the method in this chapter of mentioning the younger members of a family first, cf. Shobal V. ^ before Hur, and Hur before Caleb or Kenaz. — Caleb the son of Jephunneh] a Kenizzite, Jos. 14^- ■% one of the twelve spies whom Moses sent into Canaan, Nu. 13^ 14% who was rewarded for this service with the ancient city of Hebron, Jos. 14". — Ir f * and Elah f and Naam f] entirely obscure. One is tempted to join Ir (^••y) city, with Elah and find a reference to the city Elath (Pi^X = J*l^^X), Dill., Gn. 36*'. At all events Elah is an Edomitic name which may be seen in El-paran (j^S h'^^) the wilderness south of Judah. Possibly post-exilic Calebites looked upon the ancient Edomitic city of Elath as having belonged once to their clan. — no I CHRONICLES And the sons of Elah, Kenaz*]. This statement is surprising unless Elah as suggested is the name of the district of Elath or El-paran, which might have been the early home of the Kenizzites, or the name of the tribe of which Kenaz was an offshoot. Ki. thinks a name has fallen from the text and that another son was enumer- ated with Kenaz. Both Bn. and Ki. regard v. '' as an insertion. This is probable; some one missed an allusion to Caleb the hero of Judah and inserted a bit of genealogical lore concerning him. 11. nnv^ ^nx ai'^3i] (B Kal XaX^/3 Trarrjp Affxa.(s) is a correction from 2". — 12. i:'nj] (gi^'^ + d8e\4>ov 'E(re\utJL{v) tov Xeve^(e)l, L a. AdOofi t. Keve^alov, adopted by Bn., Ki., since it supplies a connecting link with V. '^. Ki. recognises the difficulty raised by this unknown E. 'J3i 1}?^ n^K] some MSS., /^]. Cf. 2*\—Zipha f] fern, of Ziph, possibly a dittography. — Tina f ] and Asar'el f] entirely obscure. The latter may be a form of Israel (see te.xt. note). — 17". And the sons* of Ezrah] Ezrah possibly same as Ezer v. \ — Jether] IV. 1-23.] GENEALOGIES OF JUDAH III common name, cf. 2". — Mered ■\].—'Epher] name of son of Midian i" Gn. 25% and of member of tribe of Manasseh 5". — Jalon f]. — 17'' f. ||, repeated in B, AV., RV., gives incomplete meaning. Usually the clauses are rearranged as follows: ('s*") And these are the sons of Bithiah f the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took, i.e., to wife, (''»>) and she conceived [andbore] Miriam and Shammai and Jishbah f the father of Eshtenioa ("^ ') and his Jewess wife bore Jered the father of Gedor and Heber the father of Soco and JekuthVel f the father of Zanoah (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Kau.). (^ adopted by Ki., requiring only a slight change in the text, gives the following : And Jether begot Miriam and Shammai and Jishbah the father of Eshtenioa and his Jewish wife bore Jered the father of Gedor and Heber the father of Soco and J ekuthiel father of Zenoah; and these are the sons of Bithiah the datighter of Phara oh whom Mered took . . . The names of the sons of Mered by Bithiah must then have fallen from the text. This rendering presents three lines of maternal descent among the grandsons of Ezrah (v. »'"), since a Calebite wife must be assumed where none is particularly mentioned. — Miriam] elsewhere in the OT. only of Moses' sister, is here evidently a man's name. — Sham- mai]. Cf. 2'\ — Eshtemoa] 6" <"' Jos. 155" 21'* i S. 30=8 the present village es Semu''a south of Hebron {SWP. III. p. 412). — Jered |] except antediluvian patriarch, Gn. 5'^ * . — Heber] a name also of the son of Asher 7" '■ Gn. 46" Nu. 26^^, of a Benjaminite 8'7, and of the Kenite husband of Jael Ju. 4"- '■• ^i 5='. In this last is an association with southern Judah. Cf. also Hebron containing the same root. — Gedor]. Cf. v. ^ — Soco]. Two places bore this name, one near the valley of Elah Jos. 152^ i S. 17' i K. 4'° 2 Ch. 11' 28" modern Kh. Shuweikeh {SWP. III. p. 53; Rob. BR.^ II. pp. 20/.), and the other south-west of Hebron near Eshte- moa , Jos. 15^', also identified, modem name same as the other {SWP. III. pp. 404, 4x0; Rob. BR.' I. p. 494)- This latter is probably the one here mentioned. — Zanoah]. Two places also bore this name, one near Beth-shemesh, Jos. 15" Ne. 3'' 11'", mod. Zanii'a {SWP. III. p. 128; Rob. BR.' II. p. 16), the other south-west of Hebron, Jos. i56«, mod. Kh. Zanuta {SWP. III. pp. 404, 410/.; Rob. BR.' II. p. 204 note). Here again the latter is 112 I CHRONICLES probably the one referred to in the text. This passage as a whole points to some interesting traditions respecting the origin of the families of southern Judah. In the "daughter of Pharaoh" we may see some intermixture of an Egyptian element in the families. — 19. Another entirely obscure genealogical fragment. — Hodiah] the name of several post-exilic Levites, Ne. 8' 9' 10" *">> 14". — Naham f]. — Ke ilah] place of Judah frequently mentioned, Jos. 1$**, Ne. 3" ' (especially in connection with David i S. 23' "■), identified in mod. Ktla east of Eleutheropolis and north-west of Hebron. — Garmite f]. — Before Eshtemoa the word father has probably fallen out. — Maacathile f ]. There may be some con- nection between this person or family and Alaacah, the concubine of Caleb mentioned in 2^'. — 20. And the sons of Shimon f Amnon and Rinnah f Ben-hanan and Tilon f and the sons of Jish i Zoheth f and the son of Zoheth . . .]. This verse is entirely obscure. The name of the son of Zoheth has fallen from the text and the relationship between Rinnah and Benhannn (Rinnah son of Hanan) is not clear. Probably a connective should be placed between them. — Amnun] elsewhere name of David's eldest son slain by Absalom, 3' 2 S. 3^ 13' «•. — Jish'i]. Cf. 2". 16. SNnfe'Ki] ® l(TfpaT]\ = Sn-iu'n. This Ki. adopts with the remark that possibly even before the time of the Massorites the name Israel was altered where employed for individuals in order to preserve it in the original form for the chosen people only. (K^- Affepi] Kal luaxei/x.—n . pi] Heb. MSS. (see Gin.), <6, "B '031, so Kau., Ki., adopted. — 17b. The transposition given above requires iSr^i after inni. see BDB. under n-\n. (g Kal iyivv-qffev 'I^^ep, hence Ki. a^in HN "i^Sin i.^m. — 19. cnj] (6 + Kal Aava (or AaXetXa) irarrjp KeeiXd, Kal '^ufULUv CSefxeywv) iraTTjp 'loj/xdv, Kal vioi Narj/x. 2e(w)/xeiw»' probably represents jvci;' or pn^u', thus establishing a connection with v. •". Not;/* is doubtless a corruption from Nax^M = O"^, hence the phrase, if orig- inal, fell out by homneotelcuton. Ki. BH. restores as follows: cnj >J31 iC(i)> ns

)p>'c^'i r^^''yp >3N nr'^)''':'-! (1) . The double rela- tionship of the father of Keilah, however, introduces a new difficulty. — 20. pSmi] Qr. and (&'' ]^^':}^. 21-23. Sons of Shelah. — A brief notice of families of reputed descent from Shelah, whose stock seems to have almost entirely disappeared. Cf. for the only other descendants IV. l-P-3.] GENEALOGIES OF JUDAH II3 recorded 9' Ne. 11'. — The sojis of Shelah son of Judah were 'Er father of Lecah f and La'dah f father of Maresha and families of the linen workers of Beth-ashbed f and Jokim f and men of Chozeba f and Jo'ash and Saraph f who ruled in Mo^ab and returned to Bethlehem^], 'iir elsewhere is the brother of Shelah, who died untimely {cf. 2=). Since Maresha is the well-known town of the Shephelah and Lecah not unlikely is the same as Lachish (Meyer, Entst. p. 164) and Chozeba is probably identical with Chezib (Gn. 38) = Achzib Jos. 15" Mi. i'< ap- parently also in the Shephelah, Beth-ashbea\ otherwise unknown, is to be sought in the same region. In the place of returned to Bethlehem, AV., RV. have following M, Jashubilehem, a proper name parallel with Saraph, but the rendering given (Ki.) having the support of (B, B, is undoubtedly correct.— A^ow the records are old] i.e., those of these families of She\3ih.— These are the potters and the inhabitants of Neta'im f and Gederah]. Netaim is other- wise unknown. Gederah is mentioned in Jos. i^^K RVm. trans- lates them rendering, those that divelt among plantations and hedges.— The clause. They dwelt there in the king's service] is an evident look backward. — These obscure vv. 21-23 probably preserve the family traditions and relationships of certain weavers and potters of the post-exilic times. The reference to Moab and a return points to some story similar to that of Ruth. A connection between Joash and Saraph, especially from their ruling in Moab, and the post-exilic clan Pahath-moab "Governor of Moab," Ezr. 26 84 IO30 Ne. 3" 7" io'5 <'o, has been seen {cf however, Pahath- moab, DB.). Bn. holds v. =3 entirely unintelligible. A very readable exposition of these obscure verses in the light of the discovery of jar handles in S. Pal. inscribed with names similar or identical to those here given is presented in the Pal. Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1905, by R. A. Stewart Macalister, under the title, The Craftsmen's Guild of the Tribe of Judah, pp. 243 ff., 328 ff. 21. In ]!2^n a corruption of SyacN has been found, see EBi. Names § 42.-22. on';' ^3-fM] Be., adopted by Ki., onS ng iju-m. Cge ^al dir4 {cf. Nowack, Prov. p. xix.). For a full discussion of the movements of the tribe of Simeon and also further views on this passage, which is accepted as recording history, cf. art. by H. \V. Hogg, EBi. IV. coll. 4527 /• Il8 I CHRONICLES 24. This list of sons of Simeon appears also in Gn. 46'° Ex. 6" Nu. 26'-". The variations are as follows: Snioj, Gn. and E.x. Snic\ & has in all cases initial \ otherwise the Vrss. support 1^ in the several passages. Epigraphically ^ is a more probable corruption from : than the converse. Either form is etymologically obscure (Gray, HPN. p. 307). Following I'D^ Gn. and Ex. have ins, and & has here joi^. 3^'' (5^ 'lape/v is in the parallels pj'', preferred by Ki. and Bn. (but (&^ 'lapeiv is probably influenced by the preceding lafieiv, original <6 beingthat of A'Ia/9et/3; ^ ,^in» is doubtless corrected from the parallels as in many other places, hence is worthless as evidence), mt, Gn. and Nu. inx. — 27. ifr] (S^^ rpeis. — 28-31. Jos. ig--^ ixa DnSnj2 onS inM not J^pxi nrnni "^i.-iai iSi.iSsi Dxyi nSai Syia* nxni mSmi j?3tfi Iras' cnnxm m•.^'J? B-Sa* any inns'! nisaS r^ai noiD nxm paanon. The changes are the omission of J'as' and the insertion of 3 before the names except Spa* nxm mSin, as the use of ^2Z'••^ required, and r\nh2 for nS3> Ssira for Sin3> iSin for nSi.-iSs-, D'^DiD for hdid, inij rr-a for niNaS n^a, and anys' for innr. The insertion of the clause imt iSo 13; onny hSn has separated on-i-isn from the previously enumerated cities so that it is in apposition with the cities of vJ-, thus all the Vrss. and Kau. — 32. poi PJ7 is one place and we should read jraiN instead of B'cn after Jos. 19', where pn has fallen from the text (Bennett, SBOT.). In Jos. D'J'']; does not appear. Probably it is a corruption of •\p-;, Jos. 19' i5<= I S. 305° (where ^ has iny). — 35. Nin>i] 05"* + * "**• Kal ovtos read- ing Nini. — 37. n^ycs'] Ki. SBOT. corrects to ■'j.'cs', to agree with v.^*, so also Stade, ZAW. V. p. 167. (gs 2vix€d>p = ]y;T:z', cf. v. «.— 40. DiT" nam in><^] '^'^ ^""^ '-^ ""^^'^^ "/ ("") ^''''' ^"^'"^^y <^f- J^^- iS'" Is. 22'* (BDB. -|> 3^).— p] (5 + TuJv wwj' = ^J3. B + sljrpe.—^l. D'J'j.'cn] Qr. D''Ji>'Dn. V. 1-26. The east-Jordanic Tribes. The records of Reuben, Gad, and the eastern half-tribe of Manasseh are arranged in general on the same plan as that of Simeon. There is (i) a genealogical introduction giving the sons of the progenitor of the tribe and any immediate descendants (omitted for Gad and eastern Manas- seh), (2) an account of the territory occupied by each tribe, (3) a list of princes or chiefs, and (4) historical incidents connected with new dwelling-places. (2) and (3) are transposed for Reuben and Gad. It is difficult to see how this order could have been the result of various interpolations. We have rather a piece of work which has come down to us in essentially the same form in which it left the Chronicler's hand. 1-10. Reuben. — The tribe of Reuben early became insignifi- cant, losing its territory through the encroachments of Moab and being probably absorbed in Gad. Like the account of Simeon, V. 1-10.] GENEALOGY OF REUBEN Iig that of Reuben also falls into four paragraphs: vv. ' ' a list of Reuben's sons with remarks on the birthright; vv. ■•■« the genealogy of Beerah, a Reubenite prince carried away captive by Tiglath- pileser; vv. '-' the genealogy and dwelling-place of Beerah 's brethren; v.'" a notice of a war with the Hagrites. The Chron- icler gives the sons of Reuben as they are found in Gn. 46 ^ Nu. 26^ '■. The source of the genealogy of Beerah is unknown. Vv. *>>• ' may have been composed by the Chronicler from Jos. 13'^ and Nu. 32'- ^^. The incident in v.'" is introduced to show how the Reubenites came to possess new dwelling-places east of Gilead. 1-3. And the sons of Reuben the first born of Israel]. These words are separated from their predicate by the following paren- thetical statements w. '^^■=, and hence are repeated again in v.'. — For he was the first born but since he defiled the couch of his father the birthright was given to Joseph son of Israel]. Reuben's de- filement of his father's couch and his subsequent loss of his birthright are derived from Gn. 35" 49^, and the passing of the birthright to Joseph from Gn. 486. The adoption by Jacob of Ephraim and Manasseh was equivalent to giving Joseph a double portion or the inheritance of a first-born Dt. 2i'5-". — But he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright]. This refers to Joseph — in the tribal registers Reuben held the first place. Cf Gn. 468 a- Ex. 6'^ ff- Nu. 26= «-. — For Judah was mighty among his brethren and a prince was from him]. In reality, however, the pre-eminence of the first-born seemed to belong to Judah, of whom was the house of David. — 4-6. The sons of Jo'el]. The connection of Joel with Reuben strangely enough is not given. Ki. after g>, A, substitutes Carmi (v. ^), but the oc- currence of Joel in v. « is against this. The sons of Joel are the persons following. Their names are not inconsistent with the implied date : Ba al as a proper name could only be early (see Gray, HPN. p. 237). That a remnant of the tribe of Reuben should have suffered the captivity of their Sheikh during the As- syrian invasion (2 K. 15") is historically not improbable. No record of this is mentioned elsewhere. — 7-9. And his brethren] i.e., the brethren of Be'erah, and hence apparently his contemporaries I20 I CHRONICLES of the Assyrian period (Be., Bn.) and not of the time of Saul (v. '") (Ke., Zoe., Gray, HPN. pp. 237 /.). This latter assumption, however, is justified from the territory assigned to the Reubenites. They in all probability had been dispossessed entirely from the land of Moab by the time of Tiglath-pileser (b. c. 745-728). — £e/a'] represents a wide-spread clan whose descent, like that of Be^erah, is also from Jo^el, but by a different and shorter line. — Shema] is not unlikely Shiinei or Shemaiah (v. ••). — 'Aro'er] well-known city on the north bank of the Amon Dt. 2'« 3'= 4'^ Jos. 12^ 13', mentioned as southern boundary of Reuben Jos. i3'«. — N'ebo] east of Jericho, Nu. ^2^- ^s ^y^ Is. 152 Je. 48'- ", the name also of a mountain Dt. 32^' 34'. — Baal-meon] probably a gloss, since it is a town lying between Nebo and 'Aro'er, mentioned in Nu. 32'- =' Jos. 13" Je. 48" Ez. 25', or else we have an example of the Chron- icler's lack of geographical knowledge. Both Nebo and Baal- meon are mentioned on the Moabite Stone. — Entrance of the wildentess] i.e., the eastern boundary of their territory was the wilderness which extends east of Moab and Gilead to the Eu- phrates.— In die ad^ Gilead while usually designating territory north of Moab extending from Heshbon to the Yarmuk, is also applied to the country as far south as the Amon (Dr. Dt. 3'"). —10. An independent notice of the activity of the Reubenites. — Hagntes\. In the Assyrian inscriptions the Hagrites [Hagarann] are mentioned along with the Nabateans [Nabatii] among the conquests of Sennacherib and located in north-eastern Arabia (COT. II. pp. 31 /.). In the same locality they are placed by Strabo and Pliny. Later in the Syriac, the name was used as a general designation of the Arabians, and at the time of the Chron- icler either this had taken place or a portion of them had migrated westward and were pressing on the eastern frontier of Palestine (Gl. Skiz. 11 f. 407/.). Their proximity to Palestine is clearly indi- cated in Ps. 83' («). A connection between Hagar the mother of Ishmael and the Hagrites is most probable, although it has been questioned (Dill. Gn. 25"). That fighting was carried on with Arabian tribes in the days of Saul is most likely and a reminiscence of this may be here found. The lack of orderly connection between the sons of Reuben and the notices following, and the lack of such V. 11-17.] GENEALOGY OF GAD 121 connection between the notices also, suggest to some that we have here not an original composition of the Chronicler but a grouping of fragmentary traditions respecting the tribe of Reuben. 1. "'^JiS"'] pi. of extension Ges. § 124a, Koe. iii. § 26oh; so used elsewhere Ps. 63' 13 2^ Jb. i7'3 except Gn. 49^ M, but ^ allows pi. and parallelism suggests it; Ball, SBOT. so emends. — 10133] (S evXoylav i.e. 1,13-13, also v. ^ ij evXoyla tov 'luarjcp, but the context indicates that the birthright and not the blessing is concerned (Bn.). — E'n^nnS n^^i] 1 adversative Koe. iii. § 37Sf. On inf. cf. Ges. § 114. 2. R. 2, Dr. TH. 202 (2), Dav. Syn. § 95 {b). — 2. n'Jj'?i] rare use of S to introduce a new emphatic subject, cf. BDB. 5 e (e). — 4. Snv ij3] d"- IwtjX vib$ ai/rov is evidently an effort to establish a connection with the preceding verse. — n>;'2S'] (B + Kal Bo^'ttia seems to have grown out of a dittography of 1J3. — 5. h^'2] (^^ IwTjX, so a\so (&^ + BaXa (= BaaX). — 6. idnjSe njSn] an incorrect way of spelling idns'^si nSjFi 2 K. 152^ i6i adopted by Bn. (who reads 'X '•aii'''), because it gives better sense than ^. — '^>'] (& tws = nj?. 11-17. Gad. — The sons of Gad are introduced by the state- ment that they lived "over against" the Reubenites (v."). This departure from the usual introductory formula, the sons of, is likely responsible for the omission of Gad's sons as given in Gn. 46" Nu. 26'«-''. The enumeration of the chiefs of Gad with their brethren (vv. '^-is)^ and the notice concerning their territory and date (w. '^-"), are followed by the account of a war which resulted in the extension of their territory (vv. '»-"). This time the three east-Jordanic tribes combined in a raid upon the neighbouring Bedouins. Very likely this is an expansion, of a midrashic nature, of the same incident recorded in v. '" (so Bn.), but the Chronicler found them different enough to use both. — 11. The omission of the lists of sons of Gad, as given in Gn. 46'« Nu. 26"-'', is notice- able.— Bashan] here and in w. >= '« " the dwelling-place of Gad with Salecah, mod. Salkhad, as the north-east limit. This use of Bashan for Gad's territory is peculiar (Bn. regards the word here as 122 I CHRONICLES a gloss; Ba. in v. '" emends to Jabesh). Bashan elsewhere is the name of the country north of the Yarmuk and according to Dt. 3" Nu. 32" Jos. 13" the territory of Gad was in Gilead south of Bashan. Not unlikely the Chronicler, having located Reuben in Gilead, was misled to place Gad in Bashan. — 12. Jo^el the first and Shapham f the second and J a nai f and Shaphat\ Jo'el perhaps the same as the Reubenite Joel of vv. *• «, a family or clan whose members might be reckoned as belonging to either or both of the tribes. — 13. Of their fathers' houses]. The term father's house is used (i) of an entire tribe, since this is named after a common father Nu. 17" "' Jos. 22'^; (2) generally, of the division next after the tribe, the clan, Nu. 3^^; (3) of the division after the clan, the family Ex. 12' i Ch. 7'- ^ Cf. Dill. Ex. 6'K — Micha'el] ^X^'^D "Who is like God." A name only occurring in the post-exilic literature 6" <"' 7' S'^ i2'-» 2713 2 Ch. 21^ Ezr. S'. — Meshullam] D^li'D "Kept safe," i.e., by God, also another name especially fre- quent in the post-exilic lists 3'' 8" 9'- '• »i ' 2 Ch. 3412 Ezr, 8'" io'5 29 Ne. 3<- '■ 3" 6'8 8^ lo'- "> ^i (=0) u?. n i2'3- '6- ". 33 — Sheba'] y^ty perhaps an abbreviation for Elisheba j;2w'''^X "God swears "(?) EBi. II. col. 3291. — And Jorai\ and Jacan1[ and Zia f and Eber\ These names with those of v. '' correspond well to ancient clan names. Apparently eleven clans of Gad are enu- merated. (^ while mentioning only seven names in v. '^ has the numeral eight instead of seven. This suggests that in v. " originally stood eight names, giving the tribal number of twelve clans. The seven or original eight are mentioned separately because their de- scent is traced in w. '* '• {v. i.) from Guni (^i u), which may be a corruption of Shuni (""Jlty) a son of Gad (Gn. 46'^ Nu. 26''-'"), or the converse, since Guni is a clan name of Naphtali. — 14-15. These are the sons of A bi hail] i.e., those persons or families men- tioned in V. ". Abihail elsewhere name of a Levite Nu. 3", and the father of Esther (Est. 2" 9"). — The son of Huri f the son of Jaroah f the son of Gile ad the son of Micha'el the son of Jeshishai f the son of Jahdo f the son of Buz . . . the son of Abdi'el the son of Guni]. There is a break in the pedigree at Buz according to fH (so Bn., Ki., Kau.), but Ahi (TIX) appears as a fragment and it is better after Tian captivity under Tiglath-pileser cf. v. ^s. The period of this war is not men- tioned. The account, according to Bn., is an amplification of that of V. '", and from another hand than that of the Chronicler, although entirely in his spirit (cf. v. "). A historical basis for the narrative lies in the struggles between the children of Israel east of the Jordan and their Bedouin neighbours. 12. 2D'-'i] U'] prep, aj? with the suf. of the third pers. pi. -I- the relative .r (u* before a guttural), -t- is used instead of iu'n in the later books, Ec, La., Jon., Ct., Ch. (3 times, 25^, see note, 27") and once in Ezr. (8=°), and late Pss. cf. Ges. § 36. — nia>'ji] And he suffered him- self to be entreated by them, inf. abs. with change of subj. after a perf. Ges. § 1 13 2. For a similar use of lay in Niph. tolerativiim, cf. Gn. 25-' 2 S. 2i'< 2425 2 Ch. 33" '» Ezr. 8« Is. 19--. — 21. a^ccn] one MS. (Kennic.) Twcn, so also i] Gin. quotes two Targums to support the omission of 1. which is wanting also in (S, B, &, and so Ki. — n>nini] on pronunciation cf. 3^4. — 26. nrn Dvn ij? jnj nnji N-\ni iiani n'^n'^] are probably derived from ^tD nj?i |JU "^nj nianai rhny of 2 K. ij* 18", and the deviations seem to have arisen either from careless transcrip- tion or because the Chronicler quoted from memory (Be.), snn may be a reminiscence of the reading ^io >-\rt^ which appears in (8 of 2 K. 17', 18", so Be., Ki., Bn. That nrn Dvn ly has arisen from 'iD >i?i appears probable from the fact (5'- gives both in 2 K. 17' (not 18"). Klo. gives this as the original reading. Ke. thought of the Chronicler's statement resting on another authority. V. 27-VI. 66 (VI. 1-81). Genealogy and geography of Levi. — This section contains: (i) the line of high priests from Aaron to Jehozadak(i.c.,to the exile), introduced by a genealogical V. 27-41.] THE LINE OF HIGH PRIESTS 1 27 table showing Aaron's relationship to Levi, 5"-^' (6''5); (2) Hnes of descent of singers from Levi through his three sons, Gershon, Kehath, and Merari, 6'-'* "s-sojj (^) the genealogical tables of the three singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, 6^^-^^ (3i-47)j (4) notices concerning the services of Levites and sons of Aaron, 6"-" (48-49)- (^) a list of the high priests to Ahimaaz (i.e., to the time of David), 6"-'8 (6o-53)j (5) jhg cities assigned to the sons of Aaron, 639-45 (54 -60) J (y) t^e tribal territory in which the cities of the Levites lay, d^^-^" (6'-"); (8) the cities of the Kehathites (exclusive of sons of Aaron), 6='-" (66 -70). (g) the cities of the Gershonites, 666-61 (7i-76)j (10) the cities of the Merarites, 6"-" (v^-sn. These records of the tribe of Levi present a number of difl&culties and their meagreness considering the importance of the tribe of Levi is striking. They are repeated with more or less fulness, however, when the writer treats of the classes of the priests and Levites and singers (235 ^- 24' «• " b. 251 «•). V. 27-41 (VL 1-15). The sons of Levi and the line of high priests from Aaron to the captivity. This line of high priests is in part a doublet with 6^5-38 (50-53) and is regarded by Bn., and Ki. SBOT., Kom., as a later addition, since a list of priests naturally would follow the genealogical introduction in 6' ^• (u ff.). As the matter now stands, this introduction is given in 527-29» (6'-'»). The list also is carried down beyond David, while the other material of c. 6 stops with David. Hence it is held to be more natural that this list should be secondary to the other 6^^-^^ (50-53 ) than vice versa, since an interpolation which added nothing would not naturally be made. On the other hand, there is some strong internal evidence against the priority of the second list, 635-38 (50-53 )_ Although 5"-=' (61-3) and 6'-^ (15-19) jg duplicate each other in part, it is not unrea- sonable to hold that the former passage was intended to introduce priests and the latter Levites. Moreover, 6^* w^) describes the duties of all the priests, the sons of Aaron, and 6^' ^- (^4 b.) jg concerned with the cities of all the Aaronides. The list of high priests included between those two verses seems out of place, and it is unlikely that the Chronicler intro- duced it there. A scribe who expected a list of the sons of Aaron after the verse describing their duties — just as a list of Levites precedes the verse detailing their duties — may then have inserted this partial list of the high priests from 52" "■ (6* ^ ), that being the only one available. Without the second list of the high priests, the arrangement of the 128 I CHRONICLES material is characteristic of the Chronicler's order, i.e., the genealog)' of the high priests and the genealogy of the Levites; the duties of the Levites and the duties of the priests; the cities of the priests and the cities of the Levites. 27 (1). Gershon, Kehath, and Merari]. These three sons of Levi appear in Gn. 46" Ex. 6'« Nu. 3" 26", and represent three great families of Levites which clearly existed at the time of the composition of P {cf. 6' <"> 23'). — Gershon] (j'tyi:!) as in P, else- where in Ch. Gershom (ClU^n:, D'^i:), cf. 6' ''>«'•> e/ a/.— 28 (2). And the sons 0/ Kehath, 'Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel]. Cf. as a source for these names Ex. 6'* Nu. 3" and for their repetition 53 (18) 2312. Hehron^s appearance as a descendant of Levi and thus a Levitical family name shows that a portion of the ecclesiastical tribe of Levi came from priests who had ministered at the sanctu- ary of Hebron. What underlies the other names is unknown. Uzziel is the only one smacking of artificiality or a late formation (Gray, HPN. p. 210).— 29 (3). Sources for the children of Amram and Aaron are Ex. 6'"'- " (except Miriam) Nu. 265' ' . Cf. for repetition 23" (except Miriam) 24'- '. 30-41 (4-15). The line of high priests. — Eleazar v. »» <" was, according to P, Aaron's successor in the high priesthood Nu. 20"; Phinehas Eleazar's son and successor, Jos. 24" Ju. 20". Abishua, Bukki, 'Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah (vv. 3»-" <'-'>) are en- tirely unknown, not mentioned elsewhere except below 6"-" ""■"' Ezr. 7'-'. Ahitub v. ^^ («> is given as the father of Zadok 2 S. 8" I Ch. 18". If we look for historical accuracy, he is not to be identified with Ahitub the father of Ahimelech, the father of Abia- thar I S. 14' 22", since the establishment of Zadok as priest in the place of Abiathar is regarded as the fulfilment of the prophecy of the disestablishment of the house of Eli (i K. 2--- "). His ap- pearance as the father of Zadok in 2 S. 8", our author's source, is undoubtedly due to a textual corruption (see i Ch. 18"). Zadok v. " <"was priest under David with Abiathar 2 S. 8" i5«« »• and put by Solomon in the place of Abiathar (see above). Ahima az v. " "> was a son of Zadok, cf. 2 S. 15"- " et al. ' Azariah v. " <»> is men- tioned as a son of Zadok i K. 4'. The notice of v." *'«>/;e // is that executed, etc., out of place in v. " »"", belongs to him, the first VI. 1-38.] GENEALOGIES OF LEVITES 1 29 mentioned, Azariah (Be., Bn., Ki., Ba., Zoe., Oe.). Of Jehonan, Azariah, Atnariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, and 'Azariah, vv. 35-4 0 (9-14)^ Yv^e have no further record than in the Chronicler's genealogies, cf. 9" Ezr. y'-^ Ne. 11", except in the case of Ama- riah, who may be identified with Amariah the high priest during the reign of Jehoshaphat mentioned in 2 Ch. ig''. Hilkiah V." "" is apparently the high priest of the reign of Josiah, 2 K. 22^ el al. Scraiah the father of Jehozadak v. ^^ "••> was high priest at the fall of Jerusalem, b. c. 586, and was taken captive and put to death at Riblah (2 K. 25's-2'), while Jehozadak went into captivity V. ^' "5), and appears as the father of Jeshua the high priest of the return, Ezr. 3^ 5= lo's Ne. 12" (Jazadak) Hg. i' Zc. 6". The pur- pose of this genealogy is to connect Jehozadak with Aaron and thus legitimise his priesthood. The line of descent including Aaron from the Exodus to the captivit}^ consists of twenty-three members and is artificial in structure, since allowing forty years or a generation for each member, we have 40 x 12 + 40 x 11, or 920 years. This period fits into the priestly chronology of the historical books, whereby 480 years elapsed from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon's Temple (i K. 6'), and 480 years from thence to the founding of the second Temple (see Chronology of OT., DB.), and the captivity occurred in the eleventh generation of this second period. According to this scheme also Azariah the thirteenth member (v. == <"') ministers in Solomon's Temple. As an apparent list of high priests from the entrance into Canaan until the captivity, this genealogy presents some note- worthy features. Members of the house Eli: Eli, Phineas, Ahitub, Ahimelech, and Abiathar (i S. 14' 22=°), naturally do not appear, since this house was set aside for that of Zadok (i K. 2"- 35), but the omission of the high priests Jehoiada (2 K. ii^ 2 Ch. 22", etc.) and Urijah (2 K. 16" " ) and an Azariah in the reign of Uzziah (2 Ch. 2620) between Amariah of Jehosphat's reign and Hilkiah of Josiah's, is striking {v. s.). VI. 1-A (16-19). The sons of Levi.— On vv. ' ^ ds. is) cf. 5"- " (6i- 2). — Libni and Shitnei]. Cf. as a source for these names, Ex. 6" Nu. 3", and their repetition 23', and also 23' ' 26=" where instead of Libni we have La dan (iiy?). Libni without doubt is to 130 I CHRONICLES be connected with the priestly city Libnah (Jos. 21"). — Mahli and Afuslii]. Cf. as source Ex. 6" Nu. 3" and repetition 23" 24". Miishi (""diS) has been connected with Moses, as though the family derived their name from that of Israel's law-jiver (We. Gesch. pp. 151/.); also with Misri or Musri (EBi.). 5-6 (20-21). A fragment of the pedigree of Asaph. (Be., Bn., Ki., but not Zoe.) Cf. vv. 2*-2» (39"). This conclusion is suggested by the pedigree of Heman, which follows, and seems warranted when we compare the list of names (A) with those in VV. "-28 (39-43) fJi). A B Gershom. Gershom. Libni. Jahath. Jahath. Shime'i. Zimmah. Zimmah. Jo'ah. Ethan. 'Iddo. 'Adaiah. Zerah. Zerah. Je'atherai. Ethni. The variations between Jo'ah (nST') and Ethan (jri''X), 'Iddo ("liy) and 'Adaiah (""'"J?), Je'atherai (''-ir,S"') and Ethni (""inS), might easily have arisen in transcription. Shimei may have been omitted from (A) by oversight, or since Libni is wanting in (B), Jahath and Shimei may have been transposed and the tradition may have fluctuated in regard to the descent of Asaph whether through Libni or Shimei (cf. v.^ '"> and 23'", where Jahath is the son of Shimei) and B thus have given the latter view. 7-13 (22-28). A pedigree of Heman (Be., Bn., Ki., Ke., Oe., Zoe.). — This pedigree which ends in Abijali is broken or irregular in the present Heb. text: cf. v. •» <«', where without connection with the foregoing Sha'ul of v. ' <'*' we have The sons of Elkanah ' Amasai and Akimoth, and in v." '=«' we have Elkanah repeated. The second should be omitted (after ^, ^) and reading his son instead of sons of (1^2 for '•J3) the verse should read Elkanah his son (i.e., the son of Ahimoth), Zophai his son. In v." *"> at the close should be added SamiCcl his son (Ki. after (S^). Also in v. " Joel should \)G supplied and the verse read And the sons of Samu'el; VI. 1-38.] GENEALOGIES OF LEVITES 131 the first-horn Joel and the second Abijah ("""^iS ''Jyl'm b'i^y^) (Ki. BH., RV. after (g^, g», y. '« <") i S. 8^). /o^/ was the father of Heman (v. '» os))^ hence this pedigree is that of Heman, and corresponds to that given in \Y.ii^-ii w^-^). As in the case above of Asaph, the substantial oneness of these lines of descent is revealed at once by placing them side by side. A B Kehath. Kehath. 'Amminadab. Izhar. Korah. Korah. Assir, Elkanah, Ebiasaph. Ebiasaph. Assir. Assir. Tahath. Tahath. Uriel. Zephaniah. 'Uzziah. 'Azariah. Sha'ul. Jo'el. Elkanah. Elkanah. Amasai. Amasai. Ahimoth. Mahath. Elkanah. Elkanah. Zophai. Zuph. Nahath. Toah. Eliab. Eliel. Jeroham. Jeroham. Elkanah. Elkanah. Samu'el. Samu'el. Jo'el. Jo'el. Abiah. Heman. The names Kehath, equivalent to Kohath, Izhar, and Korah (B) are derived from Ex. 6'8 "^K In respect to the variations : 'Amminadab appears in Ex. 6" as the father-in-law of Aaron, and may have been placed for Izhar in (A) through an O'/ersight ((g^ has Izhar) (v. i.). Assir and Elkanah are either redundant in (A) through a similar cause or have fallen out from (B). Uri'd and Zephaniah are difficult to explain as equivalents. The names ' Uzziah and 'Azariah are inter- changeable (as in the case of the well-known King of Judah). The differences between the other corresponding names have probably arisen through transcription. Cf. the letters in the Hebrew text. 132 I CHRONICLES This pedigree is clearly artificial. A portion of its construc- tion comes from i S. i', where Elkanah is mentioned as s. Jeroham, s. Elihu, s. Tohu, s. Zuph. Zuph is probably a district, and Tohu (Toah, Nahath) a family {cf. Tahath i Ch. 7-"; We. Prol. p. 220). The story of Samuel shows distinctly that he was not a Levite, for then he would have belonged to the Lord without the gift of his mother (i S. i" '•). He is made a Levite by the Chronicler ac- cording to the notions of his own times respecting Samuel's service at the sanctuary. The names of Samuel's sons are derived from I S. 82. 14. 15 (29. 30). The pedigree of Asaiah the Merarite.— This pedigree to correspond with those of vv. '-'^ ce-^s) should present a line of descent of Ethan (vv. "" (j4-47))^ but a close similarity of names is here wanting. Still they have been held sufficiently alike to warrant this inference (Be.). 'Asaiah may be the one mentioned in 15' as chief of the sons of Merari. It is noticeable in this pedigree that both Libni and Shimei here are Merarites, while above v. ^ d') they are Gershonites. 1. D-.:nj] so also v. 2* 15^ ovjnj vv. = s. 47. se^ elsewhere punj. (g'> in this c. Te{e)5ffuv, in 15^ Vrjpffdfx, (B'^^ in all — ffuv, & ^n a^ ^, B Cicrson in V. 2. Since the source (E.x. G"") has Gershon and the Chronicler dilTer- entiates Gershom and Gershon in c. 23, it is likely that prij was original here also. — 7. 3^rs>*] v. ^ Ex. 6'8- 21 et al. inx', which seems original here. aij'Dj? may have arisen in consequence of a dittography of the 3 from the following ij3, 3 ins* resembling 3iraj; very closely in ancient writing. — 7. 8. 1J3 T'Dni ij3 «id''3K1 ij3 tm^Sh ij3 iidn ij3 mp]. Accord- ing to E.x. 6^4 the sons of Korah were 1Dn>3!3N1 njpSN t-Dn ij3 nip Korah his son, Assir, Elkanah and Ebiasaph his sons, Assir his son (i.e., the son of Ebiasaph). These slight changes restore the harmony with v. ^ and with Ex. 6-\ account for the 1 before r|D'3X and for that before i'Dn (vj3 having been misread 1 m), also explain the omission of 1J3 after njp^N in the Heb. underlying (S". This and the 1^3 after the first I'D.s were added by VI. 1-38.] GENEALOGIES OF LEVITES 1 33 some copyist who overlooked Ex. 6-*. — 10. nicnN] v. -" and 2 Ch. 29'^ nnn, adopted by Bn. — 11. njp'^N ijj nj|-i':'N] Kt. tja, so (S, ul, &, is to be preferred to Qr. \ja {v. s.). The second njp'^N, omitted in some iiss., 05, &, should be dropped, so Bn., Ki. (■:;. s.). — ■'flis] v. " Kt. f]"'?, Qr. I^x. I S. I' Diflis = ''flis (We. ei a/.) and nis-p. Probably the original name was n-is. — nnj] v. i^ run, i S. i' inn. Ki. (SBOT., Kom.) adopts inh as the best authenticated. The other forms could have originated in scribal errors. — 12. 2«'''?vs] y. is SniSv, i S. i> NiniSx. The versions give no aid. The last two (meaning "My God is God " and "He is my God") may have been interchanged. '?iS"iSn appears ten times in the OT., all in Ch., cf. as-^Sx (the brother of David) 2^^ 1 S. 16% and in'SN (Qr. Nin — ) I Ch. 27'8. — ua Snid^' is added by Ki., on the basis of (&^, as indispensable. It is not improbable that the compiler, after gathering what information he could from i S. i', went on to enumerate the sons of Samuel from i S. 8^ without stopping to make a connection so well known. 16. 17 (31. 32). David's appointment of the singers. — 16 (31). — House of Yahweh] is used here generally both for the tent where David placed the ark, and the later Temple (cf. g^^). — After the resting of the ark'] i.e., after the bringing up of the ark from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem (2 S. 6" "). — 17 (32). The tabernacle of the tent of meeting] (IJ^ID S"iS Dtl'D)- A com- bination of two terms employed in P for the tabernacle and applied to the tent erected by David for the ark {cf. 16' «•). Technically Mishkan (tabernacle, dwelling-place) denoted the wooden portion of the tabernacle, while ^Ohel (tent) the curtains or hanging (Ex. 26>- « '• 35" 36'' '• 3933 4019 Nu. 3" cf. also Ex. 39=^ 40=- 6- ", where the combination given above is used to indicate the wooden structure). — According to their right] (CtDSti'DS cf. 24'^ 2 Ch. 30'^). The reference apparently is to the order or position prescribed by David for the singers, a subject taken up in detail in c. 25. According to vv. ^^ "9) 29 («> the guild of Heman occupied the central position with that of Asaph on the right and Ethan on the left. The Chronicler thus held that the musical services later adopted in the Temple were established by David in connection with the tent in which he had placed the ark. 16. i^cyn] appointed, a peculiar force cf. is'^f- 16'' 22= 2 Ch. 8'< 98 n>5- 22 iq5. 8 2i2i 24'3 256- '-' et al. (1. 89). — n; '^i'] over the service, cj. BDB. i\ 5. h. 134 I CHRONICLES 18-32 (33-47). The three singers Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, and their lines of descent. — These three singers, who are assigned to the time of David, represented in reality three choirs or guilds of the post-exiHc period and were quite modern in their development, for according to Ezr. 2*' Ne. 7" the sons of Asaph and singers were equivalent, and the singers were distinct from the Levites. (This distinction is held by Sm. p. 26; OTJC.~ p. 204; Baudissin, Gesch.desA. T. Priesterihums, pp. 142^., also DB. IV. p. 92; Nowack, Heb. Arch. ii. p. in; on the other hand, Tor- rey claims that no such distinction can be found in Ezr. and Ne., Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezr. and Ne. pp. 22 /.) Gradually, however, singers were evolved into Levites and the three guilds. Remains of steps of this evolution and fluctuating traditions appear in the Levitical genealogies. In Ex. 6=' the three sons of Korah are Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph (=Ebiasaph), i.e., father of Asaph, and hence we should expect to find Asaph a descendant of Korah, but according to vv. ^^-^s "s") he is not. Also we find Assir and Elkanah placed not co-ordinate but following each other (vv. '-» (22-24) 22 (37)) (yet scc iti loco). Diffcrcnt genealogists certainly worked over these names. The sons of Korah appearing in the titles of the Pss. (42. 44-49. 84. 85. 87. 88) probably mark a step in this evolution earlier than the formation of the three guilds. Korah in i Ch. 2" is associated with Tappuah as a son of Hebron. This indicates either a place or Judcan family of that name from which came the Levitical Korahites (We. Is. uiid Jiid. Gesch. pp. 151/.). A noticeable difference of length appears in these genealogies : thus Heman has twenty links, Asaph fifteen, and Ethan only twelve. The relation of the genealogies in 6'-'' <" "> to those of the singers in 6'" '- ("-<"). The latter genealogies are probably cJcpend- ent upon the former, which originally may have been of Levites not classi- fied as singers. The inconsistencies which make this statement doubtful are removed by textual criticism {v. i.). The writer simply appropriated these genealogies in order to find Levitical jjedigrees for the singers. The genealogy of Heman, 6"" (sa-'s)^ js the same as the line of descent through Kehath, 6'" (2228)^ Heman being made the son of Joel, the son of Samuel. Thus he becomes contemporaneous with David, between VI. 1-38.] GENEALOGIES OF LEVITES I35 whom and Samuel there is but one generation, viz., that of Saul. This writer errs in making Mahath (= Ahimoth) the son of Amasai, c/. 61° <") where they are brothers, but see also 2 Ch. 29'^. The genealogy of Ger- shon, 6= '■ t^" '• ', is not sufficiently long (only eight generations) to bring the last, Jeatherai, down to the generation of Saul, hence Malchijah, Maaseiah,* Michael, Shimea, and Berechiah were added by the writer of 6-^-28 (39-43)^ thus making it possible to regard Asaph as the contempo- rary of David. Similarly, the genealogy of Merari, 6'^ '• '^^ '•', consist- ing of only eight generations, is too short to reach from Merari to the singer Ethan, the contemporary of David, hence a number of generations were added by the writer of Ethan's genealogy, 629-32 (44-47), Moreover, he seems to have departed from the genealogy of Merari after Shimei, and to have added eight generations, Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, Amaziah, Hashabiah, Malluch, Abdi, and Kishi, before Ethan. The source of the genealogies of the singers. Of the additional names inserted before Asaph, Berechiah occurs elsewhere in 3^" g'^ 15"- 23 2 Ch. 2812 Ne. s*- ^° 6's Zc. i"- \ = Jeberechiah Is. 8^ t; Shimea (Nj,'nB') in 6'5 "") as a Levite (but spelling 'i'.nr it is very frequent in the writings of the Chronicler, especially as a Levitical name); Michael eight times elsewhere in the writings of the Chronicler and in Nu. 13" (P) Dn. lo"- 21 12'; Maaseiah* nineteen times elsewhere in Ch.-Ezr.- Ne. and in Je. 21' 2921- 25 ^5* 373; Malchijah twelve times elsewhere in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. and Je. 21' 38'- ^ Hence these names are late (except Shimea) and favourites with the Chronicler. Similarly the additional names to the genealogy of Ethan occur in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. as follows: Bani, 13 times (or 15, see BDB.); Amzi, 2; Hilkiah, 5 (besides fre- quently as the high priest of Josiah's time); Amaziah, 2 (besides fre- quently as the well-known King of Judah); Hashabiah, 14 (always a Levitical name); Malluch, 6 (also always Levitical); Abdi, 3 (the last three do not occur elswhere); Kishi, as Kushaiah only in 15", but as Kish, 5 times. On this ground alone it is conclusive that these gen- ealogies of the singers were composed by the Chronicler or in his day. Furthermore, e'^-i'* (si-ssa)^ where the ear-marks of the Chron- icler are evident (notice T'Dyn, 1. 89; onmay Sp oess'Da ncj."i and oncpn, cf. ancy 2 Ch. 7^, anDj;n Ne. 12"), is a part of this same piece. Hence it is most probable that the Chronicler himself gave the singers these pedigrees descending from the three sons of Levi. No doubt the latter had already claimed Levitical descent. The Chron- icler may have utilised some current genealogies of the singers to sup- plement the Levitical tables of 6^ ^- (^o ff->. The identity of one name would be sufficient to make the connection, which may ac- count for the omission of the last four names of the table of Merari (v. s.). The fact that Ethan is used here and in 15" ^- while elsewhere we find JediUhun (16" 25'- '■ « 2 Ch. 5'^ 29" 35'*) is not significant. 136 I CHRONICLES The Chronicler could have identified the two as well as a later interpo- lator. The objection has been raised (by Bn.) that elsewhere in Ch.- Ezr.-Ne. — except 15" ^- which is doubtless dependent on this passage — Asaph seems to figure as the chief singer (c/. 16'-' Ne. 11") and he is always mentioned first. But it is by no means certain that the writer of these genealogies intended to exalt Heman's guild of singers above the Asaphitcs. Although Heman is placed first, he is not called the chief. Asaph's descent is traced from Gershon, the oldest of the sons of Levi, which may imply that his guild was recognised as the oldest. His position on the right hand, possibly an indication of the position this guild occupied in the service at the Temple, was a post of honour, cf. Gn. 48" Ps. no'. 18. \-in|in] (S, U, ^, 01 nnp. — 19-21, On Sni'^x, mn, r|«s> nnc, see above vv. s'^. According to v. "o 'a'cy was the father of r^nc, v. "> makes him out the brother of mens = nns. Possibly v. =" is dependent on some te.xt which had 1J3 after ms^ns = nno (cf. (S"- quoted above on vv. '■ 8), or v. =» is due to the carelessness of the compiler. (5^ of v. '» may be corrected from this verse. — 22. f]D-2H p T'Dn] v. s. vv. '• «. — 25. n'K'yj] read with some mss., (5", # n'tr-yc, so Bn., Ki. — 28. Bsnj] V. s. v. '. — 29. "Z'-p] many mss., Kt. (Oriental text), (g^, ]| scn p n-p^n p] ha^ fallen from the text of (5° by homoeoteleuton. (&^ vios XeXx'ou- viov A/xacrai supports ill (Ki. BH. is misleading). 33. 34 (48. 49). A description of the service of the Levites and the priests. — This description is according to P and the as- signment there by Moses. — Their brethren the Levites] i.e., all Levites not singers and not priests. The term Levite is social as well as tribal. The subordinate ministry of the Levites is here meant (rf. Nu. 3' " ). The duties of the priests are summarised as service at the altar of burnt offering (rf. Ex. 27' -s), at the altar of incense (cf. Ex. 30''), and in whatever functions were connected with the rooms of the sanctuary (cf. Nu. 4'«) (the term holy of holies cannot be restricted here to the innermost sanctuary), also to make an atonement for Israel]. The jiriests made an atonement through sacrifices for individuals (Lv. 4=° " 8" 10" et al.) and for the entire people on the day of atonement (Lv. 16"), and also on other occasions of stress and fast (2 Ch. 29='). The term to make an atonement is used here to indicate the priestly ministry in general. 34. 103^1] inf. cstr. with waic, a continuation of on'Kps, Ges. § ii.j/>, Dr. TIL 206, Dav. Syn. § 92 R. 4. VI. 39-45.] DWELLING-PLACES OF PRIESTS I37 35-38 (50-53). The high priests from Aaron to Ahimaaz. Cf. 5^°-^' (6''-8).— This genealogy if not the original with the Chron- icler {v. s.) is repeated here to give data to the time of David. 39-66 (54-81). The dwelling-places of Levi.— This section, with rearrangement and some slight abridgment, is taken from Jos. 215-39. In that passage a general statement of the number and locality of the cities of the priests and Levites (Jos. 21^-') precedes the enumeration of the separate cities of both priests and Levites. Here on the other hand the separate cities of the priests are first enumerated (vv. =«-" ^^^-s"' Jos. 2i"'-i3) and then is given the general summary (w. ^^-^° <^'-«^' Jos. 21^-"^) and then follows the enumeration of the separate cities of the Levites (vv. ^'-^ cee.su). In this order v. =° <"> forms no proper introduction to the following verses. It can only introduce according to its place in Jos. w. 69 ff. (64 ff,). Hence this, with the preceding verse, is held to have come from a marginal annotation made by some reader familiar with the narrative of Jos. and later to have been inserted in the text (Be., Ki.), or the entire list of Levitical cities (vv. "-" (66-81)) is a later supplement (Bn.), or a copyist through error re- arranged the original material of the Chronicler. But it is more likely that the Chronicler himself was guilty of this unskilful arrangement. Wishing to separate the account of the priestly cities from that of the Levites, he transposed the verses. That he should have transcribed and left Jos. 21' (v. ^o (65)) where it did not harmonise with the text is not strange. He is guilty elsewhere of similar infelicities (see Intro, p. 19). 39-45 (54-60). The cities of the priests. — Taken from Jos. 2iio-i9_ — 39, j{ji(i these {i.e., the following) are their dwelling places according to their settlements within their boundary] from the Chronicler, since these words are not in his source. The proper introduction (Jos. 21') is given in v. s° <"> {y. s.). — To the sons oj Aaron, etc.\ With these words commences abruptly the quota- tion from the book of Joshua. — Of the family of the Kehathites]. Cf 5" (6'). — The fir st^ lot]. The word first, supplied from Jos. 21'°, is necessary for clearness of meaning. — 40 (55). Hebron] Kirjath-arba Jos. 20', which, according to Jos. i4'5, was the more ancient name, mod. El-Khalil, twenty-three miles south 138 I CHRONICLES and a little west of Jerusalem; one of the oldest and most notable cities of Palestine, built seven years before Zoan in Egypt (Nu. 13"); the burial-place of Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gn. 23" 25' 35" ^ 50"); David's residence when king over Judah (2 S. 5'); the place of the death of Abner (2 S. 3"), and headquarters of the rebellious Absalom (2 S. 15' ' ). — And the sicburbs]. Cf. 2 Ch. ii'<. — 41 (56). This verse harmonises with the previous verse the gift of Hebron to Caleb recorded in Jos. 15". Both verses (this and the preceding) in the book of Joshua are editorial insertions (Bennett, Jos. SBOT.). They interrupt the narrative. — 42 (57). Cities\ The plural is an error. Only Hebron was a city of refuge. Hence after Jos. 21" read city. The Chronicler has here abridged {v. i.). — Libnah]. A city in the lowland of Judah of some histor- ical importance (cf. 2 K. 8" 19^ 23''). Its location has not been clearly identified. — Jaflir] in the hill country of Judah (Jos. 15^' 2i'< I S. 30" f), mod. 'Attir thirteen miles south by west from Hebron.— Eshtemoa]. Cf. 4'-.— 43 (58). Hilen] Holon Jos. 2i'5; in the hill country of Judah mentioned in Jos. 15=' between Goshen and Gilo; not identified. — Debir] also called Kirjath- sepher (Jos. i5'5 Ju. i" '•), a place of importance in the Negeb or southern Judah, identified with Dahariyeh, some ten or twelve miles south-west of Hebron {cf. Moore, ///. pp. 25 /.). — 44 (59). Ashan'\ written 'Ain Jos. 21'^ {v. i.), mentioned among towns of Judah Jos. 15^2, and of Simeon Jos. 19' f : clearly then in southern Judah : not identified. — Beth-shetnesh] on the borders of Judah Jos. IS'", but assigned to Dan Jos. 19^', the mod. \ii>i Shems in the valley of Sorek south of the railway from Jafi'a to Jerusalem and not far from the half-way point (Baed.< pp. 14, 126). The place was probably an ancient Canaanite sanctuary (cf. for his- torical references i S. 6' "• i K. 4' 2 K. 14" 2 Ch. 25^" 28"). — 45 (60). Geba\ a town frequently mentioned (8' i S. 13^ 2 S. 5" I K. 15" 2 K. 238 2 Ch. 16' Ne. 11" i2=« Is. io*» Zc. 14'°), mod. Jeba south of the pass of Michmash. It is about four miles north by east from Jerusalem. — Alemeth] (Almon Jos. 21") mentioned in the genealogies 8" 9*', identified with mod. Ahmt, three and a half miles north-east of Jerusalem, beyond Anathoth, VI. 46-66.] DWELLING-PLACES OF LEVITES 139 which is distinguished as the home of Jeremiah (Je. i' 11 2'- " 29" 32' ^-j also mentioned in 2 S. 23'^ i K. 2" Ezr. 2^3 Ne. 7" ii3« Is. 103" f), mod. 'Anata three miles north-east of Jerusalem. — Thirteen cities]. Only eleven are mentioned in the present text of Ch., hence probably Jutta found in Jos. 2i'« and Gibeon in Jos. 21" should be supplied in vv. *^ '■ {v. i.). 39b-45 compared with Jos. 2i'i'-'9 show the following variations, some of which appear abridgments of the Chronicler and others seem to have arisen in the transmission of his text, and should be restored from Joe. We give as the former: v. ^^^ the omission of >nii before 'jaS, and >J3d ^•h after ipnpn (nnoB'B'? instead of 'DD in Jos. represents the true text, since the formula /row the families of the tribes is not used, see SBOT. on Jos. 2I''); v. " pan Nin pjjjn 12N yj-iN pinp nx cut down to pan dm and V"!!^'^ read for ina; v. " inrnNJ omitted after njs''; v. " pon omitted after priN and nxin after taSpa. The latter omission appears also in V. ^2j cf. Jos. 2i28. In vv. •'^'- the sums of the cities as given in Jos. 21"- " are omitted. Variations through careless transmission appear: v. 39b jiTNi omitted after S-Mjn; v. -is nj; instead of nij7> nisy-ija nxi omitted after pan and after in'', which phrase also with na^ and with pyaj have fallen out of vv. "'■; v. *^ Dn^-nnflK'na instead of jnic-uDi. The yi^y of v. ^< is the true reading instead of y; of Jos. 2i'8, c/. on Jos. in loco (&, SBOT., Dill., and also Jos. 15" 19^ Probably also with variations due to copyists should be classed: v. ^ |Sm instead of jSn, cf. Jos. 15^'; V. « nnSj; instead of jmSy with Anathoth after instead of before. 46-50 (61-65). A summary of the Levitical cities. — ^Taken directly from Jos. 21=-' {v. s.). — 46 (61). And the rest of the children of Kehath had by lot out of the families of the tribe of Ephraim and out of the tribe of Dan and out of the half tribe of Manas seh ten cit- ies''^]. The present HI is corrupt and meaningless and must be thus restored according to Jos. 21=. Be. suggested that the confusion may have arisen from the deliberate omission of the reference to the tribe of Dan (rf. 7'=). The sons of Kehath, or the first main division of the Levites, omitting from their number the priests, had in the territory of Ephraim and Dan, adjoining Judah,and in West Manasseh ten cities enumerated in part in vv. ^i" <66-70)_ — 47 (62). The sons of Gershom representing the second main division of the Levites had thirteen cities, enumerated in vv. "-«' ^^i■^i\ in the territory of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and the east-Jordanic tribe of Manasseh. — 48 (63). The sons of Merari, the third and final I40 I CHRONICLES main di\isi()n of the Levites, had as their possession twelve cities enumerated in part in w. "■" ("-«i). — 49 (64). This verse gives a summary of the preceding. — These* cities]. The word Ihese supplied from Jos. has perhaps fallen from the te.xt. — 50 (65). By lol] out of place by copyist's error, belongs to the previous verse. This verse in Jos. begins a new paragraph and is here entirely out of place introducing the matter of vv. ">'-« ««b-«9> (V. s.). 46. pnDtt'sc] Jos. 21' rhss'cs to be preferred (Bn.), but anno'^tS with rt-sn:-:: as in vv. *'"■ is preferred by Ki., and also Bennett, as the true reading in Jos. ai^f-, SBOT. — noa ixnn p nocci onoN nan is to be sup- plied after rno'^Tn from Jos. in place of ^xn tod n^sncD nocn as is required by the ten cities. — 47. aiunj] Jos. 2i« ps'^J, v. s. v. '. — a.-iinorr'^] according to their families, i.e., of Gershonites, Jos. 'ui rn^rm from families of the tribe, etc. (buti-. 5.). — Instead of nu-j:; n::r:;i Jos. has 'xnci ':: na:: and after r"^^, S^ua. — 48. S^u^] is wanting in Jos. 21' (but cf. J3 ■'ja nacci] wanting in Jos. (but cf. (S and Jos. 21^). 51-66 (66-81). The cities of the Levites (in distinction from the priests). — Taken directly from Jos. 2I"-'' with some abridg- ment, and the te.xt has evidently suffered through transcription. — 51 (66). And families of the sons of Kehath had cities of their lot,* etc.] thus correctly Be., Bn., Kau., Ki., after Jos. 21". — 52 (67). The city* of refuge] since only Shechem was a city of refuge. — Shechem] a little over thirty miles north of Jerusalem, figures frequently in the early history of Israel {cf. Gn. i2« t,^)''' 35< Jos. 24'- " Ju. 9 I K. 12). It is the mod. Ndbidus, a city of 24,800 inhabitants (Baed.< p. 217). — Gezer] an ancient Canaan- itish city not occupied by the Israelites (Jos. 16'° Ju. 1=^' contra Jos. 10") until conquered by "Pharaoh king of Egypt" and pre- sented to Solomon i K. g'^ : the mod. Tell Jezer, some twenty miles west by north from Jerusalem, and the site of recent excava- tions (cf. R. A. Stewart JMacalister, Bible Side Lights from the Mound of Gezer, Lon. 1906). — 53 (68). Instead of Jokmeam Jos. (2i«) has Kibzaim, which, according to Be., Bn., Ki., is to be preferred. No site corresponding to either name has VI. 46-66.] DWELLING-PLACES OF LEMTES 141 been found. — Beth-horon']. There were an upper and a lower Beth-horon (2 Ch. 8^) "near the head and the foot respectively of the ascent from the Maritime Plain to the plateau of Ben- jamin, and represented to-day by Beit 'Ur el fdka and Beit 'Ur el lahla.'" The towns are a little over two miles apart and some ten or twelve miles north-west of Jerusalem. For refer- ences to these towns and their ascent cf. Jos. 10'" '• 163- ' 18" '• 21" I S. i3'8 2 K. 85 2 Ch. 8^ 2513. Between v." '^s' and v." <«»>, intentionally (Be.) or carelessly (Bn.), has been omitted Jos. 2123 "And from the tribe of Dan Elteke and its suburbs and Gibbethon and its suburbs." — 54 (69). Aijalon] a city of Dan; mod. village of Ydlo, a little to the north of the Jaffa road, about thirteen miles from Jerusalem. Cf. for references 8'^ 2 Ch. 910 28'8 Jos. 19^2 21=4 Ju. 135 I s. 14". The valley of Aijalon was a famous battle-field (cf. GAS. HGHL. pp. 210-13). — Galh-rimmon] (Jos. 19^5 2124 -j-) not identified; probably a little to the east of Joppa. — 55 (70). Instead of 'Aner ("1]J?) read after Jos. 21^5 Taanach ("jyn), the frequently mentioned city of the plain of Esdraelon {cf. 7" Jos. 122' 17" 1918 £f. 2125 Ju. I" 5" I K. 4'2), mod. Taanniik some four and a half miles south-southwest from Lejjiin (Megiddo) (BDB.). — Read also instead of 5 j/e am {U^12) Ible'am (Dy^D''). Cf. Jos. 17" Ju. I". Jos. 21^5 has by dittography Gath-rimmon, but (^^ le^aOa, hence Dill., Bennett, SBOT., el al., as above. Ihleam was also in the plain of Esdraelon and its name appears preserved in the Wady Belameh in which the village Jemn lies (Baed.< p. 223). — The words /"'^3] (S'' omits, ^ lySXaa/u, ^le^Xaafi = a;"'?3'' (v. s.). — pnfl'.:':;"'] should be pointed as pi. after Jos. — 56. The te.xt of Jo.s. 21" is Mji nj3 'sn^ dmSh nnDS'::a p^nji ^:2^}. — The words the city 0/ refuge of the manslayer appear in Jos. before Golan. — 58. msx-j] Jos. 21-' .n-is^:, but Jos. 19'-' ."'??.. VII. 15. The genealogy of Issachar. — Of this section, only V. ' is derived from canonical sources {v. i.). The remainder was either composed by the Chronicler or is from an unknown source. Instead of closing with an account of dwelling-places, there is a record of the number of fighting men, as is also the case in the records of Zebulun {v. •/.) and Asher (r/. v. ■•»). — 1. And the sons of Issachar Tola' and Pii'ah and Jashub and Shiinron]. Cf. for source Gn. 46" Nu. 26== '•. In Ju. 10' we read of one of the minor judges, Tola' the son of Pu'ah, (lie son of Dodo a man of Issachar and he was dwelling in Shamir. This shows that traditions varied in respect to the relationship of the clans of Tola' and Piiah; but the former if not the more ancient was clearly the more pre-eminent. It is possible that the four sons of Issachar are simply reflections oi the statement given above in the form, I'ola the son of Pu'ah dwelling in Shamir; Jashub derived from dwelling (iwT') (('/■ the variation Job 21'' in Gn. 46'^) and Shimron from Shamir ("i"'!2w'); or, vice versa, that the late editor of the "Minor Judges" came on this concise list of names in P and constructed his statements therefrom (cf. H. W. Hogg in OLZ. vol. 3 (igoo) col. 367). Shimron has been regarded as standing {or the city Vn. 1-5] GENEALOGY OF ISSACPIAR H5 of Samaria (Noeldeke, EBi. III. col. 3275). — 2. And the sons of Tola were 'Uzzi and Rephaiah and Jeri'el f and Jahmai f and Jibsam f and Shemu'el heads of their fathers' houses mighty men of valor]. The first, third, and fourth of these names look hke those of ancient clans, while the second appears late, and thus is suggested a combination of early and late traditions. — Accord- ing to their genealogical divisions, etc.]. The writer has prob- ably preserved here and in the following verses midrashic interpretations of David's census (2 S. 24). — 3. The sojis of Uzzi present a group of late names (Gray, HPN. p. 238). — Five]. The four grandsons were reckoned as sons. — All of them were heads] or altogether there were five heads, five distinct families or clans. — 4. And with them]. The reference is to the five clans or families of v. ' which numbered 36,000 warriors. — 5. And the reckoning * of all the families of Issachar, the mighty men of valor, was altogether 87,000]. In v. ^ the sons of Tola, six clans, are numbered at 22,600; in v. * the sons of Uzzi, five clans, 36,000. These two together make 58,600, leaving 28,400 to be furnished by the remainder of the tribe, i.e., the clans Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, and also Tola reckoning him as a clan distinct from his sons {v. Bn. in loco). In Nu. i^' the warriors of Issachar were 54,400, in Nu. 26=5 64,300. 1. •'J2S1] for the construction see Ges. § 143^. Ke., Zoe., Oe., Kau., Bn., prefer to emend to ^i2^. (g'^ /cai ovtol vioi = ^J3 nSxi, cf. 2' 3>. — HNiij] Gn. 46", Nu. 26-3 ni£3. -3^t:';] Qr. {cf. (5, B) 3ir;. Gn. 3v is a text, error, SBOT. (see above for an original atr-r). — 2. jjhnS] an addition defining Dnns n-'j, appears a corruption (Zoe.) and should be struck out.— ann'i'n'?] is better connected with the last half of the verse (Be., Ke., Ki.). — 5. Dn^nxi] Bn. after Klo. reads arn\nni, as in vv. 7b 9. 40b and removes the following Dt:'n^pni. Possibly an original n has fallen out before nn-^nNi, the preceding word ending in a. Then 1 is a corruption for f and we should read 'N JD and connect with the preceding verse, translating /or they had more wives and sons than their brethren. Dcn^-im should be transposed to a position after on^nN, and final SdS should be struck out. — a^Sin >-n3j] v. Ges. § 1249. VII. 6-11. The genealogy of Zebulun.— This genealogy which ^ apparently ascribes to Benjamin is peculiar. The intro- ductory words The sons of are wanting; nowhere else in 1^ are 146 I CHRONICLES the sons of Benjamin limited to three; Jedia'el is elsewhere un- known as a Benjaminite name, a most striking thing when the sons of Benjamin are so often mentioned; and this section as a Benjaminite genealogy forms a doublet to c. 8. Not only are the names of the sons of Bela (v. ■) entirely different from those in any other list of his sons {cf. 8' Nu. 26<'' and (S of Gn. 46''), but they are uncommon or unknown to the tribe of Benjamin. While the other lists of Bela's sons differ from each other, showing variant traditions, they are agreed in employing the same names. On the other hand, Ezbon is only found elsewhere as a son of Gad (Gn. 46'% cf. Nu. 26'«); 'Uzzi is a common priestly and Levitical name Ne. i2"- « i Ch. 5=' '• (6' ' ) 6'« «" Kzr. 7< Ne. 11", appears among the descendants of Issachar (7= =) and once as a Benja- minite (9'); 'Uzzi^el, though a very comm'jn name, is not Benjamin- ite; Jerimoth (""li"'"!'') is a Benjaminite name in 8'< (r'^i*''), but there we should probably read Jeroham (CH"!^) with 8", cf. g" (Jerimoth of 12^ <^' is doubtless a Judean name, v. in loco); Iri does not occur elsewhere. Thus we have ap{)arently a variant tradi- tion which has only one certain Benjaminite name and that a common one elsewhere. The case is similar with the sons of Becher (v. "). Of these, Zemirah occurs only here (but cf. Zimri 8'«); Jo ash, Eliezer, Elio enai (but cf. Elienai 8"),'0/;/r/, and Abijah are more or less common but unknown as Benjaminite names; the same is likely true of Jeremoth (see above, Jerimoth). The last two names, 'Anathoth and 'Alemeth, on the other hand, arecommon Benjaminite names. 'Anathoth occurs elsewhere as a personal name only in Ne. io=" "", where the tribe is not given, but is frequent as a place-name in Benjamin. 'Alemeth is also a place-name of Benjamin and is a personal name in 8" and g". Only these two, therefore, are cer- tainly Benjaminite and they alone are geographical. Of the third branch (v. '») not on\y Jcdia^el but his son Bilhan and his grandsons Cheuaanah, Zethan, Tarshish, and Ahishahar are not know^n as Benjaminites. Je ush (Kt. t^y) is met with in 8^' (w^'iy), and a Benjaminite Ehttd (T.mK), the son of Gera, is familiar from Ju. 3" '• +. Benjamin, the son of Bilhan, is unknown. Vn. 6-13.] GENEALOGY OF ZEBULUN I47 This genealogy of Benjamin is not only unique in its content but is in the wrong place in a geographical arrangement of the tribes, and a doublet (v. s.). Now, the genealogy of Zebulun is wanting in the Chronicler's account. Kittel (Kom.) indicates his belief that the original text contained this tribe by supposing a lacuna after Naphtali (7"). But Zebulun belongs rather after Issachar, whom he follows in thirteen out of seventeen OT. lists, including 2' '• and 27'* «■ (r/. also 12" '■ i2'"' 2 Ch. ^o^^), but not 5-16 B. (61 £t.) where the order is not the Chronicler's but dependent on Jos. 21. In five more — in three of which the principle of arrangement seems to be geographical from south to north — the order of these two is reversed. Thus we have the strange genealogy of Benjamin just where the lost one of Zebulun should be. Further there is a striking similarity between the list of Zebulun's sons as given in Gn. 46'* and the names appearing in the first verse of our list, as follows : Gn. 46" ^K^n^l jl^Sl 1-|D J1^3T ^l^l I Ch. 7<= r^^bu bav^i^^ n^ai v^a ]'!2'^:2. If the former was the original reading in i Ch. 7^ plus the Chronicler's addition of HD/w', it is easy to see how the present reading arose in copying. T '•23 was read as ]D''J3; ^72 as y^i3; TlD j as -13:31 ((/. T13, v. 20, = -^22 Nu. 26^^). The last two of course followed as a necessary result of the first from the influ- ence of Gn. 462', and the well-known Zebulunite il^S (cf. Ju. 12" ') had to be cancelled, as the final T^ub'^' required only three names, ^^sy^'' is then a corruption of ^S^IT' (for y as a corruption of b, cf. v. '5, "3^13 for n3'?i3n), a corruption which may have been in the Chronicler's text of Genesis. This hypothesis explains: the absence of initial ''J3; the other- wise unknown T'SJ^*''"!'' as a son of Benjamin; the final nw^yy when Gn. 46=' (|^) knows ten sons of Benjamin (but corrected text nine, see on 8'-='), Nu. 262' '■ five, and i Ch. 8' '■ five; the strangeness of the following names; and eliminates the doublet while restoring the missing Zebulun in the proper place. When once the error had been made, the tendency to make the table plainly Benjaminite would naturally be strong. Bela and Becker in vv. '• « followed of necessitv. % has carried the matter 148 I CHRONICLES still farther by substituting '^ ^^| (doubtless an error for V^i^l = ^2wS) for '?S';"'l^ in vv. ^ 10. n. Anathoth and AJemeth were added to the list of v. ', none of the others being geographical, and Ehud was inserted into v. '"from Ju. 3". It is tempting to suppose that the anomalous BenjciDiin had the same origin. Then the first scribe simply placed '»J''!2Ti"'ji TiPIt^ on the margin, and these words made their way into the text in reverse order as separate names. This tendency to add Benjaminite names is illustrated further by the appendix Shu p pirn also and Hup pirn (v. '*") from Gn. 46=', which is out of place even as the list stands In spite of the meagreness of Zebulunite material in the OT., there are some striking points of contact between this genealogy and Zebulun besides the resemblances of the names of v. • to Gn. 46'^ |'i2i;S* (v. ') suggests ]:;2« (Ju. i2s-'«), a "muior judge" of Bethlehem of Zebulun (see Moore, Judges, p. 310). It is significant that (^'^^ (prol^ably representing the original Greek tradition) in Ju. read EcreyS&)i/ = p3iS, making it still more probable that we have the same name in both passages, the Chron- icler having found it with the second and third consonants trans- posed. This judge is introduced here just as Elon, the other Zebulunite judge, is in Gn. 46'^, and as Tola, the judge of Issachar (Ju. 10'), in Gn. 46'= and i Ch. 7'- \ A point of contact with Zebulun is found also in the striking name Tarshish, in v. '», which is unknown as a Hebrew man's name. As is well known, this name stands in the OT. for all great shipping interests. Now, the special characterisation of Zcljulun in Gn. 49" is the fact that he shall be "a liavcn for shii^s (ri''jX)." Such a connection with Tarshish could l;e given to no other tribe, and least of all to the inland tribe of Benjamin.* Furthermore, the name Che- naanah, found elsewhere only as the father of the prophet Zedekiah (i K. 22"- 2< = 2 Ch. iS'"- "), a favourite with Ahab (!), with the meaning "toward Canaan," i.e., Phoenicia, is singularly appro- priate in a tribe of whicli the same passage in Gn. says, "his border shall be upon Sidon." * That p3XN - IX3.V and that Tarshish is more appropriate as a Zebulunite name were suggested by Professor C. C. Torrey after reading tlie preceding. vn. 6-13.] GENEALOGY OF ZEBULUN 149 Aside from this passage Zebulunite names are few in the OT. Among the princes of the tribes during the Wilderness Period was an EUab the son of Helon as prince of Zebulun (Nu. i' 2' 724. 29 io'»), and a Gadiel son of Zodi represented the tribe as one of the spies (Nu. 13'°). At the division of the land Elizaphan the son of Parnach was the prince who acted for this tribe (Nu. 34"). Among the judges we find the Zebulunites Ibzan and Elon (Ju. i2» '■) (v. s.). The Chronicler's list of the captains of the tribes in the time of David contains the Zebulunite Ishmaiah son of Obadiah (i Ch. 27''). The emended text of this genealogy is rendered as follows : 6. The sons of Zehulun* : Sered^, and Elon*, and Jahle'el* (or Jedia'el), three. 7. And the sons of Sered*: Ezhon, and 'Uzzi, and 'Uzzi'el, and Jerimoth, and 'Iri,-\ Jive; . . .8. And the sons of Elon*: Zemirahf, and Jo' ash, and Eltezer, and Elio'enai, and 'Omri, and Jeremoth, and Abijah. All these were the sons of Elon"*. 9. . . . 10. And the sons of J a hie' el* (or Jedia'el): Bilhan. And the sons of Bilhan: Je'iish, and Chena'anah, and Zethan], and Tarshish, and Ahishahar-\. 11. All these were the sons of Jahle'el * (or Jedia'el) . . . The total enrolment of the warriors of Zebulun is here 22,034 (v. ') + 20,200 (v. ') + 17,200 (v. ") = 59,434 against 50,000 (i2» (">), 57,400 (Nu. i^'), 60,500 (Nu. 26"). While Zebulun's genealogy appears clearly, as stated above, in behalf of the view generally held that the genealogy is that of Ben- jamin, Jediael may be regarded as the equivalent of Ashbel men- tioned in the list of Benjamin's sons in 8' Gn. 46^' Nu. 26^8 — i. e., " Known of God " has been substituted through religious scruples for "Man of Baal" (cf. for similar changes of names 38 8"«); then may be emphasised the presence of the Benjaminite names Jerimoth (vv. 7 '■), Anathoth and Alemeth (v. s)^ Benjamin and Ehiid (v. 10), and Shuppim and Hiippim (v. '^ ^. j\). 6 . Sxynii 1331 ySa jidij3] read instead (or ':'Xj;nii) '?N'?nM •\■hn^ n-iD pSsr 1:3 restored from Gn. 46" {v. s.). — 7. ySs] read niD {v. s.).—B. 133 bis] read pVs {v. s.). — nnSpi ninj>'i] as a later gloss should be struck out (f. 5.). — 10. Snv^'] read possibly '^s'^n'', so also in v. ", and strike out JD1J31 nin.Ni {v. s.). 150 I CHRONICLES 12. The genealogy of Dan. — The first two names in this verse, Shuppim and Huppim, are a late addition to the preceding section derived from Gn. 46=^' (restored text) Nu. 26", and are a part of the process by which that genealogy was made over from being Zebulunite to Benjaminite (y. s. on vv. •"). The endings should be am as in Nu. and not hn as though plural, since the adjectives are Huphamite (''CSin) and Shuphamite ('•I^S'ty). — The sons of Dan, Hnshim his son, one*] (v.i.) The name 'Ir doubtless arose from a corrupt text through the influence of 'Iri, V. ^ Hiishim appears as the one son of Dan in Gn. 46", and in Nu. 26" as Shnham. Hnshim as a Benjaminite name in the corrupt passage 8«-", probably helped to corrupt this passage after the preceding had been made a Benjaminite genealogy {v. s.). Aher (ins), mj, seems very probably a corruption of the numeral one (ins), since to add the number was a favourite practice of the Chronicler, cf. vv. '• ' ' et al., and lack of genealogical material was a special reason for the addition here. 12. Dom Dcn] are a later addition, cf. Gn. 46" Nu. 26" {v. s.). — ins •'ja ca'n n^j: 'j3] read with Klo. PRE. -inx iJ3 D-J'n p ■'ja, The sons 0/ Dan Hushim his son one on the basis of Gn. 46^ and (6 which read 'ja. This seems preferable to finding jt hidden in ins (Be.). Bacher thinks TJ? ^aa, " sons of the city," euphemistic for p "'J3, to which the Chron- icler objected because of the idolatry practised by the Danites (Ju. 18" I K. 12"), and compares the Talmudic use of "cj? for 'sn (Rome); nriN "':3 has a similar import and is a gloss to "^v '^2 (Z.4Tr. xviii. (1898), pp. 236-8). 13. The genealogy of Naphtali, cf. Gn. 46'* ' Nu. 26<» ' . — This brief genealog}' is taken word for word from Gn. 46=* ' with the single omission of these before sons of Bilhah which stood in the original clause with reference to the sons of Dan as well as those of Naphtali. 13. SN'sn'] 23 Mss., Gn. 46" Nu. 26<« without the second v — oi^?'|] seven MSS., Gn. and Nu. 26" a'^ri. VII. 14-29. Manasseh and Ephraim. — The Chronicler groups the two sons of Josej)!! together, giving (i) the genealogy of Manasseh (vv. '«'»), (2) the genealogy of Ephraim (vv. "»')) (3) Vn. 14-19.] GENEALOGY OF MANASSEH I51 dwelling-places of Ephraim (v. "), (4) dwelling-places of Alanas- seh (v. "). The genealogy of Manasseh, while not without con- nection with those given in Jos. 17= »• Nu. 26^' « , is presented in quite an independent form. Kittel {SBOT. Kom.) ascribes it to an older source. To the same source he gives y\. 2' ''"'■°'° "'"' •^^"-j-s* of the genealogy of Ephraim. There is no reason to doubt that vv. »»-" belong to the original compilation of the Chronicler, since it can hardly be contended (with Bn.) that the Chronicler does not describe the dwelling-places elsewhere {cf. 4""- 5*'' ', etc.) . The contents of these verses are derived from Jos. i6< " 17" '■, which were rewritten by the Chronicler. It appears that instead of trying to give all the dwelling-places of these two tribes, the writer intends to describe their combined territory by giving the cities on the southern and on the northern borders. Shechem, be- longing to Ephraim, then, defines the boundary between the two tribes. Possibly Ayyah, whose site is unknown, was given for the same purpose. 14-19. The genealogy of Manasseh. — 14. The sons of Ma- imsseh^ which his Aramaic concubine bore: she bore Machir the father of Gile'ad]. This statement is identical with Gn. 46^°'' (S. Machir appears as the eldest son of Manasseh and as the father of Gilead in Jos. 17' ^ and Nu. 36'. In Gn. 50" the birth of Machir and also of his sons is placed in Egypt. The descent here given from an Aramaic concubine points to a different story and arose probably from the close association and admixture of the Manassites east of the Jordan uith the Arameans. In Ju. 5'* Machir represents a tribe in Israel, evidently Manasseh. He is called the father of Gilead because the clan of Machir conquered Gilead. — 15. And Gilead took a wife ivhose name was Maacah and the name of his sister was Hammolecheth f and the name of his brother Zelophhad *]. Ma'acah represents the small Aramean kingdom, district, or people situated east of the Sea of Galilee near Mt. Hermon, hence either adjoining the territory of Manasseh Dt. 3" Jos. 12^ or included in it Jos. 13". Cf. 2 S. io« where the King of Ma'acah is hired against David, and Gn. 22" where Ma'acah the tribal father appears as a son of Nahor. Ma'acah the wife of Gilead reflects the same historical circum- 152 I CHRONICLES stances as the Aramean concubine, v. ". Hammolechelh (she who reigns) (nD^CH) is to be compared with Milcah (queen) ("3^-) the wife of Nahor (Gn. ii"), and reflects probably, with Ma'acah, a close connection with the Aramean s. While the name here may be tribal (Gray, HPN. p. ii6), it undoubtedly was originally a divine title. In Nu. 26"-3< (P) Zelophhad is given as the fourth in descent from Manasseh through Machir, Gilead, and Hepher. — 16. 17. And Maacah the infe of Gilead* bore a son and called his name Peresh | and the name of his brother u-as Sheresh f; and his sons, Ulam and Rekem; and the sons of Ulam, Bedan-\: these are the sons of Gilead, etc.]. These sons or clans are otherwise en- tirely unknown. For a reoccurrence of the name Ulam cf. 8", of Rekem 2''' Jo.. 18" Nu. 318 Jos. 13='. For further sons of Gilead connected with the tribe of Judah see 2=' « . — 18. Ishhod f]. — Abi'ezer] in Jos. 172 a son of Manasseh and in Ju. 6" "• ''*■ " the family of Gideon. — Mahlah] in Nu. 26" 27' 36" Jos. 17' one of the daughters of Zelophhad. — 19. Sliemidu'] prol)ably originally stood also in v. '^asa son of Hammolecheth: a son of Manasseh Jos. 17% a son of Gilead Nu. 26^-. — Ahjan f ]. — Shechem] a son of Manasseh Jos. 17^ a son of Gilead Nu. 26". — Lekhi f] (TIp^) possibly cor- responds to Helek (pbn) Nu. 26'° Jos. 17", and Antafn f (D>'«JS) to Noah (nyj) daughter of Zelophhad Nu. and Jos. — The writer here has not clearly distinguished between the clans of eastern and western Manasseh. His scheme differs considerably from those of Jos. and Nu. (see Manasseh in DB. III.). 14. The name Ashriel ('^N-'-irx), while suggested by Jos. 17^ Nu. 26»>, where Asriel appears among the sons of Manasseh or Gilead, is proba- bly a dittography arising from the following ni':'> nu'N and is to be struck out of the te.xt (Mov., Be., Zoe., Oe., Kau., Bn., Ki.). — 15. The present text inD'?x ■'js'n on r\y;n irmN oa'i corSi O'onS nrs npS -cost yields the following: And Machir took a wife of Huppim and Shuppim {i.e., of these Bcnjaminite families, cf. v. '=) and the name of his sister was Maacah and the name of the second Zelophhad. But according to w. i«. 18 Ma'acah was the wife of Machir and Hammolecheth his sister. Mov. changed inns* to phn and read and the name of the first was Ma'acah and the name of the second Zelophhad. But Zelophhad in Nu. 26" 27'' 36'-'* Jos. 17' is a man. The connection of Machir or his wife with Huppim and Shuppim looks strange also. Hence these words Vn. 20-29.] GENEALOGY OF EPHRAIM 153 are better regarded as a gloss from v. '= or an original position on the margin and the text further emended as follows: nc^i nz'n np^ nySj nnflSx rPN ojzn poSdh innx Dcn nD;'D with translation above (Bn., Ki.). Gilead is read instead of Machir as the husband of Maacah because the sons given in v. " are called the sons of Gilead, hence in v. '* Gilead is to be read instead of Machir. 20-29. The genealogy of Ephraim.— (C/. Ephraim Gene- alogy, Hogg, JQR. XIII. [Oct. 1900] p. 147.) Viewing this section as a whole, it exhibits Httle dependence upon OT. sources and shows considerable complication of material or is very corrupt. — 20. 21^. This line of descent abruptly ending in v. ='» may origi- nally have formed a part of one of Joshua and suffered the inter- ruption of vv. "''.24. '£zer and Elead cannot have been its final members in this connection, because the context regards them as immediate sons and not later descendants of Ephraim. But what- ever the design of this line of descent, it has been constructed out of a list of sons of Ephraim similar to that in Nu. 26" ' . These may originally have completed the statement, And the sons of Ephraim. These sons were Shuthelah (n^mty), Becher ("l32), here Bered (ma), Tahan (jnn), here Tahath (nnn), and also 'Eran (py) son of Shuthelah {cf. La'adan jiy'? v.^^). The two names 'Ezer and Elead, v. ^i (the latter occasioning Eleadah V. "), seem on the other hand to have belonged to the narrative =">-", which is entirely independent of the material of Nu. Zahad (l^T) v. 21 may be derived from and Bered (in::!). (On whether Becher or Bered belonged to the earliest list of Ephraim's sons, V. Hogg art. s., also EBi. col. 1320).— 2l''-24. A story explain- ing the name of Beriah, the founder probably of Beth-horon and possibly a reputed ancestor of Joshua..— And the men of Gath who were natives in the land slew them] i.e., 'Ezer and Elead, because they came down to take away their cattle. This patri- archal story is difficult of explanation. In the light of the story of the sojourn in Egypt, this raid, if by immediate sons of Eph- raim, must have been made from Eg}'pt, in spite of the ex- pression "go down" (-n^). This was the explanation of the earlier commentators, who regarded Ephraim and his children as historical persons. But the use of -n\ "go down," points almost 154 I CHRONICLES conclusively to a foray from Alt. Ephraim into the plains of Philistia, and this little narrative is probably a reminiscence of some such event (Be., Ki.). Two Ephraimitic families, '.Ezer and Elead, probably were destroyed in such a raid, and the original Ephraim, who mourned many days, was the tribe or the hill country. CJ. Rachel weeping in Je. 31". Or the narrative may be entirely imaginary, a purely etymological legend to explain the Ephraimitic family name Bert ah (ny-iD as though derived from "^12 "in evil"). (On this narrative cJ. Ew. Hist. I. p. 380; Sayce, Pat. Pal. p. 202; We. Prol. p. 214; EBi. Beri'ah.) — Benah] a Le- vitical name 23'", also that of a son of Asher vv. '» ' Gn. 46'^ Nu. 26", and in the list of the descendants of Benjamin 8"- '•. See further on vv. '» '. — 24. And his daughter was She'erah •\ and she built Beth-horon the lower and the upper, and Uzzen- she^erah f ]. This verse in its present form is suspicious because elsewhere in the OT. the founders of cities are men. — Beth- horon]. Cf. 6" <"". — Uzzen-she'erah] as a place is entirely un- identified and otherwise unknown. — 26. And Rephah f his son and Resheph f ]. The present te.xt of v. " suggests her son instead of his son. Perhaps after Resheph, "his son" should also be supplied (Ki.). — And Telah |] (n'?n) an abbreviation probably of Shuthelah (nS-ntT) v. 'K—Tahan]. Cf. Tahath v. =".—26. La dan] (jlj?'? probably from pj? with *? prefi.xed see \'v. " "), elsewhere a Levite name 23' ' 26-'. — Ammihud] and Elishama] are taken from Nu. 1'°, where the latter the son of the former is the "head" of Ephraim, but only here is Nun (v.") the father of Joshua brought into connection with them. — 27. This is the only record of Joshua's line of descent and its late and artificial character reveals itself at once. — Nan] (jlj) elsewhere in OT. Nun (pj). — 28. A brief description of the possessions of Ephraim through the mention of the southern boundary Bethel, mod. Bcitin, ten miles north of Jerusalem, the eastern Naaran (Jos. 16' Na'arah) placed by Jerome and Eusebius within five miles of Jericho, not identified (Bn., but see EBi.), the western Gezer, and evidently the northern Shechem unto the unknown *Ayyah or 'Azzah. — 29. Four principal and well-known towns of Manasseh are here enumerated, beginning with Beth- Vn. 30-40.] GENEALOGY OF ASHER 1 55 shean, mod. Beisdn, on the east in the Jordan valley, and passing westward through the plain of Esdraelon, where Taanach mod. Ta'annak, and Megiddo mod. el-LejjUn (Baed.< p. 224), are located, to Dor mod. Tantura on the coast. Cf. Jos. 17" Ju. i". — These two verses in contents are agreeable to Jos. 16^ »■ 17" " but not in form, and hence are either a composition of the Chron- icler or from the source of the genealogies given above. 24. 25^. Hogg {op. cit.) restores as follows: n'>a ra nja is'n nih lom Dnm>j; pni jr'^pn pni pnnnn |mn, He it was that built Belh-horon the lower and the upper and 'Irheres {cf. Tiranath-heres Ju. 2') and Hepher (Jos. 12"). — 25. ']Z'-\>'] ten mss. + 1J3. — 28. n^j;] many mss. and editions (including the Bomberg Bible) r\v;_. — 29. '31 njyn]