The Books of Chronicles

---

§ 3. Date and Authorship

(1) Date and Unity. The scope of our inquiry in this section requires to be defined with some care. In dealing with any work which is chiefly a compilation of older material, it is necessary clearly to distinguish between the dates of the various sources which can be recognised or surmised and the dates of the writer or writers who have effected the compilation. When we examine the structure of Chronicles its composite nature is at once evident. Many long and important passages have been taken, with or without adaptation, directly from the existing books of Scripture. The date of all such passages, of course, falls to be considered in the commentaries on Samuel or Kings or wherever their original setting may be. The remainder of Chronicles presents an intricate but interesting problem. It has been held that there are no sources involved in this remaining portion but that the whole is the free composition of the writer who quoted or adapted the passages from earlier books of Scripture referred to above. According to the view taken in this volume, sources other than these “canonical” books were utilised in the formation of Chronicles, although for reasons suggested in § 5 (q.v., pp. xxxvi f.) such sources are not easy to distinguish from the work of the compiler himself. The little which can be said regarding the origin and history of these supposed sources may conveniently be reserved for the section dealing with the Sources (§ 5). The question, therefore, which is before us in this section is the date of the editorial process to which we owe the present form of Chronicles. Fortunately the answer is simplified by one important fact, namely the remarkable homogeneity of Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah. To such a degree are these books characterised by unity of style, vocabulary, standpoint and purpose (see below; also § 2 and § 6), that we may safely conclude they are essentially the product of one mind: they have reached substantially their present form in the course of a single editorial process. Conceivably the work was achieved by a small body of Levites (see below under Authorship), contemporaries, sharing the same training and outlook; but it is much more reasonable to infer the activity of a single writer—the Chronicler. It is his date which we proceed to consider. The evidence may be grouped under three heads, of which the last two (B, C) are of chief importance.

(A) (1) In 1 Chronicles xxix. 7 a sum of money is reckoned in darics, a Persian coinage introduced by Darius I (521‒486 B.C.).

(2) In 1 Chronicles iii. 19b‒24 (see note ad loc.) according to the Hebrew the line of David’s family is traced to the sixth generation after Zerubbabel (circa 520 B.C.). Hence, reckoning a generation as about 20 to 30 years, this passage would indicate a date not earlier than 400 B.C. or 340 B.C. The Greek, Syriac, and Latin Versions, however, differ from the Hebrew by extending the line to the eleventh generation after Zerubbabel. That would imply a date possibly as late as 200 B.C. and not earlier than about 300 B.C., but it is very doubtful whether we can here rely upon the text of these Versions, and obviously it was easy for a translator or scribe to carry the list on to his own date. This piece of evidence, therefore, for the later date cannot be pressed, although it is worthy of notice.

Since, as we have said (§ 2), Ezra‒Nehemiah formed originally one book with Chronicles, evidence for the date of Chronicles is also furnished by any indications of date which occur in Ezra‒Nehemiah.

(3) In Nehemiah xii. 22 we find the significant phrase “to the reign of Darius, the Persian.” Now as long as the Persian empire stood such a description would have no point when written by a Jewish writer. For two hundred years down to 332 B.C., when Syria and Phoenicia fell into the hands of Alexander the Great, the rulers of Judea were all “Persians.” But from 332 B.C. onward Greek monarchs were the rulers of Palestine, and nothing is more natural than that a Jewish chronicler writing under their rule should refer to a king of the older régime as “the Persian.”

(4) Further, in Nehemiah xii. 26, 47 the phrase “in the days of Nehemiah” occurs, implying that for the writer Nehemiah belonged to the past, but, as one cannot say how near or how distant a past, the point carries little weight.

(5) Again, in Nehemiah xii. 10, 11 and 22, 23, a list of high-priests is given, concluding with the name of Jaddua, whom the Chronicler evidently (and correctly, compare Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews xi. 7, 8) knew to have been the high-priest about 332 B.C., at the end of the reign of Darius (Darius III, Codomannus), when the Persian Empire collapsed before the attack of Alexander the Great.

These details, indicative of the date of composition, are as numerous as we have any right to expect in a work of the nature of Chronicles, which deals with past history. Their evidential value can of course be criticised by supposing that the passages in question are late interpolations and have therefore no bearing on the date of the main body of the work. But no solid grounds are adduced for this objection, and the burden of proof lies upon the objector. The supposition is extremely improbable, and may be dismissed in view of the fact that (B) the general character, and (C) the linguistic peculiarities of Chronicles alike demand a date considerably later than the period of Ezra‒Nehemiah.

(B) The character of Chronicles has already been referred to, but in a different connection (§ 2, pp. xvi f.). Here the point to notice is that throughout the entire work the whole system of law and ritual found in the Pentateuch is presupposed as existing in its final form. This system, which may conveniently be described as Priestly (P) in distinction from the earlier system to which the name Deuteronomic (D) is applied, and the still earlier standpoint represented by the Jahvistic and Elohistic writers (J and E), may have been of slow growth, and no doubt embodies features of law and ritual which are of relatively high antiquity. But there is overwhelming evidence to prove that, as an organised and completed system, it cannot be dated earlier than the period of Nehemiah (circa 425 B.C.). Now in Chronicles not only is this final code in force; it has evidently been so long and so firmly established that the Chronicler did not know, or at least did not believe, that any other earlier system had once ruled the practice of Israel. He belonged to a period when the development of the Pentateuch was no more remembered, and when its origin—in all completeness—had come to be ascribed with absolute confidence to the remote past, in accordance with that religious instinct which we have described above on p. xiv. Manifestly, a considerable lapse of time after Nehemiah’s period must be allowed for that conviction to have become established.

Another consideration is found in the attitude of the Chronicler towards the kingdom of Israel. For the apostate Northern Kingdom the Chronicler has only contempt and hatred and displays no interest whatever in its fortunes, except that he takes pains occasionally to indicate the corruption of the North, thus emphasising by contrast the virtue of the Judeans. His absorption in the affairs of Jerusalem and his bitter antagonism to the North in all likelihood reflect the anger felt by the post-exilic Jews of Jerusalem against the Samaritans after the famous schism between the two communities. Indeed it is possible, § 6 (1), that his work was directly inspired by the necessity of combating the religious pretensions of the Samaritans with their Temple on Mt Gerizim, rivalling Jerusalem. The Samaritan schism is generally supposed to date from 432 B.C., but there are grounds for thinking that it was not so early, and possibly the Temple on Mt Gerizim may have been built, not in 432, but in 332 B.C. If the later date be correct, we have strong evidence for dating Chronicles not earlier than the last half of the fourth century B.C.

(C) The late date of Chronicles is finally put beyond all doubt by the linguistic peculiarities of the book. Excluding, of course, the passages drawn from earlier Scriptures, the Hebrew of Chronicles is of such a character that it is impossible to assign anything but a late post-exilic date for its composition. In every aspect of language—grammar and syntax and vocabulary—the diction exhibits the unmistakable characteristics of late Hebrew. It lies beyond the scope of the present volume to give details of the Hebrew, and reference may be made to the edition of Chronicles by Curtis and Madsen (International Critical Commentary), pp. 27 ff., where a list of 136 such peculiarities is given.

The style of Chronicles is disappointing. The Chronicler had some praiseworthy qualities as a narrator: he displays force and imagination in the treatment of the material, he knew how to add a graphic touch, and he was able to revise a story thoroughly while preserving its internal coherence (e.g. 1 Chronicles xxi.). But he had not the gift of choice language. In so late a work we could not hope to find the strength and purity which characterised Hebrew prose of the “golden age.” It must, however, be confessed that, judged even by the standard of its own age, the Hebrew of Chronicles is clumsy and displeasing in many ways.

---

From this cumulative evidence we infer that the Chronicler was certainly a post-exilic writer later than the period of Ezra‒Nehemiah and in all probability not earlier than about 300‒250 B.C. This is a valuable and definite conclusion, but it is important to observe that it does not fully answer the problem of the date of the present form of Chronicles. It remains to ask whether the text as it has reached us (the Masoretic Hebrew) is precisely the text which left the Chronicler’s hands, and, if not, what changes have been introduced. It is safe to say that the Hebrew text has been almost unchanged since about 150 A.D., but between that date and the time of the Chronicler is a long and sometimes stormy period. The subject, though in many ways important, is too intricate to be discussed here at length: a few remarks must suffice. (1) Like all other books of the Old Testament, Chronicles has suffered from the usual accidents of scribal errors in the course of transmission; but the changes due to this cause, being unintentional, are as a rule unimportant and can often be detected and corrected (see § 10, Text). (2) More serious are alterations made by revisers or scribes who were anxious to bring the narrative of Chronicles into conformity with that of Samuel and Kings. In the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles the Hebrew text can be compared with an old Greek Version (1 Esdras—see § 10, Greek Versions), and the comparison indicates that changes of text (see notes on 2 Chronicles xxxv. 8, 15) and a harmonisation of Chronicles with Kings (see note on 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 5; compare also verse 15) have occurred in that brief section.

Except in these two chapters the old Greek Version has unfortunately perished, and for all the rest of Chronicles comparison can only be made with a much later Greek Version, which is a translation of a Hebrew text almost identical with the present, Masoretic, form. Even so, differences are found, notably a substantial passage deleted from the Hebrew in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 19 (where see note). It is a legitimate conjecture that, if the old Greek Version were extant throughout Chronicles, considerable variations between the earlier and the present text might be disclosed. (3) Finally, internal evidence suggests that a few passages are of a secondary character; i.e. interpolations by a writer later than the Chronicler: such perhaps are 1 Chronicles vi. 50‒53; viii. 29‒38; xxiv. 20‒31; 2 Chronicles xv. 16‒19 (see note verse 17); xx. 33 (see note xvii. 6); xxxi. 17‒19.

Interpolations on a large scale are not likely to have been made. Yet it must be borne in mind that Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah were once a continuous work, and study of Ezra‒Nehemiah shows that those writings have undergone a complex literary process, involving serious omissions and transpositions. This heightens the possibility that Chronicles also, before or after its separation from Ezra‒Nehemiah, was treated with freedom. Thus “the recurrence of 1 Chronicles ix., Nehemiah xi. [both giving a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem] in a single work hardly looks like an original feature; like the more remarkable repetition of Ezra ii., Nehemiah vii., the feature seems to point to the combination of sources which were primarily distinct” (Cook, 1 Esdras, in Charles’ Apocrypha, p. 19, but see note on ix. 17). On the other hand the homogeneity of style and purpose in Chronicles tells strongly against the probability of large interpolations, and it is reasonable to believe that in the present text we have substantially the work produced by the Chronicler.

(II) Authorship. Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah contain no hint whatsoever of the name of their author, and external evidence fails us equally. From the contents and tone of the work we can infer with comparative certainty that he belonged to the Levitical order, and in all probability was a member of one of the Levitical guilds of musicians and singers (see, e.g. 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 12, note). His character and conceptions can also be discerned from the nature of his work. That he was a man of strong intellect and vivid imagination is shown by his qualities as a narrator (see p. xxi) and by the consistency and power with which the whole work has been designed and carried through (see below, §§ 5, 6, 8). Beyond this it is futile to conjecture.

---

§ 4. Contents

The books of Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah give a history of Israel and its ancestors from Adam down to the conclusion of Nehemiah’s activity on behalf of the post-exilic community in Jerusalem, circa 432 B.C. Of this history the two books of Chronicles cover the period from Adam to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.¹ Before giving a detailed analysis, it may be of advantage to call attention to certain outstanding features. Remark that (1) the traditions of the period from Adam to Saul’s death have been compressed into a series of genealogical lists which occupy chapters i.‒ix.; (2) the rest of the two books gives an account of the history of Judah from the death of Saul down to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586, the fortunes of North Israel being ignored, except for some scornful allusions to its degeneracy in comparison with Judah and Jerusalem; (3) the keenest interest is displayed by the writer in all matters connected with the Levites, the Temple, and its worship, so that an extraordinary amount of space is allotted to those subjects—note especially 1 Chronicles vi., xxii.‒xxix.; 2 Chronicles iii.‒vii., xxix.‒xxxi., xxxiv. 8‒xxxv. 19.

The following Table gives a general survey of the contents of 1 and 2 Chronicles¹.

(A)	1 Chronicles i.‒ix. Introductory Genealogies.
	i.	1‒4	(compare Genesis v. 3‒32). Genealogy from Adam to the sons of Noah.
		5‒23	(= Genesis x. 2‒29). The descendants of Japheth, Ham, and Shem.
		24‒28	Genealogy from Shem to Ishmael.
		29‒31	(= Genesis xxv. 12‒16). Ishmaelite descendants of Abraham.
		32, 33	(= Genesis xxv. 1‒4). Arabian descendants of Abraham.
		34‒37	(compare Genesis xxxvi. 10‒14). Edomite descendants of Abraham.
		38‒42	(compare Genesis xxxvi. 20‒28). Genealogy of the Horite inhabitants of Seir.
		43‒51a	(compare Genesis xxxvi. 31‒39). The early kings of Edom.
		51b‒54	(compare Genesis xxxvi. 40‒43). The “dukes” of Edom.
	ii.	1, 2	(compare Genesis xxxv. 22b‒26). The sons of Israel.
		3‒iv. 23	Genealogies of the tribe of Judah:
		ii.	3‒17	Descent of the sons of Jesse.
			18‒55	Caleb. Jerahmeel. Caleb.
		iii.	1‒9	(= 2 Samuel iii. 2‒5; v. 14‒16). David’s sons.
			10‒24	The Davidic Line before and after the Captivity.
		iv.	1‒23	Additional genealogies of Judah.
	iv.	24‒⁠v. 26	Genealogies of Simeon, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh.
	vi.	1‒81	The tribe of Levi:
			1‒3	Genealogy from Levi to Eleazar.
			4‒15	The line of the high-priests to the Captivity.
			16‒30	The three clans of the Levites.
			31‒47	The singers.
			48‒53	Distinction between the sons of Aaron and the rest of the Levites.
			54‒81	The cities of the Levites.
	vii.	1‒40	Genealogies of Issachar, Zebulun (see note on vii. 6), Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher.
	viii.	1‒40	Genealogies of Benjamin:
			1‒28	Various Benjamite families.
			29‒40	(compare ix. 35‒44). The genealogy of the house of Saul.
	ix.	1‒17	The heads of the families of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, which dwelt in Jerusalem.
		18‒34	The duties of porters and Levites.
		35‒44	(= viii. 29‒38). The genealogy of the house of Saul.
(B)	x.‒xxix. David.
	x.	1‒14	(= 1 Samuel xxxi. 1‒13). The death of Saul at the battle of Gilboa.
	xi.	1‒9	(= 2 Samuel v. 1‒10). Coronation of David and capture of Jebus.
		10‒47	(compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 8‒39). David’s mighty men.
	xii.	1‒40	David’s adherents who brought him to the kingdom.
	xiii.	1‒14	(= 2 Samuel vi. 1‒11). The removal of the Ark from Kiriath-jearim. Death of Uzza.
	xiv.	1‒7	(compare 2 Samuel v. 11‒16). David’s sons born in Jerusalem.
		8‒17	(= 2 Samuel v. 17‒25). Two Philistine attacks repulsed.
	xv.	1‒24.	Preparations for bringing home the Ark.
		25‒⁠xvi. 6	(compare 2 Samuel vi. 12‒20). The Ark brought into the city of David.
	xvi.	7‒36	(= Psalms cv. 1‒15; xcvi. 1‒13; cvi. 1, 47, 48). David’s psalm of praise.
		37‒43	Arrangements for daily worship.
	xvii.	1‒27	(= 2 Samuel vii. 1‒29). Permission to build a Temple refused to David.
	xviii.	1‒17	(= 2 Samuel viii. 1‒18). David’s foreign wars. His officials.
	xix.	1‒xx. 8	(= 2 Samuel x. 1‒19; xi. 1; xii. 26‒31; xxi. 18‒22). Wars with Ammon, Syria, and the Philistines.
	xxi.	1‒30	(= 2 Samuel xxiv. 1‒25). The census and the plague.
	xxii.	1‒xxix. 20.	David’s preparations for the building of the Temple and for the establishment of its services:
		xxii.		The choice of the Temple site. The charge to Solomon.
		xxiii.		The organisation of the Levites.
		xxiv.		The divisions (“courses”) of the Priests.
		xxv.		The divisions of the singers.
		xxvi.		The divisions of the doorkeepers.
		xxvii.		Various officers of David.
		xxviii.	1‒xxix. 20	David’s charge to Solomon and to all Israel.
	xxix.	21‒30	The Epilogue: The Great Rejoicing; the Anointing of Solomon; Summary of David’s reign.
(C)	2 Chronicles i.‒ix. Solomon.
	i.	1‒6	(compare 1 Kings iii. 4). Solomon’s sacrifice at Gibeon.
		7‒13	(= 1 Kings iii. 5‒15). The Vision and the prayer for wisdom.
		14‒17	(= 1 Kings x. 26‒29). Chariots and horses.
	ii.	1, 2, 17, 18	(compare 1 Kings v. 15, 16). Bearers of burdens and hewers of wood and stone.
		3‒16	(compare 1 Kings v. 2‒11). Negotiations with Huram (Hiram) king of Tyre.
	iii.	1‒v. 1	(compare 1 Kings vi. 1‒vii. 50) The building and furnishing of the Temple.
	v.	2‒14	(= 1 Kings viii. 1‒11). The bringing in of the Ark and the descent of the cloud.
	vi.	1‒11	(= 1 Kings viii. 12‒21). Solomon’s blessing.
		12‒42	(= 1 Kings viii. 22‒50). Solomon’s prayer.
	vii.	1‒3	The descent of the fire upon the sacrifices.
		4‒10	(= 1 Kings viii. 62‒66). The final rejoicings.
		11‒22	(= 1 Kings ix. 1‒9). The second Vision and the acceptance of Solomon’s prayer.
	viii.	1‒13, 17, 18	(compare 1 Kings ix. 10‒28). Various Acts of Solomon.
		14‒16	Organisation of the Priests and Levites in the Temple.
	ix.	1‒28	(= 1 Kings x. 1‒27). The Visit of the Queen of Sheba. Solomon’s greatness.
		29‒31	(= 1 Kings xi. 41‒43). The Epilogue.
(D)	2 Chronicles x.‒xxxvi. The Acts of the Kings of Judah.
	x.	1‒xi. 4	(= 1 Kings xii. 1‒24). The Revolt of the Ten Tribes.
	xi.	5‒xii. 16	(compare 1 Kings xiv. 21‒31). The Acts of Rehoboam.
	xiii.	1‒22	(compare 1 Kings xv. 1‒8). The Acts of Abijah (Abijam).
	xiv.	1‒xvi. 14	(compare 1 Kings xv. 9‒24). The Acts of Asa.
	xvii.	1‒19	Jehoshaphat’s religious measures. His captains.
	xviii.	1‒34	(= 1 Kings xxii. 1‒37). Jehoshaphat with Ahab at Ramoth-Gilead.
	xix.	1‒xx. 30	Jehoshaphat’s judges. His victory in the wilderness of Tekoa.
	xx.	31‒37	(= 1 Kings xxii. 41‒49). The rest of the Acts of Jehoshaphat.
	xxi.	1‒20	(= 1 Kings xxii. 50; compare 2 Kings viii. 17‒24). Jehoram.
	xxii.	1‒9	(= 2 Kings viii. 25‒29; compare ix. 27, 28). Ahaziah.
		10‒xxiii. 21	(= 2 Kings xi. 1‒20). The rise and fall of Athaliah.
	xxiv.	1‒14	(= 2 Kings xii. 1‒16). Restoration of the Temple under Joash.
		15‒22	Apostasy of the princes. Assassination of the prophet Zechariah.
		23‒27	(compare 2 Kings xii. 17‒21). The Syrian War and the end of Joash.
	xxv.	1‒13	(compare 2 Kings xiv. 1‒7). Amaziah. The Edomite War. The Ephraimite ravages.
		14‒16	Apostasy of Amaziah.
		17‒28	(= 2 Kings xiv. 8‒20). Capture of Jerusalem. Death of Amaziah.
	xxvi.	1‒23	(compare 2 Kings xv. 1‒7). Uzziah (Azariah).
	xxvii.	1‒9	(compare 2 Kings xv. 32‒38). Jotham.
	xxviii.	1‒27	(compare 2 Kings xvi. 1‒20). Ahaz.
	xxix.	1‒xxxi. 21	Hezekiah. Cleansing of the Temple. The Great Passover. Care for the priesthood.
	xxxii.	1‒23	(compare 2 Kings xviii., xix.). The deliverance from Sennacherib.
		24‒33	(compare 2 Kings xx. 1‒21). Hezekiah’s sickness. His death.
	xxxiii.	1‒20	(compare 2 Kings xxi. 1‒18). Manasseh. His captivity and repentance.
		21‒25	(= 2 Kings xxi. 19‒26). Amon.
	xxxiv.	1‒7	(compare 2 Kings xxii. 1, 2; xxiii. 4‒20). Josiah. Removal of the emblems of idolatry.
		8‒28	(= 2 Kings xxii. 3‒20). Repair of the Temple. Discovery of the Book of the Law.
		29‒33	(= 2 Kings xxiii. 1‒3). Renewal of the Covenant.
	xxxv.	1‒19	(compare 2 Kings xxiii. 21‒23). Josiah’s Great Passover.
		20‒27	(compare 2 Kings xxiii. 28‒30a). The death of Josiah.
	xxxvi.	1‒4	(compare 2 Kings xxiii. 30b‒34). Jehoahaz.
		5‒8	(compare 2 Kings xxiii. 36‒xxiv. 6). Jehoiakim.
		9, 10	(compare 2 Kings xxiv. 8‒17). Jehoiachin.
		11‒21	(compare 2 Kings xxiv. 18‒xxv. 21). Zedekiah. The Captivity of Judah.
		22, 23	(= Ezra i. 1‒3a). The decree of Cyrus.

It will be seen at a glance that large portions of earlier canonical Scripture have been reproduced in Chronicles exactly or very closely: viz.

Genesis x. 2‒29; xxv. 1‒4, 10‒16; xxxvi., passim.

1 Samuel xxxi.

2 Samuel v.‒viii.; x.; xxiii. 8‒xxiv. 25.

1 Kings iii. 4‒14; v.‒vii. (in part); viii.‒x.; xi. 41‒xii. 24; xiv. 21‒xv. 24 (in part); xxii. (in part).

2 Kings viii. 17‒29; xi., xii.; xiv. 1‒22; xv., xvi. (in part); xxi.‒xxiv. (in part).

Ezra i. 1‒3.

As the foregoing list shows, Chronicles by no means includes all the narrative of Samuel and Kings. In particular may be noted the omission of any account of the early life of David (1 Samuel passim), the Court History of David (2 Samuel xi.‒xx.), the history of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings xvii.‒xxi.; 2 Kings i. 1‒viii. 15), and the affairs of the Northern Kingdom with a few exceptions.

On the other hand, Chronicles contains a great deal which is either independent of or not immediately dependent on earlier books of the Old Testament: note especially the opening nine chapters of genealogies, the last seven chapters of 1 Chronicles, and many passages, long and short, in 2 Chronicles x.‒xxxvi. The origin and significance of this new material will be discussed in the section on the Sources, § 5.

---

§ 5. The Sources

From what has been said in § 1 regarding the nature of ancient historical writings it will be realised that a careful examination of the material used in the compilation of Chronicles is a necessary preliminary to the task of estimating the purpose and value of the work in its final form. Only when the extent of the sources has been determined can we say whether contributions made by the writer who combined those sources into the existing work are so great or so small that we ought to reckon him in the one case a narrator whose personality must be seriously considered, or in the other a mere copyist and compiler.

(1) In considering the material of Chronicles, it is convenient to begin with those passages which seem to be copied or adapted from earlier books of the Old Testament. That such passages are numerous, and constitute a very large amount of 1 and 2 Chronicles will be seen by a glance at the table of contents given in § 4. Occasionally the Chronicler reproduced the canonical text verbatim, but generally he introduced alterations, which were sometimes both numerous and important. The discrepancies thus produced between Chronicles and other parts of canonical Scripture presented a grave difficulty to the older commentators, and the theory was put forward that the Chronicler used, not the canonical books, but the still older sources from which the canonical books themselves were built up and to which they frequently refer. It was hoped thus to minimise the divergences by supposing that the Chronicler had copied somewhat different portions of these old sources, and had approached them from a different standpoint. Not only was this hypothesis in the highest degree improbable, but the reconciliation it was supposed to effect is now recognised to be for the most part untenable. The theory is finally discredited by the fact that these sources of the canonical books always appear in Chronicles combined together in precisely the same manner in which they are found combined in the canonical books; i.e. they appear always ‘edited,’ and never in their original, independent, form. It may be definitely asserted therefore that for all the passages which are common to Chronicles and other canonical works the Chronicler was indebted solely to the text of the canonical books as it appeared in his time.

As for the divergences, real and apparent, between Chronicles and other canonical Scriptures, it is now recognised that, whilst they are properly a subject for historical investigation, they do not involve a religious problem. The old “religious” difficulty is answered by a deeper comprehension of the nature of Inspiration. The real inspiration of the Scriptures does not, as was once thought, rest upon points of historical accuracy: see the article Inspiration by A. E. Garvie in the Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹, vol. xiv., especially pp. 647 ad fin., 648, with the references there given.

(2) More important and difficult is the problem of the source of the new material in Chronicles. Nearly one-half of the two books of Chronicles is material otherwise unknown to us, and not to be regarded as mere ornamental amplification of the passages drawn from canonical sources. Rather it is precisely these new parts which give colour to the whole work, and there can be no doubt that the Chronicler must have dwelt with special fondness on just these passages. The question is, Can we discern or infer sources from which these independent chapters and paragraphs have been derived, or is the Chronicler himself their only source and origin?

In attempting to answer that question, our first task is to note and discuss a long list of works to which the Chronicler appeals, either as authorities for what he says or as sources where fuller information might (presumably) be expected. They are as follows:

A. Those with specific prophetic titles.

[For the reigns of David and Solomon.]

This great array of authorities dwindles to small proportions on inspection. Of the fifteen given under A, numbers 13, 14 are uncertain but of very small importance, whilst number 15 is also unknown: it is not the canonical book of Lamentations (see the note on 2 Chronicles xxxv. 25). The rest, numbers 1‒12, almost certainly were not independent works, but simply sections of some comprehensive work (see especially numbers 10 and 12), it being the custom among the Jews to refer to the sections of a large work by means of distinctive titles—compare Romans xi. 2, “Know ye not what the Scripture saith in Elijah.” Thus some of these titles, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, may refer simply to passages in the canonical books of Samuel and Kings, numbers 11 and 12 to Isaiah xxxvi.‒xxxix. = 2 Kings xviii. 13‒xx. 19. But the others (and perhaps some also of those just mentioned) in all probability denote sections of a large history of a more or less midrashic character; and it is this work apparently which is meant by the titles given under B. To these we now turn. It is generally admitted that all four titles mentioned in B denote one and the same work, a comprehensive history of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. This work was not our canonical books of Kings, for it is quoted as containing material not found in those books. Still less was it any of the sources referred to in Kings: there is not the faintest probability that any of the new material in Chronicles was derived directly from those very old sources. The question therefore is whether in this general work to which the Chronicler appeals he had a source independent or semi-independent of Kings. Opinion is divided. Some scholars think that it was essentially dependent on the canonical Kings, merely “a reconstructed history, embellished with marvellous tales of divine interposition and prophetic activity.” Others maintain that this midrashic history had its roots not only in canonical Kings but also in traditions partly or wholly independent of Kings. The latter opinion is here preferred, but the reasons for adopting it will be best seen if we first state and consider two sharply opposing views put forward by recent writers.

On the one side is Torrey (Ezra Studies, 1910) who argues that the Chronicler had no source at all other than the canonical books—all else was the product of his imaginative skill. He describes this supposed midrashic history of Judah and Israel as “a phantom source, of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external evidence is limited to the Chronicler’s transparent parading of authorities.” The strength of Torrey’s contention lies in the fact that almost all the additional matter in Chronicles is written in one and the same distinctive style. That style has certain unmistakable peculiarities. Thus Driver in the Encyclopedia Britannica s.v. Chronicles, col. 772, writes, “It is not merely that the style of the Chronicler presents characteristically late linguistic novelties ... but it has also a number of special mannerisms.... So constant are [these marks] that there is hardly a single sentence, not excerpted from Samuel or Kings, in which they are not discernible.” On the other side we have to consider the attitude adopted in the commentaries of Benzinger (1901) and Kittel (1902), following up a suggestion made by Büchler in 1899. These scholars not only believe that non-canonical sources supplied much of the new material of Chronicles, but they have attempted to analyse that material minutely into various contributory elements. According to their view the Chronicler was essentially a compiler, following his sources closely and showing such little independence as he exercised chiefly in those verses and passages where the affairs and interests of the Levites are set forth. In the opinion of the present writer that is not a satisfactory account of the part played by the Chronicler. It does not make sufficient allowance for the singular homogeneity of style and purpose throughout the book. Torrey’s work is of value as a warning against the danger and difficulty of the analysis which Benzinger and Kittel have essayed. Frequently the points which are adduced as evidence for distinction of sources are too few or too subjective to provide adequate ground for the analysis—see the detailed examination of the Hebrew provided in the edition by Curtis. But, whilst it should be admitted that this uniformity of style carries great weight and must receive careful consideration, it does not, we think, follow that Torrey’s sweeping conclusion is correct, and that behind the non-canonical passages there is nothing save the imagination of the Chronicler. To begin with, if that were true, the Chronicler would be unparalleled amongst ancient historians. The originality of ancient chroniclers was shown in the manner in which they combined, modified, and embellished the nucleus given by tradition, but they did not invent de novo to the extent required by this theory. Even if that be an over-statement, we can at least assert that they did not shut themselves up to their own imagination, if any traditions relating to their subject were current. On the contrary, they made use of all such available material, good or bad. And it is quite incredible that historical interest in Jerusalem regarding the old days of the Kingdom was confined to the compilation of Kings until suddenly the Chronicler produced this startlingly different account. There is very strong probability that the version given in Chronicles has a long chain of antecedents behind it. For consider, further, the general situation. The vicissitudes of time and fortune had caused great changes in the population of Jerusalem, but none that made absolutely impossible the continuance of traditions not represented or only partially represented by the narratives crystallised in Kings. Thus “we may safely assume that the overthrow of Edom (2 Chronicles xxv. 5‒13) and the leprosy of Uzziah (2 Chronicles xxvi. 16‒23) were once told more fully than in the brief verses of 2 Kings xiv. 7, xv. 5. We may surely allow links between the impression left upon tradition by these events and the stories that have been preserved by Chronicles” (S. A. Cook, in the Journal of Theological Studies, xii. 470). It is now generally recognised that the depopulation of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. was not nearly so complete as was once thought, and considerable continuity of tradition may have been maintained. Moreover, the influx of South Judean families in the exilic and post-exilic times must have meant an extension of popular tales concerning Judean affairs. It is therefore significant that the South Judean “strain” is a marked feature in the Chronicler’s history. Again, it is practically certain that Levitical predecessors of the Chronicler felt somewhat the same interest as he displays in the origins of their order and institutions. Are we to suppose that they made no attempts to gratify their curiosity, or to find historical grounds for their claims? Surely they would seize with interest on any and all current traditions, and would be constantly collating them with the well-known version in Kings, adding whatever they could to the total, and no doubt tending to retell the whole—at least the popular and edifying portions of the narrative—in terms more agreeable to the ideas and practices of their own time. We cannot suppose that the Chronicler was the first and only Levite who attempted to satisfy the obvious need (§ 6) for an orthodox ecclesiastical version of Judean history. Features of the genealogies, and in particular the Levitical data, suggest the existence of statistical records, if of nothing more. One further small but interesting point deserves mention. In 1 Chronicles iv. 9, vii. 23, xii. 18 there are sayings which cannot possibly originate with the Chronicler, for they are written in an archaic style utterly foreign to his manner of speech. Of these xii. 18 is poetical in form, while the other two are sentences of a type made familiar to us by early passages in Genesis. These verses, then, are certainly not the invention of the Chronicler, and, even if they are only isolated fragments, their existence is at least significant. In fine, the natural supposition is that in post-exilic Jerusalem there were various traditions which were drawn partly, but not exclusively, from the particular recension of history preserved in Kings, and which continued to develop in form and perhaps in content after the “Kings” recension was relatively fixed. Whether these developments of traditions, canonical and otherwise, preserve any genuine history or not (§ 7), their existence in popular and priestly circles of the Chronicler’s time is, we think, almost certain; and it is quite certain that, if they were in existence, the Chronicler would utilise them. On this view, then, the sources of the Chronicler were:

(a) The canonical books.

(b) Variant forms of a few narratives in Kings; traditions of South Judean origin, recording movements of population and hostilities with southern tribes; popular midrashic tales; family statistics and genealogies, particularly of the Priests and Levites; records or traditions relating to the Temple, the fortifications of Jerusalem, and the repair of certain Judean towns—some of this material being really independent of the traditions in Kings.

The problem raised by the stylistic uniformity of the new passages in Chronicles must now be considered. Probably the material indicated in (b) above may at times have crystallised into definite midrashic writings. (Thus, when the Chronicler speaks of the “History of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” we may believe that he refers to some such document, one that was either extant in his own age or was generally known to have existed.) Probably, however, it was also to a large extent in a fluid oral condition—matter of common knowledge and of common talk in Levitical circles. Certainly it is legitimate to think that with this material, written or oral or both, the Chronicler was intensely familiar; and that he could easily have related it in his own words. We may surmise that his procedure was somewhat as follows: He made the well-known narrative of Samuel‒Kings the basis of his version, altering its words as little as possible, yet, if necessary, exercising great freedom, so as to make it fully orthodox in accordance with the ecclesiastical standards of his time. Into this groundwork he wove with admirable skill new material of fact and narrative, drawn from the sources set forth in (b) above; and all this new material he selected, revised, and related in such a fashion as might best serve the very definite religious, moral, and ecclesiastical ends (§ 6) which his history was designed to meet. It passed, in fact, freely and effectively through the medium of his mind; so that it appears, if not wholly in his own words, at least coloured by his distinctive turns of speech. A second way in which we can explain the uniform style of the new matter in Chronicles and escape the conclusion that it has all been derived from the imagination of the Chronicler is to suppose that for some time past it had been transmitted through the talk or writing of Levites like-minded with the Chronicler and sharing the same ecclesiastical fashion of speech; that, in fact, much of Chronicles was built up by chroniclers before the Chronicler. There may be some truth in this argument; for, as was said above, the Chronicler was surely not the first Levite to feel the need for an “orthodox” history. The two explanations can be regarded as supplementary rather than alternative; but the present writer considers that stress should be laid chiefly upon the first.

This investigation of the structure of Chronicles yields the following general result. The position here taken is opposed to the theory that the whole of the new material was the product of the Chronicler’s imagination and literary skill. It leaves open the valuable possibility that the new material may preserve historical facts and traditions independent of those in Kings. On the other hand it admits that the Chronicler has had an important share in shaping the material and that (a) the consequent uniformity of style renders any attempt to analyse the new matter into its proximate sources precarious (observe, however, that the immediate history of the sources behind the new material is not of such primary importance to us as is the fundamental conclusion that there were such sources): and (b) whilst each part of the new matter is entitled to a thorough examination on its merits, great care must be exercised to determine exactly what part the Chronicler has played. Thus it is probable that some features of the narratives in Chronicles may originate with the Chronicler: that is only what we should expect from a man able to plan and carry through a work so clearly intentioned and on such a large scale as Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah. He may have told his tale not only in his own words, but in his own way. We must be on our guard therefore to make allowance for the strength of his convictions, for his conception of the course of history and for the intentions with which he wrote. How far these considerations affect the historical value of his work will be dealt with below (§ 7).

This discussion of the sources may conclude by emphasising the remarkable skill of the composition. The passages taken direct from the earlier Scriptures have been so admirably combined with the new material that the component parts have been wrought into a real unity. It is evident we are dealing with an author of strong personality. What the aim and purpose of this writer were we may now proceed to consider.

---

§ 7. The Historical Value of Chronicles

Until recent times the burning question in the exposition of Chronicles has been the problem of reconciling its statements with those in Samuel‒Kings, finding explanations for the inconsistencies, and combining the additional matter given in Chronicles so as to form one harmonious narrative. So baffling was the task that even the Talmudists, masters in the arts of subtle exegesis, doubted the accuracy of Chronicles, and were inclined to treat it, not as an authority for the history, but as a book for homiletic interpretation (see references in the Jewish Encyclopedia iv. 60). As soon as the character and purpose of the book, the circumstances and opinions of the writer, are understood, the demand for harmonising the variant accounts at all costs is seen to be mistaken, and the exposition of Chronicles is thereby freed from a burden by which it has been sorely hampered. The question of the historical value of its narratives remains one of great importance, but on literary and scientific, not on religious, grounds (compare p. xxx).

It will make for clearness if we approach the subject by considering first (A) the direct historical value of Chronicles, i.e. its worth as a history of Judah; and secondly (B) its indirect historical value as a work of the period to which we have assigned its composition, 300‒250 B.C. Under (A) our discussion may conveniently be divided into a consideration of: (I) those parts which reproduce or are apparently based on Samuel‒Kings; (II) the material wholly or apparently independent of canonical Scripture.

A.

Direct Value.

(I) If the Chronicler’s version of the history was to gain acceptance at all, it was necessary to make the older well-known histories the basis of his work. And indeed he himself no doubt conceived his version not as contradictory of the older narratives but only as a more careful account of the history of Judah, paying adequate attention to the religious affairs in which he was specially interested. Hence, wherever the text of Samuel and Kings was suitable for his purpose he reproduced it exactly¹: an example is 2 Chronicles xviii. 3‒34 = 1 Kings xviii. 4‒35. The historical value of passages which are merely transcriptions must be discussed not here but in their original setting: obviously their value is that which they possess there—neither more nor less. We proceed therefore to consider the changes introduced by the Chronicler in using canonical sources. They are of various kinds:

(i) A great number of minor alterations have been made, conforming the older material to the Chronicler’s point of view. A few instances may be given: 2 Samuel v. 21, “And [the Philistines] left their images there, and David and his men took them away” = 1 Chronicles xiv. 12, “And [the Philistines] left their gods there, and David gave commandment, and they were burned with fire.” Again, 2 Samuel xxiv. 1, “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel” = 1 Chronicles xxi. 1, “And Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” Again, 1 Kings ix. 12, “The cities which Solomon had given him (Huram)” = 2 Chronicles viii. 2, “The cities which Huram had given to Solomon.” Compare further 2 Samuel viii. 18 = 1 Chronicles xviii. 17 (quoted above, p. xli f.); 2 Samuel vi. 12 = 1 Chronicles xiii. 13; 2 Samuel xxiv. 24 = 1 Chronicles xxi. 25.

(ii) In some instances the alterations are so many or of so radical a nature that the whole tenour of the passage has been transformed—e.g. the conspiracy against Athaliah which resulted in the coronation of the youthful king Joash (2 Kings xi.) is rewritten (2 Chronicles xxiii.) to agree with the usages of the Temple in the Chronicler’s time. Similarly in the passage which follows (2 Chronicles xxiv. 4‒14), which is certainly based on 2 Kings xii. 4‒16, only some 30 words of the original have been kept, so freely has it been revised. Again, the account of the destruction of Jehoshaphat’s fleet (1 Kings xxii. 48 f.) is remarkably altered in 2 Chronicles xx. 35‒37. Compare further 1 Chronicles xv. 25‒28 = 2 Samuel vi. 12‒15; 2 Chronicles xxii. 7‒9 = 2 Kings ix. 27, 28; 2 Chronicles xxxii. 1‒23 = 2 Kings xviii. 13‒xix. 37 (a free abridgment).

(iii) Another noteworthy feature in the Chronicler’s treatment of the canonical sources is his omissions. These call for mention here because they are not only significant of his feelings and principles, but they also have an immense effect on the impression conveyed by his narrative as compared with that of his source. Not a word, for instance, is said that would detract from the picture of David as the man after God’s heart and the ideal monarch of Israel. The perils of his youth, Saul’s enmity and the long struggle against Ishbosheth are omitted¹. His murder of Uriah and the disastrous rebellion of Absalom are ignored; but the result is a David very different from the great yet sometimes erring monarch depicted in Samuel (see the head-note to 1 Chronicles xxviii.). Another significant omission is 2 Kings xviii. 14‒16, Hezekiah’s payment of tribute to Babylonia, a tradition which doubtless seemed to the Chronicler a sign of weakness and lack of faith incredible in a king so pious and successful. Above all, we notice the omission of the affairs of the Northern Kingdom, except for a few derogatory notices. The consequence is that if Chronicles stood alone, our conception of the relative importance of Judah as compared with Israel would be very far removed from the actual facts. It is a simple matter to see how imperative it is that the impression given by Chronicles should here be corrected by the records in Kings, and the student will find it instructive to consider the point with some care.

The conclusions to be drawn from the above are clear. First, in passages of the type instanced in (ii) above, where the differences between Kings and Chronicles are considerable and not confined to changes made on transparently religious grounds, the possibility that we have to do with a variant form of the tradition in Kings should be carefully considered. If there be any such distinct traditions, even though they are few or in a late stage of development, they are of high value, for they may be as worthy of consideration as the form in Kings. Moreover a slight variation in a tradition may occasionally suffice to indicate the existence of a different standpoint towards an important topic or period in the history. But in the majority of all cases included under this heading (I) it appears that the changes in the narratives were arbitrarily made in consequence of the standpoint, beliefs, and purpose (§§ 1 and 6) of the Chronicler, and they can make no claim to rest on historical facts. For the detailed arguments upon which this general conclusion is based, the reader is referred to the notes on the text.

(II) The additional matter of Chronicles includes a variety of subjects. These may be roughly but conveniently summarised under the following headings—(1) genealogical lists (1 Chronicles ii.‒ix., xxiii.‒xxvii., etc.); (2) topographical and other archaeological notices (e.g. 1 Chronicles xi. 41‒47; 2 Chronicles xvii. 7‒10, xix. 4‒11, xxvi. 6, 49, xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14, and notably the organisation of the Levites, 1 Chronicles xxiii., xxiv., and details regarding the building of Solomon’s Temple, e.g. 2 Chronicles ii.‒iv., passim); (3) letters and speeches (1 Chronicles xvi. 8‒36, xxii. 6‒19, xxviii. 2‒10, xxix. 1‒20; 2 Chronicles xv. 1‒7, xvi. 7‒10, xxi. 12‒15); (4) national events, especially religious affairs and wars (e.g. 1 Chronicles iv. 34‒43, v. 6, xxiii. ff.; 2 Chronicles xvii. 7‒10, xix. 4‒11, xxix. 3‒xxx. 27), such topics being sometimes related in the style of (5) Midrashim—i.e. edifying tales describing marvellous deliverances from foes and splendid religious ceremonies (2 Chronicles xiii. 3‒20, xiv. 9‒15, xxx. 13‒27, and especially xx. 1‒30¹). If, as Torrey contends, the whole of this is simply the product of the Chronicler’s imagination working upon the canonical sources only and freely interpreting events in accordance with his own convictions, then, we must frankly admit, its historical value as a record of the past it purports to describe is nil. If, however, according to the view taken in this volume (see § 5), much of this material is drawn from a body of tradition, oral and written, current in the Jerusalem of the Chronicler’s day, and not represented in canonical writings, the question of historical value is still open. Our task, then, is to consider whether among the extra-canonical traditions some genuine historical facts may have been preserved. The problem is not easy, and, as yet, it does not admit of so exact and definite a reply as we should like to give. Obviously the answer requires a thorough consideration of each item of the new material, a task which would far exceed the scope of this introduction. There are, however, some general observations which throw light upon the problem. These we shall give here, reserving the discussion of individual passages for the notes. Taking the subjects enumerated above in order, we have:

(1) The new genealogical lists, which are so prominent a feature of Chronicles. Some of these lists are certainly not trustworthy records of pre-exilic times¹. But others, e.g. parts of the Calebite and Levitical genealogies, probably embody facts concerning the kinships and distribution of various South Judean families in pre-exilic and exilic times, and furnish valuable evidence of a northward movement (see S. A. Cook, 1 Esdras, p. 12 in Charles’s Apocrypha, or his articles on Caleb, Judah, Levites in Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹). It is certain that in post-exilic Jerusalem a considerable part of the population were descendants of these south Judean clans. Surely it would be surprising if no valid traditions of their relationships, their movements and fortunes, had been preserved amongst them. There is therefore good reason for holding that some historical information (e.g. 1 Chronicles iv. 34‒43) may be found in these lists, and it is possible that a close study of certain of the genealogies will yield most valuable light on some of the main questions of Old Testament history and literature. Unfortunately the study of the intricate problems involved is not yet sufficiently advanced to permit conclusions which meet with general acceptance.

(2) Much of the topographical and archaeological information scattered here and there in the books of Chronicles does not inspire confidence, but part may rest on old tradition; compare the headnote to 1 Chronicles xii. 1‒22. Many of the references in chapters i.‒ix. (e.g. vii. 24, viii. 12, etc.) to Judean townships, whether explicitly mentioned (e.g. 1 Chronicles vi. 54 ff.), or lightly disguised in the genealogical tables (e.g. 1 Chronicles ii. 18 ff., 50 ff.), are valuable not only for information regarding the relationship of Jewish families and movements of southern peoples, Edomites and Arabians (see (1) above, and the note on 1 Chronicles ii. 42), but also as evidence of the extent (small indeed!) of the territory occupied by the post-exilic Jewish community (compare Hölscher, Palästina, pp. 18‒23, 26‒31). It is further plausibly suggested that notices of certain tribes of the Northern Kingdom (e.g. Ephraim and Manasseh) may be regarded as indications of the extension of Judaism in Samaria and Galilee about the Chronicler’s period (see note on 2 Chronicles xv. 9). The Chronicler was singularly interested in building operations (see, e.g. 2 Chronicles xxvi. 9, xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14) and some of his references to the building of fortified townships in Judea (2 Chronicles xi. 5 ff., xiv. 6, xvi. 1‒6, xvii. 12) and to the origin of buildings and gates in Jerusalem may be correct (see 2 Chronicles xxvi. 5‒10, note).

(3) As regards the letters and speeches which are ascribed by the Chronicler to various kings and prophets—e.g. David, Elijah, Azariah, etc.—these cannot be deemed authentic. For example, the great song of praise attributed to David in 1 Chronicles xvi. 7 ff. is wholly composed of quotations from Psalms of late date. Such speeches or letters are examples of a device constantly and legitimately employed by ancient historians as a method of imparting vividness and spirit to their narrative. The letters and speeches represent simply what ought in the historian’s opinion to have been written or spoken. The Greek historian, Thucydides, carefully states the practice: “I have,” he writes, “put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them....” (Thucydides i. 22)¹.

(4) National events, such as religious ceremonies (e.g. Hezekiah’s Passover, 2 Chronicles xxix.‒xxxi.) and wars (e.g. 2 Chronicles xx. 1‒30) constitute as a rule the subject-matter of (5) the pious midrashic passages; so that (4) and (5) may conveniently be treated together. Midrash is not serious history, and very probably was not intended to be regarded as such even by its author. It is earnest moral and religious teaching presented in a quasi-historical dress. In all these passages the form of the tale is unhistorical, and all midrashic features, such as the incredibly and often impossibly large numbers given in Chronicles, must without hesitation be set aside; but it does not follow that the tale has no historical foundation whatever, that the events around which it was written were originally unreliable. In an ancient writing mythical features do not afford a proper ground for rejecting a tale as historically worthless—a fact which requires to be emphasised. An interesting example is found in the extraordinary legends which attached themselves to the life of Alexander the Great and rapidly spread throughout Europe and Asia (see Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹ vol. i. pp. 550 f.).

Perhaps the most striking instance in Chronicles is the amazing and bloodless victory vouchsafed to Jehoshaphat over certain Bedouin tribes who invaded Judah from the desert by the southern end of the Dead Sea (2 Chronicles xx. 1‒30, where see notes). As told in Chronicles, the story is a Midrash, preaching the duty of trust in God and of obedience to His will at all hazards; but it is evident that the moral and religious form of the story has been built on and around a tradition of a desert raid on Judah. Now this nucleus of the tale may easily rest on historical fact. Fierce but undisciplined invaders, advancing from the desert through the difficult country of south Judah, a land of cliffs ravines and caves, might be sorely harassed by the guerilla attacks of the shepherd population of that region, and finally broken up by the outbreak of internal dissensions, before the main Judean army from Jerusalem had arrived to oppose their advance in force. Such an event would quickly fade from the military recollections of Jerusalem, but might be long perpetuated as a local tradition among the shepherd class of the district where the victory was won. Thus we should have, on the one hand, a reason for its non-appearance in the earlier strata of memories embodied in Kings. On the other hand, when the South Judean families had moved northward to Jerusalem in the exilic and post-exilic days, the story would gain currency, and one can easily see how suitable it was for development into just such a religious narrative as we find in Chronicles. The raid, then, is probably a genuine tradition, but, even so, a word of caution is required. It is necessary still to consider the question whether the story is correctly associated with the time of Jehoshaphat. Perhaps, yes; but possibly several such raids took place, and the memories of them may have been confused and combined into one; or, again, the names of the original foes may have been changed into those of more recent opponents. Other important passages of this type are discussed in the notes on 2 Chronicles xiii. 3‒20, xiv. 9‒15, xxxiii. 11‒13.

One point calls for special mention. In the later chapters of 2 Chronicles the Chronicler’s account of the history, particularly as regards the relations of the Judean kingdom with the Edomites and Arabians to the south, is characterised by a freshness and independence which suggests that he was here relying on definite and valuable traditions (see notes pp. 257 f., 262, 280 f., 286 f., 292).

These results do not provide the complete material for an estimate of the historical value of Chronicles. To them must first be added the conclusions noted below, under B.

B.

Indirect Value.

Although the Chronicler says not one word directly of his own times, indirectly his work gives us much useful information concerning that obscure period. In very many ways Chronicles is a mirror reflecting the thoughts, hopes, and circumstances of the orthodox community in Jerusalem, circa 300‒250 B.C. Indirect and unconscious though the evidence may be, it is still precious, for our knowledge of the period is so slight that all fragments of information are most welcome.

Some of the genealogical lists yield information regarding the post-exilic population of Judah and Jerusalem. Certain references (see p. xlviii) perhaps imply the extension of Judaism in Palestine. From the descriptions of the Temple and its organisation, facts can be gleaned regarding the Temple of the Chronicler’s own age. Thus in 1 Chronicles xxiii ff. where the Chronicler ascribes to David (unhistorically, see notes pp. 51 f., 136, 145) the origination of the Levitical arrangements in the Temple, he gives an elaborate description of their organisation; and therein we can see a picture of the complex system and duties of the Priests and the Levites (with the subordinate classes of doorkeepers and singers) as these were finally determined in the late post-exilic Temple. Some interesting inferences can be drawn from Chronicles regarding the instruction of the people in matters of religion. When in 2 Chronicles xvii. 7‒9 arrangements for teaching the Law throughout Judah are said to have been instituted by Jehoshaphat, we may be sure that some such system was in vogue in the Chronicler’s day, or, at the very least, that the Chronicler and his fellow-Levites were anxious to see it fully carried out. Perhaps schools for instructing the people had already been established in Jerusalem, and it was desired to extend them throughout the countryside as well. Significant in the same connection is the remark ascribed to Azariah the prophet (2 Chronicles xv. 3): “Now for long seasons Israel hath been without the true God and without a teaching priest and without law” (compare 2 Chronicles xxxv. 3). Similarly from 2 Chronicles xix. 4‒11 we may infer the existence of, or the desire to establish, a careful system of courts of justice under the control of the Levitical order. Again, Chronicles contributes to our knowledge of the evolution of public worship. The subject is so obscure, the details so unknown, that we may be grateful for anything which helps us to discern even broad stages in the development. Undoubtedly those flagrant abuses of worship which called forth the denunciations of Isaiah and Jeremiah had passed away. One gathers that public worship in the Temple had become an affair of truly religious significance. The prayer of Solomon is repeated from Kings, but in addition the Chronicler ascribes similar utterances of praise, supplication, and thanksgiving to David and Hezekiah, and the good kings (especially Hezekiah and Josiah) are represented as zealously active in ordering and arranging for great services of worship which the people were to attend. All this, of course, is related of the past, but from it we may infer facts of the Chroniclers present. We infer, then, a community accustomed to gather constantly at the Temple for the worship of their God. The main elements of public worship can be traced. There was, of course, the ancient ritual of animal sacrifice, hallowed for the Jews by its vast antiquity, and grown the more impressive in proportion as the literalism of the past was forgotten and men felt more vividly that the offering was symbolic of things of the spirit—of the mystery of life, of forgiveness, and of recognition that all things are the gift of God. Undoubtedly there was public prayer. It is hardly possible to read the prayers of the great kings in Chronicles and not feel that they echo a liturgy of prayer—for the individual and for the nation. There was a great and impressive service of song and of music, compare 2 Chronicles v. 12, 13: that is writ large indeed on the pages of Chronicles; and 1 Chronicles xvi. 8 ff. is enough to tell us that the Psalter was the book of praise. We have a sufficient hint, too, that to the songs at least, if not to the prayers also, the people were expected to respond—“And all the people said, Amen, and praised the Lord” (2 Chronicles xvi. 36). Probably arrangements were in vogue for regular reading of the Law, although Chronicles alone would hardly suffice to establish the point (2 Chronicles xxxiv. 31 is insufficient evidence). Even if it be thought that this picture represents rather the ideals of the Levites than the actual attainments of the community, it is still important that such a standard of worship was conceived by the priests and set before the people. One recalls the words of the great prophet of exilic or post-exilic times who wrote: “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isaiah lvi. 7). His was a vision of the Temple as the centre of the whole world’s worship. To the Chronicler it had at least become a true “house of prayer” for Israel. Other details might be mentioned, but these will suffice to indicate the light which Chronicles throws upon the conditions of the post-exilic community.

Much more important, however, is the insight we gain into the methods and principles, the ideals and the ideas which prevailed in Temple circles in Jerusalem during the third century B.C. Chronicles, like all distinctive books, is necessarily eloquent of its author’s mind and character. Now the Chronicler was a Levite of the Levites, and no doubt typical of his class at this period. But we know that this period was of the highest importance in the formation of the Old Testament, and it was precisely at the hands of the orthodox Levitical circles that many books of the Jewish Scriptures, especially the Laws, the Histories, and the Psalms, underwent the revision which brought them approximately to their present form. It is therefore extremely valuable that we should be able to study the psychological characteristics of a typical Levite of that age. From this point of view hardly any part of Chronicles is without significance. Thus the midrashic stories, whatever their value otherwise, at least reveal a great deal regarding the mental and moral outlook of the writer and his contemporaries.

“Chronicles,” it has been said (Bennett, Expositor’s Bible, p. 20), “is an object-lesson in ancient historical composition.” But it ought also to teach us that history is something more than the record of occurrences. Facts are fundamental, but of profound importance also is the attitude in which we approach them.

To sum up the whole matter of this section. Compared with Samuel‒Kings, Chronicles is of little or no value as a record of the history of the Judean kingdom. Where it differs from those books, in almost all cases the earlier account is the more accurate and trustworthy. In what Chronicles adds, there may sometimes be found traditional developments of genuine historical facts. Even if they should prove to be few, it is possible that there may be among them some points of high importance for our understanding of the Old Testament records. Finally, as a product of the Greek period, Chronicles is very valuable in illustrating the methods, ideals, and temperament of the Levitical classes of Jerusalem about that time.

These results are disappointing only if we insist on treating Chronicles as a manual of early Judean history instead of as a remarkable and in some ways unique religious work.

---

§ 10. Text and Versions of Chronicles

Text. The Hebrew (Masoretic) text in Chronicles is, on the whole, well preserved, although by no means free from textual errors (compare 1 Chronicles vi. 28). Many of these occur, as one would expect, in the lists of proper names. Olstead (in the American Journal of Semitic Languages, October 1913) has given reasons for holding that occasionally the original text of Chronicles may have suffered from assimilation to the text of Samuel‒Kings. Further, we note a few phrases and passages which seem to be scribal additions (see § 3, p. xxii). An interesting scribal omission of late date is noted on 2 Chronicles xxviii. 20. In passages which are parallel to the older canonical books Chronicles has occasionally preserved a superior reading, e.g. 1 Chronicles xx. 4, Hebrew and LXX. “there arose war at Gezer” = 2 Samuel xxi. 18, “there was again war ... at Gob”; or again, 1 Chronicles viii. 53, “Eshbaal” = 2 Samuel ii. 8 “Ishbosheth”; or compare 1 Chronicles xiv. 14, note on go not up.

Versions. (1) Greek Versions. What is commonly called the Septuagint (LXX.) of Chronicles is now recognised to be not the original LXX., but a later Greek translation, which most scholars (especially Torrey, Ezra Studies) consider to be the rendering of Theodotion. [For criticism of the view that it is Theodotion’s rendering see the article by Olstead mentioned above.] In the main this rendering is a close reproduction of the Masoretic text, and of little value except for determining the official Hebrew text of the second century. The old LXX., unfortunately, no longer exists for 1 Chronicles i.‒2 Chronicles xxxiv.; but for 2 Chronicles xxxv., xxxvi. it has been preserved in 1 Esdras i.—a fact of great good fortune, not merely for the textual criticism of that passage, but for the light it sheds on the relations and characteristics of the Greek Versions.

(2) The Old Latin Version was made from the old LXX. which is now lost except for the last two chapters of Chronicles, as stated above. It would therefore be of great value for criticism, but alas! only a few fragments survive.

The later Latin Version, the Vulgate, made by Jerome, is of small value, as it represents only the official Hebrew text.

(3) The Syriac Version, known as the Peshitṭa, is of even smaller value for textual criticism. Unlike the close rendering of other books in the Peshitṭa, Chronicles constantly has the characteristics of a paraphrase rather than a translation. One example will suffice. For “Joel the chief and Shaphat the second,” 1 Chronicles v. 12, the Peshitṭa has “And Joel went forth at their head and judged them and taught them the scriptures well.” The Peshitṭa is further noteworthy for curious omissions (and substitutions), e.g. 2 Chronicles iv. 10‒22; xi. 5‒xii. 12 (for which 1 Kings xii. 25‒30, followed by 1 Kings xiv. 1‒9, is substituted).

For further information regarding the text and versions of Chronicles, see the edition by Curtis, pp. 35 ff.

---

THE FIRST BOOK OF
THE CHRONICLES

Chapters I.‒IX. GENEALOGIES.

Chapter I.

The Genealogies of the Peoples.

The historical narrative of the books of Chronicles commences in chapter x. with the record of the defeat and death of King Saul on Mt Gilboa.

The first nine chapters are occupied almost entirely by a series of genealogical lists. Starting from the primeval age, the line is traced from Adam to the origin of Israel, showing its place among the nations of the ancient world. Attention is then confined to the descendants of Israel, amongst whom the genealogies of Judah (particularly, the line of David), of Levi, and of Benjamin, are given prominence. Finally the ancestry of Saul, and a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem is recorded.

The modern reader is inclined to regard these statistics as the least important section of the book, but the fact that the bare lists of names are so foreign to our taste should serve at least as a valuable warning of the difference between our outlook and that of the Chronicler. It is in the highest degree important to understand the motives which caused the Chronicler to give these lists of names as the fitting introduction to the history, since the same motives operate throughout the book and determine the standpoint from which the entire history is considered.

(1) In the first place the genealogies were not recorded by the Chronicler simply for the archaeological interest they possess. They served a most practical purpose, in that they helped to determine for the Jewish community of the Chronicler’s time what families were of proper Levitical descent and might claim a share in the privileges pertaining thereto, and—on a wider scale—what families might justly be considered to be the pure blood of Israel. How serious the consequences entailed by the absence of a name from such lists might be is well illustrated by Ezra ii. 61‒63 (= Nehemiah vii. 63‒65), “the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz ... sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they deemed polluted and put away from the priesthood.” On the other hand the Jew who could successfully trace his ancestry in the great lists knew himself indubitably a member of the chosen people and was confident of his part in the covenantal grace and in all those hopes which the faith of Israel inspired and sustained.

(2) The practical aspect of these lists was thus essentially connected with high religious sentiment. They were an expression of the continuity of Israel, a declaration that the Present was one with the Past, a witness and an assurance of the unfailing grace of Israel’s God. The genealogies therefore are in perfect harmony with the spirit and purpose of the Chronicler’s work—see the Introduction § 6.

(3) Finally, in the lists of place-names and genealogies of inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, various facts of great historical interest are preserved—see Introduction § 7, pp. xlvii f. and (e.g.) ii. 42 note.

Chapter i. contains the genealogies of the earliest age, showing the origin of the nations. It concludes with a list of the chiefs of Edom. The names are those given in the genealogies of Genesis i.‒xxxvi., but the lists are abbreviated to the utmost by the omission of statements of relationship. Evidently the Chronicler was able to assume that the connection between the names was a matter of common knowledge.

1‒4 (compare Genesis v. 3‒32).
A Genealogy from Adam to the Sons of Noah.

¹ADAM, Seth, Enosh; ²Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared;

1. Seth ... Noah] This genealogy of ten antediluvian patriarchs follows Genesis v. 3‒32 (P), the “Sethite” line as compared with Genesis iv. 17‒24 (J) where the descent is traced through Cain. There is some ancient connection between the list and the Babylonian tradition of ten kings before the Flood (see Ryle, Genesis, pp. 88 ff. in this series). For the symbols J and P, see the Introduction p. xx.

Enosh] A poetical word which, like Adam in prose writings, was used as a generic term for “man.”

³Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; ⁴Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

3. Enoch] Hebrew Ḥanôkh. In verse 33 the same name is more correctly rendered Hanoch, but the Revised Version not unwisely has here retained the famous name in the form (derived through the Vulgate from the LXX.) with which the Authorized Version has made us familiar; compare Genesis iv. 17, and v. 21.

5‒23.
The Genealogy of the Nations.

The table which follows is taken from Genesis x. 2‒29. It is geographical rather than ethnological, i.e. neighbouring nations are regarded as having the same descent. The world as then known is divided into three areas of which that in the north and west is assigned to the Sons of Japheth (5‒7), the southern to the Sons of Ham, and the middle and eastern to the Sons of Shem (17‒23). Had the arrangement been according to actual descent the Semitic Zidonians, for instance, would not be described as the offspring of Ham (verse 13).

The passage, when analysed, divides as follows: 5‒9 (a general table of the descendants of Japheth and Ham), 10‒16 (an appendix to the descendants of Ham), 17 (a general table of the descendants of Shem), 18‒23 (an appendix to the descendants of Shem). Of these four sections, the general tables, verses 5‒9 and 17, belong to the “Priestly” narrative of the Hexateuch, whilst the two appendices, verses 10‒16, 18‒23, are from the earlier narrative known as J. For a full examination of the many interesting questions raised by this account of the origin of the nations known to the Israelites the reader must be referred to the commentaries on Genesis where such discussion is appropriate (see Ryle, Genesis, in this series; or more fully Skinner, Genesis, pp. 188 ff.). Here a few remarks of a general character must suffice.

With the exception of Nimrod the names are those of nations and tribes (e.g. Madai [Medes], Javan [Greeks]) or countries (e.g. Mizraim [Egypt]) or cities (Zidon). The names are eponymous: that is to say “each nation is represented by an imaginary personage bearing its name, who is called into existence for the purpose of expressing its unity, but is at the same time conceived as its real progenitor”; and the relations existing or supposed to exist between the various races and ethnic groups are then set forth under the scheme of a family relationship between the eponymous ancestors. This procedure may seem strange to us but it was both natural and convenient for a period when men had not at their disposal our scientific methods of classification. It must have been specially easy for Semites, like Israel, who in everyday life were accustomed to call a population the “sons of” the district or town which they inhabited. But in truth the practice was widespread in antiquity, and, if a parallel is desired, an excellent one may be found in the Greek traditions respecting the origins of the several branches of the Hellenic race. Whether the ancients believed that these eponymous ancestors really had lived is somewhat uncertain. Probably they did, although such names as Rodanim (verse 7) and Ludim (verse 11) where the name is actually left in a plural form (as we might say “Londoners”) makes it difficult to doubt that in some cases the convention was conscious and deliberate. The notion that the chief nations of antiquity were differentiated from one another within some three generations of descent from a common ancestor, Noah, is plainly inaccurate. Equally untenable is the primary conception assumed in this table that the great races of mankind have come into being simply through the expansion and subdivision of single families.

It must not be imagined that these facts in any way destroy the value of the table. Historically, it is a document of great importance as a systematic record of the racial and geographical beliefs of the Hebrews. Its value would be increased could we determine precisely the period when it was originally drawn up, but unfortunately it is not possible to do so with certainty. Arguments based on the resemblance between this table and the nations mentioned in the books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah are inconclusive; nor does the fact that the general tables (verses 5‒9, 17) now form part of P, the “Priestly” document, help us greatly, for we cannot argue from the date of the document as a whole to the date of its component laws or traditions, which of course may be much earlier. Religiously, the worth of this table is to be seen in the conviction of the fundamental unity of the human race, which is here expressed. The significance of this may best be felt if we contrast the Greek traditions which display a keen interest in the origins of their own peoples but none at all in that of the barbarians. Ancient society in general was vitiated by failure to recognise the moral obligation involved in our common humanity. Even Israel did not wholly transcend this danger, and its sense of spiritual pre-eminence may have taken an unworthy form in Jewish particularism; but at least, as we here see, there lay beneath the surface the instinct that ultimately the families of the earth are one, and their God one.

5‒7 (= Genesis x. 2‒4).
The Sons of Japheth.

⁵The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

5. The sons of Japheth] The writer begins with the northern peoples.

Gomer] to be identified with the Gimirrai of the Assyrian monuments, the Κιμμέριοι of the Greeks, who migrated from South Russia into Asia Minor (Pontus and Cappadocia) under the pressure of the Scythians (Herodotus I. 103; IV. 11, 12; compare Ezekiel xxxviii. 6, Revised Version).

Magog] In Ezekiel xxxviii. 2 (Revised Version) judgement is denounced on “Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal” who is represented as accompanied in his migration by the “hordes” of Gomer and Togarmah (verse 6), “all of them riding upon horses” (verse 15). Magog represents therefore one of several tribes of northern nomads, possibly the Scythians.

Madai] i.e. Media or the Medes. Of the many allusions in the Old Testament to this famous people, the first is found in 2 Kings xvii. 6; compare also Isaiah xiii. 17; Jeremiah xxv. 25; Esther i. 3; Daniel i. 9. The Median Empire dates from the 7th century B.C., but the Medes are referred to by Assyrian inscriptions of the 9th century, at which time they seem to occupy the mountainous regions to the south and south-west of the Caspian Sea. They were the first Aryan race to play an important part in Semitic history.

Javan] the Ionians, a branch of the Greek peoples. They were already settled in the Aegean islands and on the west coast of Asia Minor at the dawn of Greek history. Being a seafaring nation and having a slave-trade with Tyre (Ezekiel xxvii. 13; Joel iii. 6 [Hebrew iv. 6 “Grecians”]), they became known to Israel at an early date. In some late passages of the Old Testament (e.g. Zechariah ix. 13; Daniel viii. 21, xi. 2) Javan denotes the world-power of the Greeks, established by the conquests of Alexander the Great and maintained in part by his successors, in particular the Seleucid kings of Syria.

Tubal, and Meshech] compare Isaiah lxvi. 19; Psalms cxx. 5. They are mentioned together Ezekiel xxvii. 13, xxxii. 26, xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix. 1; and are to be identified with the Τιβαρηνοί and Μοσχοί of Herodotus III. 94, who are the “Tabali” and “Muski” of the monuments. In the time of the later Assyrian Empire they lived as neighbours in the country north-east of Cilicia, but at a later period the Τιβαρηνοί (Tubal) lived in Pontus, and the Μοσχοί (Meshech) further East towards the Caspian. (The Meshech of this verse is to be distinguished from the Meshech son of Shem mentioned in verse 17.)

Tiras] Not the Thracians (so Josephus Antiquities of the Jews I. 6), but most probably the Tyrseni, a piratical people frequenting the coasts and islands of the north Aegean. They are mentioned among the seafarers who assailed Egypt in the reign of Merenptah.

⁶And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Diphath¹, and Togarmah.

6. Ashkenaz] In Jeremiah li. 27 “the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz” are to be summoned against Babylon. The home of the Ashkenaz is therefore somewhere in the neighbourhood of Ararat (Armenia); and they are apparently the Asguza of the monuments, and perhaps may be identified with the Scythians.

Diphath] The LXX., Vulgate and some Hebrew MSS. have Riphath (so also Genesis x. 3), which is to be preferred. The identity of the place or people is not yet ascertained.

Togarmah] Perhaps in Armenia, but the evidence is inconclusive. That it was a neighbour of Gomer, Tubal, and Meshech appears probable from Ezekiel xxvii. 14, where Togarmah is mentioned as trading with Tyre in horses and mules. Compare also Ezekiel xxxviii. 6, and the note above on Magog.

⁷And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim¹.

7. Elishah] Ezekiel (xxvii. 7) addressing Tyre, “Blue and purple from the isles of Elishah was thine awning.” Elishah has not been identified with certainty. It has been supposed to be Carthage. Another suggestion is Alashiya (of the Tell el-Amarna Letters) which may be a Cilician district, or perhaps rather Cyprus; compare the note on Kittim below.

Tarshish] generally now identified with Tartessus, a Phoenician town in the south of Spain. This is supported by the various references to Tarshish as a Tyrian colony rich in minerals and far from Palestine (see, e.g. Ezekiel xxvii. 12; Jonah i. 3; Psalms lxxii. 10; 2 Chronicles ix. 21). To identify it with Tarsus, the famous town in Cilicia, is in some ways attractive, but is on the whole less probable.

Kittim] The inhabitants of Cyprus are meant, “Kittim” being derived from Kition (modern Larnaca), the name of one of its oldest towns. In later times Kittim (Chittim) is used vaguely of Western islands (Jeremiah ii. 10; Ezekiel xxvii. 6) or nations; “the ships of Kittim” (Daniel xi. 30) are the Roman ships; “the land of Chittim” (Χεττιείμ, 1 Maccabees i. 1) is Macedonia (1 Maccabees viii. 5).

Rodanim] No doubt the Rhodians are meant; their island was celebrated even in the days of Homer. On the spelling Dodanim (Revised Version margin; Genesis x. 4), compare the note on Diphath above. The Hebrew letters r (ר) and d (ד) are easily confused.

8, 9 (= Genesis x. 6, 7).
The Sons of Ham.

⁸The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.

8. The sons of Ham] The southern peoples are next enumerated.

Cush] The Hebrew name here transliterated Cush is several times translated “Ethiopia” (e.g. 2 Kings xix. 9; Isaiah xviii. 1) no doubt rightly. On the inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal frequent mention is made of Ku-su (Ku-u-su) “Ethiopia” in connection with Mu-ṣur “Egypt.” The Cushites were not Negroes but a brown race like the modern Nubians (Soudanese). The “sons of Cush,” however, seem to be tribes located mostly on the Arabian side of the Red Sea, verse 9 below.

Mizraim] is without doubt Egypt. In form the word may be dual, and it is generally said to mean the two Egypts, Upper and Lower.

Put] This people is mentioned among the helpers of Egypt in Jeremiah, in Ezekiel (twice), and in Nahum. In Ezekiel xxvii. 10 it appears among the auxiliary troops of Tyre. Put used therefore to be identified with the Libyans of the north coast of Africa, but more probably it denotes the Punt of the Egyptian monuments, i.e. the African coast of the Red Sea.

Canaan] the eponym of the pre-Israelitish population of Palestine west of Jordan. Actual racial affinities are here disregarded or unperceived, for the Canaanites (except the Philistines and Phoenicians on the strip of coastland) were Semites and spoke a language closely resembling Hebrew. That they are here reckoned as Hamites and made a “brother” of Egypt is due perhaps in part to the frequent dominations of Palestine by Egypt, but more probably to the political and religious antagonism between Israel and the Canaanites, which suggested that they ought to be most closely associated with Egypt, Israel’s traditional oppressor. Note that in Genesis ix. 25‒27 (where hostile feeling against Canaan is prominent) “Canaan” is not said to be the son of Ham, but takes Ham’s place as a son of Noah (Ryle, Genesis, p. 127).

⁹And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raama, and Sabteca. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.

9. the sons of Cush] According to some authorities Seba and Havilah were tribes or districts on the African coast of the Red Sea, whilst Sabta and Raama and Sabteca were in Arabia. It is somewhat more probable that all (except Seba) were located on the Arabian side of the Red Sea.

Seba] In Isaiah xliii. 3 and xlv. 14 Seba (the Sabeans) is mentioned along with Egypt and Cush, and in Psalms lxxii. 10 along with Sheba. Probably a district on the African side of the Red Sea is meant.

Sheba, and Dedan] Also in verse 32, where see note. Sheba is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament (e.g. Jeremiah vi. 20; 1 Kings x. 1 ff. = 2 Chronicles ix. 1 ff.; Isaiah lx. 6) as a distant land, rich in gold, frankincense, and precious stones. It was a flourishing and wealthy state, at one period (circa 700 B.C.) the centre of power and civilisation in south Arabia. Dedan was probably a merchant tribe, specially associated with Sheba (compare Ezekiel xxxviii. 13).

10‒16 (= Genesis x. 8‒18b).
Appendix. Other Descendants of Ham.

¹⁰And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

10. And Cush begat Nimrod] From the parallel passages in Genesis (x. 10, 11) it is apparent that Nimrod is the name of an individual, the traditional founder of the Babylonian-Assyrian Empire. As Cush is here called the father of Nimrod and in verse 8 is the son of Ham, Hebrew tradition would appear to have regarded Hamites as the founders of the Babylonian power. Possibly the Redactor of Genesis who combined these verses which belong to the tradition of J with verses 5‒9 which are from “P” may have thought so. But in the independent “J” narrative it is very probable that Cush, father of Nimrod, represents the third or Kassite dynasty (Κοσσαῖοι) which held sway in Babylon from about 1750‒1200 B.C. Even so, the identification of Nimrod himself remains a puzzle, and it is not yet possible to say whether he is a legendary or an historical character, or partly both.

began to be a mighty one in the earth] i.e. was the first grand monarch (for the idiom, compare Genesis ix. 20). In Genesis x. 9, he is further and quaintly described as “a mighty hunter before the Lord.”

¹¹And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,

11. Ludim] reckoned in Jeremiah xlvi. 9 and Ezekiel xxx. 5 (Revised Version “Lud”) among the auxiliary troops of Egypt (Mizraim). Probably not the Lydians of Asia Minor are meant, but a people of north Africa not yet known. Both this word and Lehabim may be variants for the Libyans, tribes west of Cyrene (compare 2 Chronicles xii. 3, xvi. 8). See also verse 17, note on Lud. Of the Anamim, Naphtuhim, nothing is certainly known.

¹²and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (from whence came the Philistines¹), and Caphtorim.

12. Pathrusim] the inhabitants of Pathros (Isaiah xi. 11), i.e. Upper Egypt.

Casluhim] not identified.

from whence came the Philistines] Elsewhere (Jeremiah xlvii. 4; Amos ix. 7; compare Deuteronomy ii. 23) the Philistines are said to have come from Caphtor. It is natural therefore to think that an accidental transposition has taken place, and that this clause, whence ... Philistines, originally followed Caphtorim. Note, however, that the same order is found in Genesis x. 14.

Caphtorim] i.e. the inhabitants of Caphtor, which has usually been taken to mean the island of Crete, but is also plausibly identified with “Keftiu,” the south-west coastlands of Asia Minor. Compare Macalister, The Philistines, pp. 4 ff.

¹³And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth;

13. Canaan begat] Of the four sons of Ham—viz. Cush, Mizraim, Put, Canaan—note that the sons of Put are omitted. After the sons of Cush (verse 9), and of Mizraim (verse 11), we here pass to the sons of Canaan.

Zidon his firstborn] From the time of David downwards Tyre takes precedence of Zidon in any mention of the Phoenician cities in the Old Testament, but Zidon was the older of the two cities, as is here implied and as the Roman historian Justin (XVIII. 3) asserts. So we find the Phoenicians in the earlier books of the Old Testament called Zidonians, not Tyrians (e.g. Judges iii. 3; 1 Kings v. 6). Homer also refers not to Tyre but to Zidon.

Heth] i.e. the Hittites, a northern non-Semitic race, who from about 1800‒700 B.C. were a great power, extending over part of Asia Minor and northern Syria from the Orontes to the Euphrates. The references to them in the Old Testament make it probable that Hittite settlements were to be found in various parts of Palestine. This fact and their dominant influence, circa 1300 B.C., throughout Canaan and Phoenicia probably accounts for their inclusion as a “son” of Canaan.

¹⁴and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite;

14. the Jebusite] the ancient population of Jerusalem, compare Judges i. 21; 2 Samuel v. 6.

the Amorite] compare Numbers xiii. 29, xxi. 21; Judges i. 35. The name (probably a racial one) was frequently used of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Canaan (“Canaanites” being the geographical description). In a more restricted sense it was used to denote the people of Sihon, east of the Jordan.

¹⁵and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite; ¹⁶and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.

15. the Hivite] In Joshua xi. 3, the Hivites are placed in the extreme north of the land, “the Hivite under Hermon,” but the word may be an error for Hittite (see above verse 13). In Joshua ix. 7 and Genesis xxxiv. 2 they are located at Gibeon and Shechem. The Arkite and Sinite lived in Lebanon, the Arvadite (compare Ezekiel xxvii. 8) on the sea-coast north of Gebal (Byblus), the Zemarite a little to the south of the Arvadite, and the Hamathite furthest to the north on the Orontes.

17 (= Genesis x. 22, 23).
The Sons of Shem.

¹⁷The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech¹.

17. The sons of Shem] These occupied the middle geographical “zone.”

Elam] is the name of a land and nation north of the Persian Gulf and east of Babylonia, and is often referred to in the Old Testament. Though settled by Semites at a very early date, it was subsequently, circa 2280 B.C., possessed by a non-Semitic race, who even extended their power over Babylonia itself. The inclusion of Elam among the Semites is doubtless due to its proximity to Asshur, and, though not strictly correct, is very natural.

Asshur] The Assyrians, who are so frequently referred to in the Old Testament, were mainly, if not entirely Semitic: a martial and ruthless people whose conquests in the 14th‒7th centuries have made them world-famous.

Arpachshad] a somewhat obscure name. In the last part (chshad) the same consonants occur as in the name “Chasdim,” the “Chaldees” of the Old Testament. Possibly two names have been run together, the second being that of the Chaldees or Chaldeans, a Semitic race who from circa 900 B.C. dominated Babylonia, assimilating with the earlier Semitic inhabitants. This conjecture has some support in the surprising fact that the Chaldeans are not otherwise mentioned in the table; it is opposed by the fact that Arpachshad occurs elsewhere, verse 24; Genesis x. 24, xi. 10 ff.

Lud] the name suggests the Lydians, but how this non-Semitic people situated on the west coast of Asia Minor comes to be included with Asshur and Aram as a son of Shem is a mystery. Possibly therefore a Semitic region, called Lubdu, between Tigris and Euphrates is meant.

Aram] the “Syrians” of the Authorized Version; better called Arameans. They were widely settled in the lands to the north and north-east of Palestine, with important centres in Damascus (Syria proper) and the north of the Euphrates valley (the Aram-Naharaim of the Old Testament). So great and lasting was their influence on Israel that the Aramean dialect eventually superseded Hebrew and was the ordinary language of Palestine in the time of Christ.

Uz] From Genesis x. 23 it appears that in Chronicles the words “And the children of Aram¹” have dropped out, so that “Uz” etc. appear as the immediate descendants of Shem.

Neither Uz nor the three following names have been satisfactorily identified. For “Meshech” Genesis x. 23 (Hebrew but not LXX.) reads “Mash.”

18‒23 (= Genesis x. 24‒29).
Appendix to the Sons of Shem.
South Arabian Tribes.

¹⁸And Arpachshad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber.

18. Eber] The Hebrew word usually means “the land beyond” and may have originated as a personification of the population beyond the Euphrates. It is further possible that Eber is an eponym, not merely of the Hebrews, but of the Habiri, a much wider stock of Semitic nomads, of whom the Hebrews formed an element, and who overran and harassed the settled peoples of Palestine in the fifteenth century B.C.

¹⁹And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

19. two sons] one (Peleg) representing, roughly speaking, the northern or Mesopotamian Semites; the other (Joktan), the south Arabian tribes.

Peleg] see below on verse 25.

²⁰And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah; ²¹and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah; ²²and Ebal¹, and Abimael, and Sheba; ²³and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan.

20. Joktan begat Almodad] All the names of the sons of Joktan here given, so far as they have been identified, represent peoples situated in south Arabia or on the west coast of the Red Sea lying over against south Arabia. The only familiar name is that of the unidentified Ophir, which possibly but not certainly may be the “El Dorado” to which Solomon sent his fleet for gold.

24‒27.
The Descent of Abraham from Shem.

These verses are compressed within the smallest limits from Genesis xi. 10‒26. For another example of this extreme abbreviation compare verses 1‒4 (= Genesis v. 3‒32).

²⁴Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah; ²⁵Eber, Peleg, Reu; ²⁶Serug, Nahor, Terah; ²⁷Abram (the same is Abraham).

25. Peleg] the name perhaps signifies “Division” (see verse 19), and may refer to some great period of migration among the Semitic tribes.

28‒31 (= Genesis xxv. 12‒16).
The Descent of the Ishmaelite Tribes from Abraham

²⁸The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael.

²⁹These are their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,

29. Nebaioth] Compare Isaiah lx. 7.

Kedar] Isaiah xxi. 13‒17.

³⁰Mishma, and Dumah, Massa; Hadad, and Tema,

30. Dumah] Isaiah xxi. 11.

Massa] Proverbs xxxi. 1 (Revised Version margin).

Hadad] The name begins with the Hebrew letter Ḥēth and therefore differs from the Hadad of verse 46 and of verse 50 and of 2 Chronicles xvi. 2 in which the first letter is Hē, a softer guttural than Ḥeth.

Tema] Isaiah xxi. 14.

³¹Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael.

31. Jetur, Naphish] compare v. 18‒22.

32, 33 (= Genesis xxv. 1‒4).
The Descent of Arabian Tribes from Abraham through Keturah

³²And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.

32. Keturah] called a wife of Abraham in Genesis xxv. 1. The Chronicler by calling her a concubine may imply that he considered that the tribes descended from her were not so closely akin to Israel as the Ishmaelites, or possibly he held that Sarah ought to be the only wife of Abraham, and “corrects” his source accordingly.

Medan, Midian] Kindred tribes often bore names only slightly differing in form.

Midian] In Judges viii. 14 the Midianites are reckoned as Ishmaelites.

Sheba, and Dedan] Sheba and Dedan in verse 9 (which belongs to the same source P) are included among the Hamitic peoples. Doubtless the names in the present passage, which comes from J, refer to the same tribes; but J follows a different tradition as to their origin. Possibly there is truth in both views, and the people of Sheba were of mixed African and Arabian descent.

³³And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the sons of Keturah.

33. Ephah] Isaiah lx. 6.

Hanoch] as Genesis xxv. 4. Compare verse 3.

34‒37 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 10‒14).
The Descent of the Tribes of Edom from Abraham.

³⁴And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau, and Israel.

³⁵The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jalam, and Korah.

34. Esau] “Esau is Edom,” Genesis xxxvi. 1, 8.

³⁶The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi¹, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. ³⁷The sons of Reuel; Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.

36. Teman] Amos i. 11, 12; Habakkuk iii. 13. The word means South, and is applied in the first passage to Edom itself, in the second to the wilderness of Edom, both being south of Canaan.

Kenaz] Other references (Judges i. 13, iii. 9, 11) show a close connection with Caleb, which in turn implies that the Calebites were closely related to the Edomites (compare iv. 13).

Amalek] the eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites who lived in the south and south-east of Palestine, see iv. 42 f.

38‒42 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 20‒28).
The Genealogy of the Horite Inhabitants of Seir.

³⁸And the sons of Seir; Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah, and Dishon and Ezer and Dishan. ³⁹And the sons of Lotan; Hori and Homam¹: and Timna was Lotan’s sister.

38. The sons of Seir] Chronicles omits the further description given in Genesis “the Horite, the inhabitants of the land,” words which show clearly that these “sons of Seir” were not descendants of Esau, but aboriginal inhabitants of the land.

Lotan] perhaps to be connected with Lot, a name anciently associated with the land or people dwelling east of the Jordan (compare Genesis xix. 30).

⁴⁰The sons of Shobal; Alian¹ and Manahath and Ebal, Shephi² and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon; Aiah and Anah. ⁴¹The sons of Anah; Dishon. And the sons of Dishon; Hamran³ and Eshban and Ithran and Cheran. ⁴²The sons of Ezer; Bilhan and Zaavan, Jaakan⁴. The sons of Dishan; Uz and Aran.

40. Aiah and Anah] See Genesis xxxvi. 24.

43‒51a (compare Genesis xxxvi. 31‒39).
The early Kings of Edom.

⁴³Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel: Bela the son of Beor; and the name of his city was Dinhabah. ⁴⁴And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead. ⁴⁵And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead.

43. kings] Note that the kings are of different families and localities. They may be compared with the “judges” of early Israel.

in the land of Edom] In early times the mountainous region of Seir, extending from the south-east of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba, but the precise territory of the Edomites is uncertain and of course must have varied from time to time. In the post-exilic period Edomites (Idumeans) pressed up into the south of Judah (compare ii. 42), and Edom (Idumea) continued to play an important and often sinister part in the history of Israel till long after the Chronicler’s lifetime. See (e.g.) 1 Maccabees v. 65; 2 Maccabees x. 14‒17. The Herods were of Edomite descent.

before ... Israel] i.e. before Saul; or possibly “before David,” if the phrase means before the reign of the first Israelitish king over Edom. For the use made of this statement in the discussion of the date of the Hexateuch, see Chapman, Introduction to the Pentateuch, p. 40, in this series.

Bela the son of Beor] possibly the same as the familiar Balaam son of Beor, the consonants of the names differing in Hebrew only by the final m. See, however, Gray, Numbers (International Critical Commentary), pp. 315, 324.

⁴⁶And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, which smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith. ⁴⁷And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead.

46. smote Midian in the field of Moab] An isolated historical notice, interesting as showing the power of Edom at some period. The Midianites centred round the lands east of the Gulf of Akaba, but bands of them were constantly pushing northwards and harassing the territories of Edom, Moab, and Israel (compare Numbers xxii. 4; Judges vi.; etc.).

⁴⁸And Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth by the River reigned in his stead. ⁴⁹And Shaul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead.

48. Rehoboth by the River] not “the River,” par excellence (i.e. the Euphrates), as the Revised Version translators supposed; but either the Wady el-Arish, the stream on the boundary of Egypt or Palestine; or else a river in north Edom, Rehoboth being distinguished from other places of the same name by being the city on its banks.

⁵⁰And Baal-hanan died, and Hadad¹ reigned in his stead; and the name of his city was Pai²: and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-zahab.

50. Hadad] As in verse 46; in Genesis xxxvi. 39, “Hadar.” Possibly the king whom David overthrew, 2 Samuel viii. 14, compare 1 Kings xi. 14 (perhaps a son of this Hadad).

⁵¹And Hadad died.

51a. And Hadad died] repeated by a copyist’s error from verse 47; the words are not found in Genesis.

51b‒54 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 40‒43).
The “Dukes” of Edom.

And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timna, duke Aliah¹, duke Jetheth; ⁵²duke Oholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon; ⁵³duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar; ⁵⁴duke Magdiel, duke Iram. These are the dukes of Edom.

51b. dukes] The word means “leader of a thousand.” The list which follows is probably topographical, not chronological. It seems to give the names of the districts into which Edom was divided at the time when the list was drawn up.

duke Timna, etc.] Render, the duke of Timna, etc.

Aliah] In Genesis xxxvi. 40, “Alvah.”

---

Chapters II.‒VIII.
The Genealogies of the Tribes of Israel.

Attention is now narrowed down to those in the true line of descent, from Abraham through Isaac (“in Isaac shall thy seed be called,” Genesis xxi. 12) and from Isaac through Jacob = Israel, Genesis xxxii. 28 (compare Genesis xxvi. 2‒4).

The Chronicler deals very unequally with the tribes in their genealogies; as the following table shows:

It may easily be seen that the tribes in which the Chronicler is really interested are the three southern tribes, Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, together with the priestly tribe, Levi.

The order in which the tribes are mentioned is geographical, Judah and Simeon the southern tribes first, then the eastern tribes, Reuben, Gad, Manasseh; then (conveniently) Levi, and then the northern tribes of western Palestine, ending with Benjamin (viii., ix. 35‒44) and the list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (in ix. 1‒34).

---

Chapter IV.

1‒23 (compare ii. 3 ff.)
Genealogies of the Tribes of Judah.

The material contained in these verses gives rise to no little perplexity, not only in itself but also when considered along with the genealogies of Judah in ii. 3 ff. Whether the Chronicler himself could have thrown any light on the points which puzzle us may well be doubted: he was more concerned to preserve all available genealogical matter than to consider or attempt to reconcile conflicting elements. Both the date and relationship of these notices must be confessed to be as yet uncertain, opinion being divided even on the question whether the list represents pre-exilic or post-exilic conditions. Remark that the list is essentially a Calebite one.

¹The sons of Judah; Perez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal.

1. As Hezron was the son of Perez (chapter ii. 5) and (if the LXX. be right) Shobal was the son of Hur (ii. 50, note), we have in this verse five, if not six, generations.

Carmi] for the name, compare ii. 7, and v. 3. Here, however, Carmi is certainly an error for Caleb: see ii. 4, 5, 9, 50 and also the structure of the present chapter. Thus in accord with the usual practice of the Chronicler the chief ancestors are first named (verse 1), and then, in reverse order, their descendants—sons of Shobal and Hur (verses 2‒10), and sons of Chelub (= Caleb) (verses 11‒15).

²And Reaiah the son of Shobal begat Jahath; and Jahath begat Ahumai and Lahad. These are the families of the Zorathites.

2. Reaiah] Compare note on ii. 52.

the Zorathites] Compare note on ii. 53.

³And these were the sons of the father of Etam; Jezreel, and Ishma, and Idbash: and the name of their sister was Hazzelelponi:

3. these were the sons of the father of Etam] The Hebrew has not got the words the sons of, and is certainly corrupt. The LXX. reads, These were the sons of Etam. Correction is difficult, largely owing to the obscurity of Etam. If Etam had been named as a son of Shobal in verse 2, we might follow the LXX. It is perhaps best to suppose that Etam begins the list of descendants of Hur, and to read “these were the sons of Hur the father of Etam.” Etam was a place, but whether near Bethlehem (the Etam of 2 Chronicles xi. 6) or in southern Judah (the Simeonite Etam of verse 32) is uncertain.

⁴and Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the father of Beth-lehem.

4. Hur] the first born of Ephrathah (= Ephrath) one of the wives of Caleb (ii. 19). Hur was father of Bethlehem through his son Salma (ii. 50, 51, LXX.). For the name of the city compare Genesis xxxv. 19 (Ephrath the same is Bethlehem) and Micah v. 2 (Revised Version Thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah).

⁵And Ashhur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah. ⁶And Naarah bare him Ahuzzam, and Hepher, and Temeni, and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah. ⁷And the sons of Helah were Zereth, Izhar¹, and Ethnan.

5. Ashhur the father of Tekoa] Ashhur is probably only a variant of Hur (see note ii. 24). Hur then is the exilic or post-exilic “father” (founder) of the Calebite population of Tekoa (5 miles from Bethlehem), and of Bethlehem, etc., through his sons (ii. 50‒52).

Helah and Naarah] Neither the names of the wives nor those of the children yield any certain information.

⁸And Hakkoz begat Anub, and Zobebah, and the families of Aharhel the son of Harum.

8. And Hakkoz] But Hebrew Koz. The absence of connection with the preceding verse is striking. Perhaps Koz was properly one of the sons of Helah (verse 7), and a motive for the severance of his name may be found in the wish to make less obvious his Calebite (i.e. non-Levitical) origin, in case he were identified with the priestly Hakkoz of xxiv. 10; Ezekiel ii. 61, a family who were unable to prove an untainted pedigree.

⁹And Jabez was more honourable than his brethren: and his mother called his name Jabez, saying. Because I bare him with sorrow.

9. The connection of this verse also does not appear. According to Targum (on verse 13) Jabez = Othniel, the nephew or brother of Caleb.

And Jabez, etc.] Render, And Jabez came to be honoured above his brethren, but his mother had called his name Jabez, saying, Because I bare him with pain. Jabez suggests a somewhat similar word spelt with the same consonants but in a different order, and meaning “he giveth pain.” The stylistic similarity between this verse and many passages in Genesis (e.g. Genesis xxx.) cannot fail to be noticed, and it is important to observe that a tradition of this popular character was current in the style of the patriarchal narratives of Genesis in the Chronicler’s time. Compare also vii. 23. The man with the ill-omened name staved off ill-fortune by his prayer which is given in the following verse.

¹⁰And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my border, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it be not to my sorrow! And God granted him that which he requested.

10. that thou wouldest keep me from evil] Literally that thou wouldest make ... from evil. The Hebrew is therefore strange, though not indefensible. Perhaps some words have fallen out, and it may originally have read somewhat as follows, that thou wouldest make [room (merḥābh) for me, and wouldest redeem (phādīthā) me] from evil.

that it be not to my sorrow] or so that no pain befell me.

11‒15 for Chelub (verse 11) = Caleb (see on ii. 9, 42).
Sons of Caleb.

¹¹And Chelub the brother of Shuhah begat Mehir, which was the father of Eshton. ¹²And Eshton begat Beth-rapha, and Paseah, and Tehinnah the father of Ir-nahash¹. These are the men of Recah.

12. These are the men of Recah] Recah is unknown. Perhaps the true reading is that of the LXX. (B), the men of Rechab, i.e. Rechabite families; compare ii. 55, note.

¹³And the sons of Kenaz; Othniel, and Seraiah: and the sons of Othniel; Hathath.

13. Othniel] Eponym of a Kenizzite clan, closely connected with the Calebites. Compare note on i. 36, and Judges i. 13 and iii. 9‒11.

¹⁴And Meonothai begat Ophrah: and Seraiah begat Joab the father of Ge-harashim¹; for they were craftsmen.

14. Meonothai] perhaps a son of Othniel.

Ge-harashim] or, as margin, the valley of craftsmen. It is mentioned Nehemiah xi. 35 along with Lod (the Lydda of Acts ix. 32) and therefore was probably near Lydda.

¹⁵And the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh; Iru, Elah, and Naam: and the sons of Elah; and Kenaz.

15. Caleb the son of Jephunneh] Compare ii. 42, note.

the sons of Elah; and Kenaz] The sons of Elah and Kenaz seem to be co-ordinated, as each represented a family descended from Caleb; but perhaps the text is faulty.

¹⁶And the sons of Jehallelel; Ziph, and Ziphah, Tiria, and Asarel.

16‒20. The connection of these names with Judah does not appear. In accordance with the structure of this section (see note on Carmi, verse 1) we might expect here to find “the sons of Hezron or Perez”; and, since the relationship between Jehallelel (16) and Ezrah (17) is not indicated, it has been suggested that we should insert in verse 16 “And the sons of Perez and Jehallelel and Ezrah.” No certainty can be felt in the matter.

Ziph] in south Judah, 1 Samuel xxiii. 15. Ziphah, a feminine form of the same name.

¹⁷And the sons of Ezrah; Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon: and she bare Miriam, and Shammai, and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa.

17. and Jalon: and she bare Miriam] As the text stands she has no antecedent. It has therefore been proposed to transfer from verse 18 the words And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took, and put them after Jalon. Bithiah then appears as the mother of Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah, and the difficulty of the absence of her sons’ names from verse 18 disappears. For father of Eshtemoa see ii. 24 note, and for Eshtemoa see Joshua xxi. 14.

¹⁸And his wife the Jewess¹ bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took.

18. his wife] the wife of Mered, if the transposition mentioned in the last note be accepted.

his wife the Jewess] so called in contrast to his Egyptian wife.

Gedor] compare verse 4, where a different person is perhaps by a different tradition called father of Gedor. Gedor is to be identified with the ruins of Jedur on the road between Jerusalem and Hebron, compare verse 39.

Soco ... Zanoah] The Soco (Joshua xv. 48) and Zanoah (Joshua xv. 56) here mentioned were situated to the south-west of Hebron. They are to be distinguished from a Soco near the valley of Elah (Joshua xv. 35, 2 Chronicles xi. 7, xxviii. 18) and Zanoah near Beth-shemesh (Joshua xv. 34).

these are the sons of Bithiah] See note on verse 17. A “daughter of Pharaoh” is somewhat strange in such surroundings. For an interesting emendation and interpretation, see Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1905, p. 252.

¹⁹And the sons of the wife of Hodiah, the sister of Naham, were the father of Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maacathite. ²⁰And the sons of Shimon; Amnon, and Rinnah, Ben-hanan, and Tilon. And the sons of Ishi; Zoheth, and Ben-zoheth.

19. Keilah] a town of the Shephelah (Joshua xv. 44), the scene of one of David’s exploits (1 Samuel xxiii. 1‒5).

Eshtemoa the Maacathite] The epithet distinguishes this Eshtemoa from that of verse 17. The Maacathite may mean the descendant of Maacah (ii. 48), the concubine of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel.

21‒23. These verses purport to give some fragmentary information of the descendants of Shelah. It must be owned that they are most obscure, and much more difficult than they appear at first. In the Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1905, pp. 243 ff., 328 ff., R. A. S. Macalister gives a highly ingenious reinterpretation of this passage in the light of certain jar handles inscribed with names similar to those mentioned here and in certain other passages of the Chronicler’s genealogies; and conjectures that throughout the chapter we have a (mutilated) genealogy of a family of craftsmen, tracing descent from two individuals, a Jerahmeel and a Caleb. In a text so obscure it is no objection that the theory involves several textual emendations, and is too intricate for further treatment here. It is rejected by Driver, Modern Research, p. 77.

²¹The sons of Shelah the son of Judah; Er the father of Lecah, and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea;

21. Shelah] mentioned in ii. 3 as a son of Judah. As there is no reference to him in iv. 1, perhaps these difficult verses are an addition. For other references to his descendants, see ix. 5, Nehemiah xi. 5.

Mareshah] ii. 42; 2 Chronicles xi. 8; Joshua xv. 44 (mentioned with Keilah). A town in the south of Judah.

the house of Ashbea] Nothing is known of such a family. Render perhaps Beth-Ashbea, but the place is otherwise unknown.

²²and Jokim, and the men of Cozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had dominion in Moab, and Jashubi-lehem. And the records¹ are ancient.

22. and Joash, and Saraph, who, etc.] We find no other trace of these two as rulers of Moab. The Targum fancifully identified them with Mahlon and Chilion of Ruth i. 2, 4. For a conjecture as to the cause of their presence in Moab, see Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1905, p. 340.

and Jashubi-lehem] render, with Vulgate, who returned to Bethlehem, a translation which requires only an easy emendation of the present Hebrew text.

²³These were the potters, and the inhabitants¹ of Netaim and Gederah: there they dwelt with the king for his work.

23. there they dwelt with the king for his work] In the days of the kingdom the families were clients of the king and did his work; compare 1 Kings vii. 46. The simplicity of this statement seems to have been a stumbling-block to the early translators who paraphrase; LXX., They were strong in his kingdom and dwelt there; Targum, They made their dwelling there with the Shekinah of the King of the World for the practice of the Law.

24‒27.
The Genealogy of Simeon.

²⁴The sons of Simeon; Nemuel¹, and Jamin, Jarib², Zerah³, Shaul: ²⁵Shallum his son, Mibsam his son, Mishma his son. ²⁶And the sons of Mishma; Hammuel his son, Zaccur his son, Shimei his son. ²⁷And Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters; but his brethren had not many children, neither did all their family multiply, like to the children of Judah.

24‒27. The sons of Simeon] With unimportant variations in the names, the five sons of Simeon are mentioned also in Genesis xlvi. 10, Exodus vi. 15, and Numbers xxvi. 12, 13. A sixth son, Ohad, is given by the list in Genesis. As the mother of one, Shaul, was a Canaanitess (Genesis xlvi. 10) and Mibsam and Mishma are also reckoned Ishmaelites (i. 29, 30), the tribe of Simeon contained marked non-Israelite elements. This is the more natural by reason of its location in the extreme south of Palestine.

27. six daughters] LXX. three daughters.

28‒33 (= Joshua xix. 2‒8).
The Territory of Simeon.

²⁸And they dwelt at Beer-sheba, and Moladah, and Hazar-shual;

28. Beer-sheba] at the southern extremity of Palestine, as Dan was at the northern (1 Samuel iii. 20).

²⁹and at Bilhah, and at Ezem, and at Tolad;

29. Tolad] In Joshua xix. 4 Eltolad.

³⁰and at Bethuel, and at Hormah, and at Ziklag;

30. Bethuel] compare Genesis xxii. 22. In Joshua xix. 4 Bethul. In 1 Samuel xxx. 27 Bethel (not the famous Bethel near Jerusalem).

Hormah] Numbers xiv. 45, xxi. 3; Judges i. 17.

Ziklag] 1 Samuel xxvii. 6. The site is not certainly identified.

³¹and at Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susim, and at Beth-biri, and at Shaaraim. These were their cities unto the reign of David.

31. Beth-marcaboth ... Hazar-susim] perhaps royal chariot-cities, 1 Kings ix. 19. The names mean House of chariots and Court of horses.

Shaaraim] 1 Samuel xvii. 52.

These were their cities unto the reign of David] either a reference to David’s census; or else it is implied that these cities ceased to belong to Simeon after David’s day. The clause breaks the connection of verses 31, 32; and is perhaps a late gloss.

³²And their villages were Etam, and Ain, Rimmon, and Tochen, and Ashan, five cities:

32. And their villages were Etam] more probably and their villages (end of verse 31). Etam, etc. (continuing the list of cities as in verse 31). By villages (Ḥăṣērīm) are meant small hamlets dependent on larger towns and generally unwalled (Leviticus xxv. 31).

Ain, Rimmon] so also in the parallel passage, Joshua xix. 7; but certainly only one place is meant, Ain-Rimmon (see the commentaries on Joshua xv. 42 and xix. 7). The number of the cities here ought therefore to be reckoned four, not five.

³³and all their villages that were round about the same cities, unto Baal. These were their habitations, and they have their genealogy.

33. unto Baal] Baal (“lord”) standing by itself is an unlikely name for a town. Read Baalath-beer, Ramah of the South (“the mistress of the well, the high place of the South”), as in Joshua xix. 8.

34‒43.
The Heroes of Simeon and their Exploits.

It seems probable that the exploits mentioned in these verses are derived from some old, though obscure, tradition, and are therefore of historical value for the movements of the tribe of Simeon. Apparently we are to understand that in the time of Hezekiah a band of the wild semi-nomadic tribe of Simeon made a successful raid upon a fertile valley near Gerar (a correction for Gedor, see verse 39), a township on the Philistine border, taking by surprise its peaceful population who were partly Canaanites, partly settlers who had come originally from a place Maon (see verse 41). Gedor, the reading of the Hebrew text, was a town just north of Hebron. A raid by Simeonites on such a town is a startling, but not incredible, episode in Hezekiah’s time; but see also note on verse 40. Finally verses 42, 43 record a further assault by Simeonites, this time against Edomite territory. For full discussion see Hogg in Encyclopedia Biblia iv. 4527 ff.; also Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1905, 335 ff.

³⁴And Meshobab, and Jamlech, and Joshah the son of Amaziah; ³⁵and Joel, and Jehu the son of Joshibiah, the son of Seraiah, the son of Asiel; ³⁶and Elioenai, and Jaakobah, and Jeshohaiah, and Asaiah, and Adiel, and Jesimiel, and Benaiah; ³⁷and Ziza the son of Shiphi, the son of Allon, the son of Jedaiah, the son of Shimri, the son of Shemaiah; ³⁸these mentioned by name were princes in their families: and their fathers’ houses increased greatly.

38. their fathers’ houses] See note on chapter v. 13.

³⁹And they went to the entering in of Gedor, even unto the east side of the valley, to seek pasture for their flocks.

39. the entering in of Gedor] Compare verse 18. The Gedor of Joshua xv. 58 is identified with Jedur, Ijdur (north of Hebron, Bädeker, Palestine⁵, p. 112). See Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1905, 335. LXX. has Gerar (compare Genesis xx. 1; xxvi. 1), on the Philistine border.

⁴⁰And they found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they that dwelt there aforetime were of Ham.

40. they ... of Ham] i.e. Canaanites, who had long been settled in the district (compare the security felt by the people of Laish, Judges xviii. 27). Their presence would seem natural in Gerar on the Philistine border but strange in Gedor near Hebron. If therefore the reading Gedor be preferred above, there is something to be said for the suggestion of Macalister (p. 335) that we should here read “of Menahem” (a change of one letter in Hebrew), some unwarlike Hebrew family, perhaps potters.

⁴¹And these written by name came in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and smote their tents, and the Meunim that were found there, and destroyed¹ them utterly, unto this day, and dwelt in their stead: because there was pasture there for their flocks. ⁴²And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to mount Seir, having for their captains Pelatiah, and Neariah, and Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi.

41. written by name] Apparently those mentioned in verses 34‒37; but the names there are of a late character, and have perhaps been artificially connected with the old tradition of the raiders in verses 41 ff.

in the days of Hezekiah] The Hebrew is ambiguous, but the clause should probably be connected with the verb “came,” not with “written”: the raid, not the record, was made in the days of Hezekiah.

and the Meunim] Here, and in 2 Chronicles xx. 1 (see note), xxvi. 7, the LXX. has Minaeans, an Arabian people who from the 8th or 9th century B.C. or perhaps much earlier exercised great authority in South Arabia (see Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹ II. 264). The Meunim of the present passage are to be connected with an Edomitic city or tribe not far from Petra, south of the Dead Sea; or (so Macalister, p. 336) are simply the people of Maon, a township near Hebron in Judah. 2 Chronicles xx. 1 (note) and xxvi. 7, Revised Version.

destroyed them utterly] or, as margin, devoted them (compare Joshua vi. 18, 21, Revised Version). See note 2 Chronicles xx. 23.

⁴³And they smote the remnant of the Amalekites that escaped, and dwelt there, unto this day.

43. the remnant of the Amalekites] i.e. the descendants of those who had escaped the attacks of Saul and David (1 Samuel xiv. 48, xv. 3 ff.). They had apparently found refuge in some part of the Edomite territory, for mount Seir is a synonym for the land of Edom.

---

Chapter V.

1‒10.
The Genealogy of Reuben.

¹And the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.

1. he defiled] Genesis xxxv. 22, xlix. 4.

his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph] Compare Genesis xlviii. 5, “Ephraim and Manasseh, even as Reuben and Simeon, shall be mine,” words of Jacob which might be interpreted to mean that the rights of the firstborn were to pass from Reuben and Simeon to Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph.

the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright] i.e. though the birthright of Reuben has been given to Joseph, yet the genealogy of Joseph is not to be given before that of Reuben. Verse 2 intimates that, though Joseph possessed the birthright, Judah had a primacy as supplying the royal family. In this confusion of claims the natural order is followed and the genealogy of Reuben is given first.

²For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the prince¹; but the birthright was Joseph’s:)

2. Judah prevailed above his brethren] Compare Genesis xlix. 8 (Jacob to Judah) “Thy father’s children shall bow down before thee.”

the prince] The Hebrew word is nāgīd. The immediate reference is to David (Saul being virtually ignored by the Chronicler).

³the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel; Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi.

3. the sons of Reuben] The same four names (with one unimportant variation in spelling in Authorized Version) appear Genesis xlvi. 9; Exodus vi. 14.

Hanoch] the correct spelling of the familiar name Enoch; compare i. 3.

Hezron, and Carmi] also given as sons of Judah: for Hezron, compare ii. 5 (note); for Carmi ii. 7, iv. 1.

⁴The sons of Joel; Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shimei his son; ⁵Micah his son, Reaiah his son, Baal his son;

4. sons of Joel] the connection, if any, with the preceding verse is not known.

⁶Beerah his son, whom Tilgath-pilneser² king of Assyria carried away captive: he was prince of the Reubenites. ⁷And his brethren by their families, when the genealogy of their generations was reckoned; the chief, Jeiel, and Zechariah,

6. Beerah ... captive] The deportation of Beerah is recorded only here, but there is no reason why the tradition should not be historical. The information is of very slight importance in itself, but since there is absolutely no motive to make the Chronicler invent the statement, this is precisely the kind of notice which implies that he had some sources oral or traditional at his command outside the canonical material (see Introduction. § 5).

Tilgath-pilneser] called Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings xv. 29), and no doubt identical with Pul (see below, verse 26).

⁸and Bela the son of Azaz, the son of Shema, the son of Joel, who dwelt in Aroer, even unto Nebo and Baal-meon: ⁹and eastward he dwelt even unto the entering in of the wilderness from the river Euphrates: because their cattle were multiplied in the land of Gilead.

8. Aroer] now ‘Ar‘āir, a heap of ruins near the wādy Mojib, i.e. the Arnon (Joshua xii. 2). According to Joshua xiii. 9‒16 it passed from Sihon king of the Amorites into the hands of the Reubenites. See Bädeker, Palestine⁵, p. 153.

Nebo and Baal-meon] A line drawn due north from Aroer (see last note) passes close first to Ma‘in (which may be Baal-meon) and then to Jebel Nebā, which evidently preserves the name of Mount Nebo.

Baal-meon] called more correctly Beth-baal-meon Joshua xiii. 17.

¹⁰And in the days of Saul they made war with the Hagrites, who fell by their hand: and they dwelt in their tents throughout all the land east of Gilead.

10. in the days of Saul] Saul’s victory over the Ammonites (1 Samuel xi.) may have paved the way for the expansion of Israel east of Jordan, but see also the note on verse 19.

the Hagrites] compare Psalms lxxxiii. 6 (Revised Version margin). They were an Arab people. See further the note on verse 19.

the land east of Gilead] i.e. the land between Gilead and the Euphrates (compare verse 9). On Gilead, see note, ii. 22.

11‒17.
The Genealogy and Settlements of Gad.

¹¹And the sons of Gad dwelt over against them, in the land of Bashan unto Salecah:

11. Bashan] the wide district extending from the Jabbok on the south to Hermon in the north and from the Sea of Galilee on the west to the mountains of Hauran on the east (compare verse 23). Remark that in Numbers xxxii. 33; Deuteronomy iii. 12; Joshua xiii. 25, Gad is located in Gilead (south of Bashan) where the Chronicler has placed Reuben.

Salecah] is probably represented at the present day by the ruins of Salkhad due south of the Jebel Hauran and almost due east of Boṣra.

¹²Joel the chief, and Shapham the second, and Janai, and Shaphat in Bashan: ¹³and their brethren of their fathers’ houses; Michael, and Meshullam, and Sheba, and Jorai, and Jacan, and Zia, and Eber, seven. ¹⁴These were the sons of Abihail the son of Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Michael, the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the son of Buz; ¹⁵Ahi the son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, chief of their fathers’ houses.

12. and Janai, and Shaphat] LXX. “Janin the scribe”; Targum, “Janai the judge.”

of their fathers’ houses] This rather awkward phrase means clans or patriarchal families (πατριαί). Sometimes it is used to denote the whole tribe, compare Numbers xvii. 17.

¹⁶And they dwelt in Gilead in Bashan, and in her towns¹, and in all the suburbs² of Sharon, as far as their borders³.

16. in Gilead in Bashan] a contradictory phrase, since Gilead means the southern and Bashan the northern part of Israel’s trans-Jordanic territory. Perhaps in Bashan is here an addition made by the Chronicler or a later hand to harmonise in Gilead (the territory usually assigned to Gad—see note on verse 11 above) with verses 11 and 23. The emendation “in Gilead in Jabesh” has been suggested.

Sharon] some place, unidentified, to the east of Jordan. LXX. (B) has Sirion. (The well-known Sharon lay in the maritime plain between Joppa and Caesarea.)

¹⁷All these were reckoned by genealogies in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel.

17. reckoned by genealogies ... and in the days of Jeroboam] “Reckoning by genealogy” is a phrase used only in the writings of the Chronicler (Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah), but the practice probably resembled what is called in other books “numbering the people”: see the example in Nehemiah vii. 5‒65. The object however was different and corresponded with the circumstances of the returned exiles, who found themselves in the midst of a Gentile population in Judea. The people were “reckoned by genealogy” not so much to take a census of them, as to inquire into the purity of their Israelite descent. The ancient term “numbering” would be a more suitable description of a transaction belonging to the days of Jotham. For Jotham see 2 Chronicles xxvii. and for Jeroboam 2 Kings xiv. 23‒29. The last years of the reign of Jeroboam II probably synchronized with part of the reign of Jotham.

18‒22.
The War of the Trans-Jordanic Tribes against Arabian Tribes.

¹⁸The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, of valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow, and skilful in war, were forty and four thousand seven hundred and threescore, that were able to go forth to war.

18. skilful in war] compare xii. 8, 21.

forty and four thousand] According to Joshua iv. 13 “about forty thousand” from these tribes crossed the Jordan with Joshua.

¹⁹And they made war with the Hagrites, with Jetur, and Naphish, and Nodab.

19. made war with the Hagrites...] Possibly this war described in verses 18‒22 is only a midrashic variation of the war briefly noted in verse 10; possibly we have traditions of separate conflicts. That fighting against Arabian tribes took place in the time of Saul (verse 10) is quite probable, and perhaps there is here a definite recollection of the fact. Yet conflicts on the eastern borders were no doubt frequent, and the ancient fights may have been overlaid with the memories and details of more recent struggles, and especially the names assigned may be those of later foes. Though the Hagrites are mentioned in inscriptions of Sennacherib, they seem to have grown more prominent and powerful in later days (compare Psalms lxxxiii. 7), and their name in the Chronicler’s time may have been somewhat loosely and generally applied to the Arabian tribes near Palestine.

Jetur, and Naphish, and Nodab] Other Bedouin tribes, Jetur, Naphish, Kedemah are given as sons of Ishmael in i. 31.

²⁰And they were helped against them, and the Hagrites were delivered into their hand, and all that were with them: for they cried to God in the battle, and he was intreated of them; because they put their trust in him. ²¹And they took away their cattle; of their camels fifty thousand, and of sheep two hundred and fifty thousand, and of asses two thousand, and of men¹ an hundred thousand.

20. they were helped] with Divine assistance; compare xv. 26.

²²For there fell many slain, because the war was of God. And they dwelt in their stead until the captivity.

22. was of God] i.e. was prompted by God; compare 1 Samuel xv. 2, 3.

23, 24.
The Half Tribe of Manasseh.

²³And the children of the half tribe of Manasseh dwelt in the land: they increased from Bashan unto Baal-hermon and Senir and mount Hermon. ²⁴And these were the heads of their fathers’ houses; even Epher, and Ishi, and Eliel, and Azriel, and Jeremiah, and Hodaviah, and Jahdiel, mighty men of valour, famous men, heads of their fathers’ houses.

23. For the genealogy of Manasseh, see vii. 14 ff.

Baal-hermon] In Judges iii. 3 a mount Baal-hermon is mentioned. Here probably a city is meant, possibly Banias, on the eastern slope of Hermon.

Senir] an Amorite name for Mt Hermon or a peak of the range (Deuteronomy iii. 9).

25, 26.
The Captivity of the Trans-Jordanic Tribes.

²⁵And they trespassed against the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God destroyed before them.

25. they trespassed] The Hebrew verb has a special reference to unlawful or idolatrous worship and also to the violation of a consecrated thing; compare Joshua xxii. 16, 20, 31.

²⁶And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river of Gozan, unto this day.

26. stirred up the spirit] Compare 2 Chronicles xxi. 16, where see note; xxxvi. 22.

Pul ... and ... Tilgath-pilneser] Both here and in 2 Kings xv. 19, 29 (Pul ... Tiglath-pileser) the two names are used as though two different persons were meant, but there is no doubt that Pul is the earlier and Tiglath-pileser the royal name of the same king; compare verse 6.

unto Halah, etc.] In 2 Kings xv. 29 it is said only, to Assyria; in 2 Kings xvii. 6 it is said that the Western tribes (“Samaria”) were carried away and placed in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan and in the cities of the Medes.

Halah] probably a district of Mesopotamia, but it has not yet been convincingly identified.

Habor] a river flowing into the Euphrates from the east, known to the Greeks as Χαβώρας or Ἀβόρρας.

and Hara] No place of this name is known and the word is omitted in LXX. The reading may be corrupt for and in the cities of the Medes (2 Kings xvii. 6, compare LXX.; xviii. 11).

the river of Gozan] Gozan was a district of Mesopotamia.

---

Chapter VI.

1‒81 (= v. 27‒vi. 66 according to the Hebrew division).
Genealogies and Settlements of Levi.

1‒15.
The Sons of Levi, and the High-Priests to the Captivity.

The identity of interests and standpoint between the Chronicler and the Levitical order has been noted in the Introduction § 6 ad fin. It follows that the contents of the present chapter were to him of primary importance, and doubtless these lists represent not his own view only but the developed and accepted opinion of the Levitical and priestly classes as a whole, who believed that their institution, duties, and privileges generally were of Mosaic origin, whilst to David they ascribed the particular arrangements in connection with the Temple and especially the development of the choral services. The attempt to express their faith in concrete genealogical form was inevitable and indeed commendable. But the actual facts regarding the growth of the Levitical system (see the Additional Note at the end of this chapter, pp. 51 f.) were so very different from this theory that the artificiality of the lists is apparent to modern analysis, despite the zeal and ingenuity with which they have been compiled. Some points which indicate the unhistorical nature of the genealogies, together with questions raised by the internal structure of the chapter, will be indicated in the head-notes to the several sections. It must not be thought that such inconsistencies were equally (if at all) present to the mind of the Chronicler. For him the actual existence of the pedigree uniting the priests and Levites of his day with Aaron and finally with Levi was an axiom of thought; the one problem was to trace it out: and he was not restrained in his search by the spirit of scientific caution which is second nature to us. Thus in the ancestry of the singers (verses 34‒47), where the lack of information to supply the necessary links in the genealogy was acutely felt, Curtis (p. 135) points out that current genealogical matter seems to have been naïvely pressed into this particular service on the ground of the identity of even a single name! Great allowance must be made for the Chronicler and his contemporaries. Even if part of the lists was consciously fabricated, that proves no more than that he was a man of his age and under the dominance of a theory. As Torrey remarks (Ezra Studies, p. 65), “he was not writing history for us but for the good of his people.” There is no case for a charge of religious insincerity. Rather the opposite is true, and his failings as a historian constantly reveal the measure of his faith as a religious man. He was so profoundly sure of the truth of the doctrine that its presuppositions, if not discoverable in historical records, might (he felt) legitimately be conjectured. For further information showing how natural and how free was the manipulation of genealogies in ancient times reference may be made to the Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹, s.v. Genealogy, or to MᶜLennan, Studies in Ancient History (2nd series, 1896), chapter ix.

1‒15. In the finished system of the Jewish hierarchy, the Levitical order is found to be in three main divisions, “families,” who in the prevailing fashion, believed themselves to be descended from the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. In verses 1‒3 this view is expressed, and the connection is traced from Levi to Aaron, the first of the traditional line of high-priests, which in verses 4‒15 is given through Zadok down to the time of the Captivity. (1) The intention of the list in verses 4‒15 is clear. It is given to declare the legitimacy of Jehozadak the high-priest who went into exile at the fall of Jerusalem and was accounted the father of Jeshua the high-priest of the Return (see Ezra iii. 2, etc.; Nehemiah xii. 26; Haggai i. 1; Zechariah vi. 11). Thus upon Jehozadak’s legitimacy depended the legitimacy of the post-exilic priesthood of Jerusalem. (2) The mechanical nature of the list is very evident when it is considered chronologically. Allowing the standard 40 years for each of the twenty-three priests in the list we get 40 × 12 + 40 × 11 = 920 years. This is in agreement with the unhistorical but beautifully regular chronology of the Priestly conception of the history, which allowed 480 years from the Exodus (Aaron) to Solomon’s Temple, and again 480 years to the foundation of the second Temple (Jeshua)—the Captivity (Jehozadak) being reckoned as taking place in the eleventh generation of the second period. (3) The list presents some noteworthy features. The line of high-priests from Eli to Abiathar is ignored, but this is natural, since the ascendancy of the Zadokite line was ascribed to the Divine anger against the house of Eli (1 Samuel iii. 12‒14; 1 Kings ii. 27). It is curious, however, that this list of the high-priests omits Jehoiada (mentioned in 2 Kings xi. 9; 2 Chronicles xxii. 11) and Urijah (2 Kings xvi. 11 ff.) and an Azariah in the reign of Uzziah (2 Chronicles xxvi. 20) who should come between Amariah of Jehoshaphat’s reign and Hilkiah in the time of Josiah. (4) Finally note that the list of high-priests as far as the reign of David is repeated in verses 50‒53. It is a very difficult problem to determine the relation between the two lists (see the head-note to verse 50).

¹The sons of Levi; Gershon¹, Kohath, and Merari.

1. The sons of Levi] So Genesis xlvi. 11; Exodus vi. 16; Numbers iii. 17, xxvi. 57—all from P.

²And the sons of Kohath; Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel.

2. the sons of Kohath] So Exodus vi. 18; Numbers iii. 19.

³And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron; Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.

3. Aaron, and Moses] The same order in Exodus vi. 20. Aaron was the elder (Exodus vii. 7).

And the sons of Aaron] So Exodus vi. 23. Nadab and Abihu perished childless; Leviticus x. 1 ff.

⁴Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua; ⁵and Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi; ⁶and Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth; ⁷Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub;

4. Phinehas] Numbers xxv. 7 ff., xxxi. 6; Joshua xxii. 13 ff.

⁸and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz;

8. Ahitub begat Zadok] So also xviii. 16, but wrongly. The assertion that Ahitub was father of Zadok was derived by the Chronicler from 2 Samuel viii. 17, but the text of that passage has undoubtedly been altered (see Commentaries ad loc.) and it read originally “and Zadok, and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub.” Actually there were two leading priestly families in David’s day represented respectively by Zadok and Abiathar. Of these Solomon deposed Abiathar (thus fulfilling the curse which was laid on the house of Eli, from whom Abiathar was descended—see 1 Kings ii. 27), and thereafter the line of Zadok became the sole representatives of the supreme priestly office. See also the note on xv. 11.

Ahimaaz] 2 Samuel xv. 27, xvii. 17‒21, xviii. 19 ff.

⁹and Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan; ¹⁰and Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest’s office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem:)

9. Azariah] This Azariah rather than the Azariah of verse 10 would have been contemporary with Solomon, and therefore the notice attached to the name Azariah in verse 10 (he it is that executed the priest’s office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem) belongs to verse 9. Compare 1 Kings iv. 2.

¹¹and Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub; ¹²and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum¹;

11. Amariah] apparently the contemporary of Jehoshaphat mentioned in 2 Chronicles xix. 11.

¹³and Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah;

13. Hilkiah] The high-priest in Josiah’s reign; 2 Kings xxii. 8; 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 14.

¹⁴and Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak; ¹⁵and Jehozadak went into captivity, when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

14. Seraiah] slain soon after the capture of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.; 2 Kings xxv. 18‒21; Jeremiah lii. 24‒27.

Jehozadak] Jozadak in Ezra iii. 2, v. 2. His son Jeshua was the first high-priest after the exile; Haggai i. 1, etc.

16‒30 (= vi. 1‒15 according to the Hebrew division).
The three Sons of Levi and their clans.

16‒19.
The Sons of Levi.

¹⁶The sons of Levi; Gershom¹, Kohath, and Merari.

16. Gershom] elsewhere Gershon. Gershom was the name of Moses’ son; Exodus ii. 22.

¹⁷And these be the names of the sons of Gershom; Libni and Shimei.

17. Libni and Shimei] Exodus vi. 17; Libni is called Ladan in xxiii. 7, xxvi. 21, and is to be connected with the Judean town Libnah.

¹⁸And the sons of Kohath were Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel.

18. Amram] through whom the line of high-priests is traced above, verse 2 ff.

¹⁹The sons of Merari; Mahli and Mushi. And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers’ houses.

19. Mahli and Mushi] xxiii. 21, xxiv. 26; Exodus vi. 19. Mushi is probably a derivative of Moses. For discussion of this point and of other evidence (compare verses 16, 17) indicating a relationship between the Levites and clans from south Judah, see Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹, s.v. Levites, vol. xvi. p. 513.

20, 21.
A Pedigree from Gershom.

²⁰Of Gershom; Libni his son, Jahath his son, Zimmah his son; ²¹Joah¹ his son, Iddo² his son, Zerah his son, Jeatherai³ his son.

20, 21. See notes on verses 39‒43.

22‒28.
The Sons of Kohath to Samuel.

22‒28. See notes on verses 33‒38.

²²The sons of Kohath; Amminadab¹ his son, Korah his son, Assir his son;

22. Amminadab] In Exodus vi. 23, the father-in-law of Aaron. Perhaps an error here for Izhar (LXX.ᴬ), through whom the line is traced in verse 38, as in Numbers xvi. 1.

²³Elkanah his son, and Ebiasaph his son, and Assir his son;

23. Assir his son; Elkanah] perhaps redundant here, or omitted in verse 37, where Ebiasaph is the son of Korah.

²⁴Tahath his son, Uriel¹ his son, Uzziah his son, and Shaul his son. ²⁵And the sons of Elkanah; Amasai, and Ahimoth.

24. Shaul] apparently corresponds with Joel, verse 36. The difference in Hebrew is slight, and might easily arise in transcription. Shaul is to be taken as father of Elkanah (compare verse 36), although the connection is strangely omitted.

²⁶As for Elkanah: the sons of Elkanah; Zophai¹ his son, and Nahath² his son;

26. As for Elkanah: the sons of Elkanah; Zophai his son] Read simply, following LXX., Elkanah his son; Zophai his son.

Zophai] From Zophai to Samuel’s sons the list can be compared not only with verses 33‒35 but with 1 Samuel i. 1 and with viii. 2. Such differences as appear in corresponding names are doubtless due to transcriptional errors.

²⁷Eliab¹ his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son.

27. Elkanah his son] add probably, Samuel his son.

²⁸And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Joel¹, and the second Abijah.

28. the firstborn Joel, and the second Abijah] See the marginal note above. In the Hebrew text the name Joel has been accidentally omitted, and Vashni is merely a corruption of the Hebrew for and the second: an interesting example of error in textual transmission.

29, 30.
Sons of Merari.

²⁹The sons of Merari; Mahli, Libni his son, Shimei his son, Uzzah his son; ³⁰Shimea his son, Haggiah his son, Asaiah his son.

29, 30. See notes on verses 44‒47.

29. Libni and Shimei are given above (verse 17) as sons of Gershom.

31‒47 (= 16‒32 in the Hebrew division).
The Singers appointed by David, and their ancestry.

31‒47. The three singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan (= Jeduthun elsewhere except xv. 17 ff.) were the reputed founders of the three choral guilds of the post-exilic period. That these guilds were very gradually formed and in the form known to the Chronicler were a late post-exilic development is certain, but the precise stages of their growth are obscure, see Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible IV. 36 end‒37. Possibly the singers for a considerable time were not necessarily Levites, but eventually they all claimed Levitical origin, and the pedigrees here given are the supposed justification of the claim. As the elaborated system of the Temple service (xxiii. ff.) was thought to have been instituted by David, the genealogies of the three singers are so arranged as to make them contemporaries of David. Comparing these verses with verses 4‒15, it is evident that the genealogy from Korah has been used for constructing the pedigree of Heman (33‒38), that of Gershom (20‒22) for Asaph (39‒43), and to a less extent that of Merari (29, 30) for Ethan (44‒47). But in the line of Gershom and in that of Merari further names were required, five in the former and eight in the latter case, in order to make the genealogies sufficiently long to reach down to the time of David and thus make Asaph and Ethan his contemporaries. When these further names are examined they are found to be of a definitely post-exilic character; and it is evident that the Chronicler or whoever constructed the pedigrees utilised recent genealogies of the singers, which for some reason seemed to him suitable. The identity of a single name in the two lists was apparently deemed sufficient cause for making the connection (see note on verses 44‒47).

³¹And these are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of the Lord, after that the ark had rest.

31. the ark had rest] i.e. was brought into the city of David for a permanent resting-place, compare Psalms cxxxii. 8, 14.

³²And they ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, until Solomon had built the house of the Lord in Jerusalem: and they waited¹ on their office according to their order.

32. they waited ... order] a phrase characteristic of the Chronicler. For waited render rather, as margin, stood (compare Psalms cxxxv. 2): i.e. Heman the leader stood in the central position, Asaph on his right hand (verse 39) and Ethan on his left (verse 44).

33‒38.
The descent of Heman, David’s singer, through Kohath from Levi.

³³And these are they that waited¹, and their sons. Of the sons of the Kohathites: Heman the singer, the son of Joel, the son of Samuel; ³⁴the son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliel, the son of Toah²; ³⁵the son of Zuph³, the son of Elkanah, the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai; ³⁶the son of Elkanah, the son of Joel⁴, the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah;

33. Heman] the guild of Heman, as the present pedigree indicates, is reckoned (with what measure of historical ground is uncertain) to be of Levitical descent and of the Kohathite family: see also Korah below, verse 37.

³⁷the son of Tahath, the son of Assir, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah;

37. Korah] the sons of Korah figure in the titles of various Psalms (e.g. Psalms 44‒49, 84, 85) and probably represent an earlier stage in the development of choral worship of the Temple. With this Korahite guild the guild of Heman evidently was associated, though whether by a process of development or of amalgamation it is impossible to say. It is noteworthy that other references to Korah (compare Genesis xxxvi. 5; 1 Chronicles ii. 43) indicate that the clan was originally of Edomite (Calebite) blood.

³⁸the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel.

38. Izhar] see note on Amminadab, verse 22.

39‒43.
The descent of Asaph, David’s singer, through Gershom from Levi.

³⁹And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, even Asaph the son of Berechiah, the son of Shimea; ⁴⁰the son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah, the son of Malchijah;

39, 40. Berechiah ... Shimea ... Michael ... Baaseiah ... Malchijah] these are the five additional names inserted to lengthen the pedigree and so make Asaph contemporary with David (see head-note above).

40. Baaseiah] Read, as LXX., Maaseiah.

⁴¹the son of Ethni, the son of Zerah, the son of Adaiah; ⁴²the son of Ethan, the son of Zimmah, the son of Shimei; ⁴³the son of Jahath, the son of Gershom, the son of Levi.

41. Ethni] = Jeatherai, verse 21. Here, and in the following names, the divergences from the corresponding names in verses 20, 21 are not nearly so great in Hebrew and can be easily accounted for. The correspondence fails in the case of the son and father of Jahath (compare verse 20 with 43). This however may be due simply to the omission of the names in question, Shimei in 20, Libni in 43; and other explanations could be given.

44‒47.
The descent of Ethan, David’s singer, through Merari from Levi.

⁴⁴And on the left hand their brethren the sons of Merari: Ethan¹ the son of Kishi², the son of Abdi, the son of Malluch; ⁴⁵the son of Hashabiah, the son of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah; ⁴⁶the son of Amzi, the son of Bani, the son of Shemer;

44‒47. Only the first three names of the table of Merari in verse 29 are used by the compiler of Ethan’s pedigree. In place of the last four names he utilised a late list of nine names, the point of connection being found in the first, Shemer (verse 46), which was identified with the Shimei of verse 29.

Ethan] = Jeduthun: see note on xvi. 41.

⁴⁷the son of Mahli, the son of Mushi, the son of Merari, the son of Levi.

47. Mahli, the son of Mushi] According to xxiii. 23, xxiv. 30, Mushi had a son Mahli, named after Mahli, his brother (verse 19); and the natural conclusion is that the names in these verses (44‒47) are the line of descent from Merari through Mushi, as those in verses 29, 30 are through Mahli. Against this simple explanation is the late character of several names from Kishi to Bani (44‒46), and therefore the more complex statement made in the previous note may be correct.

48, 49 (= 33, 34 according to the Hebrew division).
The distinction between Levites and Aaronites.

⁴⁸And their brethren the Levites were appointed¹ for all the service of the tabernacle of the house of God.

48. their brethren the Levites] i.e. other Levites, who were neither singers nor priests.

appointed] Hebrew, as margin, given, in allusion to Numbers iii. 9, xviii. 6.

⁴⁹But Aaron and his sons offered¹ upon the altar of burnt offering, and upon the altar of incense, for all the work of the most holy place, and to make atonement for Israel, according to all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.

49. Aaron and his sons] i.e. the priests as opposed to the Levites, in accordance with the distinction characteristic of the later legislation. See the Additional Note, pp. 51, 52.

the altar of burnt offering] Exodus xxvii. 1‒8.

the altar of incense] Exodus xxx. 1‒10.

to make atonement] compare Leviticus iv. 31, xvi.; 2 Chronicles xxix. 24.

50‒53 (= 35‒38 according to the Hebrew division).
The Line of Aaron to Ahimaaz.

⁵⁰And these are the sons of Aaron; Eleazar his son, Phinehas his son, Abishua his son; ⁵¹Bukki his son, Uzzi his son, Zerahiah his son; ⁵²Meraioth his son, Amariah his son, Ahitub his son; ⁵³Zadok his son, Ahimaaz his son.

This is a fragment, slightly changed in wording, of the genealogy given in verses 4‒14. It goes as far as the reign of David. Some writers maintain that verses 4‒14 are an interpolation in the text of Chronicles, and that the present passage is the primary list of high-priests. But the arguments in favour of that view seem to the present writer outweighed by the two considerations adduced by Curtis, Chronicles, p. 127: (1) “that a list of high-priests thus inserted between verse 49 (the duties of all the sons of Aaron) and verses 54 ff. (the cities of all the Aaronidae), seems out of place,” as it breaks the thread of the Chronicler’s arrangement of the material; and (2) that its insertion might well be due to a scribe who “expected a list of the sons of Aaron after the verse describing their duties—just as the list of Levites precedes the verse detailing their duties.”

54‒81 (= 39‒66 according to the Hebrew division).
The forty-eight Levitic cities.

This section has been adopted with some rearrangement from the parallel passage in Joshua. In Joshua the number of cities taken from each group of tribes and given to its respective division of the Levites is first stated, no city being named; and next the names of the cities are given under each division of the Levites and under the name of the tribe from which the cities were taken. In Chronicles the cities given to the Aaronites are first mentioned by name and reckoned to be thirteen in number (verses 55‒60); next the cities given to each remaining division of the Levites are reckoned shortly by number only (verses 61‒63); lastly, these cities are separately reckoned at length by name only (verses 66‒81). This rearrangement is not happy; perhaps the Chronicler originally intended to give the Aaronite cities only by name as well as number, and so verses 66‒81 (containing the names of the non-Aaronite cities) may be a supplement to the original text. Notice that no names of cities taken from Simeon are given; but this apparently arises through the Chronicler’s rearrangement of the parallel passage in Joshua; for verse 65, which here follows the list of Aaronite cities, mentions Simeon, and in the original context (Joshua xxi. 9) it precedes the list.

(Critical Note on 54‒81.)

The text of the passage has suffered in transcription. In verses 55‒60 eleven names are given, but thirteen are reckoned (verse 60), the explanation being that the names Juttah and Gibeon (Joshua xxi. 16, 17) have fallen out. In verse 61, after or before Manasseh, the names of Ephraim and Dan have fallen out (compare verse 66 and Joshua xxi. 5); Manasseh contributed only two out of the ten cities. Before verse 69 we must restore from Joshua xxi. 23 the words, And out of the tribe of Dan, Eltekeh with her suburbs, Gibbethon with her suburbs. In verse 77 or immediately before verse 78 two names of cities of Zebulun have fallen out; compare verse 63 (“twelve cities”) with verses 77‒81 (ten cities only are named).

54‒60 (= Joshua xxi. 10‒19).
The [thirteen] cities of the Aaronites.

⁵⁴Now these are their dwelling places according to their encampments in their borders: to the sons of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites, for theirs was the first lot,

54. Now these ... borders] the words are supplied by the Chronicler. Owing to his rearrangement of the material, the original introduction (i.e. Joshua xxi. 9) appears in this chapter as verse 65 (where see note).

encampments] Properly, the circular encampments of a nomadic tribe; here used more freely = habitations.

⁵⁵to them they gave Hebron in the land of Judah, and the suburbs thereof round about it;

55. suburbs] compare xiii. 2, note.

⁵⁶but the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh.

56. to Caleb] Joshua xxi. 12; Judges i. 20.

⁵⁷And to the sons of Aaron they gave the cities of refuge, Hebron; Libnah also with her suburbs, and Jattir, and Eshtemoa with her suburbs;

57. the cities of refuge, Hebron] Read, the city of refuge, Hebron (compare Joshua xxi. 13), Hebron being the only city of refuge here mentioned (Joshua xx. 7).

Libnah] in the south-west of Judah, Joshua x. 29; 2 Kings viii. 22, xix. 8.

Eshtemoa] the modern es-Semu‘a, south of Hebron. Compare iv. 17.

⁵⁸and Hilen¹ with her suburbs, Debir with her suburbs;

58. Hilen] In Joshua xxi. 15, Holon.

Debir] identified with modern Dāharījeh, south-west of Hebron. It is called Kiriath-sepher (Judges i. 11) and Kiriath-sannah (Joshua xv. 49).

⁵⁹and Ashan¹ with her suburbs, and Beth-shemesh with her suburbs:

59. Ashan with her suburbs] Joshua xxi. 16 has Ain for Ashan, and adds, and Juttah with her suburbs. Compare the Critical Note above.

Beth-shemesh] Joshua xv. 10; 1 Samuel vi. 9; 2 Kings xiv. 11, 13 (= 2 Chronicles xxv. 21, 23). A town in the north-west of Judah, now ‘Ain Shems, situated at the point at which the hill-country of Judah begins, as one goes by the railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem (Bädeker, Palestine⁵, p. 14).

⁶⁰and out of the tribe of Benjamin; Geba with her suburbs, and Allemeth³ with her suburbs, and Anathoth with her suburbs. All their cities throughout their families were thirteen cities.

60. of Benjamin; Geba] In Joshua xxi. 17 Gibeon and her suburbs is inserted before Geba. Compare the Critical Note above. Geba was situated by the pass of Michmash, some six miles from Jerusalem; compare 1 Samuel vi. 9 ff.

Allemeth] In Joshua xxi. 18, Almon.

thirteen cities] Compare the Critical Note above.

61‒65 (compare Joshua xxi. 26, 33, 40).
Distribution of thirty-five other cities to the rest of the Levites.

⁶¹And unto the rest of the sons of Kohath were given by lot, out of the family of the tribe, out of the half tribe, the half of Manasseh, ten cities.

61. the rest of the sons of Kohath] i.e. the Kohathites who were not sons of Aaron (verse 54).

out of the family ... Manasseh] read out of the families of the tribe of Ephraim and out of the tribe of Dan and out of the half tribe of Manasseh. See the Critical Note on verses 54‒81.

⁶²And to the sons of Gershom, according to their families, out of the tribe of Issachar, and out of the tribe of Asher, and out of the tribe of Naphtali, and out of the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan, thirteen cities.

62. the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan] i.e. the half tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan.

⁶³Unto the sons of Merari were given by lot, according to their families, out of the tribe of Reuben, and out of the tribe of Gad, and out of the tribe of Zebulun, twelve cities. ⁶⁴And the children of Israel gave to the Levites the cities with their suburbs.

63. twelve cities] The total number of Levitic cities (verse 60 thirteen, verse 61 ten, verse 62 thirteen, verse 63 twelve) was forty-eight (so Joshua xxi. 41), of which the Kohathites, as the largest division (compare xv. 5, note), received twenty-three or nearly half.

⁶⁵And they gave by lot out of the tribe of the children of Judah, and out of the tribe of the children of Simeon, and out of the tribe of the children of Benjamin, these cities which are mentioned by name.

65. by lot] as a means of gaining Divine sanction for the assignment of cities. This verse (= Joshua xxi. 9) is plainly unsuitable in its present context. In Joshua it is the introduction to the list of Aaronic cities (here verses 54‒60). The Chronicler, having rearranged the material of his source, nevertheless preferred to transcribe this verse, despite the lack of harmony with the context; or possibly, if verses 66‒81 are an addition to the original text of Chronicles (see the head-note on verses 54‒81), verse 65 may also be a later insertion intended to help as a connecting link between verses 64 and 66 ff.

66‒81.
Cities of the Levites.

66‒70 (= Joshua xxi. 20‒25).
The [ten] cities of the non-Aaronite Kohathites.

⁶⁶And some of the families of the sons of Kohath had cities of their borders out of the tribe of Ephraim.

66. of their borders] rather, as Joshua xxi. 20, of their lot (the difference in Hebrew is very slight).

⁶⁷And they gave unto them the cities of refuge, Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim with her suburbs; Gezer also with her suburbs;

67. the cities of refuge, Shechem] Read (a slight change in Hebrew) the city of refuge, Shechem. Compare verse 57, note.

Shechem] Genesis xii. 6, xxxiii. 18; Joshua xxiv. 1; Judges ix. 1; 1 Kings xii. 1. Shechem is the modern Nabulus, situated almost in the middle of Palestine.

Gezer] Joshua xvi. 3; Judges i. 29; 1 Kings ix. 16. It is the modern Tell Jezer about 18 miles north-west of Jerusalem. The site has recently been excavated with excellent results—see Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer, or Driver, Modern Research Illustrating the Bible (Schweich Lectures, 1908).

⁶⁸and¹ Jokmeam with her suburbs, and Beth-horon with her suburbs;

68. Jokmeam] In Joshua xxi. 22, Kibzaim. The two words resemble one another more closely in Hebrew, and are to be taken as various readings of the same name. Nothing is known of a Kibzaim in Ephraim. A Jokmeam is mentioned 1 Kings iv. 12.

Beth-horon] Joshua x. 10, 11, xvi. 3, 5; 1 Maccabees iii. 24. There were two cities, a lower and an upper Beth-horon, the modern Beitur, “near the head and the foot respectively of the ascent from the Maritime Plain to the plateau of Benjamin.”

⁶⁹and Aijalon with her suburbs, and Gath-rimmon with her suburbs:

69. and Aijalon] Aijalon and Gath-rimmon were in Dan near the Jaffa road some 13 miles from Jerusalem; compare Joshua xxi. 23, 24. See also the Critical Note on verses 54‒81.

⁷⁰and out of the half tribe of Manasseh; Aner with her suburbs, and Bileam with her suburbs, for the rest of the family of the sons of Kohath.

70. the half tribe of Manasseh] the western half tribe; the eastern is mentioned verse 71.

Aner] Read probably Taanach, as in vii. 29; Joshua xxi. 25; Judges v. 19. Taanach was situated in the plain of Esdraelon, some four miles south of Megiddo.

Bileam] read Ibleam, compare Judges i. 27; 2 Kings ix. 27. In Joshua xxi. 25, Gath-rimmon, an error of dittography.

for the rest ... Kohath] a fragment of Joshua xxi. 26.

71‒76 (= Joshua xxi. 27‒32).
The thirteen cities of the sons of Gershom.

⁷¹Unto the sons of Gershom were given, out of the family of the half tribe of Manasseh, Golan in Bashan with her suburbs, and Ashtaroth with her suburbs:

71. Golan] a city of refuge, Joshua xxi. 27. The name of this city is still preserved in Jolan (Jaulan), the name of a district east of Jordan extending from Hermon to the Jarmuk.

Ashtaroth] mentioned with Edrei in Joshua ix. 10 as the capital of Og, king of Bashan. The name testifies to the worship of Ashtoreth.

⁷²and out of the tribe of Issachar; Kedesh with her suburbs, Daberath with her suburbs;

72. Kedesh] Read Kishion with Joshua xxi. 28 (so Joshua xix. 20).

Daberath] the modern Dabūriyeh at the foot of Mount Tabor.

⁷³and Ramoth with her suburbs, and Anem with her suburbs:

73. Ramoth] Jarmuth, Joshua xxi. 29; or perhaps Remeth, Joshua xix. 21.

Anem] Read En-gannim with Joshua xxi. 29. Probably the modern large village of Jenîn on the edge of the plain of Esdraelon.

⁷⁴and out of the tribe of Asher; Mashal with her suburbs, and Abdon with her suburbs;

74. Mashal] Mishal, Joshua xxi. 30 (compare Joshua xix. 26, Revised Version).

⁷⁵and Hukok with her suburbs, and Rehob with her suburbs:

75. Hukok] Read Helkath with Joshua xxi. 31 (compare Joshua xix. 25).

⁷⁶and out of the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in Galilee with her suburbs, and Hammon with her suburbs, and Kiriathaim with her suburbs.

76. Kedesh in Galilee] called Kedesh-naphtali in Judges iv. 6; it is the modern Kedes, situated on a lofty plateau overlooking the waters of Ḥūleh (Merom). It was a city of refuge, Joshua xxi. 32.

Hammon ... Kiriathaim] In Joshua xxi. 32, Hammoth-dor ... Kartan.

77‒81 (= Joshua xxi. 34‒39).
The [twelve] cities of the sons of Merari.

⁷⁷Unto the rest of the Levites, the sons of Merari, were given, out of the tribe of Zebulun, Rimmono with her suburbs, Tabor with her suburbs:

77. Rimmono ... Tabor] Read Rimmon or Rimmonah. Against these two names there are four in Joshua xxi. 34, 35; Jokneam, Kartah, Dimnah and Nahalal. As regards the number of the cities the text of Joshua is certainly right. See Critical Note on verses 54‒81.

Tabor] No city, but only a mountain named Tabor is known to us, as having certainly existed in Old Testament times. A city however named Tabor existed on the mountain as early as 218 B.C., and it may have been as old as the times of the Chronicler. Mount Tabor was in Issachar near the border of Zebulun. For Nahalal, the reading in Joshua, compare Joshua xix. 15; Judges i. 30. Compare Bädeker, Palestine⁵, p. 250.

⁷⁸and beyond the Jordan at Jericho, on the east side of Jordan, were given them, out of the tribe of Reuben, Bezer in the wilderness with her suburbs, and Jahzah with her suburbs, ⁷⁹and Kedemoth with her suburbs, and Mephaath with her suburbs:

78. at Jericho] The crossing-place of the Jordan nearest to Reuben was at Jericho. For the phrase Jordan at Jericho compare Joshua xvi. 1.

in the wilderness] further defined by the addition in the table-land (Deuteronomy iv. 43, Revised Version margin). Bezer was among the high pasture lands of Reuben. It was a city of refuge.

Jahzah] also called Jahaz. Compare Judges xi. 20; Isaiah xv. 4.

⁸⁰and out of the tribe of Gad; Ramoth in Gilead with her suburbs, and Mahanaim with her suburbs,

80. Ramoth in Gilead] a city of refuge, Joshua xxi. 38. See 1 Kings xxii. 3; 2 Kings ix. 1.

Mahanaim] Genesis xxxii. 2.

⁸¹and Heshbon with her suburbs, and Jazer with her suburbs.

81. Heshbon] Numbers xxi. 25, 26; Isaiah xv. 4.

Jazer] Numbers xxi. 32 (Revised Version); Isaiah xvi. 8.

Note on the Levites.

The priestly organisation known to the Chronicler represents the latest stage of a system, the development of which can to some extent be traced in the Old Testament records. (1) It appears from the earliest sources that the great “priestly” duty of sacrifice at one period did not require a priest for its due performance but might be, and was, undertaken by any responsible male. For example in Exodus xxiv. 5, an occasion of the deepest solemnity, sacrifices are spoken of as offered by “young men of the children of Israel.” In Exodus xxxiii. 7‒11 it is clear that the other great function of early religion, charge of the responses given by the Divine oracle, is regarded as being under the control of Moses. In fact it would seem that in the earlier period there were neither priests nor Levites as a religious order; at any rate, as an order exercising a monopoly in the religious functions which they afterwards claimed the sole right of discharging. (2) In course of time those who administered the oracle and offered sacrifices at the manifold shrines and high places of Palestine gained importance and were recognised as a distinct religious class, priests; and persons claiming descent from Levi were numerous or prominent among them. But the right of offering sacrifices was still by no means confined to these priests of the shrines. The priesthood of the various shrines was often hereditary, passing on from father to son; and, even apart from that fact, it was most natural that members of this religious order, or perhaps one should say “profession,” should be thought of as connected by blood-relationship. Eventually they were all reckoned descendants of Levi. (3) After the exile and the suppression of the local shrines of Judah, the pre-eminence of the priests or Levites of Jerusalem was definitely established, and (as Ezekiel had suggested) such priests of the local shrines as were satisfied to migrate to Jerusalem became subordinate to the original ministers of the Temple there. All were accounted sons of Levi; but only the original Jerusalem priests, who traced their descent through the Levitical family of Aaron, were entitled to rank as priests: the rest were Levites but not priests. Thus there arose a distinction in the ranks of the religious officials. (4) Finally, the functions and privileges of priests as distinct from Levites were carefully discriminated, and the tradition that their origin as a religious order was due to Moses became firmly established, whilst the complex system of their organisation, in particular the subdivisions of the Levites as singers and doorkeepers, was confidently ascribed to David. Chronicles consistently represents this latest stage of development. For a concise statement of the facts see MᶜNeile, Numbers, pp. xiv ff. in the present series; and for further discussion the appropriate articles in the Dictionaries; especially Cook in Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹, s.v. Levites.

---

Chapter VII.

1‒40.
Genealogies of Six Remaining Tribes.

The treatment of the several tribes in this chapter is very unequal. In the case of Issachar (1‒5), Zebulun (6‒12, see note verse 6), and Asher (30‒40), genealogies are given and the number of fighting-men of each tribe is stated. To Naphtali is devoted a single verse (13), giving only the names of his sons. For Manasseh and Ephraim (14‒29) genealogies are given and their possessions are shortly enumerated. The mention of Dan is obliterated, owing to the state of the text of verse 12.

1‒5.
The Genealogy of Issachar.

¹And of the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Puah¹, Jashub, and Shimron, four.

1. the sons of Issachar] Genesis xlvi. 13; Numbers xxvi. 23, 24. verses 2‒5 are from an unknown source, or from the Chronicler himself.

Tola] the name of one of the minor Judges (Judges x. 1). He is there described as “Tola the son of Puah, dwelling [Hebrew josheb] in Shamir.” No descendants are mentioned from Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, but only from Tola; and it has been suggested that these four sons of Issachar are imaginary, being simply deduced from the statement in Judges—Jashub = josheb, and Shimron = Shamir. This is very ingenious but by no means convincing.

Puah] In Genesis and Numbers Puvah (Revised Version).

Jashub] So in Numbers, but in Genesis Iob.

²And the sons of Tola; Uzzi, and Rephaiah, and Jeriel, and Jahmai, and Ibsam, and Shemuel, heads of their fathers’ houses, to wit, of Tola; mighty men of valour in their generations: their number in the days of David was two and twenty thousand and six hundred.

2. of their fathers’ houses] i.e. clans or families; see note on v. 13.

in their generations] Render, after (or according to) their generations, the rendering given to the same phrase in Genesis x. 32, xxv. 13.

their number] i.e. of the divisions which claimed Tola as ancestor.

in the days of David] xxi. 1 ff. (= 2 Samuel xxiv. 1 ff.).

³And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Isshiah, five: all of them chief men.

3. five] i.e. reckoning the four grandsons as sons.

⁴And with them, by their generations, after their fathers’ houses, were bands of the host for war, six and thirty thousand: for they had many wives and sons.

4. by their generations] i.e. according to descent. Each head commanded men that were his kinsfolk.

⁵And their brethren among all the families of Issachar, mighty men of valour, reckoned in all by genealogy, were fourscore and seven thousand.

5. fourscore and seven thousand] In Numbers ii. 6 Issachar is reckoned at 54,400, and in Numbers xxvi. 25 at 64,300.

6‒12.
The Genealogy of Zebulun.

6‒12. According to the existing text these verses are a genealogy of Benjamin; but, as such, they present most serious difficulties. Notice (1) that the customary “sons of” is lacking in the Hebrew text before Benjamin: (2) that the sons of Benjamin here number three, whereas in Numbers xxvi. 38, 39, they are five (five also in 1 Chronicles viii. 2!), and in Genesis xlii. 21 ten; and further that one of the sons here mentioned, Jediael, is nowhere else referred to as a Benjamite: (3) that the sons of Bela (verse 7) are entirely different in viii. 3: and (4) that in general the names in the list (with only three certain exceptions and two of them place-names) are not elsewhere found in lists of Benjamite names—a startling fact. (5) Finally and most important of all, a genealogy of Benjamin is given in chapter viii., exactly where we might expect to find it according to the order in which the Chronicler describes the tribes.

The first of these points could be (and has usually been) explained by the elision of some letters; for the words “the sons of” (Bᵉnê) in Hebrew writing most closely resemble “Ben” the first syllable of Benjamin. For a few other minor difficulties tentative suggestions have been put forward, but are very unsatisfying, whilst for most of the features noted above, and especially for the most important of them, no proper explanation can be given on the supposition that the list really is a genealogy of Benjamin. It is therefore most probable that the view urged by Curtis, Chronicles, p. 127, should be adopted. He finds in these verses the genealogy of Zebulun, the absence of which otherwise is a striking feature of the genealogies in these chapters. The letters which are now taken to be the first part of the word Benjamin should be read Bᵉnê (i.e. the sons of), and the following letters are a corruption of Zebulun, which was originally followed by the names of Zebulun’s three sons, Sered and Elon and Jahleel, as given in Genesis xlvi. 14. The changes involved by this suggestion may seem violent in English, but they are by no means so in the Hebrew, and moreover it must be understood that they all follow inevitably or at least most naturally upon the slight initial error whereby “the sons of Zebulun” was corrupted into “Benjamin.” The development and details of Curtis’ reasoning cannot be set forth except in connection with the Hebrew text, and it must therefore suffice here to indicate the one essential point, and to remark that the convincing feature of his hypothesis is that it furnishes a clear and natural explanation of all the difficulties noted above.

⁶The sons of Benjamin; Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three.

6. Bela, and Becher, and Jediael] Contrast viii. 2. Read, following Genesis xlvi. 14, Sered and Elon and Jahleel.

⁷And the sons of Bela; Ezbon, and Uzzi, and Uzziel, and Jerimoth, and Iri, five; heads of fathers’ houses, mighty men of valour; and they were reckoned by genealogy twenty and two thousand and thirty and four.

7. the sons of Bela] Contrast viii. 3; and read instead the sons of Sered. These are differently stated in viii. 3‒5.

⁸And the sons of Becher; Zemirah, and Joash, and Eliezer, and Elioenai, and Omri, and Jeremoth, and Abijah, and Anathoth, and Alemeth. All these were the sons of Becher. ⁹And they were reckoned by genealogy, after their generations, heads of their fathers’ houses, mighty men of valour, twenty thousand and two hundred.

8. Becher] Read Elon.

Anathoth, and Alemeth] both names of places in Benjamin; vi. 60 (45, Hebrew, “Allemeth”); Jeremiah i. 1. These are the only place-names in the list, and they are admittedly Benjamite: as to the significance of this fact see note on Ehud, verse 10.

¹⁰And the sons of Jediael; Bilhan: and the sons of Bilhan; Jeush, and Benjamin, and Ehud, and Chenaanah, and Zethan, and Tarshish, and Ahishahar.

10. Jediael] or rather Jahleel.

Benjamin, and Ehud] The error in verse 6 by which this Zebulunite list becomes ostensibly Benjamite must have been very early. When once it had arisen, the tendency to introduce names which were to be expected in a Benjamite genealogy was inevitably strong. This is the ground on which the names Anathoth and Alemeth (verse 8) are to be explained, as also Shuppim and Huppim (verse 12). Most clearly, however, is the tendency illustrated by the present verse, where the reading Benjamin and Ehud most probably has its origin in a marginal addition “and Ehud the Benjamite” (from Judges iii. 15) which was later inserted in the text as two separate names.

Tarshish] It is said of Zebulun in Genesis xlix. 13 that he shall be “a haven for ships,” and Tarshish, absolutely unknown as a Hebrew personal name, is regularly used in the Old Testament in connection with ships and commerce by sea. It would be astonishingly out of place in a genealogy of Benjamin, but is appropriate in one of Zebulun (compare Genesis xlix. 13 “Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea”).

¹¹All these were sons of Jediael, according to the heads of their fathers’ houses, mighty men of valour, seventeen thousand and two hundred, that were able to go forth in the host for war.

11. able to go forth] the total number of warriors is here 59,434; compare 50,000 in xii. 33; and compare Numbers i. 37, xxvi. 41.

¹²Shuppim¹ also, and Huppim, the sons of Ir², Hushim, the sons of Aher³.

12. Shuppim also, and Huppim] for the spelling compare viii. 5, Numbers xxvi. 39, and Genesis xlvi. 21. These Benjamite names are an addition, and illustrate the tendency referred to above in the note on Benjamin and Ehud, verse 10.

12b.
The Genealogy of Dan.

Ir] compare verse 7, Iri. But see following note.

Hushim, the sons of Aher] In Aher (literally “another”) some commentators find the word Dan. More probably Ir is a corruption for Dan, and the word Aher an error for “one” (the differences are small in Hebrew). Following the indication of Genesis xlvi. 23 and the LXX., read therefore the sons of Dan, Hushim his son, one.

13. (= Genesis xlvi. 24).
The Genealogy of Naphtali.

¹³The sons of Naphtali; Jahziel¹, and Guni, and Jezer, and Shallum², the sons of Bilhah.

13. Jahziel ... Shallum] In Genesis Jahzeel ... Shillem.

14‒19.
The Genealogy of Manasseh.

A difficult section. The text is much disturbed in verses 14, 15; and there is hardly any material available for the illustration of verses 16, 17.

¹⁴The sons of Manasseh; Asriel, whom¹ his wife bare: (his concubine the Aramitess bare Machir the father of Gilead:

14. Asriel, whom his wife bare: (his concubine the Aramitess bare] Compare Numbers xxvi. 31. Probably, however, the name is due to an error of dittography. Read simply as margin, following LXX., whom his concubine the Aramitess bare; she bare, etc.

his concubine the Aramitess] The inhabitants of Gilead were thus in part Arameans (Syrians) by descent. A different tradition is preserved in Genesis 1. 23.

¹⁵and Machir took a wife of¹ Huppim and Shuppim, whose² sister’s name was Maacah;) and the name of the second was Zelophehad: and Zelophehad had daughters.

15. took a wife of Huppim and Shuppim] i.e. allied himself by marriage to these two families.

whose sister’s name] Render, and his (Machir’s) sister’s name. The statement regarding Maacah is ethnographical, and means that the people of Maacah (a district at the foot of Hermon) were related by blood to Machir (the Eastern Manassites).

Zelophehad had daughters] Numbers xxvii. 1‒11.

¹⁶And Maacah the wife of Machir bare a son, and she called his name Peresh; and the name of his brother was Sheresh; and his sons were Ulam and Rakem.

16. wife of] But in verse 15, Maacah is sister of Machir. The text of verses 15, 16 has probably suffered some disturbance.

¹⁷And the sons of Ulam; Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh.

17. the sons of Ulam] Sons of Ulam are mentioned (viii. 40) among the descendants of Benjamin: a variation in the tradition of their descent.

¹⁸And his sister Hammolecheth bare Ishhod, and Abiezer¹, and Mahlah.

18. Abiezer] Gideon’s family; Judges vi. 11; compare Joshua xvii. 2.

¹⁹And the sons of Shemida were Ahian, and Shechem, and Likhi, and Aniam.

19. Shechem] This name represents the Israelite portion of the inhabitants of Shechem: the rest of the inhabitants were Hivites or Canaanites. See Judges ix.

20‒27.
The Line of Ephraim to Joshua.

20‒27. The section presents several difficulties, arising either from the attempt to combine various threads of traditions or possibly from textual corruption. Note that Ezer and Elead, who in verse 21 are removed by several generations from Ephraim, are in verse 22 f. treated as his immediate sons.

²⁰And the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and Tahath his son, and Eleadah his son, and Tahath his son,

20. Shuthelah ... Bered ... Tahath ... Eleadah] These four names appear to correspond with Shuthelah ... Becher ... Tahan ... Eran in Numbers xxvi. 35, 36.

²¹and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath that were born in the land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle.

21. the men of Gath that were born in the land] i.e. the Philistine population.

they came down] This phrase suits a descent from the hills of Ephraim into the Philistine lowlands. The raid presumably took place after the period of the Exodus and the settlement of Israel in Canaan. Yet it is also possible that the story should be classed with certain traditions which ignore the narrative of the Egyptian sojourn and the Exodus—see Cook, Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹, s.v. Genesis, p. 584, col. 2.

²²And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him.

22. And Ephraim their father] i.e. the tribe, or district, to which the clans, Ezer and Elead, belonged.

²³And he went in to his wife, and she conceived, and bare a son, and he called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house.

23. Beriah, because it went evil] Hebrew Beri‘ah because it went berā‘ah, a play on the sound of the name. This is a feature characteristic of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis, compare Genesis xxx. 11, etc. It is interesting to find it in the tradition upon which the Chronicler here depends. Compare also iv. 9 (note).

²⁴And his daughter was Sheerah, who built Beth-horon the nether and the upper, and Uzzen-sheerah. ²⁵And Rephah was his son, and Resheph, and Telah his son, and Tahan his son; ²⁶Ladan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son; ²⁷Nun¹ his son, Joshua his son.

24. Beth-horon] See vi. 68, note.

28, 29.
Settlements of the Sons of Joseph.

The writer of these verses does not intend to give a full list of the seats of Ephraim (verse 28) and Manasseh (verse 29); but apparently to indicate the area and position of their territory by the mention of towns on the borders.

²⁸And their possessions and habitations were Beth-el and the towns¹ thereof, and eastward Naaran², and westward Gezer, with the towns thereof; Shechem also and the towns thereof, unto Azzah³ and the towns thereof:

28. Beth-el] the southern boundary. Beth-el is the modern Beitîn, ten miles north of Jerusalem (Bädeker, Palestine⁵, p. 217). The city was on the border of Ephraim and Benjamin and in Joshua xviii. 22 is assigned to Benjamin, but it was originally conquered by Ephraim (Judges i. 22), and during the division of the kingdom it belonged to the North: compare 1 Kings xii. 29, 32; 2 Chronicles xiii. 19, note.

Naaran] the eastern boundary. In Joshua xvi. 7, Naarath (Revised Version Naarah).

Gezer ... Shechem] On Gezer the western, and Shechem the northern boundary—see the note on vi. 67.

Azzah] or Ayyah, has not yet been identified. Probably, like Shechem, it serves to define the northern border between Ephraim and Manasseh.

²⁹and by the borders of the children of Manasseh, Beth-shean and her towns, Taanach and her towns, Megiddo and her towns, Dor and her towns. In these dwelt the children of Joseph the son of Israel.

29. For Manasseh four important towns are enumerated: Beth-shean on the east in the valley of the Jordan, Taanach and Megiddo in the plain of Esdraelon or Megiddo, and Dor on the Mediterranean coast, south of Mt Carmel.

Beth-shean] In 1 Samuel xxxi. 10, 12 spelt Beth-shan. It is the Greek Scythopolis, the modern Beisan.

Taanach] See vi. 70, note on Aner.

Megiddo] Judges v. 19; 2 Kings xxiii. 29; Zechariah xii. 11.

Dor] modern Tantura. Compare Joshua xvii. 11.

30‒40.
The Genealogy of Asher.

³⁰The sons of Asher; Imnah, and Ishvah, and Ishvi, and Beriah, and Serah their sister.

30. The sons of Asher] The names in verses 30, 31 are derived from Genesis xlvi. 17 (compare Numbers xxvi. 44‒46). There is no variation in the Hebrew spelling of the names, but Ishvah is missing in Numbers Either Ishvah or Ishvi must be regarded as an error of dittography.

Beriah] Beriah is mentioned above, verse 23, as a clan of Ephraim, and appears also as a family of Benjamin, viii. 13, 16.

³¹And the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel, who was the father of Birzaith. ³²And Heber begat Japhlet, and Shomer¹, and Hotham, and Shua their sister. ³³And the sons of Japhlet; Pasach, and Bimhal, and Ashvath. These are the children of Japhlet.

31. Heber, and Malchiel] The antiquity of these two names seems to be attested by the mention of “Habiri and Malchiel” in the Amarna tablets (circa 1400 B.C.).

Birzaith] probably the name of a place, “The well of the olive-tree.”

³⁴And the sons of Shemer¹; Ahi, and Rohgah, Jehubbah, and Aram. ³⁵And the sons² of Helem his brother; Zophah, and Imna, and Shelesh, and Amal. ³⁶The sons of Zophah; Suah, and Harnepher, and Shual, and Beri, and Imrah; ³⁷Bezer, and Hod, and Shamma, and Shilshah, and Ithran, and Beera. ³⁸And the sons of Jether; Jephunneh, and Pispah, and Ara. ³⁹And the sons of Ulla; Arah, and Hanniel, and Rizia.

34, 35. Shemer ... Helem] Read perhaps Shomer ... Hotham, to agree with verse 32.

⁴⁰All these were the children of Asher, heads of the fathers’ houses, choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes. And the number of them reckoned by genealogy for service in war was twenty and six thousand men.

40. twenty and six thousand] In xii. 36 the men of war of Asher are reckoned at forty thousand (compare Numbers i. 41, xxvi. 47, where still higher reckonings are given). The numbers here and in verses 5, 7, 9, 11 (as well as in verse 2, which see) are perhaps supposed to refer to the time of David. The numbers may be based on family traditions, but no important conclusions ought to be drawn from them.

---

Chapter VIII.

1‒40 (compare vii. 6‒12).
The Genealogy of Benjamin.

1‒40. Various indications combine to show that the names in this list reflect post-exilic conditions. It has generally been compared with the “Benjamite” genealogy in vii. 6‒12 which was supposed to express the relationships and strength of the tribe at the time of David. If, however, according to the view adopted in this volume, the passage vii. 6‒12 is in reality a genealogy of Zebulun, comparison between it and this list is futile. Such parallels as can justly be made between the names in the two lists are due to the Benjamite colouring which has been imparted to vii. 6‒12 after the initial error in vii. 6 turned the “sons of Zebulun” into “Benjamin.”

This, the real genealogy of Benjamin, unfortunately presents not a few problems for which as yet no convincing solution can be offered. The difficulties are due in large measure to the corrupt state of the text in several verses: especially verses 6‒14.

¹And Benjamin begat Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, and Aharah the third;

1. Benjamin begat ...] Compare Genesis xlvi. 21.

firstborn] = Becher in Genesis xlvi. 21. In the unvocalised Hebrew text the noun and proper name are represented by the same letters, BKR.

Ashbel] literally “man of Baal.” Compare note on Eshbaal, verse 33.

²Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.

2. Nohah ... Huram] the list is assuredly based on Genesis xlvi. 21 and Numbers xxvi. 38‒40, despite the surface divergences. Several of the changes are due to textual errors, e.g. Aharah and Ahoah are probably both variants of Ahiram (Genesis xlvi. 21).

³And Bela had sons, Addar¹, and Gera, and Abihud; ⁴and Abishua, and Naaman, and Ahoah;

3. Abihud] read perhaps (a slight change in the Hebrew) Gera, father of Ehud.

⁵and Gera, and Shephuphan¹, and Huram.

5. Shephuphan, and Huram] See vii. 12, note on Shuppim.

6‒28. Apparently a list of five post-exilic families [Elpaal (verses 11, 18), Beriah (verses 13, 16), Shema (verses 13, 21), Shashak (verses 14, 25), and Jeroham (verses 14, 27)], whose genealogy seems to be traced from Ehud, and whose descendants reside in Jerusalem (so verse 28, but see note ad loc.). The uncertainty on the former point is the inevitable consequence of the corrupt state of the text in verses 6‒14.

⁶And these are the sons of Ehud; these are the heads of fathers’ houses of the inhabitants of Geba, and they carried them captive to Manahath:

6. Ehud] Ehud (the deliverer of Israel from Moab) was descended from Gera (verse 5; Judges iii. 15).

Geba] Compare vi. 60.

they carried them captive] an utterly obscure phrase, most probably due to textual error. It is a plausible suggestion that the phrase is a corruption of proper names commencing the list which we should expect to follow the preceding words: “these are the heads of,” etc. Hogg, Jewish Quarterly Review xi. 102 ff., therefore conjectured the names “Iglaam and Alemoth”; and similarly in verse 7, in place of the equally obscure words “he carried them captive; and he,” he would read “and Iglaam begat.”

⁷and Naaman, and Ahijah, and Gera, he carried them captive; and he begat Uzza and Ahihud.

7. Naaman, and Ahijah, and Gera] perhaps to be deleted, as a repetition of verse 5.

⁸And Shaharaim begat children in the field of Moab, after he had sent¹ them away; Hushim and Baara were his wives. ⁹And he begat of Hodesh his wife, Jobab, and Zibia, and Mesha, and Malcam; ¹⁰and Jeuz, and Shachia, and Mirmah. These were his sons, heads of fathers’ houses.

8, 9. Again the Hebrew text appears to be in disorder, and the verses in consequence are so obscure that conjectures are all precarious.

Hushim] is elsewhere the name of a man. Hence verse 11 below should perhaps read And Hushim begat....

¹¹And of Hushim he begat Abitub and Elpaal.

11. Abitub] no sons of his are recorded.

¹²And the sons of Elpaal; Eber, and Misham, and Shemed, who built Ono and Lod, with the towns thereof:

12. sons of Elpaal] Elpaal’s sons are given also and more fully in verses 17, 18; and, as the three names in the present verse appear to be transcriptional variants of three mentioned in 17, 18, it is probable that this verse is a marginal note which has crept into the text.

who built Ono and Lod] the subject is not Shemed, but Elpaal; “built,” i.e. entered into possession of. Ono and Lod (= Lydda), some seven and eleven miles respectively south of Jaffa, are referred to in Nehemiah vii. 35, xi. 35, and Ezra ii. 33. The Targum adds, which the sons of Israel laid waste and burnt with fire, when they made war in Gibeah with the tribe of Benjamin.

¹³and Beriah, and Shema, who were heads of fathers’ houses of the inhabitants of Aijalon, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath;

13. Aijalon] compare Joshua x. 12. It was situated near the Jaffa road, about thirteen miles from Jerusalem.

who put ... Gath] an interesting remark, which should be compared with vii. 21, 23—note the name Beriah in both passages. The relation of the two passages is, however, uncertain.

¹⁴and Ahio, Shashak, and Jeremoth; ¹⁵and Zebadiah, and Arad, and Eder; ¹⁶and Michael, and Ishpah, and Joha, the sons of Beriah; ¹⁷and Zebadiah, and Meshullam, and Hizki, and Heber; ¹⁸and Ishmerai, and Izliah, and Jobab, the sons of Elpaal; ¹⁹and Jakim, and Zichri, and Zabdi;

14. And Ahio, Shashak, and Jeremoth] Read, following LXX., And their brethren Shashak and Jeremoth. The pronoun of course refers to Beriah and Shema (verse 13), and to Abitub and Elpaal (verse 11)—these four, with Shashak and Jeremoth, being sons of Hushim, if verse 11 be emended and verses 12, 13 be regarded as a marginal addition, as is suggested above.

²⁰and Elienai and Zillethai, and Eliel;

20. Elienai] Read, perhaps, Elioenai, a name meaning “My eyes look towards Jehovah,” compare iii. 23.

²¹and Adaiah, and Beraiah, and Shimrath, the sons of Shimei¹; ²²and Ishpan, and Eber, and Eliel; ²³and Abdon, and Zichri, and Hanan;

21. Shimei] = Shema (verse 13).

²⁴and Hananiah, and Elam, and Anthothijah; ²⁵and Iphdeiah, and Penuel, the sons of Shashak; ²⁶and Shamsherai, and Shehariah, and Athaliah;

24. Anthothijah] The name is a trace of an ancient Egyptian war-goddess ‘Anath, apparently associated with Jehovah in the Jewish temple at Elephantine (see ‘Anath-bethel in the papyri). Compare also Anathoth near Jerusalem.

²⁷and Jaareshiah, and Elijah, and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham.

27. Jeroham] = Jeremoth (verse 14).

²⁸These were heads of fathers’ houses throughout their generations, chief men: these dwelt in Jerusalem.

28. these dwelt in Jerusalem] i.e. in the writer’s day the heads of families enumerated in verses 15‒27 dwelt in Jerusalem. Compare ix. 2, 3; Nehemiah xi. 1‒8. But the words may be a gloss brought in from ix. 34 along with the following verses (see below).

29‒38 (= chapter ix. 35‒44).
The Genealogy of the house of Saul.

29‒38. These verses, which set forth the ancestors and descendants of Saul, are found also in ix. 35‒44, where they serve as the introduction to the account of Saul’s death in ch. x. The latter passage would naturally seem to be the original place of these verses, but the arguments in favour of that view are not conclusive, and the point must be allowed to be doubtful.

²⁹And in Gibeon there dwelt the father of Gibeon, Jeiel, whose wife’s name was Maacah:

29. Gibeon] some six miles north of Jerusalem, was apparently the residence in post-exilic days of families which claimed descent from the house of Saul. Compare 2 Chronicles i. 3.

Jeiel] added in accordance with ix. 35.

³⁰and his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur, and Kish, and Baal, and Nadab;

30. and Baal] Add with LXX. (A) and ix. 36 and Ner. LXX. (B) shows that a word is missing after Baal for it reads Βααλακαίμ (= Βαὰλ καὶ Ν....?).

³¹and Gedor, and Ahio, and Zecher¹.

31. and Zecher] Read with ix. 37, and Zechariah, and Mikloth.

³²And Mikloth begat Shimeah¹. And they also dwelt with their brethren in Jerusalem, over against their brethren.

32. with their brethren, etc.] i.e. with some of their brethren in Jerusalem over against other of their brethren in Gibeon and other places. “They” would seem to refer to Mikloth and Shimeah, but the clause is far from clear, and it may be noted that verse 32b looks like the heading of a list that has been lost.

³³And Ner begat Kish; and Kish begat Saul; and Saul begat Jonathan, and Malchi-shua, and Abinadab¹, and Eshbaal².

33. begat Kish] here and in ix. 39, read begat Abner—as in 1 Samuel xiv. 51, etc.

Jonathan ... Abinadab] Slain with Saul on Mt Gilboa; x. 2; 1 Samuel xxxi. 2.

Eshbaal] In 2 Samuel ii. 8 called Ish-bosheth. In the (more generally read) Samuel text the offensive name Eshbaal, “Man (i.e. worshipper) of Baal,” has been changed to Ishbosheth, “Man of the Shameful-thing” (i.e. of the idol), but it has been left standing in the less-used text of Chronicles The title Baal (“Lord”) was applied in early days (e.g. in the days of Saul) to the national God of Israel, but in later days the prophets objected to it because of its general use in designation of the heathen gods also. Hosea (ii. 17), for example, declares that the true worshippers of Jehovah must no longer call him “My Baal” (Baali). Thus to Saul and Samuel the name Eshbaal was acceptable as meaning “Man of the Lord,” i.e. of Jehovah, but to the late reviser of the book of Samuel it was offensive as signifying “Man of Baal,” i.e. of one of the gods worshipped by the old Canaanite peoples or by the neighbouring nations. Since the text of Chronicles has retained such forms as Eshbaal (here), Ashbel (verse 1), it seems that the conscientious alterations of such forms in the books of Samuel, Kings, etc., are later than the time of the Chronicler.

³⁴And the son of Jonathan was Merib-baal¹; and Merib-baal begat Micah.

34. Merib-baal] A name meaning “Baal pleadeth”; in chapter ix. 40b (Hebrew) it is written Meri-baal, i.e. “Man of Baal.” The person meant seems to be Mephibosheth (2 Samuel ix. 6, 12).

³⁵And the sons of Micah; Pithon, and Melech, and Tarea¹, and Ahaz.

35. Tarea] In ix. 41, Tahrea.

³⁶And Ahaz begat Jehoaddah¹; and Jehoaddah begat Alemeth, and Azmaveth, and Zimri; and Zimri begat Moza:

36. Jehoaddah] In ix. 42, Jarah.

³⁷and Moza begat Binea; Raphah¹ was his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son: ³⁸and Azel had six sons, whose names are these; Azrikam, Bocheru, and Ishmael, and Sheariah, and Obadiah, and Hanan. All these were the sons of Azel. ³⁹And the sons of Eshek his brother; Ulam his firstborn, Jeush the second, and Eliphelet the third. ⁴⁰And the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valour, archers, and had many sons, and sons’ sons, an hundred and fifty. All these were of the sons of Benjamin.

37. Raphah] In ix. 43, Rephaiah.

---

Chapter IX.

1‒17 (compare Nehemiah xi. 1‒19).
The Heads of the Families which dwelt in Jerusalem.

Verses 2‒17 contain the lists of the heads of families of Judah (3‒6), of Benjamin (7‒9), of the priests (10‒13), of the Levites (14‒16), and of the porters (17), who dwelt in Jerusalem at some period after the Return (compare note on verse 2). A similar list (with some variations which are recorded in their places in the following notes) occurs in Nehemiah xi. 3‒19. The partial agreement coupled with the partial divergence of the two lists may be explained by supposing that both are extracts independently made from the same document, and have been inserted, one in Chronicles, the other in Nehemiah, lest the peculiarities of either list should be lost. We may conclude from Nehemiah xi. 1, 2 that both lists represent the population of Jerusalem, after Nehemiah had taken measures for increasing it. Another way of accounting for the divergences in the two lists is to suppose that the present list represents the Jerusalem of a later period than the list in Nehemiah See also verse 17.

¹So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel: and Judah was carried away captive to Babylon for their transgression.

1. in the book of the kings of Israel] See Introduction § 5, B (3). The LXX., however, reads “in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.” With the LXX. reading, all Israel must be taken as subject of the verb was carried away, but of course the phrase must still be taken as meaning an “Israel” = Judah.

²Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in their cities were, Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim.

2. the first inhabitants] It has been thought that the word “first” here refers to pre-eminence (compare Nehemiah xi. 3), and that the list which follows (verses 4 ff.) is a list of chief men. It is better, however, to take “first” in a temporal sense, meaning “pre-exilic,” and to suppose that the Chronicler or whoever placed this chapter here mistakenly imagined this list to be a pre-exilic register. That it is not really pre-exilic is certain by reason of its vital connection with the post-exilic list in Nehemiah xi. 3‒19. The suggestion that the resemblances are due to the continuity of population in Jerusalem before and after the exile is utterly improbable.

in their cities] The phrase is apparently an abridgment of words in Nehemiah xi. 3, and is really meaningless in the present context. In Nehemiah it signifies “townships in Judah” where certain persons, who now elected to dwell in Jerusalem, had formerly resided.

Israel] i.e. laymen as distinguished from men of Levitical descent. According to verse 3 Israel included at least Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh (compare Psalms lxxx. 2, where Judah—the speaker—associates Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh with herself in her appeal to the God of Israel, See also note on 2 Chronicles xxx. 18). This is a totally different usage from that of earlier times, when Israel meant the Northern kingdom, and Judah the Southern.

Nethinim] These were a class of Temple servants reckoned as inferior to the Levites. Perhaps they were of foreign extraction and included the Gibeonites (compare Joshua ix. 23). They are mentioned nowhere else in the Old Testament except in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

³And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh;

3. of Ephraim and Manasseh] See note on 2 Chronicles xxx. 18.

4‒6 (compare Nehemiah xi. 4‒6).
The Sons of Judah.

⁴Uthai the son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the son of Bani, of the children of Perez the son of Judah.

4. Uthai] In Nehemiah Athaiah. The two words are more alike in Hebrew than in English and are perhaps various readings of one name.

Perez] compare ii. 4, 5. We have here (verses 4‒6) a threefold division of the tribe of Judah into the descendants of Perez, Shelah, and Zerah, just as in Numbers xxvi. 20.

⁵And of the Shilonites; Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons.

5. Shilonites] Or Shelanites as Numbers xxvi. 20; they were descendants of Shelah, who is mentioned as a son of Judah in ii. 3. For other descendants, see iv. 21 f., and Nehemiah xi. 5.

Asaiah] In Nehemiah xi. 5 Maaseiah, a kindred name.

⁶And of the sons of Zerah; Jeuel, and their brethren, six hundred and ninety.

6. Jeuel] In Nehemiah xi. 5 the “sons of Zerah” are missing.

six hundred and ninety] Compare Nehemiah xi. 6 (four hundred threescore and eight sons of Perez) where Perez may be an error for Zerah.

7‒9 (compare Nehemiah xi. 7‒9).
The Sons of Benjamin.

⁷And of the sons of Benjamin; Sallu the son of Meshullam, the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah;

7. Sallu] His genealogy is differently stated in Nehemiah xi. 7, but see next note.

the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah] Read perhaps Judah, the son of Hassenuah (compare Nehemiah xi. 9). Hodaviah and Judah could easily be confused in Hebrew.

⁸and Ibneiah the son of Jeroham, and Elah the son of Uzzi, the son of Michri, and Meshullam the son of Shephatiah, the son of Reuel, the son of Ibnijah;

8. Ibneiah, Elah, Meshullam] Not mentioned in Nehemiah xi.

⁹and their brethren, according to their generations, nine hundred and fifty and six. All these men were heads of fathers’ houses by their fathers’ houses.

9. nine hundred and fifty and six] 928 in Nehemiah xi. 8.

10‒13 (compare Nehemiah xi. 10‒14).
The Priests.

¹⁰And of the priests; Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, and Jachin;

10. Jehoiarib] Spelt Joiarib in Nehemiah xi. 10. Jehoiarib and Jedaiah occur as names of the first and second courses of the priests in xxiv. 7; Nehemiah xii. 6, 19. The Maccabees were of the course of Joarib (= Jehoiarib); 1 Maccabees ii. 1.

Jachin] The name of the twenty-first course; xxiv. 17.

¹¹and Azariah¹ the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, the ruler of the house of God;

11. Azariah] In Nehemiah xi. 11, Seraiah.

the ruler of the house of God] This title could perhaps be borne by the high-priest (2 Chronicles xxxi. 10, 13), but in any case it was not confined to him (2 Chronicles xxxv. 8, where several such “rulers” are mentioned; compare also Jeremiah xx. 1; Acts iv. 1).

¹²and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, the son of Pashhur, the son of Malchijah, and Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Meshillemith, the son of Immer;

12. Malchijah] The name of the fifth course; xxiv. 9.

Maasai] The reading of Nehemiah xi. 13 Amashsai is corrupt. The form given in Chronicles is open to suspicion. Probably the true reading is lost.

Adiel] In Nehemiah Azareel.

Immer] The name of the sixteenth course; xxiv. 14.

¹³and their brethren, heads of their fathers’ houses, a thousand and seven hundred and threescore; very able men for the work of the service of the house of God.

13. a thousand and seven hundred and threescore] Only the five “courses” of priests mentioned above (viz. Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin, verse 10, and Malchijah and Immer, verse 12) seem to be included in this reckoning. Some commentators, however, regard Azariah (= Seraiah) in verse 11 as the name of a new course, which took the place of one of the courses reckoned in xxiv. 7‒18. If this be right we have here the sum of six courses.

In Nehemiah xi. 12‒14 the number of the priests is given on a different plan; eight hundred and twenty-two “did the work of the house”; two hundred and forty-two were “chiefs of fathers’ houses”; an hundred and twenty-eight were “mighty men of valour.” The total falls far short of the thousand and seven hundred and threescore of Chronicles We have not sufficient data on which to base any explanation of the different totals.

very able men] The Hebrew is the same as in Nehemiah xi. 14 and is usually rendered mighty men of valour. The sense, however, is no doubt correctly given by Revised Version very able, or efficient. Compare 2 Chronicles xxvi. 17.

14‒16 (compare Nehemiah xi. 15‒18).
The Levites.

¹⁴And of the Levites; Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of Azrikam, the son of Hashabiah, of the sons of Merari;

14. of the sons of Merari] In Nehemiah the sons of Bunni, which is probably a corruption of the reading of Chronicles Otherwise of the three great Levitical families, Merari, Asaph, and Jeduthun, mentioned here, only the last two appear in Nehemiah.

¹⁵and Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal, and Mattaniah the son of Mica, the son of Zichri¹, the son of Asaph;

15. Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal] The reading appears to be corrupt, for the analogy of the latter half of the verse as well as of verses 14, 16 leads us to expect something more than bare names. Neither the LXX. nor the Vulgate gives any real help for emending the clause. The corresponding words in Nehemiah (xi. 17) are Bakbukiah the second among his brethren.

¹⁶and Obadiah² the son of Shemaiah³, the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun, and Berechiah the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah, that dwelt in the villages of the Netophathites.

16. Obadiah the son of Shemaiah] In Nehemiah Abda the son of Shammua. Which was the reading of the original document cannot be determined.

Jeduthun] See note on xvi. 41.

Berechiah the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah] Not mentioned in Nehemiah He probably represented the Kohathite division of the singers; compare vi. 33‒38 (18‒23 Hebrew), where the name Elkanah occurs several times in the genealogy of the Kohathites.

the villages of the Netophathites] Compare Nehemiah xii. 28, 29 (Revised Version), whence it appears that these villages were close to Jerusalem. The exact site is uncertain.

17‒27 (compare Nehemiah xi. 19; 1 Chronicles xxvi. 1‒19).
Organisation and Duties of the Porters (Doorkeepers).

17‒27. The same subject is treated in xxvi. 1‒19, and this fact has been urged as an argument for the view that chapter ix. is an addition to the Chronicler’s work (see Introduction p. xxiii). But it is also reasonable to suppose that the Chronicler would here give a register of inhabitants of Jerusalem (which could not be included in the list of the separate tribes), and such a register would probably give a survey of the Levitical classes.

The verses present on analysis several confusing features, see notes on verses 17, 22, 25, 33.

¹⁷And the porters; Shallum, and Akkub, and Talmon, and Ahiman, and their brethren: Shallum was the chief;

17. And the porters] Render, doorkeepers as in xvi. 38 and xxvi. 1. In Solomon’s Temple there were “keepers of the threshold,” three in number (2 Kings xxv. 18), priests in rank (2 Kings xii. 9).

A distinction between the doorkeepers and the Levites (verse 14) seems to be implied, but in verses 19, 26 the doorkeepers, or at any rate their leaders, are called Levites (compare Nehemiah xi. 15, 19 with 1 Chronicles xxvi.). The supposed distinction may have died out before the Chronicler’s period, or perhaps earlier and later stages are reflected in the chapter (see also the note on verse 26).

Shallum...Ahiman] These two names are absent from Nehemiah xi. 19 together with the clause Shallum was the chief. This omission of all reference to Shallum must be accidental.

Shallum, and Akkub, and Talmon] The three names represent families, not individuals; compare Ezra ii. 42 = Nehemiah vii. 45, where the fuller form is given, the children of Shallum, ... the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub.... These names persist in the five lists of porters which refer to post-exilic times; Ezra ii. 42 = Nehemiah vii. 45; Nehemiah xi. 19 = 1 Chronicles ix. 17 (Shallum is to be supplied in Nehemiah from Chronicles); Nehemiah xii. 5 (Meshullam = Shallum). For the Chronicler’s traditions of Levites, singers, and doorkeepers of the Davidic period, see chapters xv., xxiv. ff.

Ahiman] Elsewhere in the Old Testament this name occurs only among the names of the sons of Anak, and it is probable that the Chronicler (or some scribe) made here an error of transcription, and that Ahiman has arisen from the word AHEIHEM “their brethren” which follows. A fourth name was probably given in the original text, for see verse 26.

¹⁸who hitherto waited in the king’s gate eastward: they were the porters for the camp of the children of Levi.

18. who] i.e. Shallum (verse 17), called Shelemiah in xxvi. 14 (= Meshelemiah, xxvi. verse 1). As mentioned above, a family is meant.

hitherto] i.e. to the time of the Chronicler.

the king’s gate eastward] That the king had an entrance into the Temple named after him appears from 2 Kings xvi. 18, and that this gate was on the east from Ezekiel xlvi. 1, 2.

for the camp of the children of Levi] i.e. the Temple; but the phrase, which is derived from Numbers ii. 17, in its original context of course signifies the Tabernacle of the Mosaic period. Doubtless it is used with the implication that the institution of the gatekeepers dated back to that age: compare verse 19 ad fin., and contrast verse 22.

¹⁹And Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, and his brethren, of his father’s house, the Korahites, were over the work of the service, keepers of the gates¹ of the tabernacle²: and their fathers had been over the camp of the Lord, keepers of the entry;

19. over the camp of the Lord, keepers] We might expect the reference to the Temple or Tabernacle to be continued; but, as nothing is said in the Pentateuch of “keepers of the entry to the tabernacle,” probably the entry to the camp, not to the tabernacle, is meant in the present phrase. With this view agrees the mention of Phinehas (verse 20), for it apparently was the profanation of the camp in general, not of the tabernacle, which Phinehas avenged (Numbers xxv. 6‒8), thus earning a blessing (Numbers xxv. 11‒13).

²⁰and Phinehas the son of Eleazar was ruler over them in time past, and the Lord was with him.

20. and the Lord was with him] Render, May the Lord be with him, a pious exclamation, customary on mentioning the name of a famous and righteous person deceased. The phrase is common in later Jewish literature; but this passage seems to be the earliest instance of its use.

²¹Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah was porter of the door of the tent of meeting. All these which were chosen to be porters in the gates¹ were two hundred and twelve.

21. Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah] Compare xxvi. 2, 14, according to which Zechariah’s watch was on the north.

the tent of meeting] The reference would be to the Mosaic tent, if the verse be taken, as is natural, in close connection with verses 19, 20. If the verse be treated in conjunction with verse 22 it must refer to the tent of the ark in David’s time. The ambiguity is perhaps intentional.

²²These were reckoned by genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set¹ office.

22. All these] Compare Ezra ii. 42 (= Nehemiah vii. 45); Nehemiah xi. 19. The discrepancy in numbers between Chronicles and Nehemiah and also between Nehemiah vii. and Nehemiah xi. may be explained by supposing some difference in the manner of reckoning or some difference in the period referred to.

in their villages] Compare verses 16 and 25.

whom David ... did ordain] The Chronicler attributes to David the organisation of the priests (xxiv. 3), of the Levites (xxiii. 27; xxiv. 31), of the singers (xxv. 1 ff.), and of the doorkeepers (in this passage). It has been thought that this verse is at variance with verses 18, 19, where the Mosaic origin of the gatekeepers seems to be implied. But in answer it may be said that the Chronicler is guilty of no inconsistency in ascribing the origin of the doorkeepers to the Mosaic period and saying here that David and Samuel “ordained them in their set office,” for the phrase refers, not to their origin, but to their organisation. For another suggestion see below on verse 26.

Samuel] The association of Samuel with the organisation of the sanctuary is confined to this passage, and is a significant illustration of the working of late Jewish thought, which was little concerned with historic probability and much with edification. The tradition has probably arisen from the remark in 1 Samuel iii. 15, that Samuel “opened the doors of the house of the Lord.” As Samuel died before the reign of David, the Chronicler doubtless does not intend to represent him as contemporary with David in the organisation of the Temple, but probably supposes that Samuel’s work was done in connection with the tent, which according to the Chronicler was located in Gibeon (2 Chronicles i. 3).

the seer] For the title, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29; 1 Samuel ix. 9; and compare 2 Chronicles xvi. 7.

in their set office] or in their trust; i.e. in their responsible positions.

²³So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of the house of the Lord, even the house of the tabernacle¹, by wards.

23. the house of the tabernacle] margin Tent. The phrase designates the period before the building of the Temple.

²⁴On¹ the four sides were the porters, toward the east, west, north, and south.

24. On the four sides] Fuller details are given in xxvi. 14‒18.

²⁵And their brethren, in their villages, were to come in every seven days from time to time to be with them:

25. in their villages] No special villages inhabited by porters are mentioned, but perhaps porters as well as singers dwelt in the “villages of the Netophathites” (verse 16; Nehemiah xii. 28, Revised Version).

²⁶for the four chief porters, who were Levites, were in a set office, and were over the chambers and over the treasuries in the house of God. ²⁷And they lodged round about the house of God, because the charge thereof was upon them, and to them pertained the opening thereof morning by morning.

26. the four chief porters, who were Levites] It seems clear from this verse (and from the structure of the chapter, compare verses 10, 14, 17—as is pointed out in the note on verse 17) that the doorkeepers were not, as a body, Levites; and according to verse 25 they dwelt outside Jerusalem, whilst their leaders (verse 27) were within the city. Perhaps this distinction between the leaders and the rank and file could be used to explain the supposed inconsistency (if any exists—see above verse 22, note on whom David ...) between verses 19 and 22, as regards the tradition of origin: it might be said that whilst the leaders claimed that their office dated from the time of Moses (verse 19), the rank and file traced their institution to David (verse 22). (In 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 9 Levites appear exercising the duties of doorkeepers, but this does not prove that all doorkeepers were Levites.)

chambers] i.e. store-chambers in which tithes and sacred vessels were kept; compare 2 Chronicles xxxi. 5, 11, 12; Nehemiah xiii. 4‒9: in verse 33 of this chapter they seem to be in use also as rooms in which Levites could dwell. The chambers were probably built as outbuildings round the Court of the Temple; compare xxiii. 28, xxviii. 12.

28, 29.
Duties of the Levites.

²⁸And certain of them had charge of the vessels of service; for by tale were they brought in and by tale were they taken out.

28. And certain of them] The reference is to the Levites. The contents of verses 28, 29 clearly refer to Levitical duties (compare xxiii. 29), and the transition from porters to Levites is made easier by the fact that the four porters last mentioned (verses 26, 27) are Levites. Some commentators hold that the paragraph dealing with the duties of the Levites begins in verse 26 with the words “And they were over,” etc.

²⁹Some of them also were appointed over the furniture, and over all the vessels of the sanctuary, and over the fine flour, and the wine, and the oil, and the frankincense, and the spices.

29. compare xxiii. 29.

30.
A Priestly Duty.

³⁰And some of the sons of the priests prepared the confection of the spices.

30. the sons of the priests] i.e. “members of the priesthood, priests.” Compare 2 Chronicles xxv. 13, “the soldiers of the army” (literally “the sons of the troop”) and the common expression “the sons of the prophets.”

confection] (For the word, compare 1 Samuel viii. 13, Revised Version text and margin) This “ointment” was peculiarly holy (Exodus xxx. 23‒25). The Levites might have charge of the oil and spices (verse 29), but only the priests might make the confection.

31, 32.
Other Levitical Duties.

³¹And Mattithiah, one of the Levites, who was the firstborn of Shallum the Korahite, had the set office over the things that were baked in pans.

31. who was the firstborn of Shallum] In xxvi. 2 the firstborn of Meshelemiah (= Shallum) is called Zechariah. Probably Mattithiah and Zechariah represent each a household belonging to an elder branch of the great family of Shallum.

³²And some of their brethren, of the sons of the Kohathites, were over the shewbread, to prepare it every sabbath.

32. the shewbread] Literally the bread of the Row (or of the Pile), for it had to be arranged in order before the Lord (Leviticus xxiv. 6). The Chronicler prefers this term to the older “Bread of the Presence” (i.e. of Jehovah). See more fully Driver, Exodus, pp. 274, 275, in this series.

to prepare it every sabbath] “Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually” (Leviticus xxiv. 8). In 2 Chronicles ii. 4 (= ii. 3, Hebrew) it is called the continual shewbread (literally “the continual Row”).

³³And these are the singers, heads of fathers’ houses of the Levites, who dwelt in the chambers and were free from other service: for they were employed in their work day and night. ³⁴These were heads of fathers’ houses of the Levites, throughout their generations, chief men: these dwelt at Jerusalem.

33. And these are] This verse may be intended as a conclusion to verses 15, 16, for the names there given are those of singers; compare Nehemiah xi. 17. On the other hand it may have been intended as the heading of such a list as appears in vi. 33‒47 (= 18‒32, Hebrew), the list itself having somehow been omitted.

day and night] Compare Psalms cxxxiv. 1; Revelation iv. 8.

35‒44 (= viii. 29‒38).
The Genealogy of the house of Saul.

³⁵And in Gibeon there dwelt the father of Gibeon, Jeiel, whose wife’s name was Maacah: ³⁶and his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur, and Kish, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab; ³⁷and Gedor, and Ahio, and Zechariah, and Mikloth. ³⁸And Mikloth begat Shimeam. And they also dwelt with their brethren in Jerusalem, over against their brethren. ³⁹And Ner begat Kish; and Kish begat Saul; and Saul begat Jonathan, and Malchi-shua, and Abinadab, and Eshbaal. ⁴⁰And the son of Jonathan was Merib-baal; and Merib-baal begat Micah. ⁴¹And the sons of Micah; Pithon, and Melech, and Tahrea, and Ahaz. ⁴²And Ahaz begat Jarah; and Jarah begat Alemeth, and Azmaveth, and Zimri; and Zimri begat Moza: ⁴³and Moza begat Binea; and Rephaiah his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son: ⁴⁴and Azel had six sons, whose names are these; Azrikam, Bocheru, and Ishmael, and Sheariah, and Obadiah, and Hanan: these were the sons of Azel.

See notes on viii. 29 ff. The passage serves here as an introduction to the story of the death of Saul. Whether it is in its original setting here or in viii. 29 ff., or possibly is original in both chapters, there is not sufficient evidence to determine (see note on viii. 29).

---

Chapters X.‒XXIX.
The Reign of David.

At this point the Chronicler begins his narrative of Israel’s history. It commences abruptly with an account of the defeat and death of Saul, which however is given not for its own interest, but to serve as a brief introduction to the reign of David (chapter xi. ff.). Why does the Chronicler choose to begin his narrative at this point, passing over in silence (a) the Mosaic period, (b) the stories of Judges and of 1 Samuel i.‒xxx.? As regards (a) his silence is due to the assumption that those for whom he writes are no less familiar than he is himself with the account of the Mosaic age as presented by the fully developed tradition of the Pentateuch. As for (b), his silence probably arises neither from the difficulty of retelling the narratives of Judges in accordance with his theory of the early history, nor yet from the fact that they were doubtless familiar to his readers; but, again, from a consideration of the central purpose of his work. His theme is the Divine guidance of Israel’s destiny, and, since that destiny had ultimately centred upon the fortunes of Jerusalem and the worship maintained through its Temple, all else in Israel’s history becomes of quite secondary importance. He begins therefore where (for Israel) Jerusalem and the Temple began—with David, who conquered the city and planned the Temple. The tales of the Judges, of Samuel, and of David’s early life and his magnanimity toward Saul (a tempting source for the exaltation of the character of the ideal king), all these are logically ignored, since they lie outside the scope of the Chronicler’s design.

Chapter X.

1‒12 (= 1 Samuel xxxi. 1‒13).
The Defeat, Death, and Burial of Saul.

1‒12. There are several variations between the text given here and the text of 1 Samuel, to which attention will be called in the notes below.

¹Now the Philistines fought against Israel: and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain¹ in mount Gilboa.

1. in mount Gilboa] In the campaign of Gilboa the Philistines showed new and skilful strategy. Instead of at once marching eastward up the ravines which lead into Judah and Benjamin—in which there was no room for their chariots (2 Samuel i. 6) to manœuvre—they first marched northward along the sea-coast and then turned eastward just before reaching Mount Carmel. This movement brought them into the great fertile plain watered by the Kishon, ground over which chariots could act with decisive effect. At the north-east end of the plain rose the heights of Gilboa. When Saul and his Benjamites advanced to meet the Philistines, the latter succeeded in interposing themselves between the Israelite army and its base in Benjamin—an easy achievement for an enemy who by his chariots possessed a high degree of mobility. Saul was therefore driven to take up his position on the north side of the plain on Mount Gilboa, where he was attacked by the Philistines, probably from the south-west on which side the slopes of the mountain are comparatively gentle. The Israelites, cut off from their homes, outmarched, outgeneralled, and probably outnumbered, were speedily routed. The battle of Gilboa was won, like that of Hastings, by cavalry (chariots) and archers (verse 3) against infantry, which was obliged to stand on the defensive, under pain of being cut to pieces if it ventured to attack. See G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 400 ff.

²And the Philistines followed hard after Saul and after his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab¹, and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. ³And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was distressed by reason of the archers.

2. Malchi-shua] This is the correct spelling, not Melchi-shua.

⁴Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse¹ me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took his sword, and fell upon it. ⁵And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell upon his sword, and died.

4. unto his armourbearer] Compare Judges ix. 54 (the death of Abimelech). One function of an armourbearer was to give the “coup de grâce” to fallen enemies (1 Samuel xiv. 13), but sometimes the same office had to be executed for friends. Possibly the man refused from fear of blood-revenge, which would be the more certainly exacted in the case of the Lord’s Anointed, compare 1 Samuel ii. 22, xxvi. 9 (so Curtis).

and abuse me] i.e. wreak their cruel will upon me; compare Judges i. 6.

⁶So Saul died, and his three sons; and all his house died together.

6. all his house] In Samuel “his armourbearer and all his men.” The reference may be to Saul’s servants: his family was not exterminated in this battle.

⁷And when all the men of Israel that were in the valley saw that they fled, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook their cities, and fled; and the Philistines came and dwelt in them.

⁸And it came to pass on the morrow, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his sons fallen in mount Gilboa.

7. that were in the valley] The “valley of Jezreel” (Hosea i. 5), called in later times the “plain of Esdrelon” (Esdraelon), is meant.

forsook their cities] Among these was no doubt Beth-shan (Beisan) “the key of Western Palestine” (see G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land pp. 358 f.), where Saul’s body was exposed (1 Samuel xxxi. 12).

and dwelt in them] Perhaps for a short while only, compare 2 Samuel ii. 9, “[Abner] made him (Ish-bosheth) king over ... Jezreel.” Ish-bosheth, however, may have “ruled” only in acknowledgment of a Philistine suzerainty.

⁹And they stripped him, and took his head, and his armour, and sent into the land of the Philistines round about, to carry the tidings unto their idols, and to the people.

9. to carry the tidings unto their idols] Better, as in Samuel, “to publish it in the house (or houses) of their idols”; compare the next verse. The news was published by the exhibition of trophies of the victory in the Philistine temples.

¹⁰And they put his armour in the house of their gods, and fastened his head in the house of Dagon.

10. in the house of their gods] In Samuel (more definitely) “in the house (or houses) of Ashtaroth,” Ashtaroth being the plural of Ashtoreth, a goddess, who seems here to bear a martial character. (The name Ashtoreth is an artificial formation, the proper form being Ashtarte. The vowels of the word bōshĕth, i.e. shame, were used for the last two syllables in place of the true vowels; compare note on viii. 33.) She was apparently consort of the Phoenician Baal (Judges ii. 13, x. 6).

fastened his head in the house of Dagon (literally Beth-Dagon)] In Samuel fastened his body to the wall of Beth-shan. The reading of Chronicles is probably an arbitrary alteration made by the Chronicler out of regard for 1 Samuel xxxi. 9, where it is related that the Philistines cut off Saul’s head. It is just possible that the variation points to a fuller original text containing all three statements—that Saul’s armour was placed in the temple of Ashtarte, his head in the “house of Dagon,” and his headless corpse fastened to the walls of Beth-shan. Beth-shan is north-east of Gilboa, about four miles distant from the Jordan, and about a day’s march (1 Samuel xxxi. 12) from Jabesh (verse 11), which was situated on the other side of Jordan in Gilead.

¹¹And when all Jabesh-gilead heard all that the Philistines had done to Saul,

11. Jabesh-gilead] See 1 Samuel xi. 1‒11; 2 Samuel ii. 4‒7.

¹²all the valiant men arose, and took away the body of Saul, and the bodies of his sons, and brought them to Jabesh, and buried their bones under the oak¹ in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

12. took away] i.e. from the walls of Beth-shan (so Peshitṭa).

to Jabesh] Samuel adds “and burned them there.” The Chronicler omits this statement perhaps because he inferred that the bones were not destroyed by this burning; compare 2 Samuel xxi. 12‒14 (the bones of Saul and Jonathan brought from Jabesh in David’s reign and re-interred in the family sepulchre) or more probably because burning was not a usual funeral rite among the Jews (compare 2 Chronicles xvi. 14, note), and indeed was regarded with abhorrence (compare Amos ii. 1).

under the oak] margin, terebinth. Large trees, being rare in Palestine, frequently serve as landmarks; compare Judges iv. 5; 1 Samuel xxii. 6 (“tamarisk tree” Revised Version).

fasted seven days] Fasting involved abstinence from food during daylight. David fasted “till the evening” in mourning for Saul (2 Samuel i. 12) and for Abner (2 Samuel iii. 35). The fast of Jabesh was a sevenfold fast.

13, 14 (peculiar to Chronicles).
The Moral of the Overthrow of the House of Saul.

Such reflexions as these are characteristic of the Chronicler; compare 2 Chronicles xii. 2 (note), xxii. 7, xxiv. 24, xxv. 27. They are not so frequent in Samuel and Kings.

¹³So Saul died for¹ his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord, which he kept not; and also for that he asked counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire thereby,

13. his trespass] compare 2 Chronicles xxvi. 16. The reference is to Saul’s sacrifice (1 Samuel xiii. 13, 14), and disobedience (1 Samuel xv. 23).

asked counsel ... spirit] i.e. of the witch of Endor, 1 Samuel xxviii. 7 ff.

¹⁴and inquired not of the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.

14. and inquired not of the Lord] Compare xiii. 3. The Chronicler presumably does not count inquiries made too late; compare 1 Samuel xxviii. 6 (Saul inquires of the Lord, but receives no answer).

---

Chapter XI.

1‒3 (= 2 Samuel v. 1‒3).
David made King over all Israel.

The remaining chapters of the first book of Chronicles are occupied with the reign of David, who is represented as a king fulfilling the Chronicler’s highest ideals of piety and prosperity. For some general remarks on the difference between the picture thus given and the David of Samuel see the note on xxviii. 1.

¹Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.

1. Then] Render And.

all Israel] Chronicles has nothing here corresponding to 2 Samuel i.‒iv., chapters which cover a period of seven years (2 Samuel v. 5). David’s earlier coronation by the men of Judah (2 Samuel ii. 4), the reign of Ish-bosheth over Northern and Eastern Israel (2 Samuel ii. 8 ff.), and the “long war” (2 Samuel iii. 1) with the house of Saul are omitted not of course because the Chronicler was ignorant of these events (for see the references in verses 15, 17; xii. 1, 23, 29, etc.), but for the reason set forth above in the head-note to chapters x.‒xxix. The Chronicler’s account is perhaps deliberately adapted to convey an impression of the ease with which the ideal David ascends the throne of a united Israel; and, if we had not the narrative in Samuel to help us, we should be left with a conception of the period very different from the actual course of events. How strange, too, would be the sudden transition from the picture of defeat and flight of Israel in chapter x. to the calm assemblage of all Israel in chapter xi., and how obscure the various references to David’s earlier life in xi. 15 ff.!

we are thy bone and thy flesh] The phrase is not to be taken strictly as implying kinship, for only the tribe of Judah could say “The king is near of kin to us” (2 Samuel xix. 42). The other tribes mean that they will obey David as though he were their own kin.

²In times past, even when Saul was king, it was thou that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the Lord thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince¹ over my people Israel.

2. the Lord thy God said] Compare verses 3, 10; 1 Samuel xvi. 1‒13.

prince] compare v. 2, note.

³So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Samuel.

3. made a covenant] i.e. gave them a charter in which he promised to respect existing rights; compare 1 Samuel x. 25 (Samuel writes the “manner” of the kingdom).

before the Lord] One method of entering into a covenant “before the Lord” was to pass between the parts of a sacrificed animal; compare Jeremiah xxxiv. 18, 19.

Chronicles has nothing here corresponding with 2 Samuel v. 4, 5; but compare xxix. 27.

according ... Samuel] Compare 1 Samuel xv. 28, xvi. 1, 3.

4‒9 (= 2 Samuel v. 6‒10).
The “City of David” captured and made a royal residence.

⁴And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem (the same is Jebus); and the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, were there.

4. David and all Israel] In Samuel (more accurately) “The king and his men,” i.e. his household and body-guard; compare x. 6, note. The exploit recorded in Samuel is invested by the Chronicler with the grandeur of a state campaign.

the same is Jebus] Jerusalem (or Jebus) consisted, it seems (compare verse 8; Judges i. 21), of a citadel inhabited by Jebusites and of a lower city inhabited by a mixed population of Jebusites and Benjamites. It was the citadel only which David stormed. Jerusalem is called Jebus only here and in Judges xix. 10 f. The notion that Jebus was an ancient name for the city may be only a late fancy, but it is possible that it was sometimes so called in the days of the Jebusite rule. What is certain is that the name Jerusalem is ancient, for it occurs frequently (as Urusalim) in the Amarna tablets, circa 1400 B.C. See G. A. Smith, Jerusalem.

the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land] i.e. masters of that territory before the Israelite invasion. The Jebusites have been thought to be of Hittite origin, but they were probably Semites, like the Israelites (see G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II. 16‒18).

⁵And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come in hither. Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion; the same is the city of David.

5. Thou shalt not come in hither]. Undoubtedly the Chronicler understood the resistance offered by the Jebusites to be of a military character, and the text of Samuel as translated in Authorized Version and Revised Version follows the same notion. See, however, the reinterpretation of the Samuel text by Barnes in the Expositor, January, 1914, where it is urged that the word (mᵉtsudah) rendered “strong hold” means not a well-fortified citadel but simply a natural hiding place, such as a thicket or a cavern (which in this case probably was used as a shrine by the Jebusites).

the strong hold of Zion] See the previous note. The site of this “hold” or cavern (afterwards “the city of David”) is on the south-east of the present city, on the south of the Haram (the Temple area), and on a level lower than that of the Haram (see Smith, Jerusalem, II. 39 ff.).

⁶And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. And Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, and was made chief. ⁷And David dwelt in the strong hold; therefore they called it the city of David.

6. Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites] The reference here is no doubt to military violence. See, however, the article by Barnes cited above. The text in Samuel is very difficult and corrupt, and has been simplified by the Chronicler.

Joab the son of Zeruiah] Zeruiah was David’s sister (ii. 16). It is not said in Samuel that Joab first became commander-in-chief on this occasion; on the contrary he appears in command (2 Samuel ii. 13) during the civil war against the house of Saul. Perhaps he was first formally acknowledged as commander at the seizure of Jerusalem.

⁸And he built the city round about, from Millo even round about: and Joab repaired¹ the rest of the city. ⁹And David waxed greater and greater; for the Lord of hosts was with him.

8. from Millo even round about] Literally “the Millo,” meaning perhaps “The filling up,” was some part of the defences of the “city of David,” either a solid tower or perhaps an armoury, or a piece of supplementary work intended to strengthen an existing wall (LXX. 2 Chronicles xxxii. 5, ἀνάλημμα, “support”). See Smith, Jerusalem II. 40 f.

Joab] This tradition about Joab is not mentioned in Samuel.

repaired the rest of the city] literally revived, compare Nehemiah iv. 2 (= Hebrew iii. 34). Peshitṭa translates: “Joab gave his right hand to the rest of the men who were in the city”; and it has been proposed to render the clause spared or kept alive the rest of the city (i.e. the remaining people, the Benjamites who dwelt there with the Jebusites [Judges i. 21]). The rendering repaired is to be preferred.

10‒41a (compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 8‒39).
David’s Mighty Men and their Deeds.

This section seems to consist of elements drawn from different sources and brought together (probably by the author of Samuel) in order to give as complete a list as possible of the heroes who at different times in David’s career did good service to Israel.

The names of twelve of these heroes reappear in chapter xxvii. as the commanders of David’s twelve “courses.”

Verses 11‒14 (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 8‒12) deal with two (in Samuel three) heroes otherwise unknown.

Verses 15‒19 (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 13‒17) are independent of the foregoing and narrate an exploit of three unnamed heroes.

Verses 20‒25 (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 18‒23) seem in turn to be independent of 15‒19, and verses 21, 25 in particular seem to be quoted from some lost poem. These verses contain the eulogy of Abishai and Benaiah.

Verses 26‒41a (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 24‒39) contain thirty names of heroes whose exploits are not recorded. It is to be noted that Chronicles, verses 41b‒47, adds some sixteen names at the end which are not given in Samuel.

Joab is not included in the formal list because he has been already mentioned (verse 6).

Lists of names are favourite features in oriental Histories. Thus Ibn Hishām in his Life of Mohammed gives a list of the 83 Moslems who took refuge in Abyssinia from the persecution of the Koreish, of the 75 inhabitants of Medina who swore allegiance to the Prophet before the Hegira, and even of the 314 Moslems who were present at the battle of Bedr.

¹⁰Now these are the chief of the mighty men whom David had, who shewed¹ themselves strong with him in his kingdom, together with all Israel, to make him king, according to the word of the Lord concerning Israel.

10. Now these] This verse is the Chronicler’s own heading which he prefixes to the list of heroes taken from Samuel, while retaining (in verse 11) the original heading given in Samuel.

who shewed themselves strong with him] Render as margin, who held strongly with him. Compare xii. 23.

to make him king] as though all the mighty men participated in the coronation at Hebron, whereas in reality many must have won their place and fame only in the later campaigns of David.

¹¹And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the thirty¹; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and² slew them at one time.

11. this is the number] More suitably in Samuel, “These be the names.”

Jashobeam] Called “Jashobeam the son of Zabdiel” in xxvii. 2. The name “Jashobeam” is however uncertain. In 2 Samuel (xxiii. 8, Revised Version) it appears as “Josheb-basshebeth,” which is certainly wrong. LXX. (B) varies in reproducing the name, but it seems to have read “Ish-bosheth” in Samuel, and “Ish-baal” (Esh-baal) in both places of Chronicles. These readings are probably right. For the relation of the forms “Ish-bosheth,” “Esh-baal” see viii. 33, note.

son of a Hachmonite] Compare xxvii. 32. In Samuel (wrongly) “a Tahchemonite.”

chief of the thirty] So the Hebrew margin (Kethīb), but the Hebrew text (Ḳerī) reads chief of the captains, which the Authorized Version follows. Neither Authorized Version nor Revised Version gives satisfactory sense. In 2 Samuel xxiii. 8 the LXX. gives, chief of the third part [of the army], compare 2 Samuel xviii. 2; and this is perhaps right; the Hebrew text of Samuel (if not faulty) probably bears the same sense. Ish-baal (Jashobeam) then is one of three “mightiest of the mighty” men, the other two being Eleazar (verse 12) and Shammah (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 11; omitted in Chronicles—see note on verses 12, 13).

he lifted up his spear] Literally “he aroused his spear,” a poetic expression.

against three hundred] Samuel “against eight hundred”; so Peshitṭa (good MSS.) of Chronicles Some light is thrown on this exploit by 1 Samuel xviii. 25‒27; the two hundred Philistines slain by David and his men were carefully counted and reckoned to the credit of David personally.

12, 13. These verses answer in part to verses 9 and 11 of Samuel, but since verse 10 and parts of verses 9, 11 of Samuel have no equivalent in Chronicles, two incidents are confounded, and the name of a hero (Shammah) is omitted, his exploit being ascribed to Eleazar.

¹²And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighty men.

12. Eleazar the son of Dodo] Probably to be identified with “Dodai the Ahohite,” the commander of the second “course”; xxvii. 4.

the three mighty men] i.e. the three who were with David on the occasion mentioned in 2 Samuel xxiii. 9.

¹³He was with David at Pas-dammim¹, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where was a plot of ground full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines.

13. at Pas-dammim] Perhaps the same place as “Ephes-dammim” which is mentioned in 1 Samuel xvii. 1 as the gathering-place of the Philistines. It was in the south-west of Judah.

barley] Samuel “lentils.” The two words resemble each other in Hebrew and might be confused by an unwary scribe.

¹⁴And they stood in the midst of the plot, and defended it, and slew the Philistines; and the Lord saved them by a great victory¹.

14. they stood] The subject of the verb in 2 Samuel xxiii. 12 is Shammah, here David and Eleazar together.

¹⁵And three of the thirty chief went down to the rock to David, into the cave of Adullam; and the host of the Philistines were encamped in the valley of Rephaim.

15. to the rock] Samuel “in the harvest-time.” Probably both readings are wrong, and the original form of the verse was perhaps And three of the thirty went down at the beginning of harvest to David, etc. (see Driver, Notes on Hebrew text of Samuel², p. 366).

the cave of Adullam] So also in 1 Samuel xxii. 1; 2 Samuel xxiii. 13. In verse 16 below, and in 1 Samuel xxii. 4 it is called the “hold.” Probably “the ‘hold’ was a tangle of hill and forest, in the centre of which the ‘cave of Adullam’ served as David’s headquarters” (Barnes, Expositor, January, 1914): the whole forming an admirable retreat for men acquainted with its intricacies. An identification with a commanding hill in the Shephelah, called “Aid-el-ma,” has been suggested (see G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land pp. 229, 230, note).

the valley of Rephaim] Probably the broad depression traversed by the road from Jerusalem to Beth-lehem. See Joshua xv. 8 (“vale of Rephaim” Revised Version; “valley of the giants” Authorized Version).

¹⁶And David was then in the hold, and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Beth-lehem. ¹⁷And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of Beth-lehem, which is by the gate!

16. in the hold] compare note on the cave of Adullam (verse 15).

¹⁸And the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth-lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord, ¹⁹and said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this: shall I drink the blood of these men that¹ have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did the three mighty men.

18. brake through the host] or camp. The word “host” in the Hebrew regularly means a host encamped, not a host embattled. Perhaps this exploit took place by night; compare the deed of David and Abishai (1 Samuel xxvi. 6‒12).

poured it out] i.e. as a libation-offering.

²⁰And Abishai¹, the brother of Joab, he was chief of the three: for he lifted up his spear against three hundred and² slew them, and had a name among the three. Of³ the three,

20. chief of the three] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 18 (Kethīb) Abishai is called by the same title (Hebrew rōsh hasshālīshi) as Josheb-basshebeth (2 Samuel xxiii. verse 8). This title probably means chief of the third part [of the army]; compare verse 11, note. Chief of the three is a faulty reading: it certainly ought not to be taken in connection with the three mighty men—Jashobeam (Ishbaal), Eleazar and <Shammah>—referred to in verses 10 ff. Probably a reading “chief of the thirty,” for which there is some MS. authority, is correct; but the references here and in the following verse are obscure (see Driver, Samuel², pp. 367, 368).

had a name among the three] Compare verse 24, where the same thing is said of Benaiah. The three meant are either the three of verses 15‒19 or else an unknown three; compare next note.

²¹he was more honourable than the two, and was made their captain: howbeit he attained not to the first three.

21. Of the three, he was more honourable than the two] margin “Of the three in the second rank he was the most honourable.” Neither of these renderings is satisfactory, and the text is certainly corrupt (compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 19), and should be corrected. Read perhaps: He was more honourable than the three, or perhaps, than the thirty. The verse probably comes from a lost poem. What is meant by the three and by the first three cannot be determined owing to the loss of the context.

²²Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done mighty deeds, he slew the two sons of Ariel of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow.

22. Benaiah] See 2 Samuel viii. 18; 1 Kings i. 8 ff., ii. 25‒35.

Kabzeel] It was in the south of Judah; Joshua xv. 21.

he slew the two sons of Ariel of Moab] So LXX. of 2 Samuel xxiii. 20. The phrase is very difficult. Some, emending the text, read “He slew two young lions, having gone down to their lair.” Another but an improbable conjecture is “he smote the two altar-pillars of Moab,” i.e. he overthrew the two high columns on which the sacred fire of the Moabites was kept (Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, Additional Note L). To injure or defile the sacred place of an enemy was a common practice in ancient war.

in time of snow] “The beast had strayed up the Judaean hills from Jordan, and had been caught in a sudden snowstorm. Where else than in Palestine could lions and snow thus come together?” G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land p. 65.

²³And he slew an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high; and in the Egyptian’s hand was a spear like a weaver’s beam; and he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and slew him with his own spear. ²⁴These things did Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and had a name among the three mighty men.

23. of great stature] Samuel has a better reading, “a goodly man” (man of presence), “goodliness” according to the Hebrews consisting in being well-built for warlike exercises.

a staff] Hebrew shēbhet, i.e. the “rod” or “club” carried by shepherds as a defence against wild-beasts; Psalms ii. 9 (“rod”); xxiii. 4 “rod”); 2 Samuel xviii. 14 (“darts”). This “rod” had a point at one end, so that it could on occasion be used as a stabbing weapon.

²⁵Behold, he was more honourable than the thirty, but he attained not to the first three: and David set him over his guard¹.

25. more honourable than the thirty] On the phrase, see verse 21, note. The verse probably comes from some poem written in praise of Benaiah. Compare xxvii. 6.

guard] The same Hebrew word, mishma‘ath, is translated “council” in the margin here and also in 1 Samuel xxii. 14. The literal meaning is “obedience”; it seems both here and in Samuel (1 Samuel xxii. 14) to designate those who executed the king’s commands, i.e. his ministers. (Minister = “servant.”)

²⁶Also the mighty men of the armies; Asahel the brother of Joab, Elhanan the son of Dodo of Beth-lehem;

26. Asahel] Whose death at the hands of Abner, the general of Ishbosheth, was the cause of the famous feud between Abner and Joab, compare 2 Samuel ii. 18 ff., iii. 27.

Elhanan] Called here (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 24) “son of Dodo,” but perhaps to be identified with “Elhanan the son of Jair” of xx. 5 (= 2 Samuel xxi. 19, where Jaare-oregim is an error for Jair [see Driver, Samuel², pp. 367, 368]).

²⁷Shammoth¹ the Harorite, Helez the Pelonite²;

27. the Harorite] Read, the Harodite (so Samuel). Compare Judges vi. 23, vii. 1, whence it appears that Harod was in (or near) the valley of Jezreel. Compare also 1 Chronicles xxvii. 8 (“Shamhuth the Izrahite”), where the same person seems to be meant. “Elika the Harodite” (Samuel) is not found in Chronicles.

Helez the Pelonite] Compare xxvii. 10, where he is described as a captain of the children of Ephraim. In 2 Samuel xxiii. 26 however it is Helez the Paltite, i.e. (apparently) “the inhabitant of Beth-pelet” in the south of Judah (Joshua xv. 27).

²⁸Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, Abiezer the Anathothite;

28. Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite] Compare xxvii. 9. For Tekoa see 2 Chronicles xx. 20, note.

Abiezer the Anathothite] xxvii. 12 and 2 Samuel xxiii. 27. Anathoth was in Benjamin; it was Jeremiah’s village (Jeremiah i. 1, xi. 21 ff.), now Anāta, 2½ miles north-north-east of Jerusalem.

²⁹Sibbecai¹ the Hushathite, Ilai² the Ahohite;

29. Sibbecai] So xxvii. 11, but in 2 Samuel xxiii. 27 “Mebunnai.”

the Hushathite] Hushah is probably the name of some place near Beth-lehem (iv. 4). Shuah (iv. verse 11) may be another form of the name.

Ilai] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 28 “Zalmon.” The two words are perhaps only various readings of the name which originally appeared in the list.

the Ahohite] He was of a Benjamite family; viii. 4 (“Ahoah”).

³⁰Maharai the Netophathite, Heled¹ the son of Baanah the Netophathite;

30. Maharai the Netophathite] So in xxvii. 13, with “of the Zerahites” (Revised Version) added. A Netophathite might come either from Netophah (a village in Judah not far from Beth-lehem), or from the “villages of the Netophathites” (ix. 16, note).

Heled] In xxvii. 15 “Heldai,” a name found in Zechariah iv. 10. “Heleb” in 2 Samuel xxiii. 29 is probably a wrong reading.

³¹Ithai the son of Ribai of Gibeah of the children of Benjamin, Benaiah the Pirathonite;

31. Ithai] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 29 “Ittai,” the same name as in 2 Samuel xv. 19, xviii. 2, but a different person is meant.

Benaiah the Pirathonite] So in xxvii. 14; 2 Samuel xxiii. 30. Pirathon was a town in Ephraim; Judges xii. 15. Probably the place is mentioned also in 1 Maccabees ix. 50 (τὴν Θαμνάθα Φαραθών).

³²Hurai¹ of the brooks of Gaash, Abiel² the Arbathite;

32. Hurai] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 30, “Hiddai.” The true form of the name is uncertain; neither form occurs elsewhere.

Gaash] A mountain in Ephraim; Judges ii. 9 (= Joshua xxiv. 30).

Abiel] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 31 “Abi-albon.” “Arbathite” means “inhabitant of Beth Arabah”; a town on the border between Judah and Benjamin, Joshua xv. 6.

³³Azmaveth the Baharumite, Eliahba the Shaalbonite;

33. Baharumite] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 31 “Barhumite.” We should read in both places, Bahurimite, i.e. “inhabitant of Bahurim,” a town of Benjamin (2 Samuel iii. 16).

Shaalbonite] i.e. “inhabitant of Shaalbim” (Judges i. 35), or “Shaalabbin” (Joshua xix. 42), a town in Dan.

³⁴the sons of Hashem¹ the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shage the Hararite;

34. the sons of Hashem the Gizonite] The corresponding clause in 2 Samuel xxiii. 32 is simply “the sons of Jashen.” The text is corrupt in both places. LXX. (Chronicles) for the sons of has the proper name “Benaiah.” Read perhaps “Jashen the Gunite” (compare Numbers xxvi. 48) omitting the sons of (Hebrew bĕnē) as arising from a mistaken repetition of the last three letters of Shaalbonite (Hebrew form).

Jonathan the son of Shage] Compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 32, 33, where the right reading seems to be “Jonathan the son of Shammah.” Nothing is known of the meaning of “Hararite,” nor is the reading certain.

³⁵Ahiam the son of Sacar¹ the Hararite, Eliphal² the son of Ur; ³⁶Hepher the Mecherathite, Ahijah the Pelonite;

35. Sacar] In 2 Samuel “Sharar.”

35, 36. Eliphal the son of Ur; Hepher the Mecherathite] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 34 “Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maacathite.” Chronicles has two heroes against one in 2 Samuel.

36. Ahijah the Pelonite] A mutilated reading of 2 Samuel xxiii. 34, “Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite.” For “Ahithophel” see xxvii. 33, note. “Gilonite” means “inhabitant of Giloh,” a town in the hill country of Judah (Joshua xv. 51).

³⁷Hezro the Carmelite, Naarai¹ the son of Ezbai;

37. Hezro] So 2 Samuel xxiii. 35 (Revised Version following the Kethīb); but Hezrai (Authorized Version following the Ḳerī).

the Carmelite] i.e. inhabitant of Carmel, a town in the hill country of Judah (1 Samuel xxv. 2 ff.).

Naarai] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 35 “Paarai.” The true form is lost.

the son of Ezbai] In 2 Samuel “the Arbite” (simply), i.e. (probably) “inhabitant of Arab” (Joshua xv. 52), a town in the hill country of Judah.

³⁸Joel the brother of Nathan, Mibhar the son of Hagri;

38. Joel the brother of Nathan, Mibhar] Mibhar is a corruption of a word (“of Zobah”) belonging to the first clause of the verse; compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 39, “Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah.” For “Zobah” compare xviii. 3.

the son of Hagri] In 2 Samuel “Bani the Gadite.”

³⁹Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Berothite, the armourbearer of Joab the son of Zeruiah;

39. the Berothite] Spelt generally “Beerothite.” Beeroth was a Benjamite town; 2 Samuel iv. 2.

⁴⁰Ira the Ithrite, Gareb the Ithrite;

40. the Ithrite] i.e. “member of the family (or ‘clan’) of Jether.” Compare ii. 17, note.

⁴¹Uriah the Hittite, Zabad the son of Ahlai;

41. Uriah the Hittite] Compare 2 Samuel xi. 3. The list in 2 Samuel xxiii. closes with this name and with the note “thirty and seven in all.” In Chronicles the list is extended to include sixteen additional names, which are all otherwise unknown.

41b‒47 (no parallel in 2 Samuel).
Continuation of the List of David’s Mighty Men.

⁴²Adina the son of Shiza the Reubenite, a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him; ⁴³Hanan the son of Maacah, and Joshaphat the Mithnite;

42. and thirty with him] This clause may be a marginal note taken into the text at the wrong place. It was apparently meant to stand after the name of Uriah the Hittite (verse 41) by some scribe who followed our present text and referred “the sons of Hashem” (verse 34) to Azmaveth and Eliahba (verse 33), thus reckoning just thirty names from Asahel to Uriah. The clause should be read either “and up to him are thirty” or “and all of them are thirty” (compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 39). Another possibility is that the proper place of these verses, 42‒47, is in chapter xii., after verse 7: they describe on that view the Reubenite gathering to David, and the names in verses 43‒47 are then to be regarded as a portion of the list of the thirty with Adina (verse 42). On the characteristics of these additional names and of those in xii. 1‒22, see G. B. Gray, Hebrew Proper Names, p. 230.

⁴⁴Uzzia the Ashterathite, Shama and Jeiel the sons of Hotham the Aroerite; ⁴⁵Jediael the son of Shimri, and Joha his brother, the Tizite;

44. the Ashterathite] i.e. inhabitant of Ashtaroth (vi. 71 [56, Hebrew]), a city of Manasseh east of Jordan.

the Aroerite] i.e. inhabitant of Aroer. There were two cities of this name, both east of Jordan; compare Joshua xiii. 16, 25.

⁴⁶Eliel the Mahavite, and Jeribai, and Joshaviah, the sons of Elnaam, and Ithmah the Moabite;

46. the Mahavite] Read perhaps, “the Mahanite,” i.e. inhabitant of Mahanaim, a town east of Jordan; compare 2 Samuel xvii. 27; or “the Meonite,” i.e. of Beth Meon, a Reubenite city, Joshua xiii. 17.

⁴⁷Eliel, and Obed, and Jaasiel the Mezobaite.

47. the Mezobaite] Read perhaps, “of Zobah”; compare verse 38, note.

---

Chapter XII.

1‒22 (not in Samuel).
David’s Adherents in exile.

This section describes the gathering to David of helpers from Benjamin (verses 1‒7), Gad (8‒15), Benjamin and Judah (16‒18), and Manasseh (19‒22)—before the death of Saul. It is entirely natural to suppose that the men who followed David in the days of Saul’s enmity were rewarded when he became king, and their descendants might well be prominent families in the land. Whether any such survived the exilic period and continued in later Jerusalem we cannot say for certain, but it is probable that some names in this list are correct, though it is doubtful whether the Chronicler is drawing on contemporary family tradition or on written sources. The style, however, shows that the composition of the chapter is the Chronicler’s, and the impression made by the whole should be contrasted with the picture of this period of David’s life given in 1 Samuel xxii. 1 ff. In Samuel David is leader of a small band of his own immediate friends, augmented by adventurers and desperate men, and numbering in all some six hundred. In Chronicles one gathers that his followers were the choice spirits of Israel and Judah, who rallied to his support until he had “a great host like the host of God.” Beyond question the picture in Samuel is true to fact, that in Chronicles being part of the idealisation of David as the perfect king, which the Chronicler (doubtless in full accord with the temper of his age) consistently presents. Its worth lies not in its historical accuracy, but in the religious enthusiasm which has produced it.

1‒7.
Benjamite Adherents of David.

¹Now these are they that came to David to Ziklag, while¹ he yet kept himself close because of Saul the son of Kish: and they were among the mighty men, his helpers in war.

1. to Ziklag] David at Ziklag was a client of Achish, king of Gath (1 Samuel xxvii. 5, 6), so that Benjamites joining him put themselves under their hereditary enemies the Philistines.

while he yet kept himself close] Render, while he was yet shut up. David was shut in, as in a prison, and unable to move freely through the land of Israel.

²They were¹ armed with bows, and could use both the right hand and the left in slinging stones and in shooting arrows from the bow; they were of Saul’s brethren of Benjamin.

2. both the right hand and the left] In Judges xx. the Benjamites are said to have had seven hundred men lefthanded who could sling stones at a hair and not miss (Judges xx. verse 16). Compare Judges iii. 15.

they were of Saul’s brethren of Benjamin] Brother is used in Hebrew and Arabic for fellow-tribesman; compare 2 Samuel xix. 12. The loyalty of Benjamin to Saul even after his death is attested by 2 Samuel ii. 15, 25, 31. But the importance of Benjamites in the post-exilic period would encourage such a tradition as is here recorded.

³The chief was Ahiezer, then Joash, the sons of Shemaah the Gibeathite; and Jeziel, and Pelet, the sons of Azmaveth; and Beracah, and Jehu the Anathothite;

3. The chief was A., then J.] Read (compare LXX.) A. the chief, J. the son (singular) of Shemaah.

Jehu the Anathothite] i.e. man of Anathoth. See xi. 28, note.

⁴and Ishmaiah the Gibeonite, a mighty man among the thirty, and over the thirty; and Jeremiah, and Jahaziel, and Johanan, and Jozabad the Gederathite; ⁵Eluzai, and Jerimoth, and Bealiah, and Shemariah, and Shephatiah the Haruphite;

4. among the thirty, and over the thirty] Ishmaiah’s name does not occur among the thirty (2 Samuel xxiii. 24‒39); the phrase is therefore perhaps only a kind of superlative; Ishmaiah was worthy to be ranked with the thirty or even above them. Probably however the list in chapter xi. and that in chapter xii. belong to different times.

the Gederathite] i.e. the man of Gederah. The only Gederah known was in the Judean Shephelah (Joshua xv. 36), so that it would seem that some men of Judah are reckoned along with the Benjamites in these verses. Similarly in verse 7 men of the Judean town of Gedor (iv. 4; Joshua xv. 58) are mentioned. Perhaps therefore some words introducing the names of Judean heroes have dropped out. But an identification with a Benjamite village Jedireh, North of Jerusalem, is also possible.

⁶Elkanah, and Isshiah, and Azarel, and Joezer, and Jashobeam, the Korahites; ⁷and Joelah, and Zebadiah, the sons of Jeroham of Gedor.

6. the Korahites] Probably not the Levitic but the Calebite sons of Korah (ii. 43), who belonged to Judah, are meant.

8‒15.
Gadite Adherents of David.

⁸And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto David to the hold in the wilderness, mighty men of valour, men trained for war, that could handle shield and spear; whose faces were like the faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes upon the mountains; ⁹Ezer the chief, Obadiah the second, Eliab the third;

8. And of the Gadites] The Gadites had the name of marauders (Genesis xlix. 19), and David’s mode of life would attract them. Chronologically verse 8 should precede verse 1; David was first “in the hold” and afterwards in Ziklag. On the reference to Gad and Manasseh (verse 19) see 2 Chronicles xv. 9.

separated themselves] i.e. left their brethren east of Jordan and came west.

to the hold in the wilderness] It is uncertain whether this hold be or be not the cave of Adullam. On the latter see xi. 15, note.

shield and spear] The reference is to the manner of fighting in David’s day. At the threat of an attack an army was drawn up in close array, shield touching shield and spears carried at the charge. Only in a high state of discipline could men quickly and effectively handle shield and spear thus (1 Samuel xvii. 2, 8, 21). (The Authorized Version, “shield and buckler,” follows a mistake of several early editions of the printed Hebrew text.)

as the roes] In David’s lament (2 Samuel i.) Jonathan is compared to a lion (verse 23) and to a gazelle (verse 19 margin, the same Hebrew word as for roe here).

¹⁰Mishmannah the fourth, Jeremiah the fifth; ¹¹Attai the sixth, Eliel the seventh; ¹²Johanan the eighth, Elzabad the ninth; ¹³Jeremiah the tenth, Machbannai the eleventh.

10. Jeremiah, the fifth] Compare verse 13, Jeremiah the tenth. A very slight difference of spelling distinguishes the two words in the Hebrew.

¹⁴These of the sons of Gad were captains of the host: he that was least was equal to¹ an hundred, and the greatest to¹ a thousand.

14. he that was least ... thousand] Compare Leviticus xxvi. 8; Isaiah xxx. 17.

¹⁵These are they that went over Jordan in the first month, when it had overflown all its banks; and they put to flight all them of the valleys, both toward the east, and toward the west.

15. in the first month] In Nisan (the month of harvest) when the snow was melting and filling all streams; compare Joshua iii. 15.

all them of the valleys] i.e. all inhabitants of the valleys who in the interest of Saul sought to bar their march westward to join David.

16‒18.
Amasai and His Companions.

16‒18. These interesting and beautiful passages are so different in style and sentiment from what precedes and what follows that they would seem to be drawn from another source. It is quite possible that they were inserted thus between Gad and Manasseh by the Chronicler himself; but that they are a later addition is probable from the fact that the adherents who came from Benjamin and perhaps Judah (verses 5‒7, see note on Gederathite) are given above, verses 1‒7.

¹⁶And there came of the children of Benjamin and Judah to the hold unto David.

16. to the hold] See verse 8, notes.

¹⁷And David went out to meet them, and answered and said unto them, If ye be come peaceably unto me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you: but if ye be come to betray me to mine adversaries, seeing there is no wrong¹ in mine hands, the God of our fathers look thereon, and rebuke it.

17. David went out to meet them] Instead of letting himself be surprised he took up a favourable position in advance from which he could hold parley with them. The south of Judah with its ravines and cliffs affords many such positions.

the God of our fathers, etc.] Compare the equally fine assertion of integrity of conduct and of faith in God made by David in 1 Samuel xxiv. 11 ff. If it be felt that in the later idealisation, which must be recognised, we lose our knowledge of the real David, it should be remembered that this very idealisation is in itself proof of the greatness of David in mind and soul. The strong but simple faith and the magnanimous bearing of David, which such a passage as the present portrays, are no doubt true to fact, for they provide precisely that historical basis without which the reverent and loving idealisation of later generations had never come into existence.

¹⁸Then the spirit came¹ upon Amasai, who was chief of the thirty², and he said, Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee. Then David received them, and made them captains of the band.

18. the spirit came upon A.] Literally a spirit (i.e. from God) clothed itself with (i.e. entered into) Amasai. Compare 2 Chronicles xxiv. 20; Judges vi. 34.

Amasai] Probably to be identified with “Amasa” (2 Samuel xvii. 25, xix. 13).

chief of the thirty] Thus the Kethīb; the Authorized Version], following the Ḳerī, has “chief of the captains”; so also xi. 11, where see note.

Thine are we, David, and on thy side] Literally “For thee, David, and with thee.” This response “Thine are we ... helpeth thee” is a fine fragment of Hebrew poetry, having an early simplicity of style, which it is peculiarly interesting to find in so late a book as Chronicles. It is assuredly not the composition of the Chronicler, but must be derived from some independent source, and is perhaps a really old traditional saying about David. See the Introduction § 5, p. xxxv.

for thy God helpeth thee] David’s frequent escapes from Saul were felt to be due to Divine protection.

19‒22.
Manassite Adherents.

¹⁹Of Manasseh also there fell away some to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle, but they helped them not: for the lords of the Philistines upon advisement sent him away, saying, He will fall away to his master Saul to the jeopardy of our heads.

19. when he came with the Philistines] See 1 Samuel xxviii. 1, 2, xxix. 1‒11.

but they helped them not] David’s men did not help the Philistines.

upon advisement] “After consideration”; literally “by counsel.” Compare xxi. 12, “advise thyself.”

to the jeopardy of our heads] Rather, at the price of our heads. David became son-in-law to Saul at the price of the lives of two hundred of the Philistines (1 Samuel xviii. 27); their lords here (in Chronicles) express their dread lest David reconcile himself to Saul by some act of treachery and slaughter done against his present Philistine patrons; compare 1 Samuel xxix. 4 (“with” = “at the price of”).

²⁰As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah, and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zillethai, captains of thousands that were of Manasseh.

20. As he went] i.e. As he returned (1 Samuel xxx. 1).

Jozabad] This name occurs twice; possibly in the original list different patronymics were attached to the two mentions of the name.

captains of thousands] Compare xv. 25; Micah v. 2. Tribes were divided into “thousands” which were subdivided into “hundreds.” These divisions were of civil as well as of military significance.

²¹And they helped David against the band of rovers: for they were all mighty men of valour, and were captains in the host.

21. the band of rovers] The reference is to the Amalekites who burnt Ziklag (1 Samuel xxx. 1 ff.). The Hebrew word gĕdūd, here translated “band,” is translated “troop” in 1 Samuel xxx. 8, 15.

and were captains] Render, and they became captains.

²²For from day to day there came to David to help him, until it was a great host, like the host of God.

22. the host of God] The phrase comes from Genesis xxxii. 2; compare Psalms lxviii. 15 (Revised Version) “a mountain of God.” The epithet “of God” is used to distinguish a thing as “very great.”

23‒40 (compare 2 Samuel v. 1).
The Forces which came to Hebron to make David King.

²³And these are the numbers of the heads of them that were armed for war, which came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the Lord.

23. And these are, etc.] It may confidently be said that the list as it stands is the composition of the Chronicler himself, for the syntax and vocabulary of the passage are his, and there is no evidence to suggest that its statements are based on those of some ancient document. Its value in the idealistic account of David which the Chronicler furnishes is obvious, implying as it does not only that the northern as well as the southern tribes concurred whole-heartedly in the election of David, but also that the occasion was one of great military display. On the huge numbers alleged to have come from the North (Zebulun, Naphtali, Dan, and Asher being credited with 155,600 warriors) compare the following note, and, in general, on midrashic exaggeration of numbers in Chronicles see the note on 2 Chronicles xvii. 14.

²⁴The children of Judah that bare shield and spear were six thousand and eight hundred, armed for war.

24. six thousand and eight hundred] Contrast the numbers assigned to the northern tribes in verses 33 ff. It may be the idea of the Chronicler that the unanimous support of the southern tribes could be assumed, and that only chosen representatives of these tribes attended. But much more probably the multitudes of Zebulun (verse 33), etc. are simply due to his desire to magnify the share taken by the north, whilst the problem of the numerical contrast with Judah, etc. did not present itself to him as it does to us.

²⁵Of the children of Simeon, mighty men of valour for the war, seven thousand and one hundred. ²⁶Of the children of Levi four thousand and six hundred.

25. Simeon] The most southerly of the tribes (iv. 24‒31). The tribes are mentioned in order from south to north.

²⁷And Jehoiada was the leader of the house of Aaron, and with him were three thousand and seven hundred;

27. of the house of Aaron] Jehoiada was not high-priest, but leader of the warriors of the house of Aaron. He may be the same person as the father of Benaiah (xi. 22). Leader (Hebrew nagīd) is the title given to the “Ruler” of the Temple (ix. 11).

²⁸and Zadok, a young man mighty of valour, and of his father’s house twenty and two captains.

28. Zadok] In xxvii. 17 he seems to occupy the position assigned to Jehoiada in verse 27. Perhaps he succeeded him.

²⁹And of the children of Benjamin, the brethren of Saul, three thousand: for hitherto the greatest part of them had kept¹ their allegiance to the house of Saul. ³⁰And of the children of Ephraim twenty thousand and eight hundred, mighty men of valour, famous men in their fathers’ houses.

29. hitherto] i.e. up to the time referred to in 2 Samuel v. 1.

³¹And of the half tribe of Manasseh eighteen thousand, which were expressed by name, to come and make David king.

31. which were expressed by name] Suggesting that a census list was kept, recording however not necessarily individuals but simply households. The phrase does not mean picked representatives. Note how the Chronicler skilfully lightens his statistics by some descriptive phrase: so also in verses 32 ff.

³²And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment.

32. that had understanding of the times] Compare Esther i. 13, “which knew the times.” “Times” are “opportunities,” “vicissitudes” (compare xxix. 30), “experiences,” good or bad (compare Psalms xxxi. 15). The phrase means, therefore, “men of experience, having knowledge of the world.” Some suppose that the phrase refers to astrological skill (knowledge of auspicious “times and seasons”).

³³Of Zebulun, such as were able to go out in the host, that could set the battle in array, with all manner of instruments of war, fifty thousand; and that could order the battle array, and were not of double heart. ³⁴And of Naphtali a thousand captains, and with them with shield and spear thirty and seven thousand. ³⁵And of the Danites that could set the battle in array, twenty and eight thousand and six hundred. ³⁶And of Asher, such as were able to go out in the host, that could set the battle in array, forty thousand.

33. such as were able, etc.] This description is intended to exclude mere lads (such as David appeared to be, 1 Samuel xvii. 33) who might be in attendance on the warriors.

that could order, etc.] i.e. who moved as one man in battle array; compare verse 8, note on shield and spear. For “of double heart” compare 2 Chronicles xxx. 12, “one heart.”

³⁷And on the other side of Jordan, of the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and of the half tribe of Manasseh, with all manner of instruments of war for the battle, an hundred and twenty thousand.

37. an hundred and twenty thousand] Evidently a round number, giving 40,000 to each tribe; compare verse 36.

³⁸All these, being men of war, that could order the battle array, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king.

38. with a perfect heart] i.e. with whole, undivided heart.

³⁹And they were there with David three days, eating and drinking: for their brethren had made preparation for them.

39. eating and drinking] The feasting probably began with the sacrificial meal by which a covenant was usually ratified; compare Genesis xxxi. 46, 54.

⁴⁰Moreover they that were nigh unto them, even as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, victual of meal, cakes of figs, and clusters of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep in abundance: for there was joy in Israel.

40. they that were nigh unto them] The relatives of the assembled warriors cared for their needs.

as far as Issachar] Even those warriors who came from the northern districts were provisioned by their kinsfolk.

---

Chapter XIV.

(= 2 Samuel v. 11‒25).
David at Jerusalem. Two Philistine Attacks Repulsed.

The Chronicler derives this chapter from Samuel but gives it in a setting of his own. To agree with Samuel it should immediately follow 1 Chronicles xi. 9 and should immediately precede 1 Chronicles xiii. 1. In Samuel the two attempts to remove the Ark to the city of David, the first unsuccessful, the second successful, are related in immediate succession; the Chronicler interposes between them the double repulse of the Philistines. See the head-note to chapter xiii.

1, 2.
Hiram’s [first] Embassy to David.

The dislocation of the narrative mentioned in the last note has concealed the occasion of Hiram’s embassy. The narrative of 2 Samuel v. 9‒11 suggests that Hiram heard of the building works which David was carrying on at Jerusalem and so sent materials and workmen to assist. David accepted the welcome offer (which ultimately led to an alliance) as a sign of Divine favour.

¹And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and masons, and carpenters, to build him an house. ²And David perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel, for his kingdom was exalted on high, for his people Israel’s sake.

1. Hiram] Other forms of this name are Huram and (1 Kings v. 10, 18) Hirom.

3‒7 (= iii. 5‒8 and 2 Samuel v. 13‒16).
David’s Family in Jerusalem.

³And David took more wives at Jerusalem: and David begat more sons and daughters.

3. more wives] In 2 Samuel v. 13 more concubines and wives. The Chronicler omits or modifies statements which tend to David’s discredit.

⁴And these are the names of the children which he had in Jerusalem; Shammua, and Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon; ⁵and Ibhar, and Elishua, and Elpelet; ⁶and Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia; ⁷and Elishama, and Beeliada, and Eliphelet.

4. these are the names] The names seem better preserved here than in either of the parallel passages; compare notes on iii. 5‒8.

Shammua ... Solomon] All these four are attributed to Bath-shua (= Bath-sheba) in iii. 5.

8‒17 (= 2 Samuel v. 17‒25).
The Double Repulse of the Philistines.

⁸And when the Philistines heard that David was anointed king over all Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David: and David heard of it, and went out against¹ them.

8. over all Israel] in 2 Samuel v. 17, over Israel. In both passages the reference is to the later anointing by the whole people (2 Samuel v. 3).

all the Philistines] David, as king of Judah, was of little or no political importance to the Philistines; as king of united Israel, he became a possible menace, and was accordingly attacked without delay.

went up] i.e. from their own low-lying territory by the sea into the hill-country of Judah.

went out against them] margin went out before them, i.e. anticipated them, did not wait for them to attack him. In 2 Samuel v. 17 went down to the hold, an expression which might refer to some part of the difficult hill-country of Judah in which he had long defied Saul, or may mean the “hold” of Jerusalem, which David had seized from the Jebusites (see note on xi. 5).

⁹Now the Philistines had come and made a raid in the valley of Rephaim.

9. the valley of Rephaim] probably the shallow valley, now called Beḳā‘a, across which runs the road from Jerusalem to Beth-lehem (Bädeker, Palestine⁵, pp. 15, 99).

¹⁰And David inquired of God, saying, Shall I go up against the Philistines? and wilt thou deliver them into mine hand? And the Lord said unto him, Go up; for I will deliver them into thine hand.

10. inquired of God] doubtless by means of the sacred lot, the Urim and Thummim (see Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible s.v., and Kirkpatrick’s notes on 1 Samuel x. 22, xxiii. 6).

¹¹So they came up to Baal-perazim, and David smote them there; and David said, God hath broken¹ mine enemies by mine hand, like the breach of waters. Therefore they called the name of that place Baal-perazim².

11. Baal-perazim] probably to be identified with the Mount Perazim of Isaiah xxviii. 21, but the situation is unknown.

like the breach of waters] i.e. like the breach made by waters, Probably the scene of the victory was a hill deeply scarred with watercourses. The force with which God broke through the army of the Philistines is compared with that of a torrent bursting forth from the hill-side or forcing its way through all obstacles. Baal-perazim = the Lord of breakings forth, i.e. upon the foe.

¹²And they left their gods there; and David gave commandment, and they were burned with fire.

12. David gave commandment, and they were burned] In 2 Samuel v. 21 (Revised Version) David and his men took them away. The Chronicler alters this statement so as to make David’s conduct agree with the Law (Deuteronomy vii. 5, 25) which enjoined that graven images were to be burnt with fire.

¹³And the Philistines yet again made a raid in the valley.

13. yet again] This invasion of “all the Philistines” (verse 8) was too serious to be repelled by a single defeat.

in the valley] in 2 Samuel v. 22, in the valley of Rephaim, as in verse 9 above.

¹⁴And David inquired again of God; and God said unto him, Thou shalt not go up after them: turn away from them, and come upon them over against the mulberry¹ trees.

14. Thou shalt not go up after them] In 2 Samuel v. 23 the words after them are connected with the following verb: Thou shalt not go up: make a circuit behind them. In Samuel the command is to assail the rear of the enemy, in Chronicles to avoid the rear (which was perhaps protected by a rear-guard) and to attack (presumably) the flank. The reading in Chronicles is to be preferred as a harder reading, which yields good sense on examination.

from them] The Hebrew word suggests that David occupied a commanding position from which he would be tempted to attack.

over against the mulberry trees] Render, along, parallel to. The line of David’s attack is to be parallel to a line of mulberry trees (or to a ridge on which mulberry trees stood) situate probably at right angles to the line of the Philistine march. Thus David’s advance would be concealed from the Philistines until the very moment of the attack, which would fall on the flank of the Philistine march.

mulberry trees] or, as margin, balsam trees. Some kind of tree or shrub from which gum exudes seems to be meant.

¹⁵And it shall be, when thou hearest the sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees, that then thou shalt go out to battle: for God is gone out before thee to smite the host of the Philistines.

15. the sound of marching] the sound of the wind in the trees is to be taken as an omen from Jehovah, indicating the favourable moment for the assault. The Targum, characteristically, has the sound of angels coming to thy help.

thou shalt go out to battle] Samuel has a more vivid phrase, thou shalt bestir thyself.

¹⁶And David did as God commanded him: and they smote the host of the Philistines from Gibeon¹ even to Gezer. ¹⁷And the fame of David went out into all lands; and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nations.

16. smote the host of the Philistines from Gibeon even to Gezer] This victory was decisive; the main army of the Philistines was routed.

Gezer] compare vi. 67, note.

---

Chapter XVI.

¹And they brought in the ark of God, and set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it: and they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God.

1. the tent] Compare xv. 1, note.

they offered] In 2 Samuel vi. 17, David offered. The Chronicler associates the elders with David as in xv. 26.

burnt offerings] Compare Leviticus i. 1‒9.

peace offerings] The “peace offering” (Hebrew shelem) was a thank-offering or an offering made in expiation of a vow; compare Proverbs vii. 14.

²And when David had made an end of offering the burnt offering and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord.

2. blessed the people] Compare 2 Chronicles vi. 3.

³And he dealt to every one of Israel, both man and woman, to every one a loaf of bread, and a portion of flesh¹, and a cake of raisins.

3. a loaf of bread] A flat round cake such as is still made in Egypt is meant.

a portion of flesh] margin “of wine.” The meaning of the Hebrew word is unknown. Of flesh is rightly in italics here as in 2 Samuel vi. 19.

a cake of raisins] Compare Isaiah xvi. 7 (Revised Version) where the same Hebrew word is used.

4‒6 (compare verses 37, 38).
David’s Arrangements for Ministration before the Ark.

⁴And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord, and to celebrate and to thank and praise the Lord, the God of Israel:

4. to celebrate] The literal meaning is to call to mind; compare verse 12 (remember). Compare Psalms xxxviii., lxx. (titles).

⁵Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, Jeiel¹, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obed-edom, and Jeiel, with psalteries and with harps; and Asaph with cymbals, sounding aloud;

5. Asaph] Compare xv. 17, note.

and Obed-edom] It is possible that the names Obed-edom, and Jeiel and Asaph (in the latter part of the verse) have been inserted by the interpolator who wrote xv. 19‒21 and wished to accommodate these verses to the altered text in chapter xv.

⁶and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests with trumpets continually, before the ark of the covenant of God.

6. Benaiah and Jahaziel] Two priests for the two trumpets.

Benaiah] In xxvii. 5, 6 a Benaiah son of Jehoiada the priest (Revised Version) is mentioned who may possibly be identified with the Benaiah who was one of the thirty heroes (xi. 24, 25). Compare also xii. 27.

7‒36.
The Psalm of Praise.

⁷Then on that day did David first ordain¹ to give thanks unto the Lord, by the hand of Asaph and his brethren.

The psalm which follows consists of Psalms cv. 1‒15, Psalms xcvi. 1b‒13a, Psalms cvi. 1, 47, 48. It has been compiled from the Psalms just mentioned and placed here as an utterance such as would be appropriate to the situation. For detailed criticism as to the original form and present text of these Psalms, the reader must be referred to the commentaries on the Psalter. Only such comment is here given as seems called for in their present setting.

8‒22 (= Psalms cv. 1‒15).

⁸O give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his name;

Make known his doings among the peoples.

8, 9. These verses are perhaps based upon Isaiah xii. 4, 5.

⁹Sing unto him, sing praises unto him;

Talk¹ ye of all his marvellous works.

¹⁰Glory ye in his holy name:

Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord.

9. Talk ye] margin Meditate. Meditation leads to fresh proclamation.

marvellous works] (compare verse 12). i.e. works beyond man’s expectation; compare Genesis xviii. 14, Is anything too hard (wonderful, Revised Version margin) for the Lord?

¹¹Seek ye the Lord and his strength;

Seek his face evermore.

11. and his strength] Perhaps (altering only the points of the Hebrew word) and be ye strong. So LXX. καὶ ἰσχύσατε (in Psalms cv. 4 καὶ κραταιώθητε). A promise is sometimes expressed in Hebrew by the imperative.

¹²Remember his marvellous works that he hath done;

His wonders, and the judgements of his mouth;

12. His wonders] in particular, the marvels of the deliverance from Egypt; Psalms cv. 27‒36.

¹³O ye seed of Israel his servant,

Ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.

13. of Israel] Psalms cv. 6, of Abraham.

¹⁴He is the Lord our God:

His judgements are in all the earth.

14. His judgements are in all the earth] Compare verses 20‒22.

¹⁵Remember his covenant for ever,

The word which he commanded to a thousand generations;

¹⁶The covenant which he made with Abraham,

And his oath unto Isaac;

¹⁷And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a statute,

To Israel for an everlasting covenant:

15. Remember] Read (with Psalms cv. 8) He hath remembered. Compare Exodus xxiv. 3‒8, xxxiv. 10‒27.

¹⁸Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan,

The lot¹ of your inheritance:

18. The lot] The Hebrew word (“ḥebel”) means a portion not assigned by lot but measured by line; compare margin Canaan is co-extensive with Israel’s inheritance.

inheritance] All nations receive an inheritance from God; Deuteronomy xxxii. 8.

¹⁹When ye were but a few men in number;

Yea, very few, and sojourners in it;

19. When ye were] Psalms cv. 12, When they were.

sojourners] The patriarchs were not simply strangers, but strangers who made a long sojourn in Canaan.

²⁰And they went about from nation to nation,

And from one kingdom to another people.

20. kingdom ... people] The “kingdom” is Egypt (Genesis xii.); the “people” the Canaanite and Perizzite (Genesis xiii.).

²¹He suffered no man to do them wrong;

Yea, he reproved kings for their sakes;

21. he reproved kings] Genesis xx. 3‒7.

²²Saying, Touch not mine anointed ones,

And do my prophets no harm.

22. my prophets] Genesis xx. 7.

23‒33 (= Psalms xcvi. 1‒13).

²³Sing unto the Lord, all the earth;

Shew forth his salvation from day to day.

²⁴Declare his glory among the nations,

His marvellous works among all the peoples.

23. Sing unto the Lord] In Psalms xcvi. 1, 2 this exhortation is thrice repeated; in Chronicles it is once given. Note that verse 2a of the Psalm is also omitted here.

²⁵For great is the Lord, and highly to be praised:

He also is to be feared above all gods.

25. to be feared above all gods] i.e. to be feared as being above all “that are called gods,” these being “things of nought” (verse 26, Revised Version margin). The real existence of false gods is not assumed.

²⁶For all the gods of the peoples are idols¹:

But the Lord made the heavens.

26. made the heavens] A fine epithet. Compare Jeremiah x. 11, The gods that have not made the heavens ... shall perish from the earth.

²⁷Honour and majesty are before him:

Strength and gladness are in his place.

27. are before him] i.e. are His, belong to Him as His attributes. Perhaps also before him refers to God’s abode in heaven, while the parallel expression in his place (Psalms xcvi. 6, in his sanctuary) refers to His temple on earth.

Strength and gladness] Psalms xcvi. 6, Strength and beauty. The reference seems to be to the strength and gladness (or beauty) which God bestows on Israel (Psalms lxviii. 35; Isaiah lxi. 3).

in his place] Read with Psalms xcvi. 6, in his sanctuary. Compare the two preceding notes.

²⁸Give unto the Lord, ye kindreds of the peoples,

Give unto the Lord glory and strength.

28. of the peoples] An expectation that the Gentiles will turn to the worship of the true God is expressed not rarely in the Psalms; compare Psalms xxii. 27, Psalms lxviii. 31, 32; and is, of course, one of the greatest contributions of Old Testament faith to the religious aspirations of humanity.

²⁹Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name:

Bring an offering, and come before him:

Worship the Lord in the beauty¹ of holiness.

29. before him] Psalms xcvi. 8, into his courts.

Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness] Render as margin, worship the Lord in holy attire (see Kirkpatrick on Psalms xxix. 2, Psalms xcvi. 9; and compare Exodus xxviii. 2). Compare 2 Chronicles xx. 21.

³⁰Tremble before him, all the earth:

The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved.

30. The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved] In Psalms xcvi. 10 this clause is preceded by the words, Say among the nations, The Lord reigneth, and is followed by the words, He shall judge the peoples with equity.

³¹Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;

And let them say among the nations, The Lord reigneth.

³²Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof;

Let the field exult, and all that is therein;

31. And let them say] Psalms xcvi. 10, Say [ye]. The clause is displaced in Chronicles; compare note on verse 30.

The Lord reigneth] i.e. the Lord is claiming His kingdom over the earth by coming to judge the earth; compare verse 33. Contrast Habakkuk i. 14, where the prophet complains that Jehovah is not asserting Himself as the ruler of men.

³³Then shall the trees of the wood sing for joy before the Lord,

For he cometh to judge the earth.

33. to judge the earth] The joy with which the coming judgement is greeted arises from the fact that the Hebrews regarded a judge as a champion of the oppressed and not as a precise interpreter of statutes.

34‒36 (= Psalms cvi. 1, 47, 48).

³⁴O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good:

For his mercy endureth for ever.

34. his mercy endureth for ever] Compare Exodus xx. 6, “shewing mercy unto a thousand generations of them that love me” (Revised Version margin).

³⁵And say ye, Save us, O God of our salvation,

And gather us together and deliver us from the nations,

To give thanks unto thy holy name,

And to triumph in thy praise.

35. gather us together] A phrase which shows very clearly that the standpoint of the Psalmist is post-exilic.

³⁶Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,

From everlasting even to everlasting.

And all the people said, Amen, and praised the Lord.

36. said, Amen, and praised the Lord] In the Psalms (cvi. 48) “say, Amen! Hallelujah! (i.e. Praise ye the Lord!).” This verse belongs not properly to the Psalm, but is the doxology marking the conclusion of the fourth “book” of the Psalms. Apparently then the Psalms had already been arranged in the five collections or “books,” into which they were finally divided, by the time of the Chronicler; but the argument is not conclusive since (1) the doxology may be really part of the Psalm, and (2) there is the possibility that verses 7‒36 are a later insertion in Chronicles.

37‒43.
The Service before the Ark and the Service at Gibeon.

The description of the disposition of the Priests and Levites for the worship in Jerusalem and in Gibeon which was begun in verses 4‒6 is here resumed. verses 37, 38 summarise verses 4‒6.

³⁷So he left there, before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, Asaph and his brethren, to minister before the ark continually, as every day’s work required: ³⁸and Obed-edom with their brethren, threescore and eight; Obed-edom also the son of Jeduthun and Hosah to be doorkeepers:

38. Obed-edom with their brethren] A name or names seems to be missing after Obed-edom. The LXX. cuts the knot by reading simply “and his brethren.” Probably we should insert after Obed-edom the words “and Hosah” from the last part of the verse: see the following note.

Obed-edom also the son of Jeduthun] If the view of xv. 19‒21 and xvi. 5 taken above be correct, these words also may be deleted as a harmonising gloss, added by someone who wished to insist on Obed-edom as a singer, and hence gave him a place in the line of Jeduthun, one of the three great choral guilds.

³⁹and Zadok. the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of the Lord in the high place that was at Gibeon,

39. Zadok the priest] As Zadok alone is here mentioned as “before the tabernacle,” the Chronicler perhaps implies that Abiathar (Ahimelech) the other high-priest was in charge of the Ark in Jerusalem. On Zadok and Abiathar, see xv. 11, note.

the tabernacle of the Lord in the high place that was at Gibeon] See prefatory note to chapter xiii.; and 2 Chronicles i. 3.

⁴⁰to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord upon the altar of burnt offering continually morning and evening, even according to all that is written in the law of the Lord, which he commanded unto Israel;

40. the altar of burnt offering] 2 Chronicles i. 5, 6.

morning and evening] Exodus xxix. 38, 39 (= Numbers xxviii. 3, 4).

⁴¹and with them Heman and Jeduthun, and the rest that were chosen, who were expressed by name, to give thanks to the Lord, because his mercy endureth for ever;

41. Jeduthun] Psalms xxxix., lxii., lxxvii. (titles). In vi. 33‒47, xv. 17, 19 the names of the leading singers are given as Heman, Asaph, and Ethan. Here and in xxv. 1 ff. however Jeduthun seems to take the place of Ethan. Probably there was a variation in the tradition as to the third name, two families competing each for the honour of its own ancestor.

⁴²and with them Heman and Jeduthun with trumpets and cymbals for those that should sound aloud, and with instruments for the songs of God: and the sons of Jeduthun to be at the gate. ⁴³And all the people departed every man to his house: and David returned to bless his house.

42. and with them, etc.] The words with them are possibly repeated in error from verse 41. Render perhaps, And Heman and Jeduthun had trumpets and cymbals. For trumpets compare xv. 24 (note).

sons of Jeduthun] Perhaps a gloss connected with the statement in verse 38, where see note on Obed-edom also the son of Jeduthun.

to be at the gate] David’s organisation of the doorkeepers is given in xxvi. 1‒19.