(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Biblical Commentary Old Testament. Keil and Delitzsch.6 vols.complete.Clark'sFTL.1864.1892."

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 



at jhttp : //books . qooqle . com/ 



cecc 



>B«>3 



-N'-.v 



B 





600032287S 




1012- 



l. 3 



7 



r 



1 



Digitized by \jOOQ IC 



s 

Digitized by ' 



/Google 



Digitized by 



Google 



T. and T. Clark's Publications. 



In One thick Volume, Demy 8vo, price 14s., 

Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. By 

Hermann Cremer, Professor of Theology in the University of Greif swalcL 
Translated from tke German by D. W. Simon, Ph.D., and William 
Urwick, M.A. 

'A close inspection sf many of the terms which are representative of the leading doc- 
trines of the New Testament, enables ns to offer the assurance that Professor Cramer's 
Lexicon may both safely and with high advantage he employed by students of theology 
for the formation of their doctrinal views, as well as for the other and more common uses 
of a New Testament dictionary. ... It is distinguished by critical ability and ex- 
haustive research.' — Record. 

'The peculiar excellency of the work lies in its careful reference to — (1) Classical, 
bat (2), and chiefly, Old Testament usage, and in its clear making out ef the genealogy 
(so to call it) of the special New Testament use.' — Guardian. 

' The work is admirably done throughout, with a completeness that is simply wonder- 
ful, when one remembers that Cremer is the first manner who has burst into this un- 
known sea.' — Nonconformist. 



In One thick Volume, Demy 8vo, prioe 16a, 

A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, re- 
garded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. 
Translated from the German, with large Additions and full Indices, by 
Rev. W. F. Moulton, M. A., Classical Tutor, Wesleyan Theological College, 
Richmond, and Prizeman in Hebrew and New Testament Greek in the 
University of London. , 

* This is the standard classical work on the Grammar of the New Testament, and it is 
of course indispensable to every one who would prosecute intelligently the critical study 
of the most important portion of the inspired record. It is a great service to render 
such a work accessible to the English reader.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 

' I trust and believe it will have an extensive sale.' — The Bight Rev. Dr. Ellicott, 
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 

' I hare seen enough already to judge of its merits, and shall have great pleasure in 
recommending it to my pupils.' — Professor Lioutfoot. 

' It is a treat to open a book that has been completed in so thorough and scholarly a 
manner.' — Professor Plumptrk. 



In One handsome Volume, Demy 8vo, price 12s., Second Edition, Revised, 

A History of the Christian Councils, from the Original Docu- 
ments, to the Close of the Council of Nicssa, a.d. 825. By Charles 
Joseph Hefele, D.D., Bishop of Rottenberg, formerly Professor of 
Theology in the University of Tubingen. Translated from the German and 
Edited by William R. Clabk, M.A. Oxon., Prebendary of Wells and 
Vicar of Taunton. 

'Dr. Hefele is well known as the first scholar in the German episcopate. . . . His 
work has supplied a want not only in German but in modern literature generally ; and 
his English translator does him no more than justice in saying that he is so fair in his 
statement of facts that every reader can easily draw his own conclusions. . . . The 
book will be of great value. — Saturday Review. 

'Dr. Hefele is too well known as a profound and original ecclesiastical scholar, and 
his name has been of late too prominently before the world in connection with the 
recent Vatican dogma, to need many words to introduce his book to English readers. 
With one exception (that of the theory of papal supremacy), it is undoubtedly a 
thorough and a fair compendium, put in the most accessible and intelligible form, and 
based on a re-examination of the original documents, with all their later editions and 
rectifications, of the canons and the history of the Church Councils.' — Guardian. 
1 A 



Digitized by 



Google 



T. and T. Clark's Publications. 



In One handsomely bound Volume, crown 8vo, price 7a. 6<L, 

The Footsteps of Christ Translated from the German of A. 
Caspeks by A. E. Rodham. 1. Christ for us ; 2. Christ in us; 3. Christ 
before as; 4. Christ through us. 

' It is a work of solid thought and solid learning, and should find a considerable public 
in its English dress.'— Nonconformist. 

' The sentences are short and antithetical, and the translation is so idiomatic and good 
that you never hare occasion in reading to notice that it is a translation at all. The 
papers are short, but not too short for a profitable devout meditation in the closet. They 
are admirably fitted for that purpose ; indeed, that is their sole aim and end. We close 
by simply recommending any and every reader, who may be in search of a really fresh 
devotional volume, to stop here at this odcV Weekly Review. 

1 The volume is entirely devotional, and contains much that will have interest for de- 
vout and intelligent English readers. ... It ought to find a welcome.' — freeman. 

' There is much deeply experimental truth and precious spiritual lore in Caspars' book. 
I do not always agree with his theology, but I own myself much profited by his devout 
utterances.' — Bev. 0. H. Spcrokoit. 

* A very interesting and instructive book. Its style is quaint and antithetic; it abounds 
ii bright thoughts, presents striking views of Scripture facts and doctrines, and altogether 
is eminently fitted to refresh and edify believers.' — Family Treasury. 

In Grown 8vo, Second Edition, price 6a, 

Apologetic Lectures on the Saving Truths of Christianity. 

By C. E. LrrrHAitDT, D.D., Leipsic. The Nature of Christianity ; Sia ; 
Grace; The God-Man; the Work of Jesus Christ; The Trinity; The 
Church ; Holy Scripture ; the Means of Grace ; The Last Things. 

' These lectures contain a resume" of the doctrines of the Christian faith. The author 
is a profound thinker, a skilled theologian, a man of wide and varied culture, who knows 
how to express clearly and sharply what he believes. The principles of the gospel are 
expounded with singular force, truth, and gracefulness of diction.' — Evangelical Magazine. 

' We doubt not that these lectures, which are popular in Germany, will be adequately 
appreciated in England.' — Standard. 

'We commend his lectures as very able. His scholarship is adequate, his spirit evan- 
gelical and devout, and he. speaks lucidly, pointedly, and tersely.' — British Quarterly 
Review. 

BY THE SAME AUTHOR, 
In One Volume, Crown 8vo, Second Edition, price 6s^ 

The Fundamental Truths of Christianity. The Antagonistic 

Views of the World in their Historical Development ; The Anomalies of 
Existence ; The Personal God ; The Creation of the World ; Man ; Reli- 
gion ; Revelation ; History of Revelation — Heathenism and Judaism ; 
Christianity in History ; the Person of Jesus Christ. 

' Luthardt Is the very man to help those entangled in the thickets of modern rationalism ; 
we do not know just such another book as this ; it is devout, scholarly, clear, forcible, 
penetrating, comprehensive, satisfactory, admirable.'— Evangelical Magazine. 

' We have never met with a volume better adapted to set forth the evidences of 
Christianity in a form suited to the wants of our day. The whole of the vast argument 
is illustrated by various and profound learning ; there is no obscurity in the thoughts or 
in the style; the language is simple, the ideas clear, and the argument logical, and 
generally, to our mind, conclusive.' — Guardian. 

The Tripartite Nature of Man, Spirit, SouL and Body, applied 

to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrine of Original Sin, the New Birth, the 
Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body. By the Rev. J. B. Heard. 
1 The author has got a striking and consistent theory. Whether agreeing or disagree- 
ing with that theory, it is a book which any student of the Bible may read with pleasure.' 
— Guardian, 

' His speculations are marked by great power, and are well deserving of the careful 
study of the reader.' — English Independent. 

' An elaborate, ingenious, and very able book.'— London Quarterly Review. 
1 The subject is discussed with much ability and learning, and the style is sprightly 
and readable. It is candid in its tone, and original both in thought and illustratien.'— 
Wesleyan Methodist Magazine. 
2 



Digitized by 



Google 



T. and T. Clark's Publications. 



In Two Volumes, Demy 8vo, Fifth Edition, price 21b., 

The Typology of Scripture, viewed in Connection with the 

whole Series of the Divine Dispensations. By the Rev. Patrick Fair- 
bairn, D.D., Principal and Professor of Divinity, Free Church College, 
Glasgow. 

' As the product of the labours of an original thinker and of a sound theologian, who 
has at the same time scarcely left unexamined one previous writer on the subject, ancient 
or modern, this work will be a most valuable accession to the library of the theological 
student. As a whole, we believe it may with strictest truth be pronounced the bat 
work on the subject that has yet been published.' — Record. 

' A work fresh and comprehensive, learned and sensible, and full of practical religious 
feeling.' — Britith and Foreign Evangelical Review. 

BY THE SAME AUTHOR 
In One Volume, Demy 8vo, price 10s. 6<1., 

The Revelation of Law in Scripture, considered with respect 

both to its own Nature and to its Relative Place in Successive Dispensa- 
tions. (The Third Series of the ' Cunningham Lectures.') 
'One of the most scientific productions of Scottish theology.' — Academy. 
'Dr. Fairbairn is well known as a learned and painstaking writer, and these lectures 
bear out his reputation.' — Guardian. 

' The theme is one of the grandest that can engage the attention of the most exalted 
intelligences ; and few of our readers, we presume, will be satisfied without reading for 
themselves this masterly and eloquent contribution to our theological literature.' — Britith 
and Foreign Evangelical Review. 

In One handsome Volume, Demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., 

The Training of the Twelve ; or, An Exposition of Passages 

in the Gospels exhibiting the Twelve Disciples of Jesus under Discipline 
for the Apostlesbip. By the Rev. Alexahdeb Balmain Bruce. 

* Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive subject ; and 
it must be a matter of congratulation among all theological readers that a subject so im- 
portant has fallen into the hands of one thoroughly qualified to do it justice. Certainly 
we can name no work, either in our own or any other language, in which we find a 
clearer conception of the principles of the Christian religion, and of the adaptation of 
these to all that is deepest in human nature. ' . . . It is one of those rare books which 
ring; in our ears as the utterance of a true man, who speaks because his heart and mind 
are free.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 

'Mr. Bruce has not spared pains. . . . He deserves much praise for the ability with 
which be has carried out his design, as well as for its originality. .... The general 
tone of the book is commendable and in good taste.' — Spectator. 

In One Volume, Demy 8vo, Second Edition, price 10s. 6d., 

The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by Christ Himself; 

or, The Sayings of Jesus on the Atonement Exegetically Expounded and 
Classified. By George Smeaton, D.D., Professor of Exegetical Theology, 
New College, Edinburgh. 
'We attach very great value to this seasonable and scholarly production. The idea of 
the work is most happy, and the execution of it worthy of the idea. On a scheme of truly 
Baconian exegetical induction, he presents us with a complete view of the various posi- 
tions or propositions which a full and sound doctrine of the atonement embraces.' — Britith 
and Foreign Evangelical Review. 

' The plan of the book is admirable. A monograph and exegesis of our Lord's own 
sayings on this greatest of subjects concerning Himself must needs be valuable to all 
theologians. And the execution is thorough and painstaking — exhaustive, as far as the 
completeness of range over these sayings is concerned.' — Contemporary Review. 

BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
In One Volume, Demy 8vo, price 10s. 6VL, 

The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by the Apostles ; 

or, The Sayings of the Apostles Exegetically Expounded. 
' We cannot too highly commend the conception and general execution of this really 
great theological work. Professor Smeaton may claim the honour of having inaugurated, 
at any rate m Scotland, a novum organum of theology. . . . His book is a great and noble 
work — a credit to British biblical scholarship, and a great service to doctrinal theology.' 
—British Quarterly Review. 

s 



Digitized by 



Google 



NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. 



38, George Street, Edinburgh, 
November 1872. 

MESSRS. CLARK have pleasure in publishing, as the second 
issue of the Foreign Theological Library for 1872 — 

Keil on Chronicles, and 

Hengstenberg's History of the Kingdom of God, VoL ii. 
(with a Biographical Sketch of the Author), completing the 
Work. 

The first issue for 1873 will be 

Keil on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther;' 

and probably the first vol. of 

Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah. 

They thank their Subscribers for the long-continued support 
with which they have been favoured. 

An early remittance of the subscription for 1873 will oblige. 

r Messrs. Clark are enabled to offer to Subscribers to Foreign 
Theological Library the well-known Work of Dr. Alexander, of 
Princeton : 

Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, 

Edited by Professor Eadie, in Two Volumes 8vo, at the subscrip- 
tion price of 10s. 6d. 

Early application is requested. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CLARK'S 



FOREIGN 



THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 



FOUETH SERIES. 
VOL. XXXV. 




Stil on tf>e £oofe< of tf)« CljronfcU*. 



EDINBURGH: 
T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEORGE STREET. 

MDCCCLXXII. 



Digitized byV^OOQlC 



PRIKTKD BY HURRAY AND 01 BB, 

roi 

T. k T. CLA11K, EDINBURGH. 

LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
DUBLIN, .... J0I1N ROBERTSON AND CO. 
NRW YORK, . . . C. BCB1BNRR AND CO. 



Digitized byV^OOQlC 



BIBLICAL COMMENTARY 



os 



THE OLD TESTAMENT. 



C. F. KE1L, D.D., ™ F. DELITZSCH, B.D., 

PROFESSOES OF THEOLOGY. 



THE BOOKS OF THE CHRONICLES. 

BY 

C. F. KEIL 



TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN 

BY ANDREW HARPER, B.D. 




EDINBURGH: 
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. 

MDCOCLXXII. 



Digitized byV^OOQlC 



Digitized by 



Google 



CONTENTS. 



PAoa 



INTRODUCTION TO THE HAGIOGRAPHIC HISTORICAL 

BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 1 



THE BOOKS OF THE CHRONICLES. 

INTRODUCTION. 

§ 1. Name, Contents, Plan, and Aim of the Chronicles, . . 9 

§ 2. Age and Author of the Chronicles, 22 

$ 3. The Sources of the Chronicles, 28 

§ 4. The Historical Character of the Chronicles, ... 38 

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. 

I. Genealogies, with Historical and Topographical Notes 

(Chap. i.-ix.), 47 

The Families of Primeval Time, and of the Antiquity of 

Israel (Chap, i.), 50 

The Twelve Sons of Israel and the Families of Judah (Chap. 

iL-iv. 28), 57 

Fragments of the Genealogies of Descendants and Families of 

Judah (Chap. iv. 1-23), 85 

The Families and the Dwelling-places of the Tribe of Simeon 

(Chap. iv. 24-43), 95 

The Families of Reuben, Gad, and the Half Tribe of Manaaseh 

beyond Jordan (Chap. v. 1-26), 103 

The Families of Levi, and their Cities (Chap. v. 27-vi. 66), . 112 
Families of Issacbar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Half Manasseh, 

Ephraim, and Asher (Chap. viL), 131 

Families of Benjamin, and Genealogy of the House of Saul 

(Chap, viii.), 144 

The former Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the Family of Saul 

(Chap, ix.), 152 



Digitized by 



Google 



VI CONTENTS. 

PAOC 

II. The History of David's Kingship (Chap. x.-xrix.), • • .169 
The Ruin of Saul and of his House (Chap, x.), .... 171 
The Anointing of David to be King in Hebron, and the Conquest 

of Jerusalem. A List of David's Heroes (Chap, xi.), . . 173 
Registers of the Valiant Men who helped David to the Kingdom 

(Chap, xii.), . 181 

The Removal of the Ark from Kirjatb-jearim. David's building, 

his Wives and Children, and his Victories over the Philistines. 

The bringing in of the Ark into the City of David, and the 

Arrangement of the Worship in Mount Zion (Chap, xiii.-xvi.), 195 
David's Design to build a Temple, and the Confirmation of his 

Kingdom (Chap, xvii.), 221 

David's Wars and Victories ; his Public Officials ; some Heroic 

Deeds done in the Philistine Wars (Chap, xviii.-xx.), . . 227 
The Numbering of the People, the Pestilence, and the Deter- 
mination of the Site for the Temple (Chap. xxi.-xxii. 1), . 233 
David's Preparations for the building of the Temple (Chap. xxii. 

2-19) 242 

Enumeration and Arrangement of the Levites according to their 

Divisions and Employments (Chap. xxiii.-xxvi.), . . . 251 
Division of the Army. Tribal Princes, Administrators of the 

Domains, and Councillors of State (Chap, xxvii.), . . 283 

David's last Directions, and his Death (Chap, xxviii. and xxix,), 289 

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. 

III. History of Solomon's Kingship (Chap, i.-ix.), .... 303 

Solomon's Sacrifice, and the Theophany at Gibeon. Chariots, 

Horses, and Riches of Solomon (Chap. i. 1-17), . . . 304 
Solomon's Preparations for the building of the Temple (Chap. L 

lfr-ii. 17), . , 307 

The Building of the Temple (Chap. iii.-v. 1), ... 313 

The Dedication of the Temple (Chap. v. 2-viL 22), . . .323 
Solomon's City-Building, Statute Labour, Arrangement of 

Public Worship, and Nautical Undertakings (Chap. viiL), . 333 
Visit of the Queen of Sheba. Solomon's Riches, and Royal 

Power and Glory ; his Death (Chap, ix.), .... 337 

IV. The History of the Kingdom of Judah until its fall (Chap. 

x.-xxxvi.), 339 

Revolt of the Ten Tribes from Rehoboam and the House of 

David (Chap, x.), 340 

Rehoboam's Reign (Chap. xi. and xii), 340 

The Reign of Abijah (Chap. xiiL), S49 



Digitized by 



Google 



CONTENTS. 



Vil 



rAOa 

Asa's Reign (Chap, xiv.-xvi), 356 

Jehoshapbat's Reign (Chap, xrii.-xx.), 371 

Jehoshaphat'a Death, and the Reign of his Son Joram (Chap. 

xxi.), 394 

The Reigns of Ahaziah and the impious Athaliah (Chap, xxii.), 403 
The Fall of Athaliah, and the Coronation and Reign of Joash 

(Chap, xxiii. and xxiv.), 407 

The Reign of Aroaziah (Chap, xxv.), 420 

The Reign of Uzziah (Azariah), (Chap, xxvi.), . 425 

The Reign of Jotham (Chap, xxvii.) 430 

The Reign of Ahaz (Chap, xxviii.), 432 

The Reign of Hezekiah (Chap. xxix.-xxxii.), .... 445 

The Reigns of Hanasseh and Anion (Chap, xxxiii.), . . 479 

Reign of Josiah (Chap, xxxiv. and xxxv.), .... 488 
The last Kings of Judah ; The Destruction of Jerusalem ; Judah 

led away captive ; and the Babylonian Exile (Chap, xxxvi.), 507 



Digitized by 



Google 



Digitized byV^OOQlC 



INTRODUCTION 




TO THE 



HAGIOGRAPHIC HISTORICAL BOOKS OF 
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 




JESIDES the prophetico-historic writings — Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, and Kings — which describe from a 
prophetic point of view the development of the king- 
dom of God established by means of the mediatorial 
office of Moses, from the time of the bringing of the tribes of 
Israel into the land promised to the fathers till the Babylonian 
exile, the Old Testament contains five historical books, — Ruth, 
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. These latter stand in 
the Hebrew canon among the D'ana, t.e. in the hagiography, 
and are at once distinguished from the above-mentioned pro- 
phetico-historic writings by this characteristic, that they treat 
only of single parts of the history of the covenant people 
from individual points of view. The book of Ruth gives a 
charming historical picture from the life of the ancestors of 
King David. The Chronicles, indeed, extend over a very long 
period of the historical development of the Israelite kingdom 
of God, embrace the history from the death of King Saul till 
the Babylonian exile, and go back in the genealogies which 
precede the narrative of the history to Adam, the father of the 
human race ; yet neither in the genealogical part do they give a 
perfect review of the genealogical ramifications of the twelve 
tribes of the covenant people, nor in their historical portion 
contain the history of the whole people from the death of Saul 
till the exile. Besides the tables of the first progenitors of 



Digitized by 



Google 



2 INTRODUCTION TO THE HAGIOGBAPHIC HISTORICAL 

humanity and the tribal ancestors of the people of Israel, bor- 
rowed from Genesis, the genealogical part contains only a col- 
lection of genealogical and topographical fragments differing in 
plan, execution, and extent, relating to the chief families of the 
most prominent tribes and their dwelling-places. The historical 
part contains, certainly, historical sketches from the history of 
all Israel during the reigns of the kings David and Solomon ; 
but from the division of the kingdom, after the death of Solomon, 
they contain only the history of the kingdom of Judah, with 
special reference to the Levitical worship, to the exclusion of the 
history of the kingdom of the ten tribes. From a comparison of 
the manner of representing the history in the Chronicles with 
that in the books of Samuel and the Kings, we can clearly see 
that the chronicler did not purpose to portray the development 
of the Israelitic theocracy in general, nor the facts and events 
which conditioned and constituted that development objectively, 
according to their general course. He has, on the contrary, so 
connected the historical facts with the attitude of the kings and 
the people to the Lord, and to His law, that they teach how the 
Lord rewarded fidelity to His covenant with blessing and success 
both to people and kingdom, but punished with calamity and 
judgments every faithless revolt from His covenant ordinances. 
Now since Israel, as the people and congregation of Jahve, could 
openly show its adherence to the covenant only by faithful ob- 
servance of the covenant laws, particularly of the ordinances for 
worship, the author of the Chronicles has kept this side of the 
life of the people especially in view, in order that he might hold 
up before his contemporaries as a mirror the attitude of the 
fathers to the God-appointed dwelling-place of His gracious 
presence in the holy place of the congregation. He does this, 
that they might behold how the faithful maintenance of com- 
munion with the covenant God in His temple would assure to 
them the fulfilment of the gracious promises of the covenant, 
and how falling away into idolatry, on the contrary, would bring 
misfortune and destruction. This special reference to the worship 
meets us also in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which describe 
the deliverance of the Jews from exile, and their restoration as 
the covenant people in the land of their fathers. The book of 
Ezra narrates, on the one hand, the return out of the Babylonian 
exile into the land of their fathers of a great part of the Jews 
who had been led away by Nebuchadnezzar, — partly in the first 



Digitized by 



Google 



BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 3 

year of the reign of Cyras over Babylon, with Zerubbabel, a prince 
of the royal race of David, and Joshua the high priest as leaders ; 
partly at a later period with the scribe Ezra, under Artaxerxes. 
On the other hand, it relates the restoration of the altar of 
burnt-offering, and of the divine service; together with the 
re-erection of the temple, and the effort of Ezra to regulate the 
affairs of the community according to the precepts of the Mosaic 
law, by doing away with the illegal marriages with heathen 
women. And Nehemiah describes in his book what he had 
accomplished in the direction of giving a firm foundation to 
the civil welfare of the newly-founded community in Jndah : in 
the first place, by building the walls of Jerusalem so as to defend 
the city and holy place against the attacks and surprises of the 
hostile peoples in the neighbourhood ; and secondly, by various 
measures for the strengthening of the capital by increasing the 
number of its inhabitants, and for the more exact modelling of 
the civil, moral, and religious life of the community on the pre- 
cepts of the law of Moses, in order to lay enduring foundations 
for the prosperous development of the covenant people. In the 
book of Esther, finally, it is recounted how the Jewish inhabitants 
of the various parts of the great Persian kingdom were delivered 
by the Jewess Esther (who had been raised to the position of 
queen by a peculiar concatenation of circumstances) from the 
destruction which the Grand Vizier Haman, in the reign of 
King Ahashverosh (i.e. Xerxes), had determined upon, on 
account of the refusal of adoration by the Jew Mordecai. 

Now, if we look somewhat more narrowly at the relation of 
these five historical books to the prophetico-historic writings, 
more especially in the first place in reference to their contents, 
we see that the books of Ruth and the Chronicles furnish us 
with not unimportant additions to the books of Samuel and 
Kings. The book of Ruth introduces us into the family life of 
the ancestors of King David, and shows the life-spring from 
which proceeded the man after God's own heart, whom God 
called from being a shepherd of sheep to be the shepherd of His 
people, that He might deliver Israel out of the power of his 
enemies, and found a kingdom, which received the promise of 
eternal duration, and which was to be established to all eternity 
through Christ the Son of David and the Son of God. The 
Chronicles supplement the history of the covenant people, prin- 
cipally daring the period of the kings, by detailed accounts of 



Digitized by 



Google 



4 INTRODUCTION TO THE HAGIOGBAPHIC HISTORICAL 

the form of the public worship of the congregation ; from which 
we see how, in spite of the continual inclination of the people to 
idolatry, and to the worship of heathen gods, the service in the 
temple, according to the law, was the spiritual centre about which 
the pious in Israel crowded, to worship the Lord their God, and to 
serve Him by sacrifice. We see, too, how this holy place formed 
throughout a lengthened period a mighty bulwark, which pre- 
vented moral and religious decay from gaining the upper hand, 
until at length, through the godless conduct of the kings Asa 
and Manasseh, the holy place itself was profaned by the idola- 
trous abomination, and judgment broke in upon the incorrigible 
race in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the 
driving out of Judah from the presence of the Lord. But the 
books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther are the only historical 
writings we possess concerning the times of the restoration of 
the covenant people after their emancipation from the captivity, 
and their return into the promised land ; and even in this respect 
they are very valuable component parts of the Old Testament 
canon. The first two show how God the Lord fulfilled His 
promise, that He would again receive His people into favour, 
and collect them out of their dispersion among the heathen, if 
they should, in their misery under the oppression of the heathen, 
come to a knowledge of their sins, and turn unto Him; and 
how, after the expiry of the seventy years of the Babylonian exile 
which had been prophesied, He opened up to them, through 
Cyrus the king of Persia, their return into the land of their 
fathers, and restored Jerusalem and the temple, that He might 
preserve inviolate, and thereafter perfect, by the appearance of 
the promised David who was to come, that gracious covenant 
which He had entered into with their fathers. But the provi- 
dence of God ruled also over the members of the covenant 
people who had remained behind in heathen lands, to preserve 
them from the ruin which had been prepared for them by the 
heathen, in order that from among them also a remnant might 
be saved, and become partakers of the salvation promised in 
Christ. To show this by a great historical example is the aim 
of the book of Esther, and the meaning of its reception into the 
canon of the Holy Scriptures of the old covenant. 

If, finally, we consider the style of historical writing found in 
these five books, we can scarcely characterize it in its relation to 
the prophetic books by a fitting word. The manner of writing 



Digitized by 



Google 



BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 5 

history which is prevalent in the hagiography has been, it is 
true, called the national (volksthUmlich) or annalistic, but by 
this name the peculiarity of it has in no respect been correctly 
expressed. The narrative bears a national impress only in the 
book of Esther, and relatively also in the book of Ruth ; bat 
even between these two writings a great difference exists. The 
narrative in Ruth ends with the genealogy of the ancestors of 
King David ; whereas in the book of Esther all reference to the 
theocratic relation, nay, even the religious contemplation of the 
events, is wholly wanting. But the books of the Chronicles, 
Ezra, and Nehemiah, have no national impress ; in them, on the 
contrary, the Levitico-priestly manner of viewing history prevails. 
Still less can the hagiographic histories be called annalistic. The 
books of Ruth and Esther follow definite aims, which clearly 
appear towards the end. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah con- 
tain, it is true, in the genealogical, geographical, and historical 
registers, a mass of annalistic material ; but we find this also in 
the prophetico-historic works, and even in the books of Moses. 
The only thing which is common to and characteristic of the 
whole of the hagiographic historical books, is that the prophetic 
contemplation of the course of history according to the divine 
plan of salvation which unfolds itself in the events, either falls 
into the background or is wanting altogether ; while in its place 
individual points of view appear which show themselves in the 
pursuit of parsenetico-didactic aims, which have acted as a deter- 
mining influence on the selection and treatment of the historical 
facts, as the introduction to the individual writings will show. 



Digitized by 



Google 



Digitized by 



Google 



THE BOOKS OF THE CHRONICLES. 



Digitized byV^OOQlC 



Digitized by 



Google 



INTRODUCTION. 



§ 1. NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM OF THE CHBONICLES. 




HE two books of the Chronicles originally formed one 
work, as their plan at once makes manifest, and were 
received into the Hebrew canon as such. Not only 
were they reckoned as one in the enumeration of the 
books of the Old Testament (cf. Joseph, c. Apion, i. 8 ; Origen, 
in Euseb. Hist. ecel. vi. 25 ; and Hieronym. Prolog, galeat.), but 
they were also regarded by the Masorites as one single work, 
as we learn from a remark of the Masora at the end of the 
Chronicle, that the verse 1 Chron. xxvii. 25 is the middle of the 
book. The division into two books originated with the Alexan- 
drian translators (LXX.), and has been transmitted by the Latin 
translation of Hieronymus (Vulgata) not only to all the later 
translations of the Bible, but also, along with the division into 
chapters, into our versions of the Hebrew Bible. The first book 
closes, chap. xxix. 29 f., with the end of the reign of David, 
which formed a fitting epoch for the division of the work into 
two books. The Hebrew name of this book in our Bible, by 
which it was known even by Hieronymus, is D'DVi nai, verba, or 
more correctly ret gestce dierum, events of the days, before which 
tbd is to be supplied (cf. e.g. 1 Kings xiv. 19, 29, xv. 7, 23). 

Its full title therefore is, Book of the Events of the Time 
(Zeitereignisse), corresponding to the annalistic work so often 
quoted in our canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, the 
Book of the Events of the Time (Chronicle) of the Kings of 
Israel and Judah. Instead of this the LXX. have chosen the 
name IlapaXenropeva., in order to mark more exactly the relation 
of our work to the earlier historical books of the Old Testament, 
as containing much historical information which is not to be 
found in them. But the name is not used in the sense of sup- 
plements, — "fragments of other historical works," as Movers, 
die Bibl. Chron. S. 95, interprets it, — but in the signification 
" prsetermissa ;" because, according to the explanation in the 

9 



Digitized by 



Google 



10 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

Synopsis script, saer. in Atlianasii Opera, ii. p. 84, irapakeHpOivra 
iroWk ev Tofc fiaaiKetais (i.e. in the books of Samuel and 
Kings) -rrepiexerai ev iwrot?, " many things passed over in the 
Kings are contained in these." Likewise Isidorns, lib. vi. 
Origin, c. i. p. 45: Paralipomenon grace dicitur, quod prceter- 
missorum vel reliquorum nos dicere possumus, quia ea quae in lege 
vel in Regum libris vel omissa vel non plene relata sunt, in isto 
summatim et breviter explicantur. This interpretation of the word 
trapakevKOfieva is confirmed by Hieronymus, who, in his Epist. ad 
Paulin. (Opp. t. i. ed. Vallars, p. 279), says; Paralipomenon liber, 
id est instruments veteris epitome tantus et talis est, ut absque illo, 
si quia scientiam seripturarum sibi voluerit arrogare, seipsum irri- 
deat ; per singula quippe nomina juncturasque verborum et prceter- 
missa in Regum libris tanguntur histories et innumerabiles expli- 
cantur EvangeUi qucestiones. He himself, however, suggested 
the name Chronicon, in order more clearly to characterize both 
the contents of the work and at the same its relation to the 
historical books from Gen. i. to 2 Kings xxv. ; as he says in 
Prolog. galeaL: DVil *m, i.e. verba dierum, quod significantius 
chronicon totius divince historice possumus appellare, qui Uber apud 
nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur. Through 
Hieronymus the name Chronicles came into use, and became the 
prevailing title. 

Contents. — The Chronicles begin with genealogical registers 
of primeval times, and of the tribes of Israel (1 Chron. i.-ix.) ; 
then follow the history of the reign of King David (chap. 
x.-xxix.) and of King Solomon (2 Chron. i.-ix.) ; the nar- 
rative of the revolt of the ten tribes from the kingdom of the 
house of David (chap, x.) ; the history of the kingdom of Judah 
from Rehoboam to the ruin of the kingdom, its inhabitants being 
led away into exile to Babylon (chap. xi.-xxxvi. 21) ; and at 
the close we find the edict of Cyrus, which allowed the Jews 
to return into their country (xxxvi. 22, 23). Each of the two 
books, therefore, falls into two, and the whole work into four 
divisions. If we examine these divisions more minutely, six 
groups can be without difficulty recognised in the genealogical 
part (1 Chron. i.-ix.). These are: (1) The families of pri- 
meval and ancient times, from Adam to the patriarchs Abraham, 
Isaac, and his sons Edom and Israel, together with the posterity 
of Edom (chap, i.) ; (2) the sons of Israel and the families of 
Judah, with the sons and posterity of David (ii.— iv. 23) ; (3) 



Digitized by 



Google 



HAKE, CONTENTS, FLAN, AND AIM. 11 

the families of tbe tribe of Simeon, whose inheritance lay within 
the tribal domain of Judab, and those, of the trans-Jordanic 
tribes Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (iv. 24- 
v. 26) ; (4) the families of Levi, or of the priests and Levites, 
with an account of the dwelling-places assigned to them (v. 27- 
vL 66) ; (5) the families of the remaining tribes, viz. Issachar, 
Benjamin, Naphtali, the half-tribe of Manasseh, Ephraim, and 
Asher (only Dan and Zebulun being omitted), with the genealogy 
of the house of Saul (vii. viii.) ; and (6) a register of the former 
inhabitants of Jerusalem (ix. 1-34), and a second enumeration of 
the family of Saul, preparing us for the transition to the history of 
the kingdom of Israel (ix. 35-44). The history of David's king- 
ship which follows is introduced by an account of the ruin of Saul 
and his house (chap, x.), and then the narrative falls into two 
sections. (1) In the first we have David's election to be king 
over all Israel, and the taking of the Jebusite fort in Jerusalem, 
which was built upon Mount Zion (xi. 1-9); then a list of 
David's heroes, and the valiant men out of all the tribes who 
made him king (xi. 10-xii. 40) ; the removal of the ark to Jeru- 
salem, the founding of his house, and the establishment of the 
Levitical worship before the ark in Zion (xiii.-xvi.) ; David's 
design to build a temple to the Lord (xvii.) ; then his wars (xviii.- 
xx.) ; the numbering of the people, the pestilence which followed, 
and the fixing of the place for the future temple (xxi.). (2) In 
the second section are related David's preparations for the build- 
ing of the temple (xxii.) ; the numbering of the Levites, and the 
arrangement of their service (xxiii.-xxvi.) ; the arrangement of 
the military service (xxvii.) ; David's surrender of the kingdom 
to his son, and the close of his life (xxviii. and xxix.). The 
history of the reign of Solomon begins with his solemn sacrifice 
at Gibeon, and some remarks on his wealth (2 Chron. i.) ; then 
follows the building of the temple, with the consecration of the 
completed holy place (chap, ii.-vii.). To these are added short 
aphoristic accounts of the cities which Solomon built, the statute 
labour which he exacted, the arrangement of the public worship, 
the voyage to Ophir, the visit of the queen of Sheba, and of the 
might and glory of his kingdom, closing with remarks on the 
length of his reign, and an account of his death (viii.-ix.). The 
history of the kingdom of Judah begins with the narrative of the 
revolt of the ten tribes from Eehoboam (chap, x.), and then in 
chap. xL-xxxvi. it flows on according to the succession of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



12 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OP CHRONICLES. 

kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Zedekiah, the reigns of tho 
individual kings forming the sections of the narrative. 

Plan and Aim. — From this general sketch of the contents of 
our history, it will be already apparent that the author had not 
in view a general history of the covenant people from the time 
of David to the Babylonian exile, but purposed only to give an 
outline of the history of the kingship of David and his successors, 
Solomon and the kings of the kingdom of Judah to its fall. If, 
however, in order to define more clearly the plan and purpose of 
the historical parts of our book in the first place, we compare 
them with the representation given us of the history of Israel in 
those times in the books of Samuel and Kings, we can see that 
the chronicler has passed over much of the history, (a) He has 
omitted, in the history of David, not only his seven years' reign 
at Hebron over the tribe of Judah, and his conduct to the fallen 
King Saul and to his house, especially towards Ishbosheth, Saul's 
son, who had been set up as rival king by Abner (2 Sam. i.-iv. and 
ix.), but in general has passed over all the events referring to and 
connected with David's family relations. He makes no mention, for 
instance, of the scene between David and Michal (2 Sam. vi. 20- 
23) ; the adultery with Bathsheba, with its immediate and more 
distant results (2 Sam. xi. 2-12) ; Amnon's outrage upon Tamar, 
the slaying of Amnon by Absalom and his flight to the king of 
Geshur, his return to Jerusalem, his rising against David, with 
its issues, and the tumult of Sheba (2 Sam. xiii.-xx.) ; and, finally, 
also omits the thanksgiving psalm and the last words of David 
(2 Sam. xxii. 1-xxiii. 7). Then (6) in the history of Solomon 
there have been left unrecorded the attempt of Adonijah to usurp 
the throne, with the anointing of Solomon at Gihon, which it 
brought about; David's last command in reference to Joab and 
Shimei; the punishment of these men and of Adonijah; Solomon's 
marriage with Pharaoh's daughter (1 Kings i. 1-iii. 3) ; his wise 
judgment, the catalogue of his officials, the description of his 
royal magnificence and glory, and of his wisdom (1 Kings iii. 16- 
v. 14) ; the building of the royal palace (1 Kings vii. 1-12) ; and 
Solomon's polygamy and idolatry, with their immediate results 
(1 Kings xi. 1-40). Finally, (c) there is no reference to the 
history of the kingdom of Israel founded by Jeroboam, or to the 
lives of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, which are related in such 
detail in the books of Kings, while mention is made of the kings 
of the kingdom of the ten tribes only in so far as they came into 



Digitized by 



Google 



NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM. 13 

hostile straggle or friendly union with the kingdom of Judah. 
Bat, in compensation for these omissions, the author of the 
Chronicle has brought together in his work a considerable 
number of facts and events which are omitted in the books of 
Samuel and the Kings. For example, in the history of David, 
he gives us the list of the valiant men out of all the tribes who, 
partly before and partly after the death of Saul, went over to 
David to help him in his struggle with Saul and his house, and 
to bring the royal honour to him (1 Chron. xii.) ; the detailed 
account of the participation of the Levites in the transfer of the 
ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, and of the arrangements made 
by David for worship around this sanctuary (chap. xv. and xvi.) ; 
and the whole section concerning David's preparations for the 
building of the temple, his arrangements for public worship, the 
regulation of the army, and his last commands (chap, xxii.-xxix.). 
Further, the history of the kingdom of Judah from Kehoboam 
to Joram is narrated throughout at greater length than in the 
books of Kings, and is considerably supplemented by detailed 
accounts, not only of the work of the prophets -in Judah, of 
Shemaiah under Kehoboam (chap. xii. 5-8), of Azariah and 
Hanani under Asa (xv. 1-8, xvi. 7-9), of Jehu son of Hanani, 
Jehaziel, and Ebenezer son of Dodava, under Jehoshaphat (xix. 
1-3, xx. 14-20 and 37), and concerning Elijah's letter under 
Joram (xxi. 12-15) ; but also of the efforts of Kehoboam (xi. 
5-17), Asa (xiv. 5-7), and Jehoshaphat (xvii. 2, 12-19) to fortify 
the kingdom, of Asa to raise and vivify the Jahve-worship (xv. 
9-15), of Jehoshaphat to purify the administration of justice and 
increase the knowledge of the law (xvii. 7-9 and xix. 5-11), 
of, the wars of Abijah against Jeroboam, and his victories (xiii. 
3-20), of Asa's war against the Cushite Zerah (xiv. 8-14), of 
Jehoshaphat's conquest of the Ammonites and Moabites (xx. 
1-30), and, finally, also of the family relations of Kehoboam 
(xi. 18-22), the wives and children of Abijah (xiii. 21), and 
Joram's brothers and his sickness (xxi. 2-4 and 18 f.). Of the 
succeeding kings also various undertakings are reported which 
are not found in the books of Kings. In this way we are in- 
formed of Joash's defection from the Lord, and his fall into 
idolatry after the death of the high priest Jehoiada (xxiv. 15-22) ; 
how Amaziah increased his military power (xxv. 5-10), and wor- 
shipped idols (xxv. 14-16) ; of Uzziah's victorious wars against 
the Philistines and Arabs, and his fortress-building, etc. (xxvi. 



Digitized by 



Google 



14 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

6-15) ; of Jotham's fortress-building, and his victory over the 
Ammonites (xxvii. 4-6) ; of the increase of Hezekiah's riches 
(xxxii. 27-30) ; of Manasseh's capture and removal to Babylon, 
and his return out of captivity (xxxiii. 11-17). But the history 
of Hezekiah and Josiah more especially is rendered more com- 
plete by special accounts of reforms in worship, and of celebra- 
tions of the passover (xxix. 3-31, 21, and xxxv. 2-15) ; while we 
have only summary notices of the godless conduct of Ahaz (chap, 
xxviii.) and Manasseh (xxxiii. 3-10), of the campaign of Sen- 
nacherib against Jerusalem and Judah, of Hezekiah's sickness 
and the reception of the Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem (chap, 
xxxii., cf. 2 Kings xviii. 13-20, xix.) ; as also of the reigns of 
the last kings, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. From all 
this, it is clear that the author of the Chronicle, as Bertheau 
expresses it, " has turned his attention to those times especially 
in which Israel's religion had showed itself to be a power dominat- 
ing the people and their leaders, and bringing them prosperity ; 
and to those men who had endeavoured to give a more enduring 
form to the arrangements for the service of God, and to restore 
the true worship of Jahve ; and to those events in the history of 
the worship so intimately bound up with Jerusalem, which had 
important bearings." 

This purpose appears much more clearly when we take into 
consideration the narratives which are common to the Chronicle 
and the books of Samuel and Kings, and observe the difference 
which is perceptible in the mode of conception and representa- 
tion in those parallel sections. For our present purpose, how- 
ever, those narratives in which the chronicler supplements and 
completes the accounts given in the books of Samuel and Kings 
by more exact and detailed information, or shortens them by the 
omission of unimportant details, come less into consideration. 1 
For both additions and abridgments show only that the chronicler 
has not drawn his information from the canonical books of 
Samuel and Kings, but from other more circumstantial original 

1 Additions are to be found, e.g., in the list of David's heroes, 1 Chron. 
xiL 42-47 ; in the history of the building and consecration of Solo- 
mon's temple; in the enumeration of the candlesticks, tables, and courts, 
2 Chron. iv. 6-9 ; in the notice of the copper platform on which Solomon 
kneeled at prayer, vi. 12, 13 ; and of the fire which fell from heaven upon 
the burnt-offering, vii. 1 ff. Also in the histories of the wars they are met 
with, 1 Chron. xi 6, 8, 23, cf. 2 Sam. v. 8, 9, xxiiL21 ; 1 Chron. xviii. 8, 12, 



Digitized by 



Google 



NAME, CONTENTS, FLAN, AND AIM. 15 

documents which he had at his command, and has nsed these 
sources independently. Much more important for a knowledge 
of the plan of the Chronicle are the variations in the parallel 
places between it and the other narrative ; for in them the point 
of view from which the chronicler regarded, and has described, 
the events clearly appears. In the number of such passages is 
to be reckoned the narrative of the transfer of the ark (1 Chron. 
xiii. and xv., cf. 2 Sam. vi.), where the chronicler presents the 
fact in its religious, import as the beginning of the restoration 
of the worship of Jahve according to the law, which had fallen 
into decay ; while the author of the books of Samuel describes 
it only in its political import, in its bearing on the Davidic king- 
ship. Of this character also is the narrative of the raising of 
Joash to the throne (2 Chron. xxiii., cf. 2 Kings xi.), where the 
share of the Levites in the completion of the work begun by the 
high priest Jehoiada is prominently bronght forward, while in 
Kings it is not expressly mentioned. The whole account also of 
the reign of Hezekiah, as well as other passages, belong to this 
category. Now from these and other descriptions of the part 
the Levites played in events, and the share they took in assisting 
the efforts of the pious kings to revivify and maintain the temple 
worship, the conclusion has been rightly drawn that the chronicler 
describes with special interest the fostering of the Levitic worship 
according to the precepts of the law of Moses, and holds it up to 
his contemporaries for earnest imitation ; yet this has been too 
often done in such a way as to cause this one element in the 
plans of the Chronicle to be looked upon as its main object, 
which has led to a very onesided conception of the character of 
the book. The chronicler does not desire to bring honour to the 
Levites and to the temple worship : his object is rather to draw 
from the history of the kingship in Israel a proof that faithful 
adherence to the covenant which the Lord had made with 
Israel brings happiness and blessing ; the forsaking of it, on the 
contrary, ensures ruin and a curse. But Israel could show its 
faithfulness to the covenant only by walking according to the 

cf. 2 Sam. viiL 8, 13, etc. More may be found in my Handbook of lntrod. 
§ 139, b. Abridgments by the rejection of unimportant details are very 
frequent ; e.g. the omission of the Jebusites' mockery of David's attack on their 
fortress, 1 Chron. xi. 5, 6, cf . 2 Sam. v. 6, 8 ; of the details of the storming of 
Kabbah, 1 Chron. xz. 1, 2, cf. 2 Sam. xii. 27-29 ; and of many more, vide my 
Handbook of Introduction, § 139, 8. 



Digitized by 



Google 



16 INTBODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

ordinances of the law given by Moses, and in worshipping 
Jahve, the God of their fathers, in His holy place in that way 
which He had established by the ceremonial ordinances. The 
author of the Chronicle attaches importance to the Levitic 
worship only because the fidelity of Israel to the covenant mani- 
fested itself in the careful maintenance of it. 

This point of view appears clearly in the selection and treat- 
ment of the material drawn by our historian from older histories 
and prophetic writings. His history begins with the death of 
Saul and the anointing of David to be king over the whole of 
Israel, and confines itself, after the division of the kingdom, to 
the history of the kingdom of Judah. In the time of the judges 
especially, the Levitic worship had fallen more and more into 
decay ; and even Samuel had done nothing for it, or perhaps 
could do nothing, and the ark remained during that whole period 
at a distance from the tabernacle. Still less was done under 
Saul for the restoration of the worship in the tabernacle ; for 
" Saul died," as we read in 1 Chron. x. 13 f., " for his trans- 
gression which he had transgressed against the Lord ; . . . and 
because he inquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him, 
and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." After 
the death of Saul the elders of all Israel came to David with the 
confession, "Jahve thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed 
my people Israel; and thou shalt be ruler over my people 
Israel" (1 Chron. xi. 2). David's first care, after he had as king 
over all Israel conquered the Jebusite hold on Mount Zion, and 
made Jerusalem the capital of the kingdom, was to bring the 
ark from its obscurity into the city of David, and to establish 
the sacrificial worship according to the law near that sanctuary 
(1 Chron. xiii. 15, 16). Shortly afterwards he formed the re- 
solution of building for the Lord a permanent house (a temple), 
that He might dwell among His people, for which he received 
from the Lord the promise of the establishment of his kingdom 
for ever, although the execution of his design was denied to him, 
and was committed to his son (chap. xvii.). Only after all this 
has been related do we find narratives of David's wars and hie 
victories over all hostile peoples (chap, xviii.-xx.), of the num- 
bering of the people, and the pestilence, which, in consequence 
of the repentant resignation of David to the will of the Lord, 
gave occasion to the determination of the place for the erection 
of the temple (chap. xxi.). The second section of the history of 



Digitized by 



Google 



NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM. 17 

the Davidic kingship contains the preparations for the building 
of the temple, and the laying down of more permanent regula- 
tions for the ordering of the worship ; and that which David had 
prepared for, and so earnestly impressed upon his son Solomon 
at the transfer of the crown, Solomon carried ont. Immediately 
after the throne had been secured to him, he took in hand the 
building of the temple ; and the account of this work fills the 
greater part of the history of his reign, while the description 
of bis kingly power and splendour and wisdom, and of all the 
other undertakings which he carried out, is of the shortest. 
When ten tribes revolted from the house of David after his 
death, Kehoboam's design of bringing the rebellious people 
again under his dominion by force of arms was checked by the 
prophet Shemaiah with the words, " Thus saith the Lord, Ye 
shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, for this thing 
is done of me " (2 Chron. xi. 4). But in their revolt from the 
house of David, which Jeroboam sought to perpetuate by the 
establishment of an idolatrous national worship, Israel of the ten 
tribes had departed from the covenant communion with Jahve ; 
and on this ground, and on this account, the history of that 
kingdom is no further noticed by the chronicler. The priests 
and Levites came out of the whole Israelite dominion to Judah . 
and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons expelled them 
from the priesthood. After them, from all the tribes of Israel 
came those who gave their hearts to seek Jahve the God of 
Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jahve the God of their 
fathers (2 Chron. xi. 13-16), for " Jerusalem is the city which 
Jahve has chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put His name 
there" (xii. 13). The priests, Levites, and pious people who 
went over from Israel made the kingdom of Judah strong, and 
confirmed Kehoboam's power, for they walked iu the ways of 
David and Solomon (xi. 17). But when the kingdom of Keho- 
boam had been firmly established, he forsook the law of Jahve, 
and all Israel with him (xii. 1). Then the Egyptian king 
Shishak came up against Jerusalem, " because they had trans- 
gressed against the Lord " (xii. 2). The prophet Shemaiah pro- 
claimed the word of the Lord : " Ye have forsaken me, and 
therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak " (xii. 5). 
Yet when Rehoboam and the princes of Israel humbled them- 
selves, the anger of the Lord turned from him, that He would 
not destroy him altogether (xii. 6, 12). King Abijah reproaches 

D 



Digitized by 



Google 



18 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

Jeroboam in his speech with his defection from Jahve, and con- 
cludes with the words, " O children of Israel, fight not ye against 
the Lord God of your fathers, for ye shall not prosper " (xiii. 12) ; 
and when the men of Judah cried unto the Lord in the battle, and 
the priests blew the trumpets, then did God smite Jeroboam and 
all Israel (xiii. 15). " Thus the children of Israel were brought 
under at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed, because 
they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers" (xiii. 18). 
King Asa commanded his subjects to seek Jahve the God of 
their fathers, and to do the law and the commandments (xiv. 3). 
In the war against the Cushites, he cried unto Jahve his God, 
" Help us, for we rest on Thee ;" and Jahve smote the Cushites 
before Judah (xiv. 10). After this victory Asa and Judah sacri- 
ficed unto the Lord of their spoil, and entered into a covenant 
to seek Jahve the God of their fathers with all their heart, and 
with all their soul. And the Lord was found of them, and the 
Lord gave them rest round about (xv. 11 ff.). But when Asa 
afterwards, in the war against Baasha of Israel, made an alliance 
with the Syrian king Benhadad, the prophet Hanani censured 
this act in the words, " Because thou hast relied on the king of 
Syria, and hast not relied on Jahve thy God, therefore has the 
host of the king of Syria escaped out of thy hand. . . . Herein 
thou hast done foolishly," etc. (xvi. 7-9). Jehoshaphat became 
mighty against Israel, and Jahve was with him ; for he walked in 
the ways of his father David, and sought not unto the Baals, but 
sought the God of his father, and walked in His commandments, 
and not after the doings of Israel. And Jahve established his 
kingdom in his hand, and he attained to riches and great 
splendour (xvii. 1-5). 

After this fashion does the chronicler show how God blessed 
the reigns and prospered all the undertakings of all the kings of 
Judah who sought the Lord and walked in His commandments ; 
but at the same time also, how every defection from the Lord 
brought with it misfortune and chastisement. Under Joram of 
Judah, Edom and Libnah freed themselves from the supremacy 
of Judah, " because Joram . had forsaken Jahve the God of his 
fathers " (xxi. 10). Because Joram had walked in the ways of 
the kings of Israel, and had seduced the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
to whoredom (i.e. idolatry), and had slain his brothers, God 
punished him in the invasion of Judah by the Philistines and 
Arabs, who stormed Jerusalem, took away with them all the fur- 



Digitized by 



Google 



NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM. 19 

nitnre of the royal palace, and took captive his sons and wives, while 
He smote him besides with incurable disease (xxi. 11 ff., 16-18). 
Because of the visit which Ahaziah made to Joram of Israel, 
when he lay sick of his wound at Jezreel, the judgment was 
(xxii. 7) pronounced : u The destruction of Ahaziah was of God 
by his coming to Joram." When Amaziah, after his victory 
over the Edomites, brought back the gods of Seir and set them 
up for himself as gods, before whom he worshipped, the anger of 
Jahve was kindled against him. In spite of the warning of the 
prophets, he sought a quarrel with King Joash of Israel, who 
likewise advised him to abandon his design. "But Amaziah 
would not hear ; for it was of God, that He might deliver them 
over, because they had sought the gods of Edom " (xxv. 20). 
With this compare ver. 27: "After the time that Amaziah 
turned away from following Jahve, they made a conspiracy 
against him in Jerusalem." Of Uzziah it is said (xxvi. 5), so 
long as he sought the Lord, God made him to prosper, so that 
he conquered his enemies and became very mighty. But when 
he was strong his heart was lifted up, so that he transgressed 
against Jahve his God, by forcing his way into the temple to 
offer incense; and for this he was smitten with leprosy. Of 
Jotham it is said, in xxvii. 6, " He became mighty, because he 
established his ways before Jahve his God." 

From these and similar passages, which might easily be mul- 
tiplied, we clearly see that the chronicler had in view not only the 
Levitic worship, but also and mainly the attitude of the people 
and their princes to the Lord and to His law ; and that it is from 
this point of view that he has regarded and written the history 
of his people before the exile. But it is also not less clear, from 
the quotations we have made, in so far as they contain practical 
remarks of the historian, that it was his purpose to hold up to 
his contemporaries as a mirror the history of the past, in which 
they might see the consequences of their own conduct towards 
the God of their fathers. He does not wish, as the author of 
the books of Kings does, to narrate the events and facts objec- 
tively, according to the course of history ; but he connects the facts 
and events with the conduct of the kings and people towards the 
Lord, and strives to put the historical facts in such a light as to 
teach that God rewards fidelity to His covenant with happiness 
and blessing, and avenges faithless defection from it with punitive 
judgments. Owing to this peculiarity, the historical narrative 



Digitized by 



Google 



20 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

acquires a hortative character, which gives occasion for the employ- 
ment of a highly rhetorical style. The hortative-rhetorical charac- 
ter impressed upon his narrative shows itself not only in many of 
the speeches of the actors in the history which are interwoven with 
it, bat also in many of the historical parts. For example, the 
account given in 2 Chron. xxi. 16 of the punitive judgments 
which broke in upon Joram for his wickedness is rhetorically 
arranged, so that the judgments correspond to the threatenings 
contained in the letter of Elijah, vers. 12-15. But this may be 
much more plainly seen in the description of the impious con- 
duct of King Ahaz, and of the punishments which were inflicted 
upon him and the kingdom of Judah (chap, xxviii.) ; as also in 
the descriptions of the crime of Manasseh (chap, xxxiii. 3-13 ; 
cf . especially vers. 7 and 8), and of the reign of Zedekiah, and 
the ruin of the kingdom of Judah (chap, xxxvi. 12-21). Now 
the greater part of the differences between the chronicler's 
account and the parallel narrative in the books of Samuel and 
Kings, together with the omission of unimportant circum- 
stances, and the careful manner in which the descriptions of the 
arrangements for worship and the celebration of feasts are 
wrought out, can be accounted for by this hortatory tendency so 
manifest in his writing, and by his subjective, reflective manner 
of regarding history. For all these peculiarities clearly have it 
for their object to raise in the souls of the readers pleasure and 
delight in the splendid worship of the Lord, and to confirm their 
hearts in fidelity to the Lord and to His law. 

With this plan and object, the first part of our history 
(1 Chron. i.-ix.), which contains genealogies, with geographical 
sketches and isolated historical remarks, is in perfect harmony. 
The genealogies are intended to exhibit, on the one hand, the con- 
nection of the people of Israel with the whole human race ; on 
the other, the descent and genealogical ramifications of the tribes 
and families of Israel, with the extent to which they had spread 
themselves abroad in the land received as a heritage from the 
Lord. In both of these respects they are the necessary founda- 
tion for the following history of the chosen people, which the author 
designed to trace from the time of the foundation of the promised 
kingdom till the people were driven away into exile because of 
their revolt from their God. And it is not to be considered as a 
result of the custom prevalent among the later Arabian histo- 
rians, of beginning their histories and chronicles ab ovo with 



Digitized by 



Google 



HAME, CONTENTS, FLAN, AND AIM. 21 

Adam, that oar author goes hack in this introduction to Adam 
and the beginnings of the human race ; for not only is this 
custom far too modern to allow of any inference being drawn 
from it with reference to the Chronicle, but it has itself origi- 
nated, beyond a doubt, in an imitation of our history. The 
reason for going back to the beginnings of the human race is to 
be sought in the importance for the history of the world of the 
people of Israel, whose progenitor Abraham had been chosen 
and separated from all the peoples of the earth by God, that his 
posterity might become a blessing to all the families of the earth. 
But in order to see more perfectly the plan and object of the 
historian in his selection and treatment of the historical material 
at his command, we must still keep in view the age in which he 
lived, and for which he wrote. In respect to this, so much in 
general is admitted, viz. that the Chronicle was composed after 
the Babylonian exile. With their release from exile, and their 
return into the land of their fathers, Israel did not receive again 
its former political importance. That part of the nation which 
had returned remained under Persian supremacy, and was ruled 
by Persian governors ; and the descendants of the royal race of 
David remained subject to this governor, or at least to the kings 
of Persia. They were only allowed to restore the temple, and 
to arrange the divine service according to the precepts of the 
Mosaic law ; and in this they were favoured by Cyrus and his 
successors. In such circumstances, the efforts and struggles of 
the returned Jews must have been mainly directed to the re- 
establishment and permanent ordering of the worship, in order 
to maintain communion with the Lord their God, and by that 
means to prove their fidelity to the God of their fathers, so that 
the Lord might fulfil His covenant promises to them, and com- 
plete the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. By this fact, 
therefore, may we account for the setting forth in our history of 
the religious and ecclesiastical side of the life of the Israelitish 
community in such relief, and for the author's supposed " fond- 
ness" for the Levitic worship. If the author of the Chronicle 
wished to strengthen his contemporaries in their fidelity to 
Jahve, and to encourage them to fulfil their covenant duties by 
a description of the earlier history of the covenant people, he 
could not hope to accomplish his purpose more effectively than 
by so presenting the history as to bring accurately before them 
the ordinances and arrangements of the worship, the blessings of 



Digitized by 



Google 



22 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES.' 

fidelity to the covenant, and the fatal fruits of defection from 
the Lord. 

The chronicler's supposed predilection for genealogical lists 
arose also from the circumstances of his time. From Ezra ii. 60 
ff. we learn that some of the sons of priests who returned with 
Zerubbabel sought their family registers, but could not find 
them, and were consequently removed from the priesthood ; 
besides this, the inheritance of the land was bound up with the 
families of Israel. On this account the family registers had, for 
those who had returned from the exile, an increased importance, 
as the means of again obtaining possession of the heritage of their 
fathers ; and perhaps it was the value thus given to the genealo- 
gical lists which induced the author of the Chronicle to include in 
his book all the old registers of this sort which had been received 
from antiquity. 



§ £ AGE AND AUTHOR OP THE CHRONICLES. 

The Chronicle cannot have been composed before the time of 
Ezra, for it closes with the intelligence that Cyrus, by an edict 
in the first year of his reign, allowed the Jews to return to their 
country (2. xxxvi. 22 f.), and it brings down the genealogical 
tree of Zerubbabel to his grandchildren (1. iii. 19-21). The 
opinion brought into acceptance by de Wette and Ewald, that 
the genealogy (1. iii. 19-24) enumerates six or seven other gene- 
rations after Zerubbabel, and so reaches down to the times of 
Alexander the Great or yet later, is founded on the undemon- 
strable assumption that the twenty-one names which in this 
passage (ver. 216) follow n'fi") \n are the names of direct 
descendants of Zerubbabel. But no exegetical justification can 
be found for this assumption ; since the list of names, " the 
sons of Kephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah," etc. 
(vers. 216-24), is connected neither in form nor in subject-matter 
with the grandsons of Zerubbabel, who have been already enu- 
merated, but forms a genealogical fragment, the connection of 
which with Zerubbabel's grandchildren is merely asserted, but 
can neither be proved nor even rendered probable. {Vide the 
commentary on these verses.) Other grounds for the accept- 
ance of so late a date for the composition of the Chronicle are 
entirely wanting ; for the orthography and language of the book 



Digitized by 



Google 



AGE AMD AUTHOR. 23 

point only in general to the post-exilic age, and the mention of the 
Daric, a Persian coin, in 1. xxix. 7, does not bring us further down 
than the period of the Persian rule over Judaea. On the other 
hand, the use of the name HVa (1. zxix. 1, 19) for the temple 
can scarcely be reconciled with the composition of the book in 
the Macedonian or even the Seleucidian age, since an author 
who lived after Nehemiah, when Jerusalem, like other Persian 
cities, had received in the fortress built by him (Neh. ii. 8, vii. 2), 
and afterwards called Bapis and Arx Antonio, its own nra, would 
scarcely have given this name to the temple. 

In reference to the question of the authorship of our book, 
the matter which most demands consideration is the identity of 
the end of the Chronicle with the beginning of the book of Ezra. 
The Chronicle closes with the edict of Cyrus which summons 
the Jews to return to Jerusalem to build the temple ; the book 
of Ezra begins with this same edict, but gives it more completely 
than the Chronicle, which stops somewhat abruptly with the word 
7jn, « and let him go up," although in this $>jn everything is con- 
tained that we find in the remaining part of the edict communi- 
cated in the book of Ezra. From this relation of the Chronicle 
to the book of Ezra, many Rabbins, Fathers of the church, and 
older exegetes, have drawn the conclusion that Ezra is also the 
author of the Chronicle. But of course it is not a very strong 
proof, since it can be accounted for on the supposition that the 
author of the book of Ezra has taken over the conclusion of the 
Chronicle into his work, and set it at the commencement, so as 
to attach his book to the Chronicle as a continuation. In support 
of this supposition, moreover, tile further fact may be adduced, 
that it was just as important for the Chronicle to communicate 
the terms of Cyrus' edict as it was for the book of Ezra. It 
was a fitting conclusion of the former, to show that the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem and the leading away of the inhabitants of 
Judah to Babylon, was not the final destiny of Judah and Jeru- 
salem, but that, after the dark night of exile, the day of the 
restoration of the people of God had dawned under Cyrus ; and 
for the latter it was an indispensable foundation and point of 
departure for the history of the new immigration of the exiles 
into Jerusalem and Judah. Yet it still remains more probable 
that one author produced both writings, yet not as a single book, 
which has been divided at some later time by another hand. 
For no reason can be perceived for any such later division, 



Digitized by 



Google 



24 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

especially such a division as would make it necessary to repeat 
the edict of Cyrus. 1 The introduction of this edict with the 
words, " And it came to pass in the first year of Cyrus, king of 
Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might 
be accomplished," connects it so closely with the end of the account 
of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the carrying away into Baby- 
lon, contained in the words, " And they were servants to him and 
his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfil the 
word of the Lord spoken by Hie mouth of Jeremiah, ... to fulfil 
the seventy years" (ver. 20 f.), that it cannot be separated 
from what precedes. Rather it is clear, that the author who 
wrote verses 20 and 21, representing the seventy years' exile as 
the fulfilment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, must be the same 
who mentions the edict of Cyrus, and sets it forth in its connec- 
tion with the utterances of the same prophet. This connecting 
of the edict with the prophecy gives us an irrefragable proof that 
the verses which contain the edict form an integral part of the 
Chronicle. But, at the same time, the way in which the edict is 
broken off in the Chronicle with ?}W, makes it likely that the 
author of the Chronicle did not give the contents of the edict in 
their entirety, only because he intended to treat further of the 
edict, and the fulfilment of it by the return of the Jews from 
Babylon, in a second work. A later editor would certainly have 
given the entire edict in both writings (the Chronicle and the book 

1 What Bertheau (p. xxi.) says in this connection (following Ewald, Gesch. 
des V. Isr- i. S. 264, der 2 Aufl.), viz., that " perhaps at first only that part 
of the great historical work which contains the history of the new community 
itself, to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the history of these its two 
heroes, was added to the books of the Old Testament, because it seemed 
unnecessary to add our present Chronicle, on account of its agreement in 
great part with the contents of the books of Samuel and Kings," is a sup- 
position which merely evades giving a reason for the division of the work into 
two, by holding the division to have been made before the book came into 
the canon. But unless the division had been made before, no one would 
ever have thought of considering the first half of this book, i.e. our present 
Chronicle, unworthy of a place in the canon, since it contains, in great 
part, new information not found in the books of Samuel and Kings, and 
supplements in a variety of ways even the narratives which are contained in 
these books. And even supposing that the Chronicle was received into the 
canon as a supplement, after the books of Ezra and Nehemiah had already 
received a definite place in it, the verses 2 Chron. xxxvL 22 f. could scarcely 
have been added to the Chronicle from the book of Ezra, to call attention to 
the fact that the Chronicle had received an unsuitable place in the canon, as 
it ought to have stood before the book of Ezra. 



Digitized by 



Google 



AGE AND AUTHOR. 25 

of Ezra), and would, moreover, hardly have altered ^a (Chron.) 
into 'BD (Ezra), and to? w6k njsr into te» vr6« w. 

The remaining grounds which are usually urged for the 
original unity of the two writings, prove nothing more than the 
possibility or probability that both originated with one author; 
certainly they do not prove that they originally formed one work. 
The long list of phenomena in Bertheau's Commentary, pp. xvi-xx, 
by which a certainty is supposed to be arrived at that the Chronicle 
and Ezra originally was one great historical work, compiled from 
various sources, greatly requires the help of critical bias. 1. 
" The predilection of the author for genealogical lists, for detailed 
descriptions of great feasts, which occurred at the most various 
times, for exact representations of the arrangement of the 
public worship, and the business of the Levites and priests, with 
their classifications and ranks," cannot be proved to exist in the 
book of Ezra. That book contains only one very much abridged 
genealogy, that of Ezra (vii. 1-5) ; only two lists, — those, namely, 
of the families who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and 
Ezra (chap. ii. and viii.) ; only one account of the celebration of 
a feast, the by no means detailed description of the consecration 
of the temple (vi. 16) ; short remarks on the building of the 
altar, the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and the laying 
of the foundation-stone of the temple, in chap. iii. ; and it 
contains nothing whatever as to the divisions and ranks of the 
priests and Levites. That in these lists and descriptions some 
expressions should recur, is to be expected from the nature of the 
case. Yet all that is common to both books is the word fewrn, 
the use of CBBT3? in the signification, " according to the Mosaic 
law" (1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron. xxxv. 13, Ezra iii. 4, and 
Neh. viii. 18), and the liturgical formulas frtrrp vrin, which occurs 
also in Isa. xii. 4 and Ps. xxxiii. 2, and t^W rfTinp with the addi- 
tion, " Jahve is God, and His mercy endureth for ever" (1 Chron. 
xvL 34, 41; 2 Chron. vii. 6; Ezra iii. 11). The other expressions 
enumerated by Bertheau are met with also in other writings : 
rriDeb «iM in Num. i. 17 ; rfatrrva 'Bten and rrta* "tftn, Ex. vi. 
14 i&\; and the formula (rw rrtna) rrrtna airra? or airorrW (l 
Chron. xvi. 40 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 12, 26 ; Ezra iii. 2, 4) is just as 
common in other writings : cf. Josh. i. 8, viii. 31, 34 ; 1 Kings ii. 
3 ; 2 Kings xiv. 6, xxii. 13, xxiii. 21. Bertheau further remarks : 
" In those sections in which the regulation of the public worship, 
the duties, classification, and offices of the priests and Levites 



* : -,-D^jitized'-by 



Google 



26 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

are spoken of, the author seizes every opportunity to tell of the 
musicians and doorkeepers, their duties at the celebration of the 
great festivals, and their classification. He speaks of the musi- 
cians, 1 Chron. vi. 16 ff., ix. 14-16, 33, xv. 16-22, 27 f., xvi. 
4-42, xxiii. 5, xxv. ; 2 Chron. v. 12 f., vii. 6, viii. 14 f ., xx. 19, 
21, xxiii. J3, 18, xxix. 25-28, 30, xxx. 21 f., xxxi. 2, 11-18, xxxiv. 
12, xxxv. 15; Ezra iii. 10 f.; Neh. xi. 17, xii. 8, 24, 27-29, 
45-47, xiii. 5. The doorkeepers are mentioned nearly as often, 
and not seldom in company with the singers : 1 Chron. ix. 17-29, 
xv. 18, 23, 24, xvi. 38, xxiii. 5, xxvi. 1, 12-19 ; 2 Chron. viii. 14, 
xxiii. 4, 19, xxxi. 14, xxxiv. 13, xxxv. 15 ; Ezra ii. 42, 70, vii. 7, 
x. 24 ; Neh. vii. 1, 45, x. 29, xi. 19, xii. 25, 45, 47, xiii. 5. Now 
if these passages he compared, not only are the same expressions 
met with (e.g. DWV? only in Chron., Ezra, and Neh. ; "f)]^} and 
DHi'ttten likewise only in these books, but here very frequently, 
some twenty-eight times), and also very often in different places 
the same names (cf. 1 Chron. ix. 17 with Neh. xii. 25); but 
everywhere also we can easily trace the same view as to the 
importance of the musicians and doorkeepers for the public 
worship, and see that all information respecting them rests upon 
a very well-defined view of their duties and their position." 
But does it follow from this u well-defined view" of the business 
of the musicians and doorkeepers, that the Chronicle, Ezra, and 
Nehemiah form a single book 1 Is this view an idea peculiar 
to the author of this book ? In all the historical books of the 
Old Testament, from Exodus and Leviticus to Nehemiah, we find 
the idea that the laying of the sacrifice upon the altar is the 
business of the priest ; but does it follow from that, that all those 
books were written by one man ? But besides this, the repre- 
sentation given by Bertheau is very one-sided. The fact is, that 
in the Chronicle, and in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, men- 
tion is made of the priests just as often as of the Levitical musi- 
cians, and oftener than the doorkeepers are spoken of, as will be 
seen from the proofs brought forward in the following remarks ; 
nor can any trace be discovered of a " fondness" on the part 
of the chronicler for the musicians and porters. They are 
mentioned only when the subject demanded that they should be 
mentioned. 

2. As to the language. — Bertheau himself admits, after the 
enumeration of a long list of linguistic peculiarities of the 
Chronicle and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, that all these 



Digitized by 



Google 



AGE AND AUTHOR. 27 

phenomena are to be met with separately in other books of the 
Old Testament, especially the later ones ; only their frequent use 
can be set down as the linguistic peculiarity of one author. But 
does the mere numbering of the places where a word or a gram- 
matical construction occurs in this or that book really serve as a 
valid proof for the unity of the authorship ? When, for example, 
the form no, 2 Chron. xiv. 13, xxviii. 14, Ezra ix. 7, Neh. iii. 
36, occurs elsewhere only in Esther and Daniel, or ?3i? in 1 
Chron. xii. 18, xxi. 11, 2 Chron. xxix. 16, 22, and Ezra viii. 30, 
is elsewhere found only in Proverbs once, in Job once, and thrice 
in Esther, does it follow that the Chronicle and the book of Ezra 
are the work of one author t The greater number of the linguistic 
phenomena enumerated by Bertheau, such as the use of DW for 
nw ; the frequent use of f, partly before the infinitive to express 
shall or must, partly for subordinating or introducing a word ; the 
multiplication of prepositions, — e.g. in |w TP, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16 ; 
1kc!> ny, 2 Chron. xvi. 14; ntafc 1», 2 Chron. xvi. 12, xvii. 12, 
xxvi. 8, — are characteristics not arising from a peculiar use of 
language by our chronicler, but belonging to the later or post- 
exilic Hebrew in general. The only words and phrases which 
are characteristic of and common to the Chronicle and the book 
of Ezra are: "tflffl (bowl), 1 Chron. xxviii. 17, Ezra i. 10, viii. 27; 
the infinitive Hophal 1DV1, used of the foundation of the temple, 
2 Chron. iii. 3, Ezra iii. 11 ; JwB, of the divisions of the Levites, 
2 Chron. xxxv. 5 and Ezra vi. 18 ; 3WP, of offerings, 1 Chron. 
xxix. 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, Ezra i. 6, ii. 68, iii. 5 ; I*rnc6 1J) (with 
three prepositions), 2 Chron. xxvi. 15, Ezra iii. 13 ; and T?!? 
trrb iaai", 2 Chron. xii. 14, xix. 3, xxx. 19, and Ezra vii. 10. 
These few words and constructions would per se not prove much ; 
but in connection with the fact that neither in the language nor 
in the ideas are any considerable differences or variations to be 
observed, they may serve to strengthen the probability, arising 
from the relation of the end of the Chronicle to the beginning 
of the book of Ezra, that both writings were composed by the 
priest and scribe Ezra. 1 

1 The opinion first propounded by Ewald, and adopted by Bertheau, 
Dillmann (art. "Chronik" in Herzog's Realtncykl.), and others, that "the 
author belonged to the guild of musicians settled at the temple in Jerusalem" 
(Gtsch. des V. 1st. L p. 235), has no tenable ground for its support, and rests 
merely on the erroneous assumption that the author has not the same sym- 
pathy with the priests as he shows in speaking of the Levites, more especially 



Digitized by 



Google 



28 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 



§ 8. THE 80UBCES OP THE CHRONICLES. 

The genealogical list in chap, i., which gives us the origin of 
the human race and of the nations, and that which contains the 
names of the sons of Jacob (ii. 1 and 2), are to be found in and 
have been without doubt extracted from Genesis, to be placed 
together here. For it is scarcely probable that genealogical lists 
belonging to primeval time and the early days of Israel should 
have been preserved till the post-exilic period. But all the genea- 
logical registers which follow, together with the geographical 
and historical remarks interwoven with them (chap. ii. 3-viii. 40), 
have not been derived from the older historical books of the Old 
Testament : for they contain for the most part merely the names 
of the originators of those genealogical lines, of the grandsons 
and some of the great-grandsons of Jacob, and of the ancestors, 
brothers, and sons of David ; but nowhere do they contain the 
whole lines. Moreover, in the parallel places the names often 
differ greatly, so that all the variations cannot be ascribed to 
errors of transcription. Compare the comparative table of these 
parallel places in my apolog. Versueh tiber die Chron. S. 159 ff., 
and in the Handbook of Introduction, § 139, 1. All these cata- 
logues, together with that of the cities of the Levites (chap. vi. 
39-66), have been derived from other, extra-biblical sources. 

of the singers and doorkeepers (Berth.). If this assertion were true, the 
author might have been just as well a Leritical doorkeeper as a musician. 
But it is quite erroneous, as may be seen on a comparison of the passages 
adduced supra, p. 26, from Bertheau's commentary. In all the passages in 
which the musicians and doorkeepers are mentioned the priests are also spoken 
of, and in such a way that to both priests and Levites that is ascribed which 
belonged to their respective offices : to the priests, the sacrificial service and 
the blowing of the trumpets ; to the Levites, the external business of the 
temple, and the execution of the instrumental music and psalm-singing intro- 
duced by David. From this it is clear that there is no reason why the priest 
and scribe Ezra might not have composed the Chronicle. The passages sup- 
porting the assertion that where musicians and doorkeepers are spoken of 
the priests are also mentioned, are : 1 Chron. vi. 84 ff., ix. 10-13, xv. 24, 
xvi. 6, 89 f., xxiii. 2, 13, 28, 82, xxiv. 1-19 ; 2 Chron. v. 7, 11-14, vii. 6, 
viii. 14 f., xiii. 9-12, xviL 8, xix. 8, 11, xx. 28, xxiii. 4, 6, 18, xxvi. 17, 
20, xxix. 4, 16, 21-24, 34, xxx. 8, 15, 21, 25, 27, xxxL 2, 17, 19, xxxiv. 
30, xxxv. 2, 8, 10, 14, 18; Ezra i. 5, ii. 61, 70, iii. 2, 8, 10-12, vi. 16, 
18, 20, vii. 7, 24, viii. 15, 24-30, 38 ; Neh. ii. 16, iii. 1, vii. 78, viii. 18, 
x. 1-9, 29, 35, 39 f., xL 3, 10 ff., xiL 1 ff., 30, 35, 41, 44, 47, xiii. 30. 



Digitized by 



Google 



THEIB SOURCES. 29 

But as Bertheau, S. xxxi, rightly remarks : " We cannot bold 
the lists to be the result of historical investigation on the part of 
the author of the Chronicle, in the sense of his having culled the 
individual names carefully either out of historical works or from 
traditions of the families, and then brought them into order : for 
in reference to Gad (chap. v. 12) we are referred to a genea- 
logical register prepared in the time of Jotham king of Judah 
and Jeroboam king of Israel ; while as to Issachar (chap. vii. 2) 
the reference is to the numbering of the people which took place 
in the time of David; and it is incidentally (?) stated (chap. 
iz. 1) that registers had been prepared of all Israelites (i.e. the 
northern tribes)." Besides this, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 3, 27, and xxvi. 
31, numberings of the Levites, and in 1 Chron. xxvii. 24 the 
numbering of the people undertaken by Joab at David's com- 
mand, are mentioned. With regard to the latter, however, it is 
expressly stated that its results were not incorporated in the 
B, ?J0 *]•*% *'•«• iu the book of the chronicles of King David, 
while it is said that the results of the genealogical registration of 
the northern tribes of Israel were written in the book of the 
kings of Israel. According to this, then, it might be thought that 
the author had taken his genealogical lists from the great his- 
torical work made use of by him, and often cited, in the history 
of the kings of Judah — "the national annals of Israel and 
Judah." But this can be accepted only with regard to the short 
lists of the tribes of the northern kingdom in chap. v. and vii., 
which contain nothing further than the names of families and 
fathers'-houses, with a statement of the number of males in these 
fathers'-houses. It is possible that these names and numbers 
were contained in the national annals ; but it is not likely that 
these registers, which are of a purely genealogical nature, giving 
the descent of families or famous men in longer or shorter lines 
of ancestors, were received into the national annals {Rekhs- 
annalen), and it does not at all appear from the references to the 
annals that this was the case. These genealogical lists were 
most probably in the possession of the heads of the tribes and 
families and households, from whom the author of the Chronicle 
would appear to have collected all he could find, and preserved 
them from destruction by incorporating them in his work. 

In the historical part (1 Chron. x. — 2 Chron. xxxvi.), at the 
death of almost every king, the author refers to writings in which 
the events and acts of his reign are described. Only in the case 



Digitized by 



Google 



30 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

of Joram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, and the later kings Jehoahaz, Jehoia- 
chin, and Zedekiah, are such references omitted. The books 
which are thus named are : (1) For David's reign, Dibre of 
Samuel the seer, of the prophet Nathan, and of Gad the seer 
(1 Chron. xxix. 29) ; (2) as to Solomon, the Dibre of the prophet 
Nathan, the prophecy (n?03) of Abijah the Shilonite, and the 
visions (nfan) of the seer Iddo against Jeroboam the son of 
Nebat (2 Chron. ix. 29); (3) for Rehoboam, Dibre of the 
prophet Shemaiah and the seer Iddo (chap. xii. 15) ; (4) for 
Abijah's reign, Midrash of the prophet Iddo (xiii. 22) ; (5) for 
Asa, the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (xvi. 11) ; (6) as 
to Jehpshaphat, Dibre of Jehu the son of Hanani, which had 
been incorporated with the book of the kings of Israel (xx. 34) ; 
(7) for the reign of Joash, Midrash-Sepher of the kings (xxiv. 
27) ; (8) for the reign of Amaziah, the book of the kings of 
Judah and Israel (xxv. 26) ; (9) in reference to Uzziah, a writ- 
ing (3TQ) of the prophet Isaiah (xxvi. 22) ; (10) as to Jotham, 
the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (xxvii. 7) ; (11) for 
the reign of Ahaz, the book of the kings of Jndah and- Israel 
(xxviii. 26) ; (12) for Hezekiah, the vision ()ftn) of the prophet 
Isaiah, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (xxxii. 32) ; 
(13) as to Manasseh, Dibre of the kings of Israel, and Dibre of 
Hozai (xxxiii. 18 and 19) ; (14) for the' reign of Josiah, the 
book of the kings of Israel and Judah (xxxv. 27) ; and (15) for 
Jehoiakim, the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (xxxvi. 8). 
From this summary, it appears that two classes of writings, of 
historical and prophetic contents respectively, are quoted. The 
book of the kings of Judah and Israel (No. 5, 8, 11), the book of 
the kings of Israel and Judah (10, 14, 15), the histories ( v ?.? ! of 
the kings of Israel (13), and the Midrash-book of kings (7), 
are all historical. The first three titles are, as is now generally 
admitted, only variations in the designation of one and the same 
work, whose complete title, "Book of the Kings of Judah and 
Israel" (or Israel and Judah), is here and there altered into 
" Book of the Events (or History) of the Kings of Israel," t.e. 
of the whole Israelitish people. This work contained the history 
of the kings of both kingdoms, and must have been essentially 
the same as to contents with the two annalistic writings cited in 
the canonical books of Kings : the book of the Chronicles of the 
Kings of Israel, and the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of 
Judah. This conclusion is forced npon us by the fact that the 



Digitized by 



Google 



THEIB SOURCES. 31 

extracts from them contained in oar canonical books of Kings, 
coincide with the extracts from the books of the kings of Israel 
and Judah contained in oar Chronicle where they narrate the 
same events, either verbally, or at least in so far that the identity 
of the sources from which they have been derived cannot but 
be recognised. The only difference is, that the author of the 
Chronicle had the two writings which the author of the book of 
Kings quotes as two separate works, before him as one work, 
narrating the history of both kingdoms in a single composition. 
For he cites the book of the kings of Israel even for the history 
of those kings of Judah who, like Jotham and Hezekiah, had 
nothing to do with the kingdom of Israel (i.e. the ten tribes),' 
and even after the kingdom of the ten tribes had been already 
destroyed, for the reigns of Manasseh, Josiah, and Jehoiakim. 
But we are entirely without any means of answering with cer- 
tainty the question, in how far the merging of the annals of the 
two kingdoms into one book of the kings of Israel was accom- 
panied by remoulding and revision. The reasons which Bertheau, 
in his commentary on Chronicles, p. xli. ff ., brings forward, after 
the example of Thenius and Ewald, for thinking that it under- 
went so thorough a revision as to become a different book, are 
without force. The difference in the title is not sufficient, since 
it is quite plain, from the different names under which the 
chronicler quotes the work which is used by him, that he did not 
give much attention to literal accuracy. The character of the 
parallel places in our books of Kings and the Chronicle, as 
Bertheau himself admits, forms no decisive criterion for an 
accurate determination of the relation of the chronicler to his 
original documents, which is now in question, since neither the 
author of the books of Samuel and Kings nor the author of the 
Chronicle intended to copy with verbal exactness : they all, on 
the contrary, treated the historical material which they had before 
them with a certain freedom, and wrought it up in their own 
writings in accordance with their various aims. 

It is questionable if the work quoted for the reign of Joash, 
Bfiben *1DD Bh*TD (No. 7), is identical with the book of the kings 
of Israel and Judah, or whether it be not a commentary on it, 
or perhaps a revision of that book, or of a section of the history 
of the kings for purposes of edification. The narrative in the 
Chronicle of the chief events in the reign of Joash, his accession, 
with the fall of Athaliah, and the repairing of the temple (2 



Digitized by 



Google 



32 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

Chron. xxiii. and xxiv.), agrees with the account of these events 
in 2 Kings xi. and xii. where the annals of the kings of Judah 
are quoted, to such an extent, that both the authors seem to 
have derived their accounts from the same source, each making 
extracts according to his peculiar point of view. But the 
Chronicle recounts, besides this, the fall of Joash into idolatry, 
the censure of this defection by the prophet Zechariah, and the 
defeat of the numerous army of the Jews by a small Syrian 
host (xxiv. 15-25) ; from which, in Bertheau's opinion, we may 
come, without much hesitation, to the conclusion that the con- 
nection of these events had been already very clearly brought 
forward in a Midrash of that book of Israel and Judah which is 
quoted elsewhere. This is certainly possible, but it cannot be 
shown to be more than a possibility ; for the further remark of 
Bertheau, that in the references which occur elsewhere it is not 
so exactly stated as in 2 Chron. xxiv. 27 what the contents of the 
book referred to are, is shown to be erroneous by the citation 
in chap, xxxiii. 18 and 19. It cannot, moreover, be denied that 
the title ">s? en*|D instead of the simple 1BD is surprising, even 
if, with Ewald, we take &X*& in the sense of " composition" or 
" writing," and translate it " writing-book " (Schriftbuch), which 
gives ground for supposing that an expository writing is here 
meant. Even taking the title in this sense, it does not follow 
with any certainty that the Midrash extended over the whole 
history of the kings, and still less is it proved that this expository 
writing may have been used by the chronicler here and there in 
places where it is not quoted. 

So much, however, is certain, that we must not, with Jahn, 
Movers, Staehelin, and others, hold these annals of the kings of 
Israel and Judah, which are quoted in the canonical books of 
Kings and the Chronicle, to be the official records of the acts and 
undertakings of the kings prepared by the D^vsto. 1 They are 

1 Against this idea Bahr also has very justly declared (die BUcher der 
Konige, in J. P. Lange's theol. homilet. Bihelvoerke, S. x. f.), and among 
other things has rightly remarked, that in the separated kingdom of Israel 
there is no trace whatever of court or national historians. But he goes much 
too far when he denies the existence of national annals in general, even in 
the kingdom of Judah, and under David and Solomon. For even granting 
that the T3R3 derives his name from this, " that his duty was, as ftttifum, 
to bring to the recollection of the king all the state affairs which were to 
be cared for, and give advice in reference to them ; " yet this function is 
so intimately connected with the recording and preserving of the national 



Digitized by 



Google 



THEIR SOURCES. 33 

rather annalistic national histories composed by prophets, partly 
from the archives of the kingdom and other public documents, 
partly from prophetic monographs containing prophecy and his- 
tory, either composed and continued by various prophets in 
succession during the existence of both kingdoms, or brought 
together in a connected form shortly before the ruin of the 
kingdom out of the then existing contemporary historical docu- 
ments and prophetic records. Two circumstances are strongly 
in favour of the latter supposition. On the one hand, the refer- 
ences to these annals in both kingdoms do not extend to the last 
kings, but end in the kingdom of Israel with Pekah (2 Kings 
xv. 31), in the kingdom of Judah with Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 
5 and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8). On the other hand, the formula 
" until this day" occurs in reference to various events ; and since 
it for the most part refers not to the time of the exile, but to 
times when the kingdom still existed (cf. 1 Kings viii. 8 with 
2 Chron. v. 9 ; 1 Kings ix. 13, 21, with 2 Chron. viii. 8 ; 1 Kings 
xii. 19 with 2 Chron. x. 19 ; 2 Kings viii. 22 with 2 Chron. xxi. 
10, 2 Kings ii. 22, x. 27, xiv. 7, and xvi. 6), it cannot be from 
the hand of the authors of our canonical books of Kings and 
Chronicles, but must have come down to us from the original 
documents, and is in them possible only if they were written at 
some shorter or longer period after the events. When Bahr, in 
the place already quoted, says, on the contrary, that the time 
shortly before the fall of the kingdom, the time of complete 
uprooting, would appear to be the time least of all suited for the 
collection and editing of national year-books, this arises from 
his not having fully weighed the fact, that at that very time 
prophets like Jeremiah lived and worked, and, as is clear from 

documents of the kingdom and of all royal ordinances, that from it the com- 
position of official annals of the kingdom follows almost as a matter of course. 
The existence of such national annals, or official year-books of the kingdom, 
is placed by 1 Chron. ix. 1 and zxvii. 24 beyond all doubt. According to 
ix. 1, a genealogical record of the whole of Israel was prepared and inserted 
in the book of the kings of Israel ; and according to xxvii. 24, the result of 
the numbering of the people, carried out by Joab under David, was not 
inserted in the book of the " Chronicles of King David." Bahr's objections 
to the supposition of the existence of national annals, rest upon the erroneous 
presupposition that all judgments concerning the kings and their religious 
conduct which we find in our canonical histories, would have also been con- 
tained in the annals of the kingdom, and that thus the authors of our books 
of Kings and Chronicles would have been mere copyists giving us some 
excerpts from the original documents. 

C 



Digitized by 



Google 



34 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

the prophecies of Jeremiah, gave much time to the accurate 
study of the older holy writings. 

The book composed by the prophet Isaiah concerning the reign 
of King Uzziah (9) was a historical work ; as was also probably 
the Midrash of the prophet Iddo (4). But, on the other hand, 
we cannot believe, as do Ewald, Berthean, Bahr, and others, that 
the other prophetical writings enumerated under 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 
and 13, were merely parts of the books of the kings of Israel and 
Judah ; for the grounds which are brought forward in support of 
this view do not appear to us to be tenable, or rather, tend to 
show that those writings were independent books of prophecy, to 
which some historical information was appended. 1. The cir- 
cumstance that it is said of two of those writings, the Dibre of 
Jehu and the |ftn of Isaiah (6 and 12), that they were incor- 
porated or received into the books of the Kings, does not justify 
the conclusion " that, since two of the above-named writings are 
expressly said to be parts of the larger historical work, probably 
by the others also only parts of this work are meant " (Ew., Berth. 
S. xxxiv). For in the citations, those writings are not called 
parts of the book of Kings, but are only said to have been re- 
ceived into it as component parts ; and from that it by no means 
follows that the others, whose reception is not mentioned, were parts 
of that work. The admission of one writing into another book can 
only then be spoken of when the book is different from the writing 
which is received into it. 2. Since some of the writings are denomi- 
nated *Vn of a prophet, from the double meaning of the word (fW, 
verba and res, this title might be taken in the sense of " events 
of the prophets," to denote historical writings. But it is much 
more natural to think, after the analogy of the superscriptions 
in Amos i. 1, Jer. i. 1, of books of prophecies like the books of 
Amos and Jeremiah, which contained prophecies and prophetic 
speeches along with historical information, just as the sections 
Amos vii. 10-17, Jer. chap, xl.-xlv. do, and which differed 
from our canonical books of prophecies, in which the historical 
relations are mentioned only in exceptional cases, only by con- 
taining more detailed and minute accounts of the historical 
events which gave occasion to the prophetic utterances. On 
account of this fulness of historical detail, such prophetic writ- 
ings, without being properly histories, would yet be for many 
periods of the history of the kings very abundant sources of 
history. The above-mentioned difference between our canonical 



Digitized by 



Google 



THEIB SOURCES. 35 

books of prophecy and the books now under discussion is very 
closely connected with the historical development of the theo- 
cracy, which showed itself in general in this, that the action of 
the older prophets was specially directed to the present, and to 
viva voce speaking, while that of those of a later time was more 
turned towards the future, and the consummation of the king- 
dom of God by the Messiah (cf. Kiiper, dot Prophetentkum des 
A. Bundes, 1870, S. 93 ff.). This signification of the word nn 
is, in the present case, placed beyond all doubt by the fact that 
the writings of other prophets which are mentioned along with 
these are called n W3i, T\Stn } and Jfon, — words which never denote 
historical writings, but always only prophecies and visions of 
the prophets. In accordance with this, the Jftn of Isaiah (12) 
is clearly distinguished from the writing of the same prophet 
concerning Uzziah, for which 3TI3 is used ; while in the reign of 
Manasseh, the speeches of Hozai are named along with the 
events, i*. the history of the kings of Israel (2 Chron. xxxiii. 
18, 19), and a more exact account of what was related about 
Manasseh in each of these two books is given. From this we 
learn that the historical book of Kings contained the words which 
prophets had spoken against Manasseh ; while in the writing of 
the prophet Hozai, of whom we know nothing further, informa- 
tion as to the places where his idolatry was practised, and the 
images which were the objects of it, was to be found. After 
all these facts, which speak decidedly against the identification 
of the prophetic writings cited in the book of Kings with that 
book itself, the enigmatic iWW, after the formula of quota- 
tion, "They are written in the words (speeches) of the prophet 
Shemaiah and of the seer Iddo " (2 Chron. xii. 15), can natu- 
rally not be looked upon as a proof that here prophetic writings 
are denominated parts of a larger historical work. 3. Nor can 
we consider it, with Bertheau, decisive, " that for the whole his- 
tory of David (D'iinKiTj ttitwnn -fton i<n nan), Solomon, Reho- 
boam, and Jehoshaphat, prophetic writings are referred to ; while 
for the whole history of Asa, Aroaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Josiah, 
the references are to the book of the kings of Israel and Judah." 
From this fact no further conclusion can be drawn than that, in 
reference to the reigns of some kings the prophetic writings, 
and in reference to those of others the history of the kingdom, 
contained all that was important, and that the history of the king- 
dom contained also information as to the work of the prophets in 



Digitized by 



Google 



36 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

the kingdom, while the prophetic writings contained likewise in- 
formation as to the undertakings of the kings. The latter might 
contain more detailed' accounts in reference to some kings, the 
former in reference to others; and this very circumstance, or 
some other reason which cannot now be ascertained by us, may 
have caused the writer of the Chronicle to refer to the former in 
reference to one king, and to the latter in reference to another. 

Finally, 4. Bahr remarks, S. viii. f. : a Quite a number of 
sections of our books (of Kings) are found in the Chronicle,- where 
the words are identical, and yet the reference there is to the writ- 
ings of single definite persons, and not to the three original docu- 
ments from which the Kings is compiled. Thus, in the first place, 
in the history of Solomon, in which the sections 2 Chron. vi. 1-40 
and 1 Kings viii. 12-50, 2 Chron. vii. 7-22 and 1 Kings viii. 
64-ix. 9, 2 Chron. viii. 2-x. 17 and 1 Kings ix. 17-xxiii. 26, 2 
Chron. ix. 1-28 and 1 Kings x. 1-28, etc., are identical, the 
Chronicle refers not to the book of the history of Solomon (as 

1 Kings xi. 41), but to the r vn of the prophet Nathan, etc. (2 
Chron. ix. 29) ; consequently the book of the history of Solomon 
must either have been compiled from those three prophetic writ- 
ings, or at least have contained considerable portions of them. 
The case is identical with the second of the original documents, 
the book of the history of the kings of Judah (1 Kings xiv. 29 
and elsewhere). The narrative as to Eehoboam is identical in 

2 Chron. x. 1-19 and 1 Kings xii. 1-19, as also in 2 Chron. xi. 
1-4 and 1 Kings xii. 20-24 ; further, in 2, Chron. xii. 13 f . as 
compared with 1 Kings xiv. 21 f.; but the history of the kings 
of Judah is not mentioned as an authority, as is the case in 
1 Kings xiv. 29, but the r vn of the prophet Shemaiah and the 
seer Iddo (2 Chron. xii. 15). In the history of King Abijah we 
are referred, in the very short account, 1 Kings xv. 1-8, for 
further information to the book of the history of the kings of 
Judah ; while the Chronicle, on the contrary, which gives further 
information, quotes from the B^ID of the prophet Iddo (2 Chron. 
xiii. 22). The case is similar in the history of the kings Uzziah 
and Manasseh : our author refers in reference to both to the book 
of the kings of Judah (2 Kings xv. 6, xx. 17) ; the chronicler 
quotes, for the first the 3TH of the prophet Isaiah the son of 
Amoz (2 Chron. xxvi. 22), for the latter 'tin "njri (2 Chron. xxxiii. 
19). By all these quotations it is satisfactorily shown that the 
book of the kings of Judah is compiled from the historical writ- 



Digitized by 



Google 



THEIR SOURCES. 37 

ings of various prophets or seers." Bat this conclusion is neither 
valid nor necessary. It is not valid, for this reason, that the 
Chronicle, besides the narratives concerning the reigns of Reho- 
boam, Abijah, Uzziah, and Manasseh, which it has in common 
with the books of Kings, and which are in some cases identical, 
contains a whole series of narratives peculiar to itself, which 
perhaps were not contained at all in the larger historical work 
on the kings of Judah, or at least were not there so complete as 
in the special prophetic writings cited by the chronicler. As to 
Solomon also, the Chronicle has something peculiar to itself 
which is not found in the book of Kings. Nor is the conclu- 
sion necessary ; for from a number of identical passages in our 
canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, the only certain con- 
clusion which can be drawn is, that these narratives were con- 
tained in the authorities quoted by both writers, but not that the 
variously named authorities form one and the same work. 

By all this we are justified in maintaining the view, that the 
writings quoted by the author of the Chronicle under the titles, 
Words, Prophecy, Visions of this and that prophet, with the 
exception of the two whose incorporation with the book of Kings is 
specially mentioned, lay before him as writings separate and distinct 
from the " Books of the Kings of Israel and Judah," that these 
writings were also in the hands of many of his contemporaries, and 
that he could refer his readers to them. On this supposition, we 
can comprehend the change in the titles of the works quoted; while 
on the contrary supposition, that the special prophetic writings 
quoted were parts of the larger history of the kings of Israel and 
Judah,it remains inexplicable. But the references of the chronicler 
are not to be understood as if all he relates, for example, of the 
reign of David was contained in the words of the seer Samuel, 
of the prophet Nathan, and of the seer Gad, the writings he 
quotes for that reign. He may, as Berth. S. xxxviii. has already 
remarked, " have made use also of authorities which he did not 
feel called upon to name," — as, for example, the lists of David's 
heroes, 1 Chron. xi. 10-47, and of those who gave in their 
adherence to David before the death of Saul, and who anointed 
him king in Hebron, chap. xii. Such also are the catalogues of 
the leaders of the host, of the princes of the tribes, and the 
stewards of the royal domains, chap, xxvii.; of the fathers'-houses 
of the Levites, and the divisions of the priests, Levites, and singers, 
etc., chap, xxiii.-xxvi. These lists contain records to whose sources 



Digitized by 



Google 



38 INTBODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 

he did not need to refer, even if he had extracted them from the 
public annals of the kingdom during the reign of David, because 
he has embodied them in their integrity in his book. 

But our canonical books of Samuel and Kings are by no means 
to be reckoned among the sources possibly used besides the writ- 
ings which are quoted. It cannot well be denied that the author 
of the Chronicle knew these books ; but that he has used them as 
authorities, as de Wette, Movers, Ewald, and others think, we 
must, with Bertheau and Dillmann, deny. The single plausible 
ground which is usually brought forward to prove the use of 
these writings, is the circumstance that the Chronicle contains 
many narratives corresponding to those found in the books of 
Samuel and Kings, and often verbally identical with them. . But 
that is fully accounted for by the fact that the chronicler used 
the same more detailed writings as the authors of the books of 
Samuel and Kings, and has extracted the narratives in question, 
partly with verbal accuracy, partly with some small alterations, 
from them. Against the supposition that the above-named 
canonical books were used by the chronicler, we may adduce the 
facts that the chronicle, even in those corresponding passages, 
differs in many ways as to names and events from the account in 
those books, and that it contains, on an average, more than they 
do, as will be readily seen on an exact comparison of the parallel 
sections. Other and much weaker grounds for believing that the 
books of Samuel and Kings were used by the chronicler, are 
refuted in my Handbook of Introduction, § 141, 2 ; and in it, at 
§ 139, is to be found a synoptical arrangement of the parallel 
sections. 



§ 4. THE HISTOBICAL CHARACTEB OF THE CHEONICLES. 

The historic truth or credibility of the books of the Chronicle, 
which de Wette, in the Beitrr. zur Einleit. 1806, violently 
attacked, in order to get rid of the evidence of the Chronicle for 
the Mosaic origin of the Sinaitic legislation, is now again in the 
main generally recognised. 1 The care with which the chronicler 

1 Cf. Bertheau, Com. S. xliii, and Dillmann, loc cit. The decision of the 
Utter is as follows, S. 693 : " This work has a great part of its narratives and 
information in common with the older canonical historical books, and very 
often corresponds verbally, or almost verbally, with them ; but another and 
equally important part is peculiar to itself. This relationship was, formerly, 



Digitized by 



Google 



THEIB HISTORICAL CHARACTER 39 

has used his authorities may be seen, on a comparison of the 
narratives common to the Chronicle with the books of Samuel and 
Kings, not only from the fact that in these parallel sections the 
story of the chronicler agrees in all essential points with the 
accounts of these books, but also from the variations which are 
to be met with. For these variations, in respect to their matter, 
give us in many ways more accurate and fuller information, and 
in every other respect are of a purely formal kind, in great part 
affecting only the language and style of expression, or arising 
from the hortatory-didactic aim of the narrative. But this hor- 
tatory aim has nowhere had a prejudicial effect on the objective 
truth of the statement of historical facts, as appears on every 
hand on deeper and more attentive observation, but has only 
imparted to the history a more subjective impress, as compared 
with the objective style of the books of Kings. 

Now, since the parallel places are of such a character, we are, 
as Bertheau and Dillmann frankly acknowledge, justified in 
believing that the anthor of the Chronicle, in the communication 
of narratives not elsewhere to be found in the Old Testament, 
has followed his authorities very closely, and that not only the 
many registers which we find in his work — the lists in 1 Chron. 
xii., xxiii.-xxvi., xxvii. ; the catalogue of cities fortified by Reho- 
boam, 2 Chron. xi. 6-12 ; the family intelligence, chap. xi. 18-23, 
xxi. 2, and such matters — have been communicated in exact 
accordance with his authorities, but also the accounts of the wars 

in the time of the specially negative criticism, explained by the supposition 
that the chronicler had derived the information which he has in common with 
these books from them, and that every difference and peculiarity arose from 
misunderstanding, misinterpretation, a desire to ornament, intentional mis- 
representation, and pure invention (so especially de Wette in his Beitrr., and 
Gramberg, die Chronik nach ihrem geschichtl. Karakter, 1823). The historic 
credibility of the Chronicle has, however, been long ago delivered from such 
measureless suspicions, and recognised (principally by the efforts of Keil, 
apologtt. Vertuch, 1833 ; Movers, die bibl. Chronik, 1834 ; Haevernick, in the 
Einleitung, 1839 ; and Ewald, in the Geschichte Israels). It is now again 
acknowledged that the chronicler has written everywhere from authorities, 
and that intentional fabrications or misrepresentations of the history can no 
more be spoken of in connection with him." Only K. H. Graf has remained 
so far behind the present stage of Old Testament inquiry as to seek to revive 
the views of de Wette and Gramberg as to the Chronicle and the Pentateuch. 
For further information as to the attacks of de Wette and Gramberg, and 
their refutation, see my apologet. Versuche ilber die BB. der Chronik, 1833, 
and in the Handbook of Introduction, § 143 and 144. 



Digitized by 



Google 



40 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOORS OF CHRONICLES. 

of Rehoboam, Abijah, Jehoshaphat (chap, xx.), Amaziah, etc. 
Only here and there, Bertheau thinks, has he used the opportunity 
offered to him to treat the history in a freer way, so as to represent 
the course of the more weighty events, and such as specially 
attracted his attention, according to his own view. This appears 
especially, he says, (1) in the account of the speeches of David, 1 
Chron. xiii. 2 f., xv. 12 f., xxviii. 2-10, 20 f., xxix. 1-5 and 10- 
19, where, too, there occur statements of the value of the precious 
metals destined for the building of the temple (1 Chron. xxix. 
4, 7), which clearly do not rest upon truthful historical recollec- 
tion, and can by no means have been derived from a trustworthy 
source ; as also in the reports of those of Abijah (2 Chron. xiii. 
5-10) and of Asa (chap. xiv. 10, etc.) ; then (2) in the description 
of the religious ceremonies and feasts (1 Chron. xv. and xvi. ; 2 
Chron. v. 1-vii. 10, chap, xxix.-xxxi., chap, xxxv.) : for in both 
speeches and descriptions expressions and phrases constantly recur 
which may be called current expressions with the chronicler. Yet 
these speeches stand quite on a level with those of Solomon, 2 
Chron. i. 8-10, chap. vi. 4-11, 12-42, which are also to be found 
in the books of Kings (1. iii. 6-9, chap. viii. 14-53), from which 
it is to be inferred that the author here has not acted quite inde- 
pendently, but that in this respect also older histories may have 
served him as a model. But even in these descriptions informa- 
tion is not lacking which must rest upon a more accurate histo- 
rical recollection, e.g. the names in 1 Chron. xv. 5—11, 17-24 ; 
the statement as to the small number of priests, and the help 
given to them by the Levites, in 2 Chron. xxix. 14 f ., xxx. 1 7. 
Yet we must, beyond doubt, believe that the author of the 
Chronicle " has in these descriptions transferred that which had 
become established custom in his own time, and which according 
to general tradition rested upon ancient ordinance, without hesi- 
tation, to an earlier period." Of these two objections so much is 
certainly correct, that in the speeches of the persons acting in the 
history, and in the descriptions of the religious feasts, the freer 
handling of the authorities appears most strongly ; but no altera- 
tions of the historical circumstances, nor additions in which the 
circumstances of the older time have been unhistorically repre- 
sented according to the ideas or the taste of the post-exilic age, 
can, even here, be anywhere pointed out. With regard, first 
of all, to the speeches in the Chronicle, they are certainly not 
given according to the sketches or written reports of the hearers, 



Digitized by 



Google 



THEIB HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 41 

but sketched and composed by the historian according to a truth- 
ful tradition of the fundamental thoughts. For although, in all 
the speeches of the Chronicle, certain current and characteristic 
expressions and phrases of the author of this book plainly occur, 
yet it is just as little doubtful that the speeches of the various 
persons are essentially different from one another in their 
thoughts, and characteristic images and words. By this fact it 
is placed beyond doubt that they have not been put into the 
mouths of the historical persons either by the chronicler or by 
the authors of the original documents upon which he relies, but 
have been composed according to the reports or written records 
of the ear-witnesses. For if we leave out of consideration the short 
sayings or words of the various persons, such as 1 Chron. xi. 1 f ., 
xii. 12 f ., xv. 12 f ., etc., which contain nothing characteristic, there 
are in the Chronicle only three longer speeches of King David 
(1 Chron. xxii. 7-16, xxviii. 2-10, 12-22, and xxix. 1-5), all of 
which have reference to the transfer of the kingdom to his son Solo- 
mon, and in great part treat, on the basis of the divine promise 
(2 Sam. vii. and 1 Chron. xvii.), of the building of the temple, 
and the preparations for this work. In these speeches the pecu- 
liarities of the chronicler come so strongly into view, in contents 
and form, in thought and language, that we must believe them 
to be free representations of the thoughts which in those days 
moved the soul of the grey-haired king. But if we compare 
with these David's prayer (1 Chron. xxix. 10-19), we find in it 
not only that multiplication of the predicates of God which is 
so characteristic of David (cf. Ps. xviii.), but also, in vers. 11 
and 15, definite echoes of the Davidic psalms. The speech of 
Abijah, again, against the apostate Israel (2 Chron. xiii. 4-12), 
moves, on the whole, within the circle of thought usual with the 
chronicler, but contains in ver. 7 expressions such as D'i?"?, D'KOK 
and ????3 'J3, which are quite foreign to the language of the 
Chronicle, and belong to the times of David and Solomon, and 
consequently point to sources contemporaneous with the events. 
The same thing is true of Hezekiah's speech (2 Chron. xxxii. 
7, 8), in which the expression "ij2>3 yVrt, " the arm of flesh," recalls 
the intimacy of this king with the prophet Isaiah (cf. Isa. xxxi. 
3). The sayings and speeches of the prophets, on the contrary, 
are related much more in their original form. Take, for in- 
stance, the remarkable speech of Azariah ben Oded to King Asa 
(2 Chron. xv. 1-7), whicb, on account of its obscurity, has been 



Digitized by 



Google 



42 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. „ 

very variously explained, and which, as is well known, is the 
foundation of the announcement made by Christ of the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem and the last judgment (Matt. xxiv. 6, 7 ; Luke 
xxi. 19). As C. P. Caspari {der tyrisck-ephraimit. Krieg., Chris- 
tiania 1849, S. 54) has already remarked, it is so peculiar, and 
bears so little of the impress of the Chronicle, that it is impos- 
sible that it can have been produced by the chronicler himself : 
it must have been taken over by him from his authorities almost 
without alteration. From this one speech, whose contents he 
could hardly have reproduced accurately in his own words, and 
which he has consequently left almost unaltered, we can see 
clearly enough that the chronicler has taken over the speeches 
he communicates with fidelity, so far as their contents are con- 
cerned, and has only clothed them formally, more or less, in his 
own language. This treatment of the speeches in the Chronicle 
is, however, not a thing peculiar and confined to the author of 
this book, but is, as Delitzsch has shown (haiah, p. 17 ff. tr.), 
common to all the biblical historians ; for even in the prophecies 
in the books of Samuel and Kings distinct traces are observable 
throughout of the influence of the narrator, and they bear more 
or less visibly upon them the impress of the writer who repro- 
duces them, without their historical kernel being thereby affected. 
Now the historical truth of the events is" just as little interfered 
with by the circumstance that the author of the Chronicle works 
out rhetorically the descriptions of the celebration of the holy 
feasts, represents in detail the offering of the sacrifices, and has 
spoken in almost all of these descriptions of the musical perfor- 
mances of the Levites and priests. The conclusion which has 
been drawn from this, that he has here without hesitation trans- 
ferred to an earlier time that which had become established 
custom in his own time, would only then be correct if the re- 
storation of the sacrificial worship according to the ordinance 
of Leviticus, or the, introduction of instrumental music and the 
singing of psalms, dated only from the time of the exile, as de 
Wette, Gramberg, and others have maintained. If, on the 
contrary, these arrangements and regulations be of Mosaic, and 
in a secondary sense of Davidic origin, then the chronicler has 
not transferred the customs and usages of his own time to the 
times of David, Asa, Hezekiah, and others, but has related what 
actually occurred under these circumstances, only giving to the 
description an individual colouring. Take, for example, the 



Digitized by 



Google 



THEIR HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 43 

hymn (1 Chron. xvi. 8-36) which David caused to be song by 
Asaph and his brethren in praise of the Lord, after the transfer 
of the ark to Jerusalem into the tabernacle prepared for it (1 
Chron. xvi. 7). If it was not composed by David for this cere- 
mony, but has been substituted by the chronicler, in his endeavour 
to represent the matter in a vivid way, from among the psalms sung 
in his own time on such solemn occasions, for the psalm which was 
then sung, but which was not communicated by his authority, 
nothing would be altered in the historical fact that then for the 
first time, by Asaph and his brethren, God was praised in psalms ; 
for the psalm given adequately expresses the sentiments and 
feelings which animated the king and the assembled congrega- 
tion at that solemn festival. To give another example : the 
historical details of the last assembly of princes which David 
held (1 Chron. xxviii.) are not altered if David did not go over 
with his son Solomon, one by one, all the matters regarding the 
temple enumerated in 1 Chron. xxviii. 11-19. 

There now remains, therefore, only some records of numbers 
in the Chronicle which are decidedly too large to be considered 
either accurate or credible. Such are the sums of gold men- 
tioned in 1 Chron. xxii. 14 and xxix. 4, 7, which David had 
collected for the building of the temple, and which the princes of 
the tribes expended for this purpose ; the statements as to the 
greatness of the armies of Abijah and Jeroboam, of the number 
of the Israelites who fell in battle (2 Chron. xiii. 3, 17), of the 
number of King Asa's army and that of the Cushites (2 Chron. 
xiv 7 f.), of the military force of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xvii. 
14-18), and of the women and children who were led away cap- 
tive under Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 8). But these numbers can- 
not shake the historical credibility of the Chronicle in general, 
because they are too isolated, and differ too greatly from state- 
ments of the Chronicle in other places which are in accord- 
ance with fact. To estimate provisionally and in general these 
surprising statements, the more exact discussion of which belongs 
to the Commentary, we must consider, (1) that they all contain 
round numbers, in which thousands only are taken into account, 
and are consequently not founded upon any exact enumeration, 
but only upon an approximate estimate of contemporaries, and 
attest nothing more than that the greatness of the armies, and 
the multitude of those who had fallen in battle or were taken 
prisoner, was estimated at so high a number ; (2) that the actual 



Digitized by 



Google 



44 1NTB0DUCTI0N TO THE BOOKS OF CHBONICLES. 

amount of the mass of gold and silver which had been collected 
by David for the building of the temple cannot with certainty be 
reckoned, because we are ignorant of the weight of the shekel of 
that time ; and (3) that the correctness of the numbers given is 
very doubtful, since it is indubitably shown, by a great number 
of passages of the Old Testament, that the Hebrews have from 
the earliest times expressed their numbers not by words, but by 
letters, and consequently omissions might very easily occur, or 
errors arise, in copying or writing out in words the sums originally 
written in letters. Such textual errors are so manifest in not a 
few places, that their existence cannot be doubted ; and that not 
merely in the books of the Chronicle, but in all "the historical 
books of the Old Testament. The Philistines, according to 1 
Sam. xiii. 5, for example, brought 30,000 chariots and 6000 
horsemen into the field ; and according to 1 Sam. vi. 19, God 
smote of the people at Beth-shemesh 50,070 men. With respect 
to these statements, all commentators are now agreed that the 
numbers 30,000 and 50,000 are incorrect, and have come into 
the text by errors of the copyists ; and that instead of 30,000 
chariots there were originally only 1000, or at most 3000, spoken 
of, and that the 50,000 in the second passage is an ancient gloss. 
There is, moreover, at present no doubt among investigators of 
Scripture, that in 1 Kings v. 6 (in English version, ir. 26) the 
number 40,000 (stalls) is incorrect, and that instead of it, accord- 
ing to 2 Chron. ix. 25, 4000 should be read ; and further, that 
the statement of the age of King Ahaziah at 42 years (2 Chron. 
xxii. 22), instead of 22 years (2 Kings viii. 26), has arisen by an 
interchange of the numeral signs D and 2. A similar case is 
to be found in Ezra ii. 69, compared with Neh. vii. 70-72, where, 
according to Ezra, the chiefs of the people gave 61,000 darics for 
the restoration of the temple, and according to Nehemiah only 
41,000 (viz. 1000 + 20,000 + 20,000). In both of these chap- 
ters a multitude of differences is to be found in reference to the 
number of the exiled families who returned from Babylon, which 
can only be explained on the supposition of the numeral letters 
having been confounded. But almost all these different state- 
ments of numbers are to be found in the oldest translation of 
the Old Testament, that of the LXX., from which it appears 
that they had made their way into the MSS. before the settle- 
ment of the Hebrew text by the Masoretes, and that conse- 
quently the use of letters as numeral signs was customary in the 



Digitized by 



Google 



THEIR HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 45 

pre-Masoretic times. This use of the letters is attested and pre- 
supposed as generally known by both Hieronymus and the rabbins, 
and is confirmed by the Maccabean coins. That it is a primeval 
custom, and reaches back into the times of the composition of 
the biblical books, is clear from this fact, that the employment 
of the alphabet as numeral signs among the Greeks coincides 
with the Hebrew alphabet. This presupposes that the Greeks 
received, along with the alphabet, at the same time the use of 
the letters as numeral signs from the Semites (Phoenicians or 
Hebrews). The custom of writing the numbers in words, which 
prevails in the Masoretic. text of the Bible, was probably first 
introduced by the Masoretes in settling the rules for the writing 
of the sacred books of the canon, or at least then became law. 

After all these facts, we may conclude the Introduction to 
the books of the Chronicle, feeling assured of our result, that 
the books, in regard to their historical contents, notwithstanding 
the hortatory-didactic aim of the author in bringing the history 
before us, have been composed with care and fidelity according 
to the authorities, and are fully deserving of belief. 

As to the exegetical literature, see my Handbook of Introduc- 
tion, § 138. 



Digitized by 



Google 



Digitized by 



Google 



EXPOSITION. 




THE FIRST BOOK OE THE CHRONICLES. 

I. GENEALOGIES, WITH HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL 
NOTES.— CHAP. I.-IX. 

||N order to show the connection of the tribal ancestors 
of Israel with the peoples of the earth, in chap. i. are 
enumerated the generations of the primeval world, 
from Adam till the Flood, and those of the post- 
diluvians to Abraham and his sons, according to the accounts 
in Genesis ; in chap, ii.-viii., the twelve tribal ancestors of the 
people of Israel, and the most important families of the twelve 
tribes, are set down ; and finally, in chap, ix., we have a list 
of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the genealogical 
table of King Saul. The enumeration of the tribes and 
families of Israel forms, accordingly, the chief part of the con- 
tents of this first part of the Chronicle, to which the review 
of the families and tribes of the primeval time and the early 
days of Israel form the introduction, and the information as 
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the family of King Saul 
the conclusion and the transition, to the following historical 
narrative. Now, if we glance at the order in which the genea- 
logies of the tribes of Israel are ranged, — viz. (a) those of the 
families of Judah and of the house of David, chap. ii. 1-iv. 23 ; 
(6) those of the tribe of Simeon, with an account of their dwelling- 
place, chap. iv. 24-43; (c) those of the trans-Jordanic tribes, 
Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, chap. v. 1-26 ; 
(d) of the tribe of Levi, or the priests and Levites, chap. v. 
27-vL 66 ; («) of the remaining tribes, viz. Issachar, Benjamin, 
Naphtali, cis-Jordanic Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher, chap. vii. ; 
and of some still remaining families of Benjamin, with the family 
of Saul, chap, viii., — it is at once seen that this arrangement is 

47 



Digitized by 



Google 



48 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

the result of regarding the tribes from two points of view, which 
are closely connected with each other. On the one hand, regard 
is had to the historical position which the tribes took up, accord- 
ing to the order of birth of their tribal ancestors, and which they 
obtained by divine promise and guidance ; on the other hand, the 
geographical position of their inheritance has been also taken 
into account. That regard to the historical position and import- 
ance of the tribes was mainly determinative, is plain from the 
introductory remarks to the genealogies of the tribe of Reuben, 
chap. v. 1, 2, to the effect that Reuben was the first-born of 
Israel, but that, because of his offence against his father's bed, 
his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, although they 
are not specified as possessors of it in the family registers ; while 
it is narrated that Judah, on the contrary, came to power among 
his brethren, and that out of Judah had come forth the prince 
over Israel. Judah is therefore placed at the head of the tribes, 
as that one out of which God chose the king over His people ; 
and Simeon comes next in order, because they had received their 
inheritance within the tribal domain of Judah. Then follows 
Reuben as the first-born, and after him are placed Gad and the 
half tribe of Manasseh, because they had received their inherit- 
ance along with Reuben on the other side of the Jordan. After 
Reuben, according to age, only Levi could follow, and then after 
Levi come in order the other tribes. The arrangement of them, 
however — Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, 
Asher, and again Benjamin — is determined from neither the 
historical nor by the geographical point of view, but probably 
lay ready to the hand of the chronicler in the document used by 
him, as we are justified in concluding from the character of all 
these geographical and topographical lists. 

For if we consider the character of these lists somewhat more 
carefully, we find that they are throughout imperfect in their 
contents, and fragmentary in their plan and execution. The 
imperfection in the contents shows itself in this, that no genea- 
logies of the tribes of Dan and Zebulun are given at all, only 
the sons of Naphtali being mentioned (vii. 13) ; of the half tribe 
of Manasseh beyond Jordan we have only the names of some 
heads of f athers'-houses 1 (v. 24) ; and even in the relatively 

1 It may perhaps be useful to notice here oar author's use of the words 
Geschlecht, Vaterhaus, and Familie, and the rendering of them in English. 
As he states in a subsequent page, the Geschlechter are the larger divisions of 



Digitized by 



Google 



cnAP. i.-ix. 49 

copious lists of the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin, only 
the genealogies of single prominent families of these tribes are 
enumerated. In Judah, little more is given than the families 
descended from Pharez, chap. ii. 5-iv. 20, and a few notices of 
the family of Shelah ; of Levi, none are noticed but the suc- 
cession of generations in the high-priestly line of Aaron, some 
descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, and the three 
Levites, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, set over the service of song ; 
while of Benjamin we have only the genealogies of three families, 
and of the family of Saul, which dwelt at Gibeon. But the 
incompleteness of these registers comes still more prominently 
into view when we turn our attention to the extent of the genea- 
logical lists, and see that only in the cases of the royal house of 
David and the high-priestly line of Eleazar do the genealogies 
reach to the Babylonian exile, and a few generations beyond that 
point ; while all the others contain the succession of generations 
for only short periods. Then, again, in regard to their plan and 
execution, these genealogies are not only nnsymmetrical in the 
highest degree, but they are in many cases fragmentary. In the 
tribe of Judah, besides the descendants of David, chap, iii., two 
quite independent genealogies of the families of Judah are given, 
in chap. ii. and iv. 1-23. The same is the case with the two 
genealogies of the Levites, the lists in chap. vi. differing from 
those in chap. v. 27-41 surprisingly, in vi. 1, 28, 47, 56, Levi's 
eldest son being called Gershom, while in chap. v. 27 and 1 
Chron. xxiii. 61, and in the Pentateuch, he is called Gershon. 
Besides this, there is in chap. vi. 35-38 a fragment containing 
the names of some of Aaron's descendants, who had been already 
completely enumerated till the Babylonian exile in chap. v. 
29-41. In the genealogies of Benjamin, too, the family of Saul 
is twice entered, viz. in chap. viii. 29-40 and in chap. ix. 35-44. 
The genealogies of the remaining tribes are throughout defective 
in the highest degree. Some consist merely of an enumeration 
of a number of heads of houses or families, with mention of their 

the tribes tracing their descent from the sons of the twelve patriarchs ; the 
Viiterhauser are the subdivisions descended from their grandsons or great- 
grandsons ; while the Familien are the component parts of the Vaterhauser. 
The author's use of these words is somewhat vacillating ; but Geschlecht, 
in this connection, has always been rendered by " family," Vaterhaus by 
" father's-house," Familie by " household," and Familiengruppen by " groups 
of related households." — Tr. 

D 



Digitized by 



Google 



[,[) THE FIRST BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

dwelling-place: as, for instance, the genealogies of Simeon, chap, 
iv. 24-43 ; of Keuben, Gad, half Manasseh, chap. v. 1-24; and 
Ephraim, chap. vii. 28, 29. Others give only the number of men 
capable of bearing arms belonging to the individual fathers' -houses, 
as those of Issachar, Benjamin, and Asher, chap. vii. 2-5, 7-11, 
40 ; and finally, of the longer genealogical lists of Judah and 
Benjamin, those in chap. iv. 1-20 and in chap. viii. consist only 
of fragments, loosely ranged one after the other, giving us the 
names of a few of the posterity of individual men, whose genea- 
logical connection with the larger divisions of these tribes is not 
stated. 

By all this, it is satisfactorily proved that all these registers 
and lists have not been derived from one larger genealogical 
historical work, but have been drawn together from various old 
genealogical lists which single races and families had saved and 
carried with them into exile, and preserved until their return 
into the land of their fathers ; and that the author of the Chronicle 
has received into his work all of these that he could obtain, 
whether complete or imperfect, just as he found them. Nowhere 
is any trace of artificial arrangement or an amalgamation of the 
various lists to be found. 

Now, when we recollect that the Chronicle was composed in 
the time of Ezra, and that up to that time, of the whole people, 
for the most part only households and families of the tribes of 
Judah, Levi, and Benjamin had returned to Canaan, we will not 
find it wonderful that the Chronicle contains somewhat more 
copious registers of these three tribes, and gives us only frag- 
ments bearing on the circumstances of prse-exilic times in the case 
■of the remaining tribes. 



CHAP. I.— THE FAMILIES OF PRIMEVAL TIME, AND OF THE 
ANTIQUITY OF ISRAEL. 

Vers. 1-4. The patriarchs from Adam to Noah and his tons. 
— The names of the ten patriarchs of the primeval world, from 
the Creation to the Flood, and the three sons of Noah, are given 
according to Gen. v., and grouped together without any link of 
connection whatever : it is assumed as known from Genesis, that 
the first ten names denote generations succeeding one another, 
and that the last three, on the contrary, are the names of 
brethren. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. L 5-23. 51 

Vers. 5-23. The peoples and races descended from the sons 
of Noah. — These are enumerated according to the table in Gen. 
x.; but oar author has omitted not only the introductory and 
concluding remarks (Gen. x. 1, 21, 32), but also the historical 
notices of the founding of a kingdom in Babel by Nimrod, and 
the distribution of the Japhetites and Shemites in their dwelling- 
places (Gen. x. 5, 9-12, 186-20, and 30 and 31). The remain- 
ing divergences are partly orthographic, — such as 73PI, ver. 5, for 
bom, Gen. x. 2, and W??"!, ver. 9, for nojn, Gen. x. 7 ; and partly 
arising from errors of transcription, — as, for example, riB'"!, ver. 6, 
for n»n, Gen. x. 3, and conversely, vrfa, ver. 7, for 0'?*ft, ®en. 
x. 4, where it cannot with certainty be determined which form 
is the original and correct one ; and finally, are partly due to a 
different pronunciation or form of the same name, — as nefann, ver. 
7, for E*enn, Gen. x. 4, the a of motion having been gradually 
fused into one word with the name, DTP?, ver. 11, for D^-*, Gen. 
x- 13, just as in Amos ix. 7 we have D'*SW3 for Q"W3 ; in ver. 22, 
7V$ for Wtf, Gen. x. 28, where the LXX. have also EvdX, and 
Tf&D, ver. 17, for VQ, Gen. x. 23, which last has not yet been 
satisfactorily explained, since Ttffe is used in Ps. cxx. 5 with Tip of 
an Arabian tribe. Finally, there is wanting in ver. 17 tfW 'JOl 
before pv, Gen. x. 23, because, as in the case of Noah's sons, 
ver. 4, where their relationship is not mentioned, so also in refer- 
ence to the peoples descended from Shem, the relationship sub- 
sisting between the names Uz, Hul, etc., and Aram, is supposed 
to be already known from Genesis. Other suppositions as to 
the omission of the words O^K \>M are improbable. That this 
register of seventy-one persons and tribes, descended from Shem, 
Ham, and Japhet, has been taken from Gen. x., is placed beyond 
doubt, by the fact that not only the names of our register exactly 
correspond with the table in Gen. x., with the exception of the 
few variations above mentioned, but also the plan and form of 
both registers is quite the same. In vers. 5-9 the sections of the 
register are connected, as in Gen. x. 2-7, by 'JIM ; from ver. 10 
onwards by 1?J, as in Gen. ver. 8 ; in ver 17, again, by 'JO, as in 
Gen. ver. 22 ; and in ver. 18 by iV, and ver. 19 by "lV, as in Gen. 
vers. 24 and 25. The historical and geographical explanation of 
the names has been given in the commentary to Gen. x. Accord- 
ing to Bertheau, the peoples descended from the sons of Noah 
amount to seventy, and fourteen of these are enumerated as 
descendants of Japhet, thirty of Ham, and twenty-six of Shem. 



Digitized by 



Google 



52 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

These numbers he arrives at by omitting Nimrod, or not enume- 
rating him among the sons of Ham ; while, on the contrary, he 
takes Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Feleg, and Joktan, all of which 
are the names of persons, for names of peoples, in contradiction 
to Genesis, according to which the five names indicate persons, 
viz. the tribal ancestors of the Terahites and Joktanites, peoples 
descended from Eber by Feleg and Joktan. 

Vers. 24-27. The patriarchs from Sliem to Abraham. — The 
names of these, again, are simply ranged in order according to 
Gen. xi. 10-26, while the record of their ages before the begetting 
and after the birth of sons is omitted. Of the sons of Terah only 
Abram is named, without his brothers ; with the remark that 
Abram is Abraham, in order to point out to the reader that he 
was the progenitor of the chosen people so well known from 
Genesis (cf. chap. xvii.). 

Vers. 28-34. The sons of Abraham. — In ver. 28 only Isaac 
and Ishmael are so called ; Isaac first, as the son of the promise. 
Then, in vers. 29-31, follow the posterity of Ishmael, with the 
remark that Ishmael was the first-born ; in vers. 32 and 33, the 
sons of Keturah ; and finally in ver. 34, the two sons of Isaac. 
— Ver. 29 ff. The names of the generations (riVwi) of Ishmael 
(Hebr. Yishma'el) correspond to those in Gen. xxv. 12-15, and 
have been there explained. In ver. 32 f. also, the names of the 
thirteen descendants of Abraham by Keturah, six sons and seven 
grandsons, agree with Gen. xxv. 1-4 (see commentary on that 
passage) ; only the tribes mentioned in Gen. xxv. 3, which were 
descended from Dedan the grandson of Keturah, are omitted. 
From this Bertheau wrongly concludes that the chronicler pro- 
bably did not find these names in his copy of the Pentateuch. 
The reason of the omission is rather this, that in Genesis the great- 
grandchildren are not themselves mentioned, but only the tribes 
descended from the grandchildren, while the chronicler wished 
to enumerate only the sons and grandsons. Keturah is called 
tMTB after Gen. xxv. 6, where Keturah and Hagar are so named. 
— Ver. 34. The two sons of Isaac. Isaac has been already men- 
tioned as a son of Abram, along with Ishmael, in ver. 28. But 
here the continuation of the genealogy of Abraham is prefaced 
by the remark that Abraham begat Isaac, just as in Gen. xxv. 
19, where the begetting of Isaac the son of Abraham is intro- 
duced with the same remark. Hence the supposition that the 
registers of the posterity of Abraham by Hagar and Keturah 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. I. 33-42. 53 

(vers. 28-33) have been derived from Gen. xxv., already in itself 
so probable, becomes a certainty. 

Ver3. 35-42. The posterity of Esau and Seir. — An extract 
from Gen. xxxvi. 1-30. Ver. 35; The five sons of Esau are the 
same who, according to Gen. xxxvi. 4 f., were born to him of 
his three wives in the land of Canaan. BnjP is another form of 
vy., Gen. ver. 5 (Kethibh).— Vers. 36, 37.' The grandchildren 
of Esan. In ver. 36 there are first enumerated five sons of his 
son Eliphaz, as in Gen. xxxvi. 11, for 'EX is only another form 
of te¥ (Gen.). Next to these five names are ranged in addition 
pppjn JHDni, " Timna and Amalek," while we learn from Gen. 
xxxvi. 12 that Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, who bore to him 
Amalek. The addition of the two names Timna and Amalek in 
the Chronicle thns appears to be merely an abbreviation, which 
the author might well allow himself, as the posterity of Esau were 
known to his readers from Genesis. The name Timna, too, by 
its form (a feminine formation), must have guarded against the 
idea of some modern exegetes that Timna was also a son of 
Eliphaz. Thus, then, Esau had through Eliphaz six grand- 
children, who in Gen. xxxvi. 12 are all set down as sons of Adah, 
the wife of Esau and the mother of Eliphaz. {Vide com. to 
Gen. xxxvi. 12, where the change of Timna into a son of Eliphaz 
is rejected as a misinterpretation.) — Ver. 37. To Reuel, the son of 
Esau by Bashemath, four sons were born, whose names corre- 
spond to those in Gen. xxxvi. 13. These ten (6 + 4) grandsons 
<jf Esau were, with his three sons by Aholibamah (Jeush, Jaalam, 
and Korah, ver. 35), the founders of the thirteen tribes of the 
posterity of Esau. They are called in Gen. xxxvi. 15 '33 '?w 
it??, heads of tribes (<f>v\apxpt) of the children of Esau, i.e. of 
the Edomites, but are all again enumerated, vers. 15-19, singly. 1 

1 The erroneous statement of Bertheau, therefore, that "according to 
Genesis the Edomite people was also divided into twelve tribes, five tribes from 
Eliphaz, four tribes from Reuel, and the three tribes which were referred im- 
mediately to Aholibamah the wife of Esau. It is distinctly stated that Amalek 
was connected with these twelve tribes only very loosely, for he appears as 
the son of the concubine of Eliphaz," — must be in so far corrected, that neither 
the Chronicle nor Genesis knows anything of the twelve tribes of the Edom- 
ites. Both books, on the contrary, mention thirteen grandsons of Esau, and 
these thirteen grandsons are, according to the account of Genesis, the thirteen 
phylarchs of the Edomite people, who are distributed according to the three 
wives of Esau ; so that the thirteen families may be grouped together in three 
tribes. Nor is Amalek connected only in a loose way with the other tribes in 



Digitized by 



Google 



54 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

— Vers. 38-42. When Esau with his descendants had settled in 
Mount Seir, they subdued by degrees the aboriginal inhabitants of 
the land, and became fused with them into one people. For this 
reason, in Gen. xxxvi. 20-30 the tribal princes of the Seirite 
inhabitants of the land are noticed ; and in our chapter also, vcr. 
38, the names of these seven "^JK? 'JS, and in vers. 39-42 of their 
sons (eighteen men and one woman, Timna), are enumerated, 
where only Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, also mentioned in. 
Gen. xxxvi. 25, is omitted. The names correspond, except in a 
few unimportant points, which have been already discussed in 
the Commentary on Genesis. The inhabitants of Mount Seir 
consisted, then, after the immigration of Esau and his descendants, 
of twenty tribes under a like number of phylarchs, thirteen of 
whom were Edomite, of the family of Esau, and seven Seirite, 
who are called in the Chronicle "Pyw 'JQ, and in Genesis *&*, 
Troglodytes, inhabitants of the land, that is, aborigines. 

If we glance over the whole posterity of Abraham as they are 
enumerated in vers. 28-42, we see that it embraces (a) his sons 
Ishmael and Isaac, and Isaac's sons Israel and Esau (together 4 
persons) ; (b) the sons of Ishmael, or the tribes descended from 
Ishmael (12 names) ; (c) the sons and grandsons of Keturah (13 
persons or chiefs); (d) the thirteen phylarchs descended from 
Esau ; (e) the seven Seirite phylarchs, and eighteen grandsons 
and a granddaughter of Seir (26 persons). We have thus in all 
the names of sixty-eight persons, and to them we must add 
Keturah, and Timna the concubine of Eliphaz, before we got 
seventy persons. But these seventy must not by any means be 
reckoned as seventy tribes, which is the. result Bertheau arrives 
at by means of strange calculations and errors in numbers. 1 

Genesis : he is, on the contrary, not only included in the number of the sons 
of Adah in ver. 12, probably because Timna stood in the same relationship to 
Adah the wife of Esau as Hagar held to Sarah, but also is reckoned in ver. 16 
among the Allufim of the sons of Eliphaz. Genesis therefore enumerates not 
five but six tribes from Eliphaz ; and the chronicler has not " completely 
obliterated the twelvefold division," as Bertheau further maintains, but the 
thirteen sons and grandsons of Esau who became phylarchs are all introduced ; 
and the only thing which is omitted iu reference to them is the title <B^X 
1B>y VQ, it being unnecessary in a genealogical enumeration of the descend- 
ants of Esau. 

1 That the Chronicle gives no countenance to this view appears from 
Bertheau's calculation of the 70 tribes: from Ishmael, 12; from Keturah, IS; 
from Isaac, 2 ; from Esau, 5 sons and 7 grandchildren by Eliphaz (Timna, 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. I. 43-50. 55 

Upon this conclusion he founds his hypothesis, that as the three 
branches of the family of Noah are divided into seventy peoples 
(which, as we have seen at page 51 f., is not the case), so 
also the three branches of the family of Abraham are divided 
into seventy tribes ; and in this again he finds a remarkable indi- 
cation " that even in the time of the chronicler, men sought by 
means of numbers to bring order and consistency into the lists 
of names handed down by tradition from the ancient times." 

Vers. 43-50. Tlie kings of Edom before the introduction of 
the kingship into Israel. — This is a verbally exact repetition of 
Gen. xxxvi. 31-39, except that the introductory formula, Gen. 
ver. 32, " and there reigned in Edom," which is superfluous after 
the heading, and the addition " ben Achbor" (Gen. ver. 39) 
in the account of the death of Baal-hanan in ver. 50, are 
omitted ; the latter because even in Genesis, where mention is 
made of the death of other kings, the name of the father of the 
deceased king is not repeated. Besides this, the king called Hadad 
(ver. 46 f.), and the city 'PB (ver. 50), are in Genesis Hadar 
(ver. 35 f.) and tfB (ver. 39). The first of these variations has 
arisen from a transcriber's error, the other from a different pronun- 
ciation of the name. A somewhat more important divergence, 
however, appears, when in Gen. ver. 39 the death of the king last 
named is not mentioned, because he was still alive in the time of 
Moses ; while in the Chronicle, on the contrary, not only of him 
also is it added, Tin nop, because at the time of the writing of 
the Chronicle he had long been dead, but the list of the names 
of the territories of the phylarchs, which in Genesis follows the 
introductory formula ntot? n?W, is here connected with the 
enumeration of the kings by W, " Hadad died, and there were 
chiefs of Edom." This may mean that, in the view of the 

ver. SC, being included in the number), and 4 grandsons by Reuel — 16 in all ; 
from Seir 7 sons, and from these 20 other descendants, 27 in all, which makes 
the sum of 70. But the biblical text mentions only 19 other descendants of 
Seir, so that only 26 persons came from Seir, and the sum is therefore 12+ 
13+2+16+26=69. But we must also object to other points in Bertheau's 
reckoning : (1) the arbitrary change of Tinina into a grandchild of Esau; (2) 
the arbitrary reckoning of Esau and Israel (= Jacob) without Ishmael. Was 
Esau, apart from his sons, the originator of a people ? Had the author of the 
Chronicle cherished the purpose attributed to him by Bertheau, of bringing 
the lists of names handed down by tradition to the round or significant num- 
ber 70, he would certainly in ver. 33 not have omitted the three peoples 
descended from Dedan (Gen. zxv. 3), as he might by these names have com- 
pleted the number 70 without further trouble. 



Digitized by 



Google 



56 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

chronicler, the reign of the phylarchs took the place of the king- 
ship after the death of the last king, but that interpretation is by 
no means necessary. The i consec. may also merely express the 
succession of thought, only connecting logically the mention of 
the princes with the enumeration of the kings ; or it may signify 
that, besides the kings, there were also tribal princes who could 
rule the land and people. The contents of the register which 
follows require that VlW should be so understood. 

Vers. 51-54.- Tlie princes of Edom. — The names correspond 
to those in Gen. xxxvi. 40-43, but the heading and the subscrip- 
tion in Genesis are quite different from those in the Chronicle. 
Here the heading is, " and the Allufim of Edom were," and the 
subscription, " these are the Allufim of Edom," from which it 
would be the natural conclusion that the eleven names given 
are proper names of the phylarchs. But the occurrence of two 
female names, Timna and Aholibamah, as also of names which 
are unquestionably those of races, e.g. Aliah, Finon, Teman, and 
Mibzar, is irreconcilable with this interpretation. If we compare 
the heading and subscription of the register in Genesis, we find 
that the former speaks of the names " of the Allufim of Edom 
according to their habitations, 1 according to their places in their 
names," and the latter of "the Allufim of Edom according to 
their habitations in the land of their possession." It is there 
unambiguously declared that the names enumerated are not the 
names of persons, but the names of the dwelling-places of the 
Allufim, after whom they were wont to be named. We must 
therefore translate, " the Alluf of Timna, the Alluf of Aliah," 
etc., when of course the female names need not cause any sur- 
prise, as places can just as well receive their names from women 
as their possessors as from men. Nor is there any greater diffi- 
culty in this, that only eleven dwelling-places are mentioned, 
while, on the contrary, the thirteen sons and grandsons of Esau 
are called Allufim. For in the course of time the number of 
phylarchs might have decreased, or in the larger districts two 
phylarchs may have dwelt together. Since the author of the 
Chronicle has taken this register also from Genesis, as the iden- 
tity of the names clearly shows he did, he might safely assume 
that the matter was already known from that book, and so might 

1 So it is given by the author, "nach ihren Wohnsitzen;" but this most 
be a mistake, for the word is DninBt?e= their families, not DroiTD as it is in 

t : : • t ; y 

the subscription. — Te. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. II. 1, 2. 57 

allow himself to abridge the heading without fearing any mis- 
understanding ; seeing, too, that he does not enumerate "WX of 
Esau, but DViK Wtf, and Edom had become the name of a 
country and a people. 



CHAP. II.-IV. 23. — THE TWELVE SONS OP ISRAEL AND THE 
FAMILIES OP JUDAH. 

The list of the twelve sons of Israel (ii. 1, 2) serves as foun- 
dation and starting-point for the genealogies . of the tribes of 
Israel which follow, chap. ii. 3-viii. The enumeration of the 
families of the tribe of Judah commences in ver. 3 with the 
naming of Judah's sons, and extends to chap. iv. 23. The tribe 
of Judah has issued from the posterity of only three of the five 
sons of Judah, viz. from Shelah, Pharez, and Zerah ; but it was 
subdivided into five great families, as Hezron and Hamul, the 
two sons of Pharez, also founded families. The lists of our three 
chapters give us : (1) from the family of Zerah only the names 
of some famous men (ii. 6-8) ; (2) the descendants of Hezron in 
the three branches corresponding to the three sons of Hezron, 
into which they divided themselves (ii. 9), viz. the descendants 
of Ram to David (ii. 10-17), of Caleb (ii. 18-24), and of Jerah- 
meel (ii. 25-41). Then there follow in chap. ii. 42-55 four 
other lists of descendants of Caleb, who peopled a great number 
of the cities of Judah ; and then in chap. iii. we have a list of the 
sons of David and the line of kings of the house of David, down 
to the grandsons of Zerubbabel ; and finally, in chap. iv. 1-23, 
other genealogical fragments as to the posterity of Pharez and 
Shelah. Of Hamul, consequently, no descendants are noticed, 
unless perhaps some of the groups ranged together in chap. iv. 
8-22, whose connection with the heads of the families of Judah 
is not given, are of his lineage. The lists collected in chap. iv. 
l-«20 are clearly only supplements to the genealogies of the 
great families contained in chap. ii. and iii., which the author of 
the Chronicle found in the same fragmentary state in which 
they are communicated to us. 

Vers. 1, 2. The twelve sons of Israel, arranged as follows : 
first, the six sons of Leah ; then Dan, the son of Rachel's hand- 
maid ; next, the sons of Rachel ; and finally, the remaining sons 
of the handmaids. That a different place is assigned to Dan, 
viz. before the sons of Rachel, from that which he holds in the 



Digitized by 



Google 



58 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

list in Gen. xxxv. 23 ff., is perhaps to be accounted for by Rachel's 
wishing the son of her maid Bilhah to be accounted her own 
(vide Gen. xxx. 3-6). 

Vers. 3-5. The sons of Judah and of Pharez, ver. 3 f . — The 
five sons of Judah are given according to Gen. xxxviii., as the 
remark on Er which is quoted from ver. 7 of that chapter shows, 
while the names of the five sons are to be found also in Gen. 
xlvi. 12. The two sons of Fharcz are according to Gen. xlvi. 
12, cf. Num. xxvi. 21. 

Vers. 6-8. Sons and descendants of Zerah. — In ver. 6, five 
names are grouped together as D^a of Zerah, which are found 
nowhere else so united. The first, Zimri, may be strictly a son ; 
but *iot may perhaps be a mistake fo* ^at, for Achan, who is in 
ver. 7 the son of Carmi, is in Josh. vii. 1 called the son of Carmi, 
the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah. But *iar (Josh.) may also 
be an error for *"!»!, or he may have been a son of Zimri, since in 
genealogical lists an intermediate member of the family is often 
passed over. Nothing certain can, however, be ascertained ; 
both names are found elsewhere, but of persons belonging to 
other tribes : Zimri as prince of the Simeonites, Num. xxv. 14 ; 
as Benjamite, 1 Chron. viii. 36, ix. 42 ; and as king of Israel, 
1 Kings xvi. 9 ; Zabdi, 1 Chron. viii. 19 (as Benjamite), and 
xxvii. 27, Neb. xi. 17. The four succeeding names, Ethan, 
Heman, Calcol, and Dara, are met with again in 1 Kings v. 11, 
where it is said of Solomon he was wiser than the Ezrahite 
Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Machol, 
with the unimportant variation of jrm for jm. On this account, 
Movers and Bertheau, following Clericus on 1 Kings iv. 31 
(v. 11), hold the identity of the wise men mentioned in 1 Kings 
v. 11 with the sons (descendants) of Zerah to be beyond doubt. 
But the main reason which Clericus produces in support of this 
supposition, the consensus quatuor nominum et quidem unius patris 
fliorum, and the difficulty of believing that in alia familia 
Hebraa there should have been quatuor fratres cognomines 
quatuor filiis Zerachi Judafilii, loses all its force from the fact 
that the supposition that the four wise men in 1 Kings v. 11 are 
brothers by blood, is a groundless and erroneous assumption. 
Since Ethan is called the Ezrahite, while the last two are said 
to be the sons of Machol, it is clear that the four were not 
brothers. The mention of them as men famous for their wisdom, 
does not at all require that we should think the men contem- 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP IL 6-8. 59 

porary with each other. Even the enumeration of these four 
along with Zimri as rnt 'ja in our verse does not necessarily 
involve that the five names denote brothers by blood ; for it is 
plain from vers. 7 and 8 that in this genealogy only single 
famous names of the family of Zerah the son of Judah and 
Tamar are grouped together. But, on the other hand, the 
reasons which go to disprove the identity of the persons in our 
verse with those named in 1 Kings v. 11 are not of very great 
weight. The difference in the names $m and JTTO is obviously 
the result of an error of transcription, and the form'rntKii (1 
Kings v. 11) is most probably a patronymic from rnt, notwith- 
standing that in Num. xxvi. 20 it appears as 'rnt, for even the 
appellative tntK, indigena, is formed from rnt. We therefore hold 
that the persons who bear the same names in our verse and 
in 1 Kings v. 11 are most probably identical, in spite of the 
addition Tino »3a to Calcol and Darda (1 Kings v. 11). For that 
this addition belongs merely to these two names, and not to 
Ezrah, appears from Ps. lxxxviii. 1 and Ixxxix. 1, which, accord- 
ing to the superscription, were composed by the Ezrahites Heman 
and Ethan. The authors of these psalms are unquestionably'the 
Heman and Ethan who were famed for their wisdom (1 Kings 
v. 11), and therefore most probably the same as those spoken 
of in our verse as sons of Zerah. It is true that the authors 
of these psalms have been held by many commentators to be 
Levites, nay, to be the musicians mentioned in 1 Chron. xv. 17 
and 19 ; but sufficient support for this view, which I myself, on 
1 Kings v. 11, after the example of Hengstenberg, Beitrr. ii. 
S. 61, and on Ps. lxxxviii. defended, cannot be found. The 
statement of the superscription of Ps. lxxxviii. 1 — " a psalm of 
the sons of Korah" — from which it is inferred that the Ezrahite 
Heman was of Levitic origin, does not justify such a conclusion. 1 
For though the musician Heman the son of Joel was a Korahite 
of the race of Kohath (1 Chron. vi. 18-23), yet the musician 
Ethan the son of Kishi, or Kushaiah, was neither Korahite nor 
Kohathite, but a Merarite (vi. 29 ff.). Moreover, the Levites 
Heman and Ethan could not be enumerated among the Ezra- 

1 The above quoted statement of the superscription of Ps. lxxxviii. 1 can 
contain no information as to the author of the psalm, for this reason, that the 
author is expressly mentioned in the next sentence of the superscription. The 
psalm can only in so far be called a song of the children of Korah, as it bears 
the impress peculiar to the Korahite psalms in contents and form. 



Digitized by 



Google 



GO THE FIEST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

bites, that is, the descendants of Zerah, a man of Judah. The 
passages which are quoted in support of the view that the Levites 
were numbered with the tribes in the midst of whom they dwelt, 
and that, consequently, there were Judaean and Ephraimite 
Levites, — as, for example, 1 Sam. i. 1, where the father of the 
Levite Samuel is called an Ephrathite because he dwelt in 
Mount Ephraim ; and Judg. xvii. 7, where a Levite is numbered 
with the family of Judah because he dwelt as sojourner (^\) in 
Bethlehem, a city of Judah, — certainly prove that the Levites 
were reckoned, as regards citizenship, according to the tribes or 
cities in which they dwelt, but certainly do not show that they 
were incorporated genealogically with those tribes because of their 
place of residence. 1 The Levites Heman and Ethan, therefore, 
cannot be brought forward in our verse "as adopted sons of 
Zerah, who brought more honour to their father than his proper 
sons " (Hengstb.). This view is completely excluded by the fact 
that in our verse not only Ethan and Heman, but also Zimri, Cal- 
col, and Dara are called sons of Zerah, yet these latter were not 
adopted sons, but true descendants of Zerah. Besides, in ver. 8, 
there is an actual son or descendant of Ethan mentioned, and 
consequently V.? and 1? cannot possibly be understood in some 
cases as implying only an adoptive relationship, and in the others 
actual descent. But the similarity of the names is not of itself 
sufficient to justify us in identifying the persons. As the name 
Zerah again appears in chap. vi. 26 in the genealogy of the 
Levite Asaph, so also the name Ethan occurs in the same genea- 
logy, plainly showing that more than one Israelite bore this name. 
The author of the Chronicle, too, has sufficiently guarded against 
the opinion that Zerah's sons Ethan and Heman are identical 
with the Levitical musicians who bear the same names, by tracing 
back in chap. vi. the family of these musicians to Levi, without 
calling them Ezrahites. 8 But to hold, with Movers, S. 237, that 
the recurrences of the same names in various races are contra- 
dictions, which are to be explained only on the supposition of 
genealogical combinations by various authors, will enter into 

1 Not even by intermarrying with heiresses could Levites become members 
of another tribe ; for, according to the law, Num. zzxvi. 5 ff., heiresses could 
marry only men of their own tribe ; and the possibility of a man of Judah 
marrying an heiress of the tribe of Levi was out of the question, for the 
Levites possessed no inheritance in land. 

* The supposition of Ewald and Bertheau, that these two great singers of 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. II. 9-4L 61 

the head of no sensible critic. We therefore believe the five 
persons mentioned in our verse to be actual descendants of the 
Judaean Zerah; but whether they were sons or grandsons, or 
still more distant descendants, cannot be determined. It is 
certainly very probable that Zimri was a son, if he be identi- 
cal with the Zabdi of Josh. vii. 1 ; Ethan and Heman may 
have been later descendants of Zerah, if they were the wise 
men mentioned in 1 Kings v. 11 ; but as to Calcol and Dara no 
further information is to be obtained. From vers. 7 and 8, 
where of the sons ('33) of Zimri and Ethan only one man in 
each case is named, it is perfectly clear that in our genealogy 
only individuals, men who have become famous, are grouped 
together out of the whole posterity of Zerah. The plural '33 in 
vers. 7 and 8, etc., even where only one son is mentioned, is 
used probably only in those cases where, out of a number of 
sons or descendants, one has gained for himself by some means 
a memorable name. This is true at least of Achan, ver. 7, who, 
by laying hands on the accursed spoils of Jericho, had become 
notorious (Josh. vii.). Because Achan had thus troubled Israel 
("OJJ), he is called here at once Achar. As to Carmi, vide on 
iv. 1. — Ver. 9. The only name given here as that of a descen- 
dant of Ethan is Azariah, of whom nothing further is known, 
while the name recurs frequently. Nothing more is said of the 
remaining sons of Zerah ; they are merely set down as famous 
men of antiquity (Berth.). There follows in 

Vers. 9-41. The family ofHezron, the first-born son of Pharez, 
which branches off in three lines, originating with his three sons 
respectively. The three sons of Hezron are Jerahmeel, and 
Ram, and Chelubai ; but the families springing from them are 
enumerated in a different order. First (vers. 10-17) we have 
the family of Bam, because King David is descended from him ; 
then (vers. 18-24) the family of Chelubai or Caleb, from whose 
lineage came the illustrious Bezaleel ; and finally (vers. 25-41), 
the posterity of the first-born, Jerahmeel. — Ver. 9. W "yfo "ib>n ? 
what was born to him. The passive stands impersonally instead 
of the more definite active, " to whom one bore," so that the 

the tribe of Judah had been admitted into their guild by the Levitic musical 
schools, and on that account had been received also into their family, and so 
had been numbered with the tribe of Levi, is thus completely refuted, even 
were it at all possible that members of other tribes should have been received 
into the tribe of Levi. 



Digitized by 



Google 



62 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

following names are subordinated to it with HK. The third 
person singular Niph. occurs thus also in iii. 4 and xxvi. 6 ; 
the construction of Niph. with UK frequently (Gen. iv. 18, xxi. 
5, and elsewhere). Earn is called, in the genealogy in Matt. 
i. 3, 4, Aram ; comp. tn, Job xxxii. 2, with tnx, Gen. xxii. 21. 
'a^a is called afterwards ai>a ; cf. on ver. 18. 

Vers. 10-17 The family of Ram (vers. 10-12), traced down 
through six members to Jesse. — This genealogy is also to be 
found in Ruth iv. 19-21 ; but only here is Nahshon made more 
prominent than the others, by the addition, " prince of the sons 
of Judah." Nahshon was a prince of Judah at the exodus of the 
Israelites from Egypt" (Num. i. 7, ii. 3, vii. 12). Now between 
him, a contemporary of Moses, and Pharez, who at the immigration 
of Jacob into Egypt was about fifteen years old, lies a period of 
430 years, during which the Israelites remained in Egypt. For 
that time only three names — Hezron, Bam, and Amminadab — are 
mentioned, from which it is clear that several links must have been 
passed over. So also, from Nahshon to David, for a period of 
over 400 years, four generations — Salma, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse- 
are too few ; and consequently here also the less famous ancestors 
of David are omitted. Ku?b is called in Buth iv. 20, 21, RD?& and 
$o?&. In vera. 13-15, seven sons and two daughters of Jesse, 
with those of their sons who became famous (vers. 16, 17), 
are enumerated. According to 1 Sam. xvii. 12, Jesse had eight 
sons. This account, which agrees with that in 1 Sam. xvi. 8-12, 
may be reconciled with the enumeration in our verse, on the 
supposition that one of the sons died without posterity. In 
1 Sam. xvi. 6 ff. and xvii. 13, the names of the eldest three — 
Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah— occur. Besides 'B*, we meet 
with the form 'B^R (ver. 13) ; and the name noe> is only another 
form of n^OB', which is found in 2 Sam. xiii. 3 and in 1 Chron. 
xx. 7, and is repeated in 2 Sam. xiii. 32 and xxi. 21 in the 
Kethibh ( , ]»B'). The names of the other three sons here men- 
tioned (vers. 14 and 15) are met with nowhere else. — Ver. 16 f. 
The sisters of David have become known through their heroic 
sons. Zeruiah is the mother of the heroes of the Davidic his- 
tory, Abishai, Joab, and Asahel (cf. 1 Sam. xxvi. 6; 2 Sam. 
ii. 18, iii. 39, viii. 16, and elsewhere). Their father is nowhere 
mentioned, " because their more famous mother challenged the 
greater attention" (Berth.). Abigail was, according to 2 Sam. 
xvii. 25, the daughter of Nahash, a sister of Zeruiah, and so was 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. II. 18-24. 63 

only a half-sister of David, and was the mother of Amasa the 
captain of the host, so well known on account of his share in the 
conspiracy of Absalom ; cf . 2 Sam. xvii. 25, xix. 14, and xx. 10. 
His father was Jether, or Jithra, the Ishmaelite, who in the 
Masoretic text of 2 Sam. xvii. 25 is called, through a copyist's 
error, vK"|i5»n instead of vKgDBfrn ; see comm. on passage. 

Vers. "18-24. The family of Caleb.— That ab is merely a 
shortened form of '3w3, or a form of that word resulting from 
the friction of constant use, is so clear from the context, that all 
exegetes recognise it. We have first (vers. 18-20) a list of the 
descendants of Caleb by two wives, then descendants which the 
daughter of the Gileadite Machir bore to his father Hezron 
(vers. 21-23), and finally the sons whom Hezron's wife bore him 
after his death (ver. 24). The grouping of these descendants of 
Hezron with the family of Caleb can only be accounted for by 
supposing that they had, through circumstances unknown to us, 
come into a more intimate connection with the family of Caleb 
than with the families of his brothers Earn and Jerahmeel. In 
vers. 42-55 follow some other lists of descendants of Caleb, 
which will be more fully considered when we come to these 
verses. The first half of the 18 th verse is obscure, and the text 
is probably corrupt. As the words stand at present, we must 
translate, "Caleb the son of Hezron begat with Azubah, a 
woman, and with Jerioth, and these are her (the one wife's) 
sons, Jesher," etc. 'T3f, filii ejus, suggests that only one wife of 
Caleb had been before mentioned; and, as appears from the 
"and Azubah died" of ver. 19, Azubah is certainly meant. 
The construction Tit* T^n, " he begat with," is, it is true, un- 
usual, but is analogous to p ivto, viii. 9, and is explained by 
the fact that Ivin may mean to cause to bear, to bring to bear- 
ing ; cf . Isa. Ixvi. 9 : therefore properly it is, " he brought 
Azubah to bearing." The difficulty of the verse lies in the 
rrijrvriKl fflfte, for, according to the usual phraseology, we would 
have expected toe>K instead of fB>s. But nB>i< may be, under 
the circumstances, to some extent justified by the supposition 
that Azubah is called indefinitely " woman," because Caleb had 
several wives. rtJPTlun gives no suitable meaning. The ex- 
planation of Kimchi, " with Azubah a woman, and with Jerioth," 
cannot be accepted, for only the sons of Azubah are hereafter 
mentioned ; and the idea that the children of the other wives 
are not enumerated here because the list used by the chronicler 



Digitized by 



Google 



64 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

was defective, is untenable : for after two wives had been named 
in the enumeration of the children of one of them, the mother 
must necessarily have been mentioned ; and so, instead of n'33, we 
should have had naitjj Mf . Hiller and J. H. Michaelis take T\x\ 
as explicative, " with Azubah a woman, viz. with Jerioth ; " but 
this is manifestly only the product of exegetical embarrassment. 
The text is plainly at fault, and the easiest conjecture is to read, 
with the Peschito and the Vulgate, UK 1nt5T* instead of n$ ntste, 
" he begat with Azubah his wife, Jerioth (a daughter) ; and 
these are her sons." In that case ntfK would be added to n 5"J|, to 
guard against nniTJj being taken for ace. obj. The names of the 
sons of Azubah, or of her daughter Jerioth, do not occur elsewhere. 
— Ver. 19. When Azubah died, Caleb took Ephrath to wife, who 
bore him Hur. For rnBK we find in ver. 50 the lengthened femi- 
nine form T/** ; cf. also iv. 4. From Hur descended, by Uri, 
the famous Bezaleel, the skilful architect of the tabernacle (Ex. 
xxxi. 2, xxxv. 30). — Vers. 21-24. The descendants of Hezron 
numbered with the stock of Caleb : (a) those begotten by Hezron 
with the daughter of Machir, vers. 21-23; (b) those born to 
Hezron after his death, ver. 24. — Ver. 21. Afterwards (ins), i.e. 
after the birth of the sons mentioned in ver. 9, whose mother is 
not mentioned, when he was sixty years old, Hezron took to wife 
the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, who bore him 
Segub. Machir was the first-born of Manasseh (Gen. 1. 23 ; 
Num. xxvi. 29). But Machir is not called in vers. 21 and 23 
the father of Gilead because he was the originator of the 
Israelite population of Gilead, but 3X has here its proper signi- 
fication. Machir begot a son of the name of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 
29); and it is clear from the genealogy of the daughters of Zelo- 
phehad, communicated in Num. xxvii. 1, that this expression is 
to be understood in its literal sense. Machir is distinguished 
from other men of the same name (cf. 2 Sam. ix. 4, xvii. 27) 
by the addition, father of Gilead. Segub the son of Hezron 
and the daughter of Machir begat Jair. This Jair, belonging 
on his mother's side to the tribe of Manasseh, is set down in 
Num. xxxii. 40 f., Deut. iii. 14, as a descendant of Manasseh. 
After Moses' victory over Og king of Bashan, Jair's family 
conquered the district of Argob in Bashan, i.e. in the plain of 
Jaulan and Hauran ; and to the conquered cities, when they 
were bestowed upon him for a possession by Moses, the name 
Havvoth-Jair, i.e. Jair's-life, was given. Cf. Num. xxxii. 41 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. II. 18-24. 65 

and Deut. iii. 14, where this name is explained. These are the 
twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead, i.e. Peraa. — Ver. 23. 
These cities named Jair's-life were taken away from the Jairites 
by Geshur and Aram, i.e. by the Arameans of Geshur and of 
other places. Geshur denotes the inhabitants of a district of 
Aram, or Syria, on the north-western frontier of Bashan, in the 
neighbourhood of Hermon, on the east side of the upper Jordan, 
which had still its own kings in the time of David (2 Sam. iii. 3, 
xiii. 37, xiv. 23, xv. 8), but which had been assigned to the 
Manassites by Moses; cf. Josh. xiii. 13. The following 'Ul JUpTiK 
must not be taken as an explanatory apposition to 1'KJ rtrrnK : 
"Jair's-life, Kenath and her daughters, sixty cities" (Berth.). 
For since MKO refers to the collective name Jair, Geshur and 
Aram could not take away from Jair sixty cities, for Jair only 
possessed twenty-three cities. But besides this, according to 
Nam. xxxii. 42, Kenath with her daughters had been conquered 
by Nobah, who gave his own name to the conquered cities; and 
according to Deut. iii. 4, the kingdom of Og in Bashan had 
sixty fenced cities. But this kingdom was, according to Num. 
xxxii. 41 and 42, conquered by two families of Manasseh, by 
Jair and Nobah, and was divided between them ; and as appears 
from our passage, twenty-three cities were bestowed upon Jair, 
and all the rest of the land, viz. Kenath with her daughters, -fell 
to Nobah. These two domains together included sixty fenced 
cities, which in Deut. iii. 14 are called Jair's-life ; while here, in 
oar verse, only twenty-three cities are so called, and the remain- 
ing thirty-seven are comprehended under the name of Kenath 
and her daughters. We must therefore either supply a 1 copul. 
before nj?T>K, or we must take P"riN in the signification " with 
Kenath/'and refer TV D'tftf to both Jair's-life and Kenath. Cf. 
herewith the discussion on Deut. iii. 12-14; and for Kenath, 
the ruins of which still exist under the name Kanuat on the 
western slope of the Jebel Hauran, see the remarks on Num. 
xxxii. 42. The time when these cities were taken away by the 
Arameans is not known. From Judg. x. 4 we only learn that 
the Jair who was judge at a later time again had possession of 
thirty of these cities, and renewed the name Jair's-life. n ?Kv3 
is not all these sixty cities, but the before-mentioned descendants 
of Hezron, who are called sons, that is offspring, of Machir, 
because they were begotten with the daughter of Machir. Only 
two names, it is true, Segub and Jair, are enumerated ; but from 

E 



Digitized by 



Google 



66 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

these two issue the numerous families which took Jair's-life. To 
these, therefore, must we refer the <w"«. — Ver. 24. After the 
death of Hezron there was born to him by his wife Abiah (the 
third wife, cf. vers. 9 and 21) another son, Ashur, the father 
of Tekoa, whose descendants are enumerated in chap. iv. 5-7. 
Hezron's death took place nmBK a!»3, " in Caleb Ephrathah." 
This expression is obscure. According to 1 Sam. xxx. 14, a part 
of the Negeb (south country) of Judah was called Negeb Caleb, 
as it belonged to the family of Caleb. According to this analogy, 
the town or village in which Caleb dwelt with his wife Ephrath 
may have been called Caleb of Ephrathah, if Ephrath had brought 
this place as a dower to Caleb, as in the case mentioned in Josh. 
xv. 18 f. Ephrathah, or Ephrath, was the ancient name of 
Bethlehem (Gen. xxxiii. 19, xlviii. 1), and with it the name of 
Caleb's wife Ephrath (ver. 19) is unquestionably connected; 
probably she was so called after her birthplace. If this supposi- 
tion be well founded, then Caleb of Ephrathah would be the little 
town of Bethlehem. Ashur is called father (ON) of Tekoa, ue. 
lord and prince, as the chief of the inhabitants of Tekoa, now 
Tekua, two hours south of Bethlehem (vide on Josh. xv. 59). 

Vers. 25-41. The family of Jerahmeel, the first-born of 
Hezron, which inhabited a part of the Negeb of Judah called 
after him the south of the Jerahmeelites (1 Sam. xxvii. 10, xxx. 
29). — Ver. 25. Four sons were born to Jerahmeel by his first 
wife. Five names indeed follow ; but as the last, njns, although 
met with elsewhere as a man's name, is not ranged with the 
others by 1 copul., as those that precede are with each other, 
it appears to be the name of a woman, and probably a o has 
fallen out after the immediately preceding 0. So Cler., J. H. 
Mich., Berth. This conjecture gains in probability from the 
mention in ver. 26 of another wife, whence we might expect 
that in ver. 25 the first wife would be named. — Ver. 26. Only 
one son of the second wife is given, Onam, whose posterity 
follows in vers. 28-33 ; for in ver. 27 the three sons of Bam, the 
first-born of Jerahmeel, are enumerated. — Ver. 28. Onam had 
two sons, Shammai and Jada ; the second of these, again, two 
sons, Nadab and Abishur. — Ver. 29. To Abishur his wife 
Abihail bore likewise two sons, with whom his race terminates. 
— In vers. 30, 31, Nadab's posterity follow, in four members, 
ending with Ahlai, in the fourth generation. But Ahlai cannot 
well have been a son, but must have been a daughter, the heiress 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IL 42-45. 67 

of Sheshan ; for, according to ver. 34, Sheshan had no sons, 
but only daughters, and gave his daughter to an Egyptian slave 
whom he possessed, to wife, by whom she became the mother of 
a numerous posterity. The |W '33 is not irreconcilable with 
this, for "03 denotes in genealogies only descendants in general, 
and has been here correctly so explained by Hiller in Onomast. 
p. 736 : qukquid habuit liberorum, sive nepotum, susiulit ex unioa 
filia Achlai. — Vers. 32 and 33. The descendants of Jada, the 
brother of Shammai, in two generations, after which this genea- 
logy closes with the subscription, " these were the sons of Jerah- 
meeL" 1 — In vers. 34-41 there follows the family of Sheshan, 
which was originated by the marriage of his daughter with his 
Egyptian slave, and which is continued through thirteen genera- 
tions. The name of this daughter is in ver. 25 f. not mentioned, 
but she is without doubt the Ahlai mentioned in ver. 31. But 
since this Ahlai is the tenth in descent from Judah through 
Pharez, she was probably born in Egypt ; and the Egyptian slave 
Jarha was most likely a slave whom Sheshan had in Egypt, and 
whom he adopted as his son for the propagation of his race, by 
giving him his daughter and heir to wife. If this be the case, 
the race begotten by Jarha with the daughter of Sheshan is 
traced down till towards the end of the period of the judges. 
The Egyptian slave Jarha is not elsewhere met with ; and though 
the names which his posterity bore are found again in various 
parts of the Old Testament, of none of them can it be proved 
that they belonged to men of this family, so as to show that one 
of these persons had become famous in history. 

Vers. 42-55. Other renowned descendants of Caleb. — First of 
all there are enumerated, in vers. 42-49, three lines of descend- 
ants of Caleb, of which the two latter, vers. 46-49, are the issue 
of concubines. — The first series, vers. 42-45, contains some 
things which are very obscure. In ver. 42 there are mentioned, 
as sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel, Mesha his first-born, 

1 Bertheau reckons up to "the concluding subscription in ver. 83" the 
following descendants of Judah : " Judah's sons=5 ; Hezron and Hamul=2 ; 
Zerah'i wos=5 ; Karmi, A tar, and Azariah=3 ; Bam and his descendants 
(including the two daughters of Jesse, and Jeter the father of Amass) =21 ; 
Kaleband his descendants =10; Jerahmeel and his descendants =24: together 
=70." But this number also is obtained only by taking into account the father 
and mother of Amasa as two persons, contrary to the rule according to which 
only the father, without the mother, is to be counted, or, in case the mother 
be more famous than the father, or be an heiress, only the mother. 



Digitized by 



Google 



08 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

with the addition, " this is the father of Ziph ; and the sons of 
Mareshah, the father of Hebron," as it reads according to the 
traditional Masoretic text. Now it is here not only very sur- 
prising that the sons of Mareshah stand parallel with Mesha, 
hut it is still more strange to find such a collocation as " sons of 
Mareshah the father of Hebron." The last-mentioned difficulty 
would certainly be greatly lessened if we might take Hebron to 
be the city of that name, and translate the phrase " father of 
Hebron," lord of the city of Hebron, according to the analogy of 
" father of Ziph," " father of Tekoa " (ver. 24), and other names 
of that sort. But the continuation of the genealogy, " and the 
sons of Hebron were Korah, and Tappuah, Rekem, and Shema" 
(ver. 43), is irreconcilable with such an interpretation. For of 
these names, Tappuah, t'.e. apple, is indeed met with several times as 
the name of a city (Josh. xii. 17, xv. 34, xvi. 8) ; and Rekem is the 
name of a city of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 27), but occurs also twice 
as the name of a person — once of a Midianite prince (Num. xxxi. 
8), and once of a Manassite (1 Chron. vii. 16) ; but the other 
two, Korah and Shema, only occur as the names of persons. In 
ver. 44 f., moreover, the descendants of Shema and Rekem are 
spoken of, and that, too, in connection with the word TW, " he 
begat," which demonstrably can only denote the propagation of 
a race. We must therefore take Hebron as the name of a 
person, as in v. 28 and Ex. vi. 18. But if Hebron be the name 
of a man, then Mareshah also must be interpreted in the same 
manner. This is also required by the mention of the sons of 
Mareshah parallel with Mesha the first-born ; but still more so 
by the circumstance that the interpretation of Mareshah and 
Hebron, as names of cities, is irreconcilable with the position 
of these two cities, and with their historical relations. Bertheau, 
indeed, imagines that as Mareshah is called the father of Hebron, 
the famous capital of the tribe of Judah, we must therefore make 
the attempt, however inadmissible it may seem at first sight, to take 
Mareshah, in the connection of our verse, as the name of a city, 
which appears as father of Hebron, and that we must also conclude 
that the ancient city Hebron (Num. xiii. 23) stood in some sort of 
dependent relationship to Mareshah, perhaps only in later times, 
although we cannot at all determine to what time the representation 
of our verse applies. But at the foundation of this argument there 
lies an error as to the position of the city Mareshah. Mareshah 
lay in the Shephelah (Josh. xv. 44), and exists at present as the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IL 42-15. 69 

rain Marasch, twenty-four minutes south of Beit-Jibrin : vide 
on Josh. xv. 44 ; and Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, § 129 and 142 f . 
Ziph, therefore, which is mentioned in 2 Chron. xi. 8 along with 
Mareshab, and which is consequently the Ziph mentioned in our 
verse, cannot be, as Bertheau believes, the Ziph situated in the 
hill country of Judah, in the wilderness of that name, whose 
ruins are still to be seen on the bill Zif, about four miles south' 
east from Hebron (Josh. xv. 55). It can only be the Ziph in the 
Shephelah (Josh. xv. 24), the position of wbich has not indeed 
been discovered, but which is to be sought in the Shephelah 
at no great distance from Marasch, and thus far distant from 
Hebron. Since, then, Mareshah and Ziph were in the Shephelah, 
no relation of dependence between the capital, Hebron, situated 
in the mountains of Judah, and Mareshah can be thought of, 
neither in more ancient nor in later time. The supposition of 
such a dependence is not made probable by the remark that we 
cannot determine to what time the representation of our verse- 
applies; it only serves to cover the difficulty which renders it 
impossible. That the verse does not treat of post-exilic times 
is clear, although even after the exile, and in the time of the 
Maccabees and the Bomans, Hebron was not in a position of 
dependence on Marissa. Bertheau himself holds Caleb, of whose 
son our verses treat, for a contemporary of Moses and Joshua, 
because in ver. 49 Achsa is mentioned as daughter of Caleb 
(Josh. xv. 16 ; Judg. i. 12). The contents of our verse would 
therefore have reference to the first part of the period of the 
judges. But since Hebron was never dependent on Mareshah 
in the manner supposed, the attempt, which even at first sight 
appeared so inadmissible, to interpret Mareshah as the name of 
a city, loses all its support. For this reason, therefore, the city 
of Hebron, and the other cities named in ver. 43 ff., which per- 
haps belonged to the district of Mareshah, cannot be the sons of 
Mareshah here spoken of ; and the fact that, of the names men- 
tioned in vers. 43 and 44, at most two may denote cities, while 
the others are undoubtedly the names of persons, points still more 
clearly to the same conclusion. We must, then, hold Hebron and 
Mareshah also to be the names of persons. Now, if the Masoretic 
text be correct, the use of the phrase, " and the sons of Mareshah 
the father of Hebron," instead of " and Mareshah, the sons of the 
father of Hebron," can only have arisen from a desire to point 
out, that besides Hebron there were also other sons of Mareshah 



Digitized by 



Google 



70 THE FIKST BOOK OF CHRONICLES 

who were of Caleb's lineage. Bat the mention of the sons of 
Mareshah, instead of Mareshab, and the calling him the father 
of Hebron in this connection, make the correctness of the tradi- 
tional text very questionable. Kimchi has, on account of the 
harshness of placing the sons of Mareshah on a parallel with 
Mesha the first-born of Caleb, supposed an ellipse in the expres- 
sion, and construes 'no \m, et ex filiU Ziphi Mareshah. But this 
addition cannot be justified. If we may venture a conjecture in so 
obscure a matter, it would more readily suggest itself that nehD 
is an error for J>E*9, and that tf" 1 ^ '?K is to be taken as a nomen 
compos., when the meaning would be, " and the sons of Mesha 
were Abi-Hebron." The probability of the existence of such a 
name as Abihebron along with the simple Hebron has many 
analogies in its favour : cf. Dan and Abidan, Num. i. 11 ; Ezer, 
xii. 9, Neh. Hi. 19, with Abi-ezer ; Nadab, Ex. vi. 23, and Abi- 
nadab. In the same family even we have Abiner, or Abner, the 
son of Ner (1 Sam. xiv. 50 f. ; 2 Sam. ii. 8 ; cf . Ew. § 273, S. 
666, 7th edition). Abihebron would then be repeated in ver. 43, 
in the shortened form Hebron, just as we have in Josh. xvi. 8 
Tappuah, instead of En-Tappuah, Josh. xvii. 7. The four names 
introduced as sons of Hebron denote persons, not localities : 
cf. for Korah, i. 35, and concerning Tappuah and Eekem the 
above remark (p. 68). In ver. 44 are mentioned the sons of 
Eekem and of Shema, the latter a frequently recurring man's 
name (cf. v. 8, viii. 13, xi. 44 ; Neh. viii. 4). Shema begat 
Raham, the father of Jorkam. The name Ej?irv is quite un- 
known elsewhere. The LXX. have rendered it 'Ie«\ai;, and 
Bertheau therefore holds Jorkam to be the name of a place, and 
conjectures that originally WT}i£ (Josh. xv. 56) stood here also. 
But the LXX. give also 'Ie/tX/b for the following name D£i, 
from which it is clear that we cannot rely much on their autho- 
rity. The LXX. have overlooked the fact that Dpi, ver. 44, is 
the son of the Hebron mentioned in ver. 43, whose descendants 
are further enumerated. Shammai occurs as a man's name also 
in ver. 28, and is again met with in iv. 17. His son is called in 
ver. 45 Maon, and Maon is the father of Bethzur. "WW3 is 
certainly the city in the mountains of Judah which Rehoboam 
fortified (2 Chron. xi. 7), and which still exists in the ruin Bet- 
sur, lying south of Jerusalem in the direction of Hebron. Maon 
also was a city in the mountains of Judah, now Main (Josh. 
xv. 55); but we cannot allow that this city is meant by the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IL 46-40. 71 

name i^o, because Maon is called on the one hand the son of 
Shammai, and on the other is father of Bethznr, and there are 
no well-ascertained examples of a city being represented as son 
(!?) of a man, its founder or lord, nor of one city being called 
the father of another. Dependent cities and villages are called 
daughters (not sons) of the mother city. The word JfoO, " dwell- 
ing," does not per se point to a village or town, and in Judg. 
x. 12 denotes a tribe of non-Israelites. 

Vers. 46-49. Descendants of Caleb by two concubines. — The 
name ns'p occurs in ver. 47 and i. 33 as a man's name. Caleb's 
concubine of this name bore three sons : Haran, of whom nothing 
further is known ; Moza, which, though in Josh, xviii. 26 it is the 
name of a Benjamite town, is not necessarily on that account the 
name of a town here ; and Gazez, unknown, perhaps a grand- 
son of Caleb, especially if the clause " Haran begat Gazez " 
be merely an explanatory addition. But Haran may also have 
given to his son the name of his younger brother, so that a son 
and grandson of Caleb may have borne the same name. — Ver, 
47. The genealogical connection of the names in this verse is 
entirely wanting ; for Jahdai, of whom six sons are enumerated, 
appears quite abruptly. Hiller, in Onomast., supposes, but with- 
out sufficient ground, that *W is another name of Moza. Of 
his sons' names, Jotham occurs frequently of different persons ; 
Ephab, as has been already remarked, is in L 33 the name of a 
chief of a Midianite tribe; and lastly, Shaaphis used in ver. 49 
of another person. — Ver. 48 f. Another concubine of Caleb was 
called Maachah, a not uncommon woman's name ; cf . iii. 2, vii. 
16, viiL 29, xi. 43, etc She bore Sheber and Tirhanah, names 
quite unknown. The masc. "I?J instead of the fem. fTPj, ver. 46, 
is to be explained by the supposition that the father who begat 
was present to the mind of the writer. Ver. 49. Then she bore 
also Shaaph (different from the Shaaph in ver. 47), the father 
of Madmannah, a city in the south of Judah, perhaps identical 
with Miniay or Minieh, southwards from Gaza (see on Josh. xv. 
31). Sheva (David's Sopher (scribe) is so called in the Keri of 
2 Sam. xx. 25), the father of Machbenah, a village of Judah not 
further mentioned, and of Gibea, perhaps the Gibeah mentioned 
in Josh. xv. 57, in the mountains of Judah, or the village Jeba 
mentioned by Robinson, Palest, ii. p. 327, and Tobler, Dritte 
Wdnderung, S. 157 f., on a hill in the Wady Musurr (vide on 
Josh. xv. 57). This list closes with the abrupt remark, " and 



Digitized by 



Google 



72 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHBOKICLES. 

Caleb s daughter was Achsah." This notice can only refer to 
the Achsah so well known in the history of the conquest of the 
tribal domain of Judah, whom Caleb had promised, and gave as a 
reward to the conqueror of Debir (Josh. xv. 16 ff. ; Judg. i. 12) ; 
otherwise in its abrupt form it would have no meaning. Women 
occur in the genealogies only when they have played an important 
part in history. Since, however, the father of this Achsah was 
Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who was about forty years old when 
the Israelites left Egypt, while our Caleb, on the contrary, is called 
in ver. 42 the brother of Jerahmeel, and is at the same time 
designated son of Hezron, the son of Pharez (ver. 9), these 
two Calebs cannot be one person : the son of Hezron must 
have been a much older Caleb than the son of Jephunneh. The 
older commentators have consequently with one voice distin- 
guished the Achsah mentioned in our verse from the Achsah in 
Josh. xv. 16; while Movers, on the contrary (Chron. S. 83), 
would eliminate from the text, as a later interpolation, the notice 
of the daughter of Caleb. Bertheau, however, attempts to prove 
the identity of Caleb the son of Hezron with Caleb the son of 
Jephunneh. The assertion of Movers is so manifestly a critical 
tour de force, that it requires no refutation ; but neither can we 
subscribe to Bertheau' s view. He is, indeed, right in rejecting 
Ewald's expedient of holding that vers. 18-20 and 45-50 are to 
be referred to Chelubai, and vers. 42-49 to a Caleb to be care- 
fully distinguished from him ; for it contradicts the plain sense of 
the words, according to which both Chelubai, ver. 9, and Caleb, 
vers. 18 and 42, is the son of Hezron and the brother of Jerah- 
meel. But what he brings forward against distinguishing Caleb 
the father of Achsah, ver. 49, from Caleb the brother of Jerah- 
meel, ver. 42, is entirely wanting in force. The reasons adduced 
reduce themselves to these : that Caleb the son of Jephunneh, 
the conqueror and possessor of Hebron, might well be called in 
the genealogical language, which sometimes expresses geographi- 
cal relations, the son of Hezron, along with Ram and Jerahmeel, 
as the names Bam and Jerahmeel certainly denote families in 
Judah, who, originally at least, dwelt in other domains than that 
of Caleb ; and again, that the individual families as well as the 
towns and villages in these various domains may be conceived of 
as sons and descendants of those who represent the great families 
of the tribe, and the divisions of the tribal territory. But we 
must deny the geographical signification of the genealogies when 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. II. 50-56. 73 

pressed so far as this : for valid proofs are entirely wanting that 
towns are represented as sons and brothers of other towns ; and 
the section vers. 42-49 does not treat merely, or principally, of 
the geographical relations of the families of Judah, but in the 
first place, and in the main, deals with the genealogical rami- 
fications of the descendants and families of the sons of Judah. 
It by no means follows, because some of these descendants are 
brought forward as fathers of cities, that in vers. 42-49 towns and 
their mntual connection are spoken of; and the names Caleb, Bam, 
and Jerahmeel do not here denote families, but are the names 
of the fathers and chiefs of the families which descended from 
them, and dwelt in the towns just named. We accordingly dis- 
tinguish Caleb, whose daughter was called Achsah, and whose 
father was Jephunneh (Josh. xv. 16 ff.), from Caleb the brother 
of Jerahmeel and the son of Hezron. But we explain the men- 
tion of Achsah as daughter of Caleb, at the end of the genea- 
logical lists of the persons and families descended by concubines 
from Caleb, by the supposition that the Caleb who lived in the 
time of Moses, the son of Jephunneh, was a descendant of an 
older Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel. But it is probable that 
the Caleb in ver. 49 is the same who is called in ver. 42 the 
brother of Jerahmeel, and whose descendants are specified vers. 
42-49 ; and we take the word 13, " daughter," in its wider sense, 
as signifying a later female descendant, because the father of the 
Achsah so well known from Josh. xv. 16 ff. is also called son of 
Jephunneh in the genealogy, chap. iv. 15. 

Vers. 50-55. The families descended from Caleb through his 
son Hur. — Ver. 50. The superscription, " These are the sons 
(descendants) of Caleb," is more accurately defined by the addi- 
tion, " the son of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah ; " and by this 
definition the following lists of Caleb's descendants are limited to 
the families descended from his son Hur. That the words 'ui "WH3 
are to be so understood, and not as apposition to 3?3, " Caleb the 
son of Hur," is shown by ver. 19, according to which Hur is a 
son of Caleb and Ephratb. On that account, too, the relation- 
ship of Hur to Caleb is not given here ; it is presupposed as known 
from ver. 19. A famous descendant of Hur has already been 
mentioned in ver. 20, viz. Bezaleel the son of Uri. Here, in 
vers. 50 and 51, three sons of Hur are named, Shobal, Salma, 
and Hareph, with the families descended from the first two. All 
information is wanting as to whether these sons of Hur were 



Digitized by 



Google 



74 THE FIKST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

brothers of Uri, or his cousins in nearer or remoter degree, as 
indeed is every means of a more accurate determination of the 
degrees of relationship. Both |3 and lyin in genealogies mark 
only descent in a straight line, while intermediate members of 
a family are often omitted in the lists. Instead of "NTTf, 
"wn-ipa might have been expected, as two sons are mentioned. 
The singular 13 shows that the words are not to be fused with 
the following into one sentence, but, as the Masoretic punctuation 
also shows, are meant for a superscription, after which the names 
to be enumerated are ranged without any more intimate logical 
connection. For the three names are not connected by the 1 copul. 
They stand thus : u sons of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah ; 
Shobal . . . Salma . . . Hareph." Shobal is called father of Kir- 
jath-jearim, now Kureyet el Enab (see on Josh. ix. 17). Salma, 
father of Bethlehem, the birth-place of David and Christ. This 
Salma is, however, not the same person as Salma mentioned in 
ver. 11 and Ruth iv. 20 among the ancestors of David; for the 
latter belonged to the family of Bam, the former to the family 
of Caleb. Hareph is called the father of Beth-Geder, which is 
certainly not the same place as Gedera, Josh. xv. 36, which lay 
in the Shephelah, but is probably identical with Gredor in the hill 
country, Josh. xv. 58, west of tbe road which leads from Hebron 
to Jerusalem (vide on chap. xii. 4). Nothing further is told of 
Hareph, but in the following verses further descendants of both 
the other sons of Hur are enumerated. — Vers. 52 and 53. Shobal 
had sons, rriruBil Wi n&ftn. These words, which are translated in 
the Vulgate, qui videbat dimidium requietionum, give, so interpreted, 
no fitting sense, but must contain proper names. The LXX. have 
made from them three names, 'Apack zeal Atari ical 'A/ifiav(8, on 
mere conjecture. Most commentators take ntnri for the name of 
the man who, in chap. iv. 2, is called under the name Reaiah, 
•TK"i, the son of Shobal. This is doubtless correct ; but we must 
not take tvhn for another name of Reaiah, but, with Bertheau, 
must hold it to be a corruption of f^tn, or a conjecture arising 
from a false interpretation of rfroon W by a transcriber or 
reader, who did not take Hazi-Hammenuhoth for a proper 
name, but understood it appellatively, and attempted to bring 
some sense out of the words by changing rPtn into the participle 
nKh. The WUBn T*n in ver. 54 corresponds to our rfroon , vn, as 
one half of a race or district corresponds to the other, for the con- 
nection between the substantive rfroen and the adjective wrnBPi 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IL 60-55. 75 

cannot bnt be acknowledged. Now, although nrwp signifies 
resting-place (Num. x. 33 ; Judg. xx. 43), and the words " the 
half of the resting-place," or "of the resting-places," point in 
the first instance to a district, yet not only does the context 
require that Hazi-Hammenuhoth should signify a family sprung 
from Shobal, but it is demanded also by a comparison of our 
phrase with WUDn 101 in ver. 54, which unquestionably denotes 
a family. It does not, however, seem necessary to alter the rrirusn 
into 'nnaan ; for as in ver. 54 Bethlehem stands for the family in 
Bethlehem descended from Salma, so the district Hazi-Ham- 
menuhoth may be used in ver. 52 to denote the family residing 
there. As to the geographical position of this district, see on 
ver. 54. — Ver. 53. Besides the families mentioned in ver. 52, 
the families of Kirjath-jearim, which in ver. 53 are enumerated 
by name, came of Shobal also. 'P rrinBtppi is simply a continua- 
tion of the families already mentioned, and the remark of Berth., 
that " the families of Kirjath-jearim are moreover distinguished 
from the sons of Shobal," is as incorrect as the supplying of l cop. 
before 'on Vtn in ver. 52 is unnecessary. The meaning is simply 
this: Shobal had sons Keaiah, Hazi-Hammenuhoth, and the 
families of Kirjath-jearim, viz. the family of Jether, etc. David's 
heroes, Ira and Gareb, xi. 40, 2 Sam. xxiii. 38, belonged to the 
family of Jether (^nn?)- The other three families are not met 
with elsewhere. n|KD, of these, the four families of Kirjath-jearim 
just mentioned, came the Zoreathites and the Eshtaulites, the inha- 
bitants of the town of Zoreah, the home of Samson, now the ruin 
Sura, and of Eshtaol, which perhaps may be identified with Urn 
Esbteyeh (see in Josh. xv. 33). — Vers. 54 and 55. The descend- 
ants of Salma : Bethlehem, i.e. the family of Bethlehem (see on 
ver. 52), the Netophathites, i.e. the inhabitants of the town of 
Netophab, which, according to our verse and Ezra ii. 22, and 
especially Neh. vii. 26, is to be looked for in the neighbourhood 
of Bethlehem (cf. ix. 16) ; a family which produced at various 
times renowned men (cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 28 f . ; 2 Kings xxv. 23 ; 
Ezra ii. 22). The following words, '* '3 rrt"U3J>, t.e. " crowns of the 
house of Joab," can only be the name of a place which is men- 
tioned instead of its inhabitants; for rrnoj> occurs elsewhere, 
sometimes alone, and sometimes in conjunction with a proper 
name, as the name of places : cf. Num. xxxii. 34 f. ; Josh. xvi. 
2, 5, 7, xviii. 13. Hazi-Hammanahath is certainly to be sought 
in the neighbourhood of Manahath, viii. 6, whose position has, 



Digitized by 



Google 



76 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

however, not yet been ascertained, 'jnvn is only another form 
of 'n^nvn, and is derived from the masculine of the word. 
The Zorites here spoken of formed a second division of the 
inhabitants of Zoreah and the neighbourhood, along with the 
Zoreathites descended from Shobal, ver. 53. — Ver. 55. " And 
the families of the writers (scribes) who inhabited Jabez." The 
position of the town Jabez, which is mentioned only here, and 
which derived its name from a descendant of Judah, has not 
yet been discovered, but is to be sought somewhere in the 
neighbourhood of Zoreah. This may be inferred from the fact 
that of the six KD?b '33, two are always more closely connected 
with each other by 1 cop. : (1) Bethlehem and Netophathite, 
(2) Ataroth-beth-Joab and Hazi-Hammanahath, (3) the Zorites 
and the families of the Sopherim inhabiting Jabez. These last 
were divided into three branches, 0'n;irir>, , riVOB', DToM?, i.e. 
those descended from Tira, Shimea, and Suchah. The Vulgate 
has taken these words in an appellative sense of the occupations of 
these three classes, and translates canentes et resonantes et in taber- 
naculis commemor antes. But this interpretation is not made even 
probable by all that Bertheau has brought forward in support of 
it. Even if D'rottf might perhaps be connected with nap, and 
interpreted " dwellers in tabernacles," yet no tenable reason can 
be found for translating O'nyin and Cn^OB* by canentes et resonantes. 
'nyoB'j from •lyo?', " that which is heard," cannot signify those 
who repeat in words and song that which has been heard ; and 
"•flfijTWi no more means canentes than it is connected (as Bertheau 
tries to show) with 0*1$?, "doorkeepers" (the Chaldee jnn 
being equivalent to the Hebrew ">?#) ; and the addition, " These 
are the Kenites who came of Hemath, the father of the house of 
Rechab " (IP ttfa, to issue from any one, to be descended from 
any one), gives no proof of this, for the phrase itself is to us 
so very obscure. D^i? are not inhabitants of the city Kain 
(Josh. xv. 57) in the tribal domain of Judah (Kimchi), but, 
judging from the succeeding relative sentence, were descendants 
of Keni the father-in-law of Moses (Judg. i. 16), who had come 
with Israel to Canaan, and dwelt there among the Israelites 
(Judg. iv. 11, 17, v. 24 ; 1 Sam. xv. 6, xxvii. 10, xxx. 29) ; and 
Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab, i.e. of the Rechabites 
(Jer. xxxv. 6), is probably the grandfather of Jonadab the son 
of Rechab, with whom Jehu entered into alliance (2 Kings x. 
15, 23). But how can the families of Sopherim inhabiting 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. III. 1-9. 77 

Jabez, which are here enumerated, be called descendants of 
Salma, who is descended from Hur the son of Caleb, a man of 
Judah, if they were Kenites, who issued from or were descend- 
ants of the grandfather of the family of the Rechabites ? From 
lack of information, this question cannot be answered with cer- 
tainty. In general, however, we may explain the incorporation 
of the Kenites in the Judsean family of the Calebite Salma, on 
the supposition that one of these Kenites of the family of Hobab, 
the brother-in-law of Moses, married an heiress of the race of 
Caleb. On this account the children and descendants sprung 
of this marriage would be incorporated in the family of Caleb, 
although they were on their father's side Kenites, and where 
they followed the manner of life of their fathers, might continue 
to be regarded as such, and to bear the name. 

Chap. iii. The sons and descendants of David. — After the 
enumeration of the chief families of the two sons of Hezron, 
Caleb and Jerahmeel, in chap. ii. 18-55, the genealogy of Ram 
the second son of Hezron, which in chap. ii. 10-17 was only 
traced down to Jesse, the father of the royal race of David, is in 
chap. iii. again taken up and further followed out. In vers. 1-9 
all the sons of David are enumerated ; in vers. 10-16, the line of 
kings of the house of David from Solomon to Jeconiah and 
Zedekiah ; in 17-21, the descendants of Jeconiah to the grand- 
sons of Zerubbabel ; and finally, in vers. 22-24, other descendants 
of Shechaniah to the fourth generation. 

Vers. 1-9. The sons of David : (a) Those born in Hebron ; 
(J) those born in Jerusalem. — Vers. 1-4. The six sons born in 
Hebron are enumerated also in 2 Sam. iii. 2-5, with mention of 
their mother as here : but there the second is called 3tR>3 ; here, on 
the contrary, WOT, — a difference which cannot well have arisen 
through an error of a copyist, but is probably to be explained on 
the supposition that this son had two different names. In refer- 
ence to the others, see on 2 Sam. iii. The sing. 1^ ~tyn "itPK after 
a preceding plural subject is to be explained as in ii. 9. '3B>, 
'without the article, for W?fD, 2 Sam. iii. 3, or TOren, 1 Chron. 
v. 12, is surprising, as all the other numbers have the article ; 
but the enumeration, the first-born, a second, the third, etc., may 
be justified without any alteration of the text being necessary. 
But the difference between our text and that of 2 Sam. in regard 
to the second son, shows that the chronicler did not take the 
register from 2 Sam. iii. The preposition p before Qw3K seems 



Digitized by 



Google 



78 THE FIEST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

to hare come into the text only through a mistake occasioned by 
the preceding 73'3t6, for no reason is apparent for any strong 
emphasis which might be implied in the ? being placed on the 
name of Absalom. The addition of tatftt to iw (ver. 3) seems 
introduced only to conclude the enumeration in a fitting way, as 
the descent of Eglah had not been communicated ; just as, for 
a similar reason, the additional clause " the wife of David" is 
inserted in 2 Sam. iii. 5, without Eglah being thereby distin- 
guished above the other wives as the most honoured. The 
concluding formula, " six were born to him in Hebron * (ver. 4), 
is followed by a notice of how long David reigned in Hebron 
and in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam. ii. 11 and 55), which is intended 
to form a fitting transition to the following list of the sons who 
were born to him in Jerusalem. — Vers. 5-8. In Jerusalem thirteen 
other sons were born to him, of whom four were the children of 
Bathsheba. The thirteen names are again enumerated in the 
history of David, in chap. xiv. 7-11, while in the parallel pas- 
sage, 2 Sam. v. 14-16, only eleven are mentioned, the two last 
being omitted (see on the passage). Some of the names are 
somewhat differently given in these passages, owing to differ- 
ences of pronunciation and form : nyoe> is in both places V&W ; 
&?&?*, between Ibhar and Eliphalet, is in chap. xiv. more cor- 
rectly written JWvK. Elishama is clearly a transcriber's error, 
occasioned by one of the following sons bearing this name. 
D7&7K, shortened in xiv. 6 into DPB7X, and njto, are wanting in 2 
Sam. v. 15, probably because they died early. V^^, ver. 8, 2 
Sam. v. 16, appears in chap. xiv. 7 as STV^pa ; the mother also 
of the four first named, JfiBTia, the daughter of Ammiel, is else- 
where always JOtfria, e.g. 2 Sam. xi. 3, and 1 Kings i. 11, 15, 
etc.; and her father, Eliam (2 Sam. xi. 3). 2*>na has been 
derived from JflKTia, and jneria is softened from JOrina ; but DJPpk 
has arisen by transposition of the two parts of the name ?M?V, 
or Ammiel has been altered to Eliam. Besides these, David had 
also sons by concubines, whose names, however, are nowhere met 
with. Of David's daughters only Tamar is mentioned as " their 
sister," i.e. sister of the before-mentioned sons, because she had 
become known in history through Amnon's crime (2 Sam. xiii.). 
Vers. 10-16. The kings of the house of David from Solo- 
mon till the exile. — Until Josiah the individual kings are men- 
tioned in their order, each with the addition foa, son of the 
preceding, vers. 10-14; the only omission being that of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. III. 10-18. 79 

usurper Athaliafa, because she did not belong to the posterity 
of David. But in ver. 15 four sons of Josiah are mentioned, 
not "in order to allow of a halt in the long line of David's 
descendants after Josiah the great reformer" (Berth.), but 
because with Josiah the regular succession to the throne in the 
house of David ceased. For the younger son Jehoahaz, who 
was made king after his father's death by the people, was soon de- 
throned by Pharaoh-Necho, and led away captive to Egypt ; and 
of the other sons Jehoiakim was set up by Pharaoh, and Zedekiah 
by Nebuchadnezzar, so that both were only vassals of heathen 
lords of the land, and the independent kingship of David came 
properly to an end with the death of Josiah. Johanan, the first- 
born of the sons of Josiah, is not to be identified with Jehoahaz, 
whom the people raised to the throne. For, in the first place, 
it appears from the statement as to the ages of Jehoahaz and 
Jehoiakim in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, 36, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 2, 5, that 
Jehoahaz was two years younger than Jehoiakim, and conse- 
quently was not the first-born. In Jer. xxii. 11 it is expressly 
declared that Shallum, the fourth son of Josiah, was king of 
Judah instead of his father, and was led away into captivity, 
and never saw his native land again, as history narrates of 
Jehoahaz. From this it would appear that Shallum took, as 
king, the name Jehoahaz. Johanan, the first-born, is not met 
with again in history, either because he died early, or because 
nothing remarkable could be told of him. Jehoiakim was called 
Eliakim before he was raised to the throne (2 Kings xxiii. 
24). Zedekiah was at first Mattaniah (2 Kings xxiv. 17). 
Zedekiah, on his ascending the throne, was younger than Shal- 
lum, and that event occurred eleven years after the accession of 
Shallum = Jehoahaz. Zedekiah was only twenty-one years old, 
while Jehoahaz had become king in his twenty-third year. But 
in our genealogy Zedekiah is introduced after Jehoiakim, and 
before Shallum, because, on the one hand, Jehoiakim and Zede- 
kiah had occupied the throne for a longer period, each having 
been eleven years king ; and on the other, Zedekiah and Shallum 
were sons of Hamutal (2 Kings xxiii. 31, xxiv. 18), while Jehoi- 
akim was the son of Zebudah (2 Kings xxiii. 36). According 
to age, they should have followed each other in this order — Jo- 
hanan, Jehoiakim, Shallum, and Zedekiah; and in respect to 
their kingship, Shallum should have stood before Jehoiakim. 
But in both cases those born of the same mother, Hamutal, would 



Digitized by 



Google 



80 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

have been separated.' To avoid this, apparently, Shallum has 
been enumerated in the fourth place, along with his full brother 
Zedekiah. In ver. 6 it is remarkable that a son of Jehoiakim's 
son Jeconiah is mentioned, named Zedekiah, while the sons of 
Jeconiah follow only in vers. 17 and 18. Jeconiah (cf. Jer. 
xxiv. 1 ; shortened Coniah, Jer. xxii. 24, 28, and xxxvii. 1) is 
called, as king, in 2 Kings xxiv. 8 ff. and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9, 
Jehoiachin, another form of the name, but having the same 
signification, " Jahve founds or establishes." Zedekiah can only 
be a son of Jeconiah, for the ha which is added constantly 
denotes that the person so called is the son of his predecessor. 
Many commentators, certainly, were of opinion that Zedekiah 
was the same person as the brother of Jehoiakim mentioned in 
ver. 15 under the name Zidkijahu, and who is here introduced 
as son of Jeconiah, because he was the successor of Jeconiah on 
the throne. For this view support was sought in a reference to 
ver. 10 ff., in which all Solomon's successors in the kingship are 
enumerated in order with to. But all the kings who succeeded 
each other from Solomon to Josiah were also, without exception, 
sons of their predecessors ; so that there faa throughout denotes a 
proper son, while King Zedekiah, on the contrary, was not the son, 
but an uncle of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). We must therefore hold 
n»pTV for a literal son of Jeconiah, and- that so much the more, 
because the name HJPTC differs also from WJPI?, as the name of 
the king is constantly written in 2 Kings xxiv. 17 ff. and in 2 
Chron. xxxvi. 10. But mention is made of this Zedekiah in 
ver. 16 apart from the other sons of Jeconiah (vers. 17 and 18), 
perhaps because he was not led away captive into exile with 
the others, but died in Judah before the breaking up of the 
kingdom. 

Vers. 17-24. The descendants of the captive and exiled 
Jeconiah, and other families. — Ver. 17. In the list of the sons of 
Jeconiah it is doubtful if "ID*? be the name of a son, or should be 
considered, as it is by Luther and others, an appellative, "prisoner," 
in apposition to nw, "the sons of Jeconiah, the captive, is 
Shealtiel " (A. V. Salathiel). The reasons which have been ad- 
vanced in favour of this latter interpretation are : the lack of the 
con junction with fowtw ; the position of iaa. after 'ni>NB>, not after 
">GK ; and the circumstance that Assir is nowhere to be met with, 
either in Matt. i. 12 or in Seder olatn zuta, as an intervening 
member of the family between Jeconiah and Shealtiel (Berth.). 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. III. 17-24 81 

Bat none of these reasons Is decisive. The want of the conjunc- 
tion proves absolutely nothing, for in ver. 18 also, the last three 
names are grouped together without a conjunction; and the 
position of toa after 'nbxw is just as strange, whether Shealtiel 
be the first named son or the second, for in ver. 18 other sons of 
Jeconiah follow, and the peculiarity of it can only be accounted 
for on the supposition that the case of Shealtiel differs from that 
of the remaining sons. The omission of Assir in the genealogies 
in Matthew and the Seder olam also proves nothing, for in the 
genealogies intermediate members are often passed over. Against 
the appellative interpretation of the word, on the contrary, the 
want of the article is decisive ; as apposition to nw, it should 
have the article. But besides this, according to the genealogy of 
Jesus in Luke iii. 27, Shealtiel is a son of Neri, a descendant of 
David, of the lineage of Nathan, not of Solomon ; and accord- 
ing to Hagg. i. 1, 12, Ezra iii. 2, v. 2, and Matt. i. 12, Zerub- 
babel is son of Shealtiel ; while, according to vers. 18 and 19 of 
our chapter, he is a son of Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel. 
These divergent statements may be reconciled by the following 
combination. The discrepancy in regard to the enumeration of 
Shealtiel among the sons of Jeconiah, a descendant of Solomon, 
and the statement that he was descended from Neri, a descendant 
of Nathan, Solomon's brother, is removed by the supposition 
that Jeconiah, besides the Zedekiah mentioned in ver. 16, who 
died childless, had another son, viz. Assir, who left only a 
daughter, who then, according to the law as to heiresses (Num. 
xxvii. 8, xxxvi. 8 f.), married a man belonging to a family of 
her paternal tribe, viz. Neri, of the family of David, in the line 
of Nathan, and that from this marriage sprang Shealtiel, Mal- 
chiram, and the other sons (properly grandsons) of Jeconiah 
mentioned in ver. 18. If we suppose the eldest of these, Sheal- 
tiel, to come into the inheritance of his maternal grandfather, 
he would be legally regarded as his legitimate son. In our 
genealogy, therefore, along with the childless Assir, Shealtiel is 
introduced as a descendant of Jeconiah, while in Luke he is 
called, according to his actual descent, a son of Neri. The other 
discrepancy in respect to the descendants of Zerubbabel is to be 
explained, as has been already shown on Hagg. i. 1, by the law of 
L»evirate marriage, and by the supposition that Shealtiel died 
without any male descendants, leaving his wife a widow. In 
such a case, according to the law (Deut. xxv. 5-10, cf. Matt. 

p 



Digitized by 



Google 



82 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

xxii. 24-28), it became the duty of one of the brothers of the 
deceased to marry his brother's widow, that he might raise up' 
seed, i.e. posterity, to the deceased brother; and the first son 
born of this marriage would be legally incorporated with the 
family of the deceased, and registered as his son. After Sheal- 
tiel's death, his second brother Pedaiah fulfilled this Levirate 
duty, and begat, in his marriage with his sister-in-law, Zerubbabel, 
who was now regarded, in all that related to laws of heritage, as 
Shealtiel's son, and propagated his race as his heir. According 
to this right of heritage, Zernbbabel is called in the passages 
quoted from Haggai and Ezra, as also in the genealogy in 
Matthew, the son of Shealtiel. The ha seems to hint at this 
peculiar position of Shealtiel with reference to the proper de- 
scendants of Jeconiah, helping to remind us that he was son of 
Jeconiah not by natural birth, but only because of his right of 
heritage only, on his mother's side. As to the orthography of the 
name farbHV, see on Hagg. i. 1. The six persons named in ver. 
18 are not sons of Shealtiel, as Kimchi, Hiller, and others, and 
latterly Hitzig also, on Hagg. i. 1, believe, but his brothers, as 
the cop. 1 before D"i , ?po requires. The supposition just men- 
tioned is only an attempt, irreconcilable with the words of the 
text, to form a series, thus : Shealtiel, Pedaiah his son, Zerub- 
babel his son, — so as to get rid of the differences between our 
verse and Hagg. i. 1, Ezra iii. 2. In vers. 1 9 and 20, sons and 
grandsons of Pedaiah are registered. Nothing further is known 
of the Bne Jeconiah mentioned in ver. 18. Pedaiah's son Zerub- 
babel is unquestionably the prince of Judah who returned to 
Jerusalem in the reign of Cyrus in the year 536, at the head of 
a great host of exiles, and superintended their settlement anew 
in the land of their fathers (Ezra i.-vi.). Of Shimei nothing 
further is known. In vers. 19J and 20, the sons of Zernbbabel 
are mentioned, and in ver. 21a two grandsons are named. In- 
stead of the singular |M some MSS. have 'JM, and the old versions 
also have the plural. This is correct according to the sense, 
although |3l cannot be objected to on critical grounds, and may 
be explained by the writer's having had mainly in view the one 
son who continued the line of descendants. By the mention of 
their sister after the first two names, the sons of Zerubbabel are 
divided into two groups, probably as the descendants of different 
mothers. How Shelomith had gained such fame as to be re- 
ceived into the family register, we do not know. Those men- 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. III. 17-24. 83 

tioned in ver. 20 are brought together in one group by the 
number " five." 1DH 3B*P, " grace is restored," is one name. 
The grandsons of Zernbbabel, Pelatiah and Jesaiah, were with- 
out doubt contemporaries of Ezra, who returned to Jerusalem 
from Babylon seventy-eight years after Zerubbabel. 

After these grandsons of Zerubbabel, there are ranged in ver. 
21b, without any copula whatever, four families, the sons of 
Bephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc.; and of the last named of 
these, the sons of Shecaniah, four generations of descendants are 
enumerated in vers. 22-24, without any hint as to the genea- 
logical connection of Shecaniah with the grandsons of Zerubbabel. 
The assertion of more modern critics, Ewald, Bertheau, and 
others, that Shecaniah was a brother or a son of Pelatiah or 
Jesaiah, and that Zerubbabel's family is traced down through 
six generations, owes its origin to the wish to gain support for 
the opinion that the Chronicle was composed long after Ezra, 
and is without any foundation. The argument of Bertheau, 
that "since the sons of Bephaiah, etc., run parallel with the 
preceding names Pelatiah and Jesaiah, and since the continua- 
tion of the list in ver. 22 is connected with the last mentioned 
Shecaniah, we cannot but believe that Pelatiah, Jesaiah, Be- 
phaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah are, without exception, 
sons of Hananiah," would be well founded if, and only if, the 
names Bephaiah, Arnan, etc., stood in our verse, instead of the 
sons of Bephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., for Pelatiah and 
Jesaiah are not parallel with the sons of Arnan. Pelatiah and 
Jesaiah may perhaps be sons of Hananiah, but not the sons of 
Kephaiah, Arnan) etc. These would be grandsons of Hananiah, 
on the assumption that Bephaiah, Arnan, etc, were brothers of 
Pelatiah and Jesaiah, and sons of Hananiah. But for this assump- 
tion there is no tenable ground ; it would be justified only if our 
present Masoretic text could lay claim to infallibility. Only on 
the ground of a belief in this infallibility of the traditional text 
could we explain to ourselves, as Bertheau does, the ranging of 
the sons of Bephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., along with Pela- 
tiah and Jesaiah, called sons of Hananiah, by supposing that 
Bephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah are not named as 
individuals, but are mentioned together with their families, because 
they were the progenitors of famous races, while Pelatiah and 
Jesaiah either had no descendants at all, or none at least who 
were at all renowned. The text, as we have it, in which the sons 



Digitized by 



Google 



84 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

of Rephaiah, etc., follow the names of the grandsons of Zerub- 
babel without a conjunction, and in which the words rMatP 'jm, 
and a statement of the names of one of these D^3 and his further 
descendants, follow the immediately preceding '"^atp "03, has no 
meaning, and is clearly corrupt, as has been recognised by 
Heidegger, Vitringa, Carpzov, and others. Owing, however, to 
want of information from other sources regarding these families 
and their connection with the descendants of Zerubbabel, we 
hare no means whatever of restoring the original text. The sons 
of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., were, it may be supposed, 
branches of the family of David, whose descent or connection 
with Zerubbabel is for us unascertainable. The list from n'B"i »j3, 
ver. 21b, to the end of the chapter, is a genealogical fragment, 
which has perhaps come into the text of the Chronicle at a later 
time. 1 Many of the names which this fragment contains are met 
with singly in genealogies of other tribes, but nowhere in a con- 
nection from which we might draw conclusions as to the origin 
of the families here enumerated, and the age in which they lived. 
Bertheau, indeed, thinks "we may in any case hold Hattush, 
ver. 22, for the descendant of David of the same name mentioned 
in Ezra viii. 2, who lived at the time of Ezra;" but he has 
apparently forgotten that, according to his interpretation of our 
verse, Hattush would be a great-grandson of Zerubbabel, who, . 
even if he were then born, could not possibly have been a man 
and the head of a family at the time of his supposed return from 
Babylon with Ezra, seventy-eight years after the return of his 
great-grandfather to Palestine. Other men too, even priests, 
have borne the name Hattush; cf. Neh. iii. 10, x. 5, xii. 2. 
There returned, moreover, from Babylon with Ezra sons of 
Shecaniah (Ezra viii. 3), who may as justly be identified with the 
sons of Shecaniah mentioned in ver. 22 of our chapter as fore- 
fathers or ancestors of Hattush, as the Hattush here is identified 
with the Hattush of Ezra viii. 2. But from the fact that, in 
the genealogy of Jesus, Matt, i., not a single one of the names of 

1 Yet at a very early time, for the LXX. had before them our present text, 
and Bought to make sense of it by expressing the four times recurring <ja 
ver. 216, by the singular 133 in every case, as follows : xxl 'lui*; viii ainov, 
'P«<p«x vtii etinov,' O/mce v/oV airrov, etc. ; according to which, between Hananiah 
and Shecaniah seven consecutive generations would be enumerated, and 
Zerubbabel's family traced down through eleven generations. So also Vulg. 
and Syr. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 1, 2. 85 

descendants of Zerubbabel there enumerated coincides with the 
names given in our verses, we may conclude that the descendants 
of Shecaniah enumerated in vers. 22-24 did not descend from 
Zerubbabel in a direct line. Intermediate members are, it is 
true, often omitted in genealogical lists ; but who would maintain 
that in Matthew seven, or, according to the other interpretation 
of our verse, nine, consecutive members have been at one bound 
orerleapt t This weighty consideration, which has been brought 
forward by Glericus, is passed over in silence by the defenders 
of the opinion that our verses contain a continuation of the gene- 
alogy of Zerubbabel. The only other remark -to be made about 
this fragment is, that in ver. 22 the number of the sons of 
Shecaniah is given as six, while only five names are mentioned, 
and that consequently a name must have fallen out by mistake 
in transcribing. Nothing further can be said of these families, 
as they are otherwise quite unknown. 

CHAP. IV. 1-23. — FRAGMENTS OF THE GENEALOGIES OF 
DESCENDANTS AND FAMILIES OF JUDAH. 

Ver. 1 is evidently intended to be a superscription to the 
genealogical fragments which follow. Five names are mentioned 
as sons of Judah, of whom only Pharez was his son (ii. 4) ; the 
others are grandchildren or still more distant descendants. 
Nothing is said as to the genealogical relationship in which they 
stood to each other ; that is supposed to be already known from 
the genealogies in chap. ii. Hezron is the son of Pharez, and 
consequently grandson of Judah, ii. 8. Carmi, a descendant of 
Zerah, the brother of Pharez, see on ii. 6, 7. Hur is a son of 
Caleb, the son of Hezron, by Ephratah (see on ii. 19 and 50) ; 
and Shobal is the son of Hur, who has just been mentioned (ii. 
50). These five names do not denote here, any more than in 
chap, ii., " families of the tribe of Judah" (Berth.), but signify 
persons who originated or were heads of families. The only 
conceivable ground for these five being called " sons of Judah," 
is that the families registered in the following lists traced their 
origin to them, although in the enumeration which follows the 
genealogical connection of the various groups is not clearly 
brought out. The enumeration begins, 

Ver. 2, with the descendants of Shobal. As to Reaiah the son 
of Shobal, see ii. 52. He begat Jahath, a name often occurring 



Digitized by 



Google 



86 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

in Levite families, cf. vi. 5, 28, xxiii. 10 ff., xxiv. 22, 2 Chron. 
xxxiv. 12 ; but of the descendant of David who bore this name 
nothing further is known. His sons Ahumai and Lahad founded 
the families of the Zorathites, i.e. the inhabitants of Zora, who 
also, according to ii. 53, were descended from sons of Shobal. 
Our verse therefore gives more detailed information regarding 
the lineage of these families. 

Vers. 3 and 4 contain notices of the descendants of Hur. 
The first words of the third verse, "these, father of Etam, 
Jezreel," have no meaning ; but the last sentence of the second 
verse suggests that MinB^D should be supplied, when we read, 
" and these are the families of (from) Abi-Etam." The LXX. 
and Vulgate have DB'y \n r6x, which is also to be found in 
several codices, while other codices read DO'JJ '3K »J3 rbx. Both 
readings are probably only conjectures. Whether DO'JJ T3K is to 
be taken as the name of a person, or appellatively, father = lord 
of Etam, cannot be decided. Dt? , }> is in ver. 32, and probably also 
in Judg. xv. 8, 11, the name of a town of the Simeonites ; and in 
2 Chron. xi. 6, the name of a little town in the highlands of Judah, 
south of Jerusalem. If db'V be the name of a place, only the 
last named can be here meant. The names Jezreel, Ishma, and 
Idbash denote persons as progenitors and head of families or 
branches of families. For «*jnf. as the name of a person, cf. 
Hos. i. 4. That these names should be those of persons is 
required by the succeeding remark, " and their sister Hazelel- 
poni." The formation of this name, with the derivative termina- 
tion i, seems to express a relationship of race ; but the word may 
also be an adjective, and as such may be a proper name : cf. Ew. 
§ 273, e. — Ver. 4. Penuel, in Gen. xxii. 31 f., Judg. viii. 8, name of 
a place in the East-Jordan land, as here, and in viii. 25 the name 
of a man. Gedor is, we may suppose, the town of that name in 
the mountains of Judah, which is still to be found in the ruin 
Jedur (see on Josh. xv. 58). Penuel is here called father 
of Gedor, while in ver. 18 one Jered is so called, whence we 
must conclude that the inhabitants of Gedor were descended 
from both. Ezer (Help) occurs in vii. 21, xii. 9, Neh. iii. 19, of 
other men ; father of Hushah, i.e. according to the analogy of 
Abi-Gedor, also the name of a place 'not elsewhere mentioned, 
where the hero Sibbecai had his birth, xi. 29, 2 Sam. xxiii. 27. 
Those thus named in vers. 3 and 4 are sons of Hur, the first-born 
of Ephratah (ii. 19), the father of Bethlehem. The inhabitants 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 5-10. 87 

of Bethlehem then, according to this, were descended from Hur 
through his son Salma, who is called in ii. 51 father of Bethle- 
hem. The circumstance, too, that in our verses (3 and 4) other 
names of persons are enumerated as descendants of Hur than 
those given in ii 50-55 gives rise to no discrepancy, for there is 
no ground for the supposition that in ii. 50-55 all the descend- 
ants of Hur have been mentioned. 

Vers. 5—7. Soms ofAshur, the father of Tekoa, who, according 
to ii. 24, was a posthumous son of Hezron. Ashur had two wives, 
Helah and Naarah. Of the latter came four sons and as many 
families : Ahuzam, of whom nothing further is known ; Hepher, 
also unknown, but to be distinguished from the Gileadite of the 
same name in chap. xi. 36 and Num. xxvi. 32 f. The conjecture 
that the name is connected with the land of Hepher (1 Kings iv. 
10), the territory of a king conquered by Joshua (Josh. xii. 17) 
(Berth.), is not very well supported. Temani (man of the south) 
may be simply the name of a person, but it is probably, like the 
following, the name of a family. Haahashtari, descended from 
Ahashtar, is quite unknown. — Ver. 7. The first wife, Helah, bore 
three sons, Zereth, Jezoar, and Ethnan, who are not elsewhere 
met with- For the Kethibh "imp there is in the Keri "irtn, tlie 
name of a son of Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10), and of a Hittite chief 
in the time of the patriarchs (Gen. xxiii. 8), with whom the son of 
Helah has nothing to da 

Vers. 8—10 contain a fragment, the connection of which with 
the sons of Judah mentioned in chap. ii. is not clear. Coz begat 
Anub, etc. The name pip occurs only here; elsewhere only 
h?? is found, of a Levite, xxiv. 10, cf. Ezra ii. 61 and Neb. 
iii. 4, — in the latter passage without any statement as to the tribe 
to which the sons of Hakkoz belonged. The names of the sons 
begotten by Coz, ver. 8, do not occur elsewhere. The same is 
to be said of Jabez, of whom we know nothing beyond what is 
communicated in vers. 9 and 10. The word f3?P donotes in 
ii- 55 a town or village Which is quite unknown to us ; but 
whether our Jabez were father (lord) of this town cannot be 
determined. If there be any genealogical connection between 
the man Jabez and the locality of this name or its inhabitants 
(ii. 55), then the persons named in ver. 8 would belong to the 
descendants of Shobal. For although the connection of Jabez 
with Coz and his sons is not clearly set forth, yet it may be 
conjectured from the statements as to Jabez being connected 



Digitized by 



Google 



88 THE FIEST BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

with the preceding by the words, " Jabez was more honoured 
than his brethren." The older commentators have thence 
drawn the conclusion that Jabez was a son or brother of Coz. 
Bertheau also rightly remarks: "The statements that he was 
more honoured than his brethren (cf. Gen. xxxiv. 19), that his 
mother called him Jabez because she had borne him with sorrow ; 
the use of the similarly sounding word M& along with the name 
YWl (cf. Gen. iv. 25, xix. 37 f., xxix. 32, 33, 35, xxx. 6, 8, etc.) ; 
and the statement that Jabez vowed to the God of Israel 
(cf. Gen. xxxiii. 20) in a prayer (cf. Gen. xxviii. 20), — all bring 
to our recollection similar statements of Genesis, and doubtless 
rest upon primeval tradition." In the terms of the vow, w?f 
'asy, " so that sorrow may not be to me," there is a play upon the 
name Jabez. But of the vow itself only the conditions proposed 
by the maker of the vow are communicated : " If Thou wilt 
bless me, and enlarge my coast, and Thy hand shall be with me, 
and Thou wilt keep evil far off, not to bring sorrow to me," — 
without the conclusion, Then I vow to do this or that (cf. Gen. 
xxviii. 20 f.), but with the remark that God granted him that 
which he requested. The reason of this is probably that the 
vow had acquired importance sufficient to make it worthy of 
being handed down only from God's having so fulfilled his wish, 
that his life became a contradiction of his name; the son of 
sorrow having been free from pain in life, and having attained 
to greater happiness and reputation than his brothers. 

Vers. 11, 12. The genealogy of the men of Bechah. — As to 
their connection with the larger families of Judah, nothing has 
been handed down to us. Chelub, another form of the name Caleb 
or Chelubai (see ii. 9 and 18), is distinguished from the better 
known Caleb son of Hezron (ii. 18 and 42), and from the son 
of Jephunneh (ver. 15), by the additional clause, " the son of 
Shuah." Shuah is not met with elsewhere, but is without reason 
identified with Hushah, ver. 4, by the older commentators. 
Mehir the father of Eshton is likewise unknown. Eshton begat 
the house (the family) of Kapha, of whom also nothing further 
is said ; for they can be connected neither with the Benjamite 
Bapha (viii. 2) nor with the children of Bapha (xx. 4, 6, 8). 
Paseah and Tehinnah are also unknown, for it is uncertain 
whether the sons of Paseah mentioned among the Nethinim, 
Ezra ii. 49, Neh. vii. 51, have any connection with our Paseah. 
Tehinnah is called " father of the city of Nahash." The latter 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 13-15. 89 

name is probably not properly the name of a town, but rather 
the name of a person Nahash, not unlikely the same as the father 
of Abigail (2 Sam. xvii. 25), the step-sister of David (cf . ii. 16). 
The men (or people) of Rechah are unknown. 

Vers. 13-15. Descendants of Kenaz. — ttj> is a descendant of 
Hezron the son of Fharez, as may be inferred from the fact 
that Caleb the son of Jephunneh, a descendant of Hezron's 
son Caleb, is called in Num. xxxii. 12 and Josh. xiv. 6 "Mi?, and 
consequently was also a descendant of Kenaz. Othniel and 
Seraiah, introduced here as Mp "3S», are not sons (in the narrower 
sense of the word), but more distant descendants of Kenaz ; for 
Othniel and Caleb the son of Jephunneh were, according to 
Josh. xv. 17 and Judg. i. 13, brothers. 1 Kenaz, therefore, can 
neither have been the father of Othniel nor father of Caleb 
(in the proper sense of the word), but must at least have been 
the grandfather or great-grandfather of both. Othniel is the 
famous first judge of Israel, Judg. iii. 9 ff. Of Seraiah nothing 
further is known, although the name is often met with of dif- 
ferent persons. The sons of Othniel are Hathath. The plural 

1 The words used in Judg. i. 13, cf. Josh. xr. 17, of the relationship of 
Othniel and Caleb, |iopn a!>3 NIK T3j?")3 may be, it is true, taken in dif- 
ferent senses, either as signifying Jilius Kenasi fratris Caleb, according to 
which, not Othniel, but Kenaz, was a younger brother of Caleb ; or in this 
way, filius Kenasi, frater Calebi minor, as we have interpreted them in the 
text, and also in the commentary on Josh. xv. 17. This interpretation we 
still bold to be certainly the correct one, notwithstanding what Bachmann 
(Buch der Richter, on i. 13) has brought forward against it and in favour of 
the other interpretation, and cannot see that his chief reasons are decisive. 
The assertion that we must predicate of Othniel, if he be a younger brother of 
Caleb, an unsuitably advanced age, is not convincing. Caleb was eighty-five 
years of age at the division of the land of Canaan (Josh. xiv. 10). Now if we 
suppose that his younger or youngest brother Othniel was from twenty-five to 
thirty years younger, as often happens, Othniel would be from sixty to sixty- 
one or fifty-five to fifty-six years of age at the conquest of Debir, — an age at 
which he might well win a wife as the reward of valour. Ten years later came 
the invasion of the land by Cushan Rishathaim, which lasted eight years, till 
Othniel had conquered Cushan R., and there were judges in Israel. This 
victory he would thus gain at the age of seventy-eight or seventy-three ; and 
even if he filled the office of judge for forty years — which, however, Judg. iii. 
11 does not state — he would have reached no greater age than 118 or 113 
years, only three or eight years older than Joshua had been. If we consider 
what Caleb said of himself in his eighty-fifth year, Josh. xiv. 11, " I am 
still strong as in the day that Moses sent me (i.e. forty years before) ; as my 
strength was then, even so is my strength now for war, both to go out and 
to come in," we cannot think that Othniel, in the seventy-third or seventy- 



Digitized by 



Google 



90 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

'33, even when only one name follows, is met with elsewhere 
(vide on ii. 7) ; but the continuation is somewhat strange, " and 
Meonothai begat Ophrah," for as Meonotbai is not before men- 
tioned, his connection with Othniel is not given. There is 
evidently a hiatus in the text, which may most easily be filled 
up by repeating 'nMjto* at the end of ver. 13. According to this 
conjecture two sons of Othniel would be named, Hathath and 
Meonothai, and then the posterity of the latter is given. The 
name 'rtiyo (my dwellings) is not met with elsewhere. It is not 
at all probable that it is connected with the town Maon, and still 
less that it is so in any way with the Mehunim, Ezra ii. 50. 
Ophrah is unknown, for of course we must not think of the towns 
called Ophrah, in the territory of Benjamin, Josh, xviii. 23, and 
in that of Manasseh, Judg. vi. 11, 24. Seraiah, who is men- 
tioned in ver. 13, begat Joab the father (founder) of the valley 
of the craftsmen, " for they (i.e. the inhabitants of this valley, 
who were descended from Joab) were craftsmen." The valley 
of the O'thn (craftsmen) is again mentioned in Neh. xi. 35, 

eighth yean of his age, was too old to be a military leader. But the other 
reason : " that Caleb is always called son of Jephunneh, Othniel always son 
of Kenaz, should cause us to hesitate before we take Othniel to be the proper 
brother of Caleb," loses all its weight when we find that Caleb also is called 
in Num. xxxii. 12 and Josh. ziv. 6 , Hp=t3pT3, and it is seen that Caleb 
therefore, as well as Othniel, was a son of Kenaz. Now if the Kenazite 
Caleb the son of Jephunneh were a brother of Kenaz, the father of Othniel, 
we must suppose an older Kenaz, the grandfather or great-grandfather of 
Caleb, and a younger Kenaz, the father of Othniel. This supposition is cer- 
tainly feasible, for, according to ver. 15 of our chapter, a grandson of Caleb 
again was called Kenaz ; but if it be probable is another question. For the 
answering of this question in the affirmative, Bachmann adduces that, accord- 
ing to 1 Chron. iv. 13, Othniel is undoubtedly the son of Kenaz in the proper 
sense of the word ; but it might perhaps be difficult to prove, or even to render 
probable, this " undoubtedly." In the superscriptions of the single genea- 
logies of the Chronicle, more than elsewhere, \o has in general a very wide 
signification. In ver. 1 of our chapter, for instance, sons, grandsons, and 
great-grandsons of Judah are all grouped together as TTnTV '33- But besides 
this, the ranging of the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh (ver. 15) after 
the enumeration of the sons of Kenaz in vers. 13 and 14, is clearly much more 
easily explicable if Caleb himself belonged to the fjp ya mentioned in ver. 
13, than if he was a brother of Kenaz. In the latter case we should ex- 
pect, after the analogy of ii. 42, to find an additional clause Op T1K after 
rUDHa 3^3 ; while if Caleb was a brother of Othniel, his descent from Kenaz, 
or the fact that he belonged to the np , J3, might be assumed to be known 
from Num. xxxii. 12. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 16-20. 91 

wheuce we may conclude that it lay at no great distance from 
Jerusalem, in a northern direction. — Ver. 15. Of Iru, Elah, 
and Naam, the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh (cf. on 
ver. 13), nothing more is known. To connect Elah with the 
Edomite chief of that name (i. 52) is arbitrary. Of Elah's sons 
only " and Kenaz" is mentioned ; the 1 copul. before Hp shows 
clearly that a name has been dropped out before it. 

Vers. 16-20. Descendants of various men, whose genealogical 
connection with the sons and grandsons of Judah, mentioned in 
ver. 1, is not given in the text as it has come to us. — Ver. 16. 
Sons of Jehaleleel, a man not elsewhere mentioned. Ziph, 
Ziphah, etc., are met with only here. There is no strong reason 
for connecting the name *Tf with the towns of that name, Josh, 
xv. 24, 55. — Ver. 17. Ezra, whose four sons are enumerated, is 
likewise unknown. The singular 13 is peculiar, but has analogies 
in iii. 19, 21, and 23. Of the names of his sons, Jether and 
Epher again occur, the former in ii. 53, and the latter in i. 33 
and v. 24, but in other families. Jalon, on the contrary, is 
found only here. The children of two wives of Mered are 
enumerated in vers, lib and 18, but in a fashion which is quite 
unintelligible, and shows clear traces of a corruption in the text. 
For (1) the name of a woman as subject of inw, " and she con- 
ceived (bare)," is wanting ; and (2) in ver. 18 the names of two 
women occur, Jehudijah and Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh. 
But the sons of Jehudijah are first given, and there follows there- 
upon the formula, " and these are the sons of Bithiah," without 
any mention of the names of these sons. This manifest confusion 
Bertheau has sought to remove by a happy transposition of the 
words. He suggests that the words, " and these are the sons of 
Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered had taken," should 
be placed immediately after JW. " By this means we obtain 
(1) the missing subject of "tnnj ; (2) the definite statement that 
Mered had two wives, with whom he begat sons; and (3) an 
arrangement by which the sons are enumerated after the names 
of their respective mothers." After this transposition the 17th 
verse would read thus: "And the sons of Ezra are Jether, 
Mered, . . . and Jalon ; and these are the sons of Bithiah the 
daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took ; and she conceived (and 
bare) Miriam, and Shammai, and Ishbah, the father of Esh- 
temoa (ver. 18), and his wife Jehudijah bore Jered the father 
of Gedor, etc" This conjecture commends itself by its sim- 



Digitized by 



Google 



92 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

plicity, and by the clearness which it brings into the words. 
From them we then learn that two families, who dwelt in a 
number of the cities of Judah, were descended from Mered the 
son of Ezra by his two wives. We certainly know no more 
details concerning them, as neither Mered nor his children are 
met with elsewhere. From the circumstance, however, that the 
one wife was a daughter of Pharaoh, we may conclude that 
Mered lived before the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. 
The name Miriam, which Moses' sister bore, is here a man's 
name. The names introduced by '3K are the names of towns. 
Ishbah is father (lord) of the town Eshtemoa, in the mountains 
of Judah, now Semua, a village to the south of Hebron, with 
considerable ruins dating from ancient times (cf. on Josh, 
xv. 50). njTrwj means properly " the Jewess," as distinguished 
from the Egyptian woman, Pharaoh's daughter. Gedor is a 
town in the high lands of Judah (cf . on ver. 4). Socho, in the 
low land of Judah, now Shuweikeh, in Wady Sumt (cf. on Josh, 
xv. 35). Zanoah is the name of a town in the high lands of 
Judah, Josh. xv. 56 (which has not yet been discovered), and of 
a town in the low land, now Zanua, not far from Zoreah, in an 
easterly direction (cf. on Josh. xv. 34). Perhaps the latter is 
here meant. In ver. 19, " the sons of the wife of Hodiah, the 
sister of Naham, are the father of Keilah the Garmite, and 
Eshtemoa the Maachathite." The atat. constr. TIB'S before njfrtn 
shows that Hodiah is a man's name. Levites of this name are 
mentioned in Neh. viii. 7, ix. 5, x. 11. The relationship of 
Hodiah and Naham to the persons formerly named is not given. 
. "rW? is a locality in the low land of Judah not yet discovered 
(see on Josh. xv. 44). The origin of the epithet WSf? we do not 
know. Before JtojKW, *3K with 1 copul. is probably to be re- 
peated ; and the Maachathite, the chief of a part of the inhabit- 
ants of Eshtemoa, is perhaps a descendant of Caleb by Maachah 
(ii. 48). — Ver. 20. Of Shimon and his four sons, also, nothing is 
known. 13n"J3 is one name. Ishi is often met with, e.g. ver. 42 
and ii. 31, but nowhere in connection with Zoheth (not further 
noticed). The names of the sons are wanting after nnir*)3. 

Vers. 21-23. Descendants of Shelah, the third son of Judah, 
ii. 3, and Gen. xxxviii. 5. — All the families of Judah enumerated 
in vers. 2-20 are connected together by the conjunction i, and so 
are grouped as descendants of the sons and grandsons of Judah 
named in ver. 1. The conjunction is omitted, however, before 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 21-23. . 93 

•lfe '33, as also before n"WV »» in ver. 3, to show that the de- 
scendants of Shelah form a second line of descendants of Judah, 
co-ordinate withjthe sons of Judah enumerated in vers. 1-19, 
concerning whom only a little obscure but not unimportant in- 
formation has been preserved. Those mentioned as sons are Er 
(which also was the name of the first-born of Judab, ii. 3 f.), father 
of Lecah, and Laadan, the father of Mareshah. The latter 
name denotes, beyond question, a town which still exists as the 
ruin Marash in the Shephelah, Josh. xv. 44 (see on ii. 42), and 
consequently Lecah (na?) also is the name of a locality not else- 
where mentioned. The further descendants of Shelah were, 
" the families of the Byssus-work of the house of Ashbea," i.e. 
the families of Ashbea, a man of whom nothing further is known. 
Of these families some were connected with a famous weaving- 
house or linen (Byssus) manufactory, probably in Egypt ; and 
then further, in ver. 22, " Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and 
Joash, and Saraph, which ruled over Moab, and Jashubi-lehem." 
Kimchi conjectured that rojb was the place called 3'D in Gen. 
xxxviii. 5 = 3'!3^> Josh. xv. 44, in the low land, where Shelah 
was born. Drp '3B* is a strange name, "which the punctuators 
would hardly have pronounced in the way they have done if 
it had not come down to them by tradition" (Berth.). The 
other names denote heads of families or branches of families, 
the branches and families being included in them. 1 Nothing 
is told us of them beyond what is found in our verses, ac- 
cording to which the four first named ruled over Moab during 
a period in the primeval time ; for, as the historian himself re- 
marks, u these things are old." — Ver. 23. " These are the potters 
and the inhabitants of Netaim and Gedera." It is doubtful 
whether nan refers to all the descendants of Shelah, or only to 
those named in ver. 22. Bertheau holds the latter to be the 
more probable reference ; " for as those named in ver. 21 have 
already been denominated Byssus-workers, it appears fitting that 
those in ver. 22 should be regarded as the potters, etc." But all 

1 Jerome has given a carious translation of ver. 22, "et qui stare fecit sokm, 
virique mendacii et securus et incendens, qui principes fuerunt in Moab et qui re- 
versisunt in Ldhem: hmc autem verba Vetera," — according to the Jewish Midrash, 
in which 3ttf D^ 1^V3 ICte was connected with the narrative in the book of 

t : -:t v -: 

Ruth. For D'pi', 9"» *tore fecit sokm, is supposed to be Elimelech, and the 
tiri mendacii Mahlon and Chilion, so well known from the book of Ruth, who 
went with their father into the land of Moab and married Moabitesses. 



Digitized by 



Google 



94 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

those mentioned in ver. 22 are by no means called Byssus- 
weavers, but only the families of Ashbea. What the descend- 
ants of Er and Laadan were is not said. The nan may conse- 
quently very probably refer to all the sons of Shelah enumerated 
in vers. 21 and 22, with the exception of the families designated 
Byssus-weavers, who are, of course, understood to be excepted. 
D'JflM signifies " plantings ; " but since rrVTB is probably the name 
of a city Gedera in the lowlands of Judah (cf. Josh. xv. 36 ; and 
for the situation, see on 1 Chron. xii. 4), Netaim also will most 
likely denote a village where there were royal plantations, and 
about which these descendants of Shelah were employed, as the 
words " with the king in his business to dwell there " expressly 
state. 'ipBn is not an individual king of Judah, for we know not 
merely " of King Uzziah that he had country lands, 2 Chron. 
xxvi. 10 " (Berth.) ; but we learn from 1 Chron. xxvii. 25-31 that 
David also possessed great estates and country lands, which were 
managed by regularly appointed officers. We may therefore 
with certainty assume that all the kings of Judah had domains 
on which not only agriculture and the rearing of cattle, but also 
trades, were carried on. 1 

1 From the arrangement of the names in vera, 2-20, in -which Berthcan finds 
just twelve families grouped together, he concludes, S. 44 f., that the division 
of the tribe of Judah into these twelve families did actually exist at some time 
or other, and had been established by a new reckoning of the families which 
the heads of the community found themselves compelled to make after deep 
and wide alterations had taken place in the circumstances of the tribe. He 
then attempts to determine this time more accurately by the character of the 
names. For since only a very few names in these verses are known to us 
from the historical books, from Genesis to 2d Kings, and the few thus known 
refer to the original divisions of the tribe, which may have maintained them- 
selves till post-exilic times, while, on the contrary, a great number of the 
other names recur in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah ; and since localities 
which in the earliest period after the exile were important for the new com- 
munity are frequently met with in our verses, while such as were constantly 
being mentioned in prse-cxilic times are nowhere to be found, — Bertheau 
supposes that a division of the tribe of Judah is here spoken of, which actually 
existed at some time in the period between Zerubbabel and Ezra. This 
hypothesis has, however, no solid foundation. The assumption even that the 
names in vers. 2-20 belong to just twelve families is very questionable ; for 
this number can only be arrived at by separating the descendants of Caleb, 
ver. 15, from the descendants of Eenaz, vers. 18 and 14, of whom Caleb him- 
self was one, and reckoning them separately. But the circumstance that in 
this reckoning only the names in vers. 12-20 are taken into consideration, 
while no notice is taken of the descendants of Shelah the son of Judah, 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 24-27. 95 

CHAP. IV. 24-43. — THE FAMILIES AND THE DWELLING-PLACES OF 
THE TBIBE OF SIMEON. 

In 25-27 we have, traced down through several generations, 
the genealogy of only one of all the families of the tribe of 
Simeon. There follows thereupon, in vers. 28-33, an enumera- 
tion of the ancient dwelling-places of this tribe ; and finally, in 
vers. 34-43, information is given concerning the emigrations of 
Simeonite families into other neighbourhoods. 

Vers. 24-27. The families of Simeon. — Of the six sons of 
Simeon, Gen. xlvi. 10 and Ex. vi. 15, only the five are here 
named who, according to Num. xxvi. 12-14, founded the families 
of this tribe. The third son, Ohad, is omitted even in Num. 
xxvi. 12 in the list of the families of Simeon, at the numbering 
of the people in the fortieth year of the journey through the 
wilderness, clearly only because the posterity of Ohad had either 
died out, or had so dwindled away that it could form no inde- 

enumerated in vers. 21-23, is ranch more important. Bertheau considers this 
Terse to be merely a supplementary addition, but without reason, as we have 
pointed out on ver. 21. For if the descendants of Shelah form a second line 
of families descended from Judah, co-ordinate with the descendants of Pharez 
and Zerah, the tribe of Judah could not, either before or after the exile, have 
been divided into the twelve families supposed by Bertheau ; for we have no 
reason to suppose, on behalf of this hypothesis, that all the descendants of 
Shelah had died out towards the end of the exile, and that from the time of 
Zerubbabel only families descended from Pharez and Zerah existed. But 
betides this, the hypothesis is decisively excluded by the fact that in the 
enumeration, vers. 2-20, no trace can be discovered of a division of the tribe 
of Judah into twelve families ; for not only are the families mentioned not 
ranged according to the order of the sons and grandsons of Judah mentioned in 
ver. 1, but also the connection of many families with Judah is not even hinted 
at. An enumeration of families which rested upon a division either made or 
already existing at any particular time, would be very differently planned 
and ordered. But if we must hold the supposition of a division of the tribe 
of Judah into twelve families to be unsubstantiated, since it appears irrecon- 
cilable with the present state of these genealogies, we must also believe the 
opinion that this division actually existed at any time between Zerubbabel 
and Etra to be erroneous, and to rest upon no tenable grounds. The relation 
of the names met with in these verses to the names in the books from Genesis 
to 2d Kings on the one hand, and to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah on the 
other, is not really that which Bertheau represents it to be. If we turn our 
attention in the first place to the names of places, we find that, except a few 
quite unknown villages or towns, the localities mentioned in vers. 2-20 occur 
*l*o in the book of Joshua, and many of them even here and there throughout 
Genesis, in the book of Judges, and in the books of Samuel and Kings. In 



Digitized by 



Google 



96 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

pendent family. The names of the five sons agree with the 
names in Num. xxvi. 12-14, except in the case of Jarib, who in 
Num. xxvi. 12, which coincides here with Gen. xlvi. 10 and Ex. 
vi. 15, is called Jachin ; 3 , T, consequently, must be looked upon 
as a transcriber's error for p*. Nemuel and Zerah (TV, the 
rising of the sun) are called in Genesis and Exodus Jemuel (a 
different form of the same name) and Zohar ("iffy i.e. candor), 
another name of similar meaning, which, at first used only as a 
by-name, afterwards supplanted the original name. — Ver. 25. 
"Shallum (was) his son;" without doubt the son of the last 
named Shaul, who in Genesis and Exodus is called the son of a 
Canaanitish woman, and is thereby distinguished from the other 
sons. His family is traced down, in vers. 25 and 26, through six 
generations to one Shimei. But this list is divided into two 
groups by the words " and the sons of Mishma," inserted at the 
beginning of ver. 26, but the reasons for the division are un- 
known. The plural, sons of Mishma, refers to Hammuel and his 

these latter they are somewhat more rarely met with, but only because they 
played no great part in history. The fact of a disproportionate number of 
these towns occurring also in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is connected 
with the peculiar character of the contents of these books, containing as they 
do a number of registers of the families of Judah which had returned out of 
exile. Then if we consider the names of persons in vers. 2-20, we find that 
not a few of them occur in the historical narratives of the books of Samuel 
and Kings. Others certainly are found only in the family registers of the 
books of Ezra and Nehemiah, while others again are peculiar to our verses. 
This phenomenon also is completely accounted for by the contents of the 
various historical books of the Old Testament. For example, had Nehemiah 
not received into his book the registers of all the families who had returned 
from Babylon, and who took part in the building of the walls of Jerusalem, 
no more names would be met with in his book than are found in the books of 
Samuel and Kings. Bertheau attempts to find support for his hypothesis in 
the way in which the names are enumerated, and their loose connection with, 
each other, inasmuch as the disconnected statements abruptly and intermit- 
tently following one another, which to us bring enigma after enigma, must 
have been intended for readers who could bring a key to the understanding 
of the whole from an accurate knowledge of the relations which are here only 
hinted at ; but the strength of this argument depends upon the assumption 
that complete family registers were at the command of the author of the 
Chronicle, from which he excerpted unconnected and obscure fragments, 
without any regard to order. But such an assumption cannot be justified. 
The character of that which is communicated would rather lead us to believe 
that only fragments were in the hands of the chronicler, which he has given 
to us as he found them. We must therefore pronounce this attempt at an 
explanation of the contents and form of vers. 2-20 to be an utter failure. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 28-33. 97 

descendants Zacchur and Shimei. Perhaps these two together 
form, with the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons mentioned 
in ver. 25, a single larger family. — Ver. 27. Shimei had sixteen 
sons and six daughters, by whom he became the father of a 
numerous race. " His brothers," i.e. the other Simeonites, on the 
contrary, had not many sons. Hence it happens that they made 
not their whole race, i.e. the whole race of the Simeonites, 
numerous unto the sons of Judah, i.e. that the Simeonites were 
sot so numerous as the descendants of Judah. This account is 
corroborated by the statement made at the numberings of the 
people under Moses ; see on Num. i.-iv. (i. 2, S. 192). 

Vers. 28-33. The ancient dwelling-places of the Simeonites, 
which they received within the tribal domain of Judah at the 
division of the land by Joshua; cf. Josh. xix. 1 ff. — There are in 
all eighteen cities, divided into two groups, numbering thirteen 
and five respectively, as in Josh. xix. 2-6, where these same cities 
are enumerated in the same order. The only difference is, that 
in Joshua thirteen cities are reckoned in the first group and four 
in the second, although the first group contains fourteen names. 
Between Beersheba and Moladah there stands there a V3E> which 
is not found in our list, and which might be considered to be a 
repetition of the second part of JOB'-iKa, if it were not that in the 
list of the cities, Josh. xv. 26, the name VOB* before Moladah 
corresponds to it. The other differences between the two pas- 
sages arise partly from different forms of the same name being 
used, — as, for example, nnpa for n?3 (Josh.), "wi for town, 
twsna for Wis ; and partly from different names being used of 
the same city',— e.g. T®™ (ver. 31) instead of nUdnra, « the 
house of lions" (Josh.), rjnjrc> instead of jnvie' (Josh.)./ All these 
cities lie in the south land of Judah, and have therefore been 
named in Josh. xv. 26-32 among the cities of that district. As to 
Beersheba, now Bir es Seba, see on Gen. xxi. 31 ; and for Mola- 
dah, which is to be identified with the ruin el Milh to the south 
of Hebron, on the road to Ailah, see on Josh. xv. 26. Bilhah- 
(in Josh. xv. 29, n^2), Ezem, Tolad, and Bethuel (for which in 
Josh. xv. 31 V'pa is found), have not yet been discovered ; cf . on 
Josh. xv. 29 and 30. Hormah, formerly Sephat, is now the ruin 
Sepata, on the western slope of the Bakhma table-land, 2£ hours 
south of Khalasa (Elusa) ; cf. on Josh. xii. 14. Ziklag is most 
probably to be sought in the ancient village Aschludsch or Kas- 
ludsch, to the east of Sepata ; cf. on Josh. xv. 31. Beth-Mar- 

O 



Digitized by 



Google 



98 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

caboth, i.e. "carriage-house," and Hazar-Susim (or Susa), %.e. 
horse-village, both evidently by-names, are called in Josh. xv. 31 
Madmannah and Sansannah. Their position has not yet been 
discovered. Beth-Birei, or Beth-Leboath, is also as yet undis- 
covered ; cf . on Josh. xv. 32. Shaaraim, called in Josh. xv. 32 
Shilhim, is supposed to be the same as Tell Sheriah, between 
Gaza and Beersheba ; cf . Van de Velde, Reise, ii. S. 154. The 
enumeration of these thirteen cities concludes in ver. 31 with the 
strange subscription, " These (were) their cities until the reign 
of David, and their villages." OiTTYrn, which, according to the 
Masoretic division of the verses, stands at the beginning of ver. 
32, should certainly be taken with ver. 31 ; for the places men- 
tioned in ver. 32 are expressly called cities, and in Josh. xix. 6, 
cities and their villages, D^.V", are spoken of. This subscription 
can hardly a only be intended to remind us, that of the first- 
mentioned cities, one (viz. Ziklag, 1 Sam. xxvii. 6), or several, in 
the time of David, no longer belonged to the tribe of Simeon ;" 
nor can it only be meant to state that " till the time of David 
the cities named were in possession of the tribe of Simeon, though 
they did not all continue to be possessed by this tribe at a later 
time" (Berth.). Ziklag had been, even before the reign of 
David, taken away from the Simeonites by the Philistines, and 
had become the property of King Achish, who in the reign of 
Saul presented it to David, and through him it became the pro- 
perty of the kings of Judah (1 Sam. xxvii. 6). The subscription 
can only mean that till the reign of David these cities rightfully 
belonged to the Simeonites, but that during and after David's 
reign this rightful possession of the Simeonites was trenched 
upon ; and of this curtailing of their rights, the transfer of the 
city of Ziklag to the kings of Judah gives one historically 
attested proof. This, however, might not have been the only 
instance of the sort ; it may have brought with it other alterations 
in the possessions of the Simeonites as to which we have no infor- 
mation. The remark of R. Salomo and Kimchi, that the men 
of Judah, when they had attained to greater power under David's 
rule, drove the Simeonites out of their domains, and compelled 
them to seek out other dwelling-places, is easily seen to be an 
inference drawn from the notices in vers. 33-43 of emigrations 
of the Simeonites into other districts ; but it may not be quite 
incorrect, as these emigrations under Hezekiah presuppose a pres- 
sure upon or diminution of their territory. We would indeed 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 28-88. 99 

expect this remark to occur after ver. 33, bat it may have been 
placed between the first and second gronps of cities, for the 
reason that the alterations in the dwelling-places of the Simeon- 
ites which took place in the time of David affected merely the 
first group, while the cities named in ver. 32 f ., with their villages, 
remained at a later time even the untouched possession of the 
Simeohites.- — Ver. 32. Instead of the five cities, Etam, Ain, Rim- 
mon, Tochen, and Ashan, only four are mentioned in Josh. xix. 7, 
viz. Ain, Rimmon, Ether, and Ashan; "WW is written instead of Jain, 
and DD , y is wanting. According to Movers, p. 73, and Berth, in 
his commentary on the passage, the list of these cities must have 
been at first as follows: jiB"! T9 (one city), ">njf, |3ln, and ?W ; 
in Joshua pifl must have fallen out by mistake, in our text 
inj> has been erroneously exchanged for the better known city 
B&V in the tribe of Judah, while by reckoning both ?y and 
tmsrj the number four has become five. These conjectures are 
shown to be groundless by the order of the names in our text. 
For had "injr been exchanged for DB'P, DB'P would not stand in the 
first place, at the head of the four or five cities, but would have 
occupied the place of "ViJ?, which is connected with l^f in Josh. 
xix. 7 and xv. 43. Then again, the fact that in Josh. xv. 32 Ito"! 
is separated from £? by the 1 cop., and in Josh. xix. 7 is reckoned 
by itself as one city as in our verse, is decisive against taking P? 
and ]i&1 together as one name. The want of the conjunction, 
moreover, between the two names here and in Josh. xix. 7, and 
the uniting of the two words into one name, tfQTTJ?, Neh. xi. 29, 
is explained by the supposition that the towns lay in the imme- 
diate neighbourhood of each other, so that they were at a later 
time united, or at least might be regarded as one city. Rimmon 
is perhaps the same as the ruin Rum er Rummanim, four hours 
to the north of Beersheba ; and Ain is probably to be identified 
with a large half-ruined and very ancient well which lies at from 
thirty to thirty-five minutes distance . cf . on Josh. xv. 32. Finally, 
the assertion that the name DD'JJ has come into our text by an 
exchange of the unknown "VW for the name of this better known 
city of Judah, is founded upon a double geographical error. It 
rests (1) upon the erroneous assumption that besides the Etam in 
the high lands of Judah to the south of Bethlehem, there was 
no other city of this name, and that the Etam mentioned in Judg. 
xv. 8, 11 is identical with that in the high lands of Judah ; and 
(2) on the mistaken idea that Ether was also situated in the high 



Digitized by 



Google 



100 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

lands of Judah, whereas it was, according to Josh. xv. 42, one of 
the cities of the Shephelah ; and the Simeonites, moreover, had 
no cities in the high lands of Judah, hut had their dwelling-places 
assigned to them in the Negeb and the Shephelah. The exist- 
ence of a second Etam, besides that in the neighbourhood of 
Bethlehem, is placed beyond doubt by Judg. xv. 8 and 11 ; for 
mention is there made of an Etam in the plain of Judah, which 
is to be sought in the neighbourhood of Khuweilife, on the border 
of the Negeb and the mountainous district : cf. on Judg. xv. 8. 
It is this Etam which is spoken of in our verse, and it is rightly 
grouped with Ain and Rimmon, which were situated in the Negeb, 
while Tochen and Ashan were in the Shephelah. The statement 
of Josh. xix. 7 and xv. 42 leaves no doubt as to the fact that the 
pin of our verse is only another name for "V)V. Etam must 
therefore have come into the possession of the Simeonites after 
Joshua's time, but as to when, or under what circumstances, we 
have no information. — Ver. 33. Concerning the villages belong- 
ing to these cities, cf. on Josh. xix. 8, where for ?V3 we have the 
more accurate *i«a npjja, and Ramah of the south. The position 
of these places has not yet been certainly ascertained. " These 
are their dwelling-places, and their family register was to them ;" 
i.e. although they were only a small tribe and dwelt in the midst 
of Judah, they yet had their own family register (Berth.), fewnn 
infin. is used substantively, " the entering in the family register." 
Vers. 34-43. Emigrations of Simeonite families into other dis- 
tricts. — Vers. 34-41 record an expedition of the Simeonites, in 
the time of Hezekiah, undertaken for purposes of conquest. 
In vers. 34-36, thirteen princes of the tribe of Simeon are enu- 
merated who undertook this expedition. The families of some 
of them are traced through several generations, but in no case 
are they traced down so far as to show their connection with the 
families named in vers. 24-26. — Ver. 38. " These mentioned by 
their names were princes in their families ; whose fathers'-houses 
had increased to a multitude. And they went," etc. TliDB'a D'Kan, 
properly u those who have come with their names," i.e. those 
who have been mentioned by name ; for ttfa with 3 = to come 
with, is to bring something in, to introduce : cf. Ps. lxxi. 16. 
This formula is synonymous with niDB>3 DWGn, ver. 41 ; but we 
cannot consider it, as J. H. Mich., Berth., and others do, identi- 
cal in meaninng with rrtDBfc K$3 "IE*, xii. 31, Num. i. 17, etc. The 
predicate to n^K is DWto, and D'Kan is a relative sentence, more 



Digitized by 



Google 



C3AP. IV. M-48. 101 

accurately defining the subject n?s. Princes in their families 
are not heads of families, but heads of fathers'-houses, into which 
the families had divided themselves. rfaK"JV3 is not construed with 
the plural, as being collective (Berth.), but as the plural of the 
word 3KTV3: cf. Ew. § 270, c— Ver. 39. The princes named " went 
westward from Gedor to the east side of the valley, to seek pas- 
ture for their flocks." "i 1 ^ NilD does not mean the entrance of 
Gedor (Mich., Berth., and others) ; but is, as the corresponding 
"TO, " rising " of the sun, i.e. east, requires, a designation of the 
west, and is abridged from tfotf'f} ttfao, as in statements with refer- 
ence to places rnto is used instead of B'OB'n mtp. The locality 
itself, however, is to us at present unknown. So much is clear, 
that by Gedor, the Gedor mentioned in Josh. xv. 58, situated in 
the high lands of Judah, north of Hebron, cannot be intended, 
for in that district there is no open valley stretching out on either 
hand ; and the Simeonites, moreover, could not have carried on 
a war of conquest in the territory of the tribe of Judah in the 
reign of Hezekiah. Bat where this Gedor is to be sought cannot 
be more accurately determined ; for KJM is certainly not " the 
valley in which the Dead Sea lies, and the southern continuation 
of that valley," as Ewald and Berth, think : that valley has, in 
the Old Testament, always the name f1 ?"JJ| i 7. From the use of 
the article, " the valley," no further conclusion can be drawn, 
than that a definite valley in the neighbourhood of Gedor is 
meant. 1 Even the further statements, in ver. 30, with regard to 
the district, that they found there fat and good pasture, and that 
the land extended on both sides (i.e. was wide), and at rest and 
secure, because formerly the Hamites dwelt there, and the state- 
ment of ver. 41, that the Simeonites found the Meunim there, and 
smote them, give us no firm foothold for the ascertainment of the 
district referred to. The whole Negeb of Judah has been as yet 
too little travelled over and explored by modern travellers, to allow 

1 The LXX. have rendered Y13 by Ttpip, whence Ewald and Berthcau 
conclude that 113 is a transcriber's error for TO. Bat a slip of the pen 
which would make the Gerar bo famed in the history of the patriarchs into 
Gedor is a priori not very probable ; and the defective writing TO, while 
Gedor in the high lands is written "ina, cannot be adduced, as Bertheau 
thinks, in support of the hypothesis, since Gedor even in ver. 18 is written 
defectively. It is decisive against Gerar, that the dwelling-places of the 
Simeonites demonstrably did not extend till towards sunset (westward) from 
Gerar, for the cities assigned to them all lie to the east of Gerar. 



Digitized by 



Google 



102 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

of our forming any probable conjecture as to Gedor and the wide 
valley stretching out on both sides. The description of the Hamite 
inhabitants, ?v6tw riBgtP, reminds us of the inhabitants of the ancient 
Laish (Judg. xviii. 7, 27). Those DH p are people from Ham, 
i.e. Hamites, and they may have been Egyptians, Cushites, or 
even Canaanites (chap. i. 8). This only is certain, that they were 
a peaceful shepherd people, who dwelt in tents, and were there- 
fore nomads. Q, ??r, "formerly," before the Simeonites took 
possession of the land. — Ver. 41. The above-mentioned Simeonite 
princes, with their people, fell upon the peaceful little people of 
the Hamites iu the days of Hezekiah, and smote, i.e. destroyed, 
their tents, and also the Meunites whom they found there. The 
Meunites were strangers in this place, and were probably con- 
nected with the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the 
east of Wady Musa (cf. on 2 Chron. xx. 1 and xxvi. 7), who 
dwelt in tents as nomads, with the Hamites in their richly pas- 
tured valley. Bp*in3, and they destroyed them utterly, as the 
Vulgate rightly renders it, et deleverunt ; and J. H. Mich., ad 
internecionem usque eos exciderunt. The word Qv ?3?, to smite with 
' the curse, having gradually lost its original religious signification, 
came to be used in a wider sense, to denote complete extirpation, 
because all accursed persons were slain. Undoubted examples 
are 2 Chron. xx. 23, xxxii. 14, 2 Kings xix. 11, Isa. xxxvii. 11 ; 
and it is to be so understood here also. 1 " Until this day," ue. 
till the composition of the historical work used by the author 
of the Chronicle,, i.e. till the time before the exile. — Vers. 42 
and 43. A part of the Simeonites undertook a second war of 
conquest against Mount Seir. Led by four chiefs of the sons 
of Shimei (cf. ver. 27), 500 men marched thither, smote the 
remainder of the Amalekites who had escaped, and they dwell 
there to this day (as in ver. 41). DTO is more accurately defined by 

1 Bertheau ignores this secondary use of the word, and has drawn from 
00*111* the extremely wide inference, that the Simeonites, impelled by holy 
enthusiasm, arising from the wondrous deliverance of Judah from the attack 
of the Assyrian power, and the elevation of feeling which it produced in the 
community, and filled with the thought awakened by the discourses of the 
great prophets, that the time had come to extend Israel's rule, and to bring the 
conquered peoples under the curse, just as was done in the time of Joshua, 
had undertaken this war of annexation. But there is unfortunately not a 
single trace of this enthusiastic thought in the narrative of our verse, for it 
knows no other motive for the whole undertaking than the purely earthly 
need to seek and find new pasture lands. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 1-10. 103 

V 'JSD, and is therefore to be referred to the Simeonites in general, 
and not to that part of them only mentioned in ver. 33 (Berth.). 
From the circumstance that the leaders were sons of Shimei, we 
may conclude that the whole troop belonged to this family. The 
escaped of Amalek are those who had escaped destruction in the 
victories of Saul and David over this hereditary enemy of Israel 
(1 Sam. xiv. 48, xv. 7 ; 2 Sam. viii. 12). A remnant of them 
had been driven into the mountain land of Idumea, where they 
were smitten, i.e. extirpated, by the Simeonites. It is not said at 
what time this was done, but it occurred most probably in the 
second half of Hezekiah's reign. 



CHAP. V. 1-26. — THE FAMILIES OF REUBEN, GAD, AND THE HALF 
TRIBE OF MANASSEH BEYOND JORDAN. 

Vers. 1-10. The families of the tribe of Reuben. — Vers. 1, 2. 
Benben is called the first-born of Israel, because he was the 
first-born of Jacob, although, owing to his having defiled his 
father's bed (Gen. xlix. 4), his birthright, i.e. its privileges, were 
transferred to the sons of Joseph, who were not, however, 
entered in the family register of the house of Israel according 
to the birthright, i.e. as first-born sons. The inf. tflW with 
^ expresses " shall" or " must," cf. Ew. § 237, e, " he was not 
to register," i.e. " he was not to be registered." The subject 
is Joseph, as the Rabbins, e.g. Kimchi, have perceived. The 
clauses after wn '3 form a parenthesis, containing the reason of 
Reuben's being called TN-yP ^33, which is still further established 
by its being shown (in ver. 2) how it happened that Joseph, 
although the birthright was given to him, according to the dis- 
position made by the patriarch (Gen. xlviii. 5 ff.), yet was not 
entered in the family registers as first-born. The reason of this 
was, " for Judah was strong among his brethren, and (one) from 
him became the Prince ; " soil, on the strength of the patriarchal 
blessing (Gen. xlix. 8-12), and by means of the historic fulfil- 
ment of this blessing. The " prevailing " of Judah among his 
brethren showed itself even under Moses at the numbering of 
the people, when the tribe of Judah considerably outnumbered 
all the other tribes (cf. t. i. 2, S. 192). Then, again, it appeared 
after the division of the land of Canaan among the tribes of 
Israel, Judah being called by a declaration of the divine will to 
be the vanguard of the army in the war against the Canaanites 



Digitized by 



Google 



104 THE FIKST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

(Judg. i. 1 f .) ; and it was finally made manifest by the "W3 over 
Israel being chosen by God from the tribe of Jndab, in the 
person of David (cf. xxviii. 4 with 1 Sam. xiii. 14, xxv. 30). 
From this we gather that the short, and from its brevity obscure, 
sentence «BB "WJ* bears the signification we have given it. 
" But the birthright was Joseph's ; " i.e. the rights of the pro- 
genitor were transferred to or remained with him, for two tribal 
domains were assigned to his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, 
according to the law of the first-born (Dent. xxi. 15-17). 

After this parenthetic explanation, the words "the sons of 
Reuben, the first-born of Israel," ver. 1, are again taken up in 
ver. 3, and the sons are enumerated. The names of the four sons 
correspond to those given in Gen. xlvi. 9, Ex. vi. 14, and Num. 
xxvi. 5-7. — Vers. 4-6. From one of these sons descended Joel, 
whose family is traced down through seven generations, to the time 
of the Assyrian deportation of the Israelites. But we are neither 
informed here, nor can we ascertain from any information else- 
where given in the Old Testament, from which of the four sons 
Joel was descended. For although many of the names in vers. 
4-6 frequently occur, yet they are nowhere met with in connec- 
tion with the family whose members are here registered. The 
last-named, Beerah, was '33MTW tofeo, a prince of the Reubenites, 
not a prince of the tribe of Reuben, but a prince of a family of 
the Reubenites. This is expressed by ? being used instead of 
the stat. constr.; cf. Ew. § 292, a. In reference to the leading away 
of the trans-Jordanic tribes into captivity by Tiglath-pilneser, 
cf . on 2 Kings xv. 29. The name of this king as it appears in the 
Chronicles is always Tiglath-pilneser, and in the book of Kings 
Tiglath-pileser, but its meaning has not yet been certainly ascer- 
tained. According to Oppert's interpretation, it = "inp-K^BTipin, 
i.e. " worship of the son of the Zodiac" (i.e. the Assyrian Her- 
cules) ; vid. Delitzsch on Isaiah, Introd. — Vers. 7-9. " And 
his brothers, (each) according to his families in the registration, 
according to their descent (properly their generations ; vide for 
Tfnytn on Gen. ii. 4), are (were) the head (the first) Jeiel and 
Zechariah, and Bela, ... the son of Joel," probably the 
Joel already mentioned in ver. 4. " His (i.e. Beerah's) brothers" 
are the families related to the family of Beerah, which were 
descended from the brothers of Joel. That they were not, how- 
ever, properly "brothers," is clear from the fact that Bela's 
descent is traced back to Joel as the third of the preceding 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 1-10. 105 

members of his family ; and the conclusion would be the same, 
even if this Joel be another than the one mentioned in ver. 4. 
The singular suffix with vnhBB'D^ is to be taken distributively, 
or PK may be supplied before it in thought ; cf. Num. ii. 34, 
xi. 10. The word B^h, " head," for the first-born, stands here 
before the name, as in xii. 3, xxiii. 8 ; elsewhere it stands after the 
name, e.g. ver. 12 and ix. 17. The dwelling-places of Bela and his 
family are then given in vers. 86 and 9. " He dwelt in Aroer," 
on the banks of the brook Arnon (Josh. xiii. 9, xii. 2), now the 
ruin Araayr on the northern bank of the Mojeb (vide on Num. 
xxxii. 34). " Until Nebo and Baal-meon" westward. Nebo, a 
village on the hill of the same name in the mountains of Abarim, 
opposite Jericho (cf. on Num. xxxii. 38). Baal-meon is probably 
identical with the ruin Myun, three-quarters of an hour south- 
east from Heshbon. — Ver. 9. " Eastward to the coming to the 
desert (i.e. till towards the desert) from the river Euphrates," i.e. 
to the great Arabico-Syrian desert, which stretches from the 
Euphrates to the eastern frontier of Perea, or from Gilead 
to the Euphrates. Bela's family had spread themselves so 
far abroad, " for their herds were numerous in the land of 
Gilead," i.e. Perea, the whole trans-Jordanic domain of the 
Israelites. — Ver. 10. " In the days of Saul they made war upon 
the Hagarites, and they fell into their hands, and they dwelt in 
their tents over the whole east side of Gilead." The subject 
is not determined, so that the words may be referred either to 
the whole tribe of Reuben or to the family of Bela (ver. 8). The 
circumstance that in vers. 8 and 9 Bela is spoken of in the 
singular {pxrP Kin and 3?*j), while here the plural is used in refer- 
ence to the war, is not sufficient to show that the words do not 
refer to Bela's family, for the narrative has already fallen into 
the plural in the last clause of ver. 9. We therefore think it 
better to refer ver. 10 to the family of Bela, seeing that the wide 
spread of this family, which is mentioned in ver. 9, as far as the 
desert to the east of the inhabited land, presupposes the driving 
out of the Hagarites dwelling on the eastern plain of Gilead. 
The notice of this war, moreover, is clearly inserted here for the 
purpose of explaining the wide spread of the Belaites even to the 
Euphrates desert, and there is nothing which can be adduced 
against that reference. The vns in ver. 7 does not, as Berth 
thinks probable, denote that Bela was a contemporary of Bi 
even if the circumstance that from Bela to Joel onl; 



Digitized by 




Google 



106 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

generations are enumerated, could be reconciled with this sup- 
position. The spread of Bela's family over the whole of the 
Reubenite Gilead, which has just been narrated, proves decisively 
that they were not contemporaries. If Bela lived at the time of 
the invasion of Gilead by Tiglath-pileser, when the prince Beerah 
was carried away into exile, it is certainly possible that he might 
have escaped the Assyrians ; but he could neither have had at 
that time a family " which inhabited all the east land," nor could 
he himself have extended his domain from u Aroer and Nebo 
towards the wilderness," as the words 3?^ Kin, ver. 8, distinctly 
state. We therefore hold that Bela was much older than 
Beerah, for he is introduced as a great-grandson of Joel, so that 
his family might have been as widely distributed as vers. 8, 9 
state, and have undertaken and carried out the war of conquest 
against the Hagarites, referred to in ver. 10, as early as the 
time of Saul. Thus, too, we can most easily explain the fact 
that Bela and his brothers Jeiel and Zechariah are not mentioned. 
As to D'tpan, cf. on ver. 19. 

Vers. 11-17. The families of Hie tribe of Gad, and tlieir dwelling- 
places. — Ver. 11. In connection with the preceding statement as 
to the dwelling-places of the Reubenites, the enumeration of the 
families of Gad begins with a statement as to their dwelling- 
places : " Over against them (the Reubenites) dwelt the Gadites 
in Bashan unto Salcah." Bashan is used here in its wider signifi- 
cation of the dominion of King Og, which embraced the northern 
half of Gilead, i.e. the part of that district which lay on the north 
side of the Jabbok, and the whole district of Bashan ; cf . on 
Deut. iii. 10. Salcah formed the boundary towards the east, 
and is now Szalchad, about six hours eastward from Bosra (see 
on Deut. iii. 10).— Ver. 12. The sons of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16) are 
not named here, because the enumeration of the families of Gad 
had been already introduced by ver. 11, and the genealogical 
connection of the families enumerated in ver. 12 ff., with the 
sons of the tribal ancestor, had not been handed down. In ver. 
12 four names are mentioned, which are clearly those of heads 
of families or fathers'-houses, with the addition " in Bashan," Le. 
dwelling, for Ot£ is to be repeated or supplied from the preceding 
verse. — In ver. 13 seven other names occur, the bearers of which 
are introduced as brothers of those mentioned (ver. 12), according 
to their fathers'-houses. They are therefore heads of fathers'- 
houses, but the district in which they dwelt is not given ; whence 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 11-17. 107 

Bertheau concludes, bat wrongly, that the place where they dwelt 
is not given in the text. The statement which is here omitted 
follows in ver. 16 at a fitting place ; for in vers. 14 and 15 their 
genealogy, which rightly goes before the mention of their 
dwelling-place, is given. n?N, ver. 14, is not to be referred, as 
Bertheau thinks, to the four Gadites mentioned in vers. 12 and 
13, but only to those mentioned in ver. 13. Nothing more was 
known of those four (ver. 12) but that they dwelt in Bashan, 
while the genealogy of the seven is traced up through eight gene- 
rations to a certain Buz, of whom nothing further is known, as 
the name na occurs nowhere else, except in Gen. xxii. 21 as that 
of a sou of Nahor. The names of his ancestors also are not 
found elsewhere among the Gadites. — Ver. 15. The head of their 
fathers'-houses (i.e. of those mentioned in ver. 13) was Ahi the 
son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, who is conjectured to have lived 
in the time of King Jotham of Judah, or of Jeroboam ii. of 
Israel, when, according to ver. 17, genealogical registers of the 
Gadites were made up. — Ver. 16. The families descended from 
Buz " dwelt in Gilead," in the part of that district lying to the 
south of the Jabbok, which Moses had given to the Gadites 
and Beubenites (Deut. iii. 12) ; " in Bashan and her daughters," 
that is, in the villages belonging to the cities of Bashan and 
Gilead inhabited by them (for the suffix in nvifaria is to be 
referred distributively to both districts, or the cities in them). 
u And in all the pasture grounds (ts^ap, cf. on Num. xxxv. 2) 
of Sharon unto their outgoings." |1">B*, Sharon, lay not in Perea, 
but is a great plain on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, 
extending from Carmel to near Joppa, famed for its great 
fertility and its rich growth of flowers (Song ii. 1 ; Isa. xxxiii. 
9, xxxv. 2, bcv. 10). " A Ccetarea PalcestincB usque ad oppidum 
Joppe omnia terra, qua eernitur, dieitur Saronas." Jerome in Onom. ; 
cf. v. Baumer, Pal. S. 50, and Robins. Phys. Geog. S. 123. It is 
this plain which is here meant, and the supposition of the older 
commentators that there was a second Sharon in the east- 
Jordan land is without foundation, as Reland, Palestina illustr. 
p. 370 sq., has correctly remarked. For it is not said that the 
Gadites possessed cities in Sharon, but only pastures of Sharon 
are spoken of, which the Gadites may have sought out for their 
herds even on the coast of the Mediterranean ; more especially as 
the domain of the cis-Jordanic half-tribe of Manasseh stretched 
into the plain of Sharon, and it is probable that at all times 



Digitized by 



Google 



108 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

there was intercourse between the cis- and trans-Jordanic Manas- 
sites, in which the Gadites may also have taken part. Qfritftta are 
the outgoings of the pastures to the sea, cf. Josh. xvii. 9. — Ver. 
17. "All these (D^3, all the families of Gad, not merely those 
mentioned in ver. 13 ff.) were registered in the days of Jotham 
king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel." 
These two kings did not reign contemporaneously, for Jotham 
ascended the throne in Judah twenty-five years after the death 
of Jeroboam of Israel. Here, therefore, two different registra- 
tions must be referred to, and that carried on under Jotham is 
mentioned first, because Judah had the legitimate kingship. That 
set on foot by Jeroboam was probably undertaken after that king 
had restored all the ancient boundaries of the kingdom of Israel, 
2 Kings xiv. 25 ff. King Jotham of Judah could prepare a 
register of the Gadites only if a part of the trans-Jordanic tribes 
had come temporarily under his dominion. As to any such event, 
indeed, we have no accurate information, but the thing in itself is 
not unlikely. For as the death of Jeroboam II. was followed by 
complete anarchy in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and one ruler 
overthrew the other, until at last Pekah succeeded in holding the 
crown for ten years, while in Judah until Pekah ascended the 
throne of Israel Uzziah reigned, and raised his kingdom to greater 
power and prosperity, the southern part of the trans-Jordanic land 
might very well have come for a time under the sway of Judab. 
At such a time Jotham may have carried out an assessment 
and registration of the Gadites, until his contemporary Pekah 
succeeded, with the help of the Syrian king Rezin, in taking from 
the king of Judah the dominion over Gilead, and in humbling 
the kingdom of Judah in the reign of Ahaz. 

Vers. 18-22. War of the trans-Jordanic tribes of Israel with 
Arabic tribes. — As the half-tribe of Manasseh also took part in 
this war, we should have expected the account of it after ver. 24. 
Bertheau regards its position here as a result of striving after a 
symmetrical distribution of the historical information. " In the 
case of Reuben," he says, " the historical information is in ver. 
10 ; in the case of the half-tribe of Manasseh, in vers. 25 and 26 ; 
as to Gad, we have our record in vers. 18-22, which, together 
with the account in vers. 25 and 26, refers to all the trans-Jor- 
danic Israelites." But it is much more likely that the reason of 
it will be found in the character of the authorities which the 
author of the Chronicle made use of, in which, probably, the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 18-22. 109 

notes regarding this war were contained in the genealogical 
register of the Gadites. — Ver. 18. ?n *l*~7? belongs to the predi- 
cate of the sentence, " They were the sons of valour," i.e. they 
belonged to the valiant warriors, " men bearing shield and sword 
(weapons of offence and defence), and those treading (or bending) 
the bow," i.e. skilful bowmen, ^onpo v TOp, people practised in 
war; cf. the portrayal of the warlike valour of Gad and Manas- 
seh, chap. xii. 8, 21. "The number 44,760 must be founded 
upon an accurate reckoning" (Berth.); but in comparison with 
the number of men capable of bearing arms in those tribes in 
the time of Moses, it is somewhat inconsiderable : for at the first 
numbering under him Reuben alone had 46,500 and Gad 45,650, 
and at the second numbering Reuben had 43,730 and Gad 40,500 
men ; see on Num. i.-iv. (i. 2, S. 192). — Ver. 19. u They made war 
with the Hagarites and Jetur, Nephish and Nodab." So early as 
the time of Saul the Reubenites had victoriously made war upon 
the Hagarites (see ver. 10) ; but the war here mentioned was 
certainly at a later time, and has no further connection with that 
in ver. 10 except that both arose from similar causes. The time 
of the second is not given, and all we know from ver. 22b is that 
it had broken out before the trans-Jordanic Israelites were led 
captive by the Assyrians. D'JOTJrt, in Ps. lxxxiii. 7 contracted 
into B*V*} } are the 'Aypaioi, whom Strabo, xvi. p. 767, introduces, 
on the authority of Eratosthenes, as leading a nomadic life in 
the great Arabico-Syrian desert, along with the Nabataeans and 
Chaulotaeans. Jetur, from whom the Itureans are descended, and 
Nephish, are Ishmaelites ; cf. on Gen. xxv. 15. Nodab, mentioned 
only here, is a Bedouin tribe of whom nothing more is known. 
—Ver. 20. The Israelites, with God's help, gained the victory. 
"SCj "it was helped to them," i.e. by God "against them" — the 
Hagarites and their allies. OHrB^& contracted from ontsy ipn. 
"nnjn is not an uncommon form of the perf. Niph., which would 
not be suitable in a continuous sentence, but the inf. absol. Niph. 
used instead of the third pers. perf. (cf. Gesen. Heb. Gramm. 
§ 131, 4) : " and (God) was entreated of them, because they 
trusted in Him." From these words we may conclude that the 
war was a very serious one, in which the possession of the land 
was at stake. As the trans-Jordanic tribes lived mainly by cattle- 
breeding, and the Arabian tribes on the eastern frontier of their 
land were also a shepherd people, quarrels could easily arise as to 
the possession of the pasture grounds, which might lead to a war 



Digitized by 



Google 



110 THE FIHST BOOK OF CHEONICLES. 

of extermination. — Ver. 21. The conquerors captured a great 
booty in herds, 50,000 camels, 250,000 head of small cattle (sheep 
and goats), 2000 asses, and 100,000 persons — all round numbers ; 
cf. the rich booty obtained in the war against the Midianites, 
Num. xxxi. 11, 32 if. — Ver. 22. This rich booty should not sur- 
prise us, " for there fell many slain," i.e. the enemy had suffered 
a very bloody defeat. " For the war was from God," ue. con- 
ducted to this result : cf . 2 Ghron. xxv. 20 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 47. 
" And they dwelt in their stead," i.e. they took possession of the 
pasture grounds, which up to that time had belonged to the 
Arabs, and held them until they were carried away captive by 
the Assyrians ; see ver. 26. 

Vers. 23-26. The families of the half-tribe of Manasseh in 
Bashan, and the leading away of the East-Jordan Israelites into 
the Assyrian exile. — Ver. 23. The half-tribe of Manasseh in 
Bashan was very numerous (WJ nen), « and they dwelt in the 
land of Bashan (t.e. the Bashan inhabited by Gad, ver. 12) (north- 
wards) to Baal Hermon," — i.e., according to the more accurate 
designation of the place in Josh. xii. 7 and xiii. 5, in the valley 
of Lebanon under Mount Hermon, probably the present Ban jas, 
at the foot of Hermon (see on Num. xxxiv. 8), — " and Senir and 
Mount Hermon." "Wfc, which according to Deut. iii. 9 was the 
name of Hermon or Antilibanus in use among the Amorites, is 
here and in Ezek. xxvii. 5 the name of a part of those mountains 
(vide on Deut iii. 9), just as " Mount Hermon" is the name of 
another part of this range. — Ver. 24. Seven heads of fathers'- 
houses of the half-tribe of Manasseh are enumerated, and cha- 
racterized as valiant heroes and famous men. The enumeration 
of the names begins strangely with l PJ8)) 5 perhaps a name has 
fallen out before it. Nothing has been handed down as to any 
of these names. — Vers. 25 and 26 form the conclusion of the 
register of the two and a half trans-Jordanic tribes. The sons of 
Manasseh are not the subject to WJJBJ}, but the Reubenites and 
Manassites, as is clear from ver. 26. These fell away faithlessly 
from the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods 
of the people of the land, whom God had destroyed before them, 
i.e. the Amorites or Canaanites. " And the God of Israel stirred 
up the spirit of the Assyrian kings Pul and Tiglath-pilneser, and 
he (this latter) led them away captives to Halah and Habor," etc 
™" rn ? "'SJ!, Lavater has rightly rendered, " in mentem illis dedit, 
movit eos, ut expeditionemfacerent contra illos;" cf. 2 Chron. xxi. 16. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 28-26. Ill 

Pol Is mentioned as being the first Assyrian king who attacked 
the land of Israel, cf. 2 Kings xv. 19 f. The deportation began, 
however, only with Tiglath-pileser, who led the East-Jordan 
tribes into exile, 2 Kings xv. 29. To him DJW sing, refers. The 
suffix is defined by the following ace, 'Ul *J3Wv ; b is, according 
to the later usage, nota ace. ; cf. Ew. § 277, e. So also before the 
name n?n, « to Halah," i.e. probably the district KaXa^vrj (in 
Strabo) on the east side of the Tigris near Adiabene, to the north 
of Nineveh, on the frontier of Armenia (cf. on 2 Kings xvii. 6). 
In the second book of Kings (xv. 29) the district to which the 
two and a half tribes were sent as exiles is not accurately deter- 
mined, being only called in general Asshur (Assyria). The 
names in our verse are there (2 Kings xvii. 6) the names of the 
districts to which Shalmaneser sent the remainder of the ten 
tribes after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. It is 
therefore questionable whether the author of the Chronicle took 
his account from an authority used by him, or if he names these 
districts only according to general recollection, in which the times 
of Shalmaneser and of Tiglath-pilneser are not very accurately 
distinguished (Berth.). We consider the first supposition the 
more probable, not merely because he inverts the order of the 
names, but mainly because he gives the name K"jn instead of " the 
cities of Media," as it is in Kings, and that name he could only 
have obtained from his authorities, ltan is not the river Cha- 
boras in Mesopotamia, which falls into the Euphrates near Cir- 
cesium, for that river is called in Ezekiel "133, but is a district 
in northern Assyria, where Jakut mentions that there is both 
a mountain Xa/3a>pa<; on the frontier of Assyria and Media 
(Ptolem. vi. 1), and a river Khabur Chasanise, which still bears 
the old name KMbur, rising in the neighbourhood of the upper 
Zab, near Amadijeh, and falling into the Tigris below Jezirah. 
This Kh&bar is the river of Gozan (vide on 2 Kings xvii. 6). 
The word ton appears to be the Aramaic form of the Hebrew 
in, mountains, and the vernacular designation usual in the mouths 
of the people of the mountain land of Media, which is called also 
in Arabic el Jebal (the mountains). This name can there- 
fore only have been handed down from the exiles who dwelt 
there. 



Digitized by 



Google 



112 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 



CHAP. V. 27-VI. 66.— THE FAMILIES OF LEVI, AND THEIR CITIES. 

As to the tribe of Levi, we have several communications : 
(1.) the genealogy of the high-priestly family of Aaron, down 
to Jehozadak, who was led away into exile by Nebuchadnezzar 
(v. 27-41) ; (2.) a short register of the families of Gershon, 
Kohath, and Merari, which does not extend far into later times 
(vi. 1-15) ; (3.) the genealogies of the musicians Heman, 
Asaph, and Ethan (vi. 16-32), with remarks on the service of 
the other Levites (vers. 33, 34) ; (4.) a register of the high 
priests from Eleazar to Ahimaaz the son of Zadok (vi. 35-38), 
with a register of the cities of the Levites (vi. 39-66). If we look 
into these genealogies and registers, we see, both from a repetition 
of a part of the genealogy of the high priest (vi. 35-38), and 
also from the name of the eldest son of Levi appearing in two 
different forms — in v. 27 ff. Gershon ; in vi. 1, 2, 5, etc., Ger- 
shom — that the register in v. 27-41 is drawn from another source 
than the registers in chap, vi., which, with the exception of the 
genealogies of David's chief musicians, are throughout fragmen- 
tary, and in parts corrupt, and were most probably found by the 
author of the Chronicle in this defective state. 

Chap. v. 27-41. The family of Aaron, or the high-priestly 
line of Aaron, to the time of the Babylonian exile. — Vers. 27-29. 
In order to exhibit the connection of Aharon (or Aaron) with 
the patriarch Levi, the enumeration begins with the three sons 
of Levi, who are given in ver. 27 as in Gen. xlvi. 11, Ex. vi. 16, 
and in other passages. Of Levi's grandchildren, only the four 
sons of Kohath (ver. 28) are noticed ; and of these, again, Amram 
is the only one whose descendants — Aaron, Moses, and Miriam — 
are named (ver. 29) ; and thereafter only Aaron's sons are intro- 
duced, in order that the enumeration of his family in the high- 
priestly line of Eleazar might follow. With ver. 28 cf. Ex. 
i. 18, and on ver. 19 see the commentary on Ex. vi. 20. With 
the sons of Aaron (296) compare besides Ex. vi. 23, also Num. 
iii. 2-4, and 1 Chron. xxiv. 1, 2. As Nadab and Abihu were slain 
when they offered strange fire before Jahve (Lev. x. 1 ff.), Aaron's 
race was continued only by his sons Eleazar and Ithamar. After 
Aaron's death, his eldest son Eleazar was chosen by God to be his 
successor in the high priest's office, and thus the line of Eleazar 
came into possession of the high-priestly dignity. 

In vers. 30-41 the descendants of Eleazar are enumerated 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 27-41. 113 

in twenty-two generations ; the word TO, " he begat," being 
repeated with every name. The son so begotten was, when he 
lived after his father, the heir of the high-priestly dignity. Thus 
Phinehas the son of Eleazar (Ex. vi. 25) is found in possession 
of it in Judg. xx. 28. From this the older commentators have 
rightly drawn the inference that the purpose of the enumeration 
in vers. 30-40 was to communicate the succession of high priests 
from Eleazar, who died shortly after Joshna (Josh. xxiv. 33), to 
Jehozadak, whom Nebuchadnezzar caused to be carried away 
into Babylon. From the death of Aaron in the fortieth year 
after Israel came forth from Egypt, till the building of the 
temple in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon, 440 years 
elapsed (480-40 = 440, 1 Kings vi. 1). From the building of 
the temple to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple 
by the Ghaldseans there was an interval of 423 years (36 years 
under Solomon, and 387 years during which the kingdom of 
Jndah existed ; see the chronological table to 1 Kings xii.). Be- 
tween the death of Aaron, therefore, and the time when Jeho- 
zadak was led away into captivity, supposing that that event 
occurred only under Zedekiah, lay a period of 440 + 423 = 863 
years. For this period twenty-two generations appear too few, for 
then the average duration of each life would be 39£ years. Such 
an estimate would certainly appear a very high one, but it does 
not pass the bounds of possibility, as cases may have occurred 
in which the son died before the father, when consequently the 
grandson would succeed the grandfather in the office of high 
priest, and the son would be omitted in our register. The ever- 
recurring TOTi cannot be brought forward in opposition to this 
supposition, because TTin j n the genealogical lists may express 
mediate procreation, and the grandson may be introduced as 
begotten by the grandfather. On the supposition of the exist- 
ence of such cases, we should have to regard the average above 
mentioned as the average time during which each of the high 
priests held the office. But against such an interpretation of 
this list of the posterity of Eleazar two somewhat serious diffi- 
culties are raised. The less serious of these consists in this, that 
in the view of the author of our register, the line of Eleazar 
remained in uninterrupted possession of the high-priestly dignity ; 
but in the historical books of the Old Testament another line of 
high priests, beginning with Eli, is mentioned, which, according 
to 1 Cbron. xxiv. 5, and Joseph. Antt. v. 11. 5, belonged to the 

H 



Digitized by 



Google 



114 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

family of Ithamar. The list is as follows : Eli (1 Sam. ii. 20) ; 
his son Phinehas, who, however, died before Eli (1 Sam. iv. 11) ; 
his son Ahitub (1 Sam. xiv. 3) ; his son Ahijah, who was also 
called Ahimelech (1 Sam. xiv. 3, xxii. 9, 11, 20) ; his son Abia- 
thar (1 Sam. xxii. 20), from whom Solomon took away the 
high-priesthood (1 Kings ii. 26 f.), and set Zadok in his place 
(1 Kings ii. 35). According to Josephns, he. tit., the high- 
priestly dignity remained with the line of Eleazar, from Eleazar 
to Ozi ('?Jf, ver. 31 f.) ; it then fell to Eli and his descendants, 
until with Zadok it returned to the line of Eleazar. These 
statements manifestly rest npon truthful historical tradition; 
for the supposition that at the death of Ozi the high-priesthood 
was transferred from the line of Eleazar to the line of Ithamar 
through Eli, is supported by the circumstance that from the 
beginning of the judgeship of Eli to the beginning of the reign 
of Solomon a period of 139 years elapsed, which is filled up in 
both lines by five names, — Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahijah, and 
Abiathar in the passages above quoted ; and Zerahiah, Meraioth, 
Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok in vers. 32-34 of our chapter. 
But the further opinion expressed by Joseph. Antt. viii. 1. 3, 
that the descendants of Eleazar, during the time in which Eli 
and his descendants were in possession of the priesthood, lived 
as private persons, plainly rests on a conjecture, the incorrectness 
of which is made manifest by some distinct statements of the 
Old Testament : for, according to 2 Sam. viii. 17 and xx. 25, 
Zadok of Eleazar's line, and Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, 
were high priests in the time of David ; cf . 1 Chron. xxiv. 5 f . 
The transfer of the high-priestly dignity, or rather of the official 
exercise of the high-priesthood, to Eli, one of Ithamar's line, 
after Ozi's death, was, as we have already remarked on 1 Sam. 
ii. 27 ff ., probably brought about by circumstances or relations 
which are not now known to us, but without an extinction of 
the right of Ozi's descendants to the succession in the dignity. 
But when the wave of judgment broke over the house of Eli, 
the ark was taken by the Philistines ; and after it had been sent 
back into the land of Israel, it was not again placed beside the 
tabernacle, but remained during seventy years in the house of 
Abinadab (1 Sam. iv. 4-vii. 2). Years afterwards David caused 
it to be brought to Jerusalem, and erected a separate tent for it 
on Zion, while the tabernacle had meanwhile been transferred to 
Gibeon, where it continued to be the place where sacrifices were 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 27-41. 115 

offered till the building of the temple. Thus there arose two 
places of worship, and in connection with them separate spheres 
of action for the high priests of both lines, — Zadok performing the 
duties of the priestly office at Gibeon (1 Chron. xvi. 39 ; cf . 1 
Kings iii. 4 ff .), while Abiathar discharged its functions in Jeru- 
salem. But without doubt not only Zadok, but also his father 
Aliifab before him, had discharged the duties of high priest in 
the tabernacle at Gibeon, while the connection of Eli's sons with 
the office came to an end with the slaughter of Ahijah (Ahime- 
lech) and all the priesthood at Nob (1 Sam. xxii.) ; for Abiathar, 
the only son of Ahimelech, and the single survivor of that mas- 
sacre, fled to David, and accompanied him continuously in his 
flight before Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 20-23). But, not content with the 
slaughter of the priests in Nob, Saul also smote the city itself with 
the edge of the sword ; whence it is probable, although all definite 
information to that effect is wanting, that it was in consequence 
of this catastrophe that the tabernacle was removed to Gibeon 
and the high-priesthood entrusted to Zadok' s father, a man -of 
the line of Eleazar, because the only son of Ahimelech, and the 
only representative of Ithamar's line, had fled to David. If this 
view be correct, of the ancestors of Ahitub, only Amariah, 
Meraioth, and Zerahiah did not hold the office of high priest. 
But if these had neither been supplanted by Eli nor had ren- 
dered themselves unworthy of the office by criminal conduct ; if 
the only reason why the possession of the high-priesthood was 
transferred to Eli wasj that Ozi's son Zerahiah was not equal to 
the discharge of the duties of the office under the difficult cir- 
cumstances of the time ; and if Eli's grandson Ahitub succeeded 
his grandfather in the office at a time when God had already 
announced to Eli by prophets the approaching ruin of his house, 
then Zerahiah, Meraioth, and Amariah, although not de facto 
in possession of the high-priesthood, might still be looked upon 
as de jure holders of the dignity, and so be introduced in the 
genealogies of Eleazar as such. In this way the difficulty is 
completely overcome. 

Bat it is somewhat more difficult to explain the other fact, 
that our register on the one hand gives too many names for 
the earlier period and too few for the later time, and on the 
other hand is contradicted by some definite statements of the 
historical books. We find too few names for the time from the 
death of Aaron to the death of Uzzi (Ozi), when Eli became 



Digitized by 



Google 



116 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

high priest, — a period of 299 years (vide the Chronological View 
of the Period of the Judges, ii. 1, S. 217). Five high priests 
— Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, and Uzzi — are too few ; 
for in that case each one of them must have discharged the 
office for 60 years, and have begotten the son who succeeded 
him in the office only in his 60th year, or the grandson must 
have regularly succeeded the grandfather in the office, — all of 
which suppositions appear somewhat incredible. Clearly, there- 
fore, intermediate names must have been omitted in our register. 
To the period from Eli till the deposition of Abiathar, in the 
beginning of Solomon's reign — which, according to the chrono- 
logical survey, was a period of 139 years — the last five names 
from Zerahiah to Zadok correspond ; and as 24 years are thus 
assigned to each, and Zadok held the office for a number of 
years more under Solomon, we may reckon an average of 30 
years to each generation. For the following period of about 417 
years from Solomon, or the completion of the temple, till the 
destruction of the temple by the Chaldseans, the twelve names 
from Ahimaaz the son of Zadok to Jehozadak, who was led 
away into captivity, give the not incredible average of from 34 
to 35 years for each generation, so that in this part of our 
register not many breaks need be supposed. But if we examine 
the names enumerated, we find (1) that no mention is made of 
the high priest Jehoiada, who raised the youthful Joash to the 
throne, and was his adviser during the first years of his reign 
(2 Kings xi., and 2 Chron. xxii. 10, xxiv. 2), and that under 
Ahaz, Urijah, who indeed is called only jnbn, but who was cer- 
tainly high priest (2 Kings xvi. 10 ff.), is omitted ; and (2) we 
find that the name Azariah occurs three times (vers. 35, 36, and 
40), on which Berth, remarks : " Azariah is the name of the 
high priest in the time of Solomon (1 Kings iv. 2), in the time 
of Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 17), and in the time of Hezekiah (2 
Chron. xxxi. 10)." Besides this, we meet with an Amariah, the 
fifth after Zadok, whom Lightf., Oehler, and others consider to 
be the high priest of that name under Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. 
xix. 11. And finally, (3) in the historical account in 2 Kings 
xxii. 4 ff., Hilkiah is mentioned as high priest under Josiah, 
while according to our register (ver. 39) Hilkiah begat Azariah ; 
whence we must conclude either that Hilkiah is not the high 
priest of that name under Josiah, or Azariah is not the person 
of that name who lived in the time of Hezekiah. As regards 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 27-4t 117 

the omission of the names Urijah and Jehoiada in our register, 
Urijah may have been passed over as an unimportant man ; but 
Jehoiada had exerted far too important an influence on the fate 
of the kingdom of Judah to allow of his being so overlooked. 
The only possibilities in his case are, either that he occurs in 
our register under another name, owing to his having had, like 
so many others, two different names, or that the name P^in*. has 
fallen out through an old error in the transcription of the genealo- 
gical list. The latter supposition, viz.. that Jehoiada has fallen 
oat before Johanan, is the more probable. Judging from 2 Kings 
xu. 3 and 2 Chron. xxiv. 2, Jehoiada died under Joash, at least five 
or ten years before the king, and consequently from 127 to 132 
years after Solomon, at the advanced age of 130 years (2 Chron. 
xxiv. 15). He was therefore born shortly before or after the death 
of Solomon, being a great-grandson of Zadok, who may have died 
a considerable time before Solomon, as he had filled the office of 
high priest at Gibeon under David for a period of 30 years. 

Then, if we turn our attention to the thrice recurring name 
Azariah, we see that the Azariafr mentioned in 1 Kings iv. 2 
cannot be regarded as the high priest; for the word jnb in 
this passage does not denote the high priest, but the viceroy 
of the kingdom (vide on the passage). But besides, this 
Azariah cannot be the same person as the Azariah in ver. 
35 of our genealogy, because he is called a son of Zadok, 
while our Azariah is introduced as the son of Ahimaaz, the son 
of Zadok, and consequently "as a grandson of Zadok ; and the 
grandson of Zadok who is mentioned as being high priest along 
with Abiathar, 1 Kings iv. 4, could not have occupied in his 
grandfather's time the first place among the highest public officials 
of Solomon. The Azariah mentioned in 1 Kings iv. 2 as the 
ton of Zadok must not be considered to be a brother of the 
Ahimaaz of our register, for we very seldom find a nephew and 
uncle called by the same name. As to the Azariah of ver. 36, the 
son of Johanan, it is remarked, " This is he who was priest (or 
who held the priest's office ; |H3, cf. Ex. xl. 13, Lev. xvi. 32) in 
the boose (temple) which Solomon had built in Jerusalem." 
B. Sal. and Kimchi have connected this remark with the events 
narrated in 2 Chron. xxvi. 17, referring it to the special jealousy 
of King Uzziah's encroachments on the priest's office, in 
arrogating to himself in the temple the priestly function of 
offering incense in the holy place. Against this, indeed, J. H. 



Digitized by 



Google 



118 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Mich, has raised the objection, quod tamen ehronologice rattones 
via admittunt ; and it is true that this encroachment of Uzziah's 
happened 200 years after Solomon's death, while the Azariah 
mentioned in our register is the fourth after Zadok. But if the 
name Jehoiada has been dropped out before Johanan, and 
Jehoiada held the high priest's office for a considerable time 
under Joash, the high-priesthood of his grandson Azariah would 
coincide with Uzziah's reign, when of course the chronological 
objection to the above-mentioned explanation of the words KV* 
'Ul jna "lefct is removed. 1 But lastly, the difficulty connected 
with the fact that in our passage Azariah follows Hilkiah, while 
in 2 Kings xxii. 4 ff. and 2 Chron. xxxi. 10, 13, Azariah 
occurs as high priest under King Hezekiah, and Hilkiah in the 
time of his great-grandson Josiah, cannot be cleared away by 
merely changing the order of the names Hilkiah and Azariah. 
For, apart altogether from the improbability of such a transposi- 
tion having taken place in a register formed as this is, " Shallum 
begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, and Azariah begat," 
the main objection to it is the fact that between Azariah, ver. 
26, who lived under Uzziah, and Hilkiah, four names are intro- 
duced ; so that on this supposition, during the time which elapsed 
between Uzziah's forcing his way into the temple till the pass- 
over under Hezekiah, i.e. during a period of from 55 to 60 years, 

1 Bertheau'a explanation is inadmissible. He says : " If we consider 
that in the long line of the high priests, many of them bearing the same 
name, it would naturally suggest itself to distinguish the Azariah who first 
discharged the duties of his office in the temple, in order to bring a fixed 
chronology into the enumeration of the names ; and if we recollect that a high 
priest Azariah, the son, or according to our passage more definitely the 
grandson, of Zadok, lived in the time of Solomon ; and finally, if we consider 
the passage chap. vi. 17, we must hold that the words, ' He it is who dis- 
charged the duties of priest in the temple which Solomon had built in Jeru- 
salem,' originally stood after the name Azariah in ver. 85 ; cf . 1 Kings iv. 2." 
All justification of the proposed transposition is completely taken away by 
the fact that the Azariah of 1 Kings iv. 2 was neither high priest nor the same 
person as the Azariah in ver. 35 of our register ; and it is impossible that a 
grandson of Zadok whom Solomon appointed to the high-priesthood, instead 
of Abiathar, can have been the first who discharged the duties of high priest 
in the temple. Oehler's opinion (in HerzogU liealeneyklop. vi 205), that the 
Amariah who follows Azariah (ver. 87) is identical with the Amariah under 
Jehoshaphat, is not less improbable ; for Jehoshaphat was king sixty-one years 
after Solomon's death, and during these sixty-one years the four high priests 
who are named between Zadok and Amariah could not have succeeded each 
other. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 27-41. 119 

four generations must have followed one another, which is quite 
impossible. In addition to this, between Hezekiah and Josiah 
came the reigns of Manasseh and Amon, who reigned 55 years 
and 2 years respectively ; and from the passover of Hezekiah to 
the finding of the book of the law by the high priest Hilkiah 
in the eighteenth year of Josiah, about 90 years had elapsed, 
whence it is clear that on chronological grounds Hilkiah cannot 
well have been the successor of Azariah in the high-priesthood. 
The Azariah of ver. 39 f ., therefore, cannot be identified with the 
Azariah who was high priest under Hezekiah (2 Ghron. xxxi. 10) ; 
and no explanation seems possible, other than the supposition that 
between Ahitub and Zadok the begetting of Azariah has been 
dropped out. On this-assumption the Hilkiah mentioned in ver. 
39 may be the high priest in the time of Josiah, although between 
him and the time when Jehozadak was led away into exile three 
names, including that of Jehozadak, are mentioned, while from 
the eighteenth year of Josiah till the destruction of the temple by 
the Chaldseans only 30 years elapsed. For Hilkiah may have 
been in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign very old ; and at the 
destruction of Jerusalem, not Jehozadak, but his father Seraiah 
the grandson of Hilkiah, was high priest, and was executed at 
Jtiblah by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 18, 21), from which 
we may conclude that Jehozadak was led away captive in his 
early years. The order in which the names occur in our register, 
moreover, is confirmed by Ezra vii. 1-5, where, in the statement 
as to the family of Ezra, the names from Seraiah onwards to 
Amariah ben- Azariah occur in the same order. The correspond- 
ence would seem to exclude any alterations of the order, either 
by transposition of names or by the insertion of some which had 
been dropped ; but yet it only proves that both these genealogies 
have been derived from the same authority, and does not at all 
remove the possibility of this authority itself having had some 
defects. The probability of such breaks as we suppose in the 
case of Jehoiada and Azariah, who lived under Hezekiah, is 
shown, apart altogether from the reasons which have been already 
brought forward in support of it, by the fact that our register has 
only eleven generations from Zadok, the contemporary of Solo- 
mon, to Seraiah, who was slain at the destruction of Jerusalem ; 
while the royal house of David shows seventeen generations, viz. 
the twenty kings of Judah, omitting Athaliah, and Jehoahaz and 
Zedekiah, the last two as being brothers of Jehoiakim (1 Chron. 



Digitized by 



Google 



120 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

iii. 10-27). Even supposing that the king's sons were, as a rule, 
earlier married, and begat children earlier than the priests, yet 
the difference between eleven and seventeen generations for the 
same period is too great, and is of itself sufficient to suggest that 
in our register of the high priests names are wanting, and that 
the three or four high priests known to us from the historical 
books who are wanting — Amariah under Jehoshaphat, Jehoiada 
under Joash, (Urijah under Ahaz,) and Azariah under Hezekiah 
— were either passed over or had fallen out of the list made use of 
by the author of the Chronicle. 1 — Ver. 41. Jehozadak is the father 
of Joshua who returned from exile with Zerubbabel, and was 
the first high priest in the restored community (Ezra iii. 2, v. 2 ; 
Hagg. i. 1). After ipn, " he went forth," i"W33 is to be supplied 
from 'U1 rorca, « he went into exile " to Babylon ; cf . Jer. xlix. 3. 

Chap. vi. The families and cities of the Levites. — Vers. 1-34. 
Register of the families of the Levites. — This is introduced by an 
enumeration of the sons and grandsons of Levi (vers. 1-4), which 
is followed by lists of families in six lines of descent : (a) the 
descendants of Gershon (vers. 5-7), of Kohath (vers. 1-13), and 
of Merari (vers. 14 and 15) ; and (o) the genealogies of David's 
chief musicians (vers. 16 and 17), of Heman the Kohathite (vers. 
18-23), of Asaph the Gershonite (vers. 24-28), and of Ethan the 
Merarite (vers. 29-32) ; and in vers. 33, 34, some notes as to the 
service performed by the other Levites and the priests are added. 

Vers. 1-4. The sons of Levi are in ver. 1 again enumerated as 
in v. 27 ; then in vers. 2-4a the sons of these three sons, i.e. the 
grandsons of Levi, are introduced, while in chap. v. 28 only the 
sons of Kohath are mentioned. The only object of this enumera- 
tion is to make quite clear the descent of the Levitic families which 
follow. The name of the first son of Levi is in vers. J, 2, 4, 
etc. of this chapter D"ena, which was the name of Moses' son, cf. 
xxiii. 15 f . ; whereas in v. 27 and in the Pentateuch we find a 
different pronunciation, viz. ]itr|3. The names of Levi's grand- 
sons in vers. 2-4a coincide with the statements of the Pentateuch, 
Ex. vi. 17-19, and Num. iii. 17-20, cf. xxvi. 57 f. Bertheau and 
other commentators consider the words in 46, " and these are the 

1 The extra-biblical information concerning the prse-exilic high priests in 
Josephus and the Seder Olam, is, in so far as it differs from the account of 
the Old Testament, without any historical warrant. Vide the comparison of 
these in Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, Opp. ed. ii. vol. i. p. 682 sqq. ; Selden, 
De success, in pontific. lib. i. ; and Reland, Antiquitatt. ss. ii. c. 2. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VI 6-1&. 121 

families of Levi according to their fathers," to be a " concluding 
subscription" to the statements of vers. l-4a, and would remove 
\ before npK, as not compatible with this supposition. But in this 
he is wrong : for although the similar statement in Ex. vi. 20 is a 
subscription, yet it is in Num. iii. 20 a superscription, and must in 
our verse also be so understood ; for otherwise the enumeration of 
the descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, which follows, 
would be brought in very abruptly, without any connecting 
particle, and the ) before n?K points to the same conclusion. 

Vers. 5-15. The three lists of the descendants of Gerehon, 
Kohath, and Merari are similar to one another in plan, and in 
all, each name is connected with the preceding by faa, " his son," 
bat they differ greatly in the number of the names. — Vers. 5 and 
6. The f before DiBhJ is introductory : " as to Gershom." Those 
of his descendants who are here enumerated belong to the family 
of his oldest son Libni, which is traced down through seven 
generations to Jeaterai, a name not elsewhere met with. Of the 
intermediate names, Johath, Zimmah, and Zerah occur also 
among the descendants of Asaph, who is descended from the line 
of Shimei, vers. 24-28. — Vers. 7-13. The genealogy of the de- 
scendants of Kohath consists of three lists of names, each of 
which commences afresh with 'j>3, vers. 7, 10, and 13 ; yet we 
learn nothing from it as to the genealogical connection of these 
three lines. The very beginning, " The sons of Kohath, Am- 
minadab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son," is somewhat 
strange. For, according to Ex. vi. 18, 21, and 24, Kohath's 
second son is called Izhar, whose son was Korah, whose sons 
were Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph. Amminadab is nowhere 
met with as a son of Kohath; but among the descendants of 
Uzziel, a prince of a f ather's-house is met with in the time of 
David who bore this name. The name Amminadab occurs also 
in the time of Moses, in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, 
chip. ii. 10, Num. i. 7, Ruth i. 19, as that of the father of the 
prince Nahshon, and of Elisheba, whom Aaron took to wife, 
Ex. vi. 23. But since the names Korah and Assir point to the 
family of Izhar, the older commentators supposed the Amminadab 
of our verse to be only another name for Izhar ; while Bertheau, 
on the contrary, conjectures " that as an Amminadab occurs in 
the lists of the descendants of Kohath as father-in-law of Aaron, 
Amminadab has been substituted for Izhar by an ancient error, 
which might very easily slip into an abridgment of more detailed 



Digitized by 



Google 



122 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

lists." But we have here no trace of an abridgment of more 
detailed lists. According to Ex. vi. 21 and 24, Korah was a 
son of Izhar, and Assir a son of Korah ; and consequently in 
our genealogies only the name Izhar is wanting between Korah 
and Kohath, while instead of him we hare Amminadab. An 
exchange or confusion of the names of Izhar and Amminadab the 
father-in-law of Aaron, is as improbable as the supposition that 
Amminadab is another name for Izhar, since the genealogies of 
the Pentateuch give only the name Izhar. Yet no third course 
is open, and we must decide to accept either one or the other of 
these suppositions. For that our verses contain a genealogy, or 
fragments of genealogies, of the Kohathite line of Izhar there 
can be no doubt, when we compare them with the genealogy 
(vers. 18-23) of the musician Heman, a descendant of Kohath, 
which also gives us the means of explaining the other obscurities 
in our register. In vers. 7 and 8 the names of Assir, Elkanah, 
and Abiasaph, and again Assir, follow that of Korah, with bf 
after each. This tat cannot be taken otherwise than as denoting 
that the names designate so many consecutive generations ; and 
the only peculiarity in the list is, that the conjunction 1 is found 
before Abiasaph and the second Assir, while the other names do 
not have it. But if we compare the genealogy in Ex. vi. with 
this enumeration, we find that there, in ver. 24, the same three 
names, Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph, which are here enumerated 
as those of the son, grandson, and great-grandson of Korah, are 
said to be the names of the sons of the Izharite Korah. Further, 
from Heman's genealogy in ver. 22, we learn that the second 
Assir of our list is a son of Abiasaph, and, according to ver. 22 
and ver. 8, had a son Tahath. Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph 
must consequently be held to have been brothers, and the follow- 
ing Assir a son of the last-named Abiasaph, whose family is in 
ver. 9 farther traced through four generations (Tahath, Uriel, 
Uzziah, and Shaul). Instead of these four, we find in vers. 22 
and 21 the names Tahath, Zephaniah, Azariah, and Joel. Now 
although the occurrence of Uzziah and Azariah as names of 
the same king immediately suggests that in our register also 
Uzziah and Azariah are two names of the same person, yet the 
divergence in the other names, on the one hand Zephaniah 
for Joel, and on the other Uriel for Shaul, is strongly opposed 
to this conjecture. The discrepancy can scarcely be naturally 
explained in any other way, than by supposing that after Tahath 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VL 6-15. 123 

the two genealogies diverge,— ours introducing his son Uriel and 

his descendants ; the other, in ver. 21 f., mentioning a second 

son of Tohath, Zephaniah, of whose race Heman came. — Ver. 10. 

"And the sons of Elkanah, Amasai and Ahimoth." As it is clear 

that with 'P?K vn* a new list begins, and that the preceding 

enumeration is that of the descendants of Abiasaph, it is at once 

suggested that this Elkanah was the brother of the Abiasaph 

mentioned in ver. 8. If, however, we compare the genealogy of 

Heman, we find there (vers. 21 and 20) a list of the descendants 

of Joel in an ascending line, thus, — Elkanah, Amasai, Mahath, 

Elkanah, Zuph ; from which it would seem to follow that our 

Elkanah is the son of Joel mentioned in ver. 21, for Ahimoth 

may be without difficulty considered to be another form of the 

name Mahath. This conclusion would be assured if only the 

beginning of ver. 11 were in harmony with it In this verse, 

indeed, to ™ij^*, as we read in the Kethibh, may be without 

difficulty taken to mean that Elkanah was the son of Ahimoth, 

just as in ver. 20 Elkanah is introduced as son of Mahath. But 

in this way no meaning can be assigned to the ™p T ?N which 

follows '33, and Bertheau accordingly is of opinion that this 

ropfat has come into the text by an error. The Masoretes also 

felt the difficulty, and have substituted for the Kethibh m the 

Eeri '£>, but then nothing can be made of the first iUpi>tt in ver. 

11. Beyond doubt the traditional text is here corrupt, and from 

a comparison of vers. 20 and 19 the only conclusion we can draw 

with any certainty is that the list from Hate onwards contains the 

names of descendants of Elkanah the son of Mahath, which is so 

far favourable to the Eeri ropfo '33. The name Elkanah, on 

the contrary, which immediately precedes U3, seems to point to a 

hiatus in the text, and gives room for the conjecture that in ver. 

10 the sons of Elkanah, the brother of Abiasaph and Assir, were 

named, and that there followed thereupon an enumeration of the 

sons or descendants of the Elkanah whom we meet with in ver. 

21 as son of Joel, after which came the names Elkanah foa, 

Zophai foa, etc. nru and 3KyK we consider to be other forms 

of tp\ and W*j, ver. 19, and Hate is only another form of tpv. 

The succeeding names, Jeroham and Elkanah (ver. 12), agree 

with those in ver. 19 ; but between the clauses " Elkanah his 

«on" (ver. 12), and " and the sons of Samuel" (ver. 13), the 

connecting link W3 ?WDt?, cf. ver. 18, is again wanting, as is also, 

before or after "fran (ver. 13), the name of the first-born, viz. 



Digitized by 



Google 



124 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Joel ; cf. ver. 18 with 1 Sam. viii. 2. Now, although the two 
last-mentioned omissions can he supplied, they yet show that the 
enumeration in vers. 7-13 is not a continuous list of one Ko- 
hathite family, but contains only fragments of several Kobathite 
genealogies. — In vers. 14 and 15, descendants of Merari follow; 
sons of Mahli in six generations, who are not mentioned else- 
where. Bertheau compares this list of names, Mahli, Libni, 
Shimei, Uzza, Shimea, Haggiah, and Asaiah, with the list con- 
tained in vers. 29-32, Mushi, Mahli, Shamer, Bani, Amzi, Hil- 
kiah, and Amaziah, and attempts to maintain, notwithstanding 
the great difference in the names, that the two lists were origin- 
ally identical, in order to find support for the hypothesis " that 
the three lists in vers. 5-15 have not found a place in the 
Chronicle from their own intrinsic value, or, in other words, have 
not been introduced there in order to give a register of the 
ancestors of Jeaterai, the sons of Samuel and Asaiah, but have 
been received only because they bring us to Heman, Asaph, and 
Ethan, vers. 19, 24, 29, in another fashion than the lists of 
names in vers. 18-32." But this hypothesis is shown to be 
false, apart altogether from the other objections which might be 
raised against it, by the single fact of the total discrepancy be- 
tween the names of the Merarites in vers. 14 and 15 and those 
found in vers. 29-32. Of all the six names only Mahli is found 
in both cases, and he is carefully distinguished in both— in 
the genealogy of Ethan as the son of Mushi and grandson of 
Merari ; in our list as the son of Merari. When we remember 
that Merari had two sons, Mahli and Mushi, after whom the 
fathers'-houses into which his descendants divided themselves 
were named (Num. iii. 20, xxvi. 58), and that the same names 
very frequently occur in different families, it would never sug- 
gest itself to any reader of our register to identify the line of 
Mushi with the line of Mahli, seeing that, except the name of 
Mahli the son of Mushi, which is the same as that of his uncle, 
all the other names are different. Vers. 14 and 15 contain a 
register of the family of Mahli, while the ancestors of Ethan, 
vers. 29-32, belonged to the family of Mushi. Our list then 
absolutely cannot be intended to form a transition to Ethan or 
Ethan's ancestors. The same may be said of the two other lists 
vers. 5-7 and vers. 8-13, and this transition hypothesis is con- 
sequently a mere airspun fancy. The three lists are certainly not 
embodied in the Chronicle on account of the persons with whose 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VI. 16-34. 125 

names they end — Jeaterai, the sons of Samuel, and Asaiah ; bat 
the author of the Chronicle has thought them worthy of being 
received into his work as registers of ancient families of the three 
sons of Levi which had been transmitted from ancient times. 

Vers. 16-34. The genealogies of the Levite musicians — Herman, 
Asaph, and Ethan. — These registers are introduced by an account 
of the service of the Levites about the sanctuary (vers. 16, 17), and 
conclude with remarks on the service of the remaining Levites 
(vers. 33, 34). — Ver. 16. " These are they whom David set for the 
leading of the song in the house of Jahve, after the resting of the 
ark," cf. 15, 17. n», *>? « upon the hands," " to the hands ; " that 
is, both for leading, and, according to arrangement. To the hands 
of the song, i.e. to manage the singing, to carry it on, to conduct 
it. jVityn nfatsp, " from the resting of the ark," i.e. from the time 
that the ark of the covenant, which in the prse-Davidic time had 
been carried about from one place to another, had received a per- 
manent resting-place on Zion, and had become the centre of the 
worship instituted by David, 2 Sam. vi. 17. " And they served 
before the dwelling of the tabernacle with song." |3Bte »3W, " be- 
fore the dwelling," for the sacrificial worship, with which the 
singing of psalms was connected, was performed in the court 
before the dwelling. The genitive "iJJto ?nfe is to be taken as 
explanatory : " The dwelling (of Jahve), which was the tent of 
the meeting (of God with His people)." "Wte snk was the usual 
designation of the tabernacle built by Moses, which was at first 
set up in Shiloh, then in the time of Saul at Nob, and after the 
destruction of that city by Saul (1 Sam. xxii.) in Gibeon (1 Chron. 
xxL 29). It denotes here the tent which David had erected upon 
Mount Zion for the ark of the covenant, because from its con- 
taining the ark, and by the institution of a settled worship in it 
(cf. xvi. 1-4 ff.), it thenceforth took the place of the Mosaic 
tabernacle, although the Mosaic sanctuary at Gibeon continued 
to be a place of worship till the completion of the temple 
(1 Sings iii. 4 ; 2 Chron. i. 3), — " till Solomon built the house of 
Jahve in Jerusalem," into which the ark was removed, and to 
which the whole of the religious services were transferred. In 
their services they stood DttBtPDS, according to their right, i.e. 
according to the order prescribed for them by David ; cf . xvi. 
37 ff. — Vers. 18-23. " These (following three men, Heman, 
Asaph, and Ethan) are they who stood (in service) with their 
sons." The three were the heads of the three Levitic families, to 



Digitized by 



Google 



126 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

whom the execution of the litnrgic singing was entrusted. The 
names of their sons, vide chap. xxv. 1-6. The object of the 
following genealogies is to show their descent from Levi. u Of 
the sons of the Kohathite family (is) Heman the singer." TftVDT}, 
6 t/raXi-pSo? LXX. Heman is named first as being the head of 
the choir of singers who stood in the centre, while Asaph and 
his choir stood on his right hand, and on the left Ethan and his 
choir, so that when they sang in concert the conducting of the 
whole fell to Heman. His family is traced back in vers. 18-23 
through twenty members to " Kohath the son of Levi, the son 
of Israel " (Jacob).— Vers. 24-28. " His brother Asaph," who is 
Heman's brother only in the more general sense of being closely 
connected with him, partly by their common descent from Levi, 
partly by their common calling, was a descendant of Gershon 
from his younger son Shimei. His genealogy contains only 
fifteen names to Gershon, five less than that of his contemporary 
Heman, probably because here and there intermediate names are 
omitted. — Vers. 29-32. " And the sons of Merari their brethren 
(i.e. the brethren of the choirs of Heman and Asaph) on the left 
(i.e. forming the choir which stood on the left hand) were Ethan 
and his sons." As in the case of Asaph, so also in that of Ethan, 
Bn>33\ (ver. 18) is omitted, but is to be supplied ; when the intro- 
ductory clause " and the sons of Merari " is at once explained. 
Ethan is a Merarite of the younger line of Mushi (see above). 
The name of his father is here 'B^i?, and in chap. xv. 17 it is Viwp, 
which latter is clearly the original form, which has been shortened 
into Kishi. Instead of the name Ethan (i>VK) as here and in 
chap. xv. 19, we find in other passages a Jeduthun mentioned as 
third chief-musician, along with Heman and Asaph (cf. xxv. 1 ; 
2 Chron. xxxv. 15 ; Neh. xi. 17, cf. 1 Chron. vi. 41) ; from which 
we see that Jeduthun was another name for Ethan, probably a 
by-name — flnvP, "praiseman" — which he had received from his 
calling, although nothing is said in the Old Testament as to the 
origin of this name. His genealogy contains only twelve names 
to Merari, being thus still more abridged than that of Asaph. — 
Vers. 33 and 34. " And their brethren the Levites," ue. the other 
Levites besides the singers just mentioned, " were QWU given for 
every service of the dwelling of the house of God," Le. given to 
Aaron and his sons (the priests) for the performance of service 
in the carrying on of the worship ; cf. Num. iii. 9, viii. 16-19, 
xviii. 6. But Aaron and his sons had three duties to perforin : 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VL 85-68. 127 

(1) they burnt the offerings on the altar of burnt-offering and 
on the altar of incense, cf. Num.'xviii. 1-7; (2) they looked 
after all the service of the holy place ; (3) they had to atone 
for Israel by offering the atoning-sacrifices, and performing the 
eleansings according to all that Moses commanded. This last 
clause refers to all the three above-mentioned duties of the 
priests. Moses is called the servant of God, as in Deut. xxxi v. 5, 
Josh. i. 1, 13. 

Vers. 35-38. The remarks as to the service of the priests 
are followed by a catalogue of the high priests, which runs from 
Eleazar to Ahimaaz the son of Zadok (cf. 2 Sam. xv. 27), who 
probably succeeded his father in the high-priesthood even in 
the time of Solomon. This genealogy is similar in form to the 
genealogies given in vers. 5-15, and has therefore most probably 
been derived from the same source as this, and has been drawn 
in here to form a transition to the enumeration of the cities of the 
Levites; for it begins in ver. 39 with the dwelling-places of the 
sons of Aaron, and the fintt w . . . Dntaefio rfett of ver. 39 corre- 
sponds to the fins *» r£jn of ver. 35. The order of the names 
coincides exactly with that of the longer register in chap. v. 30-34. 

Vers. 39-66. Register of the cities of the Levites, which agrees 
on the whole with the register in Josh. xxi.,if we except different 
forms of some names of cities, and many corruptions of the text, 
but differing in many ways from it in form ; whence we gather 
that it is not derived from the book of Joshua, but from some 
other ancient authority. — Ver. 39 contains the superscription, 
" These are their dwelling-places according to their districts, in 
their boundaries." So far the superscription belongs to the 
whole catalogue of.cities. The suffixes point back to the ')? 'pa, 
ver. 1. JTVO, from TitJ, to surround in a circle, signifies in the older 
language a " nomad village" (cf. Gen. xxv. 16; Num. xxxi. 10) ; 
here, on the contrary, it is used in a derivative sense for " district," 
to denote the circle of dwellings which were granted to the Levites 
in the cities of the other tribes. The following words, " For the 
sons of Aaron of the family of Kohath," etc., are the superscrip- 
tion to vers. 42-45, and together with the confirmatory clause, 
u for to him the (first) lot had fallen," are a repetition of Josh. 
xxi. 10, where, however, fufeko is found after ^M?, and has per- 
haps been here dropped out. — Vers. 40 and 41 correspond almost 
verbally with Josh. xxi. 11 and 12, as vers. 42-45 also do with 
Josh. xxi. 13-19. As we have already in our remarks on Joshua 



Digitized by 



Google 



128 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

commented upon the whole catalogue, it will not be necessary to 
do more here than to group together the errors and defects of 
our text. — Ver. 42. The plural BPpon nj> is incorrect, for only 
one of the cities thereafter named, viz. Hebron, was a city of 
refuge for homicides, and in Josh. xxi. 13 it is correctly written 
tbpt? v?. After "W the usual addition TOnarron is omitted, 
ver. 44 f. Before Bethshemesh the name Juttah has been lost, 
and before Geba (ver. 45) the name Gibeon, so that only eleven 
cities are mentioned, but the sum is rightly given as thirteen. 
Instead of the name )?n, ver. 43, there is found in Josh. xxi. 15 
and xv. 51 $h; instead of ftP, Josh. xxi. 16, we have in ver. 44 
the more correct name ]fV ; and the name riQ?tf, ver. 45, is in 
Josh. xxi. 18 ttofV. — Vers. 46-48. Summary statements of the 
number of cities which the remaining Kohathites, the Ger- 
shonites, and the Merarites received in the domains of the va- 
rious tribes, corresponding to vers. 5-7 in Josh. xxi. In ver. 46 
occurs a hiatus ; between nsen and JVyntsD the words u Ephraim 
and of the tribe of Dan and " have been omitted. In ver. 48 the 
words " of the tribe of Manasseh in Baahan " are quite intelligible 
without *?n, which is found in Joshua. — Vers. 49 and 50 are not 
here in their proper place ; for their contents show that they 
should be in the middle of the thirty-ninth verse, after the 
general superscription, and before the words "for the sons of 
Aaron." They are found also in Josh. xxi. 8, 9, as a super- 
scription before the enumeration by name of the cities assigned to 
the priests ; but how the confusion has arisen in our text cannot 
be certainly ascertained. Bertheau thinks "the wish to make 
mention of the cities of the high-priestly family at the begin- 
ning of the enumeration, has induced the author of the Chronicle 
to communicate the introductory remarks belonging to the lists 
of cities with their statements as to the tribal domains, only after 
the enumeration of the cities of the sons of Aaron." By that 
supposition the position of vers. 46-48 is certainly explained, but 
not that of vers. 49 and 50 ; for even with the supposed desire, 
vers. 49 and 50 should have been placed before vers. 46-48. 
But besides this, the clause 'W fffiK V)» in ver. 39 neither has 
anything to connect it with the preceding superscription nor a 
verb ; and the subject of unh, ver. 40, is also wanting. That 
which was missed before ver. 39Z> and in ver. 40 is contained in 
vers. 49 and 50; whence it is manifest that vers. 49 and 50 ought 
to stand before ver. 396, and have by some inexplicable accident 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VI. 51-61. 129 

fallen out of their proper place, and have come into an unsuit- 
able position after ver. 48. The plurals WJpJ and ntot?, instead 
of the singulars top*, and &?>, as in Josh. xxi. %, bring the words 
into more manifest correspondence with the circumstances, since 
the subject of W)i£, " the sons of Israel," may be easily supplied 
from ver. 48, and many names of cities are mentioned. The masc. 
crime instead of the fern. {nriK is probably only an oversight. 
With ver. 51 begins the enumeration of the cities of the other 
Leritic families only summarily given in vers. 46-48, which forms 
a very suitable continuation of ver. 48. 

Vers. 51—55. The cities of the remaining Kohathites ; cf . Josh. 
xxi. 20-26. For rtnBEfeD* we must read niriBtftSjn, for the pre- 
position p gives no suitable sense : it is never used to intro- 
duce a subject. The sense is, " as regards the families of the 
sons of Kohath, the cities of their dominion in the tribe of 
Ephraim were (the following). They gave them." The plur. 
e ?P? ) } *?.? instead of the sing., as in ver. 42. As to the four 
cities of the tribe of Ephraim, vers. 52, 53, see on Josh. xxi. 
21, 22, where instead of oyopj we find the name trc?i?. Before 
ver. 54 a whole verse has been lost, which was as follows: "And 
of the tribe of Dan, Eltekeh and her pastures, Gibbethon and her 
pastures ;" cf . Josh. xxi. 23. Then follows ver. 54, which con- 
tains the names of the two other cities of the tribe of Dan. In 
ver. 55 we have the names of the cities of half Manasseh, Aner 
and Bileam, i.e. Ibleam (Josh. xvii. 11), correctly given ; but the 
names Taanach and Gath-rimmon in Josh. xxi. 25 are incorrect, 
and have been inserted through a transcriber's error, arising from 
the copyist's eye having wandered to the preceding verse. The 
singular nnBBW, ver. 55, is incorrect; and the plural TftnBNfcb is 
to be substituted (as in ver. 51). The words '«l V& riinBBfc£ 
are a subscription, which corresponds to D$ UljM in ver. 52. 

Vers. 56-61. The cities of the Gershonites; cf. Josh. xxi. 
27-33. " To the sons of Gershon (they gave) out of the family 
of the half-tribe of Manasseh, Golan and Ashtaroth ;" see on 
Josh. xxi. 27. In ver. 57, B*ijJ is a mistake for P'fi?, Josh, 
xxi. 28 (see on Josh. xix. 20) ; in ver. 58, niWO for the more 
correct rfov, Josh. xxi. 29, a city which was also called wi, 
Josh. xix. 21, or had been so called originally; and D?V for 
fi> ?iT£ (Josh.), as the city is called also in Josh. xix. 21. It 
cannot be determined whether D:y is a transcriber's error, or 
another name for D'lrP?. In ver. 59, fete (which should perhaps 

I 



Digitized by 



Google 



130 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

be pointed ?eto) is a contracted form of -wtfo, Josh. xxi. 30, ziz. 
26 ; and in ver. 60, pjnn is probably an error for n|$n, Josh, 
xxi. 31, xix. 25, occasioned by its being confounded with p'pn 
in the tribe of Naphtali, Josh. xix. 34. In ver. 61 the fact that 
Kadesh was a city of refuge is not mentioned, as it is in Josh, 
xxi. 32. Jton is a shortened form of "iNTfliBn, Josh. xxi. 32 ; for 
this city is called in Josh. xix. 35 n&n, from the warm springs in 
the neighbourhood. Finally, Kirjathaim is contracted in Josh, 
xxi. 32 into twig. 

Vers. 62-66. Tlie cities of the Merarites ; cf. Josh. xxi. 34-37. 
"To the sons of Merari the remaining," ec. Levites. In Josh, 
xxi. 34 it is more clearly put Bnntan D^ipn, for the remaining 
Merarites are not spoken of. What is intended to be said is, 
that the Merarites, alone of the Levites, are still to be men- 
tioned. In the tribe of Zebulun, in ver. 62, only two cities are 
named, Bimmon and Tabor, instead of the four — Jokneam, 
Karthah, Dimnah, and Nahalal — in Josh. xxi. 34. The first two 
names have been dropped out of our text, while Wwi corresponds to 
the rum of Joshua, but is a more correct reading, since |1tar» occurs 
in Josh. xix. 13 among the cities of Zebulun, while fUEn is not 
mentioned ; and "tan must consequently correspond to the ^n? 
in Joshua. Nahalal occurs in Josh. xix. 15 and in Judg. i. 30, 
in the form Nahalol, among the cities of Zebulun, and conse- 
quently seems to be the more correct name, but has not yet been 
pointed out with certainty, since its identification with M&lul 

(JjLk), south-west from Nazareth, rests upon very slender 

foundation. Bertheau's conjecture that the name of the city 
has been dropped out, and that of a more exact description of 
its position, perhaps "fr? J"6d3 «3| 2J>, Josh. xix. 12, only the last 
word has remained, is no more probable than that of Movers, 
that instead of the name of the city, only the neighbourhood in 
which the city lay, viz. Mount Tabor, is mentioned. — Vers. 63 
and 64 are wanting in some editions of the book of Joshua, bat 
are found in many mss. and in the oldest printed copies, and 
have been omitted only by an oversight ; see on Josh. xxi. 30 f ., 
note 2. As to the city Bezer, see on Dent. iv. 43 ; and concern- 
ing Jahzah, Kedemoth, Mephaath, vide on Josh. xiii. 18. — Ver. 
65 f . For Kamoth in Gilead, a city of refuge (Josh. xxi. 36), 
and Mahanaim, see on Josh. xiii. 26; and for Heshbon and 
Jazer, on Num. xxi. 28, 32. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VII. 1-S. 131 



CHAP. VII. — FAMILIES OF ISSACHAB, BENJAMIN, NAPHTALI, 
HALF MANASSEH, EPHBAIM, AND ASHEB. 

Vers. 1-5. Sons and families of Issaehar. — Ver. 1. Instead of 
'K^, we must certainly read 'J3, as in vers. 14, 30, or 1 2», as in 
ver. 20, chap. v. 11, and elsewhere. The »J3^ has come into the 
text only by the recollection of the copyist having dwelt on the 
so frequently recurring <»!> in vi. 42, 46, 47, cf. vers. 48, 56, 62, 
for it is not possible to take ? as the f of introduction, because 
the names of the sons follow immediately. The names of the 
four sons are given as in Num. xxvi. 23 f., while in Gen. 
xlvi. 13 the second is written njs, and the third ai' ; vide on Gen. 
be. cit. — Yer. 2. The six sons of Tola are not elsewhere met with 
in the Old Testament. They were " heads of their fathers'-houses 
of Tola." ifarb after WfaK n>J> (with the suffix) is somewhat 
peculiar; the meaning can only be, "of their fathers'-houses 
which are descended from Tola." It is also surprising, or 
rather not permissible, that Dni'WD should be connected with 
?n *Tto. DTrtnpin? belongs to the following : " (registered) ac- 
cording to their births, they numbered in the days of David 
22,600." The suffixes D T do not refer to D»Bfcn, but to the 
rtox-iva, the fathers'-houses, the males in which amounted to 
22,600 souls. As David caused the people to be numbered by 
Joab (2 Sam.xxiv. ; 1 Chron. xxi.), this statement probably rests 
on the results of that census. — Ver. 3. From Uzzi, the first-born of 
Tola, are descended through Izrahiah five men, all heads of groups 
of related households (ver. 4) ; " and to them (ue. besides these) 
according to their generations, according to their fathers'-houses, 
bands of the war host, 36,000 (men), for they (these chiefs) had 
many wives and sons." From the fact that Izrahiah is intro- 
duced as grandson of Tola, Bertheau would infer that vers. 3, 4 
refer to times later than David. But this is an erroneous infer- 
ence, for Tola's sons did not live in David's time at all, and 
consequently it is not necessary that his grandson should be 
assigned to a later time. The only assertion made is, that the 
descendants of Tola's sons had increased to the number men- 
tioned in ver. 2 in the time of David. By that time the 
descendants of his grandson Izrahiah might have increased to 
the number given in ver. 4. That the number, 36,000, of the 
descendants of the grandson Izrahiah was greater than the 
number of those descended from the sons of Tola (22,600), is 



Digitized by 



Google 



132 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

explained in the clause, •' for they had many wives and sons." 
That the two numbers (in vers. 2, 4) refer to the same time, 
i.e. to the days of David, is manifest from ver. 5, " and their 
brethren of all the families of Issachar, valiant heroes ; 87,000 
their register, as regards everything," i.e. the sum of those re- 
gistered of all the families of Issachar. Whence we gather that 
in the 87,000 both the 22,600 (ver. 2) and the 36,000 (ver. 4) are 
included, and their brethren consequently must have amounted 
to 28,400 (22,600 + 36,000 + 28,400 = 87,000). In the time of 
Moses, Issachar numbered, according to Num. i. 29, 54,400 ; and 
at a later time, according to Num. xxvi. 25, already numbered 
64,300 men. 

Vers. 6—11. Sons and families of Benjamin. — In ver. 6 only 
three sons of Benjamin — Bela, Becher, and Jediael — are men- 
tioned ; and in vers. 7-11 their families are registered. Besides 
these, there are five sons of Benjamin spoken of in chap. viii. 
1, 2, — Bela the first, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, 
Nohah the fourth, and Kapha the fifth ; while in vers. 3—5 five 
other 0^3 are enumerated, viz. "WN, K"}3 (twice), JOJ^, fMM5\ and 
D"Wi. If we compare here the statements of the Pentateuch as 
to the genealogy of Benjamin, we find in Gen. xlvi. 21 the fol- 
lowing sons of Benjamin : Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, 
Ehi ('riK) and Bosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard (T?K); 
and in Num. xxvi. 38-40 seven families, of which five are de- 
scended from his sons Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shephupham, and 
Hupham (DMn) ; and two from his grandsons, the sons of Bela, 
Ard and Naaman. From this we learn, not only that of the D'ja 
mentioned in Gen. xlvi. 21 at least two were grandsons, but also 
that the names *n« and D'KJ (Gen.) are only other forms of O^ro* 
and DMDtf (Num.). It is, however, somewhat strange that among 
the families (in Num.) the names ">33, tni, and wn are wanting. 
The explanation which at once suggests itself, that their descen- 
dants were not numerous enough to form separate families, and 
that they on that account were received into the families of the 
other sons, though it may be accepted in the case of Gera and 
Bosh, of whom it is nowhere recorded that they had numerous 
descendants, cannot meet the case of Becher, for in vers. 8 and 
9 of our chapter mention is made of nine sons of his, with a 
posterity of 20,200 men. The supposition that the name of 
Becher and his family has been dropped from the genealogical 
register of the families in Num. xxvi., will not appear in the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V1L 6-lL i33 

slightest degree probable, when we consider the accuracy of this 
register in other respects. The only remaining explanation 
therefore is, that the descendants of Becher were in reality not 
numerous enough to form a nnBtsto by themselves, but had after- 
wards so increased that they numbered nine fathers'-houses, with 
a total of 20,200 valiant warriors. The numbers in our register 
point unquestionably to post-Mosaic times ; for at the second 
numbering by Moses, all the families of Benjamin together 
numbered only 45,600 men (Num. xxvi. 41), while the three 
families mentioned in our verses number together 59,434 
(22,034 + 20,200 + 17,200). The tribe of Benjamin, which 
moreover was entirely destroyed, with the exception of 600 men, 
in the war which it waged against the other tribes in the earlier 
part of the period of the judges (Judg. xx. 47), could not have 
increased to such an extent before the times of David and Solo- 
mon. The name of the third son of Benjamin, Jediael, occurs 
only here, and is considered by the older commentators to be 
another name of Ashbel (Gen. xlvi. 21 and Num. xxvi. 38), 
which cannot indeed be accepted as a certainty, but is very pro- 
bable. — Ver. 7. The five heads of fathers'-houses called sons of 
Bela are not sons in the proper sense of the word, but more 
distant descendants, who, at the time when this register was 
made up, were heads of the five groups of related households of 
the race of Bela. Dyjn ^33 is synonymous with Tjn nlaa, ver. 9, 
and is a plural, formed as if from a nomen compositum, which 
arose after the frequent use of the words as they are bound to- 
gether in the status constructus had obscured the consciousness 
of the relation between them. — Ver. 8. Beyer's descendants. 
Of these nine names there are two, rfrojl and no?y, which occur 
elsewhere as names of cities (cf. for 1D7» in the form ntwp, vi. 
45 ; and for rfn3J|, Josh. xxi. 18, Lsa. x. 30, Jer. i. 1). We 
may, without doubt, accept the supposition that in these cases 
the cities received their names from the heads of the families 
which inhabited them. In ver. 9, DntaK JV3 *B>eo stands in appo- 
sition to, and is explanatory of, oni"itor6 : u And their register, 
according to their generations," viz. according to the genera- 
tions, that is, the birth-lists, "of the heads of their fathers'- 
houses, is (amounts to) in valiant heroes 20,200 men." — Ver. 10 f. 
Among the descendants of Jediael we find Benjamin and Ehud, 
the first of whom is named after the patriarch ; but the second 
is not the judge Ehud (Judg. iii. 15), who was indeed a Benjamite, 



Digitized by 



Google 



134 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

but of the family of Genu Chenaanah does not necessarily indi- 
cate a Canaanite family. Tharshish, which is elsewhere a precious 
stone, is here the name of a person ; Ahishahar, that is, Brother 
of the Dawn, perhaps so named because sub auroram natus. — In 
ver. 11 the expression is contracted, as often happens in formula 
which frequently recur ; and the meaning is, " All these are sons 
of Jediael (for as sons of Bilhan the son of Jediael, they are at 
the same time sons of the latter), (registered) according to the 
heads of their fathers'-houses, valiant heroes 17,200, going forth 
in the host to war." nlaxn 'two is contracted from rfairrra wj, 
vide on Ex. vi. 25 ; and the ^ before 't?tO, which Bertheau from 
a misinterpretation wishes to remove, depends upon the tfotvm 
(ver. 9) to be supplied in thought. 

Ver. 12 is unintelligible to us. The first half, « And Shup- 
pim and Hnppim, sons of Ir," would seem, if we may judge from 
the 1 cop., to enumerate some other descendants of Benjamin. 
And besides, (1) the names D'srn D'ao occur in Gen. xlvi. 21 
among those of the sons of Benjamin, and in Num. xxvi. 39, 
among the families of Benjamin, one called , OBW5» from dme*, 
and another 'Dwn from 0Bin ? are introduced ; we must conse- 
quently hold B'BD to be an error for DBB> or DfflB*. And (2) the 
name "V» is most* probably identical with *?£ in ver. 7. The 
peculiar forms of those names, viz. OBrn CBV, seem to have 
arisen from an improper comparison of them with D'Bt^n w&b 
in ver. 15, in which the fact was overlooked that the Huppim 
and Shuppim of ver. 15 belong to the Manassites. Here, there- 
fore, two other families descended from the Benjamite Ir or 
Iri would seem to be mentioned, which may easily be reconciled 
with the purpose (ver. 6) to mention none of the Ben jamites but 
the descendants of Bela, Becher, and Jediael. The further 
statement, "Hushim, sons of Aher," is utterly enigmatical. 
The name 0H?n is found in Gen. xlvi. 23 as that of Dan's only 
son, who, however, is called in Nam. xxvi. 42 onw», and who 
founded the family of the Shuhami. But as the names tWWTl and 
DW are again met with in chap. viii. 8, 11 among the Ben- 
jamites, there is no need to imagine any connection between our 
DB'n and that family. The word *inte, alius, is not indeed found 
elsewhere as a nomen proprium, but may notwithstanding be so 
here ; when we might, notwithstanding the want of the conjunc- 
tion 1, take the Hushim sons of Aher to be another Benjamite 
family. In that case, certainly, the tribe of Dan would be omitted 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VII. 13-19. 135 

from our chapter; bat we mast not allow that to lead us into 
arbitrary hypotheses, as not only Dan but also Zebulun is 
omitted. 1 

Ver. 13. The sons of Naphtali. — Only the sons of Naphtali 
are named, the families descended from them being passed over. 
The names correspond to those in Gen. xlvi. 24 and Num. xxv. 
48 f ., except that there the first is toot, and the last thp instead 
of »& 

Vers. 14-19. Families of the half-tribe of Manasseh. — The 
families of Manasseh which dwelt in Gilead and Bashan have 
already been mentioned in chap. v. 23, 14. Our verses deal with 
the families of this tribe which received their inheritance in Canaan, 
on this side Jordan. These were, according to Num. xxvi. 30, 34, 
and Josh. xvii. 2, six families, of which, however, only two are here 
spoken of — Ashriel, ver. 14, and Shemidah, ver. 19 ; or perhaps 
three, if Abiezer, ver. 18, be the same person as Jeezer (Num. 
xxvi. 30), who is called Abiezer in Josh. xvii. 2. The statements 

1 Bertheau's judgment in the matter is different Starting from the facts 
that D'OTI (Gen. xlvi. 27) is called a son of Dan, and that farther, in the 
enumeration of the tribes in Gen. xlvi. and Num. xxvi., Dan follows after 
Benjamin ; that in Gen. xlvi. Dan stands between Benjamin and Naphtali, 
and that in our chapter, in ver. 13, the sons of Naphtali follow immediately ; 
and that the closing words of this verse, " Bons of Bilhah," can, according to 
Gen. xlvi 25, refer only to Dan and Naphtali, and consequently presuppose 
that Dan or his descendants have been mentioned in our passage, — he thinks 
there can be no doubt that originally Danites were mentioned in our verse, and 
that Qtrn was introduced as the son of Dan. Moreover, from the word "\nx, 
" the other," he draws the further inference that it may have been, according 
to its meaning, the covert designation of a man whose proper name fear, or 
dislike of some sort, prevented men from using, and was probably a designa- 
tion of the tribe of Dan, which set up its own worship, and so separated itself 
from the congregation of Israel ; cf. Judg. xvii f. The name is avoided, he 
says, in our chapter, in chap. vi. 46 and 54, and is named only in chap. ii. 2 
among the twelve tribes of Israel, and in chap. xii. 35. The conjecture, 
therefore, is forced upon us, that nriM 13 Q$n, " Hushim the son of the 
other," viz. of the other son of Bilhah, whose name he wished to pass over in 
silence, stands for 08*11 p '331. The name Aher, then, had so completely 
concealed the tribe of Dan, that later readers did not mark the new com- 
mencement,- notwithstanding the want of the conjunction, and had no scrapie 
in adding the well-known names of the Benjanrites, DBS? and BBPI, to 
the similarly-sounding QB>n> thongh probably at first only in the margin. 
This hypothesis has no solid foundation. The supposed dislike to mention 
the name of Dan rests upon an erroneous imagination, as is manifest from 
the thrice repeated mention of that name, not merely in chap. ii. 2 and xii. 35, 



Digitized by 



Google 



136 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

of vers. 14 and 15 are very obscure. At the head of the register 
of the Manassites stands Ashriel, who, according to Num. xxvi. 
31, belonged to the sons of Gilead the son of Manasseh and the 
grandson of Joseph (cf. Gen. 1. 23), and founded one of the six 
families of the cis-Jordanic Manassites. But the words which 
follow are obscure ; the words are 'ui rnr "IB^, " whom his Ara- 
maic concubine bore ; she bore Machir the father of Gilead." 
But since Ashriel, according to this, was the great-grandson of 
Manasseh, while Machir was his son, the relative clause can refer 
only to Manasseh, to whom his concubine bore Machir. Movers 
and Berth, would therefore erase jW~ii?K, as a gloss arising out 
of a doubling of the following ^ iett. By this expedient the 
difficulty as to the connection of the relative clause is certainly 
got rid of, but the obscurities of the following verse (15) are not 
thereby removed. The analogy of the other registers in our 
chapter requires, rather, that immediately after ntftD '33 there 
should stand the name of a descendant, — a fact which speaks 

but also in chap, xzvii. 22. The omission of the tribe of Dan in chap. vi..46, 
54, is only the result of a corruption of the text in these passages ; for in ver. 
46 the words, " Ephraim and of the tribe of Dan," and after ver. 54 a whole 
Terse, have been dropped out in the copying. In neither of these verses can 
there be any idea of omitting the name Dan because of a dislike to mention it, 
for in ver. 46 the name Ephraim is lacking, and in ver. 54 the names of two 
cities are also omitted, where even Berth, cannot suppose any "dislike." 
When Berth, quotes Judg. xviii. 30 in favour of his concealment hypothesis, 
where under the Keri ntfOD the name n^O is supposed to be concealed, he 
has forgotten that the opinion that in this passage ntPD has been altered into 
ntfOD from a foolish dislike, is one of the rabbinic caprices, which we cannot 
attribute as a matter of course to the authors of the biblical writings. With 
this groundless suspicion falls of itself the attempt which he bases upon it 
" to solve the enigma of our verse." If the words in question do really con- 
tain a remark concerning the family of Dan, we must suppose, with Ewald 
(Gesch. i. S. 242), that the text has become corrupt, several words having been 
dropped out. Yet the nnta »33 at the end of ver. 1 3 is not sufficient to warrant 
such a supposition. Had the register originally contained not only the sons of 
Naphtali, but also the sons of Dan, so that nn$o <J3 would have to be referred 
to both, the conj. l could not have been omitted before ^r\B3 '33- The want 
of this conjunction is, however, in conformity with the whole plan of our 
register, in which all the tribes follow, one after the other, without a con- 
junction ; cf. vers. 6, 14, 30. 1 is found only before CIDX 133, ver. 20, be- 
cause Ephraim and Manasseh are closely connected, both continuing to form 
the one tribe of Joseph. We must accordingly hold 'bj 133, ver. 13, without 
1 cop., to have been the original reading, when the conjecture that iY&3 '33 
includes also the sons of Dan is at once disposed of. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VIL H-19. 137 

strongly in favour of the authenticity of <W"HM?. It is therefore 
a much more probable suggestion, that after the name ^toit?K, 
some additional clause, such as nBto"}3, has been dropped, or 
regarded as superfluous by a copyist, and so omitted. To such an 
omitted neoD p, the relative sentence, which gives more details 
as to the descent of Ashriel, would be attached in a simple and 
natural manner, since it was known from Num. xxvi. 30 f. that 
Ashriel was descended from Manasseh through Gilead. — Ver. 15 
is literally, " And Machir took a wife to Huppim and Shuppim, 
and the name of his sister was Maachah, and the name of the 
second Zelophehad." According to ver. 16, on the contrary, 
Maachah is the wife of Machir, and we should consequently 
expect to find in ver. 15 only the simple statement, " And Machir 
took a wife whose name was Maachah." From the words D'Br6 
•Ojn WTO* DB'l D'BB&i no meaning which harmonizes with the con- 
text can be obtained. Since j> ntfK ngb signifies " to take a wife 
for one" (cf. Judg. xiv. 2), we can only suppose that by the 
names Huppim and Shuppim Machir's sons are meant, to whom 
he, as their father, gave wives. But we cannot suppose that the 
sons of Machir are referred to, for the birth of the sons is first 
mentioned in ver. 16. But we have found the names sen and 
DBS? spoken of as descendants of Benjamin ; and Bertheau conse- 
quently conjectures that these names have been brought thence into 
our verse by some gloss, and that the beginning of our verse origin- 
ally stood thus : reborn Snm Den naj» noen neta njb mm, " And 
Machir took a wife whose name is Maachah, and the name of his 
sister is Hammoleketh" (the last according to ver. 18). By this 
means we certainly bring some meaning into the words ; but we 
cannot venture to maintain that this conjecture corresponds to 
the original text, but rather incline to doubt it. For, in the first 
place, the following words, " And the name of the second (is) 
Zelophehad," do not suit the proposed reading. Berth, must 
here alter Wfri into vrra (the name of his brother). But even 
after this alteration, the mention of the brother of Machir is not 
suitable to the context ; and moreover Zelophehad was not a true 
brother, but only a nephew of Machir, the son of his brother 
Hepher; cf. Num. xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1. And besides this, according 
to the concluding formula, " These are the sons of Gilead, the son 
of Machir, the son of Manasseh" (ver. 17), we should expect to 
find in vers. 15, 16, not merely sons or descendants of Machir, 
bat rather descendants of Gilead. We therefore hold the state- 



Digitized by 



Google 



138 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

ment of ver. 15&, " And the name of the second is Zelophehad, 
and Zelophehad had (only) daughters," to be correct and beyond 
criticism, and the first part of ver. 15 to be corrupt and defective ; 
and conjecture that a son of Gilead's was mentioned in it, to 
whose name the words, " And the name of the second," etc., 
belonged. This son who was mentioned in the text, which has 
been handed down to us only in a defective state, was probably 
the Ashriel mentioned in ver. 14, a son of Gilead, whose descent 
from Machir was given more in detail in the corrupt and conse- 
quently meaningless first half of ver. 15. In vers. 16, 17, other 
descendants of Machir by his wife Maachah are enumerated, 
which favours the probable conjecture that the wife whom Machir 
took, according to ver. 15, was different from Maachah, that 
Machir had two wives, and that in ver. 15 originally the sons of 
the first were enumerated, and in vers. 16, 17, the sons of the 
second. Peresh and Shelesh are mentioned only here. V33, " his 
sons" (that is, the sons of the last-named, Shelesh), were Ulam 
and Bakem, names which are also met with only here. The 
name P T 3 is found in our Masoretic text, 1 Sam. xii. 11, as the 
name of a judge, but probably pna should be read instead. — Ver. 
18. A third branch of the descendants of Gilead were descended 
from Machir's sister Hammoleketh, a name which the Vulgate 
has taken in an appellative sense. Of her sons, Ishod, i.e. " man 
of splendour," is not elsewhere mentioned. The name Abiezer 
occurs, Josh. xvii. 2, as that of the head of one of the families 
of Manasseh. In Num. xxvi. 30, however, he is called Jeezer, 
which is probably the original reading, and consequently our 
Abiezer is different from that in Josh. xvii. 2. Another circum- 
stance which speaks strongly against the identification of the two 
men is, that the family descended from Jeezer holds the first 
place among the families of Manasseh, which is not at "all con- 
sonant with the position of the son of Machir's sister here 
mentioned. Of the family of Abiezer came the judge Gideon, 
Judg. xi. 15. A daughter of Zelophehad is called Mahlah in 
Num. xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1, but she is not the person here mentioned. 
— Ver. 19. The sons of Shemida, the founder of the fourth family 
of the Manassites, Num. xxvi. 32. His four sons are nowhere 
else referred to, for D3E>, the founder of a family of the Man- 
assites (Num. xxvi. 31 and Josh. xvii. 2), is to be distinguished 
from the Shechem of our verse ; nor is there any greater reason 
to identify Likhi with Helek, Num. xxvi. 30 (Berth.), than there 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VIL 20-29. 139 

is for connecting O^JK with ny), the daughter of Zelophehad, 
Num. xxvi. 33, Josh. xvii. 3. 

Vera. 20-29". The families of Ephraim.— Yet. 20 f. Among 
the Ephraimites, the descendants of Shuthelah, the founder of 
one of the chief families of this tribe, Num. xxvi. 35, are traced 
down through six generations to a later Shuthelah. The names 
T$w inn which follow to rbrw, « And his son Shuthelah," after 
which foa is wanting, are not to be considered descendants of the 
second Shuthelah, but are heads of a family co-ordinate with that 
of Shnthelah, or of two fathers'-honses intimately connected with 
each other. These names are to be taken as a continuation of the 
list of the sons of Ephraim, which commenced with rDme*. The 
suffix in tnrvn refers to both these names : " The men of Oath, 
that were born in the land, smote Ezer and Elead." These 
" men born in the land " Ewald and Bertheau take to be the 
Awites, the aboriginal, inhabitants of that district of country, 
who had been extirpated by the Philistines emigrating from 
Caphtor (Dent ii. 23). But there is no sufficient ground for 
this supposition ; for no proof can be brought forward that the 
Awaeans (Awites) had ever spread so far as Gath ; and the 
Philistines had taken possession of the south-west part of Canaan 
as early as the time of Abraham, and consequently long before 
Ephraim's birth. "The men of Gath who were born in the 
land" are rather the Canaanite or Philistine inhabitants of 
Gath, as distinguished from the Israelites, who had settled in 
Canaan only under Joshua. " For they (Ezer and Elead) had 
come down to take away their cattle" (to plunder). The older 
commentators assign this event to the time that Israel dwelt in 
Egypt (Ewald, Geseh. i. S. 490), or even to the pre-Egyptian 
time. But Bertheau has, in opposition to this, justly remarked 
that the narratives of Genesis know nothing of a stay of the 
progenitors of the tribe of Ephraim in the land of Palestine 
before the migration of Israel into Egypt, for Ephraim was 
horn in Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 20). It would be more feasible to 
refer it to the time of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, as 
it is not impossible that the Israelites may have undertaken pre- 
datory expeditions against Canaan from Goshen ; but even this 
supposition is not at all probable. Certainly, if in vers. 23-27 
it were said, as Ewald thinks, that Ephraim, after the mourning 
over the sons thus slain, became by his wife the father of three 
other sons, from the last named of whom Joshua was descended 



Digitized by 



Google 



140 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

in the seventh generation, we should be compelled to refer the 
expedition to the pre-Egyptian period. But the opinion that 
Rephah and Resheph, ver. 25, were begotten only after that 
misfortune has no foundation Moreover, the statement that 
Ephraim, after he was comforted for the loss of his slain sons, 
went in unto his wife and begat a son, to whom he gave the name 
Beriah, because he was born in misfortune in his house, does not 
at all presuppose that the patriarch Ephraim was still alive when 
Ezer and Elead were slain. Were that the case, the necessary 
result would of course be, that this event could only be referred 
to the time when the Israelites dwelt in Egypt. In opposition 
to this, Bertheau's remark that the event in that case would be 
per se enigmatical, as we would rightly have great hesitation in 
accepting the supposition of a war, or rather a plundering ex- 
pedition to seize upon cattle carried out by the Ephraimites 
whilst they dwelt in Egypt, against the inhabitants of the Phili- 
stine city of Oath, is certainly not all decisive, for we know far 
too little about those times to be able to judge of the possibility 
or probability of such an expedition. The decision to which we 
must come as to this obscure matter depends, in the first place, 
on how the words "Ul VTV '3 are to be understood ; whether we 
are to translate " for they had gone," or u when they had gone 
down to fetch their cattle," i.e. to plunder. If we take the '? 
as partic. ration., for, because, we can only take the sons of 
Ephraim, Ezer and Elead, for the subject of VTV , and we mast 
understand the words to mean that they had gone down to carry 
off the cattle of the Gathites. In that case, the event would 
fall in the time when the Ephraimites dwelt in Canaan, and 
went down from Mount Ephraim into the low-lying Gath, for a 
march out of Egypt into Canaan is irreconcilable with the verb 
TV. If, on the contrary, we translate vrv »a « when they had 
gone down," we might then gather from the words that men of 
Gath went down to Goshen, there to drive away the cattle of 
the Ephraimites, in which case the Gathites may have slain 
the sons of Ephraim when they were feeding their cattle and 
defending them against the robbers. Many of the old com- 
mentators have so understood the words ; but we cannot hold 
this to be the correct interpretation, for it deprives the words 
" those born in the land," which stand in apposition to n? T#> 
of all meaning, since there can be absolutely no thought of men 
of Gath born in Egypt. We therefore take the words to mean, 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VIL 20-29. 141 

that the sons of Ephraim who are named in our verse attempted 
to drive away the cattle of the Gathites, and were by them slain 
in the attempt. But how can the statement that Ephraim after 
this unfortunate event begat another son, Beriah, be reconciled 
with such a supposition, since the patriarch Ephraim was dead 
long before the Israelites came forth out of Egypt ? Bertheau 
understands the begetting figuratively, of the whole of the tribe 
of Ephraim, and would interpret the begetting of Beriah of 
the reception either of a Benjamite family into the tribe of 
Ephraim, or of a small Ephraimite. family, which at first was 
not numbered with the others, into the number of the famous 
families of this tribe. Bat this straining of the words by an 
allegorical interpretation is not worthy of serious refutation, 
since it is manifestly only a makeshift to get rid of the diffi- 
culty. The words, " And Ephraim went in unto his wife, and 
she conceived and bare a son," are not to be interpreted allego- 
rically, but must be taken in their proper sense ; and the solution 
of the enigma will be found in the name Ephraim. If this be 
taken to denote the actual son of Joseph, then the event is 
incomprehensible; but just as a descendant of Shuthelah in 
the sixth generation was also called Shuthelah, so also might a 
descendant of the patriarch Ephraim, living at a much later 
time, have received the name of the progenitor of the tribe; 
and if we accept this supposition, the event, with all its issues, is 
easily explained. If Ezer and Elead went down from Mount 
Ephraim to Gath, they were not actual sons of Ephraim, but 
merely later descendants; and their father, who mourned for 
their death, was not Ephraim the son of Joseph, who was born 
in Egypt, bat an Ephraimite who lived after the Israelites had 
taken possession of the land of Canaan, and who bore Ephraim's 
name. He may have mourned for the death of his sons, and 
after he had been comforted for their loss, may have gone in 
unto his wife, and have begotten a son with her, to whom he 
gave the name Beriah, "because it was in misfortune in his 
house," ue. because this son was born when misfortune was in 
his house. — Yer. 24. " And his daughter Sherah," the daughter 
of the above-mentioned Ephraim, " built Beth-horon the nether 
and the upper," the present Beit-Ur-Foka and Tachta (see on 
Josh. x. 10), " and Uzzen-sherah," a place not elsewhere referred 
to, which she probably founded, and which was called after her. 
The building of the two Beth-horons is merely an enlarging and 



Digitized by 



Google 



142 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

fortifying of these towns. Sherah was probably an heiress, who 
had received these places as her inheritance, and caused them to 
be enlarged by her family. In vers. 25-27 the ancestors of 
Joshua the son of Nun, who brought Israel into the land of 
Canaan, are enumerated. As the word to is wanting after 
Wl> wo must kohl Rephah and Besheph to be brothers, but 
we are not informed from which of the four Ephraimite stocks 
enumerated in Num. xxvi. 35 f . they were descended. u Telah 
his son," Bertheau holds to be a son of Rephah. The name 
Tahan occurs in Num. xxvi. 35 as that of the founder of one of 
the families of Ephraim ; but he can hardly be identical with our 
Tahan, who was probably a son of that Tahan from whom an 
Ephraimite family descended. If this conjecture be correct, 
Joshua would be of the family of Tahan. — Ver. 26. Elishama 
the son of Ammihud was a contemporary of Moses, Num. i. 10, 
and prince of the tribe of Ephraim, Num. vii. 48, x. 22. Jfo 
(Non) is so pronounced only in this place ; in the Pentateuch 
and in the book of Joshua it is pa (Nun). 

In vers. 28 and 29 the possessions and dwelling-places of the 
tribe of Ephraim (and as we learn from the superscription, ver. 
29), also those of West Jordan Manasseh, are given, but in a 
very general way ; only the chief places on the four sides being 
mentioned. Bethel, now Beitin, on the frontier of the tribal 
domains of Benjamin and Ephraim (Josh. xvi. 2, xviii. 13), and 
assigned to the tribe of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 22), is here men- 
tioned as an Ephraimite city on the southern frontier of the 
Ephraimite territory, as it belonged to the kingdom of the ten 
tribes ; whence we gather that this register was prepared after 
that kingdom had come into existence. As to its position, see on 
Josh. vii. 2. Her daughters are the smaller villages which be- 
longed to Bethel. Naaran, without doubt the same place which 
is called in Josh. xvi. 17 Wnj>? (with n he.), is the eastern 
frontier city lying to the north-east of Jericho ; see on Josh. xvi. 
7. " And westward Gezer," according to Josh. xvi. 13, lying 
between Beth-horon and the sea (see on Josh. x. 33), is the 
frontier city on the south-west ; and Shechem and Avvah (TOf), 
with their daughters, are places which mark the boundary on 
the north-west. As to MtJ>, Shechem, the present Nabulus, see 
on Josh. xvii. 7. Instead of TO, most of the editions of the 
Bible agree with LXX. and Vulg. and Chald. in having W, but 
not the Philistine Gaza : it is only an error of the transcribers 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VII. 80-40. 143 

and printers, as all the more accurate mss. and the better printed 
copies hare nw ; see De Rossi, Varia Leett. ad h. I. The locality 
HjJ? or nj? is certainly met with nowhere else, bat, if we may judge 
by Josh. xvi. 6 and xvii. 17, is to be sought not far from Shechem 
in a north-western direction, perhaps on the site of the there 
mentioned Michmethah, the position of which has, however, not 
yet been ascertained. — Ver. 29. According to Josh. xvii. 11, the 
Manassites had received the four cities here named, lying within 
the territory of Issachar and Asher. This is attested also by 
'o V3 *]!"??, to the hands, i.e. in possession of the sons of Manasseh. 
As to its position, see Josh. xvii. 11. These cities formed the 
boundaries on the extreme north, of the dwellings " of the sons 
of Joseph," i.e. of the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. 

Vers. 30-40. 27ie sons and several families of Asher. — Ver. 30. 
The names of the four sons of Asher and that of their sister 
coincide with the statement of Gen. xlvi. 17 ; but in Num. xxvi. 
44-47, on the contrary, the name Ishuai does not occur among 
the families of Asher. — Ver. 31. The sons of Beriah, Heber and 
Malchiel, are also to be found in Gen. xlvi. 17 and Num. xxvi. 
45 as the heads of two families ; but the further statement, " he 
(it. Malchiel) the father of Birzavith," is found only here. How 
mro, the Kethibh, is to be pronounced, cannot be with certainty 
determined. Gesen. in Tkes. p. 239 makes it rrina, and considers 
the word to be the name of a woman ; Bertheau, on the con- 
trary, conjectures that it is a compound of 13 = 1K3 and TM, "well 
of the olive-tree," and so the name of a place. In vers. 32-34 
the descendants of Heber are enumerated in three generations, 
which are mentioned nowhere else. In ver. 32 we have four 
sons and one daughter. The name a?& is not to be connected 
with 'Btd*, Josh. xvi. 3, " because a family of Asher is not to be 
•ought for in the neighbourhood there referred to" (Berth.). In 
ver. 33 we have four sons of Japhlet, and in ver. 34 the sons of 
his brother Shemer. It is somewhat remarkable that *u?tis>, ver. 
32, is called here lOtf. *IW is not an appellative, but a proper 
name, as the i before the following name shows ; cf . another Ahi 
in v. 15. For narr we should read nafTj. — Vers. 35-39. Descend- 
ants of Helem — in ver. 35 sons, in vers. 36-38 grandsons. As 
Hekm is called vnx, "his brother" (*.«. the brother of the 
Shemer mentioned in ver. 34), D?n would seem to be the third 
■on of Heber, who is called in ver. 32 QTrin. If so, one of the 
two names must have resulted from an error in transcription; 



Digitized by 



Google 



144 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

but it is now impossible to determine which is the original and 
correct form of the name. Eleven names are introduced as those 
of the sons of Zophah (vers. 36, 37) ; and in yer. 38 we have, 
besides, three sons of Jether ("W), who is called in ver. 38 P,^. 
In ver. 39 there follow three names, those of the sons of Ulla; 
on which Bertheau rightly remarks, the whole character of our 
enumeration would lead us to conjecture that K?V had already 
occurred among the preceding names, although we find neither 
this name nor any similar one, with which it might be identi- 
fied, in the preceding list. — Ver. 40 contains a comprehensive 
concluding statement as to the descendants of Asher: "All 
these (those just mentioned by name) were heads of fathers*- 
houses, chosen valiant heroes (BWj, as in ver. 5), chief of the 
princes," Vulg. duces ducum, i.e. probably leaders of the larger 
divisions of the army, nnder whom were other CtrtW. " And 
their genealogical register is for service of the host in war," it- 
was prepared with reference to the men capable of bearing arms, 
and had not, like other registers, reference to the number of 
inhabitants of the various localities ; cf. ix. 22. It amounted to 
26,000 men. According to Num. i. 41, Asher numbered 41,500, 
and according to Num. xxvi. 47, 53,000 men. But we must 
observe that the number given in our verse is only that of the 
men capable of bearing arms belonging to one of the greater 
families of Asher, the family of Heber, of which alone a register 
had been preserved till the time of the chronicler. 

CHAP. VIII. — FAMILIES OF BENJAMIN, AND GENEALOGY OF 
THE HOUSE OF SAUL. 

The families of Benjamin enumerated in this chapter were 
probably separated from those in chap. vii. 6-11, merely on the 
ground that all the registers which are grouped together in chap, 
vii. were taken from another genealogical document than that 
from which the registers in our chapter, which form a supple- 
ment to the short fragments in chap. vii. 6-11, have been derived. 

Vers. 1-5. Tlie sons of Benjamin and Beta. — The manner 
in which the five sons begotten by Benjamin are enumerated 
is remarkable, "Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second," etc, 
since, according to Gen. xlvi. 21, after the first-born Bela, 
Becher follows as the second son, and Ashbel is the third ; while 
Aharah, Nohah, and Kapha are not met with there, quite other 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VIII. 6, 7. 145 

names occupying their place. In nnriK we can easily recognise 
the oyrtK of Num. xxvi. 38, whence the enumeration in ver. 1 f . 
harmonizes with the order in Num. xxvi. 38. It is therefore 
clear, that in our genealogy only those sons are mentioned who 
founded the families of Benjamin. The names nrris and NB'i are 
nowhere else met with among the sons of Benjamin ; hut we may 
conclude, partly from the agreement of the first three names 
with the heads of the families of Benjamin enumerated in Num. 
xm. 38, and partly from the agreement as to the number, which 
is fire in both passages, that nrria and KB") are intended to corre- 
spond to the DMDB>* and BEfin of Num. xxvi. 39. The only ques- 
tion which then remains is, whether the variation in the names 
arises from these two sons of Benjamin having had different 
names, or from the families which issued from Shephupham 
and Hupham having afterwards perhaps received new names 
from famous chiefs, instead of the original designations, so that 
Xohah and Kapha would be later descendants of Shephupham 
and Hupham. Even this second supposition seems possible, 
since Tpin in such genealogical registers may denote mediate 
procreation. If, e.g., Nohah were a grandson or great-grandson 
of Shephupham the son of Benjamin, he might well be intro- 
duced in the genealogical lists of the families as begotten by 
Benjamin. — Vers. 3-5. The sons of Bela. Of the six names borne 
by these sons, t03 is twice met with ; ?o}U is found in Qen. xlvi. 
21 as the son, and in Num. xxvi. 40 as grandson of Benjamin ; 
%ttof is another form of 0MBB>, Num. xxvi. 39 ; and D"Vtn may be 
a transcriber's error for OBin^ Num. xxvi. 39, just as TW probably 
stands for "TW* Gen. xlvi. 21. The occurrence of the name Gera 
would be incomprehensible only if Q^3 denoted sons in the 
narrower sense of the word ; but if o^a are sons in the wider 
sense, i.e. descendants who founded fathers' -houses (groups of re- 
lated households), two cousins might have the same name. In 
that case, Addar, Shephuphan, and Huram also may be different 
persons from Ard, Shephupham, and Hupham. Abihud and 
Abishua are met with as descendants of Benjamin only here, 
and nintjt may be connected with njnx, ver. 7. 

Vers. 6, 7. Sons of Ehud. — The descent of Ehud from the 
sons, grandsons, and descendants of Benjamin, enumerated in 
vers. 1-5, is not given. The names of Ehud's sons follow only 
at the end of the 7th verse, " And he begat Uzza and Ahihud," 
while the intermediate clauses contain historical remarks. These 



Digitized by 



Google 



146 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

sons were " heads of f athers'-houses of the inhabitants of Geba," 
Le. Geba of Benjamin (1 Sam. xiii. 16), the Levite city, vi. 
45, which still remains as the half-ruinous village Jeba, 
about three leagues to the north of Jerusalem ; see on Josh, 
xviii. 24. "And they led them captive to Manahath, viz. 
Naaman and Ahiah and Gera, this man led them captive." The 
subject to tn?W are the men mentioned in the following verse, 
while the wn which follows shows that, of the three above 
mentioned, the last, Gera, was the author of their captivity. 
The place Manahath is not known, but is conjectured to be 
connected with Hazi-Hammanahti and Hazi-Hammenuhoth, ii. 
54 and 52 ; but we cannot ascertain with certainty whether the 
name denotes a city or a district, and the situation of it has not 
yet been discovered. Of the hostile collision of these Benjamite 
families also, no more detailed accounts have come down to us. 

Vers. 8-12. Tlie descendants of Shaharaim. — The descent of 
Shaharaim from the sons and grandsons named in vers. 1—3 is 
obscure, and the conjecture which connects him with Ahishahar of 
chap. vii. 10 is unsupported. He was the father of a considerable 
number of heads of f athers'-houses, whom his two or three wives 
bore to him. According to ver. 8, he begat " in the country of 
Moab after he had sent them, Hushim and Baara his wives, 
away ; (ver. 9) there begat he with Hodesh his wife, Jobab," etc. 
When and how Shaharaim, a Benjamite, came into the country 
of Moab, is not known ; all that can be gathered from our verse 
is that he must have lived there for a considerable time, tfw is 
infin. PL, the " t" being retained, and the Daghesh forte omitted 
with Sheva (cf. as to this formation, Ew. § 238, d). DTlt(, accus. 
of the pronoun, which, as it precedes its noun, is in gen. mate., 
although the names of women follow (cf. for this use of the 
pronoun, Ew. § 309, c). CPV\n and rnya are women, as we learn 
from the following vvh. By this parenthesis, the beginning of 
the main sentence has been lost sight of, and the *>yin is taken 
up again in "WJ. As to *Jwi with |D, cf. the remark on ii. 8. 
enh is the third wife, which he took instead of those he had sent 
away. The seven names in vers. 9, 10 are grouped together 
as sons or descendants of the last-named wife, by the concluding 
remark, "These his sons are heads of fathers'-houses." Then, 
further, in vers. 11, 12, the sons and grandsons of the first 
(divorced) wives, one of whom built the cities Ono and Lydda, 
are enumerated ; but we have no means of determining whether 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VIIL 13-28. 147 

the <"U3 Wri refers to Shemer, the last mentioned, or to Elpaal 
the father of the three sons, Eber, and Misham, and Shemer. It 
would, however, naturally suggest itself, that the words referred 
to the first. *6 (Lod) is without doubt the city Lydda, where 
Peter healed the paralytic (Acts ix. 32 ff.). It belonged in the 
Syrian age to Samaria, but it was added to Judea by the King 
Demetrius Soter, and given to Jonathan for a possession (1 Mace. 
xL 64, cf. with x. 30, 38). In the Jewish war it was destroyed 
by the Soman general Cestius (Joseph, de Bell. Jud. ii. 19. 1), 
bat was rebuilt at a later time, and became the site of a toparchy of 
Judea. In still later times it was called Diospolis, but is now a 
considerable Mohammedan village, lying between Jafa and Jeru- 
salem to the north of Ramleh, which bears the old name Ludd, 
by the Arabs pronounced also Lidd. See v. Baumer, Pal. S. 10 ; 
Robins. Pal. tub voce ; and Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, S. 69 f . 
Ono is mentioned elsewhere' only in Ezra ii. 33, Neh. vii. 37 
and xi. 35, along with Lod, and must have been a place in the 
neighbourhood of Lydda. 

Vers. 13-28. Heads of fathers' -homes of the tribe of Benjamin, 
who dwelt partly in Aijalon (ver. 13) and partly in Jerusalem. — 
Their connection with the heads of f athers'-houses already men- 
tioned is not clear. The names W?f\ riyna might be taken for 
a fuller enumeration of the sons of Elpaal (ver. 12), were it 
not that the names enumerated from ver. 14 or 15 onwards, are 
at the end of ver. 16 said to be those of sons of Beriah ; whence 
we must conclude that with ny*!?S ver. 13, a new list of heads 
of Benjamite f athers'-houses begins. This view is supported by 
the fact that the names from ver. 14 or 15 to ver. 27 are divided 
into five groups of families : the sons of Beriah (ver. 16), of 
Elpaal (ver. 18), of Shimhi (ver. 21), of Shashak (ver. 25), and 
of Jeroham (ver. 27). But as two of these, Beriah and Shashak, 
occur in vers. 13, 14, and y y®p is probably another form of 
TOP, Bertheau conjectures that the last two names, Shashak and 
Jeroham, are represented by VljiK and rrityv (ver. 14). onV and 
nionp may be explained by the supposition of a transcriber's 
error, or by one person having two names ; but the word VnK is 
rendered by the LXX. by 6 aSeXfa? avrov (— VHK) • and the 
view that vnx is a nom. prop, is opposed, as in ver. 31, by the 
fact that the 1 cop. is not found before the following PtTB*, for 
here, throughout, the names are all connected with each other by 
the i cop. Bertheau therefore conjectures that the text originally 



Digitized by 



Google 



148 THE FIEST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

ran thus, PWJ vn« <>$?B;M ? and that the name Elpaal was dropped 
oat ; and that in consequence of that, Witt had been punctuated 
as a nom. prop. These conjectures seem satisfactory, especially 
as it may be adduced in their favour that vpik has been added to 
the name Elpaal to connect the names in ver. 14 with the enume- 
ration (ver. 13) interrupted by the parenthetical remarks. No 
certainty, however, can be attained in a matter so obscure. If a 
new series of groups of families begins with ver. 13, we should 
expect an introductory formula, as in ver. 6. Beriah and Shema 
are called heads of the fathers'-houses of the inhabitants of Aijalon, 
i.e. heads of the groups of related households inhabiting Aijalon, 
the present Jalo to the west of Oibeon (see on Josh. six. 42). 
It is quite consistent with this that their sons or descendants 
dwelt in Jerusalem. Next a heroic deed of theirs is related, viz. 
that they (in some war or other) turned to flight the inhabitants 
of Gath (without doubt Philistines). This remark reminds us 
of the statement in chap. vii. 21, that sons of Ephraim were 
slain by those born in Gath, because they had gone down to 
drive away the herds of the inhabitants. But Bertheau draws 
an erroneous conclusion from this fact, when he says that because 
in both passages the name Beriah occurs, both refer to the same 
event, and thereafter attempts by various hypotheses to make 
the Benjamites mentioned in our verse into Ephraimites. For 
the name Beriah is not at all so rare as to allow of our 
inferring from that alone that the various persons so called are 
identical, for Jacob's son Asher also named one of his sons 
Beriah ; cf. vii. 30 with Gen. xlvi. 17. The notion that the 
Benjamites Beriah and Shema defeated those inhabitants of Gath 
who had slain the sons of Ephraim (vii. 21) is quite unsupported, 
as the Philistines lived at war and in feud with the Israelites 
for hundreds of years. — Vers. 15, 16. Several of the names of 
these six sons of Beriah who are mentioned in our verse occur 
elsewhere, but nowhere else are they met with as sons of Beriah. 
— Vers. 17, 18. Bertheau would identify three of the sons of 
Elpaal — Meshullam, Heber, and Ishmerai — with Misham, Eber, 
and Shemer, ver. 12, but without any sufficient reason ; for it is 
questionable if even the Elpaal whose sons are named in our 
verses be the same person as the Elpaal mentioned in ver. 12. 
Of these descendants of Elpaal, also, nothing further is known, 
and the same may be said of the nine sons of Shimhi, vers. 19-21 ; 
of the eleven sons of Shashak, vers. 22-25 ; and of the six sons 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VIII. 29-40. 149 

of Jeroham, vers. 26, 27, although some of these names are met 
with elsewhere singly. The concluding remark, ver. 28, " These 
are heads of fathers'-houses," refers, without doubt, to all the 
names from ver. 15 or 14 to ver. 27. "According to their gene- 
rations — heads" is in apposition to the preceding, as in ix. 24, but 
the meaning of the apposition is doubtful. The word D'SP'tO can 
hardly be repeated merely for emphasis, as the old commentators 
understood it, in harmony with the Vulgate principes inguam, 
for why should this word be so emphasized ? Bertheau thinks 
that " according to their births — heads " is to be taken to mean 
that those who are enumerated by name are not the heads living 
at the time of the preparation of this register, but the individual 
families, with the name of their progenitor after whom they were 
named in the genealogical lists. But how this meaning can be 
fonnd in the words in question, I at least cannot understand. 
Can the individual families be called rriSK 't^n, '< heads of fathers'- 
houses"! The families are the fathers'-houses themselves, i.e. 
they are made up of the groups of related households compre- 
hended under the name fathers'-houses. These groups of related 
households have, it is true, each of them their head, but cannot 
possibly be themselves called heads. The meaning seems rather 
to be that the persons named in the family registers, or registers 
of births, are introduced as heads (of fathers'-houses) ; and the 
reason why this is remarked would seem to be, to prevent those 
who are enumerated as the sons of this or that man from being 
regarded simply as members of fathers'-houses. The farther 
remark, "these dwelt in Jerusalem," is manifestly not to be 
taken to mean that the heads alone dwelt there, while the house- 
holds that were subordinated to them lived elsewhere; for it 
signifies that they dwelt in Jerusalem with the households which 
composed their respective fathers'-houses. That the households 
dwelt there also is not stated, merely because the register contains 
only the names of the heads. 

Vers. 29-40. The genealogy of Saul— Vers. 29-38 recur in 
chap. ix. 35-44 (see on that passage). — Vers. 29-32. The an- 
cestors of Saul. They dwelt mainly in Gibeon, but a branch of 
them were settled in Jerusalem, ver. 32 f. In Gibeon, now £1 
Jib, two hours north-west from Jerusalem (see on Josh ix. 3), 
dwelt the father of Gibeon, with his wife and his sons. The 
plural *3B* is used because there dwelt there, besides the father 
of Gibeon, also his wife and his sons. The father, i.e. the lord 



Digitized by 



Google 



150 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

and possessor of Gibeon, was called, according to is. 35, Jehiel 
(VtfTCP, Keth. talJP), and his wife Maachah, a not uncommon female 
name (see on ii. 48). The descent of Jehiel from Benjamin is 
not given. In ver. 30 eight names are given as those of his 
sons, while in ix. 36 f. ten are mentioned, the latter statement 
being correct ; for a comparison of the two passages shows that 
in our verse two names have been dropped out, — Ner between 
Baal and Nadab, and Mikloth at the end, which must have 
originally stood in our register also, — for in vers. 32, 33 their 
descendants are mentioned. "»at is called in ix. 37 ^?t. These 
names are evidently those of actual sons of Jehiel who were pro- 
genitors of f athers'-houses (groups of related households), but in the 
case of only two is the race descended from these further noticed. 
In ver. 32 we have that of the youngest Mikloth, who begat 
Shimeah, called in ix. 38 Shimeam. These also (viz. Shimeah 
and his family) dwelt in Jerusalem B^nN "Ui, "before their 
brethren," i.e. over against them, and DiTrot D?, « with their 
brethren." The brethren are the other Benjamites in the first 
clause, those dwelling outside of Jerusalem and inhabiting the 
neighbouring country as far as Gibeon (ver. 30) ; in the second, 
those dwelling in Jerusalem (ver. 28). From this it is clear 
that of the descendants of Abi-Gibeon only that branch which 
was descended from Mikloth went to Jeusalem. — Ver. 33. The 
family of Ner. Ner begat Kish, and Kish Saul. According to 
1 Sam. ix. 1 and xiv. 51, Kish was a son of Abiel. This state- 
ment, on account of which Bertheau proposes to make alterations 
in the text, may be reconciled with that in our verses, by the 
simple supposition that in our verse intermediate names men- 
tioned in 1 Sam. ix. 1, and probably others besides, are passed 
over, and Ner the son of Abi-Gibeon is named only because he 
was the progenitor of the line by which Saul was descended 
from him. Saul ("Kt?) is King Saul. Only three of his four 
sons, 1 Sam. xiv. 49, are mentioned, — those, namely, who fell with 
him in the battle against the Philistines, 1 Sam. xxxi. 2. The 
second is called, in 1 Sam. xiv. 49, Ishui, but in xxxi. 2 Abinadab, 
as in our register, whence we gather that Ishui is another name 
for Abinadab. The fourth, Eshbaal, is the same who is called 
in 2 Sam. ii. 8, and elsewhere, Ishbosheth, who was set up as 
king in opposition to David by Abner (see on 2 Sam. ii. 8). — 
Yer. 34. Jonathan's sons and grandsons. His son is called here 
and in ix. 40 Meribbaal, while in 2 Sam. iv. 4, ix. 6, xvi. 1 ff., 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VIII. 29-40, 151 

xix. 25, he is called Mephibosheth, because the name " striver 
with Baal" has been changed into nefrBD, exterminate idolum. 
This Meribbaal, who was lame in his feet (cf . 2 Sam. iv. 4), had 
a son Micha (WO, in 2 Sam. ix. 12 written K^?), of whom came 
a numerous race. He had four sons (ver. 35),. and the family 
of the last-named of these (Ahaz) is traced down, in vers. 36-40, 
through ten generations to the great-grandson of Eshek. First 
it is traced from Ahaz to Alemeth (ver. 36) ; then through Zimri, 
brother of this latter, to Binea, by TMfi ; then further by to (his 
son) to Azel, of whom in ver. 38 six sons are enumerated ; and 
finally, in ver. 39, the sons of his brother Eshek are named, and 
the sons and grandsons of the first-born of this latter are then 
enumerated. The last two verses are wanting after ix. 44. The 
names in the two registers correspond, except at one point, where 
we cannot get rid of the discrepancy that for rnjrirp (ver. 36) 
there stands in ix. 42 rnj£ both times, probably through an error 
of transcription, by which out of the shortened form rnjP there 
arose my», 1 and i being interchanged. Besides this, instead of 
the JTWI of ver. 35, we have in ix. 41, according to the harder 
pronunciation of the gutturals, jnru? ; and for nB"j, ver. 37, we 
have in ix. 41 the longer original form IW|. Now since Ahaz, 
whose posterity is traced down to the tenth generation, was 
descended from Jonathan in the third generation, and his grand- 
father Mephibosheth was a boy of five years of age at the death 
of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. iv. 4), the grandsons of Ulam, 
mentioned in ver. 40, will be the thirteenth generation of Jona- 
than's descendants. Now Jonathan fell along with Saul in the 
year 1055 B.C. (see the chronological table of the period of the 
judges, p. 217), and consequently this thirteenth generation of 
Jonathan's descendants lived probably about 700 B.C., i.e. about 
100 years before the Babylonian exile; for, according to the 
analogy of the royal race of David, we cannot reckon more than 
twenty-five years on an average for each generation. 1 — Ver. 40. 

1 Bertheaxt holds a contrary opinion to that given in the text, and thinks 
that by the numerous sons and grandsons of Ulam the son of Eshek we are 
brought down to post-exilic times, seeing that if Saul lived about 1080 b.c., 
and thirty years are reckoned to each one of the thirteen generations (Eshek 
being a descendant of Saul in the thirteenth generation), Azel and Eshek 
must hare lived about 690 B.C. But this estimate is too high, for we cannot 
reckon sixty years to Saul and Jonathan from 1080 onwards, since Jonathan 
fell along with Saul in 1055, and his son Meribbaal was then hardly fire years 
old, and must consequently have been born in 10C0. For the following 



Digitized by 



Google 



152 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

The sons of Ulam are called valiant heroes and archers, and 
must have shown the same capability for war by which the 
tribe of Benjamin had been distinguished at an earlier time ; cf. 
Judg. xx. 16, and for T)f% 'rt, cf. 1 Chron. v. 16. The sub- 
scription 'D Jw"?3 refers back to the superscription in ver. 1, and 
binds all the names in our chapter together. 



CHAP. IX. — THE FORMER INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM, AND 
THE FAMILY OF SAUL. 

Vers. 1-3 form the transition from the genealogies to the 
enumeration of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem in vers. 4-34. 
— Ver. 1. " And all the Israelites were registered ; and, behold, 
they were written in the book of the kings of Israel, and Judah 
was led away to Babylon for her transgressions." The LXX. 
and Vulg. have erroneously connected STWM with the preceding 
words, and render, "in the book of the kings of Israel and 
Judah," and then have translated the following words 'W Win 
arbitrarily. Not less incorrect is Bertheau's opinion, that Israel 
here denotes only the tribes of the northern kingdom, because 
Israel is contrasted with Judah, and kings of Israel are spoken 
of, for both reasons are quite worthless. " The book of the kings 
of Israel" is cited in 2 Chron. xx. 34 (cf. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18), 
and is declared by Bertheau himself to be identical with the 
historical work cited as the " book of the kings of Israel and 
Judah" (2 Chron. xxvii. 7, xxxv. 27, xxxvi. 8), or as the " book 
of the kings of Judah and Israel" (2 Chron. xvi. 11, xxv. 26, 
and elsewhere). How then can it be inferred from the shortened 
title, " book of the kings of Israel," that kings of the northern 
kingdom are spoken of ? Then, as to the contrast between Israel 
and Judah, it might, when looked at by itself, be adduced in 
favour of taking the name in its narrower sense ; but when we 

generations, moreover, not more than twenty-five years on an average should 
be reckoned. That being the case, the children's children of Ulam's sons, 
who were the twelfth generation of Micha's descendants, may have lived 
from 760 B.C. onwards, and during this period, from 760 to 700, may have 
increased to the troop of blooming grandchildren of Ulam mentioned in ver. 
40. But even supposing that thirty years should be reckoned for each genera- 
tion, the last-named generation of 150 grandsons and great-grandsons of 
Ulam would have lived in the period from 660 to 600, i.e. before the exile, 
or at least before the first great deportation of the people with Jehoiakim in 
the year 599 b.c. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IX 1-3. 153 

consider the grouping together in ver. 10 of " Israel, the priests, 
the Levites, and the Nethinim," we see clearly that Israel in ver. 2 
incontrovertibly denotes the whole Israel of the twelve tribes. 
In ver. 1, Israel is used in the same sense as in ver. 2 ; and the 
contrast between Israel and Judah, therefore, is analogous to 
the contrast " Judah and Jerusalem," i.e. Israel is a designation 
of the whole covenant people, Judah that of one section of it. 
The position of our verse also at the end of the genealogies of 
all the tribes of Israel, and not merely of the ten tribes of the 
northern kingdom, requires that the name Israel should be under- 
stood to denote the whole covenant people. That ver. 1 forms 
the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and so is properly the conclusion of the 
genealogies in chap, ii.-viii., is so manifest that Bertheau cannot 
adduce a single tenable ground for his assertion to the contrary, 
that "the verse forms clearly quite a new beginning." For 
the assertion, " We recognise in it a short introduction to the 
historical statements regarding the tribe of Judah or the Israelites 
after the exile," cannot be adduced in support of his view, since 
it not only contradicts his former assertion that Israel here 
denotes the northern kingdom, but is also irreconcilable with the 
words of the verse. 1 The statement, " Judah was led captive to 
Babylon for her transgressions," corresponds to the statement 
chap. v. 25 f., 41. But when, after this statement, our writer 
continues, " And the former inhabitants which (lived) in their 
possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, 
and the Nethinim ; and in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of 
Jndah," etc., the " former inhabitants" can only be those who 
dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led captive into 
Babylon. This could hardly be misunderstood by any com- 
mentator, if the right interpretation of our passage were not 
obscured by the similarity of the register of the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem which follows to that contained in Neh xi., — a simi- 
larity which has led some to believe that both registers treat of 

1 Bcrtheau'a farther remark, " Yer. 1 cannot have been written by our 
historian, because he did not consider it sufficient to refer his readers to the 
work he quotes from, but thought himself bound to communicate genealogical 
registers of the tribes of the northern kingdom (chap, v.-vii.), -which he must 
We extracted from older registers prepared in the time of the kings (cf. v. 
27), perhaps even out of the work here named," is quite incomprehensible by 
me. Notwithstanding repeated consideration of it clause by clause, I have 
not succeeded in comprehending the logic of this argument 



Digitized by 



Google 



154 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

the post-exilic inhabitants of Jerusalem. Bertheau, e.g n comes 
to the following decision as to the relation of onr register, vers. 
2-34, to that in Neh. xi. 3-24 : " As the result of the comparison, 
we have found that both registers correspond exactly in their 
plan, and agree as to all the main points in their contents." 
The first point in this result has some foundation ; for if we turn 
our attention only to the enumeration of chiefs dwelling in Jeru- 
salem, then the registers in vers. 4-17 of our chapter and in 
Neh. xi. 3-19 are identical in plan. But if we consider the 
whole of the registers, as found in 1 Ghron. ix. 2-34 and Neh. 
xi. 3—24, we see that they do differ in plan ; for in ours, the 
enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is introduced by 
the remark, ver. 2, " The former inhabitants in their possessions 
in their cities, were Israel, the priests," etc., according to which 
the following words, ver. 3, " And in Jerusalem there dwelt of 
the sons of Judah," etc., can only be understood of the pre- 
exilic inhabitants. When Bertheau refers, in opposition to this, 
to Neh. v. 15, where the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra is 
called the time of the former governors (D'jysin rrinsn), •with 
whom Nehemiah contrasts himself, the later governor, to prove 
that according to that the former inhabitants in our passage may 
very well denote the inhabitants of the land in the first century 
of the restored community, he forgets that the governors were 
changed within short periods, so that Nehemiah might readily 
call his predecessors in the office " former governors ;" while the 
inhabitants of the cities of Judah, on the contrary, had not 
changed during the period from Zerubbabel to Ezra, so as to 
allow of earlier and later inhabitants being distinguished. From 
the fact that the inhabitants " of their cities" are not contrasted 
as the earlier, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the later, 
but that both are placed together in such a way as to exclude 
such a contrast, it is manifest that the conclusion drawn by 
Movers and Bertheau from Neh. xi. 1, that the " former inhabit- 
ants in their possessions in their cities" are those who dwelt in 
Jerusalem before it was peopled by the inhabitants of the sur- 
rounding district, is not tenable. In Neh. xi., on the contrary, 
the register is introduced by the remark, ver. 3, " These are the 
heads of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem ; and they dwelt in 
the cities of Judah, each in his possession in their cities, Israel, 
the priests," etc. This introduction, therefore, announces a 
register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the other cities 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. K; 4-9. 155 

of Judah, at that time, i.e. at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
To this corresponds the manner in which the register has been 
made oat, as in vers. 3-24 the inhabitants of Jerusalem are 
enumerated, and in vers. 25-36 the inhabitants of the other 
cities. The register in our chapter, on the contrary, deals only 
with the inhabitants of Jerusalem (vers. 3-19a), while in vers. 
196-34 there follow remarks as to the duties devolving npon the 
Levites. No mention is made in the register of the inhabitants 
of other cities, or of Israelites, priests, and Levites, who dwelt in 
their cities outside of Jerusalem (ver. 2), because all that was 
necessary had been already communicated in the preceding 
genealogies (chap. ii.-viii.). — Ver. 3, too, is not, as Bertheau and 
others think, " the superscription of the register of those dwelling 
in Jerusalem ;" for were it that, mention must have been made in 
it of the priests and Levites, the enumeration of whom fills up 
the greater part of the following register, vers. 10-33. Ver. 3 
corresponds rather to ver. 35, and serves to introduce the contents 
of the whole chapter, and with it commences the enumeration 
itself. In Neh. xi., consequently, we have a register of the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, while our 
chapter contains only a register of the former inhabitants of 
Jerusalem. Only in so far as it treats of the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem does Nehemiah' s register resemble ours in plan ; that 
is, to this extent, that the sons of Judah, the sons of Benjamin, 
priests and Levites, are enumerated seriatim as dwelling in 
Jerusalem, that is, the heads of the fathers'-houses of these in- 
habitants, as is stated by Nehemiah in the superscription xi. 3, 
and in our chapter, at the end of the respective paragraphs, vers. 
9, 13, and in the subscription, vers. 33 and 34. 

Bat if we examine the contents of the two catalogues more 
minutely, their agreement is shown by the identity of several of 
the names of these heads. On this point Bertheau thus speaks : 
" Of the three heads of Judah, Uthai, Asaiah, and Jeuel, vers. 
4-6, we recognise the first two in Athaiah and Maaseiah, Neh. 
zi. 4, 5 ; only the third name, Jeuel, is omitted. Of the five 
heads of Benjamin, vers. 5-7, it is true, we meet with only two, 
Sella and Hodaviah, in Neh. xi. 7-9 ; but it is manifest that there 
was no intention to communicate in that place a complete enume- 
ration of the hereditary chiefs of Benjamin. The names of the 
six heads of the divisions of the priests, Jedaiah and Jehoiarib, 
Jachin, Azariah (Seriah occupies his place in the book of Nehe- 



Digitized by 



Google 



156 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

miah), Adaiah and Maasiai (represented in Nehemiah by Ama- 
shai), are enumerated in both places in the same order. Among 
tbe Levites there occur the names of Shemaiah and Mattaniah 
as representatives of tbe great Levitic divisions of Merari and 
Gershon-Asaph, and we easily recognise our npaV in the KUP 
of the book of Nehemiah. Only the two first of the four chiefs 
of the doorkeepers, Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, and Ahiman, are 
named in the abridged enumeration of the book of Nehemiah, 
while the two others are only referred to in the added DDVlttt." 
Now, even according to this statement of the matter, the differ- 
ence is seen to be almost as great as the agreement ; but in reality, 
as a more exact comparison of the catalogues shows, the true state 
of the case is very different. According to ver. 3, there dwelt in 
Jerusalem also sons of Ephraim and Manasseh ; bnt the catalogae 
from ver. 4 onwards contains only sons of Judah and Benjamin, 
and not a single Ephraimite or Manassite. The reason of that 
is probably this, that only single families and individuals from 
among the latter dwelt there, while the register only makes men- 
tion of the heads of the larger family groups in the population of 
Jerusalem. — Vers. 4-6. In the same place there dwelt, of the 
sons of Judah, three chiefs of the three most important families 
of Judah, that of Fharez, that of Shelah, and that of Zerah ; cf. 
ii. 3, 4. Of the family of Pharez was Uthai, whose descent is 
traced back in ver. 4 to Bani, of the children of Pharez. The 
Kethibh \)a"HM3"J3 is clearly to be read according to the Keri 
yafO ^a'ja. The name Bani occurs, vi. 31, among the Merarites ; 
while in the genealogies of Judah, chap, ii.-iv., neither Bani nor 
Uthai, nor any one of his ancestors who are here named, is men- 
tioned. In Neh. xi. 4, on the contrary, there is named of the 
sons of Pharez, Athaiah (fW?lj, perhaps only another form of 
W), with quite other ancestors ; while not a single one of the 
five names of the persons through whom his race is traced 
back to Mahalaleel, of the sons of Pharez, coincides with the 
ancestors of Uthai. — Ver. 5. Of the family of Shelah, Asaiah 
the first-born, and his (other) sons. Wa, after "faa?, can only be 
understood of the other sons or descendants. But the epithet 
given to Asaiah, , ?? , 8'n, is surprising, for it is a formation from 
Wf or fay, and appears to denote a native of Shilob, a well- 
known city of Ephraim. This derivation, however, is not suit- 
able, since here the sons (descendants) of Judah are enumerated; 
and no connection between the inhabitants of Judah and the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. EL 4-9. 157 

Ephraimite city Shiloh can either be proved or is at all likely. 
The older commentators, therefore, have suggested the reading 
™£?, as in Num. xxvi. 20, where the family of Shelah, the third 
son of Judah, is so called. This suggestion is doubtless correct, 
and the erroneous punctuation ^TB'n has probably arisen only 
from the scriptio plena of the word n^s? instead of !w. This 
supposition is confirmed by the fact that the form wtfn is found 
in Neh. xi. 5, although it also is pointed 'Atfri. In Neh. loc. cit., 
instead of Asaiah, Maaseiah is introduced as yptsfrrja in the seventh 
generation, while no ancestors whatever of our Asaiah are men- 
tioned. The name n^, moreover, is not unfrequent, and occurs 
in iv. 36 among the Simeonites; in vi. 15, xv. 6, 11, among the 
Levites ; in 2 Kings xxii. 12, 14 and 2 Ghron. xxxiv. 20, as 13tf of 
the King Josiah. n'&2j& is the name of many persons, e.g. in xv. 
18, 20, and likewise in 2 Chron. xxiii. 1, Jer. xxi. 1, xxix. 21, 
xxxv. 4 ; and elsewhere it is used of men of other tribes : so that 
even should Maaseiah have been written instead of Asaiah merely 
by an error of transcription, we are not warranted in identifying 
our Asaiah with the Maaseiah of Nehemiah. — Ver. 6. " Of the 
sons of Zerah, Jeuel;" also the name of various persons; cf. v. 7, 
2 Chron. xxvi. 11 : the register in Neh. xi. notices no descend- 
ants of Zerah. " And their brethren, 690 (men)." The plural 
suffix in orvriK cannot be referred, as Berthean thinks, to Jeuel, 
for that name, as being that of the head of a father' s-house, 
cannot be a collective. The suffix must consequently refer to the 
three heads mentioned in vers. 4-6, Uthai, Asaiah, and Jeuel, 
whose brethren are the other heads of f athers'-houses of the three 
families descended from Judah ; cf. ver. 9, where the number of 
the B'rn* mentioned refers to all the heads who had formerly been 
spoken of. — Vers. 7-9. Of the sons of Benjamin, i.e. of the Ben- 
jamites, four heads are named, Sallu, Ibneiah, Elah, and Meshul- 
lam ; and of the first and fourth of these, three generations of 
ancestors are mentioned, of the second only the father, of the 
third the father and grandfather. " And their brethren accord- 
ing to their generations, 956;" cf. on ver. 6. "All these men" 
are not the brethren whose number is given, but the heads 
who hare been mentioned by name. Now, if we compare this 
with Neh. xi., we meet in vers. 7-9 with only one of the four 
heads of Benjamin, Sallu, and that too, as in the Chronicle, as 
a son of Meshullam, while the ancestors of both are different. 
Instead of the three others in ver. 8, we have ^9 *?a, 928 ; and in 



Digitized by 



Google 



158 THE FIEST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

ver. 9, Joel as overseer (prefect), and Jehudah as ruler over the 
city. 

Vers. 10-13. The priests. — The three names Jedaiah, Jehoia- 
rib, and Jachin (ver. 10) denote three classes of priests (cf. uriv. 
7, 17), who accordingly dwelt in Jerusalem. There also dwelt 
there (ver. 11) Azariah the son of Hilkiah, etc., the prince of the 
house of God ; cf. 2 Chron. xxxi. 13. This is the Azariah men- 
tioned in chap. v. 40, the son of Hilkiah, etc., the grandfather of 
the Jehozadak who was led captive into Babylon. Then in ver. 
12 we have two other heads of the priestly fathers'-houses, with 
an enumeration of their ancestors, through whom they are traced 
back to the classes of priests to which they belonged respectively, 
viz. Adaiah to the class Malchijah (1 Chron. xxiv. 9), and Maa- 
siai to the class Immer (1 Chron. xxiv. 14). According to this, 
therefore, there dwelt at Jerusalem, of the priesthood, the three 
classes Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin, Azariah the prince of the 
temple, and of the classes Malchijah and Immer, the fathers'- 
houses Adaiah and Maasiai. In ver. 13 the whole number is 
estimated at 1760. A difficulty is raised by the first words of 
this verse, " And their brethren, heads of their fathers'-houses, 
1760," which can .hardly be taken in any other sense than as 
denoting that the number of the heads of the fathers'-houses 
amounted to 1760. This, however, is not conceivable, as " fathers'- 
houses" are not single households, but larger groups of related 
families. Moreover, B^nti, which is co-ordinate with the heads of 
the fathers'-houses, can only denote, as in vers. 6, 9, the heads of 
the families which belonged to or constituted the fathers'-houses. 
To arrive at this meaning, however, we must transpose the words 
0'?™ and mivrrez) Dnsta, connecting ttKurrpJ? '"i with ver. 12, 
and DrwiK with the number, thus : heads of fathers'-houses, etc., 
were those mentioned in ver. 12, and their brethren 1760 (men), 
valiant heroes in the work of the service of the house of God. 
Before WtOD one would expect the word*^, as- in 1 Chron. 
rriii. 24 and Neh. xi. 12, but its presence is not so absolutely 
necessary as to warrant us in supposing that it has been dropped 
out, and in inserting it. WtOD may be also taken as an accusa- 
tive of relation, <( valiant heroes in reference to the work ;" or at 
most a ? may be supplied before route, as it might easily have 
been omitted by a clerical error after the immediately preceding 
<"n. On comparing our passage with Neh. xi. 10-14, we find 
there, if 3*"WT? in ver. 10 be altered into a^!^, the same three 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IX. 14-17. 159 

classes of priests ; but instead of Azariah, Seraiah is prince of the 
house of God, ver. 11 : thereafter we have 822' brethren, perform- 
ing the work of the house (of God). Then follows Adaiah of 
the class Malchijah (as in the Chronicles), but with the addition, 
" his brethren 242 ;" and then Amashai of the class Immer, bnt 
with other ancestors than those of the Maasiai of the Chronicles, 
and with the addition, " and their brethren, valiant heroes, 128 ;" 
and finally, Zabdiel Ben Hagdolim as overseer (president over 
them). The sum of the three numbers is 1192, as contrasted 
with the 1760 of the Chronicle. 

Vers. 14-17. The Leviies. — Of these there dwelt in Jerusalem, 
Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of, etc., a Merarite ; and 
(ver. 15) Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal ; and Mattaniah the son 
of Micah, a descendant of Asaph, and consequently a Gershonite 
(tct. 16) ; and Obadiah the son of Shemaiah, a descendant of 
Jeduthun, consequently also a Merarite ; and Berechiah the son 
of Asa, the son of Elkanah, who dwelt in the villages of theNeto- 
phathite, i.e. of the lord or possessor of Netopha, a locality in the 
neighbourhood of Bethlehem; cf. Neh. vii. 26. This remark 
does not refer to Shemaiah, who cannot have dwelt at the same 
time in Jerusalem and in the village of the Netophathite, but to 
his grandfather or ancestor Elkanah, who is thereby to be dis- 
tinguished from the other men who bore this name, which often 
occurs in the family of Kohath. All these men are, according 
to the analogy of the other names in our register, and according 
to the express statement of the superscription, ver. 34, to be 
regarded as heads of Levitic fathers -houses, and were probably 
leaders of the music, since those mentioned in vers. 15, 16 were 
descendants of Asaph and Jeduthun, and may therefore with 
certainty be assumed to have belonged to the Levitic musicians. 
A confirmation of this supposition is found in the superscription, 
Ter. 33, inasmuch as the mention of the singers in the first line 
goes to show that the enumeration of the Levites began with the 
singers. If we compare Neh. xi. 15-18 with our passage, we find 
that these two, Shemaiah and Mattaniah, are mentioned, and on 
the whole their forefathers have the same names, vers. 15 and 17 ; 
but between the two we find Shabbethai and Jozabad of the chief 
of the Levites set over the external service of the house of God. 
After Mattaniah, who is chief of the Asaphites there also, men- 
tion is made of Bakbukiah as the second among his brethren, 
and Abda the son of Shammua, a descendant of Jeduthun (ver. 



Digitized by 



Google 



160 THE FIRST BOOK OP CHEOKICLES. 

17) ; according to which, even if we identify Bakbakkar with Bak- 
bukiah, and Abda with Obadiah, the Heresh, Galal, and Berechiah 
of the Chronicles are wanting in Nehemiab, and instead of these 
three, only Jozabad is mentioned. — Ver 17. u The doorkeepers, 
Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, Ahiman, and their brethren : Shallam 
the chief." The service was so divided among the four just 
named, that each along with his brethren performed the duty of 
watching by one of the four sides and chief entrances of the 
temple (cf. vers. 24 and 26), and these four were consequently 
heads of those divisions of the Levites to whom was committed 
the duty of the watch. In Neh. xi. 20, on the contrary, the 
doorkeepers mentioned are Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren, 
172 (men) ; but the other two chiefs named in the Chronicle are 
there omitted, while in the Chronicle no number is given. Here 
the agreement between the two registers ceases. In the Chronicle 
there follows first of all, in vers. 18-26a, some remarks on the 
service of the doorkeepers ; and then in 266-32 the duties of the 
Levites in general are spoken of ; and finally, in vers. 32 and 34 
we have subscriptions. In Nehemiah, on the other hand, we find 
in ver. 20 the statement that the remaining Israelites, priests, and 
Levites dwelt in their cities ; and after some statements as to the 
service of the Levites, the enumeration of these cities is intro- 
duced. 

. In glancing back over the two catalogues, it is seen that the 
differences are at least as great as the coincidences. But what 
conclusions are we to deduce from that fact ? Bertheau thinks 
" from this it is certain that both catalogues cannot have been 
drawn up independently of each other," and "that both have 
been derived from one and the same source, which must have 
been much more complete, and much richer in names, than 
our present catalogues; cf. Movers, S. 234." We, however, 
judge otherwise. The discrepancies are much too great to 
allow us to refer them to free handling by epitomizers of some 
hypothetical more detailed catalogue, or to the negligence of 
copyists. The coincidence, in so far as it actually exists, does 
not justify us in accepting such far-fetched suppositions, but 
may be satisfactorily explained in another way. It consists 
indeed only in this, that in both registers, (1) sons of Judah and 
Benjamin, priests and Levites, are enumerated ; (2) that in each 
of these four classes of the inhabitants of Jerusalem some names 
are identical. The first of these coincidences clearly does not iu 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IX. 14-17. 161 

the least prove that the two catalogues are derived from the same 
source, and treat of the same time ; for the four classes enume- 
rated constituted, both before and after the exile, the population 
of Jerusalem. But neither does the identity of some of the 
names prove in the slightest degree the identity of the two cata- 
logues, because the names denote, partly classes of inhabitants, 
and partly heads of fathers' -houses, i.e. of groups of related 
households, which did not change with each generation, but 
sometimes continued to exist for centuries ; and because, a priori, 
we should expect that those who returned from exile would, as 
far as it was possible, seek out again the dwelling-places of their 
pre-exilic ancestors; and that consequently after the exile, on 
the whole, the same families who had dwelt at Jerusalem before 
it would again take up their abode there. In this way the iden- 
tity of the names Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin in the two 
catalogues may be accounted for, as these names do not denote 
persons, but classes of priests, which existed both before and 
after the exile. A similar explanation would also apply to the 
names of the doorkeepers Akkub and Talmon (ver. 17 ; Neh. ver. 
19), as not merely the priests, but also the other Levites, were 
divided for the service according to their fathers'-houses into 
classes which had permanent names (cf. chap. xxv. and xxvi.). 
Of the other names in our register only the following are iden- 
tical: of the Benjamites, Sallu the son of Meshullam (ver. 7; 
Neh. ver. 7) ; of the priests, Adaiah (ver. 12 ; Neh. ver. 12), with 
almost the same ancestors ; and of the Levites, Shemaiah and 
Mattaniah (ver. 10 f. ; Neh. vers. 15, 17). All the other names 
are different ; and even if among the priests Maasiai (ver. 12) 
should be identical with Amashai (Neh. ver. 13), and among the 
Levites Bakbakkar and Obadiah(vers. 16 and 15) with Bakbukiah 
and Abda (Neh. ver. 17), we cannot identify the sons of Judah, 
Uthai and Azaiah (ver. 4 f.), with Athaiah and Maaseiah (Neh. 
ver. 4 f.), for their ancestors are quite different. The simi- 
larity or even the identity of names, were it in two or three 
generations, cannot of itself prove the identity of the persons, as 
we have already seen, in the genealogy of the line of Aaron 
(v. 29 ff.), that, e.g., the series Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok 
recurs at various times ; cf . ver. 33 f . and ver. 37 f . Every- 
where in the genealogical lines the same names very often recur, 
as it was the custom to give the children the names of their 
ancestors ; cf . Tob. i. 9, Luke i. 59. Win. bibl. R. W. ii. S. 133 ; 

L 



Digitized by 



Google 



162 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Hivern. Einl. ii. 1, S. 179 f. But if, on the one hand, the 
identity of these names in the two catalogues is not at all a valid 
proof of the identity of the catalogues, and hy no means justifies 
ns in identifying similarly-sounding names by supposing errors 
of transcription, on the other hand we must hold that the register 
refers to the pre-exilic population of Jerusalem, both because of 
the wide discrepancies in all points, and in accordance with the 
introductory statements in ver. 2 f . This interpretation is also 
demanded by the succeeding remarks in reference to the service 
of the Levites, since they throughout refer to the pre-exilic 
time. 

Vers. 18-34. Tlie duties of the Levites.— Ver. 18. The first 
half of this verse, "And until now (is he) in the king's gate 
eastward," must be referred to Shallum (Berth.). To imagine 
a reference to all the doorkeepers, " until now are they," does 
not suit vers. 24-26, according to which the doorkeepers kept 
guard upon all the four sides. The eastern gate of the temple 
was called the king's gate, because by this gate the king went in 
and out to the temple ; cf . Ezek. xlvi. 1, 2, xli. 3. The remark, 
" until now is Shallum watcher," etc., presupposes the existence 
of the temple at the time of the preparation of this register, and 
points to the pre-exilic time. Against this Bertheau has raised 
the objection that the name king's gate may have been retained 
even in the post-exilic times for the eastern gate. This must of 
course be in general admitted, but could only be accepted if it 
were proved that Shallum lived after the exile. This proof 
Bertheau obtains by taking the words, " until now is Shallum 
in the king's gate," to mean, "that, according to the ancient 
arrangement, Shallum, the chief of all the doorkeepers, had still 
to guard the eastern entrance ; according to which Shallum would 
be the collective designation of the whole series of the chiefs of 
the doorkeepers who lived from David's time till after the exile ;" 
but the words cannot be thus interpreted. Such an interpretation 
cannot be made plausible by identifying the name Shallum with 
Meshelemiah or Shelemiah, to whose lot it fell in the time of 
David to be doorkeeper to the eastward (xxvi. 1, 14) ; for in 
doing so, we would overlook the fact that in ver. 21 of our 
chapter also he bears the name Meshelemiah. The circum- 
stance that both Shallum and Meshelemiah are called Ben-Kore, 
of the sons of Abiasaph, by no means justifies the identification 
of these two quite different names ; for it is neither necessary nor 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IX. 18-34. 163 

probable that f? should here be taken in its narrower sense, and 
Kore regarded as the immediate father of both. The name R$ 
is repeated in the family of the east doorkeepers, as we learn 
from 2 Chron. xxxi. 14, where it is stated that this office was 
held by a Kore ben Jimna. " These (who are named in ver. 17) 
are the doorkeepers for the camp of the sons of Levi " (of the 
Levites), — an antiquated expression, bringing to remembrance 
the time of Moses, when the Levites, on the journey through 
the wilderness, were encamped about the tabernacle (Num. iii. 
215.). — Ver. 19 gives more exact information as to Shallum's 
person and his official position. He, the descendant of Kore, 
the son (descendant) of Abiasaph, a Korahite, and his brethren 
according to his father's-house (i.e. called brethren because they, 
like him, belonged to the father's-house of Korah), were over the 
work of the service, viz. keepers of the thresholds of the tent, i.e. 
of the house of God, of the temple, which, according to the 
ancient custom, was called tent, because God's house was for- 
merly a tent — the tabernacle. " And his fathers (the ancestors of 
Shallum) were by the encampment of Jahve, guardians of the 
entrance." With these words the author of this register goes 
back into the ancient time ; and we learn that Shallum's ances- 
tors, of the father's-house of the Korahite Abiasaph, had held 
the office of guardian of the entrance to the house of God from 
the time of the conquest of Canaan and the setting up of the 
tabernacle in Shiloh. The remark in ver. 20, that Phinehas the 
ton of Eleazar was prince over them in time past, points to the 
same period. In the book of Joshua and the older books there 
i« no record of the matter ; but since the Korahites were de- 
scended through Ishhar from Kohath, and the Kohathites held, 
according to Num. iv. 4 ff., the first place among the servants of 
the holy place, and were responsible for the holiest vessels, we 
cannot doubt that the statement here rests upon accurate histo- 
rical tradition. The " encampment of Jahve " is the holy place 
of the tabernacle, the dwelling of Jahve in the midst of His 
people. This designation also is derived from the circumstances 
of the Israelites in their wandering in the Arabian desert, 
and is likewise employed in 2 Chron. xxxi. 2 in reference to 
Solomon's temple ; but in our verse the tabernacle is intended. 
It had only one entrance, KtiD, the guarding of which was en- 
trusted to the above-mentioned Korahites. — Ver. 20. Phinehas 
was prince over them, not as high priest, but during the high- 



Digitized by 



Google 



164 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

priesthood of his father Eleazar, i.e. in the time of Joshua, just 
as Eleazar, under the high-priesthood of Aaron in the time of 
Moses, had the oversight of the keepers of the holy place, as 
prince of the princes of Levi (Num. iii. 32). The words isy mrr 
do not contain a historical remark, " Jahve was with him," 
for then the conjunction 1 would stand before it, as in xi. 9 ; 
they are a blessing — "Jahve be with him" — in reference, pro- 
bably, to the covenant of peace entered into with him and his 
descendants by Jahve (Num. xxv. 11-13). — Ver. 21 is quite un- 
connected with the preceding context, the conjunction 1 being 
omitted, and its contents also present considerable difficulties. 
Zechariah, the son of Meshelemiah, can only be the Zechariah 
who is mentioned in xxvi. 2 as the first-born of Meshelemiah, 
and who lived in the time of David ; for at the time when David 
divided the porters into classes, there fell to him the lot towards 
midnight, i.e. the duty of waiting at the door on the north side 
of the holy place (xxvi. 14). With this, indeed, the general 
statement of our verse, " he was porter of the door (or the en- 
trance) of the tent of the covenant," is not inconsistent. But 
what purpose does this general statement serve! With what 
design is Zechariah, and he alone, mentioned? We have no 
means of giving a definite answer to this question ; but he may 
perhaps be named as being the person who, before David's divi- 
sion of the Levites into classes was carried out, had charge of 
the porters' service in the tabernacle. But even if this conjec- 
ture be accepted as well grounded, the abrupt way in which it is 
mentioned still remains enigmatical. 

With ver. 22 the narrative seems to return to the enumera- 
tion begun in vers. 17-19a, so that the reflections ou the earlier 
times, vers. 19&-21, are to be regarded as a parenthesis. Ver. 
22 runs: "They all who were chosen for doorkeepers for the 
thresholds, 212 (men) : they, in their villages were they registered ; 
they were ordained by David and Samuel the seer on their 
fidelity." The infinitive feWlii is used substantively, " in refer- 
ence to them, in their villages was their genealogical registration 
accomplished." If ver. 22 be the continuation of vers. 17-21c, 
then the number given (212) will refer to the doorkeepers in 
active service at the time of the preparation of the register. 
With this hypothesis, however, the last clause of the verse, 
which states that David and Samuel had appointed them, does 
not seem to harmonize. But if we consider that the four men 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IX. 18-34. 165 

mentioned in ver. 17 are heads of fathers'-honses, and that their 
fathers'-houses were not extinguished at the death of their tem- 
porary heads, and performed the same service from generation 
to generation, it might well be said of the generation performing 
the service at the time of the preparation of our register, that 
David had appointed them to their office. The case would of 
course be similar, if, as we have above supposed, the four names 
in ver. 17 are designations of the classes of doorkeepers, for 
these classes also performed the same service continually. The 
statements of our 22d verse cannot be referred to the time of 
David, for in chap. xxvi. 8-10 the number of the doorkeepers 
appointed by David amounted only to eighty, viz. sixty-two of 
the sons of Obed-Edom, and eighteen of the sons of Meshele- 
miab, which, with the addition of thirteen Merarites (xxvi. 10, 
11), gives a total of ninety-three, while in our verse the number 
is 212. According to Ezra ii. 42, the number of doorkeepers 
who returned with Zerubbabel was 139 men ; and in the register, 
Keh. xi. 19, the number is stated to be 172. From the remark 
that they were registered in their villages (arnvn, as in vi. 41, 
Josh. xiii. 23, and elsewhere), we learn that the doorkeepers 
dwelt in villages near Jerusalem, whence they came to the city 
so often as their service required, as the singers also did in the 
post-exilic time, Neh. xii. 29 f. ID', to found, set, ordain, and so 
appoint to an office. " David and Samuel the seer : " 'iKhn, the 
ancient designation of the prophets, for which at a later time 
K"3J was the more usual word ; cf . 1 Sam. ix. 9. Nowhere else 
do we find any record of Samuel's having taken any part in 
David's arrangement of the service of the Levites in the holy 
place. Samuel, moreover, was no longer living when David 
began to arrange the worship at the time when the ark was 
brought to Jerusalem, for he died before Saul, and consequently 
before the beginning of David's reign ; cf . 1 Sam. xxv. 1 with 
xxviii. 3. Bertheau is consequently of opinion that this state- 
ment of our historian rests merely upon the general recollection, 
according to which the worship* was organized afresh, and estab- 
lished in its newer form, in the time of David and Samuel. 
This is of course possible, but there is no cogent reason against 
accepting the much less remote supposition that the chronicler 
took this remark from his authority. The mention of Samuel 
after David has not a chronological signification, but David is 
named first on account of his connection with the matter in 



Digitized by 



Google 



166 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

hand ; for the thorough re-organization of the worship, and the 
classification of the persons engaged in carrying it on, originated 
with David. For these arrangements of David, however, Samuel 
had' prepared the way in his straggle for the restoration of the 
theocracy, and of the worship which had fallen into desnetude 
nnder Eli and his profligate sons. To do this in any measure, 
he must have, without doubt, ordained trustworthy men to the 
individual offices, and thus have prepared the way for King 
David. DW1BK3 j s f oun( i i n vers . 26, 31 without the suffix, 
with the meaning "in good faith" (cf. 2 Kings xii. 16, xxii. 7, 
2 Chron. xxxi. 12), and accordingly is here upon their fidelity, 
i.e. because they had been recognised to be faithful. — Ver. 23 f. 
They (those ordained by David) and their sons (descendants) were 
at the doors of the house of Jahve— of the tent-house (Tnkn rra 
is added to nw-jva, in order that the latter might not be confined 
to Solomon's temple) ; for the watch (ni"iDE>D of persons, as in 
Neb. xii. 9, iv. 3, 16), according to the four winds (quarters) 
were they, i.e. the doorkeepers stood so, in accordance with the 
arrangement made by David ; cf. xxvi. 14 ff. — Ver. 25. " And 
their brethren in their villages (cf. ver. 22) were bound to come 
the seventh day, from time to time, with these." The infinitive 
Itia with 7 expresses duty, as in v. 1. The seventh day is the 
Sabbath of the week, on which each class in order had to take 
charge of the services. n?tt OV are the chiefs mentioned in ver. 17 
who dwelt in Jerusalem, and of whom it is said in ver. 26, " for 
they are on their fidelity, the four mighty of the doorkeepers." 
In explanation of the ^ia, Bertheau very fittingly compares 
arparqyot tow lepov, Luke xxii. 52. The words DW fin, which 
may be translated, " they are the Levites," or " they (viz. the 
Levites)," are somewhat surprising. The Masoretic punctuation 
demands the latter translation, when the words would be an 
emphatic elucidation of the preceding nen. Were they a sub- 
scription, we should expect n|w instead of tffi; while, on the 
other hand, the circumstance noticed by Bertheau, that in the 
following verses the duties not merely of the doorkeepers, but 
of the Levites in general, are enumerated, would seem to favour 
that sense. Even in the second half of the 22d verse it is not 
the doorkeepers who are spoken of, but the Levites in general. 
May we not suppose that the text originally stood vn tmhn jo» 
(cf. ver. 14) instead of vrn D^ji Dm, and that the reading of our 
present text, having originated in a transcriber's error, found 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IX 18-84. 167 

tcceptance from the circumstance that ver. 27 apparently still 
treats of, or returns to, the service of the doorkeepers 1 So much 
is certain, that from ver. 266 onward the duties of the Levites in 
general, no longer those of the doorkeepers, are spoken of, and 
that consequently we must regard the Levites (B^p), and not 
the before-mentioned four doorkeepers, as the subject of vrn : 
"and the Levites were over the cells of the storehouses of the 
house of God." The cells in the outbuildings of the temple 
served as treasure-chambers and storehouses for the temple 
furniture- ntarittn with the article in the atat. eonstr. (Ew. 
§ 290, d), because of the looser connection, since the genitive 
'Kmra also belongs to ntown. — Ver. 27 refers again to the 
doorkeepers. They passed the night around the house of God, 
because the care of or watch over it was committed to them, and 
"they were over the key, and that every morning," i.e. they had 
to open the door every morning, nna p occurs again in Judg. 
iii. 25 and Isa. xxii. 22, in the signification key, which is 
suitable here also. — Ver. 28. And of them (the Levites), some 
were over the vessels of the service, by which we are probably to 
understand the costly vessels, e.g. the golden cups for the liba- 
tions, etc., which were brought from the treasure-chamber only 
for a short time for use in the service. They were brought, 
according to the number, into the place where the service took 
place, and after being again numbered, were again carried forth ; 
and according to ver. 29, other Levites were set over tfbsn and 
over th£n ^3. — Ver. 29. And of them, others were set over the 
vessels (in general), and over all the holy vessels which were 
med for the daily sacrificial service, and over the fine flour 
(fob, vide on Lev. ii. 1), wine, oil, and incense which was 
required therein for the meat and drink offerings, and the 
Wfra, spicery, for the holy perfumes (frankincense, cf. Ex. 
xxv. 6).— Ver. 30. And of the priests' sons were preparers of 
the ointments for the spices. It is the preparation from various 
spices of the holy anointing oil, Ex. xxx. 23-25, which is meant, 
and which consequently was part of the priest's duty. — Ver. 31. 
Matthhiah, the first-born of the Eorahite Shallum (vide ver. 19), 
was on good faith over the panbakings (pastry) for the meat- 
offerings, over the preparation of which he was to watch. To 
the name Mattithiah tWjTT? is added, in contrast to the ^"P 
Byte} in ver. 30. The word t^J??™? (pastry, panbaking) occurs 
here only; cf. nnnp, pan of sheet iron, Ex. iv. 3. — Ver. 32. 



Digitized by 



Google 



168 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Finally, to some of the Kohathites was committed the preparation 
of the shew-bread, which required to be laid on the table fresh 
every Sabbath ; cf. Lev. xxiv. 5-8. The suffix Bf^nK refers back 
to the Levites of the father's-house of Korah in ver. 32. — Vers. 
33, 34 contain subscriptions to the section 14-32. Since the 
enumeration of the Levites dwelling in Jerusalem in vers. 
14-16 began with the Levitic singer families, so here we find 
that the singers are mentioned in the first subscription, " these 
are the singers, heads of fathers'-houses of the Levites," with an 
additional remark as to their service : " In the cells free, for day 
and night it is incumbent upon them to be in service," which is 
somewhat obscure. O^BB, from it?B, in later Hebrew, let loose, 
set free. Rashi and Kimchi have already translated it, immune* 
ab aliis nernpe ministeriis, or ab omni alio officio. Adopting this 
linguistically assured translation, we must supply with nbc^a, 
dwelling or waiting in the cells of the courts of the temple, 
freed from every other business in order that they may apply 
themselves wholly to their service, for they are wholly busied 
therewith day and night. Day and night is not to be pressed, 
but signifies perpetually, continually. Bertheau translates D^vJ? 
ri3K?B3, u they were over them in the service," i.e. had to take the 
oversight of the singers subordinate to them. But this can hardly 
be correct; and the passage quoted to justify this translation, 
2 Chron. xxxiv. 12, proves nothing, because there ijJBD is used 
along with it. We therefore prefer to take orv^j? in the signi- 
fication " it is incumbent upon them," although we should then 
expect nation instead of •"DK^tp? ; c f. ver. 27. Yet '*i?*&33 can 
in this connection quite well be used elliptically or concisely 
for "to be in service," i.e. to carry on their musical duties. 
The second subscription (ver. 34) refers to all the Levites, and 
is similar in contents and form to that in chap. viii. 28. 

Vers.35-44. The family of King Saul. — This register has already 
occurred in chap. viii. 29-38, along with those of other families 
of the tribe of Benjamin, and is repeated here only to connect the 
following history of the kingship with the preceding genealogical 
lists. It forms here the introduction to the narrative of Saul't 
death in chap, x., which in turn forms the transition to the king- 
ship of David. The deviations of this register from that in chap, 
viii. 29-38, show that it has been derived from another document 
in more complete preservation than that in chap, viii., which had 
been handed down in connection with other genealogies of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. X.-XXIX 169 

Benjamite families, and had suffered considerably in its text. 
See the commentary on viii. 29-38. 



II.-THE HISTORY OF DAVID'S KINGSHD?.— CHAP. X-XXIX. 

The account of the ruin of Saul and his house in chap, x., cf. 
1 Sam. xxxi., forms the introduction to the history of the king- 
ship of David, which is narrated in two sections. In the first, 
chap, xi.-xxi., we have a consecutive narrative of the most 
important events of David's life, and his attempts to settle the 
kingship of Israel on a firmer basis, from the time of his being 
anointed king over all Israel to the numbering of the people in 
the latter years of his reign. The second, chap, xxii.-xxix., con- 
tains an account of the preparations made towards the end of his 
reign for the building of the temple, of the arrangement of the 
service of the Levites and the army, and the last commands of 
the grey-haired king as to the succession of his son Solomon to 
the kingdom, and matters connected with it. The first section 
rant parallel to the account of the reign of David in 2d Samuel ; 
the second is peculiar to the Chronicle, and has no parallel in the 
earlier historical books, Samuel and Kings. Now, if we compare 
the first section with the parallel narrative in 2d Samuel, it is mani- 
fest that, apart from that omission of David's seven years' reign 
over the tribe of Judah in Hebron, and of all the events having 
reference to and connection with his family relationships, of which 
we have already spoken in p. 12, in the Chronicle the same inci- 
dents are recounted as in the second book of Samuel, and with 
few exceptions the order is the same. The main alterations in 
the order of the narrative are : (a) that the catalogues of David's 
heroes who helped him to establish his kingdom (xi. 10-47), and 
of the valiant men of all the tribes, who even in Saul's lifetime 
had joined themselves to David (chap, xii.), follow immediately 
upon the account of the choosing of Jerusalem to be the capital 
of the kingdom, after the conquest of the fortress Jebus (xi. 1-9), 
while in 2d Samuel the former of these catalogues is found in 
chap, xxiii. 8-39, in connection with the history of his reign, and 
the latter is entirely omitted ; and (6) the account of his palace- 
building, his wives and children, and of some battles with the 
Philistines, which in 2 Sam. v. 11-25 follows immediately after 
the account of the conquest of the citadel of Zion, is inserted 



Digitized by 



Google 



170 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

in the fourtenth chapter of Chronicles, in the account of the bring- 
ing of the ark of the covenant from Kirjalh-jearim (chap, xiii.), 
and its transfer to Jerusalem (chap. xv. f .). Both these transpo- 
sitions and the before-mentioned omissions are connected with 
the peculiar plan of the Chronicle. In the second book of Samuel 
the reign of David is so described as to bring out, in the first 
place, the splendidly victorious development of his kingship, and 
then its humiliation through great transgression on David's part; 
the author of the Chronicle, on the other hand, designed to portray 
to his contemporaries the glories of the Davidic kingship, so that 
the divine election of David to be ruler over the people of Israel 
might be manifest. In accordance with this purpose he shows, 
firstly, how after the death of Saul Jahve bestowed the king- 
ship upon David, all Israel coming to Hebron and anointing him 
king, with the confession, " Jahve thy God hath said to thee, 
Thou shall be ruler over my people Israel ;" how the heroes of 
the whole nation helped him in the establishing of his kingdom 
(chap, xi.) ; and how, even before the death of Saul, the most 
valiant men of all the tribes had gone over to him, and had helped 
him in the struggle (chap. xiL). In the second place, he narrates 
how David immediately determined to bring the ark into the 
capital of his kingdom (chap, xv.) ; how, notwithstanding the 
misfortunes caused by a transgression of the law (chap. xiii. 7, 
9 ff.), so soon as he had learned that the ark would bring a 
blessing (chap. xiii. xiv.), and that God would bless him in his 
reign (chap, xiv.), he carried out his purpose, and not only brought 
the ark to Jerusalem, but organized the public worship around 
this sanctuary (chap. xv. and xvi.) ; and how he formed a resolu- 
tion to build a temple to the Lord, receiving from God, because 
of this, a promise that his kingdom should endure for ever (chap, 
xvii.). Then, in the third place, we have an account of how he, so 
favoured by the Lord, extended the power of his kingdom by vic- 
torious wars over all the enemies of Israel (chap, xviii.-xx.) ; and 
how even the ungodly enterprise of the numbering of tlie people, 
to which Satan had tempted him, David, had by the grace of 
God, and through his penitent submission to the will of the Lord, 
such an issue, that the place where the Lord should be thereafter 
worshipped in Israel was determined by the appearance of the 
angel and by the word of the prophet Gad (chap. xxi.). And so 
the grey-haired king was able to spend the latter part of his reign 
in making preparations for the building of the temple, and in 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. X. 1-7. 171 

establishing permanent ordinances for the public worship, and 
the protection of the kingdom : gave over to his son Solomon, his 
divinely chosen successor on the throne, a kingdom externally and 
internally well ordered and firmly established, and closed his life 
at a good old age, after a reign of forty years (chap, xxii.— xxix.). 

CHAP. X. THE EUIN OP SAUL AND OF HIS HOUSE. 

(CF. 1 SAM. CHAP. XXXI.) 

The account of Saul's struggle with the Philistines, in which 
he fell together with his sons, vers. 1-7, exactly coincides with 
the narrative in 1 Sam. xxxi. 1-7 ; and the statements as to the 
fate of the fallen king, vers. 8-12, differ from 1 Sam. xxxi. 8-13 
only to this extent, that both narratives make mention only of 
the main points, and mutually supplement each other. In vers. 
13 and 14 there follow reflections on the ruin of the unfortunate 
king, which show that the account of the death of Saul is only 
intended to form an introduction to the history of David. 

Vers. 1—7. In 1 Sam. xxxi. this narrative forms the con- 
clusion of Saul's last war with the Philistines. The battle was 
fought in the plain of Jezreel ; and when the Israelites were com- 
pelled to retire, they fell back upon Mount Gilboa, but were hard 
pressed by the Philistines, so that many fell upon the mountain. 
The Philistines pressed furiously after Saul and his sons, and slew 
the latter (as to Saul's sons, see on viii. 33) ; and when the archers 
came upon Saul he trembled before them (?rr from ^ ), and 
ordered his armour-bearer to thrust him through. Between tHtarj 
and n&^3 the superfluous tit&M is introduced in Samuel, and in the 
last clause 1KD is omitted ; and instead of D^ano we have the 
unusual form B^Tfl? (cf. 2 Chron. xxxv. 23). In Saul's request 
to his armour-bearer that he would thrust him through with the 
sword, 'fi^T (1 Sam. ver. 4) is omitted in the phrase which gives 
the reason for his request ; and Bertheau thinks it did not origin- 
ally stand in the text, and has been repeated merely by an over- 
sight, since the only motive for the command, " Draw thy sword, 
and thrust me through therewith," was that the Philistines might 
not insult Saul when alive, and consequently the words, " that they 
may not thrust me through," cannot express the reason. But that 
is scarcely a conclusive reason for this belief ; for although the 
Philistines might seek out Saul after he had been slain by his 
armour-bearer, and dishonour his dead body, yet the anxiety lest 



Digitized by 



Google 



172 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

they should seek oat his corpse to wreak their vengeance upon 
it could not press so heavily upon him as the fear that they 
would take vengeance upon him if he fell alive into their hands. 
It is therefore a more probable supposition that the author of 
the Chronicle has omitted the word ^ifp only as not being 
necessary to the sense of the passage, just as te? is omitted at 
the end of ver. 5. In ver. 6 we have foTCpai instead of the 
veto-fa D| vfa Kbbl of Samuel, and in ver. 7 V}<S? <eto fa omitted 
after the words *w '3 (Samuel). From this Bertheau concludes 
that the author of the Chronicle has designedly avoided speaking 
of the men of Saul's army or of the Israelites who took part in 
the battle, because it was not his purpose to describe the whole 
course of the conflict, but only to narrate the death of Saul 
and of his sons, in order to point out how the supreme power 
came to David. Thenius, on the contrary, deduces the variation 
between the sixth verse of the Chronicles and the corresponding 
verse in Samuel from " a text which had become illegible." Both 
are incorrect ; for veto"fa are not all the men of war who went 
with him into the battle (Then.), or all the Israelites who took 
part in the battle (Berth.), but only all those who were about the 
king, i.e. the whole of the king's attendants who had followed him 
to the war. ttV3"/3 fa only another expression for VBtorfa, in 
which the vfa Kbb is included. The author of the Chronicle has 
merely abridged the account, confining himself to a statement 
of the main points, and has consequently both omitted *eto 
•Wife*, in ver. 7, because he had already spoken of the flight of 
the warriors of Israel in ver. 1, and it was here sufficient to 
mention only the flight and death of Saul and of his sons, and 
has also shortened the more exact statement as to the inhabitants 
of that district, " those on the other side of the valley and on the 
other side of Jordan " (Samuel), into PDJJ3 "iBto. In this abridg- 
ment also Thenius scents a " defective text." As the inhabitants 
of the district around Gilboa abandoned their cities, they were 
taken possession of by the Philistines. 

Vers. 8-13. On the following day the Philistines, in their 
search among the fallen, found and plundered the bodies of Saul 
and of his sons, and sent the head and the armour of Saul 
round about the land of the Philistines, to proclaim the news of 
their victory to their people and their gods. That for this pur- 
pose they cut off Saul's head from the trunk, fa, as being a matter 
of course, not specially mentioned. In regard to the other dis- 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XL 1-3. 173 

crepancies between the two texts, both in vers. 8-10 and in the 
account of the burial of Saul and of his sons by valiant men of 
Jabesh, vers. 11, 12, cf. the commentary on 1 Sam. xxxi. 8-13. 
In the reflection on Saul's death, vers. 13 and 14, a double 
transgression against the Lord on Saul's part is mentioned : first, 
the ??? (on the meaning of this word, vide on Lev. v. 15) of not 
observing the word of Jahve, which refers to the transgression 
of the divine command made known to him by the prophet 
Samuel, 1 Sam. xiii. 8 ff. (cf. with x. 8), and xv. 2, 3, 11, cf. 
xxviii. 18 ; and second, his inquiring of the 3lK, the summoner 
of the dead (vide on Lev. xix. 31), t^" 1 "]?, i.e. to receive an oracle 
(cf. in reference to both word and thing, 1 Sam. xxviii. 7). — 
Ver. 14. And because he inquired not of the Lord, therefore He 
slew him. According to 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, Saul did indeed inquire 
of Jahve, but received no answer, because Jahve had departed 
from him (xxviii. 15) ; but instead of seeking with all earnestness 
for the grace of Jahve, that he might receive an answer, Saul 
turned to the sorceress of Endor, and received his death-sentence 
through her from the mouth of Samuel, 1 Sam. xxviii. 19. 



CHAP. XI. THE ANOINTING OF DAVID TO BE KING IN HEBRON, 

AND THE CONQUEST OP JERUSALEM. A LIST OF DAVID'S 
HEROES. 

In the second book of Samuel there are passages parallel to 
both sections of this chapter; vers. 1-9 corresponding to the 
narrative in 2 Sam. v. 1-10, and vers. 10-47 to the register in 
2 Sam. xxiii. 8-39. 

Vers. 1—3. The anointing of David to be king over the whole of 
Itrael in Hebron; cf. 2 Sam. v. 1-3. — After Saul's death, in obe- 
dience to a divine intimation, David left Ziklag, whither he had 
withdrawn himself before the decisive battle between the Philistines 
and the Israelites, and betook himself with his wives and his warriors 
to Hebron, and was there anointed by the men of Judah to be 
king over their tribe (2 Sam. ii. 1-4). But Abner, the captain 
of Saul's host, led Ishbosheth, Saul's son, with the remainder of 
the defeated army of the Israelites, to Mahanaim in Gilead, and 
there made him king over Gilead, and gradually also, as he 
reconquered it from the Philistines, over the land of Israel, over 
Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and all (the remainder of) Israel, 
with the exception of the tribal domain of Judah. Ishbosheth's 



Digitized by 



Google 



174 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

kingship did not last longer than two years, while David 
reigned over Judah in Hebron for seven years and a half (2 
Sam. ii. 10 and 11). When Abner advanced with Ishbosheth's 
army from Mahanaim against Gibeon, he was defeated by Joab, 
David's captain, so that he was obliged again to withdraw beyond 
Jordan (2 Sam. ii. 12—32) ; and although the struggle between 
the house of Saul and the house of David still contained, yet 
the house of Saul waxed ever weaker, while David's power 
increased. At length, when Ishbosheth reproached the powerful 
Abner because of a concubine of his father's, he threatened 
that he would transfer the crown of Israel to David, and 
carried his threat into execution without delay. He imparted 
his design to the elders of Israel and Benjamin ; and when they 
had given their consent, he made his way to Hebron, and 
announced to David the submission of all Israel to his sway 
(2 Sam. iii. 1-21). Abner, indeed, did not fully carry out the 
undertaking; for on his return journey he was assassinated by Joab, 
without David's knowledge, and against his will. Immediately 
afterwards, Ishbosheth, who had become powerless and spiritless 
through terror at Abner's death, was murdered in his own house 
by two of the leaders of his army. There now remained of Saul's 
family only Jonathan's son Mephibosheth (2 Sam. iv.), then not 
more than twelve years old, and lame in both his feet, and all the 
tribes of Israel determined to anoint David to be their king. 
The carrying out of this resolution is narrated in vers. 1-3, in 
complete agreement as to the facts with 2 Sam. v. 1-3, where 
the matter has been already commented upon. In chap. adi. 
23-40 there follows a more detailed account of the assembly of 
the tribes of Israel in Hebron. The last words in ver. 3, "•?"!? 
'Ul mrv, are a didactic addition of the author of the Chronicle, 
which has been derived from 1 Sam. xvi. 13 and 1 Sam. xv. 28. 
In 2 Sam. v. 4, 5, in accordance with the custom of the author 
of the books of Samuel and Kings to state the age and duration 
of the reign of each of the kings immediately after the announce- 
ment of their entry upon their office, there follows after the 
preceding a statement of the duration of David's reign; cf. 
1 Sam. xiii. 1, 2 Sam. ii. 10 f., 1 Kings xiv. 21, xv. 2, etc. 
This remark is to be found in the Chronicle only at the close of 
David's reign ; see xxix. 29, which shows that Thenius' opinion 
that this verse has been omitted from the Chronicle by a mistake 
is not tenable. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XL 4-47. 175 

Vers. 4-9. Tlie capture of Hie citadel of Zion, and Jerusalem 
dose* to be the royal residence under the name of Hie city of David; 
cf. 2 Sam. v. 6-10, and the commentary on this section at that 
place. — >W, ver. 8, to make alive, is used here, as in Neh. iii. 34, 
of the rebuilding of ruins. The general remark, ver. 9, "and 
David increased continually in might," etc., opens the way for 
the transition to the history of David's reign which follows. As 
a proof of his increasing greatness, there follows in 

Vers. 10—47. A register of the heroes who stood by him in the 
establishment of his kingdom. The greater part of this register 
is found in 2 Sam. xxiii. 8—39 also, though there are many 
divergences in the names, which for the most part have found 
their way into one or other of the texts by errors of transcription. 
The conclusion (vers. 41-47 of the Chronicle) is not found in 
2 Sam. xxiii., either because the author of the Chronicle followed 
another and older register than that used by the author of the 
book of Samuel, or because the latter has not communicated all 
the names contained in his authority. The former of these is the 
more probable supposition. In the Chronicle the superscription 
of the register is enlarged by the insertion in ver. 10, before the 
simple superscription in ver. 11a, cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 8a, of a further 
mperscription informing us of the design which the chronicler 
had in introducing the register at this place. u These are the 
chiefs of David's heroes who stood by him strongly (D? Pfflhi}, as 
Dan. x. 21) in his kingdom, with the whole of Israel to make 
him king, according to the word of Jahve, over Israel." The 
collocation o^is? *wo is accounted for by the fact that "naw 
is a designation of a valiant or heroic man in general, without 
reference to his position, whether co-ordinate with or subordinate 
to others. Among David's tnla who helped to establish his 
kingdom, are not merely those who are mentioned by name in 
the following register, but also, as we learn from chap, xii., the 
great number of valiant men of all the tribes, who, even during 
his persecution by Saul, crowded round him, and immediately 
after Saul's death came to him in Hebron to hail him king. The 
enumeration in our passage contains only the chiefs, (TOOT, of 
those valiant men, £*• those who held the first rank among them, 
and who were in great part leaders in the army of David, or 
became so. teb&f? is not to be confined to the mere appoint- 
ment to the kingship, but includes also his establishment in it ; 
for there follows an account of the heroic deeds which the 



Digitized by 



Google 



176 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

men enumerated by name performed in the wars which David 
waged against his enemies in order to maintain and increase his 
kingly power. tW *13*| concerning Israel is the word of the 
Lord, the import of which is recorded in ver. 3, that David 
should feed His people Israel, and be ruler over them. The 
ipsissima verba are not found in the earlier history of David, but 
the substance of them has been deduced from 1 Sam. xvi. 13 
and xv. 28 ; cf. herewith the remarks on 2 Sam. iii. 18. The 
enumeration of these heroes is introduced in ver. 11 by a short 
supplementary superscription, " these the number of the heroes." 
That "ibdd should be used instead of the ntot? of Samuel is sur- 
prising, but is explained by the fact that these heroes at first 
constituted a corps whose designation was derived from their 
number. They originally amounted to thirty, whence they are 
still called the thirty, O'BOBfti ; cf. ver. 12, and the discussion on 
2 Sam. xxiii. 8 ff. In both narratives three classes are distin- 
guished. 

Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah hold the first place, and 
specially bold and heroic deeds performed by them are recorded, 
vers. 11-14, and 2 Sam. xxiii. 8-12. For details as to themselves 
and their deeds, see on the last cited passage. There we have 
already remarked, that in ver. 13 of the text of the Chronicle, the 
three lines which in Samuel come between DB* »dnj &Tw?Ba (Sam. 
ver. 9) and D'tmwd *BD«5, ver. 11, have been, through wandering 
of the copyist's eye, omitted ; and with them the name of the third 
hero, riBB>, has also been dropped, so that the heroic deed done by 
him, vers. 136, 14, appears, according to our present text, to have 
been performed by Eleazar. In place of the words, " And the 
Philistines had gathered themselves together there to battle, and 
there was a parcel of ground full of barley," ver. 13, the text, ac- 
cording to the narrative in 2 Sam. xxiii. 11, must have stood origin- 
ally thus : "The Philistines had gathered themselves together there 
to battle, and the men of Israel went up («c. retreating from the 
Philistines up the mountain) ; he, however, stood firm, and smote 
the Philistines till his hand was wearied, and cleaved unto the sword 
(t.e. clung crampedly to his sword through fatigue) : there wrought 
Jahve a great deliverance on that day, and the people returned 
(from their flight) behind him only to spoil. And after him was 
Shammah the son of Aga the Hararite, and the Philistines had 
gathered themselves together to battle," etc. In ver. 14 the 
plural forms ^oxw, rotys, «2, are incorrect, and should be changed 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XI. lfr-25. 177 

into singulars, as in Sam. vers. 12 and 70, since only the deed of 
the hero Shammah is here spoken of. The plurals were probably 
introduced into the text after the missing lines had been dropped 
out by a reader or copyist, who, on account of the TVj Dj> rpn mn 
(ver. 13), understood the three clauses of ver. 14 to refer to 
Eleazar and David. VKW, on the contrary, is here perfectly 
appropriate, and is not to be altered to suit the W of Samuel, 
ver. 14, for the /cat eiroiyae of the LXX. is not of itself a suffi- 
cient reason for doing so. 

In vers. 15-19 (cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 13-17) there follows an 
exploit of three others of the thirty, whose names have not been 
handed down. E&"i DWB>n, the thirty chiefs (not, as Tkenius 
wrongly interprets the words, these three knights the chief parts, 
«. these three chief knights), are David's heroes hereafter men- 
tioned, the thirty-two heroes of the third class named in vers. 
26-40 (or vers. 24-39 of Samuel). That three others, different 
from the before-mentioned Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah 
are intended, is plain from the omission of the article with nt2n?E> ; 
for if these three were spoken of, we would have tvfb&n, as in 
ver. 18. For further remarks on this exploit, which was pro- 
bably performed in the war treated of in chap. xiv. 8 ff., and in 
2 Sam. v. 17 ff., see on 2 Sam. xxiii. 13-17. The words 
'vn DTWKn D*in, ver. 19, are to be translated, " The blood of these 
men shall I drink in their souls ? for for their souls (i.e. for the 
price of their souls, at the risk of their life) have they brought 
it," The expression " blood in their souls " is to be understood 
according to Gen. ix. 4 and Lev. xvii. 14 (Kin tBfwa ton, " his 
blood is in the soul," is that which constitutes his soul). As 
there blood and soul are used synonymously (the blood as seat 
of and container of the soul, and the soul as floating in the 
blood), so here David, according to our account of his words, 
compares the water, which those heroes had brought for the price 
of their souls, to the souls of the men, and the drinking of the 
water to the drinking of their souls, and finally the souls to the 
blood, in order to express his abhorrence of such a draught. The 
meaning therefore may be thus expressed : " Shall I drink in 
this water the souls, and so the blood, of these men ; for they have 
brought the water even for the price of their souls ? " 

In vers. 20-25 the second class of heroes, to which Abshai 
(Abishai) and Benaiah belonged, cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 18-23, is 
spoken of. They were not equal to the preceding three in heroic 

M 



Digitized by 



Google 



178 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

deeds, bat yet stood higher than the list of heroes which follows 
in ver. 26 and onwards. 'BOX, as ii. 16 and 2 Sam. x. 10, while 
in 2 Sam. xxiii. 18 and elsewhere he is called ^>3M, was one of 
the three sons of Zeruiah (ii. 16). It is difficult to explain 
n&b&n Vtfo, u he was the chief of the three," instead of which 
we find in Sam. ver. 18 'B^tfn, i.e. 'BWn, " chief of the body- 
guard " (knights). Bat owing to the succeeding fit? (yf) M\ 
n&b&z, where Samuel also has ftp? 1 ?, and to the recurrence of 
nsw#n on two occasions in ver. 21 (cf. Sam. ver. 19), it does not 
seem possible to alter the text with Thenius. Bertheau proposes 
to get rid of the difficulty by taking the word TKnff in two dif- 
ferent significations, — on the one hand as denoting the numeral 
three, and on the other as being an abstract substantive, " the 
totality of the thirty." He justifies the latter signification by 
comparison of ver. 21 with ver. 25, and of 2 Sam. xxiii. 19 with 
ver. 23, from which he deduces that new and O'pW denote a 
larger company, in which both Abishai and Benaiah held a pro- 
minent place. But this signification cannot be made good from 
these passages. In both clauses of ver. 25 (and ver. 23 in Sam.) 
B'BWn and newn are contrasted, which would rather go to prove 
the contrary of Bertheau's proposition, viz. that n«W^n, the 
three, cannot at the same time denote the whole of the thirty, 
&vhfn. The truth of the matter may be gathered from a com- 
parison of ver. 18 with ver. 15. In ver. 18 newn is synonymous 
with D'lWB'n jo ntWBfy ver. 15 ; i.e. f the three in ver. 18 are the 
same men who in ver. 15, where they are first met with, are 
called three of the thirty ; and consequently ntWBfa, the three 
(triad), vers. 21 and 25, can only denote the triad of heroes 
previously named. This is placed beyond doubt by a comparison 
of ver. 24 with ver. 25, since the D^l 1 >wv&, the triad of 
heroes, ver. 24, corresponds to the simple nvfafn of ver. 25. The 
only remaining question is, whether by this triad of heroes we 
are to understand those spoken of in vers. 11-14, — Jashobeam, 
Eleazar, and Shammah, — or the three whose names are not 
given, but whose exploit is narrated in vers. 15-19. But the 
circumstance that the names of the three latter are not men- 
tioned goes decidedly to show that -fl&b&n in vers. 20-25 does 
not denote that nameless triad, whose exploit is manifestly 
adduced incidentally only as a similar case, but the three most 
valiant, who held the first rank among David's heroes. Ber- 
theau's opinion, that in vers. 20-25 one triad of heroes is dis- 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XI. 26-47. 179 

tinguished from another, cannot be regarded as well-founded, 
for the three of whom Abishai was chief are not distinguished, 
and are not different from the three to whom, according to ver. 
21, he did not attain. Nor is there greater reason to believe 
that the triad of vers. 20 and 21 is different from that in vers. 
24 and 25, among whom Benaiah made himself a name, and to 
whom he did not attain. The fact of being chief or prince over 
the three is not irreconcilably contradictory to the statement 
that he did not attain to them, i.e. did not come up to them in 
heroic strength, as is shown by the two classes being connected 
in ver. 216. As to the rank which the triad held in the regular 
forces of David, we know nothing further than that Jashobeam 
was, according to chap, xxvii. 2, leader of that part of the army 
which was on duty during the first month. Eleazar the son of 
Dodo, and the Hararite Shammah the son of Aga, are not men- 
tioned anywhere but in our list Abishai, on the contrary, who 
had already distinguished himself by his audacious courage in 
David's struggle with Saul (1 Sam. xxvi. 6 ff.), conducted to- 
gether with Joab the war against Abner (2 Sam. ii. 24-iii. 30). 
Afterwards, in David's war with the Ammonites, he was under 
Joab in command of the second half of the host (2 Sam. x. 10 ff.) -, 
in the war against Absalom he commanded a third part of the 
host (xviii. 2 ff.) ; and in the struggle with the rebel Sheba he 
commanded the vanguard of the royal troops sent against the 
rebel (xx. 6 ff.) ; and in general held, along with Joab the com- 
mander-in-chief, the first place among David's captains. In 
this position he was chief of the three heroes before mentioned, 
and their leader (**&), and among them had made himself a 
name. *6l, ver. 20, is an orthographical error for fy, as in fif- 
teen other passages, according to the Masora. See on Ex. xxi. 
10 and Isa. hdii. 9. — Ver. 21a should be translated : honoured 
before the three as two; i.e. doubly honoured — he became to 
them prince, leader. With regard to B??Bb, which, as meaningless, 
Bertheau would alter so as to make it correspond with '?n (Sam.), 
cf. Ew. Lehrb. § 269, b. For Benaiah and his exploits,, vers. 
22-25, see the commentary on 2 Sam. xxiii. 20-23. 

No special deeds of the heroes enumerated in vers. 26-47 are 
related, so that we may regard them as a third class, who are not 
equal to the first triad, and to the second pair, Abishai and 
Benaiah, and consequently occupied a subordinate place in the 
collective body of the royal body-guards. In 2 Sam. xxiii. 



Digitized by 



Google 



180 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

thirty-two names are mentioned, which, with the above-men- 
tioned three and two of the first and second classes, amount in 
all to thirty-seven men, as is expressly remarked in 2 Sam. xsiii. 
39 at the conclusion. In the text of the Chronicle no number is 
mentioned, and the register is increased by sixteen names (vers. 
41-47), which have been added in the course of time to the 
earlier number. The words trfwjfj ^3?'., ver. 26, are to be 
regarded as a superscription: And valiant heroes were, etc.; 
equivalent to, But besides these, there remain still the follow- 
ing valiant heroes. The words D7jnn *tfaa are not synonymous 
with trfwi <"$>, leaders of the host, 1 Kings xv. 20, Jer. xl. 7, 
(Berth.), but signify heroes in warlike strength, i.e. heroic 
warriors, like D^n ntaa (vii. 5, 7, 11, 40). That D^n has here 
the article, while it is not found in the passages quoted from the 
seventh chapter, does not make any difference in the meaning of 
the words. The article is used here, as with D*iiaan, vers. 10,11, 
because the heroes of David are spoken of, and "Wj? IB^ is to be 
mentally supplied from ver. 10 f. As to the names in vers. 
26-41, which are also found in the register in the book of 
Samuel, see the commentary to 2 Sam. xxiii. 24-39. This list, 
which is common to both books, begins with Asahel, a brother of 
Joab, who was slain by Abner in the war which he waged 
against David (2 Sam. ii. 19-23), and concludes in the book of 
Samuel with Uriah the Hittite, so well known from 2 Sam. xi. 
3 ff. (Ohron. ver. 41a), with whose wife David committed adul- 
tery. But to the continuation of the register which is found in 
vers. 416-47 of our text, there is no parallel in the other writings 
of the Old Testament by which we might form an idea as to the 
correctness of the names. The individual names are indeed to 
be met with, for the most part, in other parts of the Old Testa- 
ment, but denote other men of an earlier or later time. The 
names -WJfT^ ver. 45, and «$$*, ver. 46 f., are found also in 
chap. xii. 20, 11, among those of the valiant men who before 
Saul's death went over to David, but we cannot with any cer- 
tainty ascertain whether the persons meant were the same. The 
expression WWf V?jn (ver. 42) is also obscure, — " and to him in 
addition," i.e. together with him, thirty, — since the thought that 
with Adina the chief of the Beubenites, or besides him, there 
were thirty (men), has no meaning in this register. The LXX. 
and the Vulgate read V?y, while the Syriac, on the contrary, 
makes use of the periphrasis, " And even he was a ruler over 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XH. 1-7. 181 

thirty heroes ;" and Bertheau accordingly recommends the emen- 
dation DWBh ??, and thence concludes that the tribe of Reuben 
had thirty leaders in its army, — a conjecture as bold as it is im- 
probable. "Were DWi 7$ to be read, we could not but refer 
the words to the thirty heroes of ver. 11, and hold Adina to be 
their leader, which could not be easily reconciled with ver. 11. 
See on xii. 4. — Ver. 43. rojjB'ja is perhaps the same as ^S?"?? 2 
Sam. xxiii. 34. — Ver. 44. 'rnnatyn, he of the city Ashtaroth (vi. 
56), in the trans-Jordanic domain of Manasseh. '"ISpy.?, he of 
Aroer, of Reuben or Gad (Josh. xiii. 16, 25). — Ver. 46. Bertheau 
conjectures that the somewhat strange D'inen (LXX. o Maul, 
Vulg. Mahumites) denotes 'Darren, he of Mahanaim, in the East- 
Jordan land ; see Josh. xiii. 26. — Ver. 47. n $fl3?, which, so far 
as the form is concerned, is not a nomen gentiL, Reland (Palcest. 
UL p. 899) holds for a contraction of tnjnv Vud, Migdal Zebu- 
jab, — a place which, according to the rabbins, is said to have been 
somewhere in the neighbourhood of Hebron. Bertheau's opinion 
is, that the article has come into the text by mistake ; and when 
it has been struck out, the remaining consonants, nuxe, recall 
the nato of 2 Sam. xxiii. 36 (?). 



CHAP. XII. — REGISTERS OP THE VALIANT MEN WHO HELPED 
DAVID TO THE KINGDOM. 

This chapter contains two somewhat long registers, viz. : 
(1) a register of the valiant men who before Saul's death went 
over to David, vers. 1-22 ; and (2) a register of the fighting 
men who anointed him king in Hebron. The first is divided 
into three smaller registers : (a) that of the valiant Benjamites 
who came to David during his stay in Ziklag (vers. 1-7) ; (b) 
that of the Gadites and the men of Judah and Benjamin who 
went over to him while he remained in the mountain fastnesses ; 
*nd (e) that of the Manassites who, on his return to Ziklag be- 
fore Saul's last battle with the Philistines, joined themselves to 
him (vers. 19-22). 

Vers. 1-7. 77«e Benjamites who came to David to Ziklag. — 
Ver. 1. Ziklag was originally allotted to the Simeonites by Joshua 
(Josh. xix. 5 ; 1 Chron. iv. 30), but at a later time came into 
possession of the Philistines, and was assigned and presented by 
king Achish to David, who had fled for refuge to him, as a 
dwelling-place for himself and his followers ; see 1 Sam. xxvii. 



Digitized by 



Google 



182 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

1-7. As to its situation, which has not yet been with certainty 
ascertained, see the discussion on Josh. xv. 31. In it David 
dwelt for a year and four months, until he went to Hebron on 
the death of Saul. During this time it was that the warriors 
of the tribe of Benjamin mentioned in the succeeding register 
went over to him, as we learn from the words *W¥£ "rtjJ, « he was 
still held back before Saul," a concise expression for u while he was 
still held back before Saul." This last expression, however, does 
not signify, "hindered from coming before Saul" (Berth.), but 
inter Israelites publice versari prohibitus (J. H. Mich.), or rather, 
" before Saul, imprisoned as it were, without being able to appear 
in a manner corresponding to his divine election to be ruler over 
Israel." 'a» rram, and they were among the heroes, i.e. belonged 
to the heroes, the helpers of the war, i.e. to those who helped him 
in his former wars ; cf . vers. 17 f., 21 f. — Ver. 2. riB'g 'geo, " those 
preparing bows," i.e. those armed with bows, synonymous with 
ne^. >Th (viii. 40) ; cf . 2 Chron. xvii. 17, Ps. Ixxviii. 9. « With 
the right and left hand practised upon stones," i.e. to hurl stones, 
cf. Judg. xx. 16 ; " and in arrows on the bow," i.e. to shoot 
therewith. 3WE* 'Pino, of Saul's brethren, i.«. of the men of the 
tribe, not " of his nearer relatives," and consequently of Benjamin, 
has been added as an explanation ; cf . ver. 29, where JIM? ya and 
7WB* 'nx are synonyms. — In ver. 3 et seq. we have the names. 
CP'liin, the head, i.e. the leader of this host of warriors ; compare 
chap. v. 7, 12. Viyaan, cf . Gibeah of Saul or Benjamin, cf. xi. 31 ; 
and for its situation, see on Josh, xviii. 28. Vp^PJ, from the 
priests' city Anathoth, now Anata ; see on Josh, xviii. 24. In 
ver. 4 the Gibeonite Ismaiah is called " hero among the thirty, 
and over the thirty," — words which can hardly have any other 
sense than that Ismaiah belonged also to David's corps of thirty 
heroes (chap, xi.), and was (temporarily) their leader, although 
his name does not occur in chap. xi. It is probable that the 
reason of the omission was, that at the time when the list was 
prepared he was no longer alive. WW, of Gedera, a city of the 
tribe of Judah in the Shephelah, which, according to Van de 
Velde (Reise, ii. S. 166), was probably identical with the village 
Ghedera, which lies to the left of the road Tel-es-Safieh to Akir, 
about an hour to the south-west of Jabne. In any case, it corre- 
sponds well with the statements of the Onom. As to Gedrus, or 
Gaedur, see on Josh. xv. 36. Immediately afterwards in ver. 7 
Gedor is mentioned, a city in the mountains of Judah*, to the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XIL 1-7. 183 

westward of the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem 
(see on Josh. xv. 58) ; and from that fact Berthean imagines we 
must conclude that the men of Judah are enumerated as well as 
the Benjamites. But this conclusion is not valid ; for from the 
very beginning, when the domains and cities were assigned to 
the individual tribes under Joshua, they were not the exclusive 
possession of the individual tribes, and at a later period they 
were still less so. In course of time the respective tribal do- 
mains underwent (in consequence of wars and other events) 
many alterations, not only in extent, but also in regard to their 
inhabitants, so that in Saul's time single Benjamite families 
may quite well have had their home in the cities of Judah. — 
Ver. 5. Winn (Keri 'B^ns?) is a patronymic, which denotes either 
one descended from Haruph, or belonging to the *pn rs men- 
tioned in Neh. vii. 34 along with the Gibeonites. The wmi?, 
Korahites, in ver. 6 are, without doubt (cf . Delitszch, Pa. S. 300), 
descendants of the Levite Korah, one division of whom David 
made guardian of the thresholds of the tent erected for the ark 
of the covenant on Zion, because their fathers had been watchers 
of the entrance of the camp of Jahve, i.e. had in that earlier 
time held the office of watchers by the tabernacle ; see on ix. 18 f. 
The names Elkanah and Azareel are thoroughly Levitic names, 
and their service in the porter's office in the holy place may have 
roused in them the desire to fight for David, the chosen of the 
Lord. Bat there is no reason why we should, with Bertheau, 
interpret the words as denoting descendants of the almost un- 
known Korah of the tribe of Judah (ii. 43), or, with the older 
commentators, refer it to some other unmentioned Benjamite 
who bore this name. The explanation of the connection existing 
between these Levitic Korahites and the Benjamites, which is 
presupposed by the mention of them among the Benjamites, 
may be found in the fact that the Levites received no tribal 
domain of their own, and possessed only cities for dwelling in in 
the domains of the other tribes, with whom they were consequently 
civilly incorporated, so that those who dwelt in the cities of 
Benjamin were properly reckoned among the Benjamites. At the 
partition of the land under Joshua, it is true, only the priests 
received their cities in Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin ; while, on 
the contrary, the Kohathites, who were not priests, among whom, 
the Korahites were, received their cities in the tribal domain 
of Ephraim, Dan, and half-Manasseh (Josh. xxi. 9-26). But 



Digitized by 



Google 



184 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

when the tabernacle was transferred from Shiloh to Nob, and 
afterwards to Gibeon, the Korahite doorkeepers mast, without 
doubt, have migrated to one of the Levitic cities of Benjamin, 
probably for the most part to Gibeon, and so were reckoned 
among the Benjamites. As to "ittin ftp, vide ver. 4. If this be 
so, there remains no cogent reason for supposing that in our 
register, besides the Benjamites, men out of other tribes are also 
introduced. With that there falls away at once Bertheau's 
further conclusion, that the author of the Chronicle has consider- 
ably abridged the register, and that from ver. 46 onwards men 
of Judah also are named, the list of whom must certainly (?) 
have been originally introduced by special superscription similar 
to those in vers. 8, 16, 19. His further reason for his conjec- 
ture^ — namely, that our register makes use of the qualificative 
epithets, "the Gibeathite," "the Anathothite," etc., only in a 
few special cases — is of no force whatever; for we are not justified 
in assuming that we may expect to find here, as in the register 
in chap. xi. 26-47, such qualificatives after every individual 
name. The character of our register cannot be arrived at by a 
comparison with the list of David's heroes in chap. xi. ; it should 
rather be sought for by comparing it with the succeeding list, 
whose contents are of a similar kind with its own. David's 
chosen corps of thirty heroes was much more important for the 
history of his reign, than the lists of the men who joined them- 
selves to him and fought on his behalf before he ascended the 
throne. For that reason the thirty heroes are not only men- 
tioned by name, but their descent also is told us, while that more 
detailed information is not given with regard to the others just 
mentioned. Only the names of the Gadites and Manassites are 
mentioned ; of the Benjamites and men of Judah, who came to 
him in the mountain fastness (vers. 16-18), the name of only 
one, Amasai, is given; while of the Benjamites who came to 
Ziklag, vers. 3-7, such qualificative statements are made in 
reference to only a few individuals, and in these cases the 
object probably was to distinguish them from other well-known 
persons of the same name. 

Vers. 8-18. The Gadites, Benjamites, and men of Judah who 
joined themselves to David during his sojourn in the mountain 
fastness. — Ver. 8. David's sojourn in the mountain hold falls in 
the first years of his flight from Saul, 1 Sam. xxii. ff. TXO, pointed 
with Pathach instead of with Kamets (TOp, cf. ver. 16), on account 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP, m 8-18. 185 

of its intimate connection with ^"ID, is synonymous with HTWD 
(1 Sam. xxiv. 23, etc.). The addition 'I"}?"!?, "towards the 
wilderness," shows that *WD denotes a mountain-top or mountain- 
fortress in the wilderness of Judah. If we compare the account 
in 1 Sam. xxii.-xxiv., we learn that David at that time did not hide 
himself in one single definite mountain-fortress,, but sought and 
found resting-places, now here, now there, in the wilderness, on the 
summits of the hills (cf . nVWBS 13TB3, 1 Sam. xxiii. 14, xxiv. 1) ; so 
that TSD here is to be understood, as fnwtpn, 1 Sam. xxiv. 3, also is, 
generally of the fastnesses in the mountains of Judah. At that 
time there gathered round David a great company of discontented 
and oppressed men, to the number of about 400, — men dissatisfied 
with Saul's rule, whose leader he became, and who soon amounted 
to 600 men (1 Sam. xxii. 2 and xxiii. 13). To these belong the 
Gadites, and the men out of Benjamin and Judah, whose adhesion 
to David is noticed in our verses. ""j-U, they separated them- 
selves from the other Gadites who were on Saul's side, " strong 
heroes," as in Josh. viii. 3 ; cf. rn nias, v. 24, vii. 2, 9, etc. 
norfap K3if 'BOX, men for service in the host for the war, i.e. 
combatants practised in war. noni rt|5t '3*1^ preparing shield and 
spear, i.e. wielding shield and spear, practised in their use : the 
preparing of these weapons includes the handling of them. 
Instead of rn?""i}, Veneta and many of the older copies have 
£.&) ; bqt it is not supported by us. authority, and moreover is 
not congruous with the passage. Lions' faces their faces, i.e. 
lion-like in appearance, thoroughly warlike figures ; cf. 2 Sam. i. 
23. "As roes running swiftly on the mountains;" cf. 2 Sam. 
ii. 18. This description of the strength and swiftness of these 
warriors recalls, as Bertheau remarks, the similar expressions 
used in the historical books concerning heroes of David's time. 
It has manifestly been drawn from the original documents, not 
added by the chronicler. In vers. 9-13 the names are enume- 
rated individually. ">fc^ ^VS, at the end of a series of ordinal 
numbers, denotes the eleventh; cf. xxiv. 12.— Ver. 14.K3*n ^'tn, 
heads of the war-host, i.e. chief warriors, not leaders of the host, 
'ui iWO? int^ " one for a hundred, (viz.) the small and the greater 
for a thousand," i.e. the smaller (weaker) could cope with a hun- 
dred, the stronger with a thousand men ; cf. Lev. xxvi. 8. This, 
which is the only correct interpretation, is that received by 
Bertheau and the older Jewish commentators. The Vulgate, on the 
contrary, translates, novistitmu centum militibus prceerat et maximus 



Digitized by 



Google 



186 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

milky which is inadmissible, for in that case 7}> must have been 
used instead of *?. The TDM belongs to both the clauses which 
it precedes, to JOiJn and to "IM, and is placed immediately 
before fiKD? to emphasize the contrast between one and a hun- 
dred. In ver. 15 we have a proof of their valour, in an account 
of a bold exploit performed by them. In the first month of the 
year, that is, in spring, when the Jordan overflows all its banks, 
they crossed the river and put to flight all the dwellers in the 
valleys towards the east and towards the west. This happened, 
probably, when they separated themselves from their brethren 
and went over to David, when they must have had to cut their 
way through the adherents of Saul (Berth.). The Piel K?D with 
iv denotes to make full, to make to run over, in the signification 
to overflow. The Kethibh Wi*U comes from >"pna, elsewhere only 
the plural Wftf, so also here in the Keri. In the dry summer 
season the Jordan may be crossed by wading at various points 
(fords) ; while in spring, on the contrary, when it is so swollen 
by the melting snows of Lebanon, that in some parts it overflows 
its banks, it is very dangerous to attempt to cross. See on Josh, 
iii. 15. B'pO^n, u the valleys," for the inhabitants of the valleys. — 
Vers. 16-18. There came to David in the mountain-fastness also 
men of Benjamin and Judah (cf . ver. 8). Their names are not 
in the lists, possibly because they were not handed down in the 
historical works made use of by the chronicler. At their head, 
as we learn from ver. 18, stood Amasai, chief of the thirty, it. 
of the corps formed of the thirty heroes (see xi. 11), although 
his name does not occur in the catalogue, chap. xi. According to 
this, Amasai must have occupied a very important position under 
David ; but since the name *'&?£ is not elsewhere mentioned in 
the history of David, the older commentators have conjectured 
that 'fetjg may have been the same person as M&oy, son of Abigail 
(ii. 17), whom Absalom made captain in Joab's place, and whom 
David, after the victory over the rebels, wished to make com- 
mander-in-chief in the room of Joab, and whom for that reason 
Joab afterwards murdered (2 Sam. xvii. 25, xix. 14, xx. 4, 8 ff.) ; 
or identical with tw the son of Zeruiah, ii. 16 and xi. 20. Of 
these conjectures the first is much more probable than the second. 
To meet these men, David went forth from his fastness, and 
asked them with what purpose they came to him. " If for peace," 
to stand by him, " then shall there be to me towards you a heart 
for union," i.e. I will be with you of one heart, be true to you. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XII. 19-22. 187 

•mb xb is plainer than ins a|>, ver. 38. " But if »?rjte£, to prac- 
tise deceit against me (to be guilty of a ni ?"l?) f° r mme enemies 
(to deliver me to them), although there be no wrong in my hands, 
the God of our fathers look thereon and punish ;" cf. 2 Chron. 
xxiv. 22. The God of our fathers, i.e. of the patriarchs (cf. Ezra 
vii. 27, 2 Chron. xx. 6, and Ex. iii. 13 f .), who rules in and 
over Israel, who shields the innocent and punishes the guilty. — 
Ver. 18. Then came the Spirit upon Amasai, so that he proclaimed 
himself enthusiastic for David and his cause. With ntsaV C R " 1 cf. 
Judg. vi. 34. Usually nw or O^k is found with this expression 
(2 Chron. xxiv. 20), and here also the Spirit of God is meant ; and 
QTOM is omitted only because all that was of importance here was 
to show that the resolution announced by Amasai was an effect 
of higher spiritual influence, v, to thee, David (do we belong), 
thine arewe. IS?, "with thee," se. will we remain and [fight. "Peace 
be to thee, and peace be to thy helpers ; for thy God helpeth thee." 
T}!?, He has helped thee in the fortunate combats in which you 
have heretofore been engaged (1 Sam. xviii. 12 ff.), and He will 
help still further. David thereupon received them and made 
them captains of his band, "&" 1 *?, the warrior-band, which had 
gathered round David, and were still gathering round him, 1 
Sam. xxii. 2, xxvii. 8, cf. also ver. 21 ; 1 Sam. xxx. 8, 15, 23, etc. 
Vers. 19-22. The Manassites who went over to David before 
the last battle of the Philistines against Saul. — ?J? ?M, to fall to one, 
is used specially of deserters in war who desert their lord and go 
over to the enemy : cf. 2 Kings xxv. 11 ; 1 Sam. xxix. 3. ?K Tte', 
in the last clause of the verse, is a synonymous expression. The 
Manassites went over "when David went with the Philistines 
against Israel to the war, and (yet) helped them not ; for upon 
advisement (ptyfo, cf. Prov. xx. 18), the lords of the Philistines 
had sent him away, saying, ' For our heads, he will fall away to 
his master Saul.'" 1 Sam. xxix. 2-11 contains the historical 
commentary on this event. When the lords of the Philistines 
collected their forces to march against Saul, David, who had 
found refuge with King Achish, was compelled to join the host 
of that prince with his band. But when the other Philistine 
princes saw the Hebrews, they demanded that they should be 
tent out of the army, as they feared that David might turn upon 
them during the battle, and so win favour by his treachery with 
Saul his lord. See the commentary on 1 Sam. xxix. u'Bfc'ia, 
for our heads, i.e. for the price of them, giving them as a price 



Digitized by 



Google 



188 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

to obtain a friendly reception from Saul (cf. 1 Sam. xxix. 4). 
In consequence of this remonstrance, Achish requested David to 
return with his warriors to Ziklag. On this return march ( a as 
he went to Ziklag," cf. with tefa the Ta9y of 1 Sam. xxix. 11), 
and consequently before the battle in which Saul lost his life 
(Berth.), and not after Saul's great misfortune, as Ewald thinks, 
the Manassites whose names follow went over to David. The 
seven named in ver. 20 were "heads of the thousands of 
Manasseh," i.e. of the great families into which the tribe of 
Manasseh was divided, and as such were leaders of the Manassite 
forces in war : cf. Num. xxxi. 14 with Ex. xviii. 25, and the 
commentary on the latter passage. — Ver. 21. These 1 helped 
David TV«n ?y } against the detachment of Amalekites, who dur- 
ing David's absence had surprised and burnt Ziklag, and led 
captive the women and children (1 Sam. xxx. 1-10). This in- 
terpretation, which Kashi also has (contra turmam Amalekitarum), 
and which the Vulgate hints at in its adversus latruneulos, rests 
upon the fact that in 1 Sam. xxx. 8, 15, the word *R"Uf?, which in 

1 We take nofll to refer to the Manassites named in ver. 20, like the 
DBAI of ver. 1 and the DH r&K of ver. 15. Bertheau, on the contrary, 
thinks on various groands that hon refers to all the heroes who have been 
spoken of in vers. 1-20. In the first place, it -was not the Manassites alone 
who took part in the conflict with Amalek, for David won the victory with 
his whole force of 600 men (1 Sam. xxx. 9), among whom, without doubt, 
those named in vers. 1-18 were included. Then, secondly, a clear distinction 
is made between those who gave in their adhesion to and helped David at 
an earlier period (vers. 1, 7, 22), and those who came to him in Hebron (ver. 
23). And finally, the general remark in ver. 22 is connected with ver. 21 by 
the grounding '3, so that we must regard vers. 21 and 22 as a subscription 
closing the preceding catalogues. But none of these arguments are very 
effective. The grounding '2 in ver. 22 does not refer to the whole of ver. 21, 
but only to the last clause, or, to be more accurate, only to N2V3i showing 

T T - 

that David had an army. The second proves nothing, and in the first only 
so much is correct, that not merely the seven Manassites named in ver. 20 
took part in the battle with Amalek, but also the warriors who had formerly 
gone over to David ; but from that there is not the slightest reason to con- 
clude that this is expressed by nonv It is manifest from the context and 
the plan of the register, that '\y\ nty TKffh can only refer to those of whom 
it is said in ver. 20 that they went over to David as he was returning to 
Ziklag. If vers. 21 and 22 were a subscription to all the preceding registers, 
instead of nam another expression which would separate the verse somewhat 
more from that immediately preceding would have been employed, perhaps 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XII. 23-40. 189 

general only denotes single detachments ot predatory bands, is 
used of the Amalekite band ; whence the word can only refer to 
the march of David against the Amalekites, of which we have an 
account in 1 Sam. xxx. 9 ff., and not to the combats which he 
had with Saul. " For they were all valiant heroes, and were 
D'Tb, captains in the army," sc. which gathered round David. — 
Ver. 22. " For every day" (Ota Di' n}£, at the time of each day) 
" came (people) to David to help him, until to a great host, like 
a Lost of God," i.e. until his band grew to a camp like to a host 
of God. OfrpH njqo, a host which God has formed, and in which 
the power of God shows itself ; cf. hills and cedars of God, Ps. 
mvi. 7, kxx. 11. In these concluding remarks to the enumera- 
tion by name of the valiant men who during Saul's lifetime 
went over to David, there is no exaggeration which would betray 
an idealizing historian (Movers, S. 270). The greatness of a 
host of God is to be estimated according to the power and the 
spirit, not according to the number, of the warriors, so that we 
need not take the words to mean a host of thousands and tens of 
thousands. David had at first 400, afterwards 600, valiant 
warriors, against whom Saul with his thousands could accomplish 
nothing. The increase in their number from 400 to 600 shows 
that the host increased from day to day, especially when we keep 
in mind the fact that after Saul's defeat considerable bands of 
fugitives must certainly have gone over to David before he was 
anointed in Hebron to be king over Judah. The expression is 
only rhetorical, not idealizing or exaggerating. 

Vers. 23-40. List of the warriors who made David king in 
Bebron'.-^-The superscription (ver. 23) runs: "These are the 
numbers of the bands of the men equipped for war, who came," 
etc. JWiiT is a collective noun, denoting the equipped manhood. 
t>K") signifies here, not prineipes exercitus, as the Vulgate ren- 
ders it, heads, i.e. leaders of the army (Berth.), but literally 
denotes sums, i.e. companies, bands of soldiers, as in Judg. vii. 
16, 20, ix. 34, 37, 44, 1 Sam. xi. 11 ; or it may perhaps also 
be heads for individuals, as t?th in Judg. v. 30. Both these 
meanings are linguistically certain ; so that we cannot say, with 
Bertheau, that 't^to before ^nn denotes, according to the well- 
ascertained use of language, leaders of the army, and that nS&i 
would have been used had it been wished to express the number by 
heads, e.g. xxiii. 3-24. That use of the word is indeed also found, 
out it cannot be proved to be the only proper one. If we take 



Digitized by 



Google 



190 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

'Bte") here to denote leaders, we bring the superscription into 
irreconcilable contradiction with the contents of the following 
catalogue, which gives the names of the heads and the number 
of the warriors (ver. 27 f.) only in the case of the families of 
Aaron, and in that of Issachar the number of the princes ; while 
in the case of the other tribes we have only the numbers of the 
bands or detachments. This contradiction cannot be got rid of, 
as Bertheau imagines, by the hypothesis that the superscription 
referred originally to a catalogue which was throughout similar 
in plan to that which we find in vers. 26-28, and that the author 
of the Chronicle has very considerably abridged the more de- 
tailed statements of the original documents which he used. This 
hypothesis is a mere makeshift, in which we have the less need 
" to take refuge," as the catalogue has neither the appearance of 
having been abridged or revised by the author of our Chronicle. 
It is shown to be a faithful copy of a more ancient authority, 
both by the characteristic remarks which it contains on the indi- 
vidual tribes, and by the inequality in the numbers. Bertheau, 
indeed, derives support for his hypothesis " from the inequality 
of the statements of number, and their relation to each other," 
and upon that ground throws doubt upon the accuracy and cor- 
rectness of the numbers, but in both cases without sufficient 
warrant. If we place the respective statements together synop- 
tically, we see that there came to David to Hebron — 

Of the tribe of Judah, 6,800 men. 

„ „ Simeon, .... 7,100 „ 

,, ,, Levi, 4,600 „ 

With Jehoiada the prince of Aaron, 8,700 „ 

With Zadok and his father's-house, ... „ 22 QfHtf (captains). 

Of the tribe of Benjamin 8,000 „ 

„ „ Ephraim, .... 20,800 „ 

„ half-tribe of Manasseh, . . 18,000 „ 

,, tribe of Issachar, .... ... „ 200 chiefs and all their 

„ „ Zebulun, .... 50,000 „ [brethren. 

„ „ Naphtali, .... 87,000 „ with 1000 Dnfe>. 

„ „ Dan 28,000 „ 

„ „ Asher, ..... % 40,000 „ 

Of twoanda half trans- Jordanic tribes, 120,000 „ 

Total, 339,600 men, with 1222 heads and 
captains. 

The total is not objected to by Bertheau, and its correctness 
is placed beyond a doubt by the recollection that we have here 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP, m 28-40. 191 

to do not with the representation of the various estates of the 
kingdom, bnt with a declaration of the will of the whole nation, 
who wished to make David their king. We must, if we are to 
estimate these statements, endeavour to go back in imagination 
to the circumstances of that time when Israel, although settled 
in the land, had not quite laid aside the character of a nation of 
warriors, in which every man capable of bearing arms marched 
to battle with, and for, his king. Now if the total number of 
fighting men in Israel was 600,000 in the time of Moses, and if, 
when the people were numbered in the last year of David's reign, 
there were in Israel 800,000, and in Judah 500,000 (2 Sam. 
xxiv. 9) — the Levites being excluded in both cases — the 340,000 
men of all the tribes, except Issachar, in reference to which no 
number is given, or after subtracting Judah and Levi, the 
324,500 men out of the remaining tribes, is not much more than 
a half of the men capable of bearing arms in Moses' time, and 
about a fourth part of the fighting population towards the end 
of David's reign. But the relation of the numbers in the re- 
spective tribes, on the contrary, is somewhat surprising, and calls 
forth from Bertheau the following remarks : " To Judah, David's 
tribe, which from the earliest time had been famous for its 
numbers and its powers, 6800 are assigned ; to Zebulun, on the 
contrary, 50,000 ; to Naphtali, 1000 princes at the head of 37,000 
warriors; to the two and a half East-Jordanic tribes, 120,000 
men, etc. How does it happen that Zebulun and Naphtali, for 
example, two tribes that play no great part in Israel's history, 
are so strongly represented, while Judah sends only a relatively 
small number of warriors?" To this question we answer, that 
Judah's being represented by a number of warriors relatively so 
small, is accounted for simply by the fact that David had already 
been king over Judah for seven years, and consequently that 
tribe did not need to make him king by coming with the whole 
of its warriors, or the majority of them, when the other tribes 
were doing homage to David, but sent only a small number of 
its male population to this solemn act, who were witnesses in the 
name of the whole tribe to the homage proffered by the others. 
The same remark applies to the tribe of Simeon, whose domain 
was enclosed by that of Judah, and which had consequently 
recognised David as king at the same time as the larger tribe. 
In regard to the numbers of the other tribes, Levi had in the 
last year of David's reign 38,000 men from thirty years old and 



Digitized by 



Google 



192 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

upwards (xxiii. 3) ; and when here only 4600 Levites, besides the 
priestly families, are spoken of, the question arises, whether this 
number is to be understood to refer to the Levites in all the tribes, 
or only to those dwelling outside of Judah and Simeon, in the 
cities assigned to them by Moses and Joshua. The smallness of 
the number (3000) from the tribe of Benjamin is explained by 
the remark that the majority of this tribe still held to the house 
of Saul (ver. 29). The only thing which is at all remarkable 
about the other numbers is, that the Ephraimites are so few 
(20,800 men) in contrast to the 180,000 men brought into the 
field by the half-tribe of Manasseh. But if we consider that 
Ephraim, which at the first census under Moses at Sinai had 
40,500 men, had decreased to 32,500 at the second census in the 
wilderness of Moab, it is not improbable that at the time now 
treated of that tribe may not have been very strong in fighting 
men. For in Saul's last war with the Philistines, when they 
had pressed forward so far as Mount Gilboa, and also in Abner's 
struggle on behalf of King Ishbosheth for the re-conquest of the 
territory occupied by them, it probably suffered more, and was 
more weakened, than any of the other tribes. Perhaps also we 
may add that Ephraim, owing to its jealousy of Judah, which 
dates from the time of the judges, was not very much disposed 
to make David king over all Israel. That Zebulun and Naphtali 
are here so numerously represented, although they do not other- 
wise play an important part, is no reason for suspecting that 
the numbers given are incorrect. Since Zebulun under Moses 
numbered 57,400 men, and at a later time" 60,500, and Naphtali 
53,400 and 45,400 men capable of bearing arms respectively on 
the same occasions (see t. i. 2, S. 192) ; the first named tribe 
may easily have sent 50,000, the other 37,000 men to David, as 
the tribes dwelling in the north had been least affected by the 
wars which Israel carried on in the second half of the period 
of the judges and under Saul. Both of these tribes, too, are 
praised in the song of Deborah as a people ready to risk their 
lives for their fatherland (Judg. v. 18), and may have very 
much increased in the succeeding time. And besides all this, 
the tribes Asher, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh 
are indeed more feebly represented than Zebulun, but more 
strongly than Naphtali. There therefore remains no reason for 
doubting the historical accuracy of the numbers given ; but it is 
of course to be understood that the numbers, which are stated 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XII. 23-40. 193 

only in hundreds, are not the result of an enumeration of the 
individual persons, but only of an estimate of the various detach- 
ments, according to the military partition of the tribes. 

In regard to 'o 39 n f, cf . x. 14 ; and as to W> 'Ba, see the 
remark on nw nyis, x i. 3, 10.— Ver. 24 f. For nonj' nsv 'Kfcfo, 
cf. ver. 8, v. 18. NMf? fy? ntaa, valiant men for the war ser- 
vice. — Ver. 26. Jehoiada is thought by Rashi, Kimchi, and 
others, to be the father of Benaiah, xi. 22. He was TM for 
Aaron, i.e. prince of the house of Aaron, head of the family of 
the Aaronites, not princeps sacerdotum, which was a title apper- 
taining to the high -priesthood, an office held at that time by 
Abiathar (1 Sam. xxiii. 9). — Ver. 28. Zadok, a youth, i.e. then 
still a youth, may be the same who was made high priest in 
place of Abiathar (1 Kings ii. 26, but see on v. 34). "And 
his fathers-house, twenty-two princes." The father's-house of 
Zadok is the Aaronite family descended from Eleazar, which 
was at that time so numerous that it could muster twenty-two 
&%, family chiefs, who went with Zadok to Hebron. — Ver. 29. 
From the tribe of Benjamin, to which Saul belonged (7WB> 'HK, 
see on ver. 2), only 3000 men came, for until that time (fan 1V\, 
cf. ix. 18) the greater number of them were keeping the guard 
of the house of Saul, i.e. were devoted to the interests of the 
fallen house. For rnoB'D ">?'f, see on Gen. xxvi. 5 and Lev. 
viii. 35. From this we learn that the attachment of the Ben- 
jamites to Saul continued even after the death of his son 
Ishbosheth, and that it was with difficulty that they could 
bring themselves to recognise David as king. — Ver. 30. Of 
Ephraim 20,800 famous men (itot? , t??K, see on Gen. vi. 4) ; 
'OK-xvab, "in their fathers'-houses."— Ver. 31. Of half Manasseh, 
this side Jordan (cf. ver. 37), 18,000, who were appointed by 
name, i.e. chosen as famous men to go thither and make David 
king. niDBto ttfO, as in Num. i. 17, vide on Lev. xxiv. 16. The 
tribe of Manasseh had consequently held a general consultation 
on the matter, and determined upon sending their representatives. 
— Ver. 32. From Issachar came " men of understanding in refer- 
ence to the times, to know (i.e. who knew) what Israel should do." 
T? ?T'> knowing in insight (cf. 2 Chron. ii. 12), i.e. experienced 
in a thing, having understanding of it. From this remark some 
of the older commentators (Ohald.*, various Babbins, and Cleric.) 
concluded that the tribe of Issachar had distinguished itself 
beyond the other tribes by astronomical and physical knowledge, 

N : 



Digitized by 



Google 



194 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

by which it was qualified to ascertain and make choice of proper 
times for political action. But the words do not suggest astro- 
nomical or astrological knowledge, but merely state, as Salotno 
ben-Melech in the Miclol YopM long ago interpreted them, time- 
rant tempora ad omnem rem et quodque negolium, sieut sapiens dixit: 
Suum cuique tempus est et opportunitas cuique rex, Koh. iii. 1. The 
words refer not to the whole tribe, but only to the two hundred 
heads, who, as Lavater expresses it, are designated prudentes viri, 
as being men qui quid, quando et quomodo agendum met, varia 
lectione et usu rerum cognoscebant. The only thing to be objected 
to in his statement is the varia lectione, since a sound and correct 
judgment in political matters does not necessarily presuppose 
scientific training and a wide acquaintance with books. The 
statement in question, therefore, affirms nothing more than that 
the tribe of Issachar (in deciding to raise David to the throne) 
followed the judgment of its princes, who rightly estimated the 
circumstances of the time. For all their brethren, i.e. all the 
men of this tribe, went with the two hundred chiefs. D^S"??, ac- 
cording to their mouth, i.e. followed their judgment; cf.Num.iv. 
27, Deut. xxi. 5. — Ver. 33. ^roD <:ni>, preparing war with all 
manner of warlike weapons, i.e. practice in the use of all kinds 
of weapons for war; cf. ver. 8. The infinitive ~ty£j> is sub- 
stantially a continuation of the preceding participles, but gram- 
matically is dependent on 4K3 understood (cf. vers. 23, 38). 
Cf. as to this free use of the infinitive with *?, Ew. § 351, c 
The signification of the verb "HP, which occurs only here (vers. 
33, 38), is doubtful. According to the LXX. and the Vulg. 
(fior)6fja-ai, venerunt in auxilium), and nine HSS., which read 
"itj>7, we would be inclined to take Try for the Aramaic form of 
the Hebrew T# (cf. 5^), to help; but that meaning does not 
suit n?"W "ny, ver. 38. Its connection there demands that ">i? 
should signify "to close up together," to set in order the battle 
array ; and so here, closing up together with not double heart, i& 
with whole or stedfast heart (ras* 3373, ver. 38), animo integro 
et firmo atque eoncordi; cf. Ps. xii. 3 (Mich.). — In ver. 38 ve 
have a comprehensive statement ; n$r?3 t which refers to all the 
bodies of men enumerated in vers. 24-37. WW is nnKB> defec- 
tively written ; and as it occurs only here, it may be perhaps a 
mere orthographical error. The whole of the remainder of Israel 
who did not go to Hebron were inK a!>, of one, t.e. of united 
heart (2 Chron. xxx. 12) : they had a unanimous wish to make 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. Xltt-XVL 195 

David king. — Ver. 39. Those gathered together were there three 
days eating and drinking, holding festive meals (cf. 1 Sam. xxx. 
16, 1 Kings i. 45, etc.), for their brethren had prepared them 
for them. The object of «'3n, «<•• the eating and drinking, may 
easily be supplied from the context, orrns. are the inhabitants 
of Hebron and the neighbourhood ; the tribe of Judah in 
general, who had already recognised David as king. — Ver. 40. 
Bat it was not only these who performed this service, but also 
those of the remaining tribes dwelling near them ; and indeed the 
men of Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali, those on the northern 
frontier of Canaan as well as those who bordered upon Judah, 
had sent provisions upon beasts of burden, "for joy was in 
Israel." This joy moved those who remained at home to show 
their sympathy with the national festival solemnized at Hebron 
by sending the provisions. For &??%, masses of dried figs, and 
a*jwsv, masses of raisins or cakes; see on 1 Sam. xxv. 18. 

chap. xiii.-xvi. the removal op the ark from kibjath- 
jearih. david's building, his wives and children, 
and his victories over the philistines. the bring- 
ing in op the ark into the citt of david, and the 
arrangement of the worship in mount zion. 

All these facts are described in the second book of Samuel, for 
the most part in the same words. There, however, the contents of 
our chapter xiv., David's building, wives and children, and vic- 
tories over the Philistines, immediately follow, in chap. v. 11-25, 
the account of the conquest of the citadel of Zion (1 Chron. xi. 
4-8) ; and then in 2 Sam. vi. the removal of the ark from Kir- 
jath-jearim, and the bringing of it, after an interval of three 
months, to Jerusalem, are narrated consecutively, but much more 
shortly than in the Chronicle. The author of the books of 
Samuel confined himself to a mere narration of the transfer of 
the ark to Jerusalem, as one of the first acts of David tending 
to the raising of the Israelitish kingship, and has consequently, in 
his estimation of the matter, only taken account of its importance 
politically to David as king. The author of our Chronicle, on the 
contrary, has had mainly in view the religious significance of this 
^sign of David to restore the Levitic cultut prescribed in the 
Mosaic law ; and in order to impress that upon the reader, he not 
only gives a detailed account of the part which the Levites took 



Digitized by 



Google 



196 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

in the solemn transfer of the ark of God (chap, xv.), but he sets 
forth minutely the arrangements which David made, after the 
ark had been brought into the capital of the kingdom, for the 
restoration of a permanent worship about that sanctuary (chap, 
xvi.). Both the narratives are taken from an original document 
which related the matter more at length; and from it the author 
of 2d Samuel has excerpted only what was important for his 
purpose, while the author of the Chronicle gives a more detailed 
account. The opinion held by de Wette and others, that the 
narrative in the Chronicle is merely an expansion by the author 
of the Chronicle, or by the author of the original docnment fol- 
lowed by our chronicler, of the account in 2 Sam. vi., for the 
purpose of glorifying the Levitic cultus, is shown to be incorrect 
and untenable by the multitude of historical statements peculiar 
to chap. xv. and xvi., which could not possibly have been invented. 
Chap. xiii. The removal of the ark from Kirjath-jearim. Cf. 
2 Sam. vi. 1-11, with the commentary on the substance of the 
narrative there given. — Vers. 1-5. The introduction to this 
event is in 2 Sam. vi. 1 and 2 very brief ; but according to our 
narrative, David consulted with the chief men over thousands and 
hundreds (cf. xv. 25), viz. with all the princes. The preposition ? 
before *P?3"75 groups together the individual chiefs of the people 
just named. He laid his purpose before " all the congregation 
of Israel," i.e. before the above-mentioned princes as representa- 
tives of the whole people. "If it seem good to you, and if it 
come from Jahve our God," i.e. if the matter be willed of and 
approved by God, we will send as speedily as possible. The 
words •"■rww "-H?? without the conjunction are so connected that 
nr6sjo defines the idea expressed by rraiEU, " we will break through, 
will send," for " we will, breaking through," i.e. acting quickly 
and energetically, " send thither." The construction of nbv with 
?? is accounted for by the fact that the sending thither includes 
the notion of commanding (?? n}¥). rfyiK-73, all the provinces of 
the various tribal domains, is used for pKn"?3, 1 Sam. xiii. 19, here, 
and 2 Chron. xi. 23 and xxxiv. 33 ; in all which places the idea of 
the division of the land into a number of territories is prominent. 
This usage is founded upon Gen. xxvi. 3 and 4, where the plural 
points to the number of small tribes which possessed Canaan. 
After Drrc>?i, hv_ or *?$ n$V3 is to be repeated. The words 
V^ni **? in ver. 3, we have not sought it, nor asked after it, 
are meant to include all. — Ver. 4 f . As the whole assembly 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XIII. 197 

approved of David's design (t? rtfolfe, it is to do so = so most we 
do), David collected the whole of Israel to carry it out. " The 
whole of Israel," from the southern frontier of Canaan to the 
northern ; but of course all are not said to have been present, but 
there were numerous representatives from every part, — according 
to 2 Sam. vi. 1, a chosen number of 30,000 men. The onto nirre>, 
which is named as the southern frontier, is not the Nile, although 
it also is called "inB> (Isa. xxiii. 3 and Jer. ii.' 18), and the name 
" the black river" also suits it (see Del. on Isaiah, he. cit.) ; but is 
the lifTC* before, i.e. eastward from Egypt (on*D *3S~^ it?K), {.«. 
the brook of Egypt, O'yiO pro, the Rhinocorura, now el Arisb, 
which in all accurate statements of the frontiers is spoken of as 
the southern, in contrast to the neighbourhood of Hamath, which 
was the northern boundary: see on Num. xxxiv. 5. For the 
designation of the northern frontier, nan Ni3? ? see on Num. xxxiv. 
8. Kirjath-jearim, the Canaanitish Baalah, was known among 
the Israelites by the name Baale Jehudah or Kirjath-baal, as 
distinguished from other cities named after Baal, and is how the 
still considerable village Kureyeh el Enab ; see on Josh. ix. 17. 
In this fact we find the explanation of '* 'p ?K "n???? ver. 6 : to 
Baalah, to Kirjath-jearim of Judah. The ark had been brought 
thither when the Philistines sent it back to Beth-Shemesh, and 
had been set down in the house of Abinadab, where it remained 
for about seventy years ; see 1 Sam. vi. and vii. 1, 2, and the 
remarks on 2 Sam. vi. 3 f. Ot? sop? "icpk is not to be translated 
" which is named name," which gives no proper sense. Trans- 
lating it so, Bertheau would alter &c? into B&, according to an 
arbitrary conjecture of Thenius on 2 Sam. vi. 2, " who there (by 
the ark) is invoked." But were OS? the true reading, it could not 
refer to the ark, but only to the preceding DBto, since in the whole 
Old Testament the idea that by or at the resting-place of the 
ark Jahve was invoked (which OB> "lEfo would signify) nowhere 
occurs, since no one could venture to approach the ark. If Dt? 
referred to DBte, it would signify that Jahve was invoked at 
Kirjath-baal, that there a place of worship had been erected by 
the ark; but of that the history says nothing, and it would, more- 
over, be contrary to the statement that the ark was not visited in 
the days of Saul. We must consequently reject the proposal to 
alter Dt? into DS? as useless and unsuitable, and seek for another 
explanation : we must take *WK in the sense of w?, which it some- 
times has ; cf. Ew. § 333, a : " as he is called by name," where 



Digitized by 



Google 



198 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Qt7 does not refer only to hirr, bat also to the additional clause 
D'aran 2W\\ and the meaning is that Jahve is invoked as He who 
is enthroned above the cherubim ; cf . Ps. lxxx. 2, Isa. xxxvii. 
16. — On the following vers. 7-14, cf. the commentary on 2 Sam. 
vi. 3-11. 

Chap. xiv. David's palace-building, wives and children, vers. 
1-7 ; cf. 2 Sam. v. 11-16. Two victories over the Philistines, 
vers. 8-17; cf. 2 Sam. v. 17-25. — The position in which the 
narrative of these events stands, between the removal of the ark 
from Kirjath-jearim and its being brought to Jerusalem, is not 
to be supposed to indicate that they happened in the interval of 
three months, during which the ark was left in the house of 
Obed-edom. The explanation of it rather is, that the author of 
our Chronicle, for the reasons given in page 170, desired to re- 
present David's design to bring the ark into the capital city of his 
kingdom as his first undertaking after he had won Jerusalem, and 
was consequently compelled to bring in the events of our chapter 
at a later period, and for that purpose this interval of three months 
seemed to offer him the fittest opportunity. The whole contents 
of our chapter have already been commented upon in 2 Sam. v. 
1, so that we need not here do more than refer to a few subordi- 
nate points. — Ver. 2. Instead of «&? '?, that He (Jahve) had 
lifted up (NtM, perf. Pi.), as in Sam ver. 2, in the Chronicle we 
read ?wD? Rate) '3, that his kingdom had been lifted up on high. 
The unusual form flKfeS may be, according to the context, the 
third pers. fem. perf. Niph., Ttitisn having first been changed into 
mWi, and thus contracted into nNto ; cf. Ew. § 194, b. In 2 
Sam. xix. 43 the same form is the infin. abs. Niph. >^W? is 
here, as frequently in the Chronicles, nsed to intensify the expres- 
sion : cf. xxii. 5, xxiii. 17, xxix. 3, 25 ; 2 Chron. i. 1, xvii. 12. 
With regard to the sons of David, see on iii. 5-8. 

In the account of the victories over the Philistines, the state- 
ment (Sam. ver. 17) that David went down to the mountain-hold, 
which has no important connection with the main fact, and 
would have been for the readers of the Chronicle somewhat 
obscure, is exchanged in ver. 8 for the more general expression 
Dn\>a? sttM, " he went forth against them." In ver. 14, the divine 
answer to David's question, whether he should march against 
the Philistines, runs thus : Bifyvo 2DS1 arnm nbjm «6, Thou shalt 
not go up after them ; turn away from them, and come upon 
them over against the baca-bushes ; — while in Sam. ver. 23, 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XV.-XVI. 8. 199 

on the contrary, we read : onnntrta son rpjm t6, Thou shalt not 
go up (i.e. advance against the enemy to attack them in front); 
torn thee behind them (i.e. to their rear), and come upon them 
over against the baca-bushes. Bertheau endeavours to get rid 
of the discrepancy, by supposing that into both texts corruptions 
have crept through transcribers' errors. He conjectures that 
the text of Samuel was originally BnnriK n?j>rj tfi>, while in the 
Chronicle a transposition of the words Dn 75? and O^nnx was 
occasioned by a copyist's error, which in turn resulted in the 
alteration of onvjj into B^vS?. This supposition, however, stands 
or falls with the presumption that by n?}jn (6 (Sam.) an attack 
is forbidden ; but for that presumption no tenable grounds exist : 
it would rather involve a contradiction between the first part of 
the divine answer and the second. The last clause, " Come upon 
them from over against the baca-bushes," shows that the attack 
was not forbidden ; all that was forbidden was the making of 
the attack by advancing straight forward : instead of that, they 
were to try to fall upon them in the rear, by making a circuit. 
The chronicler consequently gives us an explanation of the ambi- 
guous words of 2d Samuel, which might easily be misunderstood. 
As David's question was doubtless expressed as it is in ver. 10, 
Tfirt 7? nj>jj«n, the answer n?j»n s6 might be understood to mean, 
"Go not up against them, attack them not, but go away behind 
them ;" but with that the following 'W orb nttt^ « Come upon 
them from the baca-bushes," did not seem to harmonize. The 
chronicler consequently explains the first clauses of the answer 
thus : " Go not up straight behind them," i.e advance not against 
them so as to attack them openly, " but turn thyself away from 
them," i.e. strike off in such a direction as to turn their flank, and 
come upon them from the front of the baca-bushes. In this way 
the apparently contradictory texts are reconciled without the 
alteration of a word. In ver. 17, which is wanting in Samuel, 
the author concludes the account of these victories by the remark 
that they tended greatly to exalt the name of David among the 
nations. For similar reflections, cf. 2 Chron. xvii. 10, xx. 29, 
xiv. 13; and for Dt? wn, 2 Chron. xxvi. 15. 

Chap. xv. to xvi. 3. The bringing of the ark into Jerusalem. — 
In the parallel account, 2 Sam. vi. 11-23, only the main facts 
as to the transfer of the holy ark to Jerusalem, and the sg 
of it up in a tent erected for its reception on Mount T^vh 
shortly narrated; but the author of the Chronicle 




Digitized by 



Google 



200 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

portrays the religious side of this solemn act, tells of the prepa- 
rations which David had made for it, and gives a special enume- 
ration of the Levites, who at the call of the king laboured with 
him to cany it out according to the precepts of the law. For 
this purpose he first gives an account of the preparations (xv. 
1-24), viz. of the erection of a tent for the ark in the city of 
David (ver. 1), of the copsultation of the king with the priests 
and Levites (vers. 2-13), and of the accomplishment of that which 
they had determined upon (vers. 14-29). — Ver. 1. In 2 Sam. vi. 12a 
the whole matter is introduced by a statement that the motive 
which had determined the king to bring the ark to Jerusalem, was 
his having heard of the blessing which the ark had brought upon 
the house of Obed-edom. In our narrative (ver. 1), the remark 
that David, while building his house in Jerusalem, prepared a 
place for the ark of God, and erected a tent for it, forms the 
transition from the account of his palace-building (xiv. 1 ft".) to 
the bringing in of the ark. The words, " he made unto himself 
houses," do not denote, as Bertheau thinks, the building of other 
houses besides the palaces built with the help of King Hiram 
(xiv. 1). For nfe>tt is not synonymous with nja, but expresses the 
preparation of the building for a dwelling, and the words refer 
to the completion of the palace as a dwelling-place for the king 
and his wives and children. In thus making the palace which 
had been built fit for a habitation, David prepared a place for 
the ark, which, together with its tent, was to be placed in his 
palace. As to the reasons which influenced David in determining 
to erect a new tabernacle for the ark, instead of causing the old 
and sacred tabernacle to be brought from Gibeon to Jerusalem 
for the purpose, see the remarks introductory to 2 Sam. vi. 

Ver. 2 ff. The reason for the preparations made on this 
occasion for the solemn progress is assigned in the statement that 
David had resolved to cause the ark to be carried by the Levites 
alone, because God had chosen them thereto ; cf. Num. i. 50, 
iv. 15, vii. 9, x. 17. Tt*, "at that time," t'.c. at the end of the 
three months, xiii. 14. fiKfc6 &6, " there is not to bear," i.e. no 
other shall bear the ark than the Levites. " By this arrange- 
ment, it is expressly acknowledged that it was contrary to the 
law to place it upon a cart; chap. xiii. 17" (Berth.). For this 
purpose, the king assembled " the whole of Israel" in Jerusalem, 
i.e. the elders, the rulers over thousands, the heads of families; 
cf. 2 Sam. vi. 15, where it is stated that hipfr n'3-fe took part 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XV. 4-131 201 

in the solemn march. — Ver. 4. From among assembled Israel 
David then specially gathered together the heads of the priests 
and Levites, to determine npon the details of this solemn pro- 
cession. " The sons of Aaron " are the high priests Zadok and 
Abiathar, ver. 11 ; and the " Levites" are the six princes named 
in vers. 5-10, with their brethren, viz. (vers. 5-7) the three heads 
of the families into which the tribe of Levi was divided, and 
which corresponded to the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, 
and Merari, respectively (Ex. vi. 16) : Uriel head of the Koha- 
thites, Asaiah of the Merarites, and Joel head of the Gershonites, 
with their brethren. Kohath is first enumerated, because Aaron 
the chief of the priests was descended from Kohath, and because 
to the Kohathites there fell, on account of their nearer relation- 
ship to the priests, the duty of serving in that which is most holy, 
the bearing of the holiest vessels of the tabernacle. See Num. 
ir. 4, 15, vii. 9 ; as to Uriel, see on vi. 9 ; for Asaiah, see vi. 15 ; 
and as to Joel, see vi. 21. Then in vers. 8, 9 we have the heads 
of three other Kohathite families : Shemaiah, chief of the sons of 
Elizaphan, i.e. Elizaphan son of the Kohathite Uzziel (Ex. vi. 22) ; 
Eliel, chief of the sons of Hebron the Kohathite (Ex. vi. 18) ; 
and Amminadab, chief of the sons of Uzziel. The sons of Uzziel, 
consequently, were divided into two fathers'-houses : the one 
founded by Uzziel's son Elizaphan, and named after him (ver. 8) ; 
the other founded by his other sons, and called by his name. Of 
the fathers'-houses here enumerated, four belong to Kohath, and 
one each to Merari and Gershon ; and the Kohathites were called 
to take part in the solemn act in greater numbers than the 
Merarites and Gershonites, since the transport of the ark was 
the Kohathites' special duty. — Ver. 11. Zadok of the line of 
Eleazar (chap. v. 27-41), and Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, 
were the heads of the two priestly lines, and at that time both 
held the office of high priest (xxiv. 3 ; cf. 2 Sara. xv. 24 ff ., 
xx- 25). These priests and the six princes of the Levites just 
-'numerated were charged by David to consecrate themselves 
with their brethren, and to bring up the ark of God to the place 
prepared for it. SWjOTri, t consecrate oneself by removal of all 
that is unclean, washing of the body and of the clothes (Gen. 
sxxv. 2), and careful keeping aloof from every defilement, avoid- 
ing coition and the touching of unclean things; cf. Ex. xix. 
10, 15. i? 'nfraroK, to (the place) which I have prepared for 
it. v 'rtoan is a relative clause with "rate, construed with a 



Digitized by 



Google 



202 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

preposition as though it were a substantive : cf . similar construc- 
tions, xxix. 3, 2 Chron. xvi. 9, xxx. 18, Neh. viii. 10 ; and Evr. 
§ 333, b. — Ver. 13. " For because in the beginning (i.e. when the 
ark was removed from the house of Amminadab, chap, xiii.) it 
was not you (*<?. who brought it up), did Jahve our God make 
a breach upon us," sc. by the slaying of Uzza, xiii. 11. In the 
first clause the predicate is wanting, but it may easily be supplied 
from the context. The contracted form njiB'triaD?, made up of 
nop and njitftoa, is unique, since no is so united only with small 
words, as in njo, Ex. iv. 2, ttfyo, Isa. iii. 15 ; but we find nxj*!*? 
for n&6rrro, Mai. i. 13 ; cf. Ew. § 91, d. no? here signifies : on 
account of this which = because ; cf. Ew. § 222, a, and 353, a. 
" This was done, because we did not seek Him according to the 
right," which required that the ark, upon which Jehovah sits 
enthroned, should be carried by Levites, and touched by no 
unholy person, or one who is not a priest (Num. iv. 15). — Ver. 
14 f . The Levites consecrated themselves, and bare — as ver. 15 
anticipatively remarks — the ark of God upon their shoulders, 
according to the prescription in Num. vii. 9, 0STO9 niDtoa, by 
means of poles upon them (the shoulders), '"idid, the flexible 
pole used for carrying burdens, Num. xiii. 23. Those used to 
carry the ark are called D^a in the Pentateuch, Ex. xxv. 13 ff. 

Vers. 16—24. David gave the princes of the Levites a further 
charge to appoint singers with musical instruments for the solemn 
procession, which they accordingly did. ~fV y3, instruments to 
accompany the song. In ver. 16 three kinds of these are named: 
D'paj, nablia, ■tydkTqpta, which Luther has translated by psalter, 
corresponds to the Arabic santir, which is an oblong box with a 
broad bottom and a somewhat convex sounding-board, over which 
strings of wire are stretched ; an instrument something like the 
citJtara. rrt"ti3 ? harps, more properly lutes, as this instrument 
more resembled our lute than the harp, and corresponded to the 

Arabic catgut instrument el 'ud (o**M) ; cf . Wetzstein in Delitzsch, 

Tsaiah, S. 702, der 2 AufL, where, however, the statement that the 
santir is essentially the same as the old German cymbal, vulgo 
Hackebrett, is incorrect, and calculated to bring confusion into 
the matter, for the cymbal was an instrument provided with a 
small bell. DWXD, the later word for °7f^, cymbals, castanets ; 
see on 2 Sam. vi. 5. DTTOE'D does not belong to the three before- 
mentioned instruments (Berth.), but, as is clear from vers. 19, 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XV. 16-24. 203 

28, xvi. 5, 42, undoubtedly only to Ovb'SO (Bottcher, Neue hriU 
AehrenUse, iii. S. 223) ; but the meaning is not " modulating," but 
u sounding clear or loud," — according to the proper meaning of 
the word, to make to hear. The infinitive clause 'Ul 0*yb belongs 
to the preceding sentence : u in order to heighten the sound (both 
of the song and of the instrumental music) to joy," i.e. to the ex- 
pression of joy. nnofc9 is frequently used to express festive joy : 
cf. ver. 25, 2 Chron. xxiii. 18, xxix. 30 ; but also as early as in 
2 Sam. vi. 12, 1 Sam. xviii. 6, Judg. xvi. 23, etc. — In vers. 17, 18 
the names of the singers and players are introduced; then in 
vers. 19-21 they are named in connection with the instruments 
they played ; and finally, in vers. 22-24, the other Levites and 
priests who took part in the celebration are mentioned. The 
three chief singers, the Kohathite Heman, the Gershonite Asaph, 
and the Merarite Ethan, form the first class. See on vi. 18, 24, 
and 29. To the second class (Wiwsn, cf. "WSTS 1 ?, 2 Kings xxiii. 4) 
belonged thirteen or fourteen persons, for in ver. 21 an Azaziah is 
named in the last series who is omitted in ver. 18 ; and it is more 
probable that his name has been dropped out of ver. 18 than 
that it came into our text, ver. 21, by an error. In ver. 18 15 
comes in after * n ^?| by an error of transcription, as we learn from 
the i before the following name, and from a comparison of vers. 20 
and 25. The name ?&$£ is in ver. 20 written 5»n?, Yodh being 
rejected ; and in xvi. 5 it is *$T# which is probaby only a trans- 
scriber's error, since s$T. occurs along with it both in ver. 18 
and in xvi. 5. The names Benaiah and Maaseiah, which are 
repeated in ver. 20, have been there transposed. All the other 
names in vers. 18 and 20 coincide. — Vers. 19-21. These singers 
formed three choirs, according to the instruments they played. 
Heman, Asaph, and Ethan played brazen cymbals ?*?spri? (ver. 
19) ; Benaiah and the seven who follow played nablia (psalteria) 
S * K % *? (ver. 20); while the last six played lutes (harps) ?? 
nth rtmsfn (ver. 21). These three Hebrew words plainly denote 
different keys in singing, but are, owing to our small acquaintance 
with the music of the Hebrews, obscure, and cannot be inter- 
preted with certainty. TO3, going over from the fundamental 
signification glitter, shine, into the idea of outshining and superior 
capacity, overwhelming ability, might also, as a musical term, denote 
the conducting of the playing and singing as well as the leading 
of them. The signification to direct is here, however, excluded 
by the context, for the conductors were without doubt the 



Digitized by 



Google 



204 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

three chief musicians or bandmasters (Capellenmeitter), Heman, 
Asaph, and Ethan, with the cymbals, not the psaltery and late 
players belonging to the second rank. The conducting must 
therefore be expressed by TPf^f, and this word must mean " in 
order to give a clear tone," i.e. to regulate the tune and the tone 
of the singing, while n»» signifies " to take the lead in playing;" 
cf. Del. on Ps. iv. 1. This word, moreover, is probably not to be 
restricted to the singers with the lutes, the third choir, but most 
be held to refer also to the second choir. The meaning then will 
be, that Heman, Asaph, and Ethan had cymbals to direct the 
song, while the other singers had partly psalteries, partly lutes, 
in order to play the accompaniment to the singing. The song 
of these two choirs is moreover distinguished and defined by 
nio?y ?y and rwi??'!? 7?. These words specify the kind of voices; 
nto?j/ 7? after the manner of virgins, i.e. in the soprano ; ?? 
TWDtfn, after the octave, i.e. in bass — al ottava bassa. See Del. 
on Ps. vi. 1, xlvi. 1. In vers. 22-24 the still remaining priests 
who were engaged in the solemn procession are enumerated.— 
Ver. 22. " Chenaniah, the prince of the Levites, for the bearing, 
teacher in bearing ; for he was instructed in it." Since Chena- 
niah does not occur among the six princes of the Levites in vers. 
5-10, and is called in ver. 27 KJ^Bn ntpn, we must here also join K&?f 
(as most editions punctuate the first KBT33, while according to 
Norzi Nfetea is the right reading even in the first case) closely 
with 0?Wt-"i'b> j with the meaning that Chenaniah was captain of 
the Levites who had charge of the bearing of the ark, a chief of 
the Levites who bore it. The word Nfet? is, however, very vari- 
ously interpreted. The LXX. have ap^av r&v w8wi>, and the 
Vulgate, prophetia prceerat ad prcecinendam melodiam; whence 
Luther translates : the master in song to teach them to sing. This 
translation cannot, however, be linguistically upheld ; the word 
KfetD means only the bearing of the burden (Num.iv. 19,27, etc.; 
2 Chron. xxxv. 3), and a prophetical utterance of an oppressive 
or threatening character (Isa. xiii. 1, and xv. 1, etc.). But from 
this second signification neither the general meaning prophetia, 
nor, if we wish to go back upon the Tip Kiw, to raise the voice, 
the signification master of song, supremus musicus (Lavat.), or 
qui principatum tenebat in cantu illo mblimiore (Vatabl.), can be 
derived. The meaning prophetia, moreover, does not suit the 
context, and we must consequently, with Bertheau and others, 
hold fast the signification of bearing. We are determined in 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XV. 16-24. 205 

favour of this, (1) by the context, which here treats of the 
bearing of the ark, for which KtfD is the usual word ; and (2) by 
the circumstance that in xxvi. 29 Chenaniah is mentioned as the 
chief of the Levites for the external business, which goes to 
show, if the persons are identical, that he here had the oversight 
of the external business of the transport, lb* is not the inf. 
absol., which cannot stand directly for the verb, finit. ; nor is it 
the imperf. of "VJD in the signification of *Ofc> (Bertheau and 
others), but a nominal formation from ~p\ (cf. on this formation 
as the most proper designation of the actor, Ew. § 152, 6), in the 
signification teacher, which is shown by Isa. xxviii. 26 certainly 
to belong to "•?). The clause Kbtsa nbj gives the explanation of 
the preceding Kj?&3, or it specifies what Chenaniah had to do in 
the procession. He had to take the lead in the bearing because 
lie was P?o in it, i.e. was instructed in that which was to be 
observed in it. — In ver. 23 two doorkeepers for the ark are 
named ; and in ver. 24, at the end of the enumeration of the 
Levites who were busied about the transport, two additional 
names are mentioned as those of men who had the same duty. 
The business of these doorkeepers was, as Seb. Schmidt has 
already remarked on 2 Sam. vi., won tarn introitum aperire area, 
quam custodire, ne ad earn irrumperelur. Between these two 
pairs of doorkeepers in ver. 24, the priests, seven in number, 
who blew the trumpets, are named. The Kethibh DHXXne is to 
be read D'Tfijro, a denom. from .n"jAn ; the Keri D^vno is Hiph. 
of "ran, as in 2 Chron. vii. 6, xiii. 14, and xxix. 28. In 2 Chron. 
v. 12 and 13, on the contrary, Q , 1*no is partic. Pi. The blowing 
of the silver trumpets by the priests in this solemn procession 
rests on the prescription in Num. x. 1-10, which see. The place 
assigned to these trumpet-blowing priests was either immediately 
before the ark, like the priestly trumpeters in the march round 
Jericho (Josh. vi. 4, 6), or immediately after it. For, that these 
priests entered in the immediate vicinity of the ark, may be 
inferred from the fact that before and behind them were door- 
keepers of the ark. The procession, then, was probably arranged in 
this way : (1) the singers and players in front, in three divisions ; 
(2) Chenaniah, the captain of the bearers ; (3) two doorkeepers ; 
(4) the priests with the trumpets immediately before or after the 
ark ; (5) two doorkeepers ; (6) the king with the elders and cap- 
tains of thousands (ver. 25). The two doorkeepers Obededom 
and Jehiah ( n w), Rashi, Berth., and others consider to be the 



Digitized by 



Google 



206 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

same persons as the singers Obededom and Jeiel ('KT), sop- 
posing that the latter name is wrongly written in one of the pas- 
sages. This, however, is incorrect, for the identity of the name 
Obededom is no sufficient ground for supposing the persons to be 
the same, since in xvi. 38 the singer Obededom and the doorkeeper 
Obededom the son of Jeduthun seem to be distinguished. And 
besides that, Obededom and his colleagues could not possibly at 
the same time as porters precede, and as singers come after, the 
priests and the ark, and there is consequently no reason to doubt 
that the name mm is correct. 

Ver. 25-chap. xvi. 3 narrate the further procedings con- 
nected with the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem ; cf. 2 Sam. vi. 
12-19. By the words 'ui TH Wj the account of the execution 
of the design is connected with the statements as to the prepara- 
tions (vers. 2-24) : " And so were David . . . who went to 
bring up the ark." — Ver. 26. When God had helped the Levites 
who bare the ark of the covenant of Jahve, they offered seven 
bullocks and seven rams, i.e. after the journey had been happily 
accomplished. Instead of this, in 2 Sam. vi. 13, the offering 
which was made at the commencement of the journey to con- 
secrate it is mentioned ; see on the passage. The discrepancy 
between ver. 27 and 2 Sam. vi. 14 is more difficult of explana- 
tion. Instead of the words mm VE> ft"»3 "-3"|?-? "Tl> David 
danced with all his might before Jahve, we read in the 
Chronicle Y& ^J»3 ^3"OD TW David was clothed with a robe of 
byssus. But since 13*00 differs from ?3"i3D only in the last two 
letters, and 13 might be easily exchanged for ^3, we may suppose 
that ^3130 has arisen out of 1313D. Bertheau accordingly says : 
"Any one who remembered that in this verse David's clothing 
was spoken of might write 1313D as tai3D, while the words XS ^3, 
which were probably illegible, were conjectured to be )"13 ^PDi" 
This opinion would be worthy of consideration, if only the other 
discrepancies between the Chronicle and Samuel were thereby 
made more comprehensible. That, besides David, the bearers 
of the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah are mentioned, Bertheau 
thinks can be easily explained by what precedes ; but how can 
that explain the absence of the mrp *xb of Samuel from our 
text? Bertheau passes this over in silence; and yet it is just the 
absence of these words in our text which shows that Vjro3 S>313D 
J"i3 cannot have arisen from an orthographical error and the 
illegibility of Vt ^33, since mm *2tb must have been purposely 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XV. 25-XVI. 3. 207 

omitted. Bottcher's opinion (N. kr. Adirenl. iii. S. 224), that 
the Chaldaizing ^3"OD can scarcely have been written by the 
chronicler, because it is not at all like his pure Hebrew style, 
and that consequently a later reader, who considered it objec- 
tionable that a Levite should dance, and perhaps impossible that 
the bearers should (forgetting that they were released in turn 
from performing their office), while holding as closely to the 
letter of the text as possible, corrected TV 5>D3 T3T3D into horao 
fU TUta, and that the same person, or perhaps a later, added 
besides P^ 3 ' ar !1^?,f1, is still less probable. In that way, indeed, 
we get no explanation of the main difficulty, viz. how the words 
from OVf} to Dnnbton came into the text of the Chronicle, instead 
of the rnrr> ^tb of Samuel. The supposition that originally the 
words from 0$n-f>3i ttri>33 -I3"13D Tffi to OTlbtom stood in the 
text, when of course the statement would be, not only that 
David danced with all his might, but also that all the Levites 
who bore the ark danced, is in the highest degree unsatisfactory ; 
for this reason, if for no other, that we cannot conceive how the 
angers could play the nebel and the kinnor and dance at the 
same time, since it is not alternations between singing and play- 
ing, and dancing and leaping that are spoken of. The discre- 
pancy can only be got rid of by supposing that both narratives 
are abridged extracts from a more detailed statement, which 
contained, besides David's dancing, a completer account of the 
clothing of the king, and of the Levites who took part in the 
procession. Of these the author of the books of Samuel has 
communicated only the two characteristic facts, that David 
danced with all his might before the Lord, and wore an ephod 
of white ; while the author of the Chronicle gives us an account 
of David's clothing and that of the Levites, while he omits 
David's dancing. This he does, not because he was scandalized 
thereby, for he not only gives a hint of it in ver. 29, but men- 
tions it in xiii. 8, which is parallel to 2 Sam. vi. 5 ; but because 
the account of the king's clothing, and of that of the Levites, in 
so far as the religious meaning of the solemn progress was 
thereby brought out, appeared to him more important for his 
design of depicting at length the religious side of the procession. 
For the clothing of the king had a priestly character ; and not 
only the ephod of white (see on 2 Sam. vi. 14), but also the 
me'il of fu, white byssus, distinguished the king as head of a 
priestly people. The me'il as such was, it is true, an outer gar- 



Digitized by 



Google 



208 THE FIKST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

ment which every Israelite might wear, bat it was worn usually 
only by persons of rank and distinction (cf. 1 Sam. ii. 19, xv. 27, 
xviii. 4, xxiv. 5 ; Ezra ix. 3 ; Job xxix. 14), and white byssos 
was the material for the priests' garments. Among the articles 
of clothing which the law prescribed for the official dress of 
the simple priest (Ex. xxviii. 40) the ?•?© was not included, bat 
only the roiro, a tight close-fitting coat; but the priests were 
not thereby prevented from wearing a meil of byssus on special 
festive occasions, and we are informed in 2 Chron. v. 12 that 
even the Levites and singers were on such occasions clad in 
byssus. In this way the statement of our verse, that David and 
all the Levites and bearers of the ark, the singers, and the 
captain Chenaniah, had put on me'ilim of byssus, is justified and 
shown to be in accordance with the circumstances. The words 
therefore are to be so understood. The words from M?jT»] to 
Kfensn "ten are co-ordinate with TVil, and after them we must 
supply in thought fa ''po? '?"?■??, and may translate the verse 
thus : " David was clothed in a meil of byssus, as also were all 
the Levites," etc. No objection can be taken to the fctesn "**? 
when we have the article with a nomen regent, for cases of this 
kind frequently occur where the article, as here, has a strong 
retrospective force ; cf. Ew. § 290, d. On the contrary, D'Tibipn 
after Nferan is meaningless, and can only have come into the text, 
like I? in ver. 18, by an error of the transcriber, although it was 
so read as early as the time of the LXX. For the last clause, 
cf. 2 Sam. vi. 14. — Ver. 28 is, as compared with 2 Sam. vi. 5, 
somewhat enlarged by the enumeration of the individual instru- 
ments. — Ver. 29 and chap. xvi. 1-3 agree in substance with 
2 Sam. vi. 15-19a, only some few words being explained : «.j. 
prtfew Tune, ver. 29, instead of T3"j?» l»o (Sam.), and rra |itK 
rw instead of nvP Ji"W (Sam.) ; see the commentary on 2 Sam. Le. 
Chap. xvi. 4-42. The religious festival, and the arrangement 
of the sacred service before the ark of the covenant in the city of 
David. — This section is not found in 2d Samuel, where the con- 
clusion of this whole description (ver. 43, Chron.) follows im- 
mediately upon the feasting of the people by the king, vers. 195 
and 20. — Ver. 46. When the solemnity of the transfer of the 
ark, the sacrificial meal, and the dismissal of the people with a 
blessing, and a distribution of food, were ended, David set in 
order the service of the Levites in the holy tent on Zion. He 
appointed before the ark, from among the Levites, servants to 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVI. 4-42. 209 

praise and celebrate God, i.e. singers and players to sing psalms 
as a part of the regular worship. T?trj7, literally, " in order to 
bring into remembrance," is not to praise in general, but is to be 
interpreted according to the T3fnp in the superscription of Ps. 
xxxviii. and bcx., by which these psalms are designated as the 
appointed prayers at the presentation of the Azcarah of the 
meat-offering (Lev. ii. 2). TOTfi accordingly is a denom. from 
rnaWj to present the Azcarah (cf. Del. on Ps. xxxviii. 1), and is 
in oar rerse to be understood of the recital of these prayer-songs 
with musical accompaniment, rrilin, to confess, refers to the 
psalms in which invocation and acknowledgment of the name of 
the Lord predominates, and 7?n to those in which praise (Halle- 
lujah) is the prominent feature. In vers. 5 and 6 there follow 
the names of the Levites appointed for this purpose, who have 
all been already mentioned in xv. 19-21 as accompanying the 
ark in its transmission ; but all who are there spoken of are not 
included in our list here. Of the chief singers only Asaph is 
mentioned, Heman and Ethan being omitted ; of the singers and 
players of the second rank, only nine ; six of the eight nebel- 
players (xv. 20. fyy. is a transcriber's error for «T?S!» xv. 18), 
and only three of the six kinnor-players ; while instead of seven 
trumpet-blowing priests only two are named, viz. Benaiah, one 
of those seven, and Jehaziel, whose name does not occur in xv. 
24. — Ver. 7. On that day David first committed it to Asaph and 
his sons to give thanks to Jahve. )ru is to be connected with 
T|> which is separated from it by several words, and denotes to 
hand over to, here to commit to, to enjoin upon, since that which 
David committed to Asaph was the carrying out of a business 
which he enjoined, not an object which may be given into the 
hand, wnn Di>3 is accented by TK. tftha, « at the beginning," 
"at first," to bring out the fact that liturgical singing was then 
first introduced, wk, the brethren of Asaph, are the Levites 
appointed to the same duty, whose names are given in vers. 5, 6. 
But in order to give a more exact description of the fnnv frt*rin 
committed to Asaph in vers. 8-36, a song of thanks and praise is 
given, which the Levites were to sing as part of the service with 
instrumental accompaniment. It is not expressly said that this 
song was composed by David for this purpose ; but if Asaph with 
his singers was to perform the service committed to him, he must 
have been provided with the songs of praise (psalms) which were 
necessary for this purpose ; and if David were in any way the 

o 



Digitized by 



Google 



210 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

founder of the liturgical psalmody, he, as a richly endowed 
psalm-singer, would doubtless compose the necessary liturgical 
psalms. These considerations render it very probable that the 
following psalm was a hymn composed by David for the litur- 
gical song in the public worship. The psalm is as follows : — 

Ver. 8. Give thanks unto Jahve ; preach His name ; 
Make known His deeds among the peoples : 
9. Sing to Him, play to Him ; 

Meditate upon all His wondrous works. 

10. Glory ye in His holy name : 

Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord. 

11. Seek ye the Lord, and His strength ; 
Seek His face continually. 

12. Remember His wonders which He has done ; 

His wondrous works, and the judgments of His mouth ; 
IS. seed of Israel, His servants, 
Sons of Jacob, His chosen. 

14. He, Jahve, is our God ; 

His judgments go forth over all the earth. 

15. Remember eternally His covenant, 

The word which He commanded to a thousand generations: 

16. Which He made with Abraham, 
And His oath to Isaac ; 

17. And caused it to stand to Jacob for a law, 
To Israel as an everlasting covenant ; 

18. Saying, " To thee I give the land Canaan, 
As the heritage meted out to you." 

19. When ye were still a people to be numbered, 
Very few, and strangers therein, 

20. And they wandered from nation to nation, 
From one kingdom to another people, 

21. He suffered no man to oppress them, 
And reproved kings for their sake : 

22. " Touch not mine anointed ones, 
And do my prophets no harm." 

28. Sing unto Jahve, all the lands ; 

Show forth from day to day His salvation. 

24. Declare His glory among the heathen, 
Among all people His wondrous works. 

25. For great is Jahve, and greatly to be praised ; 
And to be feared is He above all the gods. 

26. For all the gods of the people are idols ; 
And Jahve has made the heavens. 

27. Majesty and splendour is before Hun ; 
Strength and joy are in His place. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVI. 4-42. 211 

28. Give unto Jahve, ye kindreds of the people, 
Give unto Jahve glory and strength. 

29. Give unto Jahve the honour of His name : 
Bring an offering, and come before His presence ; 
Worship the Lord in the holy ornaments. 

30. Tremble before Him, all the lands ; 
Then will the earth stand fast unshaking. 

SI. Let the heavens be glad, and the earth rejoice ; 

And they will say among the heathen, Jahve is King. 
32. Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof ; 

Let the field exult, and all that is thereon. 
S3. Then shall the trees of the wood rejoice 

Before the Lord ; for He comes to judge the earth. 

34. Give thanks unto Jahve, for He is good ; 
For His mercy endureth for ever. 

35. And say, " Save us, God of our salvation :" 

And gather us together, and deliver us from the heathen, 
To give thanks to Thy holy name, 
To glory in Thy praise. 

36. Blessed be Jahve, the God of Israel, 
From everlasting to everlasting. 

And all the people said Amen, and praised Jahve. 

This hymn forms a connected and uniform whole. Beginning 
with a summons to praise the Lord, and to seek His face (vers. 
8-11), the singer exhorts his people to remember the wondrous 
works of the Lord (vers. 12-14), and the covenant which He made 
with the patriarchs to give them the land of Canaan (vers. 15-18), 
and confirms his exhortation by pointing out how the Lord, in 
fulfilment of His promise, had mightily and gloriously defended 
the patriarchs (vers. 19-22). But all the world also are to praise 
Him as the only true and almighty God (vers. 23-27), and all 
peoples do homage to Him with sacrificial gifts (vers. 28-30) ; 
and that His kingdom may be acknowledged among the heathen, 
even inanimate nature will rejoice at His coming to judgment 
(vers. 31-33). In conclusion, we have again the summons to 
thankfulness, combined with a prayer that God would further 
vouchsafe salvation ; and a doxology rounds off the whole (vers. 
34-36). When we consider the contents of the whole hynm, it 
is manifest that it contains nothing which would be at all incon- 
sistent with the belief that it was composed by David for the 
above-mentioned religious service. There is nowhere any re- 
ference to the condition of the people in exile, nor yet to their 
circumstances after the exile. The subject of the praise to 



Digitized by 



Google 



212 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES 

which Israel is summoned is the covenant which God made 
with Abraham, and the wonderful way in which the patriarchs 
were led. The summons to the heathen to acknowledge Jahve 
as alone God and King of the world, and to come before His 
presence with sacrificial offerings, together with the thought that 
Jahve will come to judge the earth, belong to the Messianic 
hopes. These had formed themselves upon the foundation of the 
promises given to the patriarchs, and the view they had of Jahve 
as Judge of the heathen, when He led His people out of Egypt, 
so early, that even in the song of Moses at the Red Sea (Ex. xv.), 
and the song of the pious Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10), we meet 
with the first germs of them ; and what we find in David and 
the prophets after him are only further developments of these. 

Yet all the later commentators, with the exception of Hitzig 
die Psalmen, ii. S. ix. f., judge otherwise as to the origin of this 
festal hymn. Because the first half of it (vers. 8-22) recurs in 
Ps. cv. 1-15, the second (vers. 23-33) in Ps. xcvi., and the con- 
clusion (vers. 34-36) in Ps. cvi. 1, 47, 48, it is concluded that 
the author of the Chronicle compounded the hymn from these 
three psalms, in order to reproduce the festive songs which 
were heard after the ark had been brought in, in the same free 
way in which the speeches in Thucydides and Livy reproduce 
what was spoken at various times. Besides the later commen- 
tators, Aug. Koehler (in the Luth. Ztsckr. 1867, S. 289 ff.) and 
C. Ehrt {Abfassungszeit und Abschluss des Psalters, Leipz. 1869, 
S. 41 ff.) are of the same opinion. The possibility that our 
hymn may have arisen in this way cannot be denied ; for such a 
supposition would be in so far consistent with the character of 
the Chronicle, as we find in it speeches which have not been 
reported verbatim by the hearers, but are given in substance or 
in freer outline by the author of our Chronicle, or, as is more 
probable, by the author of the original documents made use of 
by the chronicler. But this view can only be shown to be cor- 
rect if it corresponds to the relation in which our hymn may be 
ascertained to stand to the three psalms just mentioned. Be- 
sides the fact that its different sections are again met with scat- 
tered about in different psalms, the grounds for supposing that 
our hymn is not an original poem are mainly the want of con- 
nection in the transition from ver. 22 to ver. 23, and from ver. 
33 to ver. 34 ; the fact that in ver. 35 we have a verse refer- 
ring to the Babylonian exile borrowed from Ps. cvi. ; and that 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVI. 4-42. 213 

ver. 36 is even the doxology of the fourth book of Psalms, taken 
to be a component part of the psalm. These two latter grounds 
would be decisive, if the facts on which they rest were well 
authenticated. If ver. 36 really contained only the doxology of 
the fourth book of Psalms, — which, like the doxologies of the first, 
second, and third books (Ps. xli. 14, Ixxii. 18, 19, and Ixxxix. 
53), was merely formally connected with the psalm, without 
being a component part of it, — there could be no doubt that the 
author of the Chronicle had taken the conclusion of his hymn 
from our collection of psalms, as these doxologies only date from 
the originators of our collection. But this is not the state of the 
case. The 48th verse of the 106th Psalm does, it is true, 
occupy in our Psalter the place of the doxology to the fourth 
hook, but belonged, as Bertheau also acknowledges, originally to 
the psalm itself. For not only is it different in form from the 
doxologies of the first three books, not having the double )t?S1 )0« 
with which these books close, but it concludes with the simple 
Kfy* !?«• If the low fl?K connected by 1 is, in the Old Testa- 
ment language, exclusively confined to these doxologies, which 
thus approach the language of the liturgical Beracha of the 
second temple, as Del. Ps. p. 15 rightly remarks, while in 
Num. v. 22 and Neh. viii. 6 only JON |OK without copulative 1 
occurs, it is just this peculiarity of the liturgical Beracha which 
is wanting, both in the concluding verse of the 106th Psalm and 
in ver. 36 of our festal hymn. Moreover, the remainder of the 
verse in question, — the last clause of it, " And let all the people 
say Amen, Halleluiah," — does not suit the hypothesis that the 
Terse is the doxology appended to the conclusion of the fourth 
book by the collector of the Psalms, since, as Hengstenberg in 
his commentary on the psalm rightly remarks, u it is inconceiv- 
able that the people should join in that which, as mere closing 
doxology of a book, would have no religious character;" and " the 
praise in the conclusion of the psalm beautifully coincides with 
its commencement, and the Halleluiah of the end is shown to 
be an original part of the psalm by its correspondence with the 
beginning." x The last verse of our hymn does not therefore 

1 Bertheau also rightly Bays : " If in Fa. Ixxii. (as also in Ps. Ixxxix. and xli.) 
the author of the doxology himself says Amen, while in Pa. cvi. 48 the saying 
°» the Amen is committed to the people, this difference can only arise from 
the fact that Ps. cvi. originally concluded with the exhortation to say Amen." 
HiUig speaks with still more decision, die Pss. (1865), ii. S. x. : " If (in Pa. 



Digitized by 



Google 



214 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHBONICLE& 

presuppose the existence of the collection of psalms, nor in ver. 
35 is there any indnbitable reference to the exilic time. The 
words, " Say, ' Save us, Thou God of our salvation ; gather 
us together, and deliver us from among the heathen,' " do not 
presuppose that the people had been previously led away into the 
Chaldean exile, but only the dispersion of prisoners of war, led 
away captive into an enemy's land after a defeat. This usually 
occurred after each defeat of Israel by their enemies, and it was 
just such cases Solomon had in view in his prayer, 1 Kings 
viii. 46-50. 

The decision as to the origin of this festal hymn, therefore, 
depends upon its interwl characteristics, and the result of a com- 
parison of the respective texts. The song in itself forms, as Hitz. 
l.e. S. 19 rightly judges, "a thoroughly coherent and organic 
whole. The worshippers of Jahve are to sing His praise in 
memory of His covenant which He made with their fathers, and 
because of which He protected them (vers. 18-22). But all the 
world also are to praise Him, the only true God (vers. 23-27) ; the 
peoples are to come before Him with gifts ; yea, even inanimate 
nature is to pay the King and Judge its homage (vers. 28-33). 
Israel — and with this the end returns to the beginning — is to 
thank Jahve, and invoke His help against the heathen (vers. 
34 and 35)." This exposition of the symmetrical disposition of 
the psalm is not rendered questionable by the objections raised 
by Koehler, Lc. ; nor can the recurrence of the individual parts 
of it in three different psalms of itself at all prove that in the 
Chronicle we have not the original form of the hymn. " There 
is nothing to hinder ns from supposing that the author of Ps. xcvi 
may be the same as the author of Ps. cv. and cvi. ; but even 
another might be induced by example to appropriate the first 
half of 1 Chron. xvi. 8 ff., as his predecessor had appropriated 

cvi.) ver. 47 is the conclusion, a proper ending is wanting ; while tot. 48, on 
the contrary, places the psalm on a level with Ps. ciii.-cv., cviL Who can 
believe that the author himself, for the purpose of ending the fourth book 
with ver. 48, caused the psalm to extend to the 48th verse ? In the Chronicle, 
the people whom the verse mentions are present from iv. 3-xvi. 2, while in 
the psalm no one can see how they should come in there. Whether the verse 
belong to the psalm or not, the turning to all the people, and the causing the 
people to say Amen, Amen, instead of the writer, has no parallel in the Psalms, 
and is explicable only on the supposition that it comes from the Chronicle. 
Afterwards a Diaskeuast might be satisfied to take the verse as the boundary- 
stone of a book." 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVI. 4-42. 215 

the second, and it would naturally occur to him to supply from 
his own resources the continuation which had been already taken 
away and made use of " (Hjtz. l.e.). A similar phenomenon is 
the recurrence of the second half of Ps. xl. 17 ff. as an indepen- 
dent psalm, Ps. lxx. " But it is also readily seen," continues 
Hitzig, " how easily the psalmist might separate the last three 
verses from each other (vers. 34 to 36 of the Chronicle), and set 
them as a frame round Ps. cvi. Ver. 34 is not less suitable in the 
Chronicle for the commencement of a paragraph than in Ps. cvii., 
while ver. 36 would admit of no continuation, bat was the proper 
end. On the other hand, we can scarcely believe that the 
chronicler compiled his song first from Ps. cv., then from Ps. 
xcvi., and lastly from Ps. cvi., striking off from this latter only 
the beginning and the end." 

Finally, if we compare the text of our hymn with the text of 
these psalms, the divergences are of such a sort that we cannot 
decide with certainty which of the two texts is the original. 
To pass over such critically indifferent variations as WB, Chron. 
ver. 12, for VB, Ps. cv. 5 ; the omission of the nota ace. n$, Chron. 
ver. 18, compared with Ps. cv. 10, and vice versa in Ps. xcvi. 3 
and Chron. ver. 24 ; i?!? »xjj, Chron. ver. 33, instead of 
TJWi *30p3, Ps. xcvi. 12, — the chronicler has in prw, ver. 16, 
instead' of pnfc^, Ps. cv. 9, and )6}£, ver. 32, instead of &£, Ps. 
xcvi 12, the earlier and more primitive form ; in unn 7N HP3J3, 
ver. 22, instead of «nn fo W3&, Ps. cv. 15, a quite unusual con- 
struction ; and in OV bx tf >0, ver. 23, the older form (cf . Num. 
xxx. 15), instead of Dtv Di>p, Ps. xcvi. 2, as in Esth. iii. 7 ; while, on 
the other hand, instead of the unexampled phrase &%&$'? onx iron, 
Ps. cv. 14, there stands in the Chronicle the usual phrase &*K? iron, 
and TlP in Ps. xcvi. 12 is the poetical form for the «Tife>n of Chron. 
ver. 32. More important are the wider divergences : not so 
much ^rfcl 1™, Chron. ver. 13, for 0STJ3K JHf, Ps. cv. 6, in which 
latter case it is doubtful whether the Vt?J> refers to the patriarchs 
or to the people, and consequently, as the para llelismus membrorum 
demands the latter reference, $>sob* is clearly the more correct 
and intelligible ; but rather the others, viz. ?OT, Chron. ver. 15, 
for "W, Ps. cv. 8 ; since Vi3» not only corresponds to the VT3T f 
ver. 11, but also to the use made of the song for the purposes 
stated in the Chronicle ; while, on the contraiy, "Of of the psalm 
corresponds to the object of the psalm, viz. to exalt the covenant 
grace shown to the patriarchs. Connected with this also is the 



Digitized by 



Google 



216 THE FIRST BOOK OP CHRONICLES. 

reading Darrf'ria, "when ye (sons of Jacob) were" (ver. 19), 
instead of Dri^ri?, Ps. cv. 12, " when they (the patriarchs) were," 
since the narrative of what the Lord had done demanded DWin. 
Now the more likely the reference of the words to the patri- 
archs was to suggest itself, the more unlikely is the hypothesis 
of an alteration into DarrtVQ; and the text of the Chronicle 
being the more difficult, is consequently to be regarded as the 
earlier. Moreover, the divergences of vers. 23 to 33 of onr 
hymn from Ps. xcvi. are such as would result from its having 
been prepared for the above-mentioned solemn festival. The 
omission of the two strophes, " Sing unto Jahve a new song, 
sing unto Jahve, bless His name " (Ps. xcvi. la and 2a), in ver. 
23 of the Chronicle might be accounted for by regarding that 
part of our hymn as an abridgment by the chronicler of the 
original song, when connecting it with the preceding praise of 
God, were it certain on other grounds that Ps. xcvi. was the 
original ; but if the chronicler's hymn be the original, we may 
just as well believe that this section was amplified when it was 
made into an independent psalm. A comparison of ver. 33 
(Chron.) with the end of the 96th Psalm favours this last hypo- 
thesis, for in the Chronicle the repetition of N3 *3 is wanting, as 
well as the second hemistich of Ps. xcvi. 13. The whole of the 
13th verse recurs, with a single K3 % at the end of the 98th 
Psalm (ver. 9), and the thought is borrowed from the Davidic 
Psalm ix. 9. The strophes in the beginning of Ps. xcvi., which 
are omitted from Chron. ver. 16, often recur. The phrase, 
" Sing unto Jahve a new song," is met with in Ps. xxxiii. 3, 
xcviii. 1, and cxlix. 1, and &\n TB> in Ps. xl. 4, a Davidic psalm, 
iotrrw ana is also met with in Ps. c. 4 ; and still more frequently 
mii^riK oia, in Ps. ciii. 20, 22, cxxxiv. 1, and elsewhere, even as 
early as Deborah's song, Judg. v. 2, 9 ; while nvrfe WB> occurs in 
the song of Moses, Ex. xv. 1. Since, then, the strophes of the 96th 
Psalm are only reminiscences of, and phrases which we find in, the 
oldest religious songs of the Israelites, it is clear that Ps. xcvi. is not 
an original poem. It is rather the re-grouping of well-known and 
current thoughts ; and the fact that it is so, favours the belief that 
all which this psalm contains at the beginning and end, which the 
Chronicle does not contain, is merely an addition made by the 
poet who transformed this part of the chronicler's hymn into an 
independent psalm for liturgical purposes. This purpose clearly 
appears in such variations as tenpoa rn«BTn, Ps. xcvi. 6, instead 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVL 4-4?. 217 

of tofca nnm, Chron. ver. 27, and Vrfw6 Win, Ps. xcvi. 8, 
instead of VjdS> ufcn, Chron. ver. 29. Neither'the word B"Ji?!? nor 
the mention of " courts " is suitable in a hymn sung at the con- 
secration of the holy tent in Zion, for at that time the old national 
sanctuary with the altar in the court (the tabernacle) still stood 
in Gibeon. Here, therefore, the text of the Chronicle corre- 
sponds to the circumstances of David's time, while the mention 
of OTi» and of courts in the psalm presupposes the existence of 
the temple with its courts as the sanctuary of the people of 
Israel. Now a post-exilic poet would scarcely have paid so much 
attention to this delicate distinction between times and circum- 
stances as to alter, in the already existing psalms, out of which 
he compounded this festal hymn, the expressions which were not 
suitable to the Davidic time. Against this, the use of the unusual 
word nvin, joy, which occurs elsewhere only in Neh. x. 8, 10, and 
in Chaldee in Ezra vi. 18, is no valid objection, for the use of the 
verb «Tjn as early as Ex. xviii. 9 and Job iii. 6 shows that the 
word does not belong to the later Hebrew. The discrepancy also 
between vers. 30 and 31 and Ps. xcvi. 9-11, namely, the omission 
in the Chronicle of the strophe D^^Of DW HJ (Ps- ver. 10), 
and the placing of the clause *&D TOP D*i» xvxh after H? 1 } tyf[ 
(Chron. ver. 31, cf. Ps. xcvi. 10), does not really prove anything as 
to the priority of Ps. xcvi. Hitzig, indeed, thinks that since by the 
omission of the one member the parallelism of the verses is dis- 
turbed, and a triple verse appears where all the others are double 
merely, and because by this alteration the clause, " Say among 
the people, Jahve is King," has come into an apparently unsuit- 
able position, between an exhortation to the heaven and earth to 
rejoice, and the roaring of the sea and its fulness, this clause 
must have been unsuitably placed by a copyist's error. But the 
transposition cannot be so explained; for not only is that one 
member of the verse misplaced, but also the ^QK of the psalm 
is altered into VietfM, and moreover, we get no explanation of 
the omission of the strophe 'til PT. If we consider TOMi'l (with 
1 consecutive), " then will they say," we see clearly that it corre- 
sponds to 'til U|"V tK in ver. 33 ; and in ver. 30 the recognition of 
Jahve's kingship over the peoples is represented as the issue and 
effect of the joyful exultation of the heaven and earth, just as in 
vers. 32 and 33 the joyful shouting of the trees of the field before 
Jahve as He comes to judge the earth, is regarded as the result 
of the roaring of the sea and the gladness of the fields. The 



Digitized by 



Google 



218 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

not? of the psalm, on the other hand, the summons to the Israel* 
ites to proclaim that Jahve is King among the peoples, is, after 
the call, " Let the whole earth tremble before Him," a somewhat 
tame expression ; and after it, again, we should not expect the much 
stronger 'U1 flan I*?. When we further consider that the clause 
which follows in the Chronicle, " He will judge the people in 
uprightness," is a reminiscence of Ps. ix. 9, we must hold the 
text of the Chronicle to be here also the original, and the 
divergences in Ps. xcvi. for alterations, which were occasioned by 
the changing of a part of our hymn into an independent psalm. 
Finally, there can be no doubt as to the priority of the chronicler's 
hymn in vers. 34-36. The author of the Chronicle did not require 
to borrow the liturgical formula 'ttt 3it3 *? swfc rrin from Ps. 
cvi. 1, for it occurs in as complete a form in Ps. cvii. 1, cxviii. 1, 
29, cxxxvi. 1, and, not to mention 2 Chron. v. 13, vii. 3, xx. 21, 
is a current phrase with Jeremiah (xxxiii. 11), and is without 
doubt an ancient liturgical form. Vers. 35 and 36, too, contain 
such divergences from Ps. cvi. 47 and 48, that it is in the highest 
degree improbable that they were borrowed from that psalm. 
Not only is the prayer 'Vtt ujP'fin introduced by ViDK, but also, 
instead of u'n*>K mrr of the psalm, we have UVB* *n!>K ; and to 
yxap, wvm is added, — a change which causes the words to lose 
the reference to the Chaldean exile contained in the text of the 
Psalms. The post-exilic author of the Chronicle would scarcely 
have obliterated this reference, and certainly would not have 
done so in such a delicate fashion, had he taken the verse from 
Ps. cvi. A much more probable supposition is, that the post- 
exilic author of the 106th Psalm appropriated the concluding 
verse of David's to him well-known hymn, and modified it to 
make it fit into his poem. Indubitable instances of such altera- 
tions are to be found in the conclusion, where the statement of 
the chronicler, that all the people said Amen and praised Jahve, 
is made to conform to the psalm, beginning as it does with 
Halleluiah, by altering V)Ot*»J into "HMO, " and let them say," and 
of mn^ 9gm into ap&n. 

On the whole, therefore, we must regard the opinion that 
David composed our psalm for the above-mentioned festival as 
by far the most probable. The psalm itself needs no further 
commentary ; but compare Delitzsch on the parallel psalms and 
parts of psalms. 

Vers. 37-43. Division of the Levites for tlie management of 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVL 37-43. 219 

the public worship. — At the same time as he set up the ark in the 
tent erected for it on Mount Zion,' David had prepared a new 
locality for the public worship. The Mosaic tabernacle had 
continued, with its altar of burnt-offering, to be the general 
place of worship for the congregation of Israel even daring the 
long period when the ark was separated from it, and it was even 
yet to be so ; and it became necessary, in order to carry on the 
religious service in both of these sanctuaries, to divide the staff 
of religious officials : and this David now undertook. — Ver. 37. 
Before the ark he left Asaph with his brethren ( ? before the 
teem, obj., according to the later usage), to serve, to minister 
there continually, toira D^-up, « according to the matter of the 
day on its day," »*.«. according to the service necessary for each 
day ; cf. for this expression, Ex. v. 13, 19, xvi. 4, etc. " And 
Obed-edom and their brethren." In these words there is a 
textual error : the plural suffix in Of}'™* shows that after 1?5> 
tfttt at least one name has been dropped out. But besides that, 
the relation in which the words, " and Obed-edom the son of Jedu- 
thun, and Hosah, to be porters," stand to the preceding clause, 
" and Obed-edom and their brethren," is obscure. Against the 
somewhat general idea, that the words are to be taken in an 
explicative sense, "and Obed-edom indeed," etc., the objection 
suggests itself, that Obed-edom is here defined to be the son of 
Jeduthun, and would seem to be thereby distinguished from the 
preceding Obed-edom. In addition to that, in xv. 21 an Obed- 
edom is mentioned among the singers, and, in ver. 24 one of the 
doorkeepers bears that name, and they are clearly distinguished 
«s being different persons (see p. 206). On the other hand, how- 
ever, the identity of the two Obed-edoms in our verse is supported 
by the fact that in chap. xxvi. 4-8 the doorkeepers Obed-edom 
with his sons and brethren number sixty-two, which comes pretty 
nearly up to the number mentioned in our verse, viz. sixty-eight. 
let we cannot regard this circumstance as sufficient to identify 
the two, and must leave the question undecided, because the text 
of our verse is defective. Jeduthun the father of Obed-edom is 
different from the chief musician Jeduthun (= Ethan) ; for the 
chief musician is a descendant of Merari, while the doorkeeper 
Jeduthun belongs to the Korahites (i.e. Kohathites) : see on 
xxvi. 4.— Ver. 39. i#W Two is still dependent on the atjn in ver. 
37. The priest Zadok with his brethren he left before the tent 
of Jahve, ue. the tabernacle at the Bamah in Gibeon. For ™?3 



Digitized by 



Google 



220 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

see on 2 Ghron. i. 13, and for Zadok on v. 38. It is surprising 
here that no priest is named as superintendent or overseer of 
the sacrificial worship in the tent of the ark of the covenant 
But the omission is accounted for by the fact that our chapter 
treats properly only of the arrangement of the sacred music 
connected with the worship, and Zadok is mentioned as overseer 
of the sanctuary of the tabernacle at Gibeon only in order to 
introduce the statement as to the Levitic singers and players 
assigned to that sanctuary. Without doubt Abiathar as high 
priest had the oversight of the sacrificial worship in the sanctuary 
of the tabernacle : see on xviii. 16 ; with ver. 40 cf. Ex. xxix. 38, 
Num. xxviii. 3, 6. 3tfi2fr»? corresponds to riii^n? : and in refer- 
ence to all, i.e. to look after all, which was written. This refers 
not only to the bringing of the sacrifices prescribed, in addition 
to the daily burnt-offering, but in general to everything that it 
was the priests' duty to do in the sanctuary. — Ver. 41. C"BP., 
and with them (with Zadok and his brethren) were Heman and 
Jeduthun, i.e. Ethan (the two other chief musicians, xv. 19), 
with the other chosen famous, sc. singers (JtiDK'3 *3jM, see on 
xii. 31). To these belonged those of the number named in 
xv. 18-21, 24, who are not mentioned among those assigned to 
Asaph in xvi. 5 and 6, and probably also a number of others 
whose names have not been handed down. In ver. 42, if the 
text be correct, JVWn Jtp'n can only be in apposition to pre?: 
" and with them, viz. with Heman and Jeduthun, were trumpets," 
etc. But, not to mention the difficulty that passages analogous 
and parallel to this statement are not to be found, the mention of 
these two chief musicians in the connection is surprising ; for the 
musical instruments mentioned are not merely the O'jFhso (s. xv. 19) 
played by them, but also the rriisxn which the priests blew, and 
other instruments. Moreover, the names Heman and Jeduthun 
are not found here in the LXX., and have probably been 
inserted in our verse by some copyist from ver. 41, which like- 
wise begins with OSVSin. If we omit these names, then, the verse 
contains no other difficulty worthy of consideration, or any which 
would occasion or necessitate such violent alterations of the text 
as Berth, has proposed. The suffix in DfiBl/ refers to the persons 
mentioned in ver. 41, Heman, Jeduthun, and the other chosen 
ones. "With them were," t.e. they had by them, trumpets, 
cymbals, etc. The 5> before CyoE'D is strange, since O^tnaro is 
in xv. 16 connected with O^fO as an adjective, and in xv. 19 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVIL 221 

ire have WOW??. But if we compare ver. 5 of our chapter, 
where JPOBT? is predicate to Asaph, "Asaph gave forth clear 
notes with cymbals," then here also D'y'Dtpo? in connection with 
DWXD is thoroughly justified in the signification, " and cymbals 
for those who gave forth the notes or the melody," i.e. for Heman 
and Jeduthun. '«n VE* 73 are the other instruments used in the 
service of song, viz. the nablia and kinnoroth. " The sons of 
Jeduthun for the gate," i.e. as doorkeepers. As Obed-edom, who 
was doorkeeper by the ark, according to ver. 38, was likewise a 
son of Jeduthun, here other sous of the same Jeduthun, brothers 
of Obed-edom, must be meant, the number of whom, if we may 
jndge from xxvi. 8, wa3 very considerable ; so that the members 
of this family were able to attend to the doorkeeping both by the 
ark and in the tabernacle at Gibeon. — Ver. 43 brings the account 
of the transfer of the ark to a conclusion, and coincides in sub- 
stance with 2 Sam. vi. 19 and 20a, where, however, there follows 
in addition a narrative of the scene which David had with his 
wife Michal. This, as ret domesiica, the author of the Chronicle 
has omitted, since the reference to it in xv. 29 seemed sufficient 
for the design of his work. T!?? is not to greet, but to bless his 
house, just as in ver. 2 he had already pronounced a blessing on 
his people in the name of God. 



chap. xvii. — david's design to build a temple, and the 
confirmation of his kingdom. 

In the Chronicle, as in the second book of Samuel chap, vii., 
the account of the removal of the ark to the city of David is 
immediately followed by the narrative of David's design to build 
a temple to the Lord ; and this arrangement is adopted on account 
of the connection between the subjects, though the events must 
hare been separated by a period of several years. Our account 
of this design of David's, with its results for him and for his 
kingdom, is in all essential points identical with the parallel 
account, so that we may refer to the commentary on 2 Sam. vii. 
for any necessary explanation of the matter. The differences 
between the two narratives are in great part of a merely formal 
kind; the author of the Chronicle having sought to make the 
narrative more intelligible to his contemporaries, partly by using 
later phrases current in his own time, such as DVpK for m»T, 
nofc for n&* partly by simplifying and explaining the bolder 



Digitized by 



Google 



222 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

and more obscure expressions. Very seldom do we find diver- 
gences in the subject-matter which alter the meaning or make 
it appear to be different. To supplement and complete the com- 
mentary already given on 2d Samuel, we will now shortly treat 
of these divergences. In ver. 1, the statement that David com- 
municated his purpose to build a temple to the Lord to tbe 
prophet Nathan, " when Jahve had given him rest from all his 
enemies round about," is wanting. This clause, which fixes the 
time, has been omitted by the chronicler to avoid the apparent 
contradiction which would have arisen in case the narrative were 
taken chronologically, seeing that the greatest of David's wars, 
those against the Philistines, Syrians, and Ammonites, are nar- 
rated only in the succeeding chapter. As to this, cf . the discus- 
sion on 2 Sam. vii. 1-3. — In ver. 10, O'DJD^, like tf'>T??^ (Sam. 
ver. 11), is to be connected with the preceding rtfetana in this sense: 
a As in the beginning (t.e. during the sojourn in Egypt), and 
onward from the days when I appointed judges," i.e. during the 
time of the judges. ?o? is only a more emphatic expression for IP, 
to mark off the time from the beginning as it were (cf . Ew. § 218, b), 
and is wrongly translated by Berth. u until the days." In the 
same verse, ,J i 1 ??3'! | J> " I bow, humble all thine enemies," substan- 
tially the same as the 'lywrn, « j g{ ve fa^ peace from all thine 
enemies" (Sam.) ; and the suffix in T^Ik is not to be altered, as 
Berth, proposes, into that of the third person Y 1 ?^, either in the 
Chronicle or in Samuel, for it is quite correct ; the divine promise 
returning at the conclusion to David direct, as in the beginning, 
vers. 7 and 8, while that which is said of the people of Israel 
in vers. 9 and 10a is only an extension of the words, " I will 
destroy all tliine enemies before thee " (ver. 8). — In ver. 11, WW 
TniwrDy, " to go with thy fathers," used of going the way of 
death, is similar to " to go the way of all the world " (1 Kings 
ii. 2), and is more primitive than the more usual rfatc 0? 3?ff 
(Sam. ver. 12). TJat? riw Y#t, too, is neither to be altered to 
suit TJJBO W£ new of Samuel ; nor can we consider it, with Berth, 
an alteration made by the author of the Chronicle to get rid of 
the difficulty, that here the birth of Solomon is only promised, 
while Nathan's speech was made at a time when David had rest 
from all his enemies round about (2 Sam. viii. 1), t.c, as is usually 
supposed, in the latest years of his life, and consequently after 
Solomon's birth. For the difficulty had already been got rid of 
by the omission of those words in ver. 1 j and the word, " I have 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xvii. 223 

cut off all thine enemies from before thee" (ver. 8), does not 

necessarily involve the destruction of all the enemies who ever 

rose against David, but refers, as the connection shows, only to 

the enemies who up till that time had attacked him. Had the 

author of the Chronicle only wished to get rid of this supposed 

difficulty, he would simply have omitted the clause, since " thy 

seed" included the sons of David, and needed no explanation if 

nothing further was meant than that one of bis sons would ascend 

the throne after him. And moreover, the thought, " thy seed, 

which shall be among thy sons," which Bertheau finds in the 

words, would be expressed in Hebrew by TJ?t? TBfoj, while "HW 

VM? iw signifies, u who will come out of (from) thy sons ;" for 

)p nvi does not denote to be of one, i.e. to belong to him, but to 

arise, be born, or go forth, from one : cf. Gen. xvii. 16 ; Eccles. 

iii. 20. According to this, the linguistically correct translation, 

the words cannot be referred to Solomon at all, because Solomon 

was not a descendant of David's sons, but of David himself. 1 The 

author of the Chronicle has interpreted T™K Ijnrrm theologically, 

or rather set forth the Messianic contents of this conception more 

clearly than it was expressed in T%&0 K£ ie^k. The seed after 

David, which will arise from his sons, is the Messiah, whom the 

prophets announced as the Son of David, whose throne God will 

establish for ever (ver. 12). This Messianic interpretation of 

David's $nt explains the divergence of the chronicler's text in 

vers. 13 and 14 from 2 Sam. vii. 14-16. For instance, the 

omission of the words after 1? in ver. 13, " If he commit iniquity, 

I will chasten him with the rod of men" (Sam. ver. 14), is the 

result of the Messianic interpretation of 1$n?, since the reference 

to the chastisement would of course be important for the earthly 

sons of David and the kings of Judah, but could not well find place 

in the case of the Messiah. The only thing said of this son of 

David is, that God will not withdraw His grace from him. The 

case is exactly similar, with the difference between ver. 14 and 

Sam. ver. 16. Instead of the words, " And thy house and thy 

kingdom shall be established for ever before thee, thy throne shall 

°e established for ever" (Sam.), the promise runs thus in the 

Chronicle : " And I will settle (I'pvn, cause to stand, maintain, 1 

Kings xv. 4 ; 2 Chron. ix. 8) him (the seed arising from thy 

tons) in my house and in my kingdom for ever, and his throne 

1 As old Lavater has correctly remarked : Si tantum de Salomone hie locus 
tocipiendu* etset, turn dixisset: semen quod erit dejiiiis tuts, ted quod erit de tt. 



Digitized by 



Google 



224 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

shall be established for evermore." While these concluding 
words of the promise are, in the narrative in Samuel, spoken to 
David, promising to him the eternal establishment of his house, 
his kingdom, and his throne, in the Chronicle they are referred 
to the seed of David, i.e. the Messiah, and promise to Him His 
establishment for ever in the house and kingdom of God, and 
the duration of His throne for ever. That W? here does not 
signify the congregation of the Lord, the people of Israel, as 
Berth, thinks it must be translated, is clear as the sun ; for JTO, 
immediately preceding, denotes the temple of Jahve, and W3 
manifestly refers back to v IVa (ver. 12), while such a designa- 
tion of the congregation of Israel or of the people as " house of 
Jahve " is unheard of in the Old Testament. The house of 
Jahve stands in the same relation to the kingdom of Jahve as 
a king's palace to his kingdom. The house which David's seed 
will build to the Lord is the house of the Lord in his kingdom : 
in this house and kingdom the Lord will establish Him for ever; 
His kingdom shall never cease ; His rule shall never be extin- 
guished ; and He himself, consequently, shall live for ever. It 
scarcely need be said that such things can be spoken only of the 
Messiah. The words are therefore merely a further development 
of the saying, " I will be to him a Father, and I will not take my 
mercy away from him, and will establish his kingdom for ever," 
and tell us clearly and definitely what is implicitly contained in 
the promise, that David's house, kingdom, and throne will endure 
for ever (Sam.), viz. that the house and kingdom of David 
will be established for ever only under the Messiah. That this 
interpretation is correct is proved by the fact that the divergences 
of the text of the chronicler from the parallel narrative cannot 
otherwise be explained ; Thenius and Berth, not having made 
even an attempt to show how W33 VWlDgrn could have arisen 
out of IJVa 1&M31. The other differences between the texts in the 
verses in question, b (Chron.) for Vlf?, taKrrot for frpiw? KD? nK 
(Chron. ver. 12, cf. Sam. ver. 13), and Txh ivn itstob instead of 
'm nete W dj>d (Chron. ver. 13, cf. Sam. ver." 15), are only 
variations in expression which do not affect the sense. With 
reference to the last of them, indeed, Berth, has declared against 
Thenius, that the chronicler's text is thoroughly natural and 
bears marks of being more authentic than that of 2 Sam. va- 
in the prayer of thanksgiving contained in vers. 16 to 27 we 
meet with the following divergences from the parallel text, which 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVII. 16-27. 225 

are of importance for their effect on the sense. — Ver. 176. Instead 
of the words on»n rnln n&ftj (Sam. ver. 19), the Chronicle has 
fl $? ! ? °]^ ~fo® WKTS and sawest me (or, that thou sawest me) 
after the manner of men ; "lin being a contraction of rnifl = Tjin. 
•BfJ, to see, may denote to visit (cf. 2 Sam. xiii. 5 ; 2 Kings 
viii. 29), or look upon in the sense of regard, respieere. But the 
word njjnsn remains obscure in any case, for elsewhere it occurs 
only as a substantive, in the significations, "the act of going up" 
(or drawing up) (Ezra vii. 9), " that which goes up" (Ezek. 
xi. 5), "the step;" while for the signification "height" (locus 
superior) only this passage is adduced by Gesenius in Thes. But 
even had the word this signification, the word n?gBn could not 
signify in loco excelso = in ccelia in its present connection ; and 
farther, even were this possible, the translation et me intuitus es 
more hominum in ccelia gives no tolerable sense. But neither 
can tbyon be the vocative of address, and a predicate of God, 
" Thou height, Jahve God," as Hgstb. Christol. i. p. 378 trans., 
takes it, with many older commentators. The passage Ps. xcii. 9, 
" Thou art DhD, height, sublimity for ever, Jahve," is not suffi- 
cient to prove that in our verse n^jjen is predicated of God. 
Without doubt, fvJJBf} should go with 'U1 WKT, and appears to 
correspond to the tfTW of the preceding clause, in the significa- 
tion: as regards the elevation, in reference to the going upwards, 
it. the exaltation of my race (seed) on high. The thought would 
then be this : After the manner of men, so condescendingly and 
graciously, as men have intercourse with each other, hast Thou 
looked upon or visited me in reference to the elevation of myself 
or my race, — the text of the Chronicle giving an explanation of the 
parallel narrative. 1 The divergence in ver. 18, TpriK Ti3?j> yh* 

1 This interpretation of this extremely difficult word corresponds in sense 
to the not less obscure words in 2d Samuel, and gives us, without any alteration 
of the text, a more fitting thought than the alterations in the reading pro- 
P<»d by the moderns. Ewald and Berth, would alter WN11 into yjVtOPn 
(Hjpk), and fl^jjon into fb^ob, in order to get the meaning, ' ' Thou hast caused 
me to see like the series of men upwards," i.e. the line of men who stretch 
from David outward into the far future in unbroken series, which Thenius 
rightly calls a thoroughly modern idea. Bbttcher's attempt at explanation is 
ranch more artificial. He proposes, in N. k. Aehrenlese, iii. S. 226, to read 
rogO? . . . 'JJVtOI and translates: " so that I saw myself, as the series of 
raen who follow upwards shall see me, i.e. so that I could see myself as pos- 
terity will see me, at the head of a continuous family of rulers ; " where the 
ratin idea has to be supplied. 

P 



Digitized by 



Google 



226 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLER 

instead of T?K " 1 ?1? (Sam. ver. 20), which cannot be an expla- 
nation or interpretation of Samuel's text, is less difficult of 
explanation. The words in Samuel, " What can David say more 
unto Thee?" have in this connection the very easily understood 
signification, What more can I say of the promise given me 1 and 
needed no explanation. When, instead of this, we read in the 
Chronicle, " What more can Thy servant add to Thee in regard 
to the honour to Thy servant ? " an unprejudiced criticism must 
hold this text for the original, because it is the more difficult 
It is the more difficult, not only on account of the omission of 
^Ifi?, which indeed is not absolutely necessary, though serving to 
explain VDf', but mainly on account of the unusual construction 
of the nomen *tf33 with Tj^JT^K, honour towards Thy servant 
The construction nvr JiK njn is no t quite analogous, for "fas is 
not a nomen actionis like fly? ; "Tin 133 is rather connected with the 
practice which begins to obtain in the later language of employing 
DK as a general casus obliquus, instead of any more definite pre- 
position (Ew. § 277, d, S. 683 f., der 7 AufL), and is to be trans- 
lated : " honour concerning Thy servant." The assertion that 
Ti3jrn« is to be erased as a later gloss which has crept into the 
text, cuts the knots, but does not untie them. That the LXX. 
have not these words, only proves that these translators did not 
know what to make of them, and so just omitted them, as they 
have omitted the first clause of ver. 19. In ver. 19 also there is 
no valid ground for altering the T|3? ""3?? of the Chronicle to 
make it correspond to TJjM "Mga in Samuel ; for the words, " for 
Thy servant's sake," i.e. because Thou hast chosen Thy servant, 
give a quite suitable sense ; cf. the discussion on 2 Sam. vii. 21. 
In the second half of the verse, however, the more extended 
phrases of 2d Samuel are greatly contracted. — Ver. 21. The 
combining of rrftoiil n&ia with BB> 1? Itvsh as one sentence, " to 
make Thee a name with great and fearful deeds," is made clearer 
in 2d Samuel by the interpolation of D3? Fftogfy " and for you 
doing great and fearful things." This explanation, however, 
does not justify us in supposing that mt?}>7i has been dropped 
out of the Chronicle. The words rtirrtji ri&ij are either to be 
subordinated in a loose connection to the clause, to define the 
way in which God has made Himself a name (cf . Ew. § 283), or 
connected with mfc» in a pregnant sense : " to make Thee a name, 
(doing) great and fearful things." But, on the other hand, the con- 
verse expression in Samuel, " fearful things for Thy land, before 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVIII.-XX. 227 

Thy people which Thou redeemedst to Thee from Egypt (from) 
the nations and their gods," is explained in Chronicles by the inter- 
polation of B'w : u fearful things, to drive out before Thy people, 
which . . . nations." The divergences cannot be explained by 
the hypothesis that both texts are mutilated, as is sufficiently 
shown by the contradictions into which Thenius and Bertheau 
have fallen in their attempts so to explain them. 

All the remaining divergences of one text from the other are 
only variations of the expression, such as involuntarily arise in the 
endeavour to give a clear and intelligible narrative, without making 
a literal copy of the authority made use of. Among these we inolude 
even %nni> ^pay xxo, "Thy servant hath found to pray" (Chron. 
ver. 25),'as compared with S>!?ensii> taWiK T«? ««?, "Thy servant 
hath found his heart," i.e. found courage, to pray (Sam. ver. 28); 
where it is impossible to decide whether the author of the books 
of Samuel has added ^37-nK as an explanation, or the author of 
the Chronicle has omitted it because the phrase "to find his 
heart" occurs only in this single passage of the Old Testament. 
'tm ftag nvd signifies, Thy servant has reached the point of 
directing this prayer to Thee. 

chap, xvtii.-xx. — david's wars and victories ; his public 
officials ; some heroic deeds done in the philistine 

WARS. 

The events recorded in these three chapters are all narrated in 
the second book of Samuel also, and in the same order. First, there 
are grouped together in our 18th chapter, and in 2 Sam. viii., in 
such a manner as to afford a general view of the whole, all the 
wars which David carried on victoriously against all his enemies 
round about in the establishment of the Israelitish rule, with a 
short statement of the results, followed by a catalogue of David's 
chief public officials. In chap. xix. and in 2 Sam. x. we have a 
more detailed account of the arduous war against the Ammonites 
vnd Syrians, and in chap. xx. 1-3 and 2 Sam. xii. 26-31 the 
conclusion of the war with the capture of Kabbah, the capital of 
the Ammonites ; and finally, in chap. xx. 4-8, we have a few short 
accounts of the victories of the Israelitish heroes over giants from 
the land of the Philistines, which are inserted in 2 Sam. xxi. 
18-22 as a supplement to the last section of David's history. 
Apart from this last section, which is to be regarded even in the 



Digitized by 



Google 



228 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Chronicle as an appendix, we find the arrangement and sac- 
cession of the events to be the same in both books, since the 
sections which in 2 Sam. ix. and xi. 1-12, 25, stand between the 
histories of the wars, contain sketches of David's family life, 
which the author of the Chronicle has, in accordance with his 
plan, omitted. Even as to individual details the two narratives 
are perfectly agreed, the divergences being inconsiderable ; and 
even these, in so far as they are original, and are not results of 
careless copying, — as, for instance, the omission of the word tftTO, 
xviii. 6, as compared with ver. 13 and 2 Sam. viii. 6, and the 
difference in the numbers and names in chap, xviii. 4, 8, as 
compared with 2 Sam. iv. 4, 8, are, — are partly mere explana- 
tions of obscure expressions, partly small additions or abridg- 
ments. For the commentary, therefore, we may refer to the 
remarks on 2d Samuel, where the divergences of the Chronicle 
from the record in Samuel are also dealt with. With chap, xviii. 
1-13 cf. 2 Sam. viii. 1-14 ; and with the register of public 
officials, xviii. 14-17, cf. 2 Sam. viii. 15-18. 

Examples of paraphrastic explanation are found in chap, 
xviii. 1, where the figurative expression, David took the bridle of 
the mother out of the hands of the Philistines, i.e. deprived them 
of the hegemony, is explained by the phrase, David took Gath 
and her cities out of the hands of the Philistines, i.e. took from 
the Philistines the capital with her daughter cities ; and in ver. 
17, Bait's is rendered by, the first at the king's hand. Among the 
abridgments, the omission of David's harsh treatment of the 
Moabites who were taken prisoners is surprising, no reason for 
it being discoverable; for the assertion that the chronicler has 
purposely omitted it in order to free David from the charge of 
such barbarous conduct, is disposed of by the fact that he does 
not pass over in silence the similar treatment of the conquered 
inhabitants of Rabbah in chap. xx. 3. Instead of this, the 
chronicler has several historical notes peculiar to himself, which 
are wanting in -the text of Samuel, and which prove that the 
author of the Chronicle has not derived his account from the 
second book of Samuel. Such, e.g., is the statement in chap, 
xviii. 8, that Solomon caused the brazen sea and the pillars and 
vessels of the court of the temple to be made of the brass taken 
as booty in the war against Hadadezer; in ver. 11, the word 
B ^$?» which is wanting in Samuel, as Q^p, which in ver. 11 of 
that book is used in place of it, probably stood originally in the 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xviiL-xx. 229 

Chronicle also. Such also are the more accurate statements in 
ver. 12 as to the victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt 
(see on 2 Sam. viii. 13). 

The same phenomena are met with in the detailed account 
of the Ammonite-Syriac war, chap. xix. 1, 2, xx. 3, as compared 
with 2 Sam. x. 1-xi. 1, and xii. 26-31. In xix. 1 the omission 
of the name ]ttn after foa is merely an oversight, as the omission 
of the name vn in 2 Sam. x. la also is. In ver. 3 there is no 
need to alter '«1 ?]brfo ij>r6 into 'Vrt rbrh\ Tyrrm i|jn, 2 Sam. x. 3, 
although the expression in Samuel is more precise. If the actual 
words of the original document are given in Samuel, the author 
of the Chronicle has made the thought more general: "to 
search and to overthrow, and to spy out the land." Perhaps, 
however, the terms made use of in the original document were 
not so exact and precise as those of the book of Samuel. In 
vers. 6, 7, at least, the divergence from 2 Sam. x. 16 cannot be 
explained otherwise than by supposing that in neither of the 
narratives is the text of the original document exactly and per- 
fectly reproduced. For a further discussion of the differences, 
see on 2 Sam. x. 6. The special statement as to the place where 
the mercenaries encamped, and the Ammonites gathered them- 
selves together from out their cities (ver. 7), is wanting in 2d 
Samuel. The city Medeba, which, according to Josh. xiii. 16, 
was assigned to the tribe of Reuben, lay about two hours south- 
east from Heshbon, and still exists as ruins, which retain the 
ancient name Medaba (see on Num. xxi. 30). In ver. 9, nna 
Tjn, "outside the city" (t'.«. the capital Kabbah), more correct 
or exact than "i?? , n wis (Sam. ver. 8). On arebn t&% as com- 
pared with n»K^n tfap (Sam. ver. 17), cf. the discussion on 
2 Sam. x. 16, 17*. 

The account of the siege of Rabbah, the capital, in the follow- 
ing year, chap. xx. 1-3, is much abridged as compared with that 
in 2 Sam. xi. 1, xii. 26-31. After the clause, " but David sat 
(remained) in Jerusalem," in 2 Sam. xi., from ver. 2 onwards, 
we have the story of David's adultery with Bathsheba, and the 
events connected with it (2 Sam. xi. 3-xii. 25), which the 
author of the Chronicle has omitted, in accordance with the 
plan of his book. Thereafter, in 2 Sam. xii. 26, the further 
progress of the siege of Rabbah is again taken up with the 
words, "And Joab warred against Rabbah of the sons of 
Ammon;" and in vers. 27-29 the capture of that city is cir- 



Digitized by 



Google 



230 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

cumstantially narrated, viz. how Joab, after he had taken the 
water-city, i.e, the city lying on both banks of the upper Jabbok 
(the Wady Amman), with the exception of the Acropolis built on 
a hill on the north side of the city, sent messages to David, and 
called upon him to gather together the remainder of the people, 
i.e. all those capable of bearing arms who had remained in the 
land ; and how David, having done this, took the citadel. Instead 
of this, we have in the Chronicle only the short statement, " And 
Joab smote Kabbah, and destroyed it" (xx. 1, at the end). After 
this, both narratives (Ghron. vers. 2, 3, and Sam. vers. 30, 31) 
coincide in narrating how David set the heavy golden crown of 
the king of the Ammonites on his head, brought much booty out 
of the city, caused the prisoners of war taken in Kabbah and the 
other fenced cities of the Ammonites to be slain in the cruellest 
way, and then returned with all the people, i.e. with the whole 
of his army, to Jerusalem. Thus we see that, according to the 
record in the Chronicle also, David was present at the capture 
of the Acropolis of Kabbah, then put on the crown of the 
Ammonite king, and commanded the slaughter of the prisoners; 
but no mention is made of his having gone to take part in the 
war. By the omission of this circumstance the narrative of the 
Chronicle becomes defective ; but no reason can be given for this 
abridgment of the record, for the contents of 2 Sam. xii. 26-39 
must have been contained in the original documents made use of 
by the chronicler. On the differences between ver. 31 (Sam.) 
and ver. 3 of the Chronicle, see on 2 Sam. xii. 31. *tf?J}, "he 
sawed asunder," is the correct reading, and 0&£ in Samuel is 
an orthographical error; while, on the contrary, rn"0Q3 in the 
Chronicle is a mistake for flviTSM in Samuel. The omission of 
J37B3 BfriK "i*3grn is probably explained by the desire to abridge; 
for if the author of the Chronicle does not scruple to tell of the 
sawing asunder of the prisoners with saws, and the cutting of 
them to pieces under threshing instruments and scythes, it would 
never occur to him to endeavour to soften David's harsh treat- 
ment of them by passing over in silence the burning of them in 
brick-kilns. 

The passages parallel to the short appendix-like accounts of 
the valiant deeds of the Israelitish leaders in chap. xx. 4-8 are to 
be found, as has already been remarked, in 2 Sam. xxi. 18-24. 
There, however, besides the three exploits of which we are in- 
formed by the chronicler in vers. 15-17, a fourth is recorded, 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVHL-XX 231 

and that in the first place too, viz. the narrative of David's 
fight with the giant Jishbi-Benob, who was slain by Abishai the 
son of Zeruiah. The reason why our historian has not recounted 
this along with the others is clear from the position which he 
assigns to these short narratives in his book. In the second book 
of Samuel they are recounted in the last section of the history of 
David's reign, as palpable proofs of the divine grace of which 
David had had experience during his whole life, and for which 
he there praises the Lord in a psalm of thanksgiving (2 Sam. 
rrii.). In this connection, David's deliverance by the heroic act 
of Abishai from the danger into which he had fallen by the 
fierce attack which the Philistine giant Jishbi-Benob made upon 
him when he was faint, is very suitably narrated, as being a visible 
proof of the divine grace which watched over the pious king. 
For the concluding remark in 2 Sam. xxi. 17, that in con- 
sequence of this event his captains adjured David not to go any 
more into battle along with them, that the light of Israel might 
not be extinguished, shows in how great danger he was of being 
slain by this giant. For this reason the author of the book of 
Samuel has placed this event at the head of the exploits of the 
Israelite captains which he was about to relate, although it 
happened somewhat later in time than the three exploits which 
succeed. The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, has 
made the account of these exploits an appendix to the account 
of the victorious wars by which David obtained dominion over 
■II the neighbouring peoples, and made his name to be feared 
among the heathen, as a further example of the greatness of the 
power given to the prince chosen by the Lord to be over His 
people. For this purpose the story of the slaughter of the Phili- 
stine giant, who had all but slain the weary David, was less suit- 
able, and is therefore passed over by the chronicler, although it 
was contained in his authority, 1 as is clear from the almost verbal 
coincidence of the stories which follow with 2 Sam. xxi. 18 ff. 
The very first is introduced by the formula, " It happened after 
this," which in 2d Samuel naturally connects the preceding narra- 
tive with this ; while the chronicler has retained 1?"*?.^ as a general 
formula of transition, — omitting, however, *rty (Sam.) in the fol- 
lowing clause, and Writing *tf Djn??, " there arose," instead of Wr). 
^ in the later Hebrew is the same as Wp. The hypothesis that 

1 Lightfoot says, in his Chronol. V. T. p. 68 : Illud prsslium, in quo David 
* perieulttm vtnit et xmde decore et illtesus exire von poluit, omission est. 



Digitized by 



Google 



232 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

ncyni has arisen out of *riP 'Wil (in Samuel) is not at all pro- 
bable, although TDJJ is not elsewhere used of the origin of a war. 
Even mp is only once (Gen. xli. 30) used of the coming, or 
coming in, of a time. On ">M3 and 'ap instead of aia and % 
see on 2 Sam. xxi. 18. W?39 at the end of the fourth verse is 
worthy of remark, " And they (the Philistines) were humbled," 
which is omitted from Samuel, and " yet can scarcely have been 
arbitrarily added by our historian " (Berth.). This remark, how- 
ever, correct as it is, does not explain the omission of the word 
from 2d Samuel. The reason for that can scarcely be other than 
that it did not seem necessary for the purpose which the author 
of the book of Samuel had in the first place in view. As to the 
two other exploits (vers. 6-8), see the commentary on 2 Sam. 
xxi. 19-22. 7$ for n?K in the closing remark (ver. 8) is archaic, 
but the omission of the article (?N instead of ?Kn, as we find it in 
Gen. xix. 8, 25, and in other passages in the Pentateuch) cannot 
be elsewhere paralleled. In the last clause, " And they fell by 
the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants," that David 
should be named is surprising, because none of those here men- 
tioned as begotten of Rapha, i.e. descendants of the ancient 
Raphaite race, had fallen by the hand of David, but all by the 
hand of his servants. Bertheau therefore thinks that this clause 
has been copied verbatim into our passage, and also into 2 Sam. 
xxi. 22, from the original document, where this enumeration 
formed the conclusion of a long section, in which the acts of 
David and of his heroes, in their battles with the giants in the 
land of the Philistines, were described. But since the author of 
the second book of Samuel expressly says, "These four were 
born to Rapha, and they fell " (ver. 22), he can have referred 
in the words, " And they fell by the hand of David," only to 
the four above mentioned, whether he took the verse in question 
unaltered from his authority, or himself added hpn nyanjrfW. In 
the latter case he cannot have added the ^"T3 without some 
purpose ; in the former, the reference of the TfT? in the "longer 
section," from which the excerpt is taken, to others than the four 
giants mentioned, to Goliath perhaps in addition, whom David 
slew, is rendered impossible by n?s njanjrrot. The statement, 
"they fell by the hand of David," does not presuppose that 
David had slain all of them, or even one of them, with his own 
Iiand; for Ta frequently signifies only through, i.e. by means of, 
and denotes here that those giants fell in wars which David had 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xxl-xxh. i. 233 

waged with the Philistines — that David had been the main canse 
of their fall, had brought about their death by his servants 
through the wars he waged. 



CHAP. XXI.-XX.II. L— THE NUMBERING OF THE PEOPLE, THE 
PESTILENCE, AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE SITE FOR 
THE TEMPLE (CF. 2 SAM. XXIV.). 

The motive which influenced the king, in causing a census of 
the men capable of bearing arms throughout the kingdom to be 
taken in the last year of his reign, has already been discussed in 
the remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv., where we have also pointed out 
what it was which was so sinful and displeasing to God in the 
undertaking. We have, too, in the same place commented upon 
the various stages of its progress, taking note of the differences 
which exist between the numbers given in 2 Sam. xxiv. 9, 13, 
24, and those in our record, vers. 5, 12, 25; so that here we 
need only compare the two accounts somewhat more minutely. 
They correspond not merely in the main points of their narrative 
of the event, but in many places make use of the same terms, 
which shows that they have both been derived from the same 
source ; but, at the same time, very considerable divergences are 
found in the conception and representation of the matter. In 
the very first verse, David's purpose is said in 2d Samuel to be 
the effect of the divine anger ; in the Chronicle it is the result 
of the influence of Satan on David. Then, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 4-9, 
the numbering of the people is narrated at length, while in the 
Chronicle, vers. 4-6, only the results are recorded, with the 
remark that Joab did not complete the numbering, Levi and 
Benjamin not being included, because the king's command was 
an abomination to him. On the other hand, the Chronicle, in 
Ten. 19-27, narrates the purchase of Araunah's threshing-floor 
for a place of sacrifice, and gives not merely a more circumstan- 
tial account of David's offering than we find in Samuel (vers. 
19-25), but also states, in conclusion (vers. 28-30), the circum- 
stances which induced David to offer sacrifice even afterwards, 
on the altar which he had built at the divine command, on the 
threshing-floor bought of Araunah. The purpose which the author 
of the Chronicle had in view in making this concluding remark 
is manifest from ver. 1 of chap, xxii., which should properly be 
connected with chap. xxi. : " And David said, Here is the house 



Digitized by 



Google 



234 THE FIBST BOOK OF CEBONICLES. 

of Jahve God, and here the altar for the burnt-offering of Israel." 
Only in this verse, as Bertheau has correctly remarked, do we 
find the proper conclusion of the account of the numbering of 
the people, the pestilence, and the appearance of the angel, and 
yet it is omitted in the book of Samuel ; " although it is mani- 
fest from the whole connection, and the way in which the historj 
of David and Solomon is presented in the books of Samuel and 
Kings, that the account is given there also only to point out the 
holiness of the place where Solomon built the temple even in 
the time of David, and to answer the question why that particular 
place was chosen for the site of the sanctuary." This remark 
is perfectly just, if it be not understood to mean that the author 
of our book of Samuel has given a hint of this purpose in his 
narrative ; for the conclusion of 2 Sam. xxiv. 25, " And Jahve 
was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed," is irre- 
concilable with any such idea. This concluding sentence, and 
the omission of any reference to the temple, or to the appoint- 
ment of the altar built on the threshing-floor of Araunah to be a 
place of sacrifice for Israel, and of the introductory words of the 
narrative, " And again the wrath of Jahve was kindled' against 
Israel, and moved David against them " (2 Sam. xxiv. 1), plainly 
show that the author of the book of Samuel regarded, and has 
here narrated, the event as a chastisement of the people of Israel 
for their rebellion against the divinely chosen king, in the revolts 
of Absalom and Sheba (cf . the remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv. 1). The 
author of the Chronicle, again, has without doubt informed us of 
the numbering of the people, and the pestilence, with its results, 
with the design of showing how God Himself had chosen and 
consecrated this spot to be the future place of worship for Israel, 
by the appearance of the angel, the command given to David 
through the prophet Gad to build an altar where the angel had 
appeared, and to sacrifice thereon, and by the gracious acceptance 
of this offering, fire having come down from heaven to devour it 
For this purpose he did not require to give any lengthened 
account of the numbering of the people, since it was of import- 
ance to him only as being the occasion of David's humiliation. 

Vers. 1-7. "And Satan stood up against Israel, and incited 
David to number Israel." The mention of Satan as the seducer 
of David is not to be explained merely by the fact that the 
Israelites in later times traced up everything contrary to God's 
will to this evil spirit, but in the present case arises from the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXI. 1-7. 235 

author's design to characterize David's purpose from the very 
beginning as an ungodly thing. — Ver. 2. The naming of the *$& 
DJ?n along with Joab is in accordance with the circumstances, for 
we learn from 2 Sam. xxiv. 4 that Joab did not carry out the 
numbering of the people alone, but was assisted by the captains of 
the host. The object of vK UP3STI, which is not expressed, the 
result of the numbering, may be supplied from the context. No 
objection need be taken to the simple tans of ver. 3, instead of the 
double onai DH3 in Samuel. The repetition of the same word, 
"there are so and so many of them," is a peculiarity of the author 
of the book of Samuel (cf. 2 Sam. xii. 8), while the expression 
in the Chronicle corresponds to that in Dent. i. 11. With the 
words 'Ul tfw »6n, " Are they not, my lord king, all my lord's 
servants," i.e. subject to him ? Joab allays the suspicion that he 
grudged the king the joy of reigning over a very numerous people. 
In Sam. ver. 3 the thought takes another turn ; and the last 
clause, " Why should it (the thing or the numbering) become a 
trespass for Israel I " is wanting, n DB*K denotes here a trespass 
which must be atoned for, not one which one commits. The 
meaning is therefore, Why should Israel expiate thy sin, in seek- 
ing thy glory in the power and greatness of thy kingdom? On 
the numbers, ver. 5, see on 2 Sam. xxiv. 9. In commenting on 
ver. 6, which is not to be found in Samuel, Berth, defends the 
statement that Joab did not make any muster of the tribes Levi 
and Benjamin, against the objections of de Wette and Gram- 
berg, as it is done in my apologet. Versuche, S. 349 ff., by show- 
ing that the tribe of Levi was by law (cf. Num. i. 47-54) 
exempted from the censuses of the people taken for political 
purposes ; and the tribe of Benjamin was not numbered, because 
David, having become conscious of his sin, stopped the number- 
ing before it was completed (cf. also the remarks on 2 Sam. 
xxiv. 9). The reason given, " for the king's word was an 
abomination unto Joab," is certainly the subjective opinion of 
the historian, but is shown to be well founded by the circum- 
stances, for Joab disapproved of the king's design from the 
beginning ; cf . ver. 3 (Samuel and Chronicles). — In ver. 7, the 
author of the Chronicle, instead of ascribing the confession of 
on on David's part which follows to the purely subjective 
motive stated in the words, " and David's heart smote him," i.e. 
his conscience (Sam. ver. 10a), has ascribed the turn matters 
took to objective causes : the thing displeased God ; and antici- 



Digitized by 



Google 



236 THE FIRST BOOR OF CHRONICLES. 

pating the course of events, he remarks straightway, " and He 
(God) smote Israel." This, however, is no reason for thinking, 
with Berth., that the words have arisen out of a misinterpreta- 
tion or alteration of 2 Sam. xxiv. 10a ; for such anticipatory 
remarks, embracing the contents of the succeeding verses, not 
unfrequently occur in the historical books (cf. e.g. 1 Kings vi. 
14, vii. 2). — In reference to vers. 8—10, see on 2 Sam. xxiv. 
10-16. — In ver. 12, new has not come into the text by mistake 
or by misreading ^dj (Sam. ver. 13), but is original, the author 
of the Chronicle describing the two latter evils more at length 
than Samuel does. The word is not a participle, but a noun 
formed from the participle, with the signification "perishing'' 
(the being snatched away). The second parallel clause, "the 
sword of thine enemies to attaining" (so that it reach thee), serves 
to intensify. So also in reference to the third evil, the mrr arjn 
which precedes H?a "iM, and the parallel clause added to both : 
" and the angel of the Lord destroying in the whole domain of 
Israel." — Ver. 15. "^ ?$0 wrfan rb?% "And God sent an 
angel towards Jerusalem," gives no suitable sense. Not because 
of the improbability that God sent the angel with the commission 
to destroy Jerusalem, and at the same moment gives the contrary 
command, " Stay now," etc. (Berth.) ; for the reason of this 
change is given in the intermediate clause, " and at the time of 
the destroying the Lord repented it," and command and prohibi- 
tion are not given " at the same moment;" but the difficulty lies 
in the indefinite "H^td (without the article). For since the angel 
of Jahve is mentioned in ver. 12 as the bringer of the pestilence, 
in our verse, if it treats of the sending of this angel to execute 
the judgment spoken of, S|*o©n must necessarily be used, or nx 
'HKT&n, as in ver. 16 ; the indefinite ?)KpO can by no means be 
used for it. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 we read, instead of the words in 
question, 'T *|KfBn ftj rwg, "and the angel stretched out his hand 
towards Jerusalem;" and Bertheau thinks that the reading &$#*} 
(in the Chron.) has arisen out of that, by the letters n rr being 
exchanged for rwp, and Dv6k being substituted for this divine 
name, as is often the case in the Chronicle ; while Movers, S. 91, 
on the contrary, considers the reading of the Chronicle to be origi- 
nal, and would read nw rwj in Samuel. But in that way Movers 
leaves the omission of the article before "H^fO in the Chronicle 
unexplained ; and Bertheau's conjecture is opposed by the impro- 
bability of such a misunderstanding of a phrase so frequent and 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXI. 16-26. 237 

so unmistakeable as faj "?¥*.> as would lead to the exchange sap- 
posed, ever occurring. But besides that, in Samuel the simple 
3tt7Qn is strange, for the angel has not been spoken of there at 
all before, and the LXX. have consequently explained the some- 
what obscure tyf®} by o cpyyeXo? tou 0eoi5. This explanation 
suggests the way in which the reading of our text arose. The 
author of the Chronicle, although he had already made mention 
of the m?v T|si>D in ver. 12, wrote in ver. 15 tfrfow *jKi>iD rbm, 
" the angel of God stretched (his hand) out towards Jerusalem," 
using cvi!>Kn instead of mtv, — as, for example, in Judg. vi. 20, 
22, xiii. 6, 9, and 13, 15, 17. tS>rf?»n tji&d alternates with ^KJ>D 
"W, and omitting Vr with ript^, as is often done, e.g. 2 Sam. vi. 6, 
Ps. xviii. 17, etc. By a copyist ^h'td and DNltan have been trans- 
posed, and ^1N?P was then taken by the Masoretes for an accusa- 
tive, and pointed accordingly. The expression is made clearer 
by ffne&ra, " And as he destroyed, Jahve saw, and it repented 
Him of the evil." The idea is : Just as the angel had begun to 
destroy Jerusalem, it repented God. 3"i, adverb, " enough," as in 
1 Kings xix. 4, etc., with a dativ. commodi, Deut. i. 6, etc. Ber- 
theauhas incorrectly denied this meaning of the word, connecting 
?) with D?3 in 2 Sam. xxiv.. 16, and desiring to alter our text to 
make it conform to that. In 2d Samuel also 3"! is an adverb, 
as Thenius also acknowledges. 

Vers. 16-26. The account of David's repentant beseeching of 
the Lord to turn away the primitive judgment, and the word of 
the Lord proclaimed to him by the prophet, commanding him to 
build an altar to the Lord in the place where the destroying angel 
visibly appeared, together with the carrying out of this divine 
command by the purchase of Araunah's threshing-floor, the erec- 
tion of an altar, and the offering of burnt-offering, is given more 
at length in the Chronicle than in 2 Sam. xxiv. 17-25, where only 
David's negotiation with Araunah is more circumstantially nar- 
rated than in the Chronicle. In substance both accounts perfectly 
correspond, except that in the Chronicle several subordinate cir- 
cumstances are preserved, which, as being minor points, are passed 
over in Samuel. In ver. 16, the description of the angel's appear- 
ance, that he had a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over 
Jerusalem, and the statement that David and the elders, clad 
m sackcloth (garments indicating repentance), fell down before 
the Lord ; in ver. 20, the mention of Oman's (Araunah's) sons, 
who hid themselves on beholding the angel, and of the fact that 



Digitized by 



Google 



238 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Oman was engaged in threshing wheat when David came to him ; 
and the statement in ver. 26, that fire came down from heaven 
upon the altar, — are examples of such minor points. We have 
already commented on this section in our remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv. 
17-25, and the account in the Chronicle is throughout correct 
and easily understood. Notwithstanding this, however, Bertheau, 
following Thenius and Bottcher, conjectures that the text is in 
several verses corrupt, and wishes to correct them hy 2d Samuel. 
But these critics are misled by the erroneous presumption with 
which they entered upon the interpretation of the Chronicle, that 
the author of it used as his authority, and revised, our Masoretic 
text of the second book of Samuel. Under the influence of this 
prejudice, emendations are proposed which are stamped with their 
own unlikelihood, and rest in part even on misunderstandings of 
the narrative in the book of Samuel. Of this one or two illus- 
trations will be sufficient. Any one who compares ver. 17 (Sam.) 
with vers. 16 and 17 of the Chronicle, without any pre-formed 
opinions, will see that what is there (Sam.) concisely expressed is 
more clearly narrated in the Chronicle. The beginning of ver. 
17, "And David spake unto Jahve," is entirely without con- 
nection, as the thought which forms the transition from ver. 16 
to ver. 17, viz. that David was moved by the sight of the destroy- 
ing angel to pray to God that the destruction might be turned 
away, is only brought in afterwards in the subordinate clause, "on 
seeing the angel." This abrupt form of expression is got rid of 
in the Chronicle by the clause : " And David lifted up his eyes, 
and saw the angel . . . and fell . . . upon his face ; and David spake 
to God." That which in Samuel is crushed away into an infini- 
tive clause subordinate to the principal sentence, precedes in the 
Chronicle, and is circumstantially narrated. Under these circum- 
stances, of course, the author of the Chronicle could not after- 
wards in ver. 17 make use of the clause, " on seeing the angel 
who smote the people," without tautology. Berth., on the con- 
trary, maintains that ver. 16 is an interpolation of the chronicler, 
and proposes then to cull out from the words and letters intra 
D)n naon *|t6on n« (Sam.), the words 0%} Wfonfr vrm imro 
(Chron. ver. 17), great use being made in the process of the 
ever ready auxiliaries, mistakes, and a text which has become 
obscure. This is one example out of many. Ver. 16 of the 
Chronicle is not an addition which the Chronicle has interpolated 
between vers. 16 and 17 of Samuel, but a more detailed representa- 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXI. 16-26. 239 

tion of the historical coarse of things. No mention is made in 2d 
Samuel of the drawn sword in the angel's hand, because there the 
whole story is very concisely narrated. This detail need not have 
been borrowed from Num. xxii. 23, for the drawn sword is a sen- 
sible sign that the angel's mission is punitive ; and the angel, who 
is said to have visibly appeared in 2d Samuel also, could be recog- 
nised as the bearer of the judicial pestilence only by this emblem, 
such recognition being plainly the object of his appearance. The 
mention of the elders along with David as falling on their faces 
in prayer, clad in sackcloth, will not surprise any reader or critic 
who considers that in the case of so fearful a pestilence the king 
would not be alone in praying God to turn away the judgment. 
Besides, from the mention of the onag of the king who went 
with David to Oman (Sam. ver. 20), we learn that the king did 
not by himself take steps to turn away the plague, but did so 
along with his servants. In the narrative in 2d Samuel, which con- 
fines itself to the main point, the elders are not mentioned, because 
only of David was it recorded that his confession of sin brought 
about the removal of the plague. Just as little can we be sur- 
prised that David calls his command to number the people the 
delictum by which he had brought the judgment of the plague 
upon himself. — To alter i?"??, ver. 19, into " l ?^?, as Berth, wishes, 
would show little intelligence. I?]?, at Gad's word David went 
op, is proved by Num. xxxi. 16 to be good Hebrew, and is per- 
fectly suitable. — Ver. 20. IJ"]N 3t?)i, « and Oman turned him 
about," is translated by Berth, incorrectly, " then Oman turned 
back," who then builds on this erroneous interpretation, which is 
contrary to the context, a whole nest of conjectures. 3t?£ is said 
to have arisen out of *$}?*, the succeeding fjfs^n out of l^f?, 
to? Wa nya-iy out of V^f DnaJ> nag (Sam. ver. 20), " by mistake 
and further alteration." In saying this, however, he himself has 
»ot perceived that ver. 20 (Sam.) does not correspond to the 20th 
▼«ne of the Chronicle at all, but to the 21st verse, where the 
words, « and Araunah looked out (tipe*) and saw the king," are 
parallel to the words, " and Oman looked (0?!) and saw David." 
The 20th verse of the Chronicle contains a statement which is 
not found in Samuel, that Oman (Araunah), while threshing 
i ™h his four sons, turned and saw the angel, and being terrified 
»t the sight, hid himself with his sons. After that, David with 
""a train came from Zion to the threshing-floor in Mount Moriah, 
«od Araunah looking out saw the king, and came out of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



240 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

threshing-floor to meet him, with deep obeisance. This narrative 
contains nothing improbable, nothing to justify as in having re- 
course to critical conjecture. — Ver. 24. The infinitive rrt?gn is very 
frequently used in Hebrew as the continuation of the verb, jfoi, 
and is found in all the books of the Old Testament (cf. the collec- 
tion of passages illustrative of this peculiar form of brief expres- 
sion, which Ew. gives, § 351, c), and that not only with regard to 
the infin. absol., but the infin. constr. also. David's answer to 
Oman's offer to give him the place for the altar, and the cattle, 
plough, and wheat for the burnt-offering, was therefore : " No, 
I will buy it for full price ; I will not take what belongs to thee 
for Jahve, and bring burnt-offerings without cost," i.e. without 
having paid the price for them. — Ver. 25. As to the different 
statements of the price, cf. on 2 Sam. xxiv. 24. 

Vers. 26-30. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 25 the conclusion of this event 
is shortly narrated thus : David offered burnt-offerings and peace- 
offerings, and Jahve was entreated for the land, and the plague 
was stayed from Israel. In the Chronicle we have a fuller state- 
ment of the rnrp "UT£ in ver. 266. David called upon Jahve, 
and He answered with fire from heaven upon the altar of burnt- 
offering (ver. 27); and Jahve spake to the angel, and he returned 
the sword into its sheath. The returning of the sword into its 
sheath is a figurative expression for the stopping of the pestilence; 
and the fire which came down from heaven upon the altar of 
burnt-offering was the visible sign by which the Lord assured 
the king that his prayer had been heard, and his offering 
graciously accepted. The reality of this sign of the gracious 
acceptance of an offering is placed beyond doubt by the analogous 
cases, Lev. ix. 24, 1 Kings xviii. 24, 38, and 2 Chron. vii. 1. It 
was only by this sign of the divine complacence that David learnt 
that the altar built upon the threshing-floor of Araunah had been 
chosen by the Lord as the place where Israel should always 
thereafter offer their burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as is further 
recorded in vers. 28-30 and in xxii. 1. From the cessation of 
the pestilence in consequence of his prayer and sacrifice, David 
could only draw the conclusion that God had forgiven him his 
transgression, but could not have known that God had chosen 
the place where he had built the altar for the offering demanded 
by God as a permanent place of sacrifice. This certainly he 
obtained only by the divine answer, and this answer was the fire 
which came down upon the altar of burnt-offering and devoured 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXL 26-80. 241 

the sacrifice. This ver. 28 states : " At the time when he saw 
that Jahve had answered him at the threshing-floor of Oman, 
he offered sacrifice there," i.e. from that time forward ; so that we 
may with Berth, translate OP nam, " then he was wont to offer 
sacrifice there." In vers. 29 and 30 we have still further reasons 
given for David's continuing to offer sacrifices at the threshing- 
floor of Oman. The legally sanctioned place of sacrifice for 
Israel was still at that time the tabernacle, the Mosaic sanc- 
tuary with its altar of burnt-offering, which then stood on the 
high place at Gibeon (cf. xvi. 39). Now David had indeed 
brought the ark of the covenant, which had been separated from 
the tabernacle from the time of Samuel, to Zion, and had there 
not only erected a tent for it, but had also built an altar and 
established a settled worship there (chap, xvii.), yet without 
having received any express command of God regarding it ; so 
that this place of worship was merely provisional, intended to 
continue only until the Lord Himself should make known His 
will in the matter in some definite way. When therefore David, 
titer the conquest of his enemies, had obtained rest round about, 
he had formed the resolution to make an end of this provisional 
separation of the ark from the tabernacle, and the existence of 
two sacrificial altars, by building a temple ; but the Lord had 
declared to him by the prophet Nathan, that not he, but his son 
and successor on the throne, should build Him a temple. The 
altar by the ark in Zion, therefore, continued to co-exist along 
with the altar of burnt-offering at the tabernacle in Gibeon, 
without being sanctioned by God as the place of sacrifice for the 
congregation of Israel. Then when David, by ordering the 
numbering of the people, had brought guilt upon the nation, 
which the Lord so heavily avenged upon them by the pestilence, 
he should properly, as king, have offered a sin-offering and a 
burnt-offering in the national sanctuary at Gibeon, and there 
have sought the divine favour for himself and for the whole 
people. But the Lord said unto him by the prophet Gad, that 
he should bring his offering neither in Gibeon, nor before the 
ark on Zion, but in the threshing-floor of Oman (Araunah), on 
the altar which he was there to erect. This command, however, 
did not settle the place where he was afterwards to sacrifice. But 
David — so it runs, ver. 29 f. — sacrificed thenceforward in the 
threshing-floor of Oman, not at Gibeon in the still existent 
national sanctuary, because he (according to ver. 30) " could not 

4 



Digitized by 



Google 



242 THE F1BST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

go before it (WB?) to seek God, for he was terrified before the 
sword of the angel of Jahve." This statement does not, how- 
ever, mean, ex terrore visionis angelica infirmitatem corporis eon- 
traxerat (J. H. Mich.), nor yet, " because he, being struck and 
overwhelmed by the appearance of the angel, did not venture to 
offer sacrifices elsewhere" (Berth.), nor, "because the journey 
to Gibeon was too long for him " (O. v. Gerl.). None of these 
interpretations suit either the words or the context. *JB» rflOJ 
3VJ, terrified before the sword, does indeed signify that the 
sword of the angel, or the angel with the sword, hindered him 
from going to Gibeon, but not during the pestilence, when the 
angel stood between heaven and earth by the threshing-floor of 
Araunah with the drawn sword, but — according to the context— 
afterwards, when the angelophany had ceased, as it doubtless did 
simultaneously with the pestilence. The words 'W njoo <3 can 
therefore have no other meaning, than that David's terror before 
the sword of the angel caused him to determine to sacrifice there- 
after, not at Gibeon, but at the threshing-floor of Araunah ; or 
that, since during the pestilence the angel's sword had prevented 
him from going to Gibeon, he did not venture ever afterwards 
to go. But the fear before the sword of the angel is in sob- 
stance the terror of the pestilence ; and the pestilence had hin- 
dered him from sacrificing at Gibeon, because Gibeon, notwith- 
standing the presence of the sanctuary there, with the Mosaic 
altar, had not been spared by the pestilence. David considered 
this circumstance as normative ever for the future, and he always 
afterwards offered his sacrifices in the place pointed out to him, 
and said, as we further read in chap. xxii. 1, u Here (wn nr, pro- 
perly this, mas. or neut.) is the house of Jahve God, and here 
is the altar for the burnt-offering of Israel." He calls the site of 
the altar in the threshing-floor of Araunah nw IV3, because there 
Jahve had manifested to him His gracious presence ; cf . Gen. 
xxviii. 17. 

chap. xxii. 2-w. — david's pbepabations fob the builddig 

OF THE TEMPLE. 

With this chapter commences the second section of the his- 
tory of David's kingship, viz. the account of the preparations, 
dispositions, and arrangements which he made in the last years 
of his reign for the establishment of his kingdom in the future 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap, xm ts. 243 

under his successors (see above, p. 169 ff.). All these prepara- 
tions and dispositions had reference to the firm establishment of 
the public worship of the Lord, in which Israel, as the people 
and congregation of Jahve, might show its faithfulness to the 
covenant, so as to become partakers of the divine protection, and 
the blessing which was promised. To build the temple — this 
desire the Lord had not indeed granted the fulfilment of to David, 
but He had given him the promise that his son should carry out 
that work. The grey-haired king accordingly made preparations, 
after the site of the house of God which should be built had been 
pointed out to him, such as would facilitate the execution of the 
work by his successor. Of these preparations our chapter treats, 
and in it we have an account how David provided the necessary 
labour and materials for the building of the temple (vers. 2-5), 
committed the execution of the work in a solemn way to his son 
Solomon (vers. 6-16), and called upon the chiefs of the people to 
give him their support in the work (vers. 17-19). 

Vers. 2-5. Workmen and materials for the building of the 
temple. — Ver. 2. In order to procure die necessary workmen, 
David commanded that the strangers in the land of Israel should 
be gathered together, and, as we learn from 2 Chron. ii. 16, also 
numbered. or@j} 7 the strangers, are the descendants of the 
Canaanites whom the Israelites had not destroyed when they 
took possession of the land, but had reduced to bondage (2 Chron. 
viiL 7-9 ; 1 Kings ix. 20-22). This number was so considerable, 
that Solomon was able to employ 150,000 of them as labourers and 
stone-cutters (1 Kings v. 29 ; 2 Chron. ii. 16 f.). These strangers 
David appointed to be stone-cutters, to hew squared stones, Ttti \J3K 
(see on 1 Kings v. 31). — Ver. 3. Iron and brass he prepared in 
abundance : the iron for the nails of the doors, i.e. for the f olding- 
doorsof the gates, i.e. partly for the pivots (Zapfen) on which the 
folding-doors turned, partly to strengthen the boards of which doors 
were made ; as also for the rrtisnp, literally, things to connect, i.e. 
properly iron cramps. — Ver. 4. The Tyrians sent him cedar trees 
or beams in abundance, probably in exchange for grain, wine, and 
fruit of various sorts, which the Phoenicians obtained from the 
Israelites ; cf . Movers, Phdnizier, iii. 1, S. 88 ff. Sidonians and 
Syrians are named to denote the Phoenicians generally, as in 
Ezra in. 7. When Solomon began to build the temple, he made 
a regular treaty with Hiram king of Tyre about the delivery of 
the necessary cedar wood, 1 Kings v. 15 ff. — Ver. 5 gives in 



Digitized by 



Google 



244 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

substance the reason of what precedes, although it is connected 
with it only by \ consec. Because his son Solomon was still in 
tender youth, and the building to be executed was an exceedingly 
great work, David determined to make considerable preparation 
before his death. TJ) 1&, puer et terser, repeated in xxix. 1, 
indicates a very early age. Solomon could not then be quite 
twenty years old, as he was born only after the Syro-Ammonite 
war (see on 2 Sam. xii. 24), and calls himself at the com- 
mencement of his reign still Jbij ijtt (1 Kings iii. 7). The word 
njn may of itself denote not merely a boy, but also a grown 
yonth ; but here it is limited to the boyish age by the addition of 
JfJJ. Berth, wrongly compares Ex. xxxiii. 11, where "UO denotes 
not a boy, but a lad, i.e. a servant. In the succeeding clause 
mrr? rto? is to be taken relatively : and the house which is to be 
built to the Lord is to be made great exceedingly (■TOBf, see 
on xiv. 2), for a name and glory for all lands, Le. that it might 
be to the Lord for whom it should be built for an honour and 
glory in all lands. W W fiy?*, ^ y "^ ( — therefore will I) pre- 
pare for him (Solomon), sell, whatever I can prepare to forward 
this great work. 

Vers. 6-16. Solomon commissioned to build the temple. — Ver. 
6. Before his death (ver. 5) David called his son Solomon, in 
order to commit to him the building of the temple, and to press 
it strongly upon him, vers. 7-10. With this design, he informs 
him that it had been his intention to build a temple to the Lord, 
but the Lord had not permitted him to carry out this resolve, 
but had committed it to his son. The Keri '33 (ver. 7) is, not- 
withstanding the general worthlessness of the corrections in the 
Keri, probably to be preferred here to the Keth. faa, for to might 
have easily arisen by the copyist's eye having wandered to <wf> 
bs, ver. 6. David's addressing him as '33 is very fitting, nay, 
even necessary, and not contrary to the following S 3H. KB> 0?, it 
was with my heart, Le, I had intended, occurs indeed very often 
in the Chronicle, e.g. xxviii. 2, 2 Chron. i. 11, vi. 7 f., ix. 1, 
xxiv. 4, xxix. 10, but is also found in other books where the 
sense demands it, e.g. Josh. xiv. 7, 1 Kings viii. 17 f ., x. 2. In 
Y? WJ, There came to me the word of Jahve (ver. 8), it is 
implied that the divine word was given to him as a command. 
The reason which David gives why the Lord did not allow him 
to build the temple is not stated in chap. xvii. (2 Sam. vii.), to 
which David here refers ; instead of the reason, only the promise 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXJX 6-16. * 245 

is there communicated, that the Lord* would first build him a 
house, and enduringly establish his throne. This promise does 
not exclude the reason stated here and in chap, xxviii. 3, but 
rather implies it. As the temple was only to be built when God 
had enduringly established the throne of David, David could not 
execute this work, for he still had to conduct wars — wars, too, of 
the Lord — for the establishment of his kingdom, as Solomon also 
states it in his embassy to Hiram. Wars and bloodshed, how- 
em, are unavoidable and necessary in this earth for the establish- 
ment of the kingdom of God in opposition to its enemies, but are 
not consonant with its nature, as it was to receive a visible 
embodiment and expression in the temple. For the kingdom of 
God is in its essence a kingdom of peace ; and battle, or war, or 
struggle, are only means for the restoration of peace, the recon- 
ciliation of mankind with God after the conquest of sin and all 
that is hostile to God in this world. See on 2 Sam. vii. 11. 
David, therefore, the man of war, is not to build the temple, but 
(ver. 9 f .) his son ; and to him the Lord will give peace from 
all his enemies, so that he shall be nrwo tf*K, a man of rest, and 
shall rightly bear the name Shelomo (Solomon), Le. Friederich 
(rich in peace, Eng. Frederick), for God would give to Israel in 
his days, i.e. in his reign, peace and rest (&$)• The participle 
"TO after ran has the signification of the future, shall be born ; 
cf. 1 Kings xiii. 2. nrrOD B^K, not a man who procures peace 
(Jer. li. 59), but one who enjoys peace, as the following ff 'rfrMrn 
shows. As to the name nbW, see on 2 Sam. xii. 24. Into ver. 
10 David compresses the promise contained in chap. xvii. 12 and 
13.— Ver. 11. After David had so committed to his son Solomon 
the bnilding of the temple, a task reserved and destined for him 
by the divine counsel, he wishes him, in ver. 11, the help of the 
Lord to carry out the work. J? 1 ! 1 ?*! 11 ., ut prospere agas etfeliei sue- 
«««u ularis (J. M. Mich.), cf . Josh. i. 8. 7? if! of a command from 
on high ; cf. v^, ver. 8. Above all, however, he wishes (ver. 12) 
him right understanding and insight from God (M fe&?, so con- 
nected in 2 Chron. ii. 11 also), and that God may establish him 
owr Israel, *'.«. furnish him with might and wisdom to rule over 
the people Israel; cf. 2 Sam. vii. 11. llDf^, "to observe" = 
and mayest thou observe the law of Jahve ; not thou must keep 
(Berth.), for "ltoKOl is to be regarded as a continuation of the 
*rb.finit. ; cf. Ew! § 351, c, S. 840.— Ver. 13. The condition of 
obtaining the result ia the faithful observing of the commands of 



Digitized by 



Google 



246 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

the Lord. The speech is filled with reminiscences of the law, cf. 
Dent. viL 11, xL 32 ; and for the exhortation to be strong and of 
good courage, cf. Deut. xxxi. 6, Josh i. 7, 9, etc. 

In conclusion (vers. 14-16), David mentions what materials 
he has prepared for the building of the temple. ^JW, not, in my 
poverty (LXX., Vulg., Luth.), but, by my painful labour (magna 
molesUa et labore, Lavafc.) ; cf . Gen. xxxi. 42, and the correspond- 
ing 'rfcrioa, chap. xxix. 2. Gold 100,000 talents, and silver 
1,000,000 talents. As the talent was 3000 shekels, and the 
silver shekel coined by the Maccabees, according to the Mosaic 
weight, was worth about 2s. 6d., the talent of silver would be 
about £375, and 1,000,000 talents £375,000,000. If we suppose 
the relative value of the gold and silver to be as 10 to 1, 
100,000 talents of gold will be about the same amount, or even 
more, viz. about £450,000,000, ue. if we take the gold shekel at 
thirty shillings, according to Thenius' calculation. Such sums as 
eight hundred or eight hundred and twenty-five millions of pounds 
are incredible. The statements, indeed, are not founded upon exact 
calculation or weighing, bnt, as the round numbers show, only 
upon a general valuation of those masses of the precious metals, 
which we must not think of as bars of silver and gold, or as 
coined money ; for they were in great part vessels of gold and 
silver, partly booty captured in war, partly tribute derived from 
the subject peoples. Making all these allowances, however, the 
sums mentioned are incredibly great, since we must suppose that 
even a valuation in round numbers will have more or less corre- 
spondence to the actual weight, and a subtraction of some thou- 
sands of talents from the sums mentioned would make no very 
considerable diminution. On the other hand, it is a much more 
important circumstance that the above estimate of the value in 
our money of these talents of silver rests upon a presumption, 
the correctness of which is open to well-founded doubts. For in 
that calculation the weight of the Mosaic or holy shekel is taken 
as the standard, and it is presumed that the talents weighed 3000 
Mosaic shekels. But we find in 2 Sam. xiv. 26 mention made 
in David's time of another shekel, " according to the king's 
weight," whence we may with certainty conclude that in common 
life another shekel than the Mosaic or holy shekel was in use. 
This shekel according to the king's weight was in all probability 
only half as heavy as the shekel of the sanctuary, it. was equal 
in weight to a Mosaic beka or half-shekel. This is proved by a 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP, xm «-ig. 247 

comparison of 1 Kings z. 17 with 2 Chron. be. 16, for here three 
golden minsB are reckoned equal to 300 shekels, — a mina con- 
taining 100 shekels, while it contained only 50 holy or Mosaic 
shekels. With this view, too, the statements of the Bahbins agree, 
&g. B. Mosis Maimonidis constitutiones de Siclis, quas — illustravit 
Joa, Etgers., Lugd. Bat. 1718, p. 19, according to which the f>pe> 
7info or runon bytf, t.e..the common or civil shekel, is the half 
of the thpn *>pv. That this is the true relation, is confirmed by 
the fact that, according to Ex. xxxviii. 26, in the time of Moses 
there existed silver coins weighing ten gera (half a holy shekel) 
called beka, while the name beka is found only in the Penta- 
teuch, and disappears at a later time, probably because it was 
mainly such silver coins of ten gera which were in circulation, 
and to them the name shekel, which denotes no definite weight, 
was transferred. Now, if the amounts stated in our verse are 
reckoned in such common shekels (as in 2 Chron. ix. 16), the 
mass of gold and silver collected by David for the building of the 
temple would only be worth half the amount above calculated, i.e. 
about £375,000,000 or £400,000,000. But even this sum seems 
enormously large, for it is five times the annual expenditure of 
the greatest European states in our day. 1 Yet the calculation of 
the income or expenditure of modern states is no proper standard 
for judging of the correctness or probability of the statements here 
made, for we cannot estimate the accumulation of gold and silver 
in the states and chief cities of Asia in antiquity by the budgets 
of the modern European nations. In the capitals of the Asiatic 
kingdoms of antiquity, enormous quantities of the precious metals 
were accumulated. Not to mention the accounts of Ktesias, 
Diodor. Sic, and others, which sound so fabulous to us now, as' 
to the immense booty in gold and silver vessels which was accu- 
mulated in Nineveh and Babylon (see the table in Movers, die 
Phiminer, ii. 3, S. 40 ff.), according to Varro, in Pliny, Hist. 
Nat. xxxii. 15 } Cyrus obtained by the conquest of Asia a 
booty of 34,000 pounds of gold, besides that which was wrought 
into vessels and ornaments, and 500,000 talents of silver ; and 
in this statement, as Movers rightly remarks, it does not seem 

1 According to Otto Hiibner, Statistical Table of all Lands of the Earth, 
18th edition, Frankf. a. M. 1869, the yearly expenditure of Great Britain and 
Ireland (exclusive of the extra-European possessions) amounts to a little 
«w £70,000,000 ; of the French Empire, to £85,000,000 ; of Russia, to 
£78,000,000 ; of Austria and Hungary, to £48,500,000. 



Digitized by 




248 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHBONICLE& 

probable that there is any exaggeration. In Susa, Alexander 
plundered the royal treasury of 40,000, according to other ac- 
counts 50,000 talents, or, as it is more accurately stated, 40,000 
talents of uncoined gold and silver, and 9000 talents in coined 
darics. These he caused to be brought to Ecbatana, where he 
accumulated in all 180,000 talents. In Persepolis he captured a 
booty of 120,000 talents, and in Pasargada 6000 talents (see Mot. 
loc. cit. S. 43). Now David, it is true, had not conquered Asia, 
but only the tribes and kingdoms bordering on Canaan, including 
the kingdom of Syria, and made them tributary, and had conse- 
crated all the gold and silver taken as booty from the conquered 
peoples, from the Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, 
Amalekites, and Hadadezer the king of Zobah (2 Sam. viii. 11 f.), 
to Jahve. Now, in consequence of the ancient connection between 
Syria and the rich commercial countries of the neighbourhood, 
great treasures of silver and gold had very early flowed in thither. 
According to 2 Sam. viii. 7, the servants (i.e. generals) of King 
Hadadezer had golden shields, which David captured ; and the 
ambassadors of King Toi of Hamath brought him vessels of silver, 
gold, and copper, to purchase his friendship. 1 The other peoples 
whom David overcame are not to be regarded as poor in the precious 
metals. For the Israelites under Moses had captured so large a 
booty in gold rings, bracelets, and other ornaments from the nomadic 
Midianites, that the commanders of the army alone were able to give 
16,750 shekels (i.e. over 5^ talents of gold, according to the Mosaic 
weight) to the sanctuary as a consecrating offering (Num. xxxi. 
48 ff.). We cannot therefore regard the sums mentioned in our 
verse either as incredible or very much exaggerated, 3 nor hold 

1 Apropos of the riches of Syria even in later times, Movers reminds us, 
S. 45, of the rich temple treasures — of the statue of Jupiter in Antioch, 
which was of pure gold and fifteen yards high, and of the golden statues in 
the temple at Hierapolis — and adds : ' ' Even Antiochus the Great had immense 
treasures in his possession. The private soldiers in his army had their half- 
boots studded with gold nails, and their cooking utensils were of silver." See 
the proofs, loc. cit. 

1 As Berth, for example does, expressing himself as follows: " In our verse, 
100,000 talents of gold, 1,000,000 talents of silver,— a sum with which the debts 
of the European nations might almost be paid ! It is absolutely inadmissible 
to take these at their literal value, and to consider them as a repetition, 
though perhaps a somewhat exaggerated one, of actual historical statements. 
They can have been originally nothing else than the freest periphrasis for 
much, an extraordinary quantity, such as may even yet be heard from the 
mouths of those who have not reflected on the value and importance of num- 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXII. ft-XG. 249 

the round sums which correspond to the rhetorical character of 
the passage with certainty to be mistakes. 1 Brass and iron were 
not weighed for abundance ; cf. ver. 3. Beams of timber also, 
and stones — that is, stones hewed and squared — David had pre- 
pared; and to this store Solomon was to add. That he did so 
is narrated in 2 Chron. chap. ii. — Ver. 15. David then tarns to 
the workmen, the carpenters and stone-cutters, whom he had 
appointed (ver. 2) for the building. 0'?Vn, properly hewers, in 
ver. 2 limited to stone-hewers, is here, with the addition J3K wn 
ft& used of the workers in stone and wood, stonemasons and car- 
penters. '3 B3rr?3, all manner of understanding persons in each 
work, in contradistinction to n3t6o 'fety, includes the idea of 
thorough mastery and skill in the kind of labour. These work- 
men, whom David had levied for the building of the temple, are 
mentioned by Solomon, 2 Chron. ii. 6 f. — In ver. 16 all the 
metals, as being the main thing, are again grouped together, in 
order that the exhortation to proceed with the erection of the 

ben, and consequently launch out into thousands and hundreds of thousands, 
in an extremely unprejudiced way." On this we remark : (1) The assertion 
that with the sums named in our verse the debts of the European nations could 
be paid, is an enormous exaggeration. According to 0. Hubner's tables, the 
national debt of Great Britain and Ireland alone amounts to £809,000,000, 
that of France to £564,000,000, that of Russia to £400,000,000, that of Austria 
to £354,000,000, and that of the kingdom of Italy to £288,000,000 ; David's 
treasures, consequently, if the weight be taken in sacred shekels, would only 
bare sufficed to pay the national debt of Great Britain and Ireland. (2) The 
hypothesis that the chronicler, without reflecting on the value and importance 
of numbers, has launched out into thousands and hundreds of thousands, pre- 
supposes such a measure of intellectual poverty as is irreconcilable with evi- 
dences of intellect and careful planning such as are everywhere else observable 
in his writing. 

1 As proof of the incorrectness of the above numbers, it cannot be adduced 
"that, according to 1 Kings x. 14, Solomon's yearly revenue amounted to 666 
talents of gold, i.e. to about £3,000,000 in gold ; that the queen of Sheba 
ptesented Solomon with 120 talents of gold, 1 Kings x. 10, 2 Chron. ix. 9 ; 
and King Hiram also gave him a similar amount, 1 Kings ix. 14 ; all of which 
■una the context shows are to be considered extraordinarily great" (Berth.). 
For the 666 talents of gold are not the entire annual income of Solomon, but, 
according to the distinot statement of the Biblical historian, are only the 
annual income in gold, exclusive of the receipts from the customs, and the 
tributes of the subject kings and tribes, which were probably more valuable. 
The 120 talents of the queen of Sheba are certainly a very large present, but 
Solomon would give in return not inconsiderable presents also. Bnt the 
quantities of silver and gold which David had collected for the building of the 
temple bad not been saved ont of his yearly income, but had been is great 



Digitized by 



Google 



250 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

building may be introduced. Tbe ? before each word serves to 
bring the thing once more into prominence ; cf . Ew. § 310, a. " As 
for the gold, it cannot be numbered." "Arise and be doing! 
and Jahve be with thee" (vers. 17-19). 

Vers. 17-19. Exhortation to the princes of Israel to assist w 
the building of the temple. — David supports his exhortation by 
calling to remembrance the proofs of his favour which the Lord 
had showed His people. The speech in ver. 18 is introduced with- 
out "foK?, because it is clear from the preceding W W? that the 
words are spoken by David: "The Lord has given you peace 
round about ; for He has given the inhabitants of the land into 
my hands, and the land is subdued before Jahve and before His 
people." The subdued land is Canaan : the inhabitants of the land 
are, however, not the Israelites over whom the Lord had set David 
as king, for the words nja jnj cannot apply to them, cf . xiv. 10 f, 
Josh. ii. 24 ; it is the Canaanites still left in the land in the time 
of David, and other enemies, who, like the Philistines, possessed 

part captured as booty in war, and laid up out of tbe tribute of the subject 
peoples. A question which would more readily occur than this is, Whether 
such enormous Boms were actually necessary for tbe temple ? But the materials 
necessary to enable us to arrive at even a proximate estimate of this building 
are entirely wanting. The building of a stone temple from 60 to 70 yards 
long, 20 yards broad, and 30 yards high, would certainly not have cost so 
much, notwithstanding that, as we read .in 2 Chron. iii. 8 f., 650 talents of 
gold were required to gild the inner walls of the Holy Place, and at the sane 
rate 2000 talents must have been required to gild the inside of the Sanctuary, 
which was three times as large ; and notwithstanding the great number of 
massive gold vessels, e.g. the ten golden candlesticks, for which alone, even if 
they were no larger and heavier than ihe candlesticks in the tabernacle, ten 
talents of gold must have been required. Bat there belonged to the temple 
many subordinate buildings, which are not further described; as also the 
colossal foundation structures and the walls enclosing the temple area, the 
building of which must have swallowed up millions, since Solomon sent 70,000 
porters and 80,000 stone-hewers to Lebanon to procure the necessary materials. 
Consul Rosen has recently indeed attempted to show, in das Harem von 
Jerusalem und der Tempelplatx da Moria, Gotha (1866), that there is reason 
to suppose that the temple area was enlarged to the size it is known to here 
had, and surrounded by a wall only by Herod ; but he has been refuted by 
Himpel in the Tiibinger theol Quartalsckr. 1667, S. 515 f., who advances 
very weighty reasons against his hypothesis. Finally, we must have regard 
to die statement in 1 Kings vii. 51 and 2 Chron. v. 1, that Solomon, after the 
building was finished, deposited the consecrated silver and gold collected by 
his father David among the temple treasures. Whence we learn that the 
treasures collected by David were not intended merely for the building of the 
House of God. 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xxm. 251 

parts of the land, and had been subdued by David. On K^ttn nt?£u, 
cf. Josh, xviii. 1, Nam. xxxii. 22, 29. This safety which the 
Lord had granted them binds them in doty to seek Him with all 
their heart, and to build the sanctuary, that the ark and the 
sacred vessels may be brought into it The \ in trd? is not a 
sign of the accusative (Berth.), for KVin is not construed with 
aecus. loci, but generally with ?K, for which, however, so early 
as Josh. iv. 5, ? is used, or it is construed with the ace. and n locale 
_nn;an, Gen. xix. 10, xliii. 47. 



CHAP. XXin.-XXVI. — ENUMERATION AND ABKANGEMENT OF THE 
EEVTTES ACCORDING TO THEIR DIVISIONS AND EMPLOYMENTS. 

These four chapters give a connected view of the condition 
of the Levites towards the end, i.e. in the fortieth year, of David's 
reign (cf . xxiii. 1 and xxvi. 31), and of the sections into which 
they were divided according to their various services. This review 
begins with a statement of the total number belonging to the 
tribe of Levi according to the census then undertaken, and their 
divisions according to the duties devolving upon (xxiii. 2-5) ; 
which is followed by an enumeration of the heads of the f athers'- 
houses into which the four families of Levites had branched out 
(xxiii. 6-23), together with a short review of their duties (xxiii. 
24-32). Thereafter we have :*1. In chap, xxiv., a catalogue of the 
Aaronites, ue. of the priests, who were divided into twenty-four 
classes, corresponding to the sons of Eleazar and Ithamar, and 
were appointed to perform the service in succession, according as 
it was determined by lot, special mention being made of the heads 
of these twenty-four classes ; and a catalogue of the heads of the 
fathers'-houses of the other descendants of Levi, in an order of 
succession, which was likewise settled by lot (xxiv. 20-31). Then, 
2. In chap. xxv. we have a catalogue of the twenty-four orders 
of Levitic musicians, in an order fixed by lot. And, 3. In chap. 
xxvi. the classes of doorkeepers (vers. 1-19), the administrators of 
the treasures of the sanctuary (vers. 20-28), and the officials who 
performed the external services (vers. 29-32). 

Chap, xxiii. Number, duties, and fathers'-housei of the Levites. 
— This clear account of the state and the order of service of the 
tribe of Levi is introduced by the words, ver. 1, "David was old, and 
life weary ; then he made his son Solomon king over Israel." li*, 
generally an adjective, is here tliirdpers.perf. of the verb, as in Gen. 



Digitized by 



Google 



252 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

xviii. 12, as ink* also is, to which QW is subordinated in the accu- 
sative. Generally elsewhere OH?) jnfc> is used, cf . Gen. xxxv. 29, 
Job xlii. 17, and also Wfe> alone, with the same signification, Gen. 
xxv. 8. These words are indeed, as Berth, correctly remarks, not 
a mere passing remark which is taken up again at a later stage, 
say chap. xxix. 28, but an independent statement complete in 
itself, with which here the enumeration of the arrangements which 
David made in the last period of his life begins. But notwith- 
standing that, it serves here only as an introduction to the arrange- 
ments which follow, and is not to be taken to mean that David 
undertook the numbering of the Levites and the arrangement of 
their service only after he had given over the government to his 
son Solomon, but signified that the arrangement of this matter 
immediately preceded Solomon's elevation to the throne, or was 
contemporaneous with it. Our verse therefore does not contain, 
in its few words, a " summary of the contents of the narrative 1 
Kings chap, i.," as Berth, thinks, for in 1 Kings i. we have an 
account of the actual anointing of Solomon and his accession to 
the throne in consequence of Adonijah's attempt to usurp it. By 
that indeed Solomon certainly was made king ; but the chronicler, 
in accordance with the plan of his book, has withdrawn his atten- 
tion from this event, connected as it was with David's domestic 
relations, and has used *]?on in its more general signification, to 
denote not merely the actual elevation to the throne, but also his 
nomination as king. Here the nomination of Solomon to be king, 
which preceded the anointing narrated in 1 Kings i., that taking 
place at a time when David had already become bed-rid through 
old age, is spoken of. This was the first step towards the transfer 
of the kingdom to Solomon ; and David's ordering of the Levitical 
service, and of the other branches of public administration, so as 
to give over a well-ordered kingdom to his successor, were also 
steps in the same process. Of the various branches of the public 
administration, onr historian notices in detail only the Levites 
and their service, compressing everything else into the account of 
the army arrangements and the chief public officials, chap, xxvii. 
Vers. 2-5. Numbering of the Levites, and partition of their 
duties. — Ver. 2. For this purpose David collected a all the princes 
of Israel, and the priests and Levites." The princes of Israel, 
because the numbering of the Levites and the determination of 
their duties was a matter of national importance. " The mean- 
ing is, that David, in a solemn assembly of the princes, i.e. of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXIII. 2-5. 253 

representatives of the lay tribes, and of the priests and Levites, 
fixed the arrangements of which an account is to be given" 
(Berth.). — Ver. 3. The Levites were numbered from thirty years 
old and upwards. This statement agrees with that in Num. ir. 
3, 23, 30, 39 ff., where Moses caused those from thirty to fifty 
years of age to be numbered, and appointed them for service 
about the tabernacle during the journey through the wilderness. 
But Moses himself, at a later time, determined that their period 
of service should be from twenty-five to fifty; Num. viii. 23-26. 
It is consequently not probable that David confined the number- 
ing to those of thirty and upwards. But besides that, we have a 
distinct statement in ver. 24 that they were numbered from twenty 
years of age, the change being grounded by David upon the nature 
of their service; and that this was the proper age is confirmed by 
2 Chron. xxxi. 17 and Ezra iii. 8, according to which the Levites 
under Hezekiah, and afterwards, had to take part in the service 
from their twentieth year. We must therefore regard B'w in 
ver. 3 as having crept into the text through the error of copyists, 
who were thinking of the Mosaic census in Num. iv., and must 
read ^^V instead of it. The various attempts of commentators 
to get rid of the discrepancy between ver. 3 and ver. 24 are mere 
makeshifts; and the hypothesis that David took two censuses 
is as little supported by the text, as that other, that our chapter 
contains divergent accounts drawn from two different sources ; 
see on ver. 24. The number amounted to 38,000, according 
to their heads in men. &naj? serves for a nearer definition of 
» ?: v > anc * explains that only men were numbered, women not 
being included. — Vers. 4 and 5 contain words of David, as we 
learn from Hw?? TV!?? "*¥*. (ver. 5, end), so that we must supply 
Tn TDtta before ver. 4. * nWtD, f these (38,000) 24,000 shall be 
^ 0*??, to superintend the business, i.e. to conduct and carry on 
the business (the work) of the house of Jahve. This business 
is in vers. 28-32 more nearly defined, and embraces all the busi- 
ness that was to be carried on about the sanctuary, except the 
specifically priestly functions, the keeping of the doors, and the 
performance of the sacred music. For these two latter offices 
special sections were appointed, 4000 for the porters' service, and 
the same number for the sacred music (ver. 5). Besides these, 
5000 men were appointed Shoterim and judges. " The instru- 
ments which I have made to sing praise" are the stringed 
instruments which David had introduced into the service to 



Digitized by 



Google 



254 THE FIBST BOOK OF CBBONICXES. 

accompany the singing of the psalms ; cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 26, 
Neh. xii. 36. 

Vers. 6-23. The fathers' -homes of the Levites.— Ver. 6. "And 
David divided them into courses according to the sons of Levi, 
Gershon, Eohath, and Merari ;" see on v. 27. The form DE?|J3) 
which recurs in xxiv. 3 with the same pointing, is in more 
accurate mss. in that place pointed 0\hm. There are also found 
in mss. and editions 0^pm } and the rare form of the Kal B^OT} 
(for D^rm) ; cf. J. H. Mich. Notes crit. This last pronuncia- 
tion is attested for, zxiv. 3, by D. Kimchi, who expressly remarks 
that the regular form 0gpn5 corresponds to it ; cf . Norzi on this 
passage. Gesen. (in Thee. p. 483) and Ew. (§ 83, e) regard Bfj?rm 
as a variety of the Piel (Dt&n?!), to which, however, Berth, rightly 
remarks that it would be worth a thought only if the punctuation 
B $!7^ were confirmed by good mss., which is not the case, though 
we find the Piel in the Chronicle in xv. 3, and then with the 
signification to distribute. Berth, therefore holds — and certainly 
this is the more correct opinion — that the form Dp/n^, attested 
by Kimchi for xxiv. 3, was the original reading in our verse 
also, and considers it a rare form of the impf . Kal derived from 
B 5?"! , 5 (cf. xxiv. 4, 5), by Kamets coming into the pretonic 
syllable, after the analogy of ttttnts* for BSDrns^ 2 Kings x. 14, 
and by the passing of an a (Pathach) into 6 (Seghol) before the 
Kamets, according to well-known euphonic rules, rrippno is a 
second accusative: "in divisions." The tribe of Levi had been 
divided from ancient times into the three great families of 
Gershonites, Kohathites, and Merarites, corresponding to the 
three sons of Levi ; cf. v. 27-vi. 15, xxviii. 32. — From ver. 7 
onwards we have an enumeration of the fathers'-houses into 
which these three families were divided : vers. 7-11, the fathers'- 
houses of the Gershonites ; vers. 12-20, those of the Kohathites ; 
and vers. 21-23, those of the Merarites. Berth., on the other 
hand, thinks that in these verses only the fathers'-houses of 
those Levites who performed the service of the house of Jahve, 
i.e. the 24,000 in ver. 4, and not the divisions of all the Levites, 
are enumerated. But this opinion is incorrect, and certainly is 
not proved to be true by the circumstance that the singers, 
porters, and the scribes and judges, are only spoken of afterwards ; 
nor by the remark that, in great part, the names here enumerated 
appear again in the sections chap. xxiv. 20-31 and xxvi. 20-28, 
while in the enumeration of the twenty-four classes of musicians 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xzm. 7-u. 255 

(xxv. 1-31), of the doorkeepers (xxvi. 1-19), and of the scribes 
and judges (xxvi. 29-32), quite other names are met with. The 
recurrence of many of the names here enumerated in the sections 
chap. xxiv. 20-31 and xxvi. 20-28 is easily explained by the 
fact that these sections treat of the divisions of the Levites, 
according to the service they performed, and of course many 
heads of f athers'-honses must again be named. The occurrence 
of quite other names in the lists of musicians and doorkeepers, 
again, is simply the result of the fact that only single branches 
of fathers'-houses, not whole fathers'-houses, were appointed 
musicians and doorkeepers. Finally, Bertheau's statement, that 
in the catalogue of the scribes and judges quite other names occur 
than those in our verses, is based upon an oversight ; cf . xxvi. 31 
with xxiii. 19. 

Vers. 7-11. The fathers? -houses of the Gerskonites. — According 
to the natural development of the people of Israel, the twelve 
sons of Jacob founded the twelve tribes of Israel ; his grandsons, 
or the sons of the twelve patriarchs, founded the families (rtf napD) ; 
and their sons, ue. the great-grandsons of Jacob, founded the 
fathers'-houses (rtf3»rrV3). But this natural division or ramifica- 
tion of the people into tribes, families, and f athers'-houses (groups 
of related households), was not consistently carried out. Even 
the formation of the tribes suffered a modification, when the two 
sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseb, who were born before 
Jacob's arrival in Egypt, were adopted by him as his sons, and 
so made founders of tribes (Gen. xlviii. 5). The formation of 
the families and fathers'-houses was also interfered with, partly 
by the descendants of many grandsons or great-grandsons of 
Jacob not being numerous enough to form independent families 
and fathers'-houses, and partly by individual fathers'-houses (or 
groups of related households) having so much decreased that they 
could no longer form independent groups, and so were attached 
to other fathers'-houses, or by families which had originally 
formed a airrva becoming so numerous as to be divided into 
several fathers'-houses. In the tribe of Levi there came into 
operation this special cause, that Aaron and his sons were chosen 
to he priests, and so his family was raised above the other 
Levites. From these causes, in the use of the word's nriB^p and 
a ?" r,, ? many fluctuations occur ; cf. my bibl. ArchSol. ii. § 140. 
■Among the Levites, the fathers'-houses were founded not by the 
grandsons, but by the great-grandsons of the patriarch. — Ver. 7. 



Digitized by 



Google 



256 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

" Of the Gershonites, Laadan and Shimei," i.e. these were heads 
of groups of related families, since, according to ver. 9, their sons 
and descendants formed six fathers'-hooses. The sons of Ger- 
shon, from whom all branches of the family of Gershon come, 
are called in vi. 2, as in Ex. vi. 17 and Num. xiii. 18, Libni and 
Shimei ; while in our verse, on the contrary, we find only the 
second name Shimei, whose sons are enumerated in vers. 10, 11 ; 
and instead of Libni we have the name Laadan, which recurs in 
xxvi. 21. Laadan seemingly cannot be regarded as a surname 
of Libni ; for not only are the sons of Shimei named along with, 
the sons of Laadan in vers. 8 and 9 as heads of the fathers' - 
houses of Laadan, without any hint being given of the genea- 
logical connection of this Shimei with Laadan, but mainly 
because of ^Bna? in ver. 7. In the case of Kohath and Merari, 
the enumeration of the fathers'-houses descended from them is 
introduced by the mention of their sons, nnp 03 and tid 03 
(vers. 12, 21), while in the case of Gershon it is not so ; — in 
his case, instead of pena 03, we find the Gentilic designation 
Otsh.3, to point out that Laadan and Shimei are not named as 
being sons of Gershon, but as founders of the two chief lines of 
Gershonites, of which only the second was named after Gershon's 
son Shimei, while the second derived their name from Laadan, 
whose family was divided in David's time into two branches, the 
sons of Laadan and the sons of Shimei, the latter a descendant 
of Libni, not elsewhere mentioned. That the Shimei of ver. 9 
is not the same person as Shimei the son of Gershon mentioned 
in ver. 7, is manifest from the fact that the sons of the latter 
are enumerated only in ver. 10. Each of these two lines num- 
bered at that time three fathers'-houses, the heads of which are 
named in vers. 8 and 9. Whft in ver. 8 belongs to OT : a the 
sons of Laadan were : the head (also the first ; cf. vers. 11, 16) 
Jehiel, Zetham, and Joel, three." — Ver. 9. The sons of Shimei : 
Shelomoth or Shelomith (both forms are found in xxvi. 35 of 
another Shelomith), Haziel, and Haran, three. These (three 
and three) are the heads of the fathers'-hooses of Laadan. — In 
vers. 10 and 11 there follow the fathers'-houses of the Shimei 
mentioned in ver. 7 along with Laadan : they are likewise three, 
derived from the four sons of Shimei, Jahath, Zina, Jeush, and 
Beriah; for the last two, as they had not many sons, were 
included in one father's-house, one '^PB, i.e. one official class 
(xxiv. 3; 2 Chron. xvii. 14). The Gershonites at that time, 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXIII. 12-20. 257 

therefore, numbered nine fathers'-houses — six named after 
Laadan, and three after Sbimei. 

Vers. 12-20. The fathers '-houses of Hie KohathUes. — The four 
sons of Kohath who are named in ver. 12, as in y. 28, vi. 3, and 
Ex. vi. 18, founded the four families of Kohath, Num. iii. 27. 
From Amram came Aaron and Moses ; see on Ex. vi. 20. Of 
these, Aaron with his sons was set apart " to sanctify him to be 
a most holy one ; he and his sons for ever to offer incense before 
Jahve, to serve Him, and to bless in His name for ever." te^jw 
P EH? signifies neither, ut ministraret in sancio sanctorum (Vulg., 
Syr.), nor, ut res sanctissimas, sacrificia, vasa sacra etc. consecrarent 
(Cler.). Against this interpretation we adduce not only the objec- 
tion advanced by Hgstb. Christol. iii. p. 119, trans., that the office 
assigned by it to the Levites is far too subordinate to be mentioned 
here in the first place, but also the circumstance that the suffix 
iniwpn, after the analogy of toy£ f must denote the object of the 
sanctifying; and this view is confirmed by the subject, who offers 
incense and blesses, not being expressed with "^Dpn? an d r^y?. 
The Vulgate translation cannot be accepted, for D^P; ^P cannot 
be the ablative, and the most holy place in the temple is always 
called ffEh^n ehp with the article. D»Bhp Vh?, without the article, 
is only used of the most holy things, e.g. of the vessels connected 
with the worship, the sacrificial gifts, and other things which no 
lay person might touch or appropriate. See on Ex. xxx. 10, 
Lev. ii. 3, and Dan. ix. 24. Here it is committed to Aaron, who, 
by being chosen for the priest's service and anointed to the office, 
was made a most holy person, to discharge along with his sons 
all the priestly functions in the sanctuary. Specimens of such 
functions are then adduced : '* '»? " 1 '?P i ?, the offering of the 
sacrifice of incense upon the altar of the inner sanctuary, as in 
2 Chron. ii. 3, 5, Ex. xxx. 7 f. ; irn$>, « to serve Him," Jahve,— 
a general expression, including all the other services in the sanc- 
tuary, which were reserved for the priests ; and to^a 7ri37 ? to 
bless in His name, i.e. to pronounce the blessing in the name of 
the Lord over the people, according to the command in Num. 
vi. 23, cf. xvi. 2, Deut. xxi. 5 ; not u to bless His name " (Ges., 
Berth.). To call upon or praise the name of God is tot? *ri3 ) 
Ps. scvi. 2, c. 4 ; and the assertion that DB>3 ?pa is a somewhat 
later phrase formed on the model of D?9 «")?,, for " to call upon 
God" (Ges. in Lex. sub voce ?pa), is quite groundless. Our phrase 
occurs as early as in Deut. x. 8 and xxi. 5 ; in the latter passage 

s 



Digitized by 



Google 



258 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

in connection with to" 1 .^ of the priests ; in the former, of the 
tribe of Levi, but so used that it can refer only to the priests, 
not to the Levites also. — Ver. 14. " But as to Moses the man of 
God" (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 1), " his sons were called after the tribe of 
Levi," i.e. were reckoned in the ranks of the Levites, not of the 
priests. On S>? to??, cf . Gen. xlviii. 6, Ezra ii. 61, Neh. vii. 63. 
— Vers. 15-17. Each of his two sons Gershon and Eliezer (see 
Ex. ii. 22 and xviii. 3 f.) founded a f ather's-house ; Gershon 
through his son Shebuel (H?3B», in xxiv. 20 ;*<?#), Eliezer 
through Behabiah. The plurals 'i ^3, '« *aa are used, although 
in both cases only one son, he who was head (wthn) of the 
father* s-house, is mentioned, either because they had other sons, 
or those named had in their turn sons, who together formed a 
fatherVhouse. From the remark in ver. 17, that Eliezer had 
no other sons than Behabiah, while Behabiah had very many, 
we may conclude that Gershon had other sons besides Shebuel, 
who are not mentioned because their descendants were numbered 
with Shebuel's fatherVhouse. — Ver. 18. Only one son of Jizhar, 
the brother of Amram, is mentioned, Shelomith as head, after 
whom the Jizharite fatherVhouse is named. — Ver. 19. Amram's 
next brother Hebron had four sons, and the youngest brother 
Uzziel two, who founded f athers'-houses ; so that, besides the 
priests, nine Levitical f athers'-houses are descended from Kohath, 
and their chiefs who served in the sanctuary are enumerated in 
chap. xxiv. 20-25. 

Vers. 21-23. The fathers' -homes of the Merarites.— Ver. 21 f. 
As in vi. 4, Ex. vi. 19, and Num. iii. 33, two sons of Merari are 
mentioned — Mahli and Mushi — who founded the two families 
of Merari which existed in the time of Moses. Mahli had two 
sons, Eleazar and Kish ; the first of whom, however, left behind 
him at his death only daughters, who were married to the sons 
of Kish (B^W?) *•«• their cousins), according to the law as to 
daughters who were heiresses (Num. xxxvi. 6-9). The descend- 
ants of Mahli, therefore, were comprehended in the one father's- 
house of Kish, whose head at that time (xxiv. 29) was Jerab- 
meel. — Ver. 23. Of the sons of Mushi, three founded fathers'- 
houses ; so that the Merarites formed only four f athers'-houses in 
all. If we compare the enumeration of the Merarites in chap. 
xxiv. 26-30, we find there in ver. 30 Eleazar and Kish called 
sons of Mahli, with the remark that Eleazar had no sons. In 
ver. 26, however, of the same passage we read, " sons of Merari 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXIII. 21-23. 259 

(were) Mabli and Mashi, sons of Jaaziah his son ;" and ver. 27, 
"sons of Merari by Jaaziah his son ; and Shoham, and Zaccnr, 
and Ibri." From this Berthean concludes that Merari had really 
three sons, and that the name of the third has been dropped out 
of chap, xxiii. ; but in this he is incorrect, for vers. 26 and 27 of 
the 24th chapter are at once, from their whole character, recog- 
nisable as arbitrary interpolations. Not only is it strange that 
U3 VKjP 03 should follow the before-mentioned sons of Merari 
in this unconnected way (Vav being omitted before 03), but the 
form of the expression also is peculiar. If VWJP be a third son 
of Merari, or the founder of a third family of Merarites, co- 
ordinate with the families of Mahli and Mushi, as we must con- 
clude from the additional word 03, we should expect, after the 
preceding, simply the name with the conjunction, i.e. vwjp,. 
The vpqp 03 is all the more surprising that the names of the 
sons of Jaaziah follow in ver. 27, and there the name of the 
first son Dny is introduced by the Vav copulative. This misled 
the older commentators, so that they took faa for a proper 
name. The repetition of 'TJD 02, too, at the beginning of the 
second verse is strange, and without parallel in the preceding 
enumeration of the fathers'-houses founded by Amram's sons 
(xxiv. 20-25). We must, then, as the result of all this, since 
the Pentateuch knows only two descendants of Merari who 
founded families of fathers'-houses, 1 regard the additions in 
«iv. 26, 27 as later glosses, although we are not in a position 
to explain the origin or the meaning of the interpolation. This 
inability arises from the fact that, of the names Jaaziah, Sho- 
ham, Zaccur, and Ibri, only Zaccur again occurs among the 
Asaphites (xxv. 2), and elsewhere of other persons, while the 

1 Berthean, on the contrary, proceeding on the hypothesis that we nay 
presume the list of Merari's descendants which is 'given in oar verses to have 
been originally in perfect agreement with that in xxii. 26-31, would emend 
00 text according to chap. xxiv. 26, 27, for it cannot be doubted that in our 
passage also Jaaziah and his three sons were named. But since elsewhere 
only the two sons Mahli and Mushi occur, one can easily see why the third 
sun Jaaaah came to be omitted from our passage, while we cannot conceive 
any motive which would account for the later and arbitrary interpolation of 
the Dames in xxiv. 26 f. This argumentation is weak to a degree, since it 
quite overlooks the main difficulty connected with this hypothesis. Had 
we no further accounts of the descendants of Merari than those in the two 
passages of the Chronicle (chap, xxiii. 11 f. and xxiv. 26-29), it would be 
natural to suppose that in xxiii. 21 ff. the additional names which we find in 



Digitized by 



Google 



260 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

others are nowhere else to be met with. The three families of 
Levi numbered therefore 9+9+4=22 fathers'-houses, exclusive 
of the priests. 

Vers. 24-32. Concluding remarks. — Ver. 24. " These (the just 
enumerated) are the sons of Levi according to their fathers'* 
houses, according to those who were counted (Num. i. 21 f.; 
Ex. xxx. 14) in the enumeration by name (Num. i. 18, III- 43), 
by the head, performing the work for the service of the house 
of Jahve, from the men of twenty years and upwards." '"ijrj 
natron is not singular, but plural, as in 2 Chron. xxir. 12, xxxiv. 
10, 13, Ex. iii. 9, Neh. ii. 16, cf. 2 Chron. xi. 1. It occurs along 
with "'0, with a similar meaning and in a like position, 2 Chron. 
xxir. 13, xxxir. 17, Neh. xi. 12, xiii. 10. It is only another way 
of writing 'fety, and the same form is found here and there in 
other words; cf. Ew. § 16, J. The statement that the Levites 
were numbered from twenty years old and upwards is accounted 
for in ver. 25 thus : David said, The Lord has given His people 
rest, and He dwells in Jerusalem; and the Levites also have 
no longer to bear the dwelling (tabernacle) with all its vessels. 
From this, of course, it results that they had not any longer to 
do such heavy work as during the march through the wilderness, 
and so might enter upon their service even at the age of twenty. 
In ver. 27 a still further reason is given : u For by the last words 
of David was this, (viz.) the numbering of the sons of Levi from 
twenty years old and upwards." There is a difference of opinion 
as to how D'tfinstri *rn nana are to be understood. Bertheau 
translates, with Kimchi, " in the later histories of David are the 
number = the numbered," and adduces in support of his trans- 
lation chap. xxix. 29, whence it is clear that by "the later 

chap. xxiv. had been dropped out. But in the genealogical lists hi the 
Pentateuch also (Ex. vi. 19 and Num. iii. 33), only two sons of Henri are 
named ; and according to them, the Merarites, when Moses' census of the 
Levites was taken, formed only two families. Had Merari had yet a third 
son besides the two — Mahli and Mushi, who alone were known in the time 
of Moses—who left descendants, forming three fathers'-houses in DaTxTt 
time, the omission of this third son in the family register in the Pentateuch 
would be quite incomprehensible. Or are we to suppose that in Ex. vi. 19 
also the name Jaaziah had been dropped out, and that in consequence of that 
the family descended from him has been omitted from Norn. iii. 33 ? Sup- 
ported by the Pentateuch, the text of our verses is presumably entire, and 
this presumption of its integrity is confirmed by the character of the additions 
in xxiv. 26, 27, as above exhibited. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXIII. 24-82 261 

histories of David" a part of a historical work is meant. Bat 
the passage quoted does not prove this. In the formula ^-n 
fffmn D'3iEk-in . . . (xxix. 29 ; 2 Chron. ix. 29, xii. 15, xvi. 11, 
etc.), which recurs at the end of each king's reign, ♦wi denotes 
not histories, in the sense of a history, but res gestce, which are 
recorded in the writings named. In accordance with this, there- 
fore, Tn *ian cannot denote writings of David, but only words 
or things ( = deeds) ; but the Levites who were numbered could 
not be in the acts of David. We must rather translate accord- 
ing to 2 Chron. xxix. 30 and 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. In the latter 
passage OTVvwtri TH nyj are the last words (utterances) of 
David, and in the former Tfl *Wia, "by the words of David," 
i.e. according to the commands or directions of David. In this 
way, Cler. and Mich., with the Vulg. jtusta prcecepta, have 
already correctly translated the words: "according to the last 
commands of David." non is nowhere found in the signification 
sunt as the mere copula of the subject and verb, but is every- 
where an independent predicate, and is here to be taken, accord- 
ing to later linguistic usage, as neutr. sing. (cf. Ew. § 318, V) : 
" According to the last commands of David, this," i.e. this was 
done, viz. the numbering of the Levites from twenty years and 
upwards. From this statement, from twenty years and upwards, 
which is so often repeated, and for which the reasons are so 
given, it cannot be doubtful that the statement in ver. 3, " from 
thirty years and upwards," is incorrect, and that, as has been 
already remarked on ver. 3, OWE* has crept into the text by an 
error of the copyist, who was thinking of the Mosaic census. 1 
In vers. 28-32 we have, in the enumeration of the duties which 
the Levites had to perform, another ground for the employment 

1 The explanation adopted from Kimchi by the older Christian commen- 
tators, e.g. by J. H. Mich., is an untenable makeshift. It is to this effect : that 
David first numbered the Levites from thirty years old and upwards, accord- 
ing to the law (Num. iv. 3, xxiii. 80), but that afterwards, when he saw that 
those of twenty years of age were in a position to perform the duties, lightened 
as they »ere by its being no longer necessary for the Levites to bear the sanc- 
tuary from place to place, he included all from twenty years of age in a second 
cenau, taken towards the end of his life ; cf . ver. 27. Against this Bertheau 
has already rightly remarked that the census of the Levites gave the number 
st 38,000 (ver. 3), and these 38,000 and no others were installed ; it is no- 
where said that this number was not sufficient, or that the arrangements 
based upon this number (vers. 4, 5) had no continued existence. He is, how- 
ever, incorrect in his further remark, that the historian clearly enough is 



Digitized by 



Google 



262 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

of those from twenty years old and upwards in actual service. 
— Ver. 28. Their appointed place or post was at the hand of the 
sons of Aaron, i.e. they were ready to the priest's hand, to aid 
him in carrying on the service of the house of God. " Over the 
courts and the cells (of the courts ; cf. ix. 26), and the purifying 
of every holy thing," i.e. of the temple rooms and the temple 
vessels. On p before vhp^a, used for mediate connection after 
the stat. const., cf. Ew. § 289, b. TTti)) nfc>jttM, and for the per- 
formance of the service of the house of God. Before nfero, 
?? is to be supplied from the preceding. The individual services 
connected with the worship are specialized in vers. 29-31, and 
introduced by the preposition ?. For the bread of the pile, Le. 
the show-bread (see on Lev. xxiv. 8 f.), viz. to prepare it ; for the 
laying of the bread upon the table was the priest's business. 
For fine meal (pp, see on Lev. ii. 1) for the meat-offering and 
unleavened cakes (rfinsn 'i*i>"j, see on Lev. ii. 4), and for the 
pans, i.e. that which was baked in pans (see on Lev. ii. 5), and 
for that which was roasted (n33")D, see on Lev. vi. 14), and for 
all measures of capacity and measures of length which were kept 
by the Levites, because meal, oil, and wine were offered along 
with the sacrifices in certain .fixed quantities (cf . e.g. Ex. xxix. 
40, xxx. 24), and the Levites had probably to watch over the 
weights and measures in general (Lev. xix. 35). — Ver. 30. u On 
each morning and evening to praise the Lord with song and 
instruments." These words refer to the duties of the singers and 
musicians, whose classes and orders are enumerated in chap. xxv. 
The referring of them to the Levites who assisted the priests in 
the sacrificial worship (Berth.) needs no serious refutation, for 

desirous of calling attention to the fact that here a statement is made which 
is different from the former, for of this there is no trace ; the contrary, 
indeed, is manifest Since n>>N (ver. 24) refers back to the just enumerated 
fathers'-houses of the Levites, and ver. 24 consequently forms the subscrip- 
tion to the preceding register, the historian thereby informs us plainly enough 
that he does not communicate here a statement different from the former, but 
only concludes that which he has formerly communicated. We cannot very 
well see how, from the fact that he here for the first time adduces the 
motive which determined David to cause the Levites from twenty years old 
and upwards to be numbered and employed in the service, it follows that he 
derived this statement of David's motive from a source different from that 
account which he has hitherto made use of. Nor would it be more manifest 
if ver. 27 contained — as it does not contain — a reference to the source from 
which he derived this statement. 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xxrv. i-i». 263 

7&b\ nilin is the standing phrase for the sacred temple music ; 
and we can hardly believe that the Levites sang psalms or played 
on harps or lutes while the beasts for sacrifices were slaughtered 
and skinned, or the meat-offerings baked, or such duties performed. 
— Ver. 31. " And for all the bringing of offerings to Jahve on 
the sabbaths, the new moons, and the feasts, in the number ac- 
cording to the law concerning them (i.e. according to the regula- 
tions that existed for this matter), continually before Jahve." 
It was the duty of the Levites to procure the necessary number 
of beasts for sacrifice, to see to their suitableness, to slaughter 
and skin them, etc 1W refers to n&JJ, the burnt-offerings for 
Jahve, which are "WW, because they must always be offered 
anew on the appointed days. — Ver. 32. In conclusion, the whole 
duties of the Levites are summed up in three clauses : they were 
to keep the charge of the tabernacle, the charge of the sacred 
things, i.e. of all the sacred things of the worship, and the charge 
of the sons of Aaron, i.e. of all that the priests committed to 
them to be done; cf. Num. xviii. 3 ff., where these functions 
are more exactly fixed. 

Chap. xxiv. The division of the priests and Levites into classes. 
— Vers. 1-19. The twenty-four classes of priests. After the 
statement as to the f athers'-houses of the Levites (chap, xxiii.), 
we have next the arrangements of the priests for the perform- 
ance of the service in the sanctuary; the priestly families de- 
scended from Aaron's sons Eleazar and Ithamar being divided 
into twenty-four classes, the order of whose service was settled 
by lot. — Ver. la contains the superscription, "As for the sons of 
Aaron, their divisions (were these)." To make the division clear, 
we have an introductory notice of Aaron's descendants, to the 
effect that of his four sons, the two elder, Nadab and Abihu, 
died before their father, leaving no sons, so that only Eleazar 
and Ithamar became priests (^lj?'.), i-e. entered upon the priest- 
hood. The four sons of Aaron, ver. 1, as in v. 29, Ex. vi. 23. 
— Ver. 2 ; cf. Lev. x. 1 f., Num. iii. 4. These priestly families 
David caused (ver. 3) to be divided, along with the two high 
priests (see on xviii. 16), "according to their service." f^J^B, 
office, official class, as in xxiii. 11. — Ver. 4. As the sons of 
Eleazar proved to be more numerous in respect of the heads of 
the men than the sons of Ithamar, they (David, Zadok, and 
Ahimelech) divided them thus : " For the sons of Eleazar, heads 
of f athers'-houses, sixteen ; and for the sons of Ithamar, (heads) 



Digitized by 



Google 



264 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

of fathers'-houses, eight." D*"]??!? ""Wtrf? means neither in respect 
to the number of the men by the head (cf. xxiii. 3), nor with 
respect to the chiefs of the men, divided according to their 
fathers'-houses (Berth.). The supplying of the words, u divided 
according to their fathers'-houses," is perfectly arbitrary. The 
expression D^M? 'Bto is rather to be explained by the fact that, 
according to the natural articulations of the people, the fathers'- 
houses, i.e. the groups of related families comprehended under 
the name rfatpva, divided themselves further into individual 
households, whose heads were called E , " | 33, as is clear from Josh, 
vii. 16-18, because each household had in the man, "I3an, its natural 
head, onan 'BW are therefore the heads, not of the fathers - 
houses, but of the individual households, considered in their 
relation to the men as heads of households. Just as atnva is 
a technical designation of the larger groups of households into 
which the great families fell, so "iMn is the technical expression 
for the individual households into which the fathers'-houses fell. 
— Ver. 5. They divided them by lot, nW"DJf ffoj, these with these, 
i.e. the one as the other (cf. xxv. 8), so that the classes of both 
were determined by lot, as both drew lots mutually. "For holy 
princes and princes of God were of the sons of Eleazar, and among 
the sons of Ithamar ; " i.e., of both lines of priests holy princes 
had come, men who had held the highest priestly dignity. The 
high-priesthood, as is well known, went over entirely to Eleazar 
and his descendants, but had been held for a considerable period 
in the time of the judges by the descendants of Ithamar ; see 
above, p. 113. In the settlement of the classes of priests for 
the service, therefore, neither of the lines was to have an ad- 
vantage, but the order was to be determined by lot for both. 
*fy *!& cf. Isa. xliii. 28, = oynbn nfc>, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14, are the 
high priests and the heads of the priestly families, the highest 
officers among the priests, but can hardly be the same as the 
apxiepeu: of the gospel history; for the view that these up%ie- 
pek were the heads of the twenty-four classes of priests cannot 
be made good : cf. Wichelhaus, Comment, zur Leidensgeseh. 
(Halle, 1855), S. 32 ff. '«w6jm nfr would seem to denote the 
same, and to be added as synonymous ; but if there be a distinc- 
tion between the two designations, we would take the princes of 
God to denote only the regular high priests, who could enter in 
before God into the most holy place. — Ver. 6. " He set them 
down," viz. the classes, as the lot had determined them, ^TPr^ 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXIV. 1-19. 265 

of the tribe of Levi, 'h D'?nj£ belongs to ntatW >mr\ } heads of 
the fathers'-houses of the priests and of the Levites. The second 
hemistich of ver. 6 gives a more detailed account of the drawing 
of the lots : " One f ather's-house was drawn for Eleazar, and 
drawn for Ithainar." The last words are obscure. WW, to lay 
hold of, to draw forth (Num. xxxi. 30, 47), here used of draw- 
ing lots, signifies plucked forth or drawn from the urn. The 
father's-house was plucked forth from the urn, the lot bearing 
its name being drawn. tnNt into, which is the only well-attested 
reading, only some few mss. containing the reading tnx inttt, is 
very difficult. Although this various reading is a mere conjec- 
ture, yet Gesen. {Thee. p. 68), with Cappell and Grotius, prefers 
it. The repetition of the same word expresses sometimes totality, 
multitude, sometimes a distributive division ; and here can only 
be taken in this last signification : one father's-house drawn for 
Eleazar, and then always drawn (or always one drawn) for 
Ithamar. So much at least is clear, that the lots of the two 
priestly families were not placed in one urn, but were kept apart 
in different urns, so that the lots might be drawn alternately for 
Eleazar and Ithamar. Had the lot for Eleazar been first drawn, 
and thereafter that for Ithamar, since Eleazar's family was the 
more numerous, they would have had an advantage over the 
Ithamarites. But it was not to be allowed that one family 
should have an advantage over the other, and the lots were con- 
sequently drawn alternately, one for the one, and another for the 
other. But as the Eleazarites were divided into sixteen fathers'- 
houses, and the Ithamarites into eight, Bertheau thinks that it 
was settled, in order to bring about an equality in the numbers 
sixteen and eight, in so far as the drawing of the lots was con- 
cerned, that each house of Ithamar should represent two lots, 
or, which is the same thing, that after every two houses of 
Eleazarites one house of Ithamarites should follow, and that the 
order of succession of the single houses was fixed according to 
this arrangement. To this or some similar conception of the 
manner of settling the order of succession we are brought, he 
says, by the relation of the number eight to sixteen, and by the 
words TnM and tnK tnto. But even though this conception be 
readily suggested by the relation of the number sixteen to eight, 
yet we cannot see how the words tntt and tn« rnKl indicate it. 
These words would much rather suggest that a lot for Eleazar 
alternated with the drawing of one for Ithamar, until the eight 



Digitized by 



Google 



266 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

beads of Ithamar's family had been drawn, when, of coarse, the 
remaining eight lots of Eleazar must be drawn one after the 
other. We cannot, however, come to any certain judgment on 
the matter, for the words are so obscure as to be unintelligible 
even to the old translators. In vers. 7-18 we have the names of 
the fathers'-houses in the order of succession which had been 
determined by the lot. N£, of the lot coming forth from the 
urn, as in Josh. xvi. 1, xix. 1. The names Jehoiarib and 
Jedaiah occur together also in ix. 10 ; and Jedaiah is met with, 
besides, in Ezra ii. 36 and Neh. vii. 39. The priest Mattathias, 
1 Mace. ii. 1, came of the class Jehoiarib. Of the succeeding 
names, DnVfr (ver. 8), 3 ?^ (ver. 13), and Y*Bft (ver. 15) do not 
elsewhere occur ; others, such as HBn (ver. 13), 71D| (ver. 17), do 
not recur among the names of priests. The sixteenth class, 
Immer, on the contrary, and the twenty-first, Jachin, are often 
mentioned; cf. ix. 10, 12. Zacharias, the father of John the 
Baptist, belonged to the eighth, Abiah (Luke i. 5). — Ver. 19. 
These are their official classes for their service (cf. ver. 3), Hw, 
so that they came (according to the arrangement thus deter- 
mined) into the house of Jahve, according to their law, through 
Aaron their father (ancestor), i.e. according to the lawful ar- 
rangement which was made by Aaron for their official service, 
as Jahve the God of Israel had commanded. This last clause 
refers to the fact that the priestly service in all its parts was 
prescribed by Jahve in the law. 1 

Vers. 20-31. The classes of the Levites. — The superscription, 
"As to the other Levites" (ver. 20), when compared with the 
subscription, " And they also cast lots, like to their brethren the 
sons of Aaron" (ver. 31), leads us to expect a catalogue of these 
classes of Levites, which performed the service in the house of 
God at the hand of, i.e. as assistants to, the priests, trirfin are 

1 Of these twenty-four classes, each one had to perform the service daring 
a week in order, and, as may be gathered with certainty from 2 Kings xi. 9 
and 2 Chron. xriii. 9, from Sabbath to Sabbath. Josephus bears witness 
to this division in Antl. vii. 14. 7 : itiftunt ouro; o fttpiaftif &xft tw »*W 
iftip*{. Herzfeld, on the contrary (Gcschichte des Volks Israel von derZer- 
tiSrung des ersten Tempels, Bd. i. S. 381 ff.), following de Wette and Oramh, 
has declared the reference of this organization of the priests to David to be 
an invention of the chronicler, and maintains that the twenty -four classes of 
priests were formed only after the exile, from the twenty-two families of 
priests who returned oat of exile with Zerubbabel. But this baseless hypo- 
thesis is sufficiently refuted by the evidence adduced by Hovers, die bM- 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXIV. 20-8L 267 

the Levites still remaining after the enumeration of the priests. 
We might certainly regard the expression as including all the 
Levites except the Aaronites (or priests) ; but the statement of the 
subscription that they cast lots like the sons of Aaron, and the 
circumstance that in chap. xxv. the twenty-four orders of singers 
and musicians, in chap. xxvi. 1-19 the class of the doorkeepers, 
and in xxvi. 20-32 the overseers of the treasures, and the scribes 
and judges, are specially enumerated, prove that our passage 
treats only of the classes of the Levites who were employed about 
the worship. Bertheau has overlooked these circumstances, and, 
misled by false ideas as to the catalogue in chap, xxiii. 6-23, has 
moreover drawn the false conclusion that the catalogue in our 
verses is imperfect, from the circumstance that a part of the 
names of the fathers-houses named in xxiii. 6-23 recur here in 
vers. 20-29, and that we find a considerable number of the names 
which are contained in chap, xxiii. 6-23 to be omitted from them. 
In vers. 20-25, for example, we find only names of Kohathites, 
and in vers. 26-29 of Merarites, and no Gershonites. But it by 
no means follows from that, that the classes of the Gershonites 
have been dropped out, or even omitted by the author of the 
Chronicle as an unnecessary repetition. This conclusion would 
only be warrantable if it were otherwise demonstrated, or demon- 
strable, that the Levites who were at the hand of the priests in 
carrying on the worship had been taken from all the three Levite 
families, and that consequently Gershonites also must have been 
included. But no such thing can be proved. Several fathers'- 
houses>of the Gershonites were, according to xxvi. 20 ff., entrusted 
with the oversight of the treasures of the sanctuary. We have 
indeed no further accounts as to the employment of the other 
Gershonites ; but the statements about the management of the 
treasures, and the scribes and judges, in chap. xxvi. 20-32, are 
everywhere imperfect. David had appointed 6000 men to be 

CTro». S. 279 ff., for the historical character of the arrangements attributed to 
David, and described in our chapters ; but the remarks of Oehler in Herzog's 
Seaknc. xii. S. 185 f. may also be compared. An unimpeachable witness 
for the pne-exilic origin of the division of the priests into twenty-four orders 
» the vision of Ezekiel (chap. viii. 16-18), where the twenty-five men who 
worship the sun in the priests' court represent the twenty-four classes of 
priests, with the high priest at their head. In Neh. xii. 1-7 and 12-21 also 
jmimpeachable evidence for the Davidic origin of the division of the priests 
into twenty-four classes is to be found, as we shall show in treating of these 
passages. 



Digitized by 



Google 



268 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

scribes and judges : those mentioned in chap. xxvi. 29 - 32 
amounted to only 1700 and 2700, consequently only 4400 persons 
in all ; so that it is quite possible the remaining 1600 were taken 
from among the Gershonites. Thus, therefore, from the fact 
that the Gershonites are omitted from onr section, we cannot 
conclude that our catalogue is mutilated. In it all the chief 
branches of the Kohathites are named, viz. the two lines descended 
from Moses' sons (vers. 20, 21) ; then the Izharites, Hebronites, 
and Uzzielites (vers. 22-25), and the main branches of the Mera- 
rites (vers. 26-30). — Ver. 20i is to be taken thus : Of the sons 
of Amram, i.e. of the Kohathite Amram, from whom Moses 
descended (xxiii. 13), that is, of the chief Shubael, descended 
from Moses' son Gershon (xxiii. 16), his son Jehdeiah, who as 
head and representative of the class made np of his sons, and 
perhaps also of his brothers, is alone mentioned. — Ver. 21. Of the 
fathers-house Behabiab, connected with Eliezer the second son 
of Moses (xxiii. 16) ; of the sons of this Rehabiah, Isshiah was 
the head. — Ver. 22. Of the Izharites, namely of the father's- 
house Shelomoth (xxiii. 18), his sons were under the head Jahath. 
The heads of the class formed by David mentioned in vers. 
20-22, Jehdeiah, Isshiah, and Jahath, are not met with in 
chap, xxiii., — a clear proof that chap, xxiii treats of the fathers' - 
houses ; our section, on the contrary, of the official classes of the 
Levites. — Ver. 23 treats of the Hebronites, as is clear from 
xxiii. 19 ; but here the text is imperfect. Instead of enumerating 
the names of the chiefs of the classes into which David divided 
the four fathers'-houses into which Hebron's descendants fell for 
the temple service, we find only the four names of the heads of 
the fathers'-houses repeated, just as in xxiii. 19, — introduced, 
too, by 'iM as sons of . . . Berthean would therefore inter- 
polate the name ii"£>n after 'J3i (according to xxiii. 19). This 
interpolation is probably correct, but is not quite beyond doubt, 
for possibly only the 'ja of the four sons of Hebron named 
could be mentioned as being busied about the service of the sanc- 
tuary according to their divisions. In any case, the names of the 
heads of the classes formed by the Hebronites are wanting ; but 
it is impossible to ascertain whether they have been dropped out 
only by a later copyist, or were not contained in the authority 
made use of by our historian, for even the LXX. had our text. 
— Vers. 26-28. The classes of the Merarites. As to Jaaziah 
and his sons, see the remarks on xxiii. 31. As Mahli's son 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXV. 1-8. 269 

Eleazar had no sons, only Jerahmeel from his second son Kish, as 
head of the class formed by Mahli's sons, is named. Of Mushi's 
sons only the names of the four fathers'-houses into which they fell 
are mentioned, the chiefs of the classes not being noticed. The 
Leads mentioned in our section are fifteen in all ; and supposing 
that in the cases of the fathers'-houses of the Hebronites and of 
the Merarite branch of the Mushites, where the heads of the 
classes are not named, each f ather's-house formed only one class, 
we would have only fifteen classes. It is, however, quite con- 
ceivable that many of the fathers'-houses of the Hebronites and 
Moshites were so numerous as to form more than one class ; and 
so out of the Levite families mentioned in vers. 20-29 twenty- 
four classes could be formed. The subscription, that they cast 
the lot like their brethren, makes this probable ; and the analogy 
of the division of the musicians into twenty-four classes (chap, 
xxv.) turns the probability that the Levites who were appointed 
to perform service for the priests, were divided into the same 
number of classes, into a certainty, although we have no express 
statement to that effect, and in the whole Old Testament no 
information as to the order of succession of the Levites is any- 
where to be found.— Ver. 31. 'in TH *tf£, as in ver. 6. In the 
last clause rfaK is used for rfatpva, as rto« 'two stands frequently 
for niatrrpa 'SPiO in these catalogues. B*thn stands in apposi- 
tion to rfaR-JVa, the f ather's-house ; the head even as his younger 
brother, i.e. he who was the head of the father's-house as etc., i.e. 
the oldest among the brethren as his younger brethren. The 
Vulgate gives the meaning correctly : tarn majores quam minores ; 
omnet tors cequaliter dividebat. 

Chap. xxv. The twenty-four classes of musicians. — Ver. 1. 
" David and the princes of the host separated for the service the 
sons of Asaph," etc. tOJfn nb are not princes of the Levite host ; 
for although the service of the Levites is called S3X K3V in Num. 
iv. 23, yet the princes of the Levites are nowhere called Kaifn nfc>. 
This expression rather denotes either the leaders of the army or 
the chiefs of Israel, as the host of Jahve, Ex. xii. 17, 41, etc. 
Here it is used in the last signification, as synonymous with princes 
of Israel (xxiii. 2) ; in xxiv. 6 we have simply the princes, along 
with whom the heads of the fathers'-houses of the priests and 
the Levites are mentioned. ftpy? ^J??, separate for the service ; 
cf. Num. xvi. 9. The ^ in *|DK \n^ is nota ace. Since Asaph 
w as, according to vi. 24-28, a descendant of Gershon, Heman, 



Digitized by 



Google 



270 THE FIEST BOOK OF CHEONICLES. 

according to vi. 18-23, a descendant of Kohath, and Jeduthun 
(= Ethan) a descendant of Merari (vL 29-32), all the chief 
families of Levi had representatives among the singers. The 
Kethibh DWain is an orthographical error for O'Kasri (Keri), 
partic. Niph., corresponding to the singular K33n, vers. 2 and 3. 
K33, prophetare, is here used in its wider signification of the 
singing and playing to the praise of God performed in the power 
of the Divine Spirit. In reference to the instruments of these 
chief musicians, cf. xv. 16. The suffix in D^DD refers to the 
following noun, which is subordinated to the word "'BOD as geni- 
tive ; cf. the similar construction 7*V ^tu, his, the sluggard's, soul, 
Prov. xiii. 4,. and Ew. § 309, e. u Their number (the number) of 
the workmen for the service, i.e. of those who performed the work 
of the service, was (as follows)."— Ver. 2. With ^W yab the 
enumeration begins : " Of Asaph's sons were, or to Asaph's sons 
belonged, Zacchur," etc. Four are here named, but the number is 
not stated, while it is given in the case of the sons of Jeduthun and 
Heman, vers. 3 and 5. T^P, at the hand, alternates with r jp! 
(vers. 3 and 6), and IDK T ?y does not of itself express a diffe- 
rent relationship to Asaph than that expressed by $!&} *T >J with 
reference to the king. It signifies only " under (according to) 
the direction of;" and in ver. 6 the king, Asaph, Jeduthun, and 
Heman are co-ordinated, inasmuch as the musical part of the 
worship was arranged by David and the three chief musicians in 
common, although only the latter were concerned in its perform- 
ance. In ver. 3 flTWly is placed at the beginning, because the 
choir of singers led by him bore his name ; and so also in the case 
of Heman, ver. 4. " As to Jeduthun, were sons of Jeduthun." 
The word sons in these catalogues denotes not merely actual sons, 
but those intellectually sons, i.e. scholars taught by the master. 
This is clear from the fact that the twenty-four classes, each of 
which numbered twelve men, consist of sons and brothers of the 
leaders. The names given as those of the sons of Asaph, Jedu- 
thun, and Heman, in vers. 2—5, do not represent the whole number 
of the scholars of these masters, but only the presidents of the 
twenty-four classes of Levites who were engaged under their 
leadership in performing the sacred music Only five sons of Jedu- 
thun are named in our text, while according to the number given 
there should be six. A comparison of the names in vers. 9-31 
shows that in ver. 3 the name 'Wp^ (ver. 17) has been dropped 
out. "til?? belongs to flffiT : under the direction of their father 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXV. 1-8. 271 

Jeduthun (the master), upon the kinnor (see on xv. 16), who was 
inspired to sing praise, i.e. who played inspiredly to bring praise 
and honour to the Lord ; cf. xvi. 4, xxiii. 30, etc. — Ver. 4 f. 
Fourteen sons of Heman are enumerated. ">$ '•noon is one name, 
cf. 31, although *\$ is without doubt to be supplied also after 
V&W. Probably also rf«7rio is to be supplied in thought after the 
names, 'ni??, I made full, and "Vrfn, increased. 1 Heman is 
called in ver. 5 the seer of the king in the words of God, because 
he, along with his gift of song, was endowed also with the pro- 
phetic gift, and as seer made known to the king revelations of 
God. In 2 Ghron. xxxv. 15 the same thing is predicated also of 
Jeduthun, and in the same sense the prophet Gad is called in 
xxi. 9 David's seer. p v ij B¥ T7? the Masoretes have connected with 
the preceding, by placing Athnach under the pp, and the phrase 
has been wholly misunderstood by the Rabbins and. Christian 
commentators. Berth., e.g., connects it with tyrftwi ^"ra, and 
translates, " to sound loud upon horns, according to the divine 
command," referring to 2 Chron. xxix. 15, where, however, both 
meaning and accentuation forbid us to connect nw v ii'i3 with 
what follows. This interpretation of the words is thoroughly 
wrong, not only because the Levites under Heman's direction did 
not blow horns, the horn not being one of the instruments played 
by the Levites in connection with the worship, but also because 
on linguistic grounds it is objectionable. pp onn never has the 
signification to blow the horn ; for to elevate the horn signifies 
everywhere to heighten the power of any one, or unfold, show 
power ; cf . 1 Sam. ii. 10 ; Lam. ii. 17 ; Ps. cxlviii. 14, lxxxix. 18, 
xdi. 11, etc. That is the meaning of the phrase here, and the 
words are to be connected, according to their sense, with what 
follows : " to elevate the horn," i.e. to give power, God gave Heman 
fourteen sons and three daughters; i.e. to make Heman's race 

1 On these names Ewald says, atuf. Lehrb. der hebr. Sprache, § 274, S. 
672, der 7 Ausg. : " It is thought that the utterance of a great prophet is to 
be found cut up into names of near relatives, when the words, 

-IT? VlDDh WW 

' I have given great and lofty help, 

I have to fulness spoken oracles,' 

which manifestly form a verse, and may have been the commencement of a 

famed ancient oracle, are found transferred to the five musical sons of Heman, 

Giddalti(ezer), Romamtiezer, Mallothi, Hothir, and Machazioth." 



Digitized by 



Google 



272 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

mighty for the praise of God, God gave him so many sons and 
daughters. — Ver. 6 is the subscription to the enumeration, vers. 
2-5. n^w? are not the fourteen sons of Heman, but all the 
sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman. All these were under 
the direction of their fathers for song in the house of Jahve, 
with cymbals ... for the service in the house of God under the 
direction of the king, etc. &£'?$ is used distributively of each 
father of the sons named. Bertheau supplies after O'TCK the 
name Heman, and thereby the first half of the verse contradicts 
the second, which he correctly understands to refer to the twenty- 
four persons enumerated. — In ver. 7 the total number is given. 
Their number (the number) of the sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, 
and Heman (t'.e. of the twenty-four [4+6+14] mentioned by 
name), with their brethren, was 288 (24x12) ; whence we learn 
that each of those named had eleven D'TO?, all of them "VE> ^(O, 
learned, practised in song for Jahve. In paBrrTS the sons and 
the brothers are both included, in order to give the total number. 
r?P, having understanding, knowledge of a thing, denotes here 
those who by education and practice were skilled in song — the 
accomplished musicians. Their number was 288, and these were 
divided into twenty-four choirs (classes). David had, according 
to xxiii. 5, appointed 4000 Levites for the performance of the 
music. Of these, 288 were DT?? skilled in song ; the others were 
scholars (D'TtCTi), as ver. 8 shows, where P? 1 ? and *PD?n are the 
two categories into which the musicians are divided. — Ver. 8. 
They cast lots, rmsi? Tmn\3 } Kkypovs; i<fyt]fj.epla>v (LXX.), by which, 
the nnoif!?, the waiting upon the service, was fixed, that is, the 
order of their succession in the official service. riBJ)? is variously 
translated. As no name follows, E. Shel. and Kimchi would 
repeat the preceding rn&^p : one class as the other ; and this is 
supported by xxvi. 16 and Neh. xii. 24, and by the fact that in 
xvii. 5, after ISB'tso, the words t?^p ?tt have been dropped out. 
But according to the accentuation rnoBto belongs to rrt7}fe, and so 
the proposed completion is at once disposed of. Besides this, 
however, the thought "class like class" does not appear quite 
suitable, as the classes were only formed by the lots, and so were 
not in existence so as to be able to cast lots. We therefore, with 
Ewald, § 360, a, and Berth., hold the clause Mil? IbjW to be the 
genitive belonging to r®}h, since riD^ is in Eccles. v. 15 also con- 
nected with a clause : " in the manner of, as the small, so the 
great," i.e. the small and the great, the older as the younger. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXV. 9-3L 273 

This is further defined by " the skilled as the scholars." From 
these words it is manifest that not merely the 288 cast lots, for 
these were r^*?"?? (ver. 7), but also the other 3712 Levites ap- 
pointed for the service of the singers ; whence it further follows 
that only the 288 who were divided by lot into twenty-four classes, 
each numbering twelve persons, were thoroughly skilled in singing 
and playing, and the scholars were so distributed to them that each 
class received an equal number of them, whom they had to edu- 
cate and train. These, then, were probably trained up for and 
employed in the temple music according to their progress in their 
education, so that the i<fn)ftepla which had at any time charge of 
the service consisted not only of the twelve skilled musicians, but 
also of a number of scholars who assisted in singing and playing 
under their direction. 

Vers. 9-31. The order of succession was so determined by lot, 
that the four sons of Asaph (ver. 3) received the first, third, fifth, 
and seventh places ; the six sons of Jeduthun, the second, fourth, 
eighth, twelfth, and fourteenth ; and finally, the four sons of 
Heman (first mentioned in ver. 4), the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and 
thirteenth places ; while the remaining places, 15-24, fell' to the 
other sons of Heman. From this we learn that the lots of the 
sons of the three chief musicians were not placed in separate 
urns, and one lot drawn from each alternately ; but that, on the 
contrary, all the lots were placed in one urn, and in drawing the 
lots of Asaph and Jeduthun came out so, that after the fourteenth 
drawing only sons of Heman remained. 1 As to the details in 
ver. 9, after Joseph we miss the statement, " he and his sons and 
his brothers, twelve ;" which, with the exception of the K¥i, used 
only of the second lot, and omitted for the sake of brevity in all 
the other cases, is repeated with all the 23 numbers, and so can 
have been dropped here only by an error. The words 1DK? 
qor? are to be understood thus : The first lot drawn was for 

1 Bertheau, S. 218, draws quite another conclusion from the above-men- 
tioned order in which the lots were drawn. He supposes " that two series, 
each of seven, were first included in the lot : to the one series belonged the 
four sons of Asaph and the three sons of Heman, Mattaniah, Uzziel or Azarel, 
and Shebuel or Shubael ; to the other, the six sons of Jeduthun and Bukkiah 
the son of Heman. A lot was drawn from each series alternately, commencing 
with the first, so that the four sons of Asaph and the three sons of Heman 
obtained the places 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 ; while to the six sons of Jeduthun, 
and the son of Heman added to them, fell the places 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14. 
The still remaining ten sons of Heman were then finally drawn for, and re- 

S 



Digitized by 



Google 



274 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

Asaph, viz. for his son Joseph. In the succeeding verses the 
names are enumerated, sometimes with and sometimes without 
<». Some of the names diverge somewhat in form. Izri, ver. 11, 
stands for Zeri, ver. 3 ; Jesharelah, ver. 14, for Asarelah, ver. 2; 
Azarel, ver. 18, for Uzzie), ver. 4 (like the king's names Uzain 
and Azariah, iii. 12, and 2 Chron. xxvi. 1) ; Shubael, ver. 20, 
for Shebuel, ver. 4 (cf. xxiii. 16 with xxiv. 20) ; Jeremoth, ver. 
22, for Jerimoth, ver. 4 ; Elivathah, ver. 27, for Eliathab, ver. 4. 
Besides these, the fuller forms Nethanyahu (ver. 12), Hashab- 
yahu (ver. 3), Hananyahu (ver. 23), are used instead of the 
shorter Nethaniah, etc. (vers. 2, 19, 4). Of the 24 names which 
are here enumerated, besides those of Asapb, Jeduthun, and 
Heman, only Mattithiah recurs (xv. 18, 21) in the description 
of the solemnities connected with the bringing in of the ark ; "but 
we are not justified in seeking there the names of our twenty-font 
classes" (Berth.). 

Chap. xxvi. The classes of the doorkeepers, the stewards of the 
treasures of the sanctuary, and the officers for the external busineu. 
— Vers. 1-19. The classes of the doorkeepers. Ver. 1. The super- 
scription runs shortly thus : " As to (?) the divisions of the door- 
keepers." The enumeration begins with D'Tjjsp : to the Korahites 
(belongs) Meshelemiah (in ver. 14, Shelemiah). Instead of TC*I? 
«|OK we should read, according to ix. 19, I?}** ^|T?, for the 
Korahites are descended from Kohath (Ex. vi. 21, xviii. 16), 
but Asaph is a descendant of Gershon (vi. 24 f .). — In vers. 2, 3, 
seven sons of Meshelemiah are enumerated ; the first-born Zecha- 
riah is mentioned also in ix. 21, and was entrusted, according to 
ver. 14, with the guarding of the north side. — Vers. 4-8. Obed- 
edom's family. Obed-edom has been already mentioned in chap, 
xvi. 38 and xv. 24 as doorkeeper ; see the commentary on the 
passage. From our passage we learn that Obed-edom belonged 
to the Kohathite family of the Korahites. According to vec 19, 
the doorkeepers were Korahites and Merarites. The Meraxites, 

cerred the places from the 15th to the 24th." This very artificial hypothec 
explains, indeed, the order of the lots, bat we cannot think it probable, 
because (1) for the supposed dividing of the lots to be drawn into divisions 
of 10 and 14 no reason can be assigned ; (2) by any Bach division the sons of 
Heman would have been placed at a disadvantage from the beginning as com- 
pared -with the sons of Asaph and Jeduthun, since not only Asaph's four sons, 
but also all Jeduthnn's six sons, would have been placed in the first rank, 
while only four sons of Heman accompany them, Heman's ten remaining toa* 
having had the last place assigned them. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXVI. 1-19. 275 

however, are only treated of from ver. 10 and onwards. tfiK *njw 
(ver. 4) corresponds to ?nn»rwi (ver. 2), and is consequently 
thereby brought under &tp$i (ver. 1). Here, vers. 4, 5, eight sons 
with whom God had blessed him (cf. xiii. 14), and in 6 and 7 his 
grandchildren, are enumerated. The verb *t?b is used in the 
singular, with a subject following in the plural, as frequently (ef. 
Ew. $ 316, a). The grandchildren of Obed-edom by his first- 
born son Shemaiah are characterized as BwDtsn, the dominions, 
ie. the lords (rulers) of the house of their fathers Q&BQ, the 
abstract dominion, for the concrete 5>S?D; cf.Ew. § 160, b), because 
they were W ^iaa, valiant heroes, and so qualified for the office 
of doorkeepers. In the enumeration in ver. 7, the omission of 
the 1 cop. with WK 13J7S is strange ; probably we must supply 
\ before both words, and take them thus : And Elzabad and his 
brethren, valiant men, (viz.) Elihu and Semachiah. For the 
conjecture that the names of the WR are not given (Berth.) is 
not a very probable one. — Ver. 8. The whole number of door- 
keepers of Obed-edom's family, his sons and brethren, was sixty- 
two ; able men with strength for the service. The singular P*K 
"J, after the preceding plural, is most simply explained by taking 
it to be in apposition to the bb at the beginning of the verse, 
by repeating te mentally before E*st. — In ver. 9 the number of 
Meshelemiah's sons and brothers is brought in in a supplemen- 
tary way. — Vers. 10, 11. The Merarites. Hosah's sons and 
brothers. HDin has been already mentioned (xvi. 38) along with 
Obed-edom as doorkeeper. Hosah made Shimri head of the 
Merarites, who served as doorkeepers, because there was no first* 
born, i.e. because his first-born son had died without leaving any 
descendant, so that none of the families descended from Hosah 
bad the natural claim to the birthright. All the sons and 
brothers of Hosah were thirteen. Meshelemiah had eighteen (cf. 
ver. 9), and Obed-edom sixty-two (ver. 8) ; and aU. taken together 
they make ninety-three, whom we are (according to ver. 12 f.) 
to regard as the heads of the 4000 doorkeepers. In ix. 22 the 
number of the doorkeepers appointed by David is stated to be 
212, bat that number most probably refers to a different time 
(see on ix. 22). Bertheau further remarks : u According to xvi. 
38, sixty-eight are reckoned to Obed-edom and Hosah, in our 
passage seventy-five ; and the small difference between the num- 
bers is explained by the fact that in the first passage only the 
doorkeepers before the ark are referred to." Against this we 



Digitized by 



Google 



276 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

have already shown, in our remarks on xvi. 38, that the number 
there mentioned cannot be held with certainty to refer to the 
doorkeepers. — Vers. 12-19. The division of the doorkeepers 
according to their posts of service. Ver. 12. " To these classes 
of doorkeepers, viz. to the heads of the men, (were committed) 
the watches, in common with their brethren, to serve in the house 
of Jahve." By rrippnD n?to it is placed beyond doubt that the 
above-mentioned names and numbers give us the classes of the 
doorkeepers. By the apposition D^M? "^i?t the meaning of 
which is discussed in the commentary on xxiv. 4, '&n rtfppno is 
so defined as to show that properly the heads of the households 
are meant, only these having been enumerated in the preceding- 
section, and not the classes. — Ver. 13. The distribution of the 
stations by lot followed (cf. xxv. 8), the small as the great ; i.e. 
the younger as the older cast lots, according to their fathers'- 
houses, " for door and door," i.e. for each door of the four sides 
of the temple, which was built so that its sides corresponded to 
the points of the compass. — Ver. 14. The lot towards the east, 
i.e. for the guarding of the east side, fell to Shelemiah (cf. 
vers. 1, 2) ; while that towards the north fell to his first-born 
Zechariah. Before WJ 1 ]?', f is to be repeated. To him the title 
paka YtfP is given, for reasons unknown to us. "M 'T'Bn, (for him) 
they threw lots. — Ver. 15. To Obed-edom (fell the lot) towards 
the south, and to his sons it fell (to guard) the house Asuppim. 
As to D'BDKrnva, called for brevity 0*bdk in ver. 17, i.e. house 
of collections or provisions (cf. Neh. xii. 25), we can say nothing 
further than that it was a building used for the storing of the 
temple goods, situated in the neighbourhood of the southern 
door of the temple in the external court, and that it probably 
had two entrances, since in ver. 19 it is stated that two guard- 
stations were assigned to it. — Ver. 16. The word D'BI!? is un- 
intelligible, and probably. has come into the text merely by a 
repetition of the two last syllables of the preceding word, since 
the name D'SB* (vii. 12) has no connection with this passage. 
To Hosah fell the lot towards the west, by the door Shallecheth 
on the ascending highway. TMvn n?pen is the way which led 
from the lower city up to the more lofty temple site. Instead 
of the door on this highway, in ver. 18, in the statement as 
to the distribution of the guard-stations, Parbar is named, and 
the highway distinguished from it, four doorkeepers being ap- 
pointed for the n^DD, and two for ">3"}B. laiB, probably identical 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXVI. 1-19. 277 

with B'T)")?, 2 Kings xxiii. 11, a word of uncertain meaning, was 
the name of an out-building on the western side, the back of the 
outer court of the temple by the door Shallecheth, which con- 
tained cells for the laying up of temple goods and furniture. 
wW,Bottcher translates, Proben, S. 347, "refuse-door;" see on 
2 Kings xxiii. 11. Nothing more definite can be said of it, unless 
we hold, with Thenius on 2 Kings xxiii. 11, that Ezekiel's temple 
is in all its details a copy of the Solomonic temple, and use it, in 
an unjustifiable way, as a source of information as to the prse- 
exilic temple. "MpB'D flB)h ic^p (as in Neh. xii. 24), guard with 
(over against t) guard, or one guard as the other (cf. on 1?vb, 
ver. 12 and xxv. 8), Bertheau connects with Hosah, according 
to the Masoretic punctuation, and explains it thus : " Because it 
was Hosah's duty to set guards before the western gate of the 
temple, and also before the gate Shallecheth, which lay over 
against it." Clericus, on the contrary, refers the words to all 
the guard-stations : cum ad omnes januas essent custodies, sibi ex 
adverso respondebant. This reference, according to which the 
words belong to what follows, and introduce the statement as to 
the number of guards at the individual posts which follows in ver. 
17 ff., seems to deserve the preference. So much is certain in 
any case, that there is no ground in the text for distinguishing the 
gate Shallecheth from the western gate of the temple, for the two 
gates are not distinguished either in ver. 16 or in ver. 18. — 
Ver. 17 f. Settlement of the number of guard-stations at the 
various sides and places. Towards morning (on the east side) 
were six of the Levites (six kept guard) ; towards the north by day 
(w. daily, on each day), four; towards the south daily, four; and 
at the storehouse two and two, consequently four also ; at Parbar 
towards the west, four on the highway and two at Parbar, i.e. six. 
In all, therefore, there were twenty-four guard-stations to be 
occupied daily ; but more than twenty-four persons were required, 
because, even supposing that one man at a time was sufficient 
for each post, one man could not stand the whole day at it : he 
must have been relieved from time to time. Probably, however, 
there were always more than one person on guard at each post. 
It further suggests itself that the number twenty-four may be in 
«ome way connected with the divisions or classes of doorkeepers ; 
hat there is only a deceptive appearance of a connection. The 
division of the priests and musicians each into twenty-four classes 
respectively is no sufficient analogy in the case, for these classes 



Digitized by 



Google 



278 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

had to perform the service in succession each for a week at a 
time, while the twenty-four doorkeepers' stations had to be all 
occupied simultaneously every day. — In vers. 2—11, then, twenty- 
eight heads in all are enumerated by name (Meshelemiah with 
seven sons, Obed-edom with eight sons and six grandsons, and 
Hosah with four sons) ; but the total number in all the three 
families of doorkeepers is stated at ninety-three, and neither the 
one nor the other of these numbers bears any relation to twenty- 
four. Finally, the posts are so distributed that Meshelemiah 
with his eighteen sons and brothers kept guard on the east and 
north sides with six posts ; Obed-edom with bis sixty-two sons 
and brothers on the south side with four and 2X2, that is, 
eight posts ; and Hosah with his thirteen sons and brothers on the 
western side with four and two, that is, six ; so that even here 
no symmetrical distribution of the service can be discovered. 
— Ver. 19. Subscription, in which it is again stated that the 
classes of doorkeepers were taken from among the Korahites and 
Merarites. 

Vers. 20-28. The stewards of Hie treasures of the sanctuary.— 
Ver. 20 appears to contain the superscription of the succeeding 
section. For here the treasures of the house of God and the 
treasures of the consecrated things are grouped together, while 
in vers. 22 and 26 they are separated, and placed under the over- 
sight of two Levite families : the treasures of the house of Jahre 
under the sons of the Gershonite Laadan (vers. 21, 22) ; the 
treasures of the consecrated things under the charge of the 
Amramites. But with this the words n*riK Djpn cannot be made 
to harmonize. According to the Masoretic accentuation, D$? 
alone would be the superscription ; but Dw alone gives no suit- 
able sense, for the Levites have been treated of already from 
chap xxiii. onwards. Moreover, it appears somewhat strange 
that there is no further characterization of <wik, for the name is 
a very common one, but has not before occurred in our chapter, 
whence we would expect a statement of his descent and his 
family, such as we find in the case of the succeeding chief over- 
seers. All these things tend to throw doubt upon the correctness 
of the Masoretic reading, while the LXX., on the contrary, in m* 
olAevirat aSe\<f>ol avr&v hrl t&v (hjaavp&v, x.t.X., give a perfectly 
suitable superscription, which involves the reading Drrnte instead 
of n>n«. This reading we, with J. D. Mich, and Berths hold to 
be the original. On D?vnt« o^n, c f. vi. 29, 2 Chron. xxix. 34.— 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXVI. 20-2&. 279 

Vera. 21 and 22 go together : "The sons of Laadan, (namely) the 
sods Of the Gershonite family which belong to Laadan, (namely) 
the heads of the fathers'-honses of Laadan of the Gershonite 
family : Jehieli, (namely) the sons of Jehieli, Zetham and his 
brother Joel (see xxiii. 7), were over the treasures of the house 
of Jahve." The meaning is this : " Over the treasures of the 
house of Jahve were Zetham and Joel, the heads of the fatherV 
house of Jehieli, which belonged to the Laadan branch of the 
Gershonites." Light is thrown upon these words, so obscure 
through their brevity, by chap, xxiii. 7, 8, according to which 
the sons of Jehiel, or the Jehielites, are descended from Laadan, 
the older branch of the Gershonites. This descent is briefly but 
fully stated in the three clauses of the 21st verse, each of which 
contains a more definite characterization of the father's-house 
Jehieli, whose two heads Zetham and Joel were entrusted with the 
oversight of the treasures of the house of God. — Vers. 23 and 24 
also go together : " As to the Amramites, Jisharites, Hebronites, 
and Uzzielites (the four chief branches of the Kohathite family 
of Levites, chap, xxiii. 15—20), Shebuel the son of Gershon, the 
son of Moses, was prince over the treasures " (i before Shebuel 
introduces the apodosis, cf. Ew. § 348, a, and = Germ. " so 
war ").— Ver. 25. u And his (Shebuel's) brethren of Eliezer were 
Rehabiah his (Eliezer's) son, and Jeshaiah his son, . . . and 
Shelomoth his son." These descendants of Eliezer were called 
brethren of Shebuel, because they were descended through Eli- 
ezer from Moses, as Shebuel was through his father Gershon. — 
Ver. 26. This Shelomoth (a descendant of Eliezer, and so to be 
distinguished both from the Jisharite Shelomith (xxiii. 18 and 
uhr. 22), and the Gershonite of the same name (xxiii. 9)), and 
his brethren were over the treasures of the consecrated things 
which David the king had consecrated, and the heads of the 
fathers'-houses, etc Instead of ^fe^ we must read ^fet., according 
to xxix. 6. The princes over the thousands and hundreds are 
the war captains, and the tUvn nb> are the commanders-in-chief, 
e-g- Abner, Joab, xxvii. 34, 2 Sam. viii. 16, 1 Chron. xviii. 15. — 
The 27th verse is an explanatory parenthesis : " from the wars 
and from the booty," ue. from the booty taken in war had they 
consecrated, pjrrp, to make strong, i.e. to preserve in strength and 
good condition the house of Jahve. P?n elsewhere of the reno- 
vation of old buildings, 2 Kings xii. 8 ff ., Neh. in. 2 ff ., here in a 
somewhat general signification. — In ver. 28 the enumeration of 



Digitized by 



Google 



280 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

those who had consecrated, thus interrupted, is resumed, but in 
the form of a new sentence, which concludes with a predicate of 
its own. In E^pnn the article represents "lifts, as in xxix. 17, 
2 Chron. xxix. 36J and elsewhere ; cf. Ew. § 331, b. With 
B^psn ?b, all who had consecrated, the enumeration is concluded, 
and the predicate, " was at the hand of Shelomith and his 
brethren,", is then brought in. T^>9, laid upon the hand, it. 
entrusted to them for preservation ; Germ, vnter der Hand (under 
the hand). 

If we glance back at the statements as to the stewards of the 
treasures (vers. 20-28), we find that the treasures of the house 
of Jahve were under the oversight of the Jehielites Zetham and 
Joel, with their brethren, a branch of the Gershonites (ver. 22) ; 
and the treasures of the consecrated things under the oversight 
of the Kohathite Shelomith, who was of the family of Moses' 
second son Eliezer, with his brethren (ver. 28). But in what re- 
lation does the statement in ver. 24, that Shebuel, the descendant 
of Moses through Gershon, was nhykrr>J> TM, stand to this? 
Bertheau thinks " that three kinds of treasures are distinguished, 
the guarding of which was committed to different officials : (1) 
The sons of Jehieli, Zetham and Joel, had the oversight of the 
treasures of the house of God, which, as we may conclude from 
xxix. 8, had been collected by voluntary gifts : (2) Shebuel was 
prince over the treasures, perhaps over the sums which resulted 
from regular assessment for the temple (Ex. xxx. 11-16), from re- 
demption-money, e.g. for the first-born (Num. xviii. 16 ff.), or for 
vows (Lev. xxvii.) ; consequently over a part of the sums which 
are designated in 2 Kings xii. 5 by the name D'BHpn *|D3 : (3) 
Shelomith and his brothers had the oversight of all the nrwx 
CBnpn, i.e. of the consecrated gifts which are called in 2 Kings 
xii. 19 D'tsnp, and distinguished from the D'BHp *|D3 in ver. 5." 
But this view has no support in the text. Both in the super- 
scription (ver. 20) and in the enumeration (vers. 22, 26) only 
two kinds of treasure!! — treasures of the house of God (of Jahve), 
and treasures of the D'Bhp — are mentioned. Neither by the facts 
nor by the language used are we justified in supposing that there 
was a third kind of treasures, viz. the sums resulting from the 
regular assessment for the holy place. For it is thoroughly 
arbitrary to confine the treasures of the house of God to the 
voluntary contributions and the consecrated gifts given from the 
war-booty ; and it is still more arbitrary to limit the treasures 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXVL 29-32. 281 

over which Shebuel was prince to the sums flowing into the 
temple treasures from the regular assessment ; for the reference 
to 2 Kings xii. 19 and 5 is no proof of this, because, though two 
kinds of B'tsnp are there distinguished, yet both are further de- 
fined. , The quite general expression nnykn, the treasures, can 
naturally be referred only to the two different kinds of treasures 
distinguished in ver. 22. This reference is also demanded by the 
words TM . . . ^W3B> (ver. 24). Heads of fathers'-houses, with 
their brethren (DrMjN), are mentioned as guardians of the two 
kinds of treasures spoken of in ver. 20 ; while here, on the con- 
trary, we have Shebuel alone, without assistants. Further, the 
other guardians are not called TM, as Shebuel is. The word 
"TO} denotes not an overseer or steward, but only princes of king- 
doms (kings), princes of tribes (xii. 27, xiii. 1, xxvii. 16; 2 
Chron. xxxii. 21), ministers of the palace and the temple, and 
commanders-in-chief (2 Chron. xi. 11, xxviii. 7), and is con- 
sequently used in our section neither of Zetham and Joel, nor 
of Shelomoth. The calling of Shebuel TlJ consequently shows 
that he was the chief guardian of tha sacred treasures, under 
whose oversight the guardians of the two different kinds of 
treasures were placed. This is stated in vers. 23, 24 ; and the 
statement would not have been misunderstood if it had been 
placed at the beginning or the end of the enumeration; and 
its position in the middle between the Gershonites and the 
Kohathites is explained by the fact that this prince was, accord- 
ing to xxiii. 16, the head of the four Levite families descended 
from Kohath. 

Vers. 29-32. The officials for the external business. — Ver. 29. 
"As to the Izharites, Chenaniah (see on xv. 22) with his sons 
was for the outward business over Israel for scribes and judges." 
According to this, the external business of the Levites consisted 
of service as scribes and judges, for which David had set apart 
WOO Levites (xxiii. 4). Without sufficient reason, Bertheau 
would refer the external business to the exaction of the dues for 
the temple, because in Neh. xi. 16 noVrin fOK&ttn for the temple 
is spoken of. But it does not at all follow that in our verse the 
external work had any reference to the temple, and that the 
scribes and judges had only this narrow sphere of action, since 
here, instead of the house of God, Hjnfc^ fy is mentioned as the 
object vf ith which the external service was connected. — Ver. 30. 
Of Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brethren, 1700 valiant men, 



Digitized by 



Google 



282 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

were 'fc* rnjJB ?J?, for the oversight (inspection) of Israel this side 
Jordan, for all the business of Jahve and the service of the king. 
Bertheau takes ir^B to mean " dae," " fixed tribute," a meaning 
which the word cannot be shown to have. The LXX. haw 
translated correctly, hrl tjj? hrur/ctyew rov 'IcrpaijX, ad intpec- 
tionem Israelis, i.e. prcefeeti erant (J. H. Mich.). For rnj?B 79 is 
in ver. 32 rendered by ty 1*1*!. IT£? " l ??9 is shown by the addi- 
tion nanjjo to refer to the land of Canaan, as in Josh. v. 1, 
xxii. 7, since Israel, both under Joshua and also after the exile, 
had come from the eastward over Jordan into Canaan. The 
words WNPO and rrtlg are synonymous, and are consequently 
both represented in ver. 32 by "CT. — Ver. 31 f. David set an- 
other branch of the Hebronites, under the head Jeriah (cf. 
xxiii. 9), over the East-Jordan tribes. Between the words 
"Jeriah the head," ver. 31, and Wtt, ver. 32, a parenthesis 
is inserted, which gives the reason why David made these 
Hebronites scribes and judges among the East-Jordan tribes. 
The parenthesis runs thus : " As to the Hebronites, according to 
their generations, according to fathers, they were sought out in 
the fortieth year of David's rule, and valiant heroes were found 
among them in Jazer of Gilead." Jazer was a Levite city in 
the tribal domain of Gad, assigned, according to Josh. xxi. 39, to 
the Merarites (see on vi. 66). The number of these Hebronites 
was 2700 valiant men (ver. 32). The additional ni3Kn w is 
obscure, for if we take fitaK to be, as it often is in the genealogies, 
a contraction for rfaawa, the number given does not suit ; for 
a branch of the Hebronites cannot possibly have numbered 2700 
fathers'-houses (irarpial, groups of related households): they must 
be only 2700 men (Dnaa), or beads of families, i.e> households. 
Not only the large number demands this signification, but also 
the comparison of this statement with that in ver. 30. The 
1700 <*n rn of which the Hebronite branch, Hashabiah with his 
brethren, consisted, were not so many irarpiai, but only so many 
men of this trarpuL. In the same way, the Hebronite branch of 
which Jeriah was head, with his brethren, 2700 Wi »3a, were also 
not 2700 rarpuU, but only so many men, that is, fathers of 
families. It is thus placed beyond doubt that rfaK 'Pin cannot 
here denote the heads of fathers'-houses, but only heads of house- 
holds. And accordingly we must not understand ^3*6 (ver. 31) 
of fathers-houses, as the LXX. and all commentators do, but 
only of heads of households. The use of the verb «n*n also 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xxvu. 283 

favours this view, for this verb is not elsewhere used of the legal 
census of the people, i.e. the numbering and entering of them 
in the public lists, according to the great families and fathers'- 
houses. There may therefore be in *Bn*w a hint that it was not 
a genealogical census which was undertaken, but only a number- 
ing of the heads of households, in order to ascertain the number 
of scribes and judges to be appointed. There yet remain in this 
section three things which are somewhat strange : 1. Only 1700 
scribes and judges were set over the cis-Jordanic land, inhabited 
as it was by ten and a half tribes, while 2700 were set over 
the trans-Jordanic land with its two and a half tribes. 2. Both 
numbers taken together amount to only 4400 men, while David 
appointed 6000 Levites to be scribes and judges. 3. The scribes 
and judges were taken only from two fathers'-houses of the 
Kohathites, while most of the other Levitical offices were filled 
by men of all the families of the tribe of Levi. On all these 
grounds, it is probable that our catalogue of the Levites appointed 
to be scribes and judges, t.e. for the external business, is im- 
perfect 

CHAP. XXVII. — DIVISION OP THE ARMY. TRIBAL PRINCES, AD- 
MINISTRATORS OF THE DOMAINS, AND COUNCILLORS OF 
STATE. 

This chapter treats of the organization of the army (vers. 1-15) 
and the public administration; in vers. 16-24, the princes of the 
twelve tribes being enumerated ; in vers. 25-31, the managers 
of the royal possessions and domains ; and in vers. 32-34, the 
chief councillors of the king. The information on these points 
immediately succeeds the arrangement of the service of the 
Levites, because, as we learn from ver. 23 f., David attempted 
in the last year of bis reign to give a more stable form to the 
political constitution of the kingdom also. In the enumeration 
of the twelve divisions of the army, with their leaders (vers. 1-15), 
it is not indeed said when David organized the men capable of 
bearing arms for the alternating monthly service ; bnt the refer- 
ence in ver. 23 f . of our chapter to the numbering of the people, 
spoken of in chap, xxi., leaves no doubt of the fact that this 
division of the people stands in intimate connection with that 
numbering of the people, and that David caused the people to be 
numbered in order to perfect the military constitution of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



284 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

kingdom, and to leave his kingdom to his son strong within and 
mighty without. 

Vers. 1-15. The twelve divisions of the army. — Ver. 1. The 
lengthy superscription, " And the sons of Israel according to their 
number, the heads of the f athers'-houses, and the princes over the 
thousands and the hundreds, and their scribes, who served the king 
in regard to every matter of the divisions ; which month for month 
of all months of the year went and came, one division 24,000 
men," is towards the end so intimately interwoven with the 
divisions of the army, that it can only refer to this, t.e. only to. 
the catalogue, vers. 2-15. Since, then, we find in this catalogue 
only the twelve classes, the number of the men belonging to 
each, and their leaders, and since for this the short superscription, 
" the Israelites according to their number, and the princes of 
the divisions which served the king," would be amply sufficient, 
Bertheau thinks that the superscription originally belonged to 
a more complete description of the classes and their different 
officers, of which only a short extract is here communicated. 
This hypothesis is indeed possible, but is not at all certain ; for 
it is questionable whether, according to the above superscription, 
we have a right to expect an enumeration by name of the various 
officials who served the king in the classes of the army. The 
answer to this question depends upon our view of the relation of 
the words, " the heads of the f athers'-houses, and the princes," to 
the first clause, " the sons of Israel according to their number."' 
Had these words been connected by the conjunction 1 (^BW^.) with 
this clause, and thereby made co-ordinate with it, we should be 
justified in having such an expectation. But the want of the 
conjunction shows that these words form an apposition, which as 
to signification is subordinate to the main idea. If we take this 
appositional explanation to mean something like this, " the 
sons of Israel, according to their number, with the heads of the 
fathers'-houses and the princes," the emphasis of the superscrip- 
tion falls upon D"ibdd?, and the number of the sons of Israel, 
who with their heads and princes were divided into classes, is 
announced to be the important thing in the following catalogue. 
That this is the meaning and object of the words may be gathered 
from this, that in the second half of the verse, the number of 
the men fit for service, who from month to month came and went 
as one class, is stated nriKn, one at a time (distributive), as in 
Judg. viii. 18, Num. xvii. 18, etc. ; cf. Ew. § 313, o, note 1. Kte 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap, xxvil i-ii 285 

ten, used of entering upon and leaving the service (cf . 2 Chron. 
xxiii. 4, 8 ; 2 Kings xi. 5, 7, 9). But the words are hardly 
to be understood to mean that the classes which were in service 
each month were ordered from various parts of the kingdom 
to the capital, and there remained under arms ; but rather, as 
Clericus, that they paratce essent ducum imperils parere, si quid 
eontigisset, dum cetera copice, si necesse essent, convenient. — Ver. 
2 ff. Over the first division was Jashobeam, soil, commander. 
The second inijvno <>y is to be rendered, "in his division were 
24,000 men," i.e. they were reckoned to it. As to Jashobeam, 
see on xi. 11 and 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. — Ver. 3 further relates of him 
that he was of the sons (descendants) of Perez, and the head of 
all the army chiefs in the first month (i.e. in the division for the 
first month). — Ver. 4. Before ^l, according to xi. 12, }3 "it^K 
has been dropped out (see on 2 Sam. xxiii. 9). The words tappnoi 
Tan ni?pDi are obscure. At the end of the sixth verse similar 
words occur, and hence Bertheau concludes that l before rri?j>D is 
to be struck out, and translates, " and his divisions, Mikloth the 
prince," which might denote, perhaps, " and his division is that 
over which Mikloth was prince." Older commentators have 
already translated the word in' a similar manner, as signify- 
ing that Mikloth was prince or chief of this division under the 
Ahohite Eleazar. All that is certain is, that D"j?D is a name 
which occurred in viii. 32 and ix. 37 among the Benjamites. — 
Ver. 5. Here the form of expression is changed ; K33n ne>, the 
chief of the third host, begins the sentence. As to Benaiah, see 
xi. 22 and the commentary on 2 Sam. xxiii. 20. vth does not 
belong to jnbn, but is the predicate of Benaiah : " the prince of the 
. . . was Benaiah ... as head," sc. of the division for the third month. 
This is added, because in ver. 6 still a third military office held 
by Benaiah is mentioned. He was hero of the (among the) thirty, 
and over the thirty, i.e. more honoured than they (cf. xi. 25 and 
2 3am. xxiii. 23). — With ver. 66 cf. what is said on the similar 
words, ver. 4. — Ver. 7. From here onwards the mode of expression 
is very much compressed : the fourth of the fourth month, instead 
of the chief of the fourth host of the fourth month. Asahel (see 
xi. 26 and on 2 Sam. xxiii. 24) was slain by Abner (2 Sam. ii. 
18-23) in the beginning of David's reign, and consequently long 
before the division of the army here recorded. The words, " and 
Zebadiah his son after him," point to his death, as they mention his 
son as his successor in the command of the fourth division of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



286 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

army. When Asahel, therefore, is called commander of the f ourth 
division of the host, it is done merely honoris causa, since the 
division over which his son was named, de patris deftmcti nomine 
(Cler.). — Ver. 8. Sbamhuth is called in xi. 27 Shammoth, and in 
2 Sam. xziii. 25 Shamma. He was born in Harod ; here he is called 
rnpn, the Jizrahite, = , T)! i ?, ver. 13, of the family of Zerah the 
son of Jodah (ii. 4, 6). — Ver. 9. Ira ; see xi. 28, 2 Sam. xxiii. 26. 
—Ver. 10. Helez: xi. 27; 2 Sam. xxiii. 26.— Ver. 11. Sibbecai; 
see xi. 29, 2 Sam. xxiii. 27. — Ver. 12. Abiezer ; see xi. 28, 2 Sam. 
xxiii. 27 ; he was of Anathoth in the tribe of Benjamin (Jer. i. 1). 
— Ver. 13. Maharai (see xi. 30, 2 Sam. xxiii. 28) belonged also 
to the family of Zerah ; see vers. 11, 8. — Ver. 14. Benaiah of 
Pirathon ; see xi. 31, 2 Sam. xxiii. 30. — Ver. 15. Heldai, in xi. 30 
Heled, in 2 Sam. xxiii. 29 erroneously called Heleb, belonging to 
Othniel's family (Josh. xv. 17). 

Vers. 16-24. The princes of the twelve tribes. — The enumera- 
tion of the tribal princes, commencing with the words, " and over 
the tribes of Israel," immediately follows the catalogue of the 
divisions of the army with their commanders, because the subjects 
are in so far connected as the chief management of the internal 
business of the people, divided as they were into tribes, was depo- 
sited in their hands. In the catalogue the tribes Gad and Ashes- 
are omitted for reasons unknown to us, just as in chap. iv.-viL, 
in the genealogies of the tribes, Dan and Zebulun are. In refer- 
ence to Levi, on the contrary, the Nagid of Aaron, i.e. the head 
of the priesthood, is named, viz. Zadok, the high priest of the 
family of Eleazar. — Ver. 18. Elihu, of the brethren of David, is 
only another form of the name Eliab, ii. 13, David's eldest 
brother, who, as Jesse's first-born, had become tribal prince of 
Judah. — Ver. 20 f. Of Manasseh two tribal princes are named, 
because the one half of this tribe had received its inheritance on 
this side Jordan, the other beyond Jordan. "H?? ?> towards Gilead, 
to designate the East-Jordan Manassites. — Vers. 23 and 24 contain 
a concluding remark on the catalogue of the twelve detachments 
into which the men capable of bearing arms in Israel were 
divided, contained in vers. 2-15. David had not taken their 
number from the men of twenty years and under, i.e. he had only 
caused those to be numbered who were over twenty years old. The 
word ffiBDO points back to onBDD?, ver. 1. "1BDD KiW as in Num. iii. 
40 = Ptfi Kiw, Ex. xxx. 12, Num. i. 49, to take up the sum or total. 
The reason of this is given in the clause, " for Jahve had said 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap, xxvit K-n. 287 

(promised) to increase Israel like to the stars of heaven" (Gen. 
xxii. 17), which cannot mean : For it was impossible for David 
to number all, because they were as numerous as the stars of 
heaven, which of course cannot be numbered (Berth.). The 
thought is rather that David never intended to number the whole 
people from the youngest to the eldest, for he did not desire in 
fidem dwinartcm promissionum inquirere aut earn labefactare (J. H. 
Mich.) ; and he accordingly caused only the men capable of bear- 
ing arms to be numbered, in order to organize the military consti- 
tution of the kingdom in the manner recorded in vers. 2-15. Bnt 
even this numbering which Joab had begun was not completed, 
because wrath came on Israel because of it, as is narrated in chap. 
xxL For this reason also the number, i.e. the result of the 
numbering begun by Joab, but not completed, is not included in 
the number of the chronicle of King David, i.e. in the official 
number which was usually inserted in the public annals. "1BDB3 
neither stands for ">D?3 (according to 2 Chron. xx. 34), nor does it 
denote, u in the section which treats of the numberings " (Berth.). 
OW 'W is a shorter expression for 'n " r vrt "IBD, book of the events 
of the day. 

Yen. 25-31. The managers of David's possessions and domains. 
—The property and the income of the king were (ver. 25) divided 
into treasures of the king, and treasures in the country, in the 
cities, the villages', and the castles. By the u treasures of the 
king" we must therefore understand those which were in Jeru- 
salem, i.e. the treasures of the royal palace. These were managed 
by Azmaveth. The remaining treasures are specified in ver. 
26 ff. They consisted in fields which were cultivated by labourers 
(ver. 26) ; in vineyards (ver. 27) ; plantations of olive trees and 
sycamores in the Shephelah, the fruitful plain on the Mediter- 
ranean Sea (ver. 28) ; in cattle, which pastured partly in the plain 
of Sharon between Csesarea Palestina and Joppa (see p. 107 f.), 
P»rtly in various valleys of the country (ver. 29) ; and in camels, 
■*«i and sheep (ver. 30 f .). AH these possessions are called tW3"j, 
«nd the overseers of them W3"in *ifc>. They consisted in the pro- 
duce of agriculture and cattle-breeding, the two main branches 
of Israelitish industry. — Ver. 27. Special officers were set over 
tbe vineyards and the stores of wine. The tf in on?")33B> is a 
contraction of iBto : ** over that which was in the vineyards of 
treasures (stores) of wine." The officer over the vineyards, 
SWmei, was of Ramah in Benjamin (cf . Josh, xviii. 25) ; he who 



Digitized by 



Google 



288 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

was over the stores of wine, Zabdi, is called , ?BISfy probably not 
from DBB? on the northern frontier of Canaan, Num. xxxiv. 10, 
the situation of which has not yet been discovered, but from the 
equally unknown rriope? in the Negeb of Judah, 1 Sam. xxx. 28. 
For since the vineyards, in which the stores of wine were laid up, 
must certainly have lain in the tribal domain of Judah, so rich 
in wine (Num. xiii. 23 ff. ; Gen. xlix. 11), probably the overseers 
of it were born in the same district. — Ver. 28. As to the 'ItDB', 
see on Josh. xv. 33. r n»fJ, he who was born in Geder, not Gedera, 
for which we should expect WWJ (xii. 4), although the situation 
of Gedera, south-east from Jabne (see on xii. 4), appears to suit 
better than that of TW or ">V*J in the hill country of Judah ; see 
Josh. xii. 13 and xv. 58. — Ver. 30. The name of the Ishmaelite 
who was set over the camels, Obil (?^N), reminds us of the Arab 

JjI multos possedit vel aequiaivit camelos. 'rtnen, he of Mero- 

noth (ver. 30 and Neh. iii. 17). The situation of this place is 
unknown. According to Neh. iii. 7, it is perhaps to be sought in 
the neighbourhood of Mizpah. Over the smaller cattle (sheep 
and goats) Jaziz the Hagarite, of the people Hagar (cf. v. 10), 
was set. The oversight, consequently, of the camels and sheep 
was committed to a Hagarite and an Ishmaelite, probably because 
they pastured in the neighbourhood where the Ishmaelites and 
Hagarites had nomadized from early times,* they having been 
brought under the dominion of Israel by David. The total 
number of these officials amounted to twelve, of whom we may 
conjecture that the ten overseers over the agricultural and cattle- 
breeding affairs of the king had to deliver over the annual pro- 
ceeds of the property committed to them to the chief manager of 
the treasures in the field, in the cities, and villages, and towns. 

Vers. 32-34. David's councillors. This catalogue of the king's 
officials forms a supplementary companion piece to the catalogues 
of the public officials, chap, xviii. 15-17, and 2 Sam. viii. 15-18 
and xx. 25, 26. Besides Joab, who is met with in all catalogues 
as prince of the host, i.e. commander-in-chief, we find in our 
catalogue partly other men introduced, partly other duties of the 
men formerly named, than are mentioned in these three cata- 
logues. From this it is clear that it is not the chief public 
officials who are enumerated, but only the first councillors of the 
king, who formed as it were his senate, and that the catalogue 
probably is derived from the same source as the preceding cata 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXVIIL XXIX. 289 

logues. Jonathan, the *rin of David. The word Tin generally 
denotes a father's brother ; bnt since a Jonathan, son of Shimea, 
the brother of David, occurs xx. 7 and 2 Sam. xxi. 21, Schmidt 
and Bertheau hold him to be the same as onr Jonathan, when 
1ft would be used in the general signification of " relative," here 
of a nephew. Nothing certain can be ascertained in reference to 
it. He was J*!?^, councillor, and, as is added, a wise and learned 
man. "i?iD is here not an official designation, but signifies lite- 
ratus, learned, scholarly, as in Ezra vii. 6. Jehiel, the son of 
Hachmon, was with the children of the king, i.e. was governor of 
the royal princes. — Ver. 33. Ahithophel was also, according to 2 
Sam. zv. 31, xvi. 23, David's confidential adviser, and took his 
own life when Absalom, in his conspiracy against David, did not 
regard his counsel (2 Sam. xvii.). Hushai the Archite was also 
a friend and adviser of David (2 Sam. xv. 37 and xvi. 16), who 
caused Absalom to reject Ahithophel's counsel (2 Sam. xvii.). — 
Ver. 34. After Ahithophel, i.e. after his death, was Jehoiada the 
son of Benaiah (soil, counsellor of the king), and Abiathar. As 
Benaiah the son of Jehoiada is elsewhere, when named among 
the public officials of David, called chief of the royal body-guard 
(cf. xviii. 17), Bertheau does not scruple to transpose the names 
here. But the hypothesis of such a transposition is neither neces- 
sary nor probable in the case of a name which, like Benaiah the 
son of Jehoiada, so frequently occurs (e.g. in ver. 5). Since sons 
not nnfrequently received the name of the grandfather, Jehoiada 
the son of the hero Benaiah may have been named after his 
grandfather Jehoiada. Abiathar is without doubt the high priest 
of this name of Ithamar's family (xv. 11, etc. ; see on v. 27-31), 
and is here mentioned as being also a friend and adviser of David. 
As to Joab, see on xviii. 15. 

CHAP. XXVIII. AND XXIX. — DAVID'S LAST DIRECTION; 
HIS DEATH. 

In order to give over the throne before his death to . 

Solomon, and so secure to him the succession, and facilitate his 
accomplishment of the great work of his reign, the building of 
the temple, David summoned the estates of his kingdom, the 
court officials, and the heroes of the people in Jerusalem. In a 
solemn address he designated Solomon as his divinely chosen suc- 
cessor on the throne, and exhorted him to keep the command- 

T 




Digitized by 



Google 



290 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

ments of God, to serve the Lord with devoted heart, and to build 
Him a house for a sanctuary (xxviii. 1-10). He then committed 
to Solomon the sketches and plans for the sacred buildings and 
sacred objects of various sorts, with the confident promise that 
he, by the help of God, and with the co-operation of the priests 
and of the people, would complete the work (vers. 11-21). 
Finally, he announced, in the presence of the whole assembly, 
that he gave over his treasures of gold and silver to this building, 
and called upon the chiefs of the people and kingdom for a 
voluntary contribution for the same purpose ; and on their freely 
answering this call, concluded with a solemn prayer of thanks, to 
which the whole assembly responded, bowing low before God and 
the king (xxix. 1-20). This reverence they confirmed by nume- 
rous burnt - offerings and thank-offerings, and by the repeated 
anointing of Solomon to be king (vers. 21 and 22). 

Chap, xxviii. 1-10. David summoned the estates of the king- 
dom, and presented Solomon to them as his divinely chosen 
successor on the throne. — Ver. 1. u All the princes of Israel" 
is the general designation, which is then specialized. In it an 
included the princes of the tribes who are enumerated in chap, 
xxvii. 16-22, and the princes of the divisions which served the 
king, who are enumerated in xxvii. 1-15 ; the princes of thousands 
and hundreds are the chiefs and captains of the twelve army 
corps (xxvii. 1), who are subordinate to the princes of the host; 
the princes of all the substance and possessions of the king are 
the managers of the domains enumerated in xxvii. 25-31. ?£f 
is added to $»?, "of the king and of his sons," because the 
possession of the king as a property belonging to the house 
(domanium) belonged also to his sons. The Vulg. incorrectly 
translates W2P filiosque suos, for in this connection j cannot be 
nota accus. B'p^Bn DJJ, with (together with) the court officials. 
D'P'iD are not eunuchs, but royal chamberlains, as in 1 Sam. 
viii. 15 ; see on Gen. xxxvii. 36. D'ltaJn has been well translated 
by the LXX. tows Swooras, for here the word does not denote 
properly or merely war heroes, but powerful influential men in 
general, who did not occupy any special public or court office. 
In TH TiariOT all the others who were present in the assembly 
are comprehended. — Ver. 2. The king rose to his feet, in order to 
speak to the assembly standing ; till then he had, on account of 
his age and feebleness, sat, not lain in bed, as Kimchi and others 
infer from 1 Kings i. — Ver. 3. The address, " My brethren and 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap, xxvra. 1-10. 291 

my people/' is expressive of condescending goodwill ; cf . on 'DK, 
1 Sam. xxx. 23, 2 Sam. xix. 13. What David here says (vers. 
3-7) of the temple building, he had in substance already (chap, 
xxii. 7-13) said to his son Solomon : I, it was with my heart, i.e. 
I purposed (cf. xxii. 7) to build a house of rest for the ark of the 
covenant of Jahve, and the footstool of the feet of our God, i.e. 
for the ark and for the capporeth upon it, which is called " foot- 
stool of the feet of our God," because God was enthroned above 
the cherubim upon the capporeth. " And I have prepared to 
build," Le. prepared labour and materials, xxii. 2-4 and 14 ff. ; 
on ver. 3, cf . xxii. 8. — In ver. 4 David states how his election to 
be king was of God, who had chosen Judah to be ruler (cf. v. 2) ; 
and just so (vers. 5, 6) had God chosen Solomon from among 
all his many sons to bo heir to the throne, and committed to 
him the building of the temple ; cf. xxii. 10. The expression, 
u throne of the kingdom of Jahve," and more briefly, u throne 
of Jahve " (xxix. 23, or 'ITW/O, xvii. 14), denotes that Jahve is 
the true King of Israel, and had chosen Solomon as He had chosen 
David to be holder and administrator of His kingly dominion. — 
On vers. 65 and 7, cf. xxii. 10 and xvii. 11 f . ; and with the 
condition 'U1 ptrr D«, cf . 1 Kings iii. 14, ix. 4, where God imposes 
an exactly similar condition on Solomon. W Bto, as is done at 
this time ; cf. 1 Kings viii. 61, and the commentary on Deut. 
i 30. On this speech J. H. Mich, well remarks : u tota hose 
wrratio aplata est ad propositum Davidis : vult enim Salomoni 
ivctoritatem apud principes et fratres conciliare, ostendendo, non 
humana, ted divina voluntate electum esse." To this David adds 
an exhortation to the whole assembly (ver. 8), and to his son 
Solomon (ver. 9), to hold fast their faithfulness to God. — Ver. 8. 
"And now before the eyes of all Israel, of the congregation of 
Jahve (collected in their representatives), and into the ears of 
°or God (so that God should hear as witness), (soil. I exhort 
you), observe and seek . . . that ye may possess (that is, keep as 
possession) the good land (cf. Deut. iv. 21 f.), and leave it to 
your sons after you for an inheritance" (cf. Lev. xxv. 46). — In 
ver. 9 he turns to his son Solomon in particular with the 
fatherly exhortation, " My son, know thou the God of thy father 
(it. of David, who has ever helped him, Ps. xviii. 3), and serve 
Him with whole (undivided) heart (xxix. 9, 19 ; 1 Kings viii. 61) 
and willing soul." To strengthen this exhortation, David reminds 
bun of the omniscience of God. Jahve seeks, i.e. searches, all 



Digitized by 



Google 



292 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

hearts and knows all the imagination of the thoughts; cf. Ps. 
vii. 10, 1 Sam. xvi. 7, Jer. xi. 20, Ps. cxxxix. 1 ff. JliaBTO "ir as 
in Gen. vi. 5. With the last clauses cf. Dent. iv. 29, Isa. lr. 6, 
etc. fW, only here and 2 Chron. xi. 14, xxix. 19. — With ver. 10 
the discourse turns to the building of the temple. The exhorta- 
tion nb>jn Ptn is interrupted by the giving over of the sketches 
and plans of the temple, and is taken up again only in ver. 20. 
Vers. 11-19. The sketches and plans of the sacred buildingt 
and vessels. — The enumeration begins in ver. 11 with the temple 
house, progressing from outside to inside, and in ver. 12 goes on 
to the courts and the buildings in them, and in ver. 13 ff. to the 
vessels, etc. rwan, model, pattern ; cf. Ex. xxv. 9 ; here the 
sketches and drawings of the individual things, vnsrnw is a con- 
traction forVFB TWan-nw, and the suffix refers, as the succeeding 
words show, not to 05"*!?, but to rpan, which may be easily supplied 
from the context (ver. 10). In the porch there were no houses. 
The O'na are the buildings of the temple house, viz. the holy 
place and the most holy, with the three-storeyed side-building, 
which are specified in the following words, V3TJJ occurs only 
here, but is related to 0'»3, Esth. iii. 9, iv. 7, Ezra xxvii. 24, and 
to the Ghald. ft??, Ezra vii. 20, and signifies store and treasure 
chambers, for which the chambers of the three-storeyed side- 
building served. rri>?Jj are the upper chambers over the most 
holy place, 2 Chron. iii. 9 ; OW?!? vym are the inner rooms of 
the porch and of the holy place, since rnton n'3, the house of the 
ark with the mercy-seat, i.e. the most holy place, is mentioned 
immediately after. — Ver. 12. And the pattern, i.e. the description 
of all that was in the spirit with him, i.e. what his spirit hsd 
designed, rrtlSTD, as to the courts. a*ao niaB^rrw, in reference to 
all the chambers round about, i.e. to all the rooms on the four 
sides of the courts, ninvk^, for the treasures of the house of 
God ; see on xxvi. 20. — Ver. 13. 'an nlp^noS (continuation of 
nriVftO), " and for the divisions of the priests and Levites, and for 
all the work of the service, and for all vessels," — for for all these 
purposes, viz. for the sojourn of the priests and Levites in the 
service, as well as for the performance of the necessary works, 
e.g. preparation of the shew-bread, cooking of the sacrificial flesh, 
holding of the sacrificial meals, and for the storing of the vessels 
necessary for these purposes, the cells and buildings of the courts 
were set apart. — With ver. 14 begins the enumeration of the 
vessels. 3^ is co-ordinate with rn3B%rW> . . . nVisr6, ver. 12: 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXVIII. 11-19. 293 

he gave him the description of that which he had in mind " with 
regard to the golden (i.e. to the golden vessels, cf. xxix. 2), 
according to the weight of the golden, for all vessels of every 
service," in regard to all silver vessels according to the weight. — 
With ver. 15 the construction hitherto employed is dropped. 
According to the usual supposition, the verb J55 is to be supplied 
from ver. 11 after SjflM : u and gave him the weight for the 
golden candlesticks and their golden lamps," SHI being in a state 
of free subordination to the word OfWl'"^} (J. H. Mich., Berth., 
and others). But apart from the fact that no analogous case can 
be found for such a subordination (for in 2 Chron. ix. 15, which 
Berth, cites as such, there is no subordination, for there the first 
DW ant is the accusative of the material dependent upon ^3), 
the supplying of 155 gives no suitable sense ; for David here does 
not give Solomon the metal for the vessels, but, according to 
vers. 11, 12, 19, only a rwnn, pattern or model for them. If 152 
be supplied, ?nj must be " he appointed," and so have a different 
sense here from that which it has in ver. 11. This appears very 
questionable, and it is simpler to take /jJEto without the article, 
as an accusative of nearer definition, and to connect the verse 
thus: "and (what he had in mind) as weight for the golden 
candlesticks and their lamps, in gold, according to the weight of 
each candlestick and its lamps, and for the silver candlesticks, 
in weight — rnia??, according to the service of each candlestick" 
(as it corresponded to the service of each). — In ver. 16 the 
enumeration is continued in very loose connection : " And as to 
the gold (n«, quoad ; cf . Ew. § 277, d) by weight (S#D, ace. of 
free subordination) for the tables of the spreading out, i.e. of the 
shew-bread ( n ?!J?? = °0v ^J??* 2 Chron. xiii. 11 ; see on Lev. 
niv. 6), for each table, and silver for the silver tables." Silver 
tables, i.e. tables overlaid with silver-lamin, and silver candle- 
sticks (ver. 15), are not elsewhere expressly mentioned among 
the temple vessels, since the whole of the vessels are nowhere 
individually registered even in the description of the building of 
the temple. Yet, when the temple was repaired under Joash, 
2 Kings xii. 14, 2 Chron. xxiv. 14, and when it was destroyed by 
the Chaldeans, 2 Kings xxv. 15, vessels of gold and silver are 
spoken of. The silver candlesticks were probably, as Kimchi has 
conjectured, intended for the priests engaged in the service, and 
the tables for reception of the sacrificial flesh after it had been pre- 
pared for burning upon the altar.— Ver. 17. Before 'w ntottani 



Digitized by 



Google 



294 THE FIBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

we should probably supply from ver. 11 : " he gave him the pattern 
of the forks . . . TtoS, and for the golden tankards, according 
to the weight of each tankard." For riwro and nip^to, see on 
2 Chron. iv. 22. I'ltpi?, <nrovBela, cups for the libations, occur 
only in Ex. xxv. 29, xxxvii. 16, and Num. iv. 7. "lino 3nj, in 
free subordination : of pure gold. Onto from "<Bb, to cover, are 
vessels provided with covers, tankards ; only mentioned here and 
in Ezra i. 10, viii. 27. — Ver. 18. And (the pattern) for the altar 
of incense of pure gold by weight. In the second member of the 
verse, at the close of the enumeration, JW3n, from vers. 11, 12, 
is again taken up, but with ?, which Berth, rightly takes to be 
nota aceus. : and (gave him) " the model of the chariot of the 
cherubim of gold, as spreading out (wings), and sheltering over 
the ark of the covenant of Jahve." DWVpnls not subordinated 
in the genitive to roanon, but is in explanatory apposition to it. 
The cherubim, not the ark, are the chariot upon which God 
enters or is throned ; cf. Ps. xviii. 11, xcix. 1, Ex. xxv. 22. The 
conception of the cherubim set upon the golden cover of the 
ark as naano is derived from the idea 3V13"?? 33^, Ps. xviii. 11. 
Ezekiel, it is true, saw wheels on the throne of God under the 
cherubim (i. 15 ff., 26), and in accordance with this the LXX 
and Vulg. have made a cherubim-chariot out of the words (apim 
ruv Xepovfilfi, quadriga cherubim) ; but as against this Berth, 
rightly remarks, that the idea of a chariot of the cherubim does 
not at all appear in the two sculptured cherubim upon the 
ark, nor yet in our passage. D'fenb? (without the article, and with 
<■) Berth, thinks quite unintelligible, and would alter the text, 
reading B'MlNT) B^bn, because the two participles should be in 
apposition to D'avisn. But this is an error ; for neither by the 
meaning of the words, nor by the passages, 2 Chron. v. 8, Ex. 
xxv. 20, 1 Kings viii. 7, are we compelled to make this alteration. 
The two first-mentioned passages prove the opposite, viz. that 
these participles state for what purpose the cherubim are to 
serve. D^abl D^fcnbp have the signification of "^T^ OWisn ^ 
D^D33, "that the cherubim might be spreading wings and pro- 
tecting" (Ex. xxv. 20), as J. H. Mich, has rightly Been. This 
use of ?, where in ? even without a verb the idea of " becoming 
something" lies, but which Berth, does not understand, has been 
already discussed, Ew. § 217, d, and illustrated by passages, among 
which 1 Chron. xxviii. 18 is one. The reference to Ex. xxv. 20 
explains also the use of fens without tHDS, the author of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xxvm. 11-ia. 295 

Chronicle not thinking it necessary to give the object of EH3, 
as he might assume that that passage would be known to readers 
of his book. — Ver. 19. In giving over to Solomon the model of 
all the parts and vessels of the temple enumerated in vers. 11-18, 
David said : <( All this, viz. all the works of the pattern, has He 
taught by writing from the hand of Jahve which came upon 
me." 5bn is more closely defined by the apposition ntoKTD ?3 
'Kk That the verse contains words of David is clear from ?£. 
The subject of foto!} is Jahve, which is easily supplied from 
m,T "??. It is, however, a question with what we should connect 
% Its position before the verb, and the circumstance that ?*?ifn 
construed with ?? pers. does not elsewhere occur, are against its 
being taken with ?'3&n ; and there remains, therefore, only the 
choice between connecting it with HW in? and with 3TD3. In 
favour of the last, Ps. xl. 8, vJ> 3V13, prescribed to me, may be 
compared; and according to that, vJJ an| can only mean, "what 
is prescribed to me;" cf. for the use of 3TI3 for written prescrip- 
tion, the command in 2 Chron. xxxv. 4. Bertheau accordingly 
translates vjf rnrr 1 *W? 31133, " by a writing given to me for a rule 
from Jahve's hand," and understands the law of Moses to be 
meant, because the description of the holy things in Ex. xxv. ff. 
is manifestly the basis of that in our verses. But had David 
wished to say nothing further than that he had taken the law 
in the Scriptures for the basis of his pattern for the holy things, 
the expression which he employs would be exceedingly forced 
and wilfully obscure. And, moreover, the position of the words 
would scarcely allow us to connect 3TD3 with v^, for in that case 
we should rather have expected nvr in? ty 3033. We must there 
take 7» along with nw I'D; "writing from the hand of Jahve 
came upon me," *.&, according to the analogy of the phrase WW 
7? nwr (2 Kings iii. 15, Ezek. i. 3, iii. 14, etc.), a writing 
coming by divine revelation, or a writing composed in con- 
sequence of divine revelation, and founded upon divine inspira- 
tion. David therefore says that he had been instructed by a 
writing resting upon divine inspiration as to all the works of the 
pattern of the temple. This need not, however, be understood to 
mean that David had received exemplar vel ideam templi et vaso- 
ton taerorum immediately from Jahve, either by a prophet or by 
vision, as the model of the tabernacle was shown to Moses on the 
mount (Ex. xxv. 40, xxvii. 8) ; for it signifies only that he had 
not himself invented the pattern which he had committed to 



Digitized by 



Google 



296 THE FTBST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

writing, i.e. the sketches and descriptions of the temple and its 
furniture and vessels, but had drawn them up under the influence 
of divine inspiration. 

Vers. 20, 21. In conclusion, David encourages his son to go 
forward to the work with good courage, for his God would not 
forsake him ; and the priests and Levites, cunning workmen, and 
the princes, together with the whole people, would willingly 
support him. With the encouragement, ver. 20a, cf. xxii. 13 ; 
and with the promise, ver. 206, cf. Deut. xxxi. 6, 8, Josh. L 5. 
*?P*j» my God, says David, ut in mentem ei revocet, quomodo multis 
in periculis servatus sit (Lav.), rrniajj rOK7D"73, all the work- 
business, i.e. all the labour necessary for the building of the 
house of God. — Ver. 21. n?ro is fittingly translated by Clericus, 
" en habes." The reference which lies in the njn to the classes 
of the priests and Levites, t'.e. the priests and Levites divided 
into classes, does not presuppose their presence in the assembly. 
With the narn corresponds IDin, with thee, t.e. for assistance to 
thee, in the second half of the verse. The ^ before 3nr5>3^, "are 
all freely willing with wisdom," in the middle of the sentence 
introducing the subject is strange ; Bertheau would therefore 
strike it out, thinking that, as 5>ai> goes immediately before, and 
follows immediately afterwards twice, fofc here may easily be an 
error for 73. This is certainly possible ; but since this ? is very 
frequently used in the Chronicle, it is a question whether it 
should not be regarded as authentic, " serving to bring into 
emphatic prominence the idea of the yni bs : with thee is for 
each business, what regards each willing person, for also all 
willing persons;" cf. Ew. § 310, a. anj = J? 3^3, 2 Chron. 
xxix. 31, Ex. xxxv. 5, 22, usually denotes him who brings volon 
tary gifts, but here, him who voluntarily brings wisdom to every 
service, who willingly employs his wisdom and knowledge in a 
service. Cunning, intelligent workmen and artists are meant, 
xxii. 15, 2 Chron. ii. 6. TW'W', " towards all thy words," it. 
as thou sayest or commandest them, the princes and the people, 
or callest upon them for assistance in the work. 

Chap. xxix. 1-9. Contributions of the collected princes for the 
building of tlie temple. — David then turns to the assembled princes 
to press upon them the furthering of the building of the temple. 
After referring to the youth of his son, and to the greatness of 
the work to be accomplished (ver. 1), he mentions what materials 
he has prepared for the building of the temple (ver. 2) ; then 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXIX. 1-9. 297 

farther states what he has resolved to give in addition from his 
private resources (ver. 4); and finally, after this introduction, 
calls upon those present to make a voluntary collection for this 
great work (ver. 5). The words, " as only one hath God chosen 
him," form a parenthesis, which is to be translated as a relative 
sentence for " my son, whom alone God hath chosen." TJJ ""?? 
as in xxii. 5. The work is great, because not for man the palace, 
sciL is intended, i.e. shall be built, but for Jahve God. n^ari, 
the citadel, the palace ; a later word, generally used of the resi- 
dence of the Persian king (Esth. i. 2, 5, ii. 3 ; Neh. i. 1), only 
in Neh. ii. 8 of the citadel by the temple ; here transferred to the 
temple as the glorious palace of Jahve, the God-king of Israel. 
With ver. 2a, cf . xxii. 14. '*n an£ 3Wi, the gold for the golden, 
etc., i.e. for the vessels and ornaments of gold, cf. xxviii. 14. ^3K 
tMWW Dnfc' as in Ex. xxv. 7, xxxv. 9, precious stones for the 
ephod and choshen. Dn'e^ probably beryl. D'Hra? ^ax, stones of 
filling, that is, precious stones which are put in settings, spa 'p3K, 
stones of pigment, i.e. ornament, conjecturally precious stones 
which, from their black colour, were in appearance like ?pB, 
stibium, a common eye pigment (see 2 Kings ix. 30). nojp ^aK, 
stones of variegated colour, i.e. with veins of different colours. 
'"■"Ji?! P£, precious stones, according to 2 Chron. iii. 6, for orna- 
menting the walls. && 'JSK, white marble stones. — Ver. 3. 
"And moreover, because I have pleasure in the house of my 
God, there is to me a treasure of gold and silver; it have I 
appointed for the house of my God over and above all that . . ." 
Ilbon with i>3 without the relative, cf. xv. 12.— Ver. 4. Gold 
3000 talents, i.e. about 13£, or, reckoning according to the royal 
shekel, 6| millions of pounds ; 7000 talents of silver, circa 2£ or 
1£ millions of pounds : see on xxii. 14. Gold of Ophir, i.e. the 
finest, best gold, corresponding to the pure silver. 0^ } to over- 
lay the inner walls of the houses with gold and silver leaf. D'ran 
as in xxviii. 11, the different buildings of the temple. The walls 
of the holy place and of the most holy, of the porch and of the 
upper chambers, were overlaid with gold (cf. 2 Chron. iii. 4-6, 
8, 9), and probably only the inner walls of the side buildings. — 
Ver. 5. aw 3W, for every golden thing, etc., cf. ver. 2. "hsf\ 
fUKTD, and in general for every work to be wrought by the hands 
of the artificer. TO, who then is willing (i expressing it as the 
consequence). To fill one's hand to the Lord, means to provide 
oneself with something which one brings to the Lord ; see on 



Digitized by 



Google 



298 THE FIRST BOOK OP CHRONICLES. 

Ex. xxxii. 29. The infinitive ntapD occurs also in Ex. xxxi. 5 
and Dan. ix. 4, and along with Kj©, 2 Chron. xiii. 9. — Ver. 6 f. 
The princes follow the example, and willingly respond to David's 
call. ntoKn +to = rrtaNn *Bfo\ xxiv. 31, xxvii. 1, etc. *&* 
'on FD&OD, and as regards the princes of the work of the king. 
The n*® 1 ? rupoi B*0"> ^.fe*, xxviii. 1, the officials ennmerated in 
xxvii. 25-31 are meant; on ? see on xxviii. 21. They gave 5000 
talents of gold (22£ or 11£ millions of pounds), and 1000 darics 
= 11£ millions of pounds. |i3"!1^, with M prosth. here and in 
Ezra viii. 27, and farm, Ezra ii. 69, Neh. vii. 70 ff., does not 
correspond to the Greek Spaxjnj, Arab, dirkem, but to the Greek 
SapeiKos, as the Syrian translation ]jaaj5», Ezra viii. 27, shows; 
a Persian gold coin worth about 22s. 6d. See the description of 
these coins, of which several specimens still exist, in Cavedoni 
bibl. Numismatik, libers, von A. Werlhof , S. 84 ff. ; J. Brandis, 
das Mum-Mass und Gevoichtssystem in Vorderasien (1866), 
S. 244 ; and my bibl. Archaol. § 127, 3. " Our historian uses 
the words used in his time to designate the current gold coins, 
without intending to assume that there were darics in use in 
the time of David, to state in a way intelligible to his readers 
the amount of the sum contributed by the princes " (Berthean). 
This perfectly correct remark does not, however, explain why the 
author of the Chronicle has stated the contribution in gold and 
that in silver in different values, in talents and in darics, since 
the second cannot be an explanation of the first, the two sums 
being different. Probably the sum in darics is the amount 
which they contributed in gold pieces received as coins; the 
talents, on the other hand, probably represent the weight of the 
vessels and other articles of gold which they brought as offerings 
for the building. The amount contributed in silver is not large 
when compared with that in gold : 10,000 talents = £3,500,000, 
or one half that amount. The contribution in copper also, 
18,000 talents, is not very large. Besides these, those who 
had stones, i.e. precious stones, also brought them. taK t«D3n, 
that was found with him, for : that which he (each one) had 
of stones they gave. The sing, tal* is to be taken distribu- 
tively, and is consequently carried on in the plural, uni; cf 
Ew. § 319, a. O'iM is aeeus. of subordination. T Tg jro, to 
give over for administration (Ew. § 282, b). Vrr, the Levite 
family of this name which had the oversight of die treasures 
of the house of God (xxvi. 21 f.).— -Ver. 9. The people and 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXIX. 10-19. 299 

the king rejoiced over this willingness to give. a$ 3?3, as 
in xxviii. 9. 

Vers. 10-19. DavuCs thanksgiving prayer. — David gives fit- 
ting expression to his joy on the success of the deepest wish of 
his heart, in a prayer with which he closes the last parliament of 
his reign. Since according to the divine decree, not he, the man 
of war, but his son, the peace-king Solomon, was to build a 
temple to the Lord, David had taken it upon himself to prepare 
as far as possible for the carrying out of the work. He had also 
found the princes and chiefs of the people willing to further it, 
and to assist his son Solomon in it. In this the pious and grey- 
haired servant of the Lord saw a special proof of the divine 
favour, for which he mast thank God the Lord before the 
whole congregation. He praises Jahve, " the God of Israel our 
father," ver. 10, or, as it is in ver. 18, " the God of Abraham, 
of Isaac, and of Jacob, our fathers." Jahve had clearly revealed 
himself to David and his people as the God of Israel and of the 
patriarchs, by fulfilling in so glorious a manner to the people of 
Israel, by David, the promises made to the patriarchs. God the 
Lord had not only by David made His people great and powerful, 
and secured to them the peaceful possession of the good land, 
by humbling all their enemies round about, but He had also 
awakened in the heart of the people such love to and trust in 
their God, that the assembled dignitaries of the kingdom showed 
themselves perfectly willing to assist in furthering the building 
of the house of God. In this God had revealed His greatness, 
power, glory, etc., as David (in vers. 11, 12) acknowledges with 
praise : " Thine, Jahve, is the greatness," etc. Hien, according 
to the Aramaic usage, gloria, splendour, honour. « '3, yea all, 
still dependent on 1? at the commencement of the sentence, so 
that we do not need to supply 1 ? after *?. " Thine is the dominion, 
and the raising of oneself to be head over all." In His ns^op 
God reveals His greatness, might, glory, etc. Ktono is not a 
participle requiring nnx, « thou art," to be supplied (Berth.), 
bat an appellative, an Aramaic infinitive, — the raising oneself 
(Ew. § 160, e). — Ver. 12. " From Thee came the riches and 
the glory . . ., and in Thy hand is it (it lies) to make all things 
great and strong." — Ver. 13. For this we must thank God, 
and sing praise to His holy name. By the partic. onto, from 
rrrin, confess, praise, the praising of God is characterized as aa 
enduring praise, always rising anew. — Ver. 14. For man of him- 



Digitized by 



Google 



300 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

self can give nothing : " What am I, and what is my people, that 
we should he able to show ourselves so liberal t" rria "«j>, to 
hold strength together ; both to have power to do anything (here 
and 2 Chron. ii. 5, xxii. 9), and also to retain strength (2 Chron. 
xiii. 20 ; Dan. x. 8, 16, xi. 6), only found in Daniel and in the 
Chronicle. 3?.?^ to show oneself willing, especially in giving* 
ntftS refers to the contribution to the building of the temple (vers. 
3-8). From Thy hand, i.e. that which is received from Thee, have 
we given. — Ver. 15. For we are strangers (as Ps. xxxix. 13), i.e. 
in this connection we have no property, no enduring possession, 
since God had only given them the usufruct of the land ; and as 
of the land, so also of all the property of man, it is only a gift 
committed to us by Qod in usufruct. The truth that our life is 
a pilgrimage (Heb. xi. 12, 13, 14), is presented to us by the 
brevity of life. As a shadow, so swiftly passing away, are our 
days upon the earth (cf. Job viii. 9, Ps. xc. 9 f., cii. 12, cxliv. 4). 
njpD pto, and there is no trust, soil, in the continuance of life (cf. 
Jer. xiv. 8). — Ver. 16. All the riches which we have prepared 
for the building of the temple come from the hand of God. 
The Keth. ton is neuter, the Keri wn corresponds to florin. — 
Ver. 17. Before God, who searches the heart and loyes upright- 
ness, David can declare that he has willingly given in uprightness 
of heart, and that the people also have, to his joy, shown equal 
willingness, "to"??, all the treasures enumerated (vers. 3-8). 
The plural wvosn refers to TBJ?, and the demonstrative n stands 
for ^B>'K as in xxvi. 28. — Ver. 18. He prays that God may enable 
the people ever to retain this frame of heart, ntft is more closely 
defined by 'ID ")£?, viz. the frame of the thoughts of the heart of 
Thy people. "And direct their heart (the people's heart) to 
Thee," cf. 1 Sam. vii. 3. — Ver. 19. And to Solomon may God 
give a whole (undivided) heart, that he may keep all the divine 
commands and do them, and build the temple, aw 3? as in ver. 
9. ?3n nitt^p, that he may do all, scil. that the commands, testi- 
monies, and statutes require. For TVan, see ver. 1. 

Vers. 20-22. Close of the public assembly. — Ver. 20. At the 
conclusion of the prayer, David calls upon the whole assembly 
to praise God ; which they do, bowing before God and the king, 
and worshipping. «nnB*] *J^, connected as in Ex. iv. 31, Gen. 
xliii. 28, etc. — Ver. 21. To seal their confession, thus made in 
word and deed, the assembled dignitaries prepared a great sacri- 
ficial feast to the Lord on the following day. They sacrificed to 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XXIX. 23-80. 301 

the Lord sacrifices, viz. 1000 bullocks, 1000 rams, and 1000 
lambs as burnt-offering, with drink-offerings to correspond, and 
sacrifices, i.e. thank-offerings (□'&<*?), in multitude for all Israel, 
i.e. so that all those present could take part in the sacrificial meal 
prepared from these sacrifices. While Q,| !9! in the first clause 
is the general designation of the bloody offerings as distinguished 
from the meat-offerings, in the last clause it is restricted by the 
contrast with Trfcfy and the &nw, from which joyous sacrificial 
meals were prepared. — Ver. 22. On this day they made Solomon 
king a second time, anointing him king to the Lord, and Zadok 
to be priest, t.e. high priest. The AW refers back to chap, 
xxiii. 1, and the first anointing of Solomon narrated in 1 Kings 
i. 32 ff. n*n^, not : before Jahve, which ? cannot signify, but : 
*' to Jahve," in accordance with His will expressed in His choice 
of Solomon (xxviii. 4). The f before pftY is nota accus., as in 
nbif?. From the last words we learn that Zadok received the 
high-priesthood with the consent of the estates of the kingdom. 

Vers. 23-30. Solomon's accession and David's death, with a 
statement as to the length of his reign and the sources of the 
history. — Vers. 23-25. The remarks on Solomon's accession and 
reign contained in these verses are necessary to the complete 
conclusion of a history of David's reign, for they show how 
David's wishes for his son Solomon, whom Jahve chose to be his 
successor, were fulfilled. On nw KD3"?y see the commentary on 
xxviii. 5. from, he was prosperous, corresponds to the hope 
expressed by David (xxii. 13), which was also fulfilled by the 
submission of all princes and heroes, and also of all the king's 
sons, to King Solomon (ver. 24). There can hardly, however, 
be in these last words a reference to the frustrating of Adonijah's 
attempted usurpation of the throne (cf. 1 Kings i. 15 ff.). |nj 
nrw T=to submit. But this meaning is not derived (Rashi) from 
the custom of taking oaths of fidelity by clasping of hands, for' this 
custom cannot be certainly proved to have existed among the 
Israelites ; still less can it have arisen from the ancient custom 
mentioned in Gen. xxiv. 2, 9, xlvii. 29, of laying the hand under the 
thigh of the person to whom one swore in making promises with 
oath. The hand, as the instrument of all activity, is here simply 
a symbol of power. — Ver. 25. Jahve made Solomon very great, 
by giving him the glory of the kingdom, as no king before him 
had had it. bb is to be taken along with (6, nullus, and does not 
presuppose a number of kings before Solomon ; it involves only 



Digitized by 



Google 



302 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

more than one. Before him, Saul, Ishbosheth, and David had 
been kings, and the kingship of the latter had been covered with 
glory.— Ver. 26-30. 5*2^? ^ (as in xi. 1, xii. 38), referring to 
the fact that David had been for a time king only over Jndah, 
but had been recognised at a later time by all the tribes of Israel 
as king. The length of his reign as in 1 Kings ii. 11. In 
Hebron seven years ; according to 2 Sam. v. 5, more exactly 
seven years and six months. — Ver. 28. On Tfaai "wg cf. 1 Kings 
iii. 13, 2 Chron. xvii. 5. — Ver. 29. On the authorities cited see 
the Introduction, p. 30 ff. "W irrctarfe b? goes with MmS wn : 
the acts of David ... are written . . . together with his whole 
reign and his power, and the times which went over him. OT??, 
the times, with their joys and sorrows, as in Ps. xxxi. 16, Job 
xxiv. 1. The kingdoms of the lands (cf. 2 Chron. xii. 8, xvii. 
10, xx. 29) are the kingdoms with which the Israelites under 
David came into contact, — Philistia, Edom, Moab, Amnion, 
Aram. 



Digitized by 



Google 



THE SECOND BOOK OF THE CHEONICLES. 

m. HISTORY OF SOLOMON'S KINGSHIP.— CHAP. I.-IX. 




HE kingship of Solomon centres in the building of the 
temple of the Lord, and the account of that begins in 
chap. ii. with a statement of the preparations which 
Solomon- made for the accomplishment of this great 
work, so much pressed upon him by his father, and concludes in 
chap. vii. with the answer which the Lord gave to his consecrat- 
ing prayer in a vision. In chap, i., before the history of the 
temple building, we have an account of the sacrifice at Gibeon by 
which Solomon inaugurated his reign (ver. 1-13), with some short 
notices of his power and riches (vers. 14-17) ; and in chap. viii. 
and ix., after the temple building, we have summary statements 
about the palaces and cities which he built (viii. 1-11), the 
arrangement of the regular religious service (vers. 12-16), the 
voyage to Ophir (vers. 17 and 18), the visit of the queen of 
Sheba (is. 1-12), his riches and his royal magnificence and glory 
(vers. 13-28), with the concluding notices of the duration of his 
reign, and of his death (vers. 29, 30). If we compare with this 
the description of Solomon's reign in 1 Bungs i.-xi., we find that 
in the Chronicle not only are the narratives of his accession to 
the throne in consequence of Adonijah's attempted usurpation, and 
his confirming his kingdom by punishing the revolter (1 Kings 
chap. i. and ii.), of his marriage to the Egyptian princess (iii. 1 
and 2), his wise judgment (iii. 16-28), his public officers, his 
official men, his royal magnificence and glory (1 Kings iv. 1-v. 
14), omitted, bnt also the accounts of the building of his palace 
(1 Kings vii. 1-12), of his idolatry, and of the adversaries who 
rose against him (1 Kings xi. 1-40). On the other hand, the 
description of the building and consecration of the temple is sup- 
plemented by various important details which are omitted from 
the first book of Kings. Hence it is clear that the author of the 
Chronicle purposed only to portray more exactly the building of 

808 



Digitized by 



Google 



304 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

the house of God, and has only shortly touched upon all the other 
undertakings of this wise and fortunate king. 

chap. i. 1-17. — Solomon's sacrifice, and the theophant 

AT GIBEON. CHARIOTS, HORSES, AND RICHES OP SOLOMON. 

Vers. 1-13. The sacrifice at Gibeon, and the theophany.— 
Vers. 1-6. When Solomon had established himself upon his 
throne, he went with the princes and representatives of the con- 
gregation of Israel to Gibeon, to seek for the divine blessing upon 
his reign by a solemn sacrifice to be offered there before the 
tabernacle. Ver. 1 forms, as it were, the superscription of the 
account of Solomon's reign which follows. In 'W j5jnn^= Solo- 
mon established himself in his kingdom, i.e. he became strong 
and mighty in his kingdom, the older commentators saw a refer- 
ence to the defeat of Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and 
his followers (1 Kings ii.). But this view of the words is too 
narrow ; we find the same remark made of other kings whose 
succession to the throne had not been questioned (cf. xii. 13, 
xiii. 21, xvii. 1, and xxi. 4), and the remark refers to the whole 
reign, — to all that Solomon undertook in order to establish a firm 
dominion, not merely to his entry upon it. With this view of 
the words, the second clause, " his God was with him, and made 
him very great," coincides. God gave His blessing to all that 
Solomon did for this end. With the last words cf. 1 Cliron. 
xxix. 25. 

We have an account of the sacrifice at Gibeon (vers. 7-13) 
in 1 Kings iii. 4-15 also. The two narratives agree in all the 
main points, but, in so far as their form is concerned, it is at once 
discernible that they are two independent descriptions of the 
same thing, but derived from the same sources. In 1 Kings iii. 
the theophany — in our text, on the contrary, that aspect of the 
sacrifice which connected it with the public worship — is more cir- 
cumstantially narrated. While in 1 Kings iii. 4 it is briefly said 
the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, our historian records 
that Solomon summoned the princes and representatives of the 
people to this solemn act, and accompanied by them went to 
Gibeon. This sacrifice was no mere private sacrifice, — it was the 
religious consecration of the opening of his reign, at which the 
estates of the kingdom were present as a matter of course. " All 
Israel " is defined by u the princes over the thousands . . ., the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. I. 1-13. 305 

judges, and all the honourable;" then TtofeHw is again taken up 
and explained by the apposition rri3Nn Vtntn : to all Israel, viz. the 
heads of the fathers'-houses. ? is to be repeated before 'K'K'i. 
What Solomon said to all Israel through its representatives, is 
not communicated ; but it may be gathered from what succeeds, 
that he summoned them to accompany him to Gibeon to offer 
the sacrifice. The reason why he offered his sacrifice at the 
TO3, t.e. place of sacrifice, is given in ver. 3 f. There the Mosaic 
tabernacle stood, yet without the ark, which David had caused 
to be brought up from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 
xiii. and xv f.). In W fana the article in 3 represents the rela- 
tive "iBfo=-iefe3 or & r?f) i£K tf ptf>? ; cf. Jud. v. 27, Ruth i. 16, 1 
Kings xxi. 19 ; see on 1 Chron. xxvi. 28. Although the ark was 
separated from the tabernacle, yet by the latter at Gibeon was the 
Mosaic altar of burnt-offering, and on that account the sanctuary 
at Gibeon was Jahve's dwelling, and the legal place of worship 
for burnt-offerings of national-theocratic import. " As our his- 
torian here brings forward emphatically the fact that Solomon 
offered his burnt-offering at the legal place of worship, so he 
points out in 1 Chron. xxi. 28-xxx. 1, how David was only 
brought by extraordinary events, and special signs from God, to 
sacrifice on the altar of burnt-offering erected by him on the 
threshing-floor of Oman, and also states how he was prevented 
from offering his burnt-offering in Gibeon" (Berth.). As to 
Bezaleel, the maker of the brazen altar, cf. Ex. xxxi. 2 and 
xsxvii. 1. Instead of db>, which most manuscripts and many 
editions have before V>B?, and which the Targ. and Syr. also 
express, there is found in most editions of the 16th century, and 
also in manuscripts, OK/, which the LXX. and Vulgate also read. 
The reading DC* is unquestionably better and more correct, and 
the Masoretic pointing Dt?, posuit, has arisen by an undue assimila- 
tion of it to Ex. xl. 29. The suffix in vwrf. does not refer to the 
altar, but to the preceding word rw ; cf. Dt6k vrn, 1 Chron. 
«'• 30, xv. 13, etc.— Vers. 7-13. The theophany, cf. 1 Kings 
!»• 5-15. In that night, i.e. on the night succeeding the day of 
the sacrifice. The appearance of God by night points to a dream, 
and in 1 Kings xxxv. 15 we are expressly informed that He 
appeared in a vision. Solomon's address to God, vers. 8-10, is 
in 1 Kings v. 6-10 given more at length. The mode of expres- 
sion brings to mind 1 Chron. xvii. 23, and recurs in 2 Chron. vi. 
17, 1 Kings viii. 26. jn?, with Pathach in the second syllable, 

V 



Digitized by 



Google 



306 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

elsewhere P*H? (vers. 11, 12), occurs elsewhere only in Dan. L 4, 17, 
Eccles. x. 20. — Vers. 11 and 12. The divine promise. Here "V0V 
is strengthened by the addition Q'DJJ, treasures (Josh. xxii. 8 ; 
Eccles. v. 18, vi. 2). Ofe^n "i8fc, utjudicare potsis. In general, the 
mode of expression is briefer than in 1 Kings iii. 11-13, and the 
conditional promise, " long life " (1 Kings iii. 14), is omitted, 
because Solomon did not fulfil the condition, and the promise was 
not fulfilled. In ver. 13 neap is unintelligible, and has probably 
come into our text only by a backward glance at ver. 3, instead 
of i*iD3!TO, which the contents demand, and as the LXX. and Vul- 
gate have rightly translated it. The addition, " from before the 
tabernacle," which seems superfluous after the preceding "from 
the Bamah at Gibeon," is inserted in order again to point to the 
place of sacrifice at Gibeon, and to the legal validity of the sacri- 
fices offered there (Berth.). According to 1 Kings iii. 15, Solo- 
mon, on his return to Jerusalem, offered before the ark still other 
burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, and prepared a meal for his 
servants. This is omitted by the author of the Chronicle, because 
these sacrifices had no ultimate import for Solomon's reign, and not, 
as Then, supposes, because in his view only the sacrifices offered on 
the ancient brazen altar of burnt-offering belonging to the temple 
had legal validity. For he narrates at length in 1 Chron. xxi. 18, 
26 ff. how God Himself directed David to sacrifice in Jerusalem, 
and how the sacrifice offered there was graciously accepted by 
fire from heaven, and the threshing-floor of Araunah thereby 
consecrated as a place of sacrifice ; and it is only with the purpose 
of explaining to his readers why Solomon offered the solemn 
burnt-offering in Gibeon, and not, as we should have expected 
from 1 Chron. xxi., in Jerusalem, that he is so circumstantial in 
his statements as to the tabernacle. The last clause of ver. 13, 
" and he was king over Israel," does not belong to the section 
treating of the sacrifice at Gibeon, but corresponds to the remark 
in 1 Kings iv. 1, and forms the transition to what follows. 

Vers. 14-17. Solomon's chariots, horses, and riches. — In order 
to prove by facts the fulfilment of the divine promise which 
Solomon received in answer to bis prayer at Gibeon, we have in 
1 Kings iii. 16-28 a narrative of Solomon's wise judgment, then 
in chap. iv. an account of his public officers ; and in chap. v. 1—14 
the royal magnificence, glory, and wisdom of his reign is further 
portrayed. In our Chronicle, on the contrary, we have in vers. 
14-17 only a short statement as to his chariots and horses, and 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. i. 18-n. 17. 307 

the wealth in silver and gold to be found in the land, merely for 
the purpose of showing how God had given him riches and pos- 
sessions. This statement recurs verbally in 1 Kings x. 26-29, in 
the concluding remarks on the riches and splendour of Solomon's 
reign; while in the parallel passage, 2 Chron. ix. 13-28, it is 
repeated in an abridged form, and interwoven with other state- 
ments. From this we see in how free and peculiar a manner 
the author of the Chronicle has made use of his authorities, and 
how he has arranged the material derived from them according to 
his own special plan. 1 For the commentary on this section, see 
on 1 Kings x. 26-28. — Vers. 14, 15, with the exception of one 
divergence in form and one in matter, correspond word for word 
to 1 Kings x. 26 and 27. Instead of Drw, he led them (Kings), 
there stands in ver. 15, as in ix. 25, the more expressive word 
omw, «h e laJd them" in the chariot cities ; and in ver. 15 awrrttfl 
is added to <|D3n-ntt, while it is omitted from both 1 Kings x. 27 
and also 2 Chron. ix. 27. It is, however, very suitable in this con- 
nection, since the comparison " like stones" has reference to quan- 
tity, and Solomon had collected not only silver, but also gold, in 
quantity. — Vers. 16, 17 coincide with 1 Kings x. 28, 29, except 
that Wi» is used for nipD, and KVffl rpgrn is altered into v}(3 
HWto. For the commentary on these verses, see 1 Kings x. 28 f. 

chap. i. i8-n. 17. Solomon's preparations for the building 

OP THE TEMPLE. (CF. 1 KINGS V. 16-32.) 

The account of these is introduced by i. 18: "Solomon 
thought to build." ")DK with an infinitive following does not 
signify here to command one to do anything, as e.g. in 1 Chron. 
xxi- 17, but to purpose to do something, as e.g. in 1 Kings v. 19. 
For nw oefc, see on 1 Kings v. 17. *nd>oi> rva, house for his 
kingdom, i.e. the royal palace. The building of this palace is 
indeed shortly spoken of in ii. 11, vii. 11, and viii. 1, but is not 
■a the Chronicle described in detail as in 1 Kings vii. 1-12. 

1 He assertion of Thenius on 1 Kings x. 26 ff., that be found this section 
m his authorities in two different places and in different connections, copied 
them mechanically, and only towards the end of the second passage remarked 
™e repetition and then abridged the statement, is at once refuted by observ- 
m g. that in the supposed repetition the first half (ix. 25, 26) does not at 
*11 agree with 1 Kings x. 2G, but coincides with the statement in 1 Kings 
M,7. 



Digitized by 



Google 



308 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

With chap. ii. 1 begins the account of the preparations which 
Solomon made for the erection of these buildings, especially of 
the temple building, accompanied by a statement that the king 
caused all the workmen of the necessary sort in his kingdom to 
be numbered. There follows thereafter an account of the nego- 
tiations with King Hiram of Tyre in regard to the sending of a 
skilful architect, and of the necessary materials, such as cedar 
wood and hewn stones, from Lebanon (vers. 2-15) ; and, in con- 
clusion, the statements as to the levying of the statute labourers 
of Israel (ver. 1) are repeated and rendered more complete (vers. 
16, 17). If we compare the parallel account in 1 Kings v. 15-32, 
we find that Solomon's negotiation with Hiram about the pro- 
posed buildings is preceded (ver. 15) by a notice, that Hiram, 
after he had heard of Solomon's accession, had sent him an 
embassy to congratulate him. This notice is omitted in the 
Chronicle, because it was of no importance in the negotiations 
which succeeded. In the account of Solomon's negotiation with 
Hiram, both narratives (Chron. vers. 2-15 and 1 Kings v. 16-26) 
agree in the main, but differ in form so considerably, that it is 
manifest that they are free adaptations of one common original 
document, quite independent of each other, as has been already 
remarked on 1 Kings v. 15. On ver. 1 see further on ver. 16 f. 

Vers. 2-9. Solomon, through his ambassadors, addressed him- 
self to Huram king of Tyre, with the request that he would 
send him an architect and building wood for the temple. On 
the Tyrian king Huram or Hiram, the contemporary of David 
and Solomon, see the discussion on 2 Sam. v. 11. According to 
the account in 1 Kings v., Solomon asked cedar wood from 
Lebanon from Hiram ; according to our account, which is more 
exact, he desired an architect, and cedar, cypress, and other 
wood. In 1 Kings v. the motive of Solomon's request is given 
in the communication to Hiram, viz. that David could not carry 
out the building of the proposed temple on account of his wars, 
but that Jahve had given him (Solomon) rest and peace, so that 
he now, in accordance with the divine promise to David, desired 
to carry on the building (vers. 17-19). In the Chron. vers. 2-5, 
on the contrary, Solomon reminds the Tyrian king of the friend- 
liness with which he had supplied his father David with cedar 
wood for his palace, and then announces to him his purpose to 
build a temple to the Lord, at the same time stating that it was 
designed for the worship of God, whom the heavens and the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. II. 2-9. 309 

earth cannot contain. It is clear, therefore, that both authors 
have expanded the fundamental thoughts of their authority in 
somewhat freer fashion. The apodosis of the clause beginning 
with "^P is wanting, and the sentence is an anacolouthon. The 
apodosis should be : " do so also for me, and send me cedars." 
This latter clause follows in vers. 6, 7, while the first can easily 
be supplied, as is done e.g. in the Vulg., by sic fac mecum. — 
Ver. 3. " Behold, I will build." WJ} with a participle of that 
which is imminent, what one intends to do. W B^i???, to sanctify 
(the house) to Him. The infinitive clause which follows (TBpnS 
*Ui) defines more clearly the design of the temple. The temple 
is to be consecrated by worshipping Him there in the manner 
prescribed, by burning incense, etc. D't?? HTbl», incense of odours, 
Ex. xxv. 6, which was burnt every morning and evening on the 
altar of incense, Ex. xxx. 7 f. The clauses which follow are to 
be connected by zeugma with "^Pl 1 ?, i.e. the verbs corresponding 
to the objects are to be supplied from "VDpn : " and to spread the 
continual spreading of bread" (Ex. xxv. 30), and to offer burnt- 
offerings, as is prescribed in Num. xxviii. and xxix. *W ntft any?, 
for ever is this enjoined upon Israel, cf. 1 Chron. xxiii. 31. — 
Ver. 4. In order properly to worship Jahve by these sacrifices, 
the temple must be large, because Jahve is greater than all 
gods ; cf. Ex. xviii. 11, Deut. x. 17. — Ver. 5. No one is able 
(rrta "IV? as in 1 Chron. xxix. 14) to build a house in which this 
God could dwell, for the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him. 
These words are a reminiscence of Solomon's prayer (1 Kings 
viii. 27; 2 Chron. vi. 18). How should I (Solomon) be able to 
build Him a house, scil. that He should dwell therein 1 In con- 
nection with this, there then comes the thought : and that is not 
my purpose, but only to offer incense before Him will I build a 
temple. I'Opn is used as pars pro toto, to designate the whole 
worship of the Lord. After this declaration of the purpose, there 
follows in ver. 6 the request that he would, send him for this end 
a skilful chief workman, and the necessary material, viz. costly 
woods. The chief workman was to be a man wise to work in 
gold, silver, etc. According to chap. iv. 11-16 and 1 Kings 
vii. 13 ff., he prepared the brazen and metal work, and the 
vessels of the temple ; here, on the contrary, and in ver. 13 also, 
he is described as a man who was skilful also in purple weaving, 
and in stone and wood work, to denote that he was an artificer 
who could take charge of all the artistic work connected with 



Digitized by 



Google 



310 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

the building of the temple. To indicate this, all the costly 
materials which were to be employed for the temple and its 
vessels are enumerated. IJfiK, the later form of 1?J"1K, deep-red 
purple, see on Ex. xxv. 4. ^9^?, occurring only here, vers. 
6, 13, and in iii. 14, in the signification of the Heb. V& tW&, 
crimson or scarlet purple, see on Ex. xxv. 4. It is not originally 
a Hebrew word, but is probably derived from the Old-Persian, 
and has been imported, along with the thing itself, from Persia 
by the Hebrews. rra'?> deep-blue purple, hyacinth purple, see 
on Ex. xxv. 4. D^nvia rune, to make engraved work, and Ex. 
xxviii. 9, 11, 36, and xxxix. 6, of engraving precious stones, but 
used here, as nviB"73, ver. 13, shows, in the general signification 
of engraved work in metal or carved work in wood ; cf. 1 Kings 
vi. 29. D'panrroy depends upon rtiW?: to work in gold . . ., 
together with the wise (skilful) men which are with me in Judah. 
pn "ie>K, quos eomparavity cf. 1 Chron. xxviii. 21, xxii. 15. — 
Ver. 7. The materials Hiram was to send were cedar, cypress, 
and algummim wood from Lebanon. B13U7K, ver. 7 and ix. 10, 
instead of D'Sotk, 1 Kings x. 11, probably means sandal wood, 
which was employed in the temple, according to 1 Kings x. 12, 
for stairs and musical instruments, and is therefore mentioned 
here, although it did not grow in Lebanon, but, according to 
ix. 10 and 1 Kings x. 11, was procured at Ophir. Here, in our 
enumeration, it is inexactly grouped along with the cedars and 
cypresses brought from Lebanon. — Ver. 8. The infinitive r?"J?* 
cannot be regarded as the continuation of r^" 1 ??, nor is it a con- 
tinuation of the imperat. v rbf (ver. 7), with the signification, 
" and let there be prepared for me" (Berth.). It is subordinated 
to the preceding clauses : send me cedars, which thy people who 
are skilful in the matter hew, and in that my servants will assist, in 
order, viz. to prepare me building timber in plenty (the i is explie.'). 
On ver. 86 cf. ver. 4. The infin. abs. toon is used adverbially : 
" wonderfully " (Ew. § 280, c). In return, Solomon promises to 
supply the Tyrian workmen with grain, wine, and oil for their 
maintenance, — a circumstance which is omitted in 1 Kings v. 10 ; 
see on ver. 14. B^Dhp is more closely defined by 0*5tJ?n VTSf f and 
f is the introductory p : " and behold, as to the hewers, the fellers 
of trees." 3Bn, to hew (wood), and to dress it (Deut. xxix. 10 ; 
Josh. ix. 21, 23), would seem to have been supplanted by Xtn, 
which in vers. 1, 17 is used for it, and it is therefore explained 
by Dntjfli rna. « I will give wheat Tfiao to thy servants " (the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. 1L 10-16. 311 

hewers of wood). The word ritao gives no suitable sense ; for 
"wheat of the strokes," for threshed wheat, would be a very 
extraordinary expression, even apart from the facts that wheat, 
which is always reckoned by measure, .is as a matter of course 
supposed to be threshed, and that no such addition is made use 
of with the barley. ni3D is probably only an orthographical error 
for TO3D, food, as may be seen from 1 Kings v. 25. 

Vers. 10-15. The answer of King Hiram ; cf. 1 Kings v. 
21-25. — Hiram answered 3TI33, in a writing, a letter, which he 
sent to Solomon. In 1 Kings v. 21 Hiram first expresses his 
joy at Solomon's request, because it was of importance to him 
to be on a friendly footing with the king of Israel. In the 
Chronicle his writing begins with the congratulation: because 
Jahve loveth His people, hath He made thee king over them. 
Cf. for the expression, ix. 8 and 1 Kings x. 9. He then, accord- 
ing to both narratives, praises God that He has given David so 
wise a son. * 1 ^'}, ver. 11, means : then he said further. The 
praise of God is heightened in the Chronicle by Hiram's enter- 
ing into Solomon's religious ideas, calling Jahve the Creator of 
heaven and earth. Then, further, MH f3 is strengthened by 
n T? <9J? Sli', having understanding and discernment ; and this 
predicate is specially referred to Solomon's resolve to build a 
temple to the Lord. Then in ver. 12 f. he promises to send 
Solomon the artificer Huram-Abi. On the title 'SN, my father, 
w. minister, counsellor, and the descent of this man, cf. the com- 
mentary on 1 Kings vii. 13, 14. In ver. 13 of the Chronicle 
his artistic skill is described in terms coinciding with Solomon's 
wish in ver. 6, only heightened by small additions. To the 
metals as materials in which he could work, there are added 
stone and wood work, and to the woven fabrics ya (byssus), the 
later word for B>K> ; and finally, to exhaust the whole, he is said 
to be able 'nD"?| 3'BTW, to devise all manner of devices which 
shall be put to him, as in Ex. xxxi. 4, he being thus raised to the 
level of Bezaleel, the chief artificer of the tabernacle. T??"" ? 
is dependent upon rrit^, as in ver. 6. The promise to send 
cedars and cypresses is for the sake of brevity here omitted, and 
only indirectly indicated in ver. 15. In ver. 14, however, it is 
mentioned that Hiram accepted the promised supply of grain, 
wine, and oil for the labourers ; and ver. 15 closes with the pro- 
mise to fell the wood required in Lebanon, and to cause it to be 
sent in floats to Joppa (Jaffa), whence Solomon could take it up 



Digitized by 



Google 



312 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

to Jerusalem. The word ^V, " need," is a oTrof Xey. in the Old 
Testament, but is very common in Aramaic writings. rtlbtn, 
" floats," too, occurs only here instead of HviaM, 1 Kings v. 23, 
and its etymology is unknown. If we compare vers. 12-15 with 
the parallel account in 1 Kings v. 22-25, we find that, besides 
Hiram's somewhat verbose promise to fell the desired quantity of 
cedars and cypresses on Lebanon, and to send them in floats by 
sea to the place appointed by Solomon, the latter contains a 
request from Hiram that Solomon would give him Otv y mainte- 
nance for his house, and a concluding remark that Hiram sent 
Solomon cedar wood, while Solomon gave Hiram, year by year, 
20,000 kor of wheat as food for his house, i.e. the royal house- 
hold, and twenty kor beaten oil, that is, of the finest oil. In 
the book of Kings, therefore, the promised wages of grain, wine, 
and oil, which were sent to the Tyrian woodcutters, is passed 
over, and only the quantity of wheat and finest oil which Solo- 
mon gave to the Tyrian king for his household, year by year, in 
return for the timber sent, is mentioned. In the Chronicle, on 
the contrary, only the wages or payment to the woodcutters is 
mentioned, and the return made for the building timber is not 
spoken of ; but there is no reason for bringing these two passages, 
which treat of different things, into harmony by alterations of the 
text. For further discussion of this and of the measures, see on 
1 Kings v. 22. 

In vers. 16 and 17 the short statement in ver.-l as to Solo- 
mon's statute labourers is again taken up and expanded. Solo- 
mon caused all the men to be numbered who dwelt in the land 
of Israel as strangers, viz. the descendants of the Canaanites who 
were not exterminated, " according to the numbering (isp occurs 
only here) as his father David had numbered them." This 
remark refers to 1 Chron. xxii. 2, where, however, it is only said 
that David commanded the strangers to be assembled. But as 
he caused them to be assembled in order to secure labourers 
for the building of the temple, he doubtless caused them to be 
numbered ; and to this reference is here made. The numbering 
gave a total of 153,000 men, of whom 70,000 were made bearers 
of burdens, 80,000 2Vh, i.e. probably hewers of stone and wood 
"i£3, i, e . on Lebanon, and 3600 foremen or overseers over the 
workmen, Q^'DK Tajffi?, to cause the people to work, that is, to 
hold them to their task. With this cf. 1 Kings v. 29 f., where 
the number of the overseers is stated at 3300. This difference 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IIL-V. 1. 313 

is explained by the fact that in the Chronicle the total number 
of overseers, of higher and lower rank, is given, while in the 
book of Kings only the number of overseers of the lower rank is 
given without the higher overseers. Solomon had in all 550 
higher overseers of the builders (Israelite and Canaanite), — cf. 
1 Kings ix. 23 ; and of these, 250 were Israelites, who alone are 
mentioned in 2 Chron. viii. 10, while the remaining 300 were 
Canaanites. The total number of overseers is the same in both 
accounts — 3850; who are divided in the Chronicle into 3600 
Canaanitish and 250 Israelitish, in the book of Kings into 3300 
lower and 550 higher overseers (see on 1 Kings v. 30). It is, 
moreover, stated in 1 Kings v. 27 f. that Solomon had levied a 
force of 30,000 statute labourers from among the people of 
Israel, with the design that a third part of them, that is, 10,000 
men, should labour alternately for a month at a time in Lebanon, 
looking after their own affairs at home during the two following 
months. This levy of workmen from among the people of Israel 
is not mentioned in the Chronicle. 



CHAP. III.-V. 1. THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE. 
(CF. 1 KINGS VI., VII. 18-51.) 

The description of the building begins with a statement of 
the place where and of the time when the temple was built (iii. 
1, 2). Then follows an account of the proportions of the build- 
ing, a description of the individual parts, commencing on the 
outside and advancing inwards. First we have the porch (vers. 
3, 4), then the house, i.e. the interior apartment or the holy 
place (vers. 5-7), then the holiest of all, and cherubim therein 
(vers. 8-13), and the veil of partition between the holy place and 
the most holy (ver. 14). After that we have the furniture of 
the court, the pillars of the porch (vers. 15-17), the brazen 
altar (iv. 1), the brazen sea (iv. 2-5), the ten lavers (ver. 6), 
the furniture of the holy place, candlesticks and tables (vers. 
7, 8), and of the two courts (vers. 9, 10), and finally a 
summary enumeration of the brazen and golden utensils of 
the temple (vers. 11, 12). The description in 1 Kings vi. and 
vii. is differently arranged ; the divine promise which Solomon 
received while the building was in progress, and a description 
of the building of the palace, being inserted : see on 1 Kings vi. 
and vii. 



Digitized by 



Google 



814 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Chap. iii. The building of tlie temple. — Vers. 1-3. The state- 
ments as to the place where the temple was built (ver. 1) are 
found here only. Mount Moriah is manifestly the mountain in 
the land of Moriah where Abraham was to have sacrificed his 
son Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2), which had received the name Anion, tu». 
rt the appearance of Jahve," from that event. It is the moun- 
tain which lies to the north-east of Zion, now called Haram 
after the most sacred mosque of the Mohammedans, which is 
built there ; cf. Rosen, das Haram von Jerusalem, Gotha 1866. 
'T> ntoj itPK is usually translated: "which was pointed out to 
David his father." But nto has not in Niphal the signification 
" to be pointed out," which is peculiar to the Hophal (cf. Ex. 
xzr. 40, xxvi. 30, Deut. iv. 35, etc.) ; it means only " to be seen," 
"to let oneself be seen," to appear, especially used of appear- 
ances of God. It cannot be shown to be anywhere used of a 
place which lets itself be seen, or appears to one. We must 
therefore translate: "on mount Moriah, where He had appeared 
to David his father." The unexpressed subject mrp is easily 
supplied from the context ; and with icfc "ina, " on the mountain 
where," cf. "lEfc Dipea, Gen. xxxv. 13 f., and Ew. § 331, c, 3. 
T?i? "wfcj is separated from what precedes, and connected with 
what follows, by the Athnach under W3K, an d j s translated/after 
the LXX., Vulg., and Syr., as a hyperbaton thus : " in the 
place where David had prepared," scil. the building of the temple 
by the laying up of the materials there (1 Chron. xxii. 5, xxix. 2). 
But there are no proper analogies to such a hyperbaton, since 
Jer. xiv. 1 and xlvi. 1 are differently constituted. Berth, there- 
fore is of opinion that our text can only signify, " which temple 
he prepared on the place of David," and that this reading cannot 
be the original, because Pi? occurs elsewhere only df David's 
activity in preparing for the building of the temple, and " place 
of David" cannot, without further ceremony, mean the place which 
David had chosen. He would therefore transpose the words 
thus : "Wn pan new Dipea. But this conjecture is by no. means 
certain. In the first place, the mere transposition of the words 
is not sufficient ; we must also alter tripM into Bipoa, to get the 
required sense; and, further, Bertheau's reasons are not conclusive. 
pan means not merely to make ready for (zuriisten), to prepare, 
but also to make ready, make (bereiten), found eg. 1 Kings 
vL 19, Ezra iii. 3 ; and the frequent use of this word in reference 
to David's action in preparing for the building of the temple 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. HI. 4-7. 315 

does not prove that it has this signification here also. The clause 
may be quite well translated, with J. J. Kambach : " quam domum 
prceparavit (Salomo) in loco Davidit" The expression " David's 
place," for " place which David had fixed upon," cannot in this 
connection be misunderstood, but yet it cannot be denied that the 
clause is stiff and constrained if we refer it to nvr JV3T1K. We 
would therefore prefer to give up the Masoretic punctuation, 
and construe the words otherwise, connecting T??7 "HfK with the 
preceding thus : where Jahve had appeared to his father David, 
who had prepared (the house, i.e. the building of it), and make 
'l Dipoa, with the following designation of the place, to depend 
upon nto? as a further explanation of the 'on ">n3, viz. in the 
place of David, i.e. on the place fixed by David on the threshing- 
floor of the Jebusite Oman ; cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 18. — In ver. 2 
t^i? -"J2 is repeated in order to fix the time of the building. In 
1 Kings vi. 1 the time is fixed by its relation to the exodus of 
the Israelites from Egypt. ^Bfr, which the older commentators 
always understood of the second day of the month, is strange. 
Elsewhere the day of the month is always designated by the 
cardinal number with the addition of vhfb or Bfr, the month 
having been previously given. Berth, therefore considers '3103 
to be a gloss which has come into the text by a repetition of 
'Jjfa, since the LXX. and Vulg. have not expressed it. — Ver. 3. 
"And this is Solomon's founding, to build the house of God;" 
»'.«. this is the foundation which Solomon laid for the building 
of the house of God. The infin. Hoph. 1DV1 is used here and 
in Ezra iii. 11 substantively. The measurements only of the 
length and breadth of the building are given; the height, 
which is stated in 1 Kings vi. 2, is omitted here. The former, 
i.e. the ancient measurement, is the Mosaic or sacred cubit, 
which, according to Ezek. xl. 5 and xliii. 13, was a handbreadth 
longer than the civil cubit of the earlier time ; see . on 1 Kings 
Ti.2. 

Vers. 4-7. The porch and the interior of the holy place. — Ver. 4. 
The porch which was before (i.e. in front of) the length (of the 
house), was twenty cubits before the breadth of the house, i.e. 
was as broad as the house. So understood, the words give an 
intelligible sense, ^fcii with the article refers back to ^.to in 
ver. 3 (the length of the house), and *?.?"?? in the two defining 
clauses means " in front ;" but in the first clause it is " lying in 
front of the house," i.e. built in front ; in the second it is " mea- 



Digitized by 



Google 



316 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

sured across the front of the breadth of the house." 1 There is 
certainly either a corruption of the text, or a wrong number in 
the statement of the height of the porch, 120 cubits ; for a front 
120 cubits high to a house only thirty cubits high could not be 
called WW ; it would have been a T^o, a tower. It cannot with 
certainty be determined whether we should read twenty or thirty 
cubits ; see in 1 Kings vi. 3. He overlaid it (the porch) with 
pure gold ; cf. 1 Kings /vi. 21. — Vers. 5-7. The interior of the 
holy place. Ver. 5. The " great house," i.e. the large apartment 
of the house, the holy place, he wainscotted with cypresses, and 
overlaid it with good gold, and carved thereon palms and gar- 
lands. fiBn from »"lBn, to cover, cover over, alternates with the 
synonymous nsv in the signification to coat or overlay with wood 
and gold. D^kn as in Ezek. xli. 18, for rriibFi, 1 Kings vi. 29, 
35, are artificial palms as wall ornaments, rriient? are in Ex. 
xxviii. 14 small scroll-formed chains of gold wire, here spiral 
chain-like decorations on the walls, garlands of flowers carved on 
the wainscot, as we learn from 1 Kings vi. 18. — Ver. 6. And he 
garnished the house with precious stones for ornament (of the 
inner sides of the walls) ; cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 2, on which Bahr 
on 1 Kings vi. 7 appositely remarks, that the ornamenting of the 
walls with precious stones is very easily credible, since among 
the things which Solomon brought in quantity from Ophir they 
are expressly mentioned (1 Kings x. 11), and it was a common 
custom in the East so to employ them in buildings and in vessels ; 
cf. Symbolik des mos. Cult. i. S. 280, 294, 297. The gold was 
from D^B. This, the name of a place rich in gold, does not 

1 There is consequently no need to alter the text according to 1 Kings 
vi. 8, from which passage Berth, would interpolate the words -|fc»jj JV3TI 
TOB $>5> tam nBK3 between 'JB^j; and TTlkri, and thereby get the signifi- 
cation : " and the porch which is before the house, ten cubits is its breadth 
before the same, and the length which is before the breadth twenty cubits." 
But this conjecture is neither necessary nor probable. It is not necessary, 
for (1) the present text gives an intelligible sense ; (2) the assertion that 
the length and breadth of the porch must be stated cannot be justified, if for 
no other reason, for this, that even of the main buildings all three dimensions 
are not given, only two being stated, and that it was not the purpose of the 
author of the Chronicle to give an architecturally complete statement, his 
main anxiety being to supply a general idea of the splendour of the temple. 
It is not probable ; because the chronicler, if he had followed 1 Kings vi. 3, 
would not have written WB"^P, but jvan \)B-$>|J, and instead of *piti\ 
would have written fentfl. to correspond with iarn 

• »»' : t* 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. III. 8-14. 317 

elsewhere occur, and has not as yet been satisfactorily explained. 
Gesen. with Wilson compares the Sanscrit parvam, the first, 
foremost, and takes it to be the name of the foremost, i.e. eastern 
regions ; others hold the word to be the name of some city in 
southern or eastern Arabia, whence Indian gold was brought to 
Palestine. — In ver. 7 the garnishing of the house with gold is 
more exactly and completely described. ' He garnished the house, 
the beams (of the roof), the thresholds (of the doors), and its 
walls and its doors with gold, and carved cherubs on the walls. 
For details as to the internal garnishing, decoration, and gilding 
of the house, see 1 Kings vi. 18, 29, and 36, and for the doors, 
vers. 32-35. 

Vers. 8—14. The most holy place, with the figures of the cheru- 
bim and the veil; cf. 1 Kings vi. 19-28. — The length of the 
most holy place in front of the breadth of the house, twenty 
cubits, consequently measured in the same way as the porch 
(ver. 4) ; the breadth, i.e. the depth of it, also twenty cubits. 
The height, which was the same (1 Kings vi. 20), is not stated ; 
but instead of that we have the weight of the gold which was 
used for the gilding, which is omitted in 1 Kings vi., viz. 600 
talents for the overlaying of the walls, and 50 shekels for the 
nails to fasten the sheet gold on the wainscotting. He covered 
the upper chambers of the most holy place also with gold ; see 
1 Chron. xxviii. 11. This is not noticed in 1 Kings vi. — Vers. 
10 ff. The figures of the cherubim are called D'VVjnt nswo, sculp- 
ture work. The cm. Xey. D'jntjnt comes from JW, Arab. cU, 

formavit, finxit, and signifies sculptures. The plur. 5B2P, u they 
overlaid them," is indefinite. The length of the wings was five 
cubits, and the four outspread wings extended across the whole 
width of the most holy place from one wall to the other. The 
repetition of the clauses "inta avian . . . iriNn *|j3 (vers. 11, 12) ha3 
a distributive force : the top of one wing of each cherub reached 
the wall of the house, that of the other wing reached the wing of 
the other cherub standing by. In the repetition the masc. JT?o 
alternates with the fem. njfcD, being construed in a freer way as 
the principal gender with the fem. *1?3, and also with nj^n, 
adhcerebat, in the last clause. — In ver. 12 Bertheau would strike 
out the word 'M? because it does not suit D^s, which occurs in 
1 Chron. xxviii. 18, 2 Chron. v. 8, 1 Kings viii. 7, in the tran- 
sitive signification, " to stretch out the wings." But nothing is 



Digitized by 



Google 



318 THE SECOND BOOS OF CHBONICLES. 

,gained by that, for we must then supply the erased word after 
D'fena again. And, moreover, the succeeding clause is introduced 
by Dni., just because in the first clause the wings, and not the 
cherubim, were the subject. We hold the text to be correct, 
and translate: "the wings of these cherubim were, for they 
stretched them out, twenty cubits." BfTi refers to QWon. They 
stood upon their feet, consequently upright, and were, according 
to 1 Kings vi. 26, ten cubits high. " And their faces towards 
the house," i.e. turned towards the holy place, not having their 
faces turned towards each other, as was the case with the cheru- 
bim upon the.Capporeth (Ex. xxv. 20). — Ver. 14. The veil be- 
tween the holy place and the most holy, not mentioned in 
1 Kings vi. 21, was made of the same materials and colours as 
the veil on the tabernacle, and was inwoven with similar cherub 
figures ; cf. Ex. xxvi. 31. Y&* ^P"|? as in ii. 13. ?J> ">%, to bring 
upon ; an indefinite expression for : to weave into the material. 

Vers. 15-17. The two brazen pillars before the house, t.e. 
before the porch, whose form is more accurately described in 
1 Kings vii. 15-22. The height of it is here given at thirty-five 
cubits, while, according to 1 Kings vii. 15, 2 Kings xxv. 17, 
Jer. Hi. 21, it was only eighteen cubits. The number thirty-five 
has arisen by confounding rr> = 18 with rh = 35 ; see on 1 Kings 
vii. 16. riMtn (air. Xey.) from ns¥, overlay, cover, is the hood of 
the pillar, i.e. the capital, called in 1 Kings vii. 16 ff. rinnb, crown, 
capita], five cubits high, as in 1 Kings vii. 16.— Ver. 16. " And 
he made little chains on the collar (Halsreife), and put it on the 
top of the pillars, and made 100 pomegranates, and put them on 
the chains." In the first clause of this verse, TO3, u in (on) the 
most holy place," has no meaning, for the most holy place is not 
here being discussed, but the pillars before the porch, or rather 
an ornament on the capital of these pillars. We must not there- 
fore think of chains in the most holy place, which extended thence 
out to the pillars, as the Syriac and Arabic seem to have done, 
paraphrasing as they do : chains of fifty cubits (i.e. the length of 
the holy place and the porch). According to 1 Kings vii. 17—20 
and ver. 41 f., compared with 2 Chron. iv. 12, 13, each capital 
consisted of two parts. The lower part was a circumvolution 
(Wulst) covered with chain-like net-work, one cubit high, with a 
setting of carved pomegranates one row above and one row below. 
The upper part, or that which formed the crown of the capital, 
was four cubits high, and carved in the form of an open lily-calyx. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 1-1L 319 

In oar verse it is the lower part of the capital, the circumvolu- 
tion, with the chain net- work and the pomegranates, which is 
spoken of. From this, Bertheau concludes that "v 1 ?*! must signify 
the same as the more usual •*tci&, viz. " the lattice-work which 
was set ahout the top of the pillars, and served to fasten the 
pomegranates," and that T3*13 has arisen out of 1 , 3"}3 by a 
transposition of the letters. T3"j| (chains) should be read here. 
This conjecture so decidedly commends itself, that we regard it 
as certainly correct, since "TO"} denotes in Gen. xli. 42, Ezek. 
xvi. 11, a necklace, and so may easily denote also a ring or 
hoop ; but we cannot adopt the translation " chains on a ring," 
nor the idea that the •i?lb>, since it surrounded the head of the 
pillars as a girdle or broad ring, is called the ring of the pillars. 
For this idea does not agree with the translation " chains in a 
ring," even when they are conceived of as " chain-like ornaments, 
which could scarcely otherwise be made visible on the ring than 
by open work." Then the chain-like decorations were not, as 
Bertheau thinks, on the upper and under border of the ring, but 
formed a net-work which surrounded the lower part of the 
capital of the pillar like a ring, as though a necklace had been 
drawn round it. T31 consequently is not the same as fi33fe>, but 
rather corresponds to that part of the capital which is called n^ 
(rri;a) in r Kings vii. 14; for the rfaafe* served to cover the 
rrn>S, and were consequently placed on or over the rri33, as the 
pomegranates were on the chains or woven work, n^n denotes 
the curve, the circumvolution, which is in 1 Kings vii. 20 called 
I? 3 /?} a broad-arched band, bulging towards the middle, which 
formed the lower part of the capital. This arched part of the 
capital the author of the Chronicle calls TO*}, ring or collar, 
because it may be regarded as the neck ornament of the head of 
the pillar, in contrast to the upper part of the capital, that con- 
sisted in lily-work, i.e. the ball wrought into the form of an open 
lily-calyx (rnns). — Ver. 17. As to the position of the pillars, and 
their names, see on 1 Kings vii. 21. 

Chap. iv. 1-1 la. The sacred furniture and the courts of the 
temple. — Vers. 1-6. The copper furniture of the court. Ver. 1. 
The altar of burnt-offering. Its preparation is passed over in 1 
Kings vi. and vii., so that there it is only mentioned incidentally 
in connection with the consecration of the temple, viii. 22, 54, and 
ix. 25. It was twenty cubits square (long and broad) and ten 
cubits high, and constructed on the model of the Mosaic altar of 



Digitized by 



Google 



320 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 

burnt-offering, and probably of brass plates, which enclosed the 
inner core, consisting of earth and unhewn stones ; and if we may 
judge from Ezekiel's description, chap, xliii. 13-17, it rose in steps, 
as it were, so that at each step its extent was smaller ; and the 
measurement of twenty cubits refers only to the lowest scale, 
while the space at the top, with the hearth, was only twelve cubits 
square ; cf. my Bibl. Arehaol. i. S. 127, with the figure, plate iii. 
fig. 2. — Vers. 2-5. The brazen sea described as in 1 Kings vii. 
23-26. See the commentary on that passage, and the sketch in 
my Arehaol. i. plate iii. fig. 1. The differences in substance, such 
as the occurrence of D*"!iJ3 and i?3?, ver. 3, instead of E'Pi* and 
O'yijan, and 3000 baths instead of 2000, are probably the result 
of orthographical errors in the Chronicle. TV in ver. 5 appears 
superfluous after the preceding pWB, and Berth, considers it a 
gloss which has come from 1 Kings into our text by mistake. 
But the expression is only pleonastic : " receiving baths, 3000 it 
held;" and there is no sufficient reason to strike out the words. — 
Ver. 6. Tlie ten lavers which, according to 1 Kings vii. 38, stood 
upon ten brazen stands, i.e. chests provided with carriage wheels. 
These stands, the artistic work on which is circumstantially 
described in 1 Kings vii. 27-37, are omitted in the Chronicle, 
because they are merely subordinate parts of the lavers. The 
size or capacity of the lavers is not stated, only their position on 
both sides of the temple porch, and the purpose for which they 
were designed, "to wash therein, viz. the work of the burnt- 
offering (the flesh of the burnt-offering which was to be burnt 
upon the altar) they rinsed therein," being mentioned. For 
details, see in 1 Kings vii. 38 f. and the figure in my Arehaol. i. 
plate iii. fig. 4. Occasion is here taken to mention in a supple- 
mentary way the use of the brazen sea. — Vers. 7-9. The golden 
furniture of the holy place and the courts. These three verses are 
not found in the parallel narrative 1 Kings vii., where in ver. 396 
the statement as to the position of the brazen sea (ver. 10 of 
Chron.) follows immediately the statement of the position of the 
stands with the lavers. The candlesticks and the table of the 
shew-bread are indeed mentioned in the summary enumeration of 
the temple furniture, 1 Kings vii. 48 and 49, as in the corre- 
sponding passage of the Chronicle (vers. 19 and 20) they again 
occur ; and in 1 Kings vi. 36 and vii. 12, in the description of the 
temple building, the inner court is spoken of, but the outer court 
is not expressly mentioned. No reason can be given for the 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IV. 11-22. 321 

omission of these verses in 1 Kings vii. ; bat that they have been 
omitted or have dropped out, may be concluded from the fact that 
not only do the whole contents of our fourth chapter correspond to 
the section 1 Kings vii. 23-50, but both passages are rounded off 
by the same concluding verse (Chron. v. 1 and 1 Kings li.). — Ver. 7. 
He made ten golden candlesticks DBBBfos, according to their right, 
i.e. as they should be according to the prescript, or corresponding 
to the prescript as to the golden candlesticks in the Mosaic sanctuary 
(Ex. xxv. 31 ff.). Bl^o is the law established by the Mosaic legisla- 
tion. — Ver. 8. Ten golden tables, corresponding to the ten candle- 
sticks, and, like these, placed five on the right and five on the left 
side of the holy place. The tables were not intended to bear the 
candlesticks (Berth.), but for the shew-bread ; cf. on ver. 19 and 
1 Chron. xxviii. 16. And a hundred golden basins, not for the 
catching and sprinkling of the blood (Berth.), but, as their connec- 
tion with the tables for the shew-bread shows, wine flagons, or sacri- 
ficial vessels for wine libations, probably corresponding to the rrt'jMD 
on the table of shew-bread in the tabernacle (Ex. xxv. 29). The 
signification, wine flagons, for D T"^?, is placed beyond a doubt by 
Amos vi. 6. — Ver. 9. The two courts are not further described. 
For the court of the priests, see on 1 Kings vi. 36 and vii. 12. 
As to the great or outer court, the only remark made is that it 
had doors, and its doors, i.e. the folds or leaves of the doors, were 
overlaid with copper. In ver. 10 we have a supplementary 
statement as to the position of the brazen sea, which coincides 
with 1 Kings vii. 39; see on the passage. In ver. 11a the 
heavier brazen (copper) utensils, belonging to the altar of burnt- 
offering, are mentioned : rih'D, pots for the removal of the 
ashes ; DT, shovels, to take the ashes out from the altar ; and 
nipniDj basins to catch and sprinkle the sacrificial blood. This 
half verse belongs to the preceding, notwithstanding that Huram 
is mentioned as the maker. This is clear beyond doubt, from the 
fact that the same utensils are again introduced in the summary 
catalogue* which follows (ver. 16). 

Vers. 116-22. Summary catalogue of the temple utensils and 
furniture. — Vers. 116—18. The brass work wrought by Huram. — 
Ver. 19-22. The golden furniture of the holy place and the 
gilded doors of the temple. This section is found also in 1 
Kings vii. 406-50. The enumeration of the things wrought in 
brass coincides to a word, with the exception of trifling linguistic 
differences and some defects in the text, with 1 Kings vii. 406- 

X 



Digitized by 



Google 



322 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

47. In ver. 12 rtiribrn rt?in is the true reading, and we should 
so read in 1 Kings vii. 41 also, since the JTOi, circumvolutions, are 
to be distinguished from the rriinb, crowns ; see on iii. 16. In 
ver. 14 the first nt?y is a mistake for *i|^, the second for >r$fe 
Kings ver. 43 ; for the verb nby is not required nor expected, as 
the accusative depends upon rrie>J??, ver. 11, while the number 
cannot be omitted, since it is always given with the other things. 
In ver. 16 nwt© is an orthographic error for rtpnto ; cf. ver. 11 
and 1 Kings vii. 44. finv3"?3~r»tt is surprising, for there is no 
meaning in speaking of the utensils of the utensils enumerated 
in ver. 12— 16c. According to 1 Kings vii. 45, we should read 
rbxn B^3rH>3 m. As to n». see on ii. 12- pno ntrru is accn- 

V " T ■ — - T " • T J "TV: 

sative of the material, of polished brass ; and so also tnbD 'rt>, 1 
Kings vii. 45, with a similar signification. In reference to the 
rest, see the commentary on 1 Kings vii. 40 ff. — Vers. 19-22. 
In the enumeration of the golden furniture of the holy place, oar 
text diverges somewhat more from 1 Kings vii. 48-50. On 
the difference in respect to the tables of the shew-bread, see on 
1 Kings vii. 48. In ver. 20 the number and position of the 
candlesticks in the holy place are not stated as they are in 1 
Kings vii. 49, both having been already given in ver. 7. Instead 
of that, their use is emphasized : to light them, according to the 
right, before the most holy place (BaifB3 as in ver. 7). As to the 
decorations and subordinate utensils of the candlesticks, see on 1 
Kings vii. 49. To ant, ver. 21 (accus. of the material), is added 
ant rt?3D wrij « that is perfect gold." n ??D, which occurs only 
here, is synonymous with t?3D, perfection. This addition seems 
superfluous, because before and afterwards it is remarked of these 
vessels that they were of precious gold (">UD ant), and it is conse- 
quently omitted by the LXX., perhaps also because rri?3D was not 
intelligible to them. The words, probably, are meant to indicate 
that even the decorations and the subordinate utensils of the 
candlesticks (lamps, snuffers, etc.) were of solid gold, and not 
merely gilded. — Ver. 22. rrtieto, knives, probably used along with 
the snuffers for the cleansing and trimming of the candlesticks 
and lamps, are not met with among the utensils of the taber- 
nacle, but are here mentioned (Chron. and Kings), and in 2 
Kings xii. 14 and Jer. Iii. 18, among the temple utensils. Along 
with the rrtPW, sacrificial vessels (see on ver. 8), in 1 Cbron. 
xxviii. 17 nfa?tb, forks of gold, are also mentioned, which are not 
elsewhere spoken of. Among the utensils of the tabernacle we 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 2-VIL 22. 323 

find only nu^to of brass, flesh-forks, as an appurtenance of the 
altar of burnt-offering (Ex. xxvii. 3, xxxviii. 3, Num. iv. 14 ; cf. 
1 Sam. ii. 13 f .), which, however, cannot be intended here, because 
all the utensils here enumerated belonged to the holy place. 
What purpose the golden forks served cannot be determined, but 
the mention of golden knives might lead us to presuppose that 
there would be golden forks as well. That the forks are not 
mentioned in our verse does not render their existence doubtful, 
for the enumeration is not complete : e.g. the HiBp, 1 Kings vii. 
50, are also omitted, rriss, vessels for the incense, and rrtmno, 
extinguishers, as in 1 Kings vii. 50. Instead of WrtrOT ffSi nnai, 
" and as regards the opening (door) of the house, its door-leaves," 
in 1 Kings vii. 50 we have rrari rfryi? nhsrn, " and the hinges 
of the door-leaves of the house." This suggests that wid is only 
an orthographical error for nha ; but then if we take it to be so, 
we must alter fTftnT\ into wrrin7i?. And, moreover, the expres- 
sion JV3H nhb, door-hinges of the house, ,is strange, as rria pro- 
perly denotes a recess or space between, and which renders the 
above-mentioned conjecture improbable. The author of the 
Chronicle seems rather himself to have generalized the expression, 
and emphasizes merely the fact that even the leaves of the doors 
in the most holy place and on the holy place were of gold ; — 
of course not of solid gold ; but they were, as we learn from iii. 
7, overlaid with gold. This interpretation is favoured by the 
simple 3HT being used without the predicate "MD. To the sing. 
"!$ no objection can be made, for the word in its fundamental 
signification, " opening," may easily be taken collectively. — Chap, 
v. 1 contains the conclusion of the account of the preparation of 
the sacred utensils as in 1 Kings vii. 51, and with it also the 
whole account of the building of the temple is brought to an end. 
The i before lOSir ? and 3WT n £ corresponds to the Lat. et — et, 
both — and also. As to David's offerings, cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 10 
sod 11 ; and on the whole matter, compare also the remarks on 
1 Kings vii. 51. 

CHAP. V. 2-Vn. 22. THE DEDICATION OP THE TEMPLE. 

(CF. 1 KINGS VIII. AND IX. 1-9.) 

This solemnity, to which Solomon had invited the elders and 
heads of all Israel to Jerusalem, consisted in four acts : (a) the 
transfer of the ark into the temple (v. 2-vi. 11) ; (6) Solomon's 



Digitized by 



Google 



324 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

dedicatory prayer (vi. 12—42) ; (e) the solemn sacrifice (vii. 1-10) ; 
and (d) the Lord's answer to Solomon's prayer (vii. 11-22). By 
the first two acts the temple was dedicated by the king and the 
congregation of Israel to its holy purpose ; by the two last it was 
consecrated by Jahve to be the dwelling-place of His name. If 
we compare our account of this solemnity with the account given 
in the book of Kings, we find that they agree in their main sub- 
stance, and for the most part even verbally coincide. Only, in 
the Chronicle the part performed by the priests and Levites is 
described more in detail ; and in treating of the third act, instead 
of the blessing spoken by Solomon (1 Kings viii. 54-61), we have 
in Chron. vii. 1-3 a narrative of the devouring of the sacrifices 
by fire from heaven. 

Chap. v. 2-vi. 11. The first part of the celebration was the 
transfer of the ark from Mount Zion to the temple (v. 2-14), 
and in connection with this we have the words in which Solomon 
celebrates the entry of the Lord into the new temple (vi. 1-11). 
This section has been already commented on in the remarks on 
1 Kings viii. 1-21, and we have here, consequently, only to set 
down briefly those discrepancies between our account and that 
other, which have any influence upon the meaning. — In ver. 3 the 
name of the month, D^riKn rrva (Kings ver. 2), with which the 
supplementary clause, " that is the seventh month," is there 
connected, is omitted, so that we must either change thhn into 
ehha, or supply the name of the month ; for the festival is not 
the seventh month, but was held in that month. — Ver. 4. Instead 
of ®$ •}, we have in 2 Kings D*anbn, the priests bare the ark ; and 
since even according to the Chronicle (ver. 7) the priests bare the 
ark into the holy place, we must understand by DW such Levites 
were also priests. — In ver. 5, too, the words DJWi D'JHbn are inexact, 
and are to be corrected by Kings ver. 4, BWri B*??]3n. jr or even 
if the Levitic priests bare the ark and the sacred utensils of the 
tabernacle into the temple, yet the tabernacle itself (the planks, 
hangings, and coverings of it) was borne into the temple, to be 
preserved as a holy relic, not by priests, but only by Levites. The 
conj. i before C"bn has probably been omitted only by a copyist, 
who was thinking of B'foi tnran (Josh. iii. 3, Deut. xvii. 9, 18, 
etc.). — In ver. 8 *B?p is an orthographical error for Obj}, 1 Kings 
viii. 7; cf. 1 Chron. xxviii. 18, Ex. xxv. 20. — In ver. 9, too, 
tf" l ??T? oas probably come into our text only by a copyist's mis- 
take instead of enp-TT? (Kings ver. 8).— Ver. 10. \ra ifv, who 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. V. 2-VL 11. 325 

bad given, i.e. laid in, is not so exact as DK> rteii ie>'» (Kings 
ver. 9), but may be justified by a reference to Ex. xl. 20. — Vers. 
llo-13a describe the part which the priests and Levitical singers 
and musicians took in the solemn act of transferring the ark to 
the temple, — a matter entirely passed over in the narrative in 
Kings viii. 11, which confines itself to the main transaction. The 
mention of the priests gives occasion for the remark, ver. lib, 
" for all the priests present had sanctified themselves, but the 
courses were not to be observed," i.e. the courses of the priests 
(1 Chron. xxiv.) could not be observed. The festival was so 
great, that not merely the course appointed to perform the 
service of that week, but also all the courses had sanctified them- 
selves and co-operated in the celebration. In reference to the 
construction ito^> r»«, cf. Ew. § 321, b. — Ver. 12. All the Levitic 
singers and musicians were also engaged in it, to make the festival 
glorious by song and instrumental music : " and the Levites, the 
singers, all of them, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, and their 
sons and brethren, clad in byssus, with cymbals, psalteries, and 
harps, stood eastward from the altar, and with them priests to 120, 
blowing trumpets." The ? before 0?^ and the following noun 
is the introductory ? : "as regards." On the form BmvPiD, see 
on 1 Chron. xv. 24 ; on these singers and musicians, their clothing, 
and their instruments, see on 1 Chron. xv. 17-28 and chap. xxv. 
1-8. — Ver. 13a runs thus literally : " And it came to pass, as 
one, regarding the trumpeters and the singers, that they sang 
with one voice to praise and thank Jahve." The meaning is : 
and the trumpeters and singers, together as one man, sang with 
one voice to praise. in«3 is placed first for emphasis ; stress is 
laid upon the subject, the trumpeters and singers, by the in- 
troductory p ; and njn is construed with the following infinitive 
(IPDefr6) : it was to sound, to cause to hear, for they were causing 
to hear, where f c. infin. is connected with njn, as the participle 
is elsewhere, to describe the circumstances ; cf. Ew. § 237. But 
in order to express very strongly the idea of the unisono of 
the trumpet-sound, and the singing accompanied by the harp- 
playing, which lies in inta, nriK 7\? is added to yww£. By 
'U1 % D*inai all that was to be said of the song and music is 
drawn together in the form of a protasis, to which is joined JV3IT1 
*??, the apodosis both of this latter and also of the protasis 
which was interrupted by the parenthesis in ver. 11 : " When 
the priests went forth from the holy place, for . . . (ver. 11), and 



Digitized by 



Google 



326 ■ THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

when they lifted up the voice with trumpets and with cymbals, 
and the (other) instruments of song, and with the praise of Jahve, 
that He is good, that His mercy endureth for ever (cf. 1 Chron. 
xvi. 34), then was the house filled with the cloud of the house 
of Jahve." The absence of the article before JJV requires us thus 
to connect the W IVa at the close of the verse with pjf (ttat. 
conslr.), since the indefinite \M (without the article) is not at all 
suitable here ; for it is not any cloud which is here spoken of, but 
that which overshadowed the glory of the Lord in the most holy 
place. — Ver. 14, again, agrees with 1 Kings viii. 6, and has been 
there commented upon, chap. vi. 1-11. The words with which 
Solomon celebrates this wondrous evidence of divine favour, 
entirely coincide with the narrative in 1 Kings viii. 12-21, except 
that in ver. 5 f. the actual words of Solomon's speech are more 
completely given than in 1 Kings viii. 16, where the words, u and 
I have not chosen a man to be prince over my people Israel, and 
I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might be thete," are 
omitted. For the commentary on this address, see on 1 Kings 
viii. 12-21. 

Chap. vi. 12-42. Solomon's dedicatory prayer likewise corre- 
sponds exactly with the account of it given in 1 Kings viii. 22-53 
till near the end (vers. 40-42), where it takes quite a different 
turn. Besides this, in the introduction (ver. 13) Solomon's posi- 
tion during the prayer is more accurately described, it being 
there stated that Solomon had caused a high stage pi'?, a basin- 
like elevation) to be erected, which he ascended, and kneeling, 
spoke the prayer which follows. This fact is not stated in 
1 Kings viii. 22, and Then, and Berth, conjecture that it has 
been dropped out of our text only by mistake. Perhaps so, but 
it may have been passed over by the anthor of the books of Kings 
as a point of subordinate importance. On the contents of the 
prayer, which begins with the joyful confession that the Lord 
had fulfilled His promise to David in reference to the building of 
the temple, and proceeds with a request for a further bestowment 
of the blessing promised to His people, and a supplication that all 
prayers made to the Lord in the temple may be heard, see the 
Com. on 1 Kings viii. 22 ff . The conclusion of the prayer in 
the Chronicle is different from that in 1 Kings viii. There the 
last supplication, that the prayers might be heard, is followed by 
the thought : for they (the Israelites) are Thy people and inherit- 
ance ; and in the further amplification of this thought the prayer 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VL 12-42. 827 

returns to the idea with which it commenced. In the narrative 
of the Chronicle, on the other hand, the supplications conclude with 
the general thought (ver. 40) : u Now, my God, let, I beseech 
Thee, Thine eyes be open, and Thine ears attend unto the prayer 
of this place " (t.e. unto the prayer spoken in this place). There 
follows, then, the conclusion of the whole prayer, — a summons to 
the Lord (ver. 41 f .) : " And now, Lord God, arise into Thy rest, 
Thon and the ark of Thy strength ; let Thy priests, Lord God, 
clothe themselves in salvation, and Thy saints rejoice in good ! 
Lord God, turn not away the face of Thine anointed : remember 
the pious deeds of Thy servant David." O^.on as in 2 Chron. 
zxxiii. 32, xxxv. 26, and Neh. xiii. 14. On this Thenius remarks, 
to 1 Kings viii. 53: "This conclusion is probably authentic, 
for there is in the text of the prayer, 1 Kings viii., no special 
expression of dedication, and this the summons to enter into 
possession of the temple very fittingly supplies. The whole con- 
tents of the conclusion are in perfect correspondence with the 
situation, and, as to form, nothing better could be desired. It 
can scarcely be thought an arbitrary addition made by the 
chronicler for no other reason than that the summons spoken of, 
if taken literally, is irreconcilable with the entrance of the cloud 
into the temple, of which he has already given us an account." 
Berth, indeed thinks that it does not thence follow that our con- 
clusion is authentic, and considers it more probable that it was 
introduced because it appeared more suitable, in place of the 
somewhat obscure words in 1 Kings viii. 51-53, though not by 
the author of the Chronicle, and scarcely at an earlier time. The 
decision on this question can only be arrived at in connection 
with the question as to the origin of the statements peculiar to 
the Chronicle contained in chap. vii. 1-3. If we consider, in the 
first place, our verses in themselves, they contain no thought 
which Solomon might not have spoken, and consequently nothing 
which would tend to show that they are not authentic. It is 
tree that the phrase ntatfg TJW occurs only here and in vii. 15, 
and again in Ps. cxxx. 2, and the noun nu instead of nrwo is 
found only in Esth. ix. 16-18 in the form nfo • but even if these 
two expressions be peculiar to the later time, no further conclusion 
can be drawn from that, than that the author of the Chronicle 
has here, as often elsewhere, given the thoughts of his authority 
in the language of his own time. Nor is the relation in which 
vers. 41 and 42 stand to Ps. cxxxii. 8-10 a valid proof of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



328 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

later composition of the conclusion of oar prayer. For (a) it is still 
a question whether our verses have been borrowed from Ps. cxxxii., 
or the verses of the psalm from our passage ; and (6) the period 
when Ps. cxxxviii. was written is so doubtful, that some regard it 
as a Solomonic psalm, while others place it in the post-exilic 
period. Neither the one nor the other of these questions can be 
determined on convincing grounds. The appeal to the fact that 
the chronicler has compounded the hymn in 1 Chron. xv. also 
out of post-exilic psalms proves nothing, for even in that case it 
is at least doubtful if that be a correct account of the matter. 
But the further assertion, that the conclusion (ver. 42) resembles 
Isa. Iv. 3, and that recollections of this passage may have had 
some effect also on the conclusion (ver. 41), is undoubtedly errone- 
ous, for "PTC HDH in ver. 42 has quite a different meaning from 
that which it has in Isa. Iv. 3. There "1TJ T?n are the favours 
granted to David by the Lord ; in ver. 42, on the contrary, they 
are the pious deeds of David, — all that he had done for the raising 
and advancement of the public worship (see above). The phrase 
'U1 nwp, "Arise, O Lord God, into Thy rest," is modelled on 
the formula which was spoken when the ark was lifted and when 
it was set down on the journey through the wilderness, which 
explains both niMp and the use of inw , which is formed after 
nn«3, Num. x. 36. The call to arise into rest is not inconsistent 
with the fact that the ark had already been brought into the 
most holy place, for ncnp has merely the general signification, 
" to set oneself to anything." The idea is, that God would now 
take the rest to which the throne of His glory had attained, show 
Himself to His people from this His throne to be the God of 
salvation, endue His priests, the guardians of His sanctuary, with 
salvation, and cause the pious to rejoice in His goodness, vrois? 
ataa is generalized in Ps. cxxxii. 9 into Ujn% 'D 'JB atpn, to 
turn away the face of any one, i.e. to deny the request, cf. 
1 Kings ii. 16. 

Chap. vii. 1-22. Tlie divine confirmation of the dedication of 
the temple. — Vers. 1-10. The consecration of the sacrificial ser- 
vice by fire from heaven (vers. 1-3), and the sacrifices and festival 
of the people (vers. 4-10). — Vers. 1-3. At the conclusion of 
Solomon's prayer there fell fire from heaven, which devoured 
the burnt-offering and the thank-offering, and the glory of the 
Lord filled the house, so that the priests could not enter the 
house of Jahve. The assembled congregation, when they saw 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VII. 1-22. 329 

the fire and the glory of the Lord descend, bowed themselves 
with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and wor- 
shipped God to praise. Now since this narrative is not found in 
1 Kings viii. 54 ff., and there a speech of Solomon to the whole 
congregation, in which he thanks God for the fulfilment of Hi* 
promise, and expresses the desire that the Lord would hear his 
prayers at all times, and bestow the promised salvation on the 
people, is communicated, modern criticism has rejected this nar- 
rative of the Chronicle as a later unhistorical embellishment of 
the temple dedication. "If we turn our attention," says Berth, 
in agreement with Then., " to chap. v. 11-14, and compare chap. 
v. 14 with our second verse, we must maintain that onr historian 
found that there existed two different narratives of the proceed- 
ings at the dedication of the temple, and received both into his 
work. According to the one narrative, the clouds filled the 
house (1 Kings viii. 10, cf. 2 Chron. v. 11-14) ; and after this 
was done Solomon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which 
we find in 1 Kings viii. ; according to the other narrative, Solo- 
mon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which we find in 
Chron., and God thereafter gave the confirmatory signs. Now 
we can hardly imagine that the course of events was, that the 
glory of Jahve filled the house (chap. v. 14) ; that then Solo- 
mon spoke the words and the prayer in chap. vi. ; that while he 
uttered the prayer the glory of Jahve again left the house, and 
then came down in a way manifest to all the people (chap. vii. 3), 
in order to fill the house for a second time." Certainly it was 
not so ; but the narrative itself gives no ground for any such 
representation. Not a word is said in the text of the glory of 
Jahve having left the temple daring Solomon's prayer. The 
supposed contradiction between chap. v. 14 and the account in 
chap. vii. 1-3 is founded entirely on a misinterpretation of our 
verse. The course of events described here was, as the words 
run, this : Fire came down from heaven upon the sacrifices and 
devoured them, and the glory of the Lord filled the house ; and 
this is in ver. 3 more exactly and precisely repeated by the state- 
ment that the people saw the fire and the glory of Jahve descend 
upon the house. According to these plain words, the glory of 
Jahve descended upon the temple in the fire which came down 
from heaven. In the heavenly fire which devoured the sacri- 
fices, the assembled congregation saw the glory of the Lord 
descend upon the temple and fill it. But the filling of the 



Digitized by 



Google 



830 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

temple by the cloud when the ark was brought in and set in its 
place (v. 14) can be without difficulty reconciled with this mani- 
festation of the divine glory in the fire. Just as the manifesta- 
tion of the gracious divine presence in the temple by a cloud, as 
its visible vehicle, does not exclude the omnipresence of God or 
His sitting enthroned in heaven, God's essence not being so con- 
fined to the visible vehicle of His gracious presence among His 
people that He ceases thereby to be enthroned in heaven, and to 
manifest Himself therefrom ; so the revelation of the same God 
from heaven by a descending fire is not excluded or set aside by 
the presence of the cloud in the holy place of the temple, and 
in the most holy. We may consequently quite well represent 
to ourselves the course of events, by supposing, that while the 
gracious presence of God enthroned above the cherubim on the 
ark made itself known in the cloud which filled the temple, 
or while the cloud filled the interior of the temple, God revealed 
His glory from heaven, before the eyes of the assembled congre- 
gation, in the fire which descended upon the sacrifices, so that 
the temple was covered or overshadowed by His glory. The 
parts of this double manifestation of the divine glory are clearly 
distinguished even in our narrative ; for in chap. v. 13, 14 the 
cloud which filled the house, as vehicle of the manifestation of the 
divine glory, and which hindered the priests from standing and 
serving (in the house, i.e. in the holy place and the most holy), 
is spoken of; while in our verses, again, it is the glory of God 
which descended upon the temple in the fire coming down from 
heaven on the sacrifices, and so filled it that the priests could not 
enter it, which is noticed. 

Since, therefore, the two passages involve no contradiction, 
the hypothesis of a compounding together of discrepant narra- 
tives loses all standing ground ; and it only remains to determine 
the mutual relations of the two narratives, and to answer the 
question, why the author of the book of Kings has omitted the 
account of the fire which came down from heaven upon the sacri- 
fices, and the author of. the Chronicle the blessing of the con- 
gregation (1 Kings viii. 54-61). From the whole plan and 
character of the two histories, there can be no doubt that in 
these accounts we have not a perfect enumeration of all the 
different occurrences, but only a record of the chief things which 
were done. The authority made use of by both, however, doubt- 
less contained both the blessing of the congregation (1 Kings viii. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VIL 1-22. " 331 

55-61) and tbe account of the fire which devoured the sacrifices 
(2 Chron. vii. 2, 3) ; and probably the latter preceded the bless- 
ing spoken by Solomon to the congregation (Kings). In all 
probability, the fire came down from heaven immediately after 
the conclusion of the dedicatory prayer, and devoured the sacri- 
fices lying upon the altar of burnt-offering; and after this had 
happened, Solomon turned towards the assembled congregation 
and praised the Lord, because He had given rest to His people, of 
which the completion of the temple, and the filling of it with the 
cloud of the divine glory, was a pledge. To record this speech 
of Solomon to the congregation, falls wholly in with the plan of 
the book of Kings, in which the prophetic interest, the realization 
of the divine purpose of grace by the acts and omissions of the 
kings, is the prominent one ; while it did not lie within the scope 
of his purpose to enter upon a detailed history of the public 
worship. We should be justified in expecting the fire which 
devoured the sacrifices to be mentioned in the book of Kings, 
only if the temple had been first consecrated by this divine act 
to be the dwelling-place of the gracious presence of God, or a 
sanctuary of the Lord ; but such significance the devouring of 
the sacrifices by fire coming forth from God did not possess. 
Jahve consecrated the temple to be the dwelling-place of His 
name, and the abode of His gracious presence, in proclaiming His 
presence by the cloud which filled the sanctuary, when the ark 
was brought into the most holy place. The devouring of the 
sacrifices upon the altar by fire from heaven was merely the con- 
firmatory sign that the Lord, enthroned above the ark in the 
temple, accepted, well pleased, the sacrificial service carried on 
on the altar of this temple ; and since the people could draw near 
to the Lord only with sacrifices before the altar, it was a con- 
firmatory sign that He from His throne would bestow His cove- 
nant grace upon those who appeared before Him with sacrifices ; 
cf. Lev. ix. 23 f. Implicitly, this grace was already secured 
to the people by God's consecrating the sanctuary to be the throne 
of His grace by the cloud which filled the temple ; and the author 
of the book of Kings thought it sufficient to mention this sign, 
and passed over the second, which only served as a confirmation 
of the first. With the chronicler the case was different ; for 
his plan to portray in detail the glory of the worship of the 
former time, the divine confirmation of the sacrificial worship, 
which was to be carried on continually in the temple as the only 



Digitized by 



Google 



332 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

legitimate place of worship, by fire from heaven, was so important 
that he could not leave it nnmentioned ; while the words of bless- 
ing spoken by Solomon to the congregation, as being already 
implicitly contained in the dedicatory prayer, did not appear 
important enough to be received into his book. For the rest, 
the sacrifices which the fire from heaven devoured are the sacri- 
fices mentioned in chap. v. 6, which the king and the congrega- 
tion had offered when the ark was borne into the temple. As 
there was an immense number of these sacrifices, they cannot all 
have been offered on the altar of burnt-offering, but, like the 
thank-offerings afterwards brought by Solomon and the congre- 
gation, must have been offered on the whole space which had 
been consecrated in the court for this purpose (ver. 7). This is 
expressly attested by ver. 7, for the ni?Vn can only be the sacri- 
fices in v. 6, since the sacrifices in ver. 5 of our chapter were 
only B'DTB* ; cf. 1 Kings viii. 62. 

Vers. 4-10. The sacrifices and the festival. After fire from 
heaven had devoured the sacrifices, and Solomon had praised the 
Lord for the fulfilment of His word, and sought for the congrega- 
tion the further bestowal of the divine blessing (1 Kings viii. 54— 
61), the dedication of the temple was concluded by a great thank- 
offering, of which we have in vers. 5, 6 an account which completely 
agrees with 1 Kings viii. 62, 63. — In ver. 6 the author of the Chron. 
again makes express mention of the singing and playing of the 
Levites when these offerings were presented. In the performance 
of this sacrificial act the priests stood DTi^OE'O*??, in their stations; 
but that does not signify separated according to their divisions 
(Berth.), but in officiis suis (Vulg.), i.e. ordines suos et funetiones 
suas a Davide 1 Chron. xxiv. 7 sqq. institutes servarunt (Bamb.) ; 
see on Num. viii. 26. The Levites with the instruments of song of 
Jahve, which David had made, i.e. with the instruments invented 
and appointed by David for song to the praise of the Lord. 7J?H3 
DT3 TW, not hymnos David canentes per manus $uas (Vulg.), 
taking TH b?n for the praising appointed by David, which by 
the hands of the Levites, i.e. was performed by the hands of the 
Levites (Berth.), but literally : when David sang praise by their 
hand (i.e. their service). This clause seems to be added to the 
relative clause, " which king David had made," for nearer defini- 
tion, and to signify that the Levites used the same instruments 
which David had introduced when he praised God by the play- 
ing of the Levites. The form onvxno as in 1 Chron. xv. 24. — 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. viii. 333 

Ver. 7 contains a supplementary remark, and the 1 relat. expresses 
only the connection of the thought, and the verb is to be trans- 
lated in English by the pluperfect. For the rest, compare on 
vers. 4-10 the commentary on 1 Kings viii. 62-66. 

Vers. 11-22. The Lord's answer to Solomon's dedicatory 
prayer. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 1-9. The general contents, and the 
order of the thoughts in the divine answer in the two texts, agree, 
but in the Chronicle individual thoughts are further expounded 
than in the book of Kings, and expressions are here and there 
made clear. The second clause of ver. 11 is an instance of this, 
where " and all the desire of Solomon, which he was pleased to 
do," is represented by " and all that came into Solomon's heart, 
to make in the house of the Lord and in his own house, he pros- 
perously effected." Everything else is explained in the Com. on 
1 Kings ix. 



ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, AND NAUTICAL UN- 



CHAP. VIII. — SOLOMON'S CITY-BUILDING, STATUTE LABOUR, 
ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, 
DERTAKINGS. (CF. 1 KINGS IX. 10-28.) 

The building of the temple was the most important work of 
Solomon's reign, as compared with which all the other under- 
takings of the king fall into the background ; and these are con- 
sequently only summarily enumerated both in the book of Kings 
and in the Chronicle. In our chapter, in the -first place, we have, 
(a) the building or completion of various cities, which were of 
importance partly as strongholds, partly as magazines, for the 
maintenance of the army necessary for the defence of the king- 
dom against hostile attacks (vers. 1-6) ; (b) the arrangement of 
the statute labour for the execution of all his building works 
(vers. 7-11) ; (e) the regulation of the sacrificial service and 
the public worship (vers. 12-16) ; and (d) the voyage to Ophir 
(vers. 17, 18). All these undertakings are recounted in the 
same order and in the same aphoristic way in 1 Kings ix. 
10-28, but with the addition of various notes, which are not 
found in our narrative; while the Chronicle, again, mentions 
several not unimportant though subordinate circumstances, which 
are not found in the book of Kings; whence it is clear that 
in the two narratives we have merely short and mutually sup- 
plementary extracts from a more elaborate description of these 
matters. 



Digitized by 



Google 



334 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Vers. 1-6. The city-building. — Ver. 1. The date, " at the end 
of twenty years, when Solomon . . . had built," agrees with that 
in 1 Kings ix. 10. The twenty years are to be reckoned from 
the commencement of the building of the temple, for he had 
spent seven years in the building of the temple, and thirteen 
years in that of his palace (1 Kings vi. 38, vii. 1). — Ver. 2 most 
be regarded as the apodosis of ver. 1, notwithstanding that the 
object, the cities which . . . precedes. The unusual position of 
the words is the result of the aphoristic character of die notice. 
As to its relation to the statement 1 Kings ix. 10-13, see the 
discussion on that passage. n:a, ver. 2, is not to be understood 
of the fortification of these cities, but of their completion, for, 
according to 1 Kings ix. 10, 13, they were in very bad condition. 
3t?ta, he caused to dwell there, i.e. transplanted Israelites thither, 
cf. 2 Kings xvii. 6. The account of the cities which Solomon 
built, i.e. fortified, is introduced (ver. 3) by the important state- 
ment, omitted in 1 Kings ix. : " Solomon went to Hamath-zobah, 
and prevailed against it." ?V ptn, to be strong upon, that is, 
prevail against, conquer ; cf. xxvii. 5. Hamath-zobah is not the 
city Hamath in Zobah, but, as we learn from ver. 4, the land or 
kingdom of Hamath. This did not lie, any more than the city 
Hamath, in Zobah, but bordered on the kingdom of Zobah : cf. 
1 Ghron. xviii. 3 ; and as to the position of Zobah, see the Com- 
mentary on 2 Sam. viii. 3. In David's time Hamath and Zobah 
had their own kings ; and David conquered them, and made their 
kingdoms tributary (1 Ohron. xviii. 49). Because they bordered 
on each other, Hamath and Zobah are here bound together as a 
nomen compos. HvV ptj£ signifies at least this, that these tribu- 
tary kingdoms had either rebelled against Solomon, or at least 
had made attempts to do so ; which Solomon suppressed, and in 
order to establish his dominion over them fortified Tadmor, i.e. 
Palmyra, and all the store cities in the land of Hamath (see on 
1 Kings ix. 18 f.) ; for, according to 1 Kings xi. 23 n% he had 
Kezon of Zobah as an enemy during his whole reign ; see on that 
passage. — Vers. 5 ff. Besides these, he made Upper and Nether 
Beth-horon (see on 1 Chron. vii. 24) into fortified cities, with walls, 
gates, and bars. *tf¥0 *ijjf is the second object of P-> an ^ nioin 
'ui is in apposition to that. Further, he fortified Baalah, in the 
tribe of Dan, to defend the kingdom against the Philistines, and, 
according to 1 Kings ix. 15-17, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer 
also, — which are omitted here, while in 1 Kings ix. 17 Upper 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. VIII. 7-1L 335 

Beth-horon Is omitted, — and store cities, chariot cities, and 
cavalry cities ; see on 1 Kings ix. 15-19. 

Vers. 7-10. On the arrangement of the statute labour, see on 
1 Bangs ix. 20-23. — This note is in Chron. abruptly intro- 
duced immediately after the preceding. Yer. 7 is an absolute 
clause : " as regards the whole people, those." orwa-jo (ver. 8) is 
not partitive: some of their sons ; but is only placed before the icfcj : 
those of their sons (i.e. of the descendants of the whole Canaanite 
people) who had remained in the land, whom the Israelites had 
not exterminated; Solomon made a levy of these for statute 
labourers. The |t? is wanting in 1 Kings, but is not to be struck 
out here on that account. Much more surprising is the iBfe after 
Tinfe* ya-JO, ver. 9, which is likewise not found in 1 Kings, since 
the following verb flu H? is not to be taken relatively, but contains 
the predicate of the subject contained in the words 'to* ^a"l». 
This it?K cannot be otherwise justified than by supposing that it 
is placed after to* '33 p, as in Fs. lxix. 27 it is placed after the 
subject of the relative clause, and so stands for 'to* *32 p nt?K : 
those who were of the sons of Israel (t.e. Israelites) Solomon did 
not make . . . The preplacing of Brwa p in ver. 8 would natu- 
rally suggest that 'to* *32 p should also precede, in order to bring 
out sharply the contrast between the sons of the Canaanites and 
the sons of Israel. — Ver. 9. vfty$ *!&\ should be altered into *-**& 
NpyW as in 1 Kings ix. 22, for &&7to are not chariot combatants, 
but royal adjutants ; see on Ex. xiv. 7 and 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. Over 
the statute labourers 250 upper overseers were placed. D , ? , W v ?fc f , 
chief of the superiors, i.e. chief overseer. The Keth. D'a^prce/ecii, 
is the true reading; cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 13, 2 Chron. xvii. 2. The 
Keri has arisen out of 1 Kings ix. 23. These overseers were 
Israelites, while in the number 550 (1 Kings ix. 23) the Israelite 
and Canaanite upper overseers are both included; see on ii. 17. 
°?3 refers to D¥?"* , ?> ver - ?> an ^ denotes the Canaanite people 
who remained. 

Ver. 11. The remark that Solomon caused Pharaoh's daughter, 
whom he had married (1 Kings iii. 1), to remove from the city 
of David into the house which he had built her, i.e. into that 
part of his newly-built palace which was appointed for the 
queen, is introduced here, as in 1 Kings ix. 24, because it 
belongs to the history of Solomon's buildings, although in the 
Chronicle it comes in very abruptly, the author not having men- 
tioned Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings 



Digitized by 



Google 



836 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

iii. 1). The reason given for tbis change of residence on the 
part of the Egyptian princess is, that Solomon could not allow her, 
an Egyptian, to dwell in the palace of King David, which had 
been sanctified by the reception of the ark, and consequently 
assigned to her a dwelling in the city of David until he should 
have finished the building of his palace, in which she might 
dwell along with him. nan is, as neuter, used instead of the 
singular ; cf. Ew. § 318, b. See also on 1 Kings iii. 1 and ix. 24. 
Vers. 12-16. Ttie sacrificial service in the new temple. Cf. 1 
Kings ix. 25, where it is merely briefly recorded that Solomon 
offered sacrifices three times a year on the altar built by him to 
the Lord. In our verses we have a detailed account of it. tit, at 
that time, scil. when the temple building had been finished and 
the temple dedicated (cf. ver. 1), Solomon offered burnt-offerings 
upon the altar which he had built before the porch of the temple. 
He no longer now sacrifices npon the altar of the tabernacle at 
Gibeon, as in the beginning of his reign (i. 3 ff.). — Ver. 13. 
" Even sacrificing at the daily rate, according to the direction of 
Moses." These words give a supplementary and closer definition 
of the sacrificing in the form of an explanatory subordinate 
clause, -which is interpolated in the principal sentence. For the 
following words 'tn rrinaB>? belong to the principal sentence (ver. 
12) : he offered sacrifices ... on the sabbaths, the new moons, 
etc. The 1 before ">3"|3 is explicative, and that = viz. ; and the 
infin. r)"2?ri7, according to the later usage, instead of infin. absol.; 
cf. Ew. § 280, d. The preposition 3 (before 1?*|) is the so-called 
3 essentia : consisting in the daily (rate) to sacrifice (this) ; cf. 
Ew. § 299, b. The daily rate, i.e. that which was prescribed in 
the law of Moses for each day, cf. Lev. xxiii. 37. rriljiB? is 
further explained by the succeeding clause : on the three chief 
festivals of the year. — Ver. 14 ff. He ordered the temple service, 
also, entirely according to the arrangement introduced by David 
as to the service of the priests and Levites. He appointed, ac- 
cording to the ordinance of David his father, i.e. according to the 
ordinance established by David, the classes of the priests (see on 
1 Chron. xxiv.) to that service, and the Levites to their stations 
(nVtntPD as in vii. 6), to praise (cf. 1 Chron. xxv.), and to serve 
before the priests (1 Chron. xxiii. 28 ff.), according to that 
which was appointed for every day, and the doorkeepers accord- 
ing to their courses, etc. (see 1 Chron. xxvi. 1-19). With the 
last words cf. Neh. xii. 24. — Ver. 15. This arrangement was 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. IX. 1-12. 337 

faithfully observed by the priests and Levites. The verb "iid is 
here construed c. accus. in the signification to transgress a com- 
mand (cf. Ew. § 282, a), and it is therefore not necessary to alter 
nrao into nwtso. OW'sn-^y depends upon ntio ; the king's com- 
mand concerning the priests and the Levites, i.e. that which 
David commanded them. 'U1 "layfe?, in regard to all things, 
and especially also in regard to the treasures ; cf . 1 Chron. xxvi. 
20-28. — With ver. 16 the account of what Solomon did for the 
public worship is concluded : " Now all the work of Solomon 
was prepared until the (this) day, the foundation of the house of 
Jahve until its completion; the house of Jahve was finished." 
JUK7D is explained by *»MD. tf ••} is the day on which, after the 
consecration of the completed temple, the regular public worship 
was commenced in it, which doubtless was done immediately 
after the dedication of the temple. Only when the regular wor- 
ship according to the law of Moses, and with the arrangements 
as to the service of the priests and Levites established by David, 
had been commenced, was Solomon's work in connection with the 
temple completed, and the house of God K?B>, integer, perfect in 
all its parts, as it should be. The last clause, s JV3 DPB', is con- 
nected rhetorically with what precedes without the conjunction, 
and is not to be regarded as a subscription, " with which the his- 
torian concludes the whole narrative commencing with chap. i. 
18" (Berth.); for D?B> does not signify "ended," or to be at 
an end, but to be set thoroughly (perfectly) in order. 

Vers. 17 and 18. Voyage to Ophir. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 26-28, and 
the commentary on that passage, where we have discussed the 
divergences of our narrative, and have also come to the conclu- 
sion that Ophir is not to be sought in India, but in Southern 
Arabia. By TK the date of this voyage is made to fall in the 
period after the building of the temple and the palace, i.e. in the 
second half of Solomon's reign. 

CHAP. K. — VISIT OF THE QUEEN OF SHEB A. SOLOMON'S EICHES, 
AND ROYAL POWER AND GLORY ; HIS DEATH. CF. 1 KINGS 
X. AND XL 41-48. 

Vers. 1-12. 77ie visit of the queen of Sheba. Cf. 1 Kings x. 
1-13. — This event is narrated as a practical proof of Solomon's 
extraordinary wisdom. The narrative agrees so exactly in both 
texts, with the exception of some few quite unimportant differ- 

Y 



Digitized by 



Google 



338 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

ences, that we mast regard them as literal extracts from an 
original document which they have used in common. For the 
commentary on this section, see on 1 Kings x. 1-13. 

Vers. 13-21. Solomon's revenue in gold, and the use lie 
made of it. Cf. 1 Kings x. 14-22, and the commentary there on 
this section, which is identical in both narratives, with the ex- 
ception of some trifling differences. Before tt>??o ^Q^. the 
relative pronoun is to be supplied: "and what the merchants 
brought." As to the derivation of the word nine, which comes 
from the Aramaic form fins, governor (ver. 14), see on Hagg. i. 1. 
— B^enn rrb?h fttaK, in ver. 21, ships going to Tarshish, is an 
erroneous paraphrase of t^ehn ntatf, Tarshish-ships, Le. ships 
built for long sea voyages ; for the fleet did not go to Tartessus 
in Spain, but to Ophir in Southern Arabia (see on 1 Kings ii. 
26 ff.). All the rest has been explained in the commentary on 
1 Kings x. 

In vers. 22-28, all that remained to be said of Solomon's 
royal glory, his riches, his wisdom, and his revenues, is in con- 
clusion briefly summed up, as in 1 Kings x. 23-29. From ver. 
25 onwards, the account given in the Chronicle diverges from 
that in 1 Kings x. 26 ff., in so far that what is narrated in 1 
Kings x. 26-28 concerning Solomon's chariots and horses, and 
his trade with Egypt in horses, is here partly replaced by state- 
ments similar in import to those in 1 Kings v., because the 
former matters had been already treated of in Chron. i. 14-17. 
— Ver. 25 does not correspond to the passage 1 Kings x. 26, but 
in contents and language agrees with 1 Kings v. 6, and ver. 26 
with 1 Kings v. 1. Only the general estimate of Solomon's 
riches in gold and silver, in ver. 27, repeated from chap. i. 15, 
corresponds to 1 Kings x. 27. Finally, in ver. 28 the whole 
description is rounded off; all that has already been said in 
chap. i. 16 and 17 as to the trade in horses with Egypt (1 Kings 
x. 28, 29) being drawn together into one general statement. 

Vers. 29-31. Conclusion of Solomon's history.— Ver. 29. 
Sources ; see the introduction, p. 28 f. — Ver. 30 f . The length of 
his reign, his death and burial, and his successor, as in 1 Kings 
xi. 42 f. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. X-XXXVL 339 



IV.— THE HISTOBY OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH UNTIL ITS 
FALL.— Chap. X.-XXXVI. 

After giving an account of the revolt of the ten tribes of 
Israel from the divinely chosen royal house of David (chap, x.), 
the author of the Chronicle narrates the history of the kingdom 
of Judah — to which he confines himself, to the exclusion of the 
history of the kingdom of the ten tribes — at much greater length 
than the author of the books of Kings has done. This latter 
portrays the development of both kingdoms, but treats only very 
briefly of the history of the kingdom of Judah, especially under 
its first rulers, and characterizes the attitude of the kings and 
people of Judah to the kingdom of Israel and to the Lord only 
in the most general way. The author of the Chronicle, on the 
other hand, depicts the development of Judah under Reboboam, 
Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat much more thoroughly, by com- 
municating a considerable number of events which are omitted 
in the book of Kings. As we have already proved (p. 19), the 
purpose of the chronicler was to show, according to the varying 
attitude of the kings of the house of David to the Lord and to 
His law, how, on the one hand, God rewarded the fidelity of the 
kings and of the people to His covenant with prosperity and 
blessing, and furnished to the kingdom of Judah, in war with 
its enemies, power which secured the victory ; and how, on the 
other, He took vengeance for every revolt of the kings and people, 
and for every fall into idolatry and superstition, by humiliations 
and awful judgments. And more especially from the times of 
the godless kings Ahaz and Manasseh does our author do this, 
pointing out how God suffered the people to fall ever deeper 
into feebleness, and dependence upon the heathen world powers, 
until finally, when the efforts of the pious kings Hezekiah and 
Josiah to bring back the people, sunk as they were in idolatry 
and moral corruption, to the God of their fathers and to His 
service failed to bring about any permanent repentance and 
reformation, He cast forth Judah also from His presence, and 
gave over Jerusalem and the temple to destruction by the Chal- 
deans, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah to be 
led away into exile to Babylon. 



Digitized by 



Google 



340 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

CHAP. X. — REVOLT OP THE TEN TRIBES FROM REHOBOAM AKD 
THE HOUSE OF DAVID. CP. 1 KINGS XII. 1-19. 

This event is narrated in our chapter, except in so far as a 
few unessential differences in form are concerned, exactly as we 
have it in 1 Kings xii. 1-19 ; so that we may refer for the exposi- 
tion of it to the commentary on 1 Kings xii., where we have 
both treated the contents of this chapter, and have also discussed 
the deeper and more latent causes of this event, so important in 
its consequences. 

CHAP. XI. AND XII. — REHOBOAM'S REIGN. 

When the ten tribes had renounced their allegiance to Beho- 
boam the son of Solomon, and had made Jeroboam their king 
(1 Kings xii. 20), Eehoboam wished to compel them by force of 
arms again to submit to him, and made for this purpose a levy 
of all the men capable of bearing arms in Judah and Benjamin. 
But the prophet Shemaiah commanded him, in the name of the 
Lord, to desist from making war upon the Israelites, they being 
brethren, and Eehoboam abandoned his purpose (vers. 1-4, cf. 
1 Kings xii. 21-24), and began to establish his dominion over 
Judah and Benjamin. His kingdom, moreover, was increased 
in power by the immigration of the priests and Levites, whom 
Jeroboam had expelled from the priesthood, and also of many 
God-fearing Israelites out of the ten tribes, to Judah (vers. 
13-17). Kehoboam also set his family affairs in order, by nomi- 
nating from among his many sons, whom his wives had borne to 
him, Abijah to be his successor on the throne, and making pro- 
vision for the others in different parts of the country (vers. 
18-23). But when he had established his royal authority, he 
forsook the law of Jahve, and was punished for it by the inroad 
of the Egyptian king Shishak, who marched through his land 
with a numerous host, took Jerusalem, and plundered the palace 
and the temple (chap. xii. 1-11), but without wholly ruining 
Judah ; and Eehoboam was king until his death, and his son 
succeeded him on the throne (vers. 12-16). 

The order in which these events are narrated is not chrono- 
logical; they are rather grouped together according to their 
similarities. As Kehoboam began even in the third year of his 
reign to forsake the law of God, and King Shishak made war 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XI. 1-12. 341 

upon Judah as early as in his fifth year, the building of the 
fortresses may have been begun in the first three or four years, 
but cannot have been ended then ; still less can, the sons of 
Rehoboam have been provided for in the time before Shishak's 
inroad. 

Chap. xi. 1-4. — Rehoboam s attitude to the ten rebel tribes. 
Gf. 1 Kings xii. 21-24. — Rehoboam's purpose, to subdue these 
tribes by force of arms, and bring them again under his dominion, 
and the abandonment of this purpose in consequence of the com- 
mand of the prophet Shemaiah, belong in a certain measure to 
the history of the revolt of the ten tribes from the house of 
David ; for the revolt only became an accomplished fact when 
the prophet Shemaiah proclaimed in the name of the Lord that 
the matter was from the Lord. Ver. 3 f. Of Jahve was the 
thing done ; He had ordained the revolt as a chastisement of the 
seed of David for walking no more in His ways. Solomon had, 
by allowing himself to be seduced by his many foreign wives 
into departing from the Lord, exposed himself to the divine 
displeasure, and his successor Rehoboam increased the guilt by 
his impolitic treatment of the tribes dissatisfied with Solomon's 
rule, and had, if not brought about the revolt, yet hastened it ; 
but yet the conduct of these tribes was not thereby justified. 
Their demand that the burdens laid upon them by Solomon 
should be lightened, flowed from impure and godless motives, 
and at bottom had its root in discontent with the theocratic rule 
of the house of David (see on 1 Kings xii. 21 ff.). The expres- 
sion, " to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin," is deeper than 
" the whole house of Judah and Benjamin and the remnant of 
the people," i.e. those belonging to the other tribes who were 
dwelling in the tribal domains of Judah and Benjamin (1 Kings 
xii. 23) ; for it characterizes all who had remained true to the 
house of David as Israel, i.e. those who walked in the footsteps 
of their progenitor Israel (Jacob). 

Vers. 5—12. — Rehoboam's measures for the fortifying of his 
kingdom. — To defend his kingdom against hostile attacks, Reho- 
boam built cities for defence in Judah. The sing, "rivpb is used, 
because the building of cities served for the defence of the king- 
dom. Judah is the name of the kingdom, for the fifteen fenced 
cities enumerated in the following verses were situated in the tribal 
domains of both Benjamin and Judah. — Ver. 6. In Judah lay 
Bethlehem, a small city mentioned as early as in Jacob's timo 



Digitized by 



Google 



342 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

(Gen. xxxv. 19), two hoars south of Jerusalem, the birthplace 
of David and of Christ (Mic. v. 1 ; Matt. ii. 5, 11), now Beit- 
Lahm ; see on Josh. xv. 59. Etam is not the place bearing the 
same name which is spoken of in 1 Chron. iv. 32 and Judg. xv. 8, 
and mentioned in the Talmud as the place where, near Solo- 
mon's Fools, the aqueduct which supplied Jerusalem with water 
commenced (cf. Robins. Pal. sub voce ; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jems. 
ii. S. 84 ff., 855 ff.) ; x nor is it to be looked for, as Robins, loc. 
cit., and New Bill. Researches, maintains, in the present village 
Urt&s (Art&s), for it has been identified by Tobl., dritte Wand. 
S. 89, with Ain Attan, a valley south-west from Art&s. Not 
only does the name Attain correspond more than Art&s with 
Etam, but from it the water is conducted to Jerusalem, while 
according to Tobler's thorough conviction it could not have been 
brought from Artfta. Tekoa, now Tekua, on the summit of a 
hill covered with ancient ruins, two hours south of Bethlehem ; 
see on Josh. xv. 59. — Ver. 7. Beth-zur was situated where the 
ruin Beth-Sur now stands, midway between Urtls and Hebron ; 
see on Josh. xv. 58. Shoko, the present Shuweike in Wady 
Sumt, 3£ hours south-west from Jerusalem ; see on Josh. xv. 
35. Adullam, in Josh. xv. 35 included among the cities of the 
hill country, reckoned part of the lowland (Shephelah), ue. the 
slope of the hills, has not yet been discovered. Tobler, dritte 
Wand. S. 151, conjectures that it is identical with the present 
Dula, about eight miles to the east of Beit-Jibrin ; but this can 
hardly be correct (see against it, Arnold in Herzog's Realenc. 
xiv. S. 723). It is much more probable that its site was that 
of the present Deir Dubban, two hours to the north of Beit- 
Jibrin; see on Josh. xii. 15. — Ver. 8. Qath, a royal city of 
the Philistines, which was first made subject to the Israelites by 
David (1 Chron. xviii. 1), and was under Solomon the seat of its 
own king, who was subject to the Israelite king (1 Kings ii. 39), 
has not yet been certainly discovered ; see on Josh. xuL 3. 2 
Mareshah, the city Marissa, on the road from Hebron to the 

1 For further information as to the commencement of this aqueduct, see 
the masterly dissertation of Dr. Herm. Zschokke, "Die versiegelte Quelle 
Salomo's," in the Tubinger TIteol Quartalschr. 1867, H. 8, S. 426 ff. 

* C. Schick, Reiseindas PhiUsterkmd (in " Ausland" 1867, Nr. 7, & 162), 
identifies Gath with the present Tel Safieh, " an isolated conical hill in the 
plain, like a sentinel of a watchtower or fortress, and on that account there 
was so much struggling for its possession." On the other hand, Konr. Furrer, 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XL 5-12. 343 

land of the Philistines, was at a later time very important, and 
is not represented by the ruin Marash, twenty-four minutes to 
the south of Beit-Jibrin (Eleutheropolis) ; see on Josh. xv. 44, 
and Tobl. dritte Wand. S. 129, 142 f. Ziph is probably the 
Ziph mentioned in Josh. xv. 55, in the hill country of Judah, 
of which ruins yet remain on the hill Ziph, about an hour and 
a quarter south-east of Hebron; see on Josh. xv. 55. C. v. 
Baumer thinks, on the contrary, Pal. S. 222, Anm. 249, that 
our Ziph, as it is mentioned along with Mareshah and other 
cities of the lowland, cannot be identified with either of the 
Ziphs mentioned in Josh. xv. 24 and 55, but is probably Achzib 
in the lowland mentioned along with Mareshah, Josh. xv. 44 ; 
but this is very improbable. — Ver. 9. Adoraim (ASapatfi. in 
Joseph. Antt. viii. 10. 1), met with in 1 Mace. xiii. 20 as an 
Idumean city, "AStopa, and so also frequently in Josephus, was 
taken by Hyrcanus, and rebuilt by Gabinius (Jos. Antt xiii. 15. 
4, and xiv. 5. 3) under the name A&pa, and often spoken of 
along with Marissa (s. Beland, Palast. p. 547). Robinson (PaL 
tub voce) has identified it with the present Dura, a village about 
7£ miles to the westward of Hebron. Lachish, situated in the 
lowland of Judah, as we learn from Josh. xv. 39, is probably 
the present Um Lakis, on the road from Gaza to Beit-Jibrin 
and Hebron, to the left hand, seven hours to the west of Bek- 
Jibrin, on a circular height covered with ancient walls and 
marble fragments, and overgrown with thistles and bushes ; see 
on Josh. x. 3, and Pressel in Herz.'s Realenc. viii. S. 157 f. 
Azekah, situated in the neighbourhood of Shoco (ver. 7), and, 
according to 1 Sam. xvii. 1, in an oblique direction near Ephes- 
Dammim, i.e. Damum, one hour east to the south of Beit-Nettif, 1 
has not been re-discovered ; see on Josh. x. 10. — Ver. 10. Zorah, 
Samson's birthplace, is represented by the ruin Sura, at the 
south-west end of the ridge, which encloses the Wady es Sarar 
on the north ; see on Josh. xv. 33. To the north of that again 
lay Ajalon, now the village J&lo, on the verge of the plain 
Merj ibn Omeir, four leagues to the west of Gibeon; see on 

Wanderungen durch PalOstina, Zurich 1865, thinks, S. 133, that he has found 
the true situation of Gath in the Wady el Gat, northward of the ruins of 
Askalon. 

1 Compare the interesting note of Breytenbach (Rcybb. da heil. Landts, 
L 134) in Tobler, dritte Wand. S. 463 : " Thence (from Azekah) three miles 
is the city Zochot- Jude, not far from Nobah, where David slew Goliath." 



Digitized by 



Google 



344 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHBONICXES. 

Josh. x. 12 and xix. 42. Finally, Hebron, the ancient city of the 
patriarchs, now called el Khalil (The friend of God, t'.e. Abra- 
ham) ; see on Gen. xxiii. 2. All these fenced cities lay in the 
tribal domain of Judah, with the exception of Zorah and Ajalon, 
which were assigned to the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 41 f.). These 
two were probably afterwards, in the time of the judges, when a 
part of the Danites emigrated from Zorah and Eshtaol to the 
north of Palestine (Judg. xviii. 1), taken possession of by Ben- 
jamites, and were afterwards reckoned to the land of Benjamin, 
and are here named as cities which Kehoboam fortified in Ben- 
jamin. If we glance for a moment at the geographical position 
of the whole fifteen cities, we see that they lay partly to the 
south of Jerusalem, on the road which went by Hebron to Beer- 
sheba and Egypt, partly on the western slopes of the hill country 
of Judah, on the road by Beit-Jibrin to Gaza, while only a 
few lay to the north of this road towards the Philistine plain, 
and there were none to the north to defend the kingdom against 
invasions from that side. " Kehoboam seems, therefore, to have 
had much more apprehension of an attack from the south and 
west, i.e. from the Egyptians, than of a war with the northern 
kingdom " (Berth.). Hence we may conclude that Rehoboam 
fortified these cities only after the inroad of the Egyptian king 
Shishak. — Ver. 11 f. u And he made strong the fortresses, and 
put captains in them," etc. ; i.e. he increased their strength by 
placing them in a thoroughly efficient condition to defend them- 
selves against attacks, appointing commandants (D'TU), provision- 
ing them, and (ver. 12) laying up stores of all kinds of arms. In 
this way he made them exceedingly strong. The last clause, ver. 
12, " And there were to him Judah and Benjamin/' corresponds 
to the statement, x. 19, that Israel revolted from the house of 
David, and forms the conclusion of the account (vers. 1— 17a) of 
that which Kehoboam did to establish his power and consolidate 
his kingdom. There follows hereupon, in 

Vers. 13-17, the account of the internal spiritual strength- 
ening of the kingdom of Judah by the migration of the priests and 
Levites, and many pious worshippers of Jahve out of all the tribes, 
to the kingdom of Judali. — Ver. 13. The priests and Levites in all 
Israel went over to him out of their whole domain. 3? 3?!??, to 
present oneself before any one, to await his commands, cf. Zech. 
vi. 5, Job i. 6, ii. 1 ; here in the signification to place oneself at 
another's disposal, t'.e. to go over to one. The suffix in D?13J refers 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XI. 13-17. 345 

to "all Israel." For — this was the motive of their migration, 
ver. 14 — the Levites (in the wider signification of the word, 
including the priests) forsook their territory and their possessions, 
i.e. the cities assigned to them, with the pasture lands for their 
cattle (Num. xxxv. 1-8), scil. in the domain of the ten tribes ; 
" for Jeroboam and his sons had driven them out from the priest- 
hood of Jahve." To prevent his subjects from visiting the temple 
at Jerusalem, which he feared might ultimately cause the people 
to return to the house of David, Jeroboam had erected his own 
places of worship for his kingdom in Bethel and Dan, where 
Jahve was worshipped in the ox images (the golden calves), and 
had appointed, not the Levites, but men from the body of the 
people, to be priests in these so-called sanctuaries (1 Kings xii. 
26-31), consecrated by himself. By these innovations not only 
the priests and Levites, who would not recognise this unlawful 
image-worship, were compelled to migrate to Judah and Jeru- 
salem, but also the pious worshippers of the Lord, who would not 
renounce the temple worship which had been consecrated by God 
Himself. All Jeroboam's successors held firmly by this calf- 
worship introduced by him, and consequently the driving out of 
the priests and Levites is here said to have been the act of Jero- 
boam and his sons. By his sons are meant Jeroboam's succes- 
sors on the throne, without respect to the fact that of Jeroboam's 
own sons only Nadab reached the throne, and that his dynasty 
terminated with him ; for in this matter all the kings of Israel 
•walked in the footsteps of Jeroboam. — Ver. 15. And had ordained 
him priests for the high places. fr-IOJW is a continuation of 
c n , ?? i ! 1 '?» ver. 14. ritoa are the places of worship which were 
erected by Jeroboam for the image-worship, called in 1 Kings xii. 
31 nioa JV3 ; see on that passage. The gods worshipped in these 
houses in high places the author of the Chronicle calls wvyto 
from their nature, and DyJJj from their form. The word 
Dvyjrt? is taken from Lev. xvii. 7, and signifies demons, so named 
from the Egyptian idolatry, in which the worship of goats, of 
Pan (Mendes), who was always represented in the form of a 
goat, occupied a prominent plase; see on Lev. xvii. 7. For 
further details as to the B?JJ|, see on 1 Kings xii. 28. — Ver. 16. 
B ? r ?.n*, after them, i.e. following after the priests and Levites. 
With D337T1K D^nlrij who turned their hearts thereto, cf . 1 Chron 
xxii. 19. They went to Jerusalem to sacrifice there ; i.e., &sj4e. 
learn from the context, not merely to offer sacrifices, but al: 



Digitized by 




346 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

remain in the kingdom of Judah. — Ver. 17. These immigrants 
— priests, Levites, and pious worshippers of Jahve — made the 
kingdom of Judah strong, by strengthening the religious foun- 
dation on which the kingdom was founded, and made Rehoboam 
strong three years, so that they (king and people) walked in the 
way of David and Solomon. The strengthening lasted only three 
years— only while the opposition to Jeroboam's action in the matter 
of religion was kept alive by the emigration of the pious people 
from the ten tribes. What occurred after these three years is 
narrated only in chap. xii. — Here there follows, in 

Vers. 18-23, information as to Eehoboarris family relation- 
ships. — Ver. 18. Instead of |? we must read, with the Keri, many 
mss., LXX, and Vulg., na : Mahalath die daughter of Jeri- 
moth, the son of David. Among the sons of David (1 Chron. iii. 
1-8) no Jerimoth is found. If this name be not another form 
of WTW, 1 Chron. iii. 3, Jerimoth must have been a son of one 
of David's concubines. Before the name ?wa», ' must have been 
dropped out, and is to be supplied ; so that Mahalath' s father and 
mother are both named : the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David, 
and Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse, i.e. David's eldest 
brother (1 Chron. ii. 13 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 13). For Abihail cannot 
be held to be a second wife of Eehoboam, because ver. 19, " and 
she bore," and ver. 20, " and after her," show that in ver. 18 only 
one wife is named. She bare him three sons, whose names occur 
only here (ver. 19). — Ver. 20. Maachah the daughter, it. the 
granddaughter, of Absalom ; for she cannot have been Absalom's 
daughter, because Absalom, according to 2 Sam. xiv. 27, had only 
one daughter, Tamar by name, who must have been fifty years 
old at Solomon's death. According to 2 Sam. xviii. 18, Absalom 
left no son ; Maachah therefore can only be a daughter of Tamar, 
who, according to 2 Chron. xiii. 2, was married to Uriel of 
Gibeah: see on 1 Kings xv. 2. Abijah, the oldest son of 
Maachah, whom his father nominated his successor (ver. 22 and 
xii. 16), is called in the book of Kings constantly Abijam, the 
original form of the name, which was afterwards weakened into 
Abijah. — Ver. 21 f. Only these wives with their children are 
mentioned by name, though besides these Rehoboam had a 
number of wives, 18 wives and 60 (according to Josephus, 30) 
concubines, who bore him twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters. 
Rehoboam trod in his father's footsteps in this not quite praise- 
worthy point. The eldest son of Maachah he made head (E*"y), 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap, m 347 

i.e. prince, among his brethren ; to'70117 '3, for to make him king, 
scil. was his intention. The infin. with ? is here nsed in the swift- 
ness of speech in loose connection to state with what further pur- 
pose he had appointed him "nj ; cf. Ew. § 351, c, at the end. — 
Ver. 23. And he did wisely, and dispersed of all his sons in all 
the countries of Judah and Benjamin, i.e. dispersed all his sons so, 
that they were placed in all parts of Judah and Benjamin in the 
fenced cities, and he gave them victual in abundance, and he 
sought (for them) a multitude of wives. ?KB>, to ask for, for the 
father brought about the marriage of his sons. He therefore 
took care that his sons, by being thus scattered in the fenced 
cities of. the country as their governors, were separated from each 
other, but also that they received the necessary means for living 
in a way befitting their princely rank, in the shape of an abun- 
dant maintenance and a considerable number of wives. They 
were thus kept in a state of contentment, so that they might not 
make any attempt to gain the crown, which he had reserved for 
Abi jah ; and in this lay the wisdom of his conduct. 

Chap. xii. Rehoboam's defection from the Lord, and his 
humiliation by the Egyptian king Shishak. — Ver. 1. The infini- 
tive r?'7|, u at the time of the establishing," with an indefinite 
subject, may be expressed in English by the passive : when Keho- 
boam's royal power was established. The words refer back to 
xi. 17. to?! 1 ? 3 , "when he had become strong" (njjrn is a nomen 
verbale : the becoming strong ; cf. xxvi. 16, Dan. xi. 2), he forsook 
the Lord, and all Israel with him. The inhabitants of the 
kingdom of Judah are here called Israel, to hint at the contrast 
between the actual conduct of the people in their defection from 
the Lord, and the destiny of Israel, the people of God. The 
forsaking of the law of Jahve is in substance the fall into 
idolatry, as we find it stated more definitely in 1 Kings xiv. 22 ff. 
— Ver. 2. In punishment of this defection (''3 vj{0 '3, because 
they had acted faithlessly to Jahve), Shishak, the king of Egypt, 
marched with a great host against Jerusalem. This hostile in- 
vasion is also briefly narrated in 1 Kings xiv. 25-28. Shishak 
(Sisak) is, as we have remarked on 1 Kings xiv., Sesonchis or 
Sechonchosis, the first king of the 22d dynasty, who has cele- 
brated his victory in a relief at Karnak. In this sculpture the 
names of the cities captured are recorded on shields, and a con- 
siderable number have been deciphered with some certainty, and 
by them our account is completely confirmed. According to 



Digitized by 



Google 



348 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

ver. 3, Shishak's host consisted of 1200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen 
— numbers which, of course, are founded only upon a rough esti- 
mate — and an innumerable multitude of footmen, among whom 
were B^?, Libyans, probably the Libysegyptii of the ancients 
(see on Gen. x. 13) ; B*3D, according to the LXX. and Vulg. 
Troglodytes, probably the Ethiopian Troglodytes, who dwelt in 
the mountains on the west coast of the Arabian Gulf; and 
Cushites, i.e. Ethiopians. The Libyans and Cushites are men- 
tioned in Nahum iii. 9 also as auxiliaries of the Egyptians. — 
Ver. 4. After the capture of the fenced cities of Judah, he 
inarched against Jerusalem. — Ver. 5. Then the prophet She- 
maiah announced to the king and the princes, who had retired to 
Jerusalem before Shishak, that the Lord had given them into 
the power of Shishak because they had forsaken Him. TO 3TP, 
forsaken and given over into the hand of Shishak. When the 
king and the priests immediately humbled themselves before 
God, acknowledging the righteousness of the Lord, the prophet 
announced to them further that the Lord would not destroy 
them since they had humbled themselves, but would give them 
deliverance in a little space. BV»3, according to a little, i.e. in a 
short time. n ?Yf is accusative after W>}% My anger shall not 
pour itself out upon Jerusalem. The pouring out of anger is 
the designation of an exterminating judgment ; cf. xxxiv. 25. — 
Ver. 8. But ('3 after a negative clause) they shall be his ser- 
vants, sc. for a short time (see ver. 7), " that they may know 
my service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries" 
(cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 30) ; i.e. that they may learn to know by 
experience the difference between the rule of God and that of 
the heathen kings, and that God's rule was not so oppressive as 
that of the rulers of the world. 

With ver. 9 the account of the war is taken up again and 
continued by the repetition of the words, " Then marched Shishak 
. . . against Jerusalem" (ver. 4). Shishak plundered the trea- 
sures of the temple and the palace ; he had consequently cap- 
tured Jerusalem. The golden shields also which had been 
placed in the house of the forest of Lebanon, i.e. the palace 
built by Solomon in Jerusalem, which Solomon had caused to 
be made (cf. ix. 16), Shishak took away, and in their place Reho- 
boam caused brazen shields to be prepared ; see on 1 Kings xiv. 
26-28. — In ver. 12 the author of the Chronicle concludes the 
account of this event with the didactic remark, "Because he 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XIII. 1, 2. 349 

(Rehoboam) humbled himself, the anger of Jahve was turned 
away from him." nwn? toi, and it was not to extermination 
utterly (TO, properly to destruction, i.e. completely ; cf. Ezek. 
xiii. 13), And also in Judah were good things. This is the other 
motive which caused the Lord to turn away His wrath. Good 
things are proofs of piety and fear of God, cf. xix. 3. — Ver. 13 f. 
The length of Eehoboam's reign, his mother, and the judgment 
about him. Cf. 1 Kings xiv. 21 and 22a. ptnrw here, as in xiii. 
21, can, in its connection with what precedes, be only understood 
to mean that Kehoboam, after his humiliation at the hands of 
Shishak, by which his kingdom was utterly weakened and almost 
destroyed, again gained strength and power. Cf. also i. 1, where 
pOTJV is used of Solomon in the beginning of his reign, after he 
overcame Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and his party. — 
As to the age of Kehoboam, etc., see on 1 Kings xiv. 21. JTjn &%% 
ver. 14, is defined by the addition, " for he prepared not his heart 
to seek the Lord." For the expression cf. xix. 3, xxx. 19, Ezra 
vii. 10. — Vers. 15 and 16. Close of his reign. On the authori- 
ties, see the Introduction, p. 34 ; and in reference to the other 
statements, the commentary on 1 Kings xiv. 29-31. ftonpo, 
wars, i.e. a state of hostility, was between Rehoboam and Jero- 
boam all days, can only be understood of the hostile attitude of 
the two rulers to each other, like ^OfTO? in Kings ; for we have 
no narrative of wars between them after Rehoboam had aban- 
doned, at the instance of the prophet, his proposed war with the 
Israelites at the commencement of his reign. 



CHAP. XIII. — THE BEIGN OP ABIJAH. CF. 1 KINGS XV. 1-8. 

In the book of Kings it is merely remarked in general, that 
the hostile relationship between Jeroboam and Rehoboam con- 
tinued during his whole life, and that between Abijah and Jero- 
boam there was war (vers. 6 and 7) ; but not one of his enter- 
prises is recounted, and only his attitude towards the Lord is 
exactly characterized. In our chapter, on the contrary, we have 
* vivid and circumstantial narrative of the commencement, 
course, and results of a great war against Jeroboam, in which 
Abijah, with the help of the Lord, inflicted a crushing defeat on 
the great army of the Israelites, and conquered several cities. 

Vers. 1 and 2. The commencement and duration of the 
reign, as in 1 Kings xv. 1, 2. Abijah's mother is here (ver. 2) 



Digitized by 



Google 



350 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

called Michaiah instead of Maachah, as in xi. 20 and 1 Kings 
xt. 2, but it can hardly be a second name which Maachah had 
received for some unknown reason ; probably ifwd is a mere 
orthographical error for rojto. She is here called, not the 
daughter = granddaughter of Abishalom, but after her father, 
the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah ; see on xi. 20. 1 

Vers. 26-21. The War between Abijali and Jeroboam.— 
nn»n fon^o, war arose, broke out. — Ver. 3. Abijah began the 
war with an army of 400,000 valiant warriors, "nna k*k, chosen 
men. 'D RK .^DK, to bind on war, i.e. to open the war. Jeroboam 

1 Against this Bertheau remarks, after the example of Thenius : " When 
we consider that the wife of Abijah and mother of Asa was also called 
Maachah, 1 Kings xt. 13, 2 Chron. xt. 16, and that in 1 Kings xt. 2 tbii 
Maachah is again called the daughter of Abishalom, and that this latter 
statement is not met -with in the Chronicle, we are led to conjecture that 
Maachah, the mother of Abijah, the daughter of Abishalom, has been con- 
founded with Maachah the mother of Asa, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah, 
and that in our passage Asa's mother is erroneously named instead of the 
mother of Abijah." This conjecture is a strange fabric of perrerted facts and 
inconsequential reasoning. In 1 Kings xt. 2 Abi jam's mother is called 
Maachah the daughter of Abishalom, exactly as in 2 Chron. xi. 20 and 21 ; 
and in 1 Kings xt. 13, in perfect agreement with 2 Chron. xt. 16, it is stated 
that Asa remoTed Maachah from the dignity of Gebira because she had made 
herself a statue of Asherah. This Maachah, deposed by Asa, is called in 
1 Kings xt. 10 the daughter of Abishalom, and only this latter remark is 
omitted from the Chronicle. How from these statements we most conclude 
that the mother of Abijah, Maachah the daughter of Abishalom, has been 
confounded with Maachah the mother of Asa, the daughter of Uriel, we 
cannot see. The author of the book of Kings knows only one Maachah, the 
daughter of Abishalom, whom in xt. 2 he calls mother, i.e. fTV33. *•«• Snl- 
tana Walide of Abijah, and in xt. 10 makes to stand in the same relationship 
of mother to Asa. From this, howeTer, the only natural and logically soond 
conclusion which can be drawn is that Abijam's mother, Behoboam's wife, 
occupied the position of queen-mother, not merely during the three years' 
reign of Abijam, but also during the first years of the reign of his son Asa, 
as his grandmother, until Asa had deprived her of this dignity because of her 
idolatry. It is nowhere said in Scripture that this woman was Abijam's 
wife, but that is a conclusion drawn by Thenius and Bertheau only from 
her being called So/tt, his (Asa's) mother, as if DK could denote merely the 
actual mother, and not the grandmother. Finally, the omission in the 
Chronicle of the statement in 1 Kings xt. 10, " The name of his mother was 
Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom," does not faTOur in the Tery least the 
conjecture that Asa's mother has been confounded with the mother of Abijah ; 
for it is easily explained by the fact that at the accession of Asa no change 
was made in reference to the dignity of queen-mother, Abijah 's mother still 
holding that position even under Asa. 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XIIL 2-12. 351 

prepared for the war with 800,000 warriors. The number of 
Jeroboam's warriors is exactly that which Joab returned as the 
result, as to Israel, of the numbering of the people commanded 
by David, while that of Abijah's army is less by 100,000 men 
than Joab numbered in Judah (2 Sam. xxiv. 9). — Ver. 4 ff. 
When the two armies lay over against each other, ready for the 
combat, Abijah addressed the enemy, King Jeroboam and all 
Israel, in a speech from Mount Zemaraim. The mountain O'no^t 
is met with only here ; but a city of this name is mentioned in 
Josh, xviii. 22, whence we would incline to the conclusion that the 
mountain near or upon which this city lay was intended. But if 
this city was situated to the east, not only of Bethel, but also of 
Jerusalem, on the road to Jericho (see on Josh, xviii. 22), as we 
may conclude from its enumeration between Beth-Arabah and 
Bethel in Josh. loc. cit., it will not suit our passage, at least if 
Zemaraim be really represented by the ruin el Sumra to the east 
of Khan Hadur on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho. Robin- 
son (Phys. Geog. S. 38) conjectures Mount Zemaraim to the east 
of Bethel, near the border of the two kingdoms, to which Mount 
Ephraim also extends. Abijah represented first of all (vers. 
5-7) to Jeroboam and the Israelites that their kingdom was the 
result of a revolt against Jahve, who had given the kingship over 
Israel to David and his sons for ever. — Ver. 5. " Is it not to you 
to know 1 " i.e. can it be unknown to you ? TOD rrja, accus. of 
nearer definition : after the fashion of a covenant of salt, i.e. of 
an irrevocable covenant ; cf. on Lev. ii. 13 and Num. xviii. 19. 
" And Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon the son of David (cf . 
1 Kings xi. 11), rebelled against his lord," with the help of 
frivolous, worthless men (D*P5 as in Judg. ix. 4, xi. 3 ; ?J?v3 'ja 
as in 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13, — not recurring elsewhere in the Chro- 
nicle), who gathered around him, and rose against Rehoboam with 
power. ?£ ^?*?'?^ , , to show oneself powerful, to show power 
against any one. Against this rising Rehoboam showed himself 
not strong enough, because he was an inexperienced man and 
soft of heart. ">}B denotes not " a boy," for Rehoboam was forty- 
one years old when he entered upon his reign, but " an inex- 
perienced young man," as in 1 Chron. xxix. 1. 33? Tri, soft of 
heart, {.«. faint-hearted, inclined to give way, without energy to 
make a stand against those rising insolently against him. «7l 
w Pjnnn, and showed himself not strong before them, proved to 
be too weak in opposition to them. This representation does not 



Digitized by 



Google 



352 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

conform to the state of the case as narrated in chap. x. Reiio- 
boam did not appear soft-hearted and compliant in the negotia- 
tion with the rebellious tribes at Sichem ; on the contrary, he 
was hard and defiant, and showed himself youthfully inconsiderate 
only in throwing to the winds the wise advice of the older men, 
and in pursuance of the rash counsel of the young men who had 
grown up with him, brought about the rupture by his domineering 
manner. But Abijah wishes to justify bis father as much as 
possible in his speech, and shifts all the guilt of the rebellion of 
the ten tribes from the house of David on to Jeroboam and his 
worthless following. — Vers. 8 and 9. Abijah then points out to 
his opponents the vanity of their trust in the great multitude of 
their warriors and their gods, while yet they had driven out the 
priests of Jahve. u And now ye say," scil. in your heart, i.e. you 
think to show yourself strong before the kingdom of Jahve in 
the hands of the sons of David, i.e. against the kingdom of Jahve 
ruled over by the sons of David, by raising a great army in 
order to make war upon and to destroy this kingdom. 3"J Jton Cnx\ 
and truly ye are a great multitude, and with you are the golden 
calves, which Jeroboam hath made to you for gods ; but trust 
not unto them, for Jahve, the true God, have ye not for you 
as a helper. — Ver. 9. " Yea, ye have cast out the priests of 
Jahve, the sons of Aaron, and made you priests after the manner 
of the nations of the lands. Every one who has come, to fill 

his hand with a young bullock and he has become a 

priest to the no-god." ?v n?d, to fill his hand, denotes, in the 
language of the law, to invest one with the priesthood, and con- 
nected with mrP? it signifies to provide oneself with that which 
is to be offered to Jahve. To fill his hand with a young bullock, 
etc., therefore denotes to come with sacrificial beasts, to cause 
oneself to be consecrated priest. The animals mentioned also, 
a young bullock and seven rams, point to the consecration to the 
priesthood. In Ex. xxix. a young bullock as a sin-offering, a 
ram as a burnt-offering, and a ram as a consecratory-offering, are 
prescribed for this purpose. These sacrifices were to be repeated 
during seven days, so that in all seven rams were required for 
consecratory-sacrifices. Abijah mentions only one young bullock 
along with these, because it was not of any importance for him 
to enumerate perfectly the sacrifices which were necessary. But 
by offering these sacrifices no one becomes a priest of Jahve, and 
consequently the priests of Jeroboam also are only priests for 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XIII. 18-17. 353 

Not-Elohim, i.e. only for the golden calves made Elohim by 
Jeroboam, to whom the attributes of the Godhead did not belong. 
— Vers. 10 and 11. While, therefore, the Israelites have no-gods 
in their golden calves, Judah has Jahve for its God, whom it 
worships in His temple in the manner prescribed by Moses. 
<( But in Jahve is onr God, and we have not forsaken Him," in 
so far, viz., as they observed the legal Jahve-worship. So Abijah 
himself explains his words, " as priests serve Him the sons of 
Aaron (who were chosen by Jahve), and the Levites are fONTM, 
in service," i.e. performing the service prescribed to them. As 
essential parts of that service of God, the offering of the daily 
burnt-offering and the daily incense-offering (Ex. xxix. 38 ff., 
xxx. 7), the laying out of the shew-bread (Ex. xxv. 30 ; Lev. 
xxiv. 5 ff.), the lighting of the lamps of the golden candlesticks 
(Ex. xxv. 37, xxvii. 20 f.), are mentioned. In this respect they 
keep the HOT rnDlPD (cf. Lev. viii. 35). — Ver. 12. Abijah draws 
from all this the conclusion : " Behold, with us at our head are 
(not the two calves of gold, but) God (D'fifon with the article, 
the true God) and His priests, and the alarm-trumpets to sound 
against you." He mentions the trumpets as being the divinely 
appointed pledges that God would remember them in war, and 
would deliver them from their enemies, Num. x. 9. Then he 
closes with a warning to the Israelites not to strive with Jahve, 
the God of their fathers. 

Vers. 13-17. The war; Judah's victory, and the defeat of 
Jeroboam and the Israelites. — Ver. 13. Jeroboam caused the 
ambush (the troops appointed to be an ambush) to go round 
about, so as to come upon their rear (i.e. of the men of Judah) ; 
and so they (the main division of Jeroboam's troops) were before 
Judah, and the ambush in their rear (i.e. of the men of Judah) ; 
and the men of Judah, when they turned themselves (soil, to 
attack), saw war before and behind them, i.e. perceived that they 
were attacked in front and rear. In this dangerous position the 
men of Judah cried to the Lord, and the priests blew the trum- 
pets (ver. 15) ; and as they raised this war-cry, God smote their 
enemies so that they took to flight. In WW and JT^a the loud 
shout of the warriors and the clangour of the trumpets in the 
hands of the priests are comprehended ; and jpn is neither to be 
taken to refer only to the war-cry raised by the warriors in 
making the attack, nor, with Bertheau, to be referred only to the 
blowing of the trumpets. — Ver. 16 f. So Abijah and his people 



Digitized by 



Google 



354 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHBONICLE& 

inflicted a great blow (defeat) on the Israelites, so that 500,000 of 
them, i.e. more than the half of Jeroboam's whole army, fell. 

Ver. 18 f. The results of this victory. The Israelites were 
bowed down, their power weakened ; the men of Judah became 
strong, mighty, because they relied upon Jahve their God. Fol- 
lowing up his victory, Abijah took from Jeroboam several cities 
with their surrounding domains : Bethel, the present Beitin, see 
on Josh. vii. 2 ; Jeshanah, occurring only here, and the position 
of which has not yet been ascertained ; and Ephron (fl* 1 ?)?, Keth. ; 
the Keri, on the contrary, IT!??)- This city cannot well be iden- 
tified with Mount Ephron, josh. xv. 9 ; for that mountain was 
situated on the southern frontier of Benjamin, not far from 
Jerusalem, while the city Ephron is to be sought much farther 
north, in the neighbourhood of BetheL C. v. Raumer and others 
identify Ephron or Ephrain both with Ophrah of Benjamin, 
which, it is conjectured, was situated near or in Tayibeh, to the 
east of Bethel, and with the 'E<f>paifi, John xi. 54, whither Jesus 
withdrew into the wilderness, which, according to Josephus, BtU. 
Jud. iv. 9. 9, lay in the neighbourhood of BetheL See on Josh, 
xviii. 23. 1 — Ver. 20. Jeroboam could not afterwards gain power 

1 The account of this war, which is peculiar to the Chronicle, and which 
de Wette declared, on utterly insufficient grounds, to be an invention of the 
chronicler (cf. against him my apol. Vers, iiber die Chron. S. 444 ff.), is thus 
regarded by Ewald (Gesch. Isr. iii. S. 466, der 2 AufL) : " The chronicler 
must certainly have found among his ancient authorities an account of this 
conclusion of the war, and we cannot but believe that we have here, in so far, 
authentic tradition ;" and only the details of the description are the results of 
free expansion by the chronicler, but in the speech vers. 4-13 every word and 
every thought is marked by the peculiar colouring of the Chronicle. But this 
last assertion is contradicted by Kwald's own remark, L S. 203, that "ia 
2 Chron. xiii. 4-7, 19-21, an antiquated manner of speech and representation 
appears, while in the other verses, on the contrary, those usual with the 
chronicler are found," — in support of which he adduces the words ^3 '33, 
ver. 7, and rbo Jl , "!3> ver. 5. According to this view, Abijah 's speech cannot 
have been freely draughted by the chronicler, but must have been derived, at 
least so far as the fundamental thoughts are concerned, from an ancient 
authority, doubtless the Midrash of the prophet Iddo, cited in ver. 22. Bat 
Ewald's further remark (iii. S. 466), that the author of the Chronicle, 
because he regarded the heathenized Samaria of his time as the true repre- 
sentative of the old kingdom of the ten tribes, seized this opportunity to pnt 
into King Abijah's mouth a long denunciatory and didactic speech, addressed 
at the commencement of the battle to the enemy as rebels not merely against 
the house of David, but also against the true religion, is founded upon the 
unscriptural idea that the calf -worship of the Israelites was merely a some- 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XIII. 21-23. 355 

(rf3 "tt#, as in 1 Chron. xxix. 14) : " And Jahve smote him, and 
he died." The meaning of this remark is not clear, since we 
know nothing farther of the end of Jeroboam's life than that he 
died two years after Abijah. VIM3 can hardly refer to the unfor- 
tunate result of the war (ver. 15 ff.), for Jeroboam outlived the 
war by several years. We would be more inclined to understand 
it of the blow mentioned in 1 Kings xiv. 1-8, when God an- 
nounced to him by Ahijah the extermination of his house, and 
took away his son Abijah, who was mourned by all Israel. 

Vers. 21-23. Wives and children of Abijah. His death. — Ver. 
21. While Jeroboam was not able to recover from the defeat he 
had suffered, Abijah established himself in his kingdom (iWUV, 
cf. xii. 13), and took to himself fourteen wives. The taking of 
these wives is not to be regarded as later in time than his estab- 
lishment of his rule after the victory over Jeroboam. Since 
Abijah reigned only three years, he must have already had the 
greater number of his wives and children when he ascended the 
throne, as we may gather also from chap. xi. 21-23. The 1 consec. 
with Kif. serves only to connect logically the information as to his 

what sensuous form of the true Jahve-worship, and was fundamentally 
distinct from the heathen idolatry, and also from the idolatry of the later 
Samaritans. In the judgment of all the prophets, not only of Hosea and Amos, 
but also of the prophetic author of the book of Kings, the calf -worship was a 
defection from Jahve, the God of the fathers, — a forsaking of the commands 
of Jahve, and a serving of the Baals ; cf. e.g. 1 Kings xiii., 2 Kings xvii. 
7-23. What Abijah says of the calf-worship of the Israelites, and of 
Judah's attitude to Jahve and His worship in the temple, is founded on the 
truth, and is also reconcilable with the statement in 1 Kings xv. 8, that 
Abijah's heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord, like David's heart. 
Abijah had promoted the legal temple-worship even by consecratory gifts 
(1 Kings xv. 15), and could consequently quite well bring forward the wor- 
ship of God in Judah is the true worship, in contrast to the Israelitic calf- 
worship, for the discouragement of his enemies, and for the encouragement of 
his own army ; and we may consequently regard the kernel, or the essential 
contents of the speech, as being historically well-founded. The account of 
the war, moreover, is also shown to be historical by the exact statement as to 
the conquered cities in ver. 19, which evidently has been derived from ancient 
authorities. Only in the statements about the number of warriors, and of 
the slain Israelites, the numbers are not to be estimated according to the 
literal value of the figures ; for they are, as has been already hinted in the 
commentary, only an expression in figures of the opinion of contemporaries 
of the war, that both kings had made a levy of all the men in their respective 
kingdoms capable of bearing arms, and that Jeroboam was defeated with such, 
slaughter that be lost more than the half of his warriors. 



Digitized by 



Google 



356 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

wives and children with the preceding, as the great increase of 
his family was a sign of Abijah's increase in strength, while 
Jeroboam's dynasty was soon extirpated. — Ver. 22. As to the 
ttn*io of the prophet Iddo, see the Introduction, p. 34. — Ver. 23. 
Under his son and successor Asa the land had a ten-years' rest. 
This is remarked here, because this rest was also a result of 
Abijah's great victory over Jeroboam. 

chap, xrv.-xvi. — asa's reign. 

In 1 Kings xv. 9-24 it is merely recorded of Asa, that he 
reigned forty-one years, did that which was right as David did, 
removed from the land all the idols which his fathers had made, 
and, although the high places were not removed, was devoted to 
the Lord during his whole life, and laid up in the temple trea- 
sury all that had been consecrated by his father and himself. 
Then it is related that when Baasha marched against him, and 
began to fortify Bamah, he induced the Syrian king Benhadad, 
by sending to him the treasures of the temple and of his palace, 
to break faith with Baasha, and to make an inroad upon and 
smite the northern portion of the land ; that Baasha was thereby 
compelled to abandon the building of Bamah, and to fall back 
to Tirzah, and that thereupon Asa caused the fortifications of 
Bamah to be pulled down, and the cities Geba in Benjamin 
and Mizpah to be fortified with the materials; and, finally, it is 
recorded that Asa in his old age became diseased in his feet, and 
died. The Chronicle also characterizes Asa as a pious king, who 
did that which was right, and removed the high places and sun- 
pillars in the land ; but gives, as to other matters, a much more 
detailed account of his reign of forty-one years. It states that 
in the first years, as the land had rest, he bnilt fortified cities in 
Judah, and had an army fit for war (xiv. 1-7) ; that thereupon 
he marched against the Cushite Zerah, who was then advancing 
upon Judah with an innumerable host, prayed for help to the 
Lord, who then smote the Cushites, so that they fled ; and that 
Asa pursued them to Gerar, and returned with great booty (vers. 
8-14). Then we learn that the prophet Azariah, the son of 
Oded, came to meet him, who, pointing to the victory which the 
Lord had granted them, called upon the king and the people 
to remain stedfast in their fidelity to the Lord; that Asa 
thereupon took courage, extirpated all the still remaining idola- 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XIV. 1-7. 357 

trons abominations from the land, and in the fifteenth year of 
his reign held with the people a great sacrificial feast in Jerusa- 
lem, renewed the covenant with the Lord, crushed out all the 
remains of former idolatry, although the high places were not 
destroyed, and also deposited in the temple treasury all that had 
been consecrated by his father and himself (chap. xv.). There- 
after Baasha's inroad upon Judah and the alliance with Ben- 
hadad of Syria are narrated (xvi. 1-6), as in the book of Kings ; 
but it is also added that the prophet Hanani censured his seeking 
help from the king of Syria, and was thereupon put into the 
prison-house by Asa (vers. 7-10) ; and then we have an account 
of the end of his reign, in which several additions to the account 
in 1 Kings are communicated (vers. 11-14). 

Chap. xiv. 1-7. — Asa's efforts for the abolition of idolatry 
and the establishment of the kingdom. — Vers. 1-4. The good and 
right in God's eyes which Asa did is further defined in vers. 2-4. 
He abolished all the objects of the idolatrous worship. The 
" altars of the strangers" are altars consecrated to foreign gods ; 
from them the nit33, high places, are distinguished, — these latter 
being illegal places of sacrifice connected with the worship of 
Jahve (see on 1 Kings xv. 14). The rtaxo are the statues or 
monumental columns consecrated to Baal, and O^iB^t the wooden 
idols, tree-trunks, or trees, which were consecrated to Astarte 
(see on 1 Kings xiv. 23 and Deut. xvi. 21). Asa at the same 
time commanded the people to worship Jahve, the God of the 
fathers, and to follow the law. — Ver. 4. He removed from all 
the cities of Judah the altars of the high places, and the Q'?Qn, 
son-pillars, pillars or statues consecrated to Baal as sun-god, 
which were erected near or upon the altars of Baal (2 Chron. 
xxxiv. 4 ; see on Lev. xxvi. 30). In consequence of this the 
kingdom had rest WW, before him, i.e. under his oversight (cf. 
Nam. viii. 22). This ten-years' quiet (xiii. 23) which God 
granted him, Asa employed in building fortresses in Judah (ver. 
5). " We will build these cities, and surround them with walls 
and towers, gates and bolts." It is not said what the cities were, 
but they were at any rate others than Geba and Mizpah, which 
he caused to be built after the war with Baasha (xvi. 6). " The 
land is still before us," i.e. open, free from enemies, so that we 
may freely move about, and build therein according to our 
pleasure. For the phraseology, cf. Gen. xiii. 9. The repetition 
of V&v\ } ver. 6, is impassioned speech. "They built and had 



Digitized by 



Google 



358 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

success ;" they built with effect, without meeting with any hin- 
drances. — Ver. 7. Asa had also a well-equipped, well-armed army. 
The men of Judah were armed with a large shield and lance 
(cf. 1 Chron; xii. 24), the Benjamites with a small shield and 
bow (cf. 1 Chron. viii. 40). The numbers are great ; of Judah 
300,000, of Benjamin 280,000 men. Since in these numbers 
the whole population capable of bearing arms is included, 300,000 
men does not appear too large for Judah, but 280,000 is a very- 
large number for Benjamin, and is founded probably on an 
overestimate. 

Vers. 8-14. The victory over the Cushite Zerah. — Ver. 8. 
" And there went forth against them Zerah." e ?7^ for &"$? 
refers to Asa's warriors mentioned in ver. 7. The number of 
the men in Judah capable of bearing arms is mentioned only 
to show that Asa set his hope of victory over the innumerable 
host of the Cushites not on the strength of his army, but on 
the all-powerful help of the Lord (ver. 10). The Cushite rn» is 
usually identified with the second king of the 22d (Bubastitic) 
dynasty, Osorchon I. ; while Brugsch, hist, de TEg. i. p. 298, 
on the contrary, has raised objections, and holds Zerah to be an 
Ethiopian and not an Egyptian prince, who in the reign of 
Takeloth I., about 944 B.C., probably marched through Egypt as 
a conqueror (cf. G. Rosch in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. S. 460). 
The statement as to Zerah's array, that it numbered 1,000,000 
warriors and 300 war-chariots, rests upon a rough estimate, in 
which 1000 times 1000 expresses the idea of the greatest pos- 
sible number. The Cushites pressed forward to Mareshah, ue. 
Marissa, between Hebron and Ashdod (see on xi. 8). — Ver. 9. 
Thither Asa marched to meet them, and drew up his army in 
battle array in the valley Zephathah, near Mareshah. The 
valley Zephathah is not, as Robins., Pal. sub voce, thinks, to be 
identified with Tel es Safieh, but must lie nearer Mareshah, to 
the west or north-west of Marusch. — Ver. 10. Then he called 
upon the Lord his God for help. 'W IB? JVt we translate, with 
Berth., "None is with Thee (on IB?, cf. xx. 6, Ps. Ixxiii. 25) to 
help between a mighty one and a weak," i.e. no other than Thou 
can help in an unequal battle, i.e. help the weaker side ; while 
the Vulg., on the contrary, after the analogy of 1 Sam. xiv. 6, 
translates, " non est apud te uUa distanlia, utrum in paucis auxiU- 
erisan inpluribus;" and the older commentators (Schmidt, Ramb.) 
give the meaning thus: u perinde est tibi potentiori vel imbeeilliori 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XV. 1-7. 359 

opem ferre." But in 1 Sam. xiv. 16 the wording is different, so 
that that passage cannot be a standard for us here. " In Thy 
name (i.e. trusting in Thy help) are we come against this multi- 
tude" (not " have we fallen upon this multitude"). 'U1 "liEtP ^t, 
"Let not a mortal retain strength with Thee" (*iW=ri3 "ix^ xiii. 
20, 1 Chron. xxix. 14), i.e. let not weak men accomplish any- 
thing with Thee, show Thy power or omnipotence over weak men. 
— Ver. 11. God heard this prayer. Jahve drove the Cushites 
into flight before Asa, scil. by His mighty help. — Ver. 12. Asa, 
with his people, pursued to Gerar, the old ancient Philistine 
city, whose ruins Rowlands has discovered in the Khirbet el 
Gerar, in the Wady Jorf el Gerar (the torrent of Gerar), three 
leagues south-south-east of Gaza (see on Gen. xx. 1). " And 
there fell of the Cushites, so that to them was not revival," i.e. 
so many that they could not make a stand and again collect 
themselves, ut eta vivificatio i. e. eopias restaurandi ratio non esset, 
as older commentators, in Annott. vberior. ad h. I., have already 
rightly interpreted it. The words are expressions for complete 
defeat. Berth, translates incorrectly: " until to them was nothing 
living ;" for f^f does not stand for ft6 *ȣ, but ^ serves to subor- 
dinate the clause, "so that no one," where in the older language 
H? alone would have been sufficient, as in xx. 25, 1 Chron. xxii. 
4, cf. Ew. § 315, e ; and JVfiD denotes, not "a living thing," but 
only " preservation of life, vivification, revival, maintenance." 
JTor they were broken before Jahve and before His host, vyno, 
ue. Asa's army is called Jahve's, because Jahve fought in and 
with it against the enemy. There is no reason to suppose, with 
some older commentators, that there is any reference to an angelic 
host or heavenly camp (Gen. xxxii. 2 f.). And they (Asa and 
his people) brought back very much booty.— Ver. 13. "They 
smote all the cities round about Gerar," which, as we must con- 
clude from this, had made common cause with the Cushites, 
being inhabited by Philistines ; for the fear of Jahve had fallen 
upon them, nw ine here, and in xvii. 10, xx. 29, as in 1 Sam. 
jri. 7, the fear of the omnipotence displayed by Jahve in the 
annihilation of the innumerable hostile army. In these cities 
Judah found much booty. — Ver. 14. They also smote the tents 
of the herds of the wandering tribes of that district, and carried 
away many sheep and camels as booty. 

Chap. xv. The prophet Azariah's exhortation to faithful 
cleaving to the Lord, and the solemn renewal of the covenant.— 



Digitized by 



Google 



360 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Vers. 1-7. The prophet's speech. The prophet Azariah, the son 
of Oded, is mentioned only here. The conjecture of some of the 
older theologians, that TAV was the same person as ft? (zii. 15, 
ix. 29), has no tenable foundation. Azariah went to meet the 
king and people returning from the war (\).K> WP, he went forth 
in the presence of Asa, i.e. coming before him; cf. xxviii. 9, 
1 Chron. xii. 17, xiv. 8). " Jahve was with you (has given you 
the victory), because ye were with Him (held to Him)." Hence 
the general lesson is drawn : If ye seek Him, He will be found 
of you (cf. Jer. xxix. 13) ; and if ye forsake Him, He will for- 
sake you (cf. xxiv. 20, xii. 5). To impress the people deeply 
with this truth, Azariah draws a powerful picture of the times 
when a people is forsaken by God, when peace and security in 
social intercourse disappear, and the terrors of civil war prevail 
Opinions as to the reference intended in this portrayal of the 
dreadful results of defection from God have been from antiquity 
very much divided. Tremell. and Grot., following the Targ., 
take the words to refer to the condition of the kingdom of the 
ten tribes at that time; others think they refer to the past, 
either to the immediately preceding period of the kingdom of 
Judah, to the times of the defection under Rehoboam and 
Abijah, before Asa had suppressed idolatry (Syr., Arab., Baschi), 
or to the more distant past, the anarchic period of the judges, 
from Joshua's death, and that of the high priest Phinehas, until 
Eli and Samuel's reformation (so especially Yitringa, de synag. 
vet. p. 335 sqq.). Finally, still others (Luther, Clericus, Budd., 
etc.) interpret the words as prophetic, as descriptive of the future, 
and make them refer either to the unquiet times under the later 
idolatrous kings, to the times of the Assyrian or Chaldean exile 
(Kimchi), or to the condition of the Jews since the destruction 
of Jerusalem by the Romans up till the present day. Of these 
three views, the first, that which takes the reference to be to the 
present, i.e. the state of the kingdom of the ten tribes at that 
time, is decidedly erroneous ; for during the first thirty years of 
the existence of that kingdom no such anarchic state of things 
existed as is portrayed in vers. 5 and 6, and still less could a 
return of the ten tribes to the Lord at that time be spoken of 
(ver. 4). It is more difficult to decide between the two other 
main views. The grounds which Vitr., Ramb., Berth, adduce 
in support of the reference to the times of the judges are not 
convincing; for the contents and form (ver. 4) do not prove 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XV. 1-7. 361 

that here something is asserted which has been confirmed by 
history, and still less is it manifest (ver. 5) that past times are 
pointed to. Whether the statement about the return to Jahve 
in the times of trouble (ver. 4) refers to the past or to the future, 
depends upon whether the past or future is spoken of in ver. 3. 
Bat the unquiet condition of things portrayed in ver. 5 corre- 
sponds partly to various times in the period of the judges ; and 
if, with Vitr., we compare the general characteristics of the 
religious condition of the times of the judges (Judg. ii. 10 ff.), we 
might certainly say that Israel in those times was without vpK 
noK, as it again and again forsook Jahve and served the Baals. 
And moreover, several examples of the oppression of Israel por- 
trayed in vers. 5 and 6 may be adduced from the time of the 
judges. Yet the words in ver. 6, even when their rhetorical 
character is taken into account, are too strong for the anarchic 
state of things during the period of the judges, and the internal 
struggles of that time (Judg. xii. 1-6 and chap. xx. f.). And 
consequently, although Vitr. and Bamb. think that a reference 
to experiences already past, and oppressions already lived through, 
would have made a much deeper impression than pointing for- 
ward to future periods of oppression, yet Bamb. himself remarks, 
nihihminus tamen in sceculis Asa imperium antegressit vise ullum 
tempus post ingressum in terram Canaan et constitutam rempubl. 
Israel, posse ostendi, cui omnia criteria hujus orationis prophetical 
omni ex parte et secundum omnia pondera verbis insita conveniant. 
But, without doubt, the omission of any definite statement of the 
time in ver. 3 is decisive against the exclusive reference of this 
speech to the past, and to the period of the judges. The verse 
contains no verb, so that the words may just as well refer to the 
past as to the future. The prophet has not stated the time de- 
finitely, because he was giving utterance to truths which have 
force at all times, 1 and which Israel had had experience of 
already in the time of the judges, but would have much deeper 
experience of in the future. 

We must take the words in this general sense, and supply 
neither a preterite nor a future in ver. 3, neither fuerant nor 
erunt, but must express the first clause by the present in English: 

1 As Bamb. therefore rightly remarks, " Vatem videri consulto abstinuisse 
a determinatione temporis, ut vela sensui quant amplissime panderentur, verbaque 
omnibus temporum periodis adplicari possent, in quibus criteria hie recensita 
adpareanL" 



Digitized by 



Google 



362 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

" Many days are for Israel (t.e. Israel lives many days) without 
the true God, and without teaching priests, and without law." 
C3"} D'oj is not accus. of time (Berth.), hut the subject of the 
sentence ; and ™ tC9 is not subject — u during many days there 
was to the people Israel no true God " (Berth.) — but predicate, 
while ? expresses the condition into which anything comes, and 
t6 forms part of the following noun : Days for Israel for having 
not a true God. *6? differs from tf?3, u without," just as ? differs 
from 3 ; the latter expressing the being in a condition, the former 
the coming into it. On no« 'rt^t, cf. Jer. x. 10. n"jto VP is not 
to be limited to the high priest, for it refers to the priests in 
general, whose office it was to teach the people law and justice 
(Lev. x. 10 ; Deut. xxxiii. 10). The accent is upon the predicates 
not* and n^io. Israel had indeed Elohim, but not the true God, 
and also priests, but not priests who attended to their office, who 
watched over the fulfilment of the law; and so they had no frt^ 
notwithstanding the book of the law composed by Moses. — Ver. 
5. " And in these times is no peace to those going out or to those 
coming in." Free peaceful intercommunication is interfered with 
(cf. Judg. v. 6, vi. 2), but great terrors upon all inhabitants of 
the lands (nfonitn are, according to the usage of the chronicler, 
the various districts of the land of Israel). — Ver. 6. " And one 
people is dashed in pieces by the other, and one city by the other; 
for God confounds them by all manner of adversity." DM de- 
notes confusion, which God brings about in order to destroy His 
enemies (Ex. xiv. 24; Josh. x. 10; Judg. iv. 15). Days when 
they were without the true God, without teaching prophets, and 
without law, Israel had already experienced in the times of de- 
fection after Joshua (cf. Judg. ii. 11 ff.), but will experience 
them in the future still oftener and more enduringly under the 
idolatrous kings in the Assyrian and Babylonian exile, and still 
even now in its dispersion among all nations. That this saying 
refers to the future is also suggested by the fact that Hosea 
(chap. iii. and iv.) utters, with a manifest reference to ver. 3 of 
our speech, a threat that the ten tribes will be brought into a 
similar condition (cf. Hos. ix. 3, 4) ; and even Moses proclaimed 
to the people that the punishment of defection from the Lord 
would be dispersion among the heathen, where Israel would be 
compelled to serve idols of wood and stone (Deut. iv. 27 S-, 
xxviii. 36, 64), U. would be without the true God. That Israel 
would, in such oppression, turn to its God, would seek Him, and 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xv. a-i& 363 

that the Lord would be found of them, is a thought also ex- 
pressed by Moses, the truth of which Israel had not only had 
repeated experience of during the time of the judges, but also 
would again often experience in the future (cf. Hos. iii. 5 ; Jer. 
xxxi. 1 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 24 ff. ; Bom. xi. 25 ff.). ^7""Uf3 refers back 
to Deut. iv. 30 ; the expression in ver. 46 is founded upon Deut. 
iv. 29 (cf. Isa. Iv. 6). — Of the oppression in the times of defec- 
tion portrayed in ver. 5 f., Israel had also had in the time of the 
judges repeated experience (cf. Judg. v. 6), most of all under 
the Midianite yoke (Judg. vi. 2) ; but such times often returned, 
as the employment of the very words of the first hemistich of 
ver. 5 in Zech. viii. 10, in reference to the events of the post- 
exilic time, shows ; and not only the prophet Amos (iii. 9) sees 
ni3"i rrfoviD, great confusions, where all is in an indistinguishable 
whirl in the Samaria of his time, but they repeated themselves at 
all times when the defection prevailed, and godlessness degene- 
rated into revolution and civil war. Azariah portrays the terrors 
of such times in strong colours (ver. 6) : " Dashed to pieces is 
people by people, and city by city." The war of the tribes of 
Israel against Benjamin (Judg. xx. f.), and the struggle of the 
Gileadites under Jephthah with Ephraim (Judg. xii. 4 ff.), were 
civil wars ; but they were only mild preludes of the bellutn omnium 
contra omnes depicted by Azariah, which only commenced with 
the dissolution of both kingdoms, and was announced by the 
later prophets as the beginning of the judgment upon rebellious 
Israel (e.g. Isa. ix. 17-20), and upon all peoples and kingdoms 
hostile to God (Zech. xiv. 13; Matt. xxiv. 7). With CPrfa '3 
DDDn cf. nai '« nwno, Zech. xiv. 13. To this portrayal of the 
dread results of defection from the Lord, Azariah adds (ver. 7) 
the exhortation, " Be ye strong (vigorous), and show yourselves 
not slack, languid" (cf. Zeph. iii. 16 ; Neh. vi. 9) ; i.e., in this con- 
nection, proceed courageously and vigorously to keep yourselves 
true to the Lord, to exterminate all idolatry ; then you shall 
obtain a great reward : cf. on these words, Jer. xxxi. 16. 

Vers. 8-18. Completion of the reform in worship, and the renewal 
of the covenant. — Ver. 8. The speech and prophecy of the prophet 
strengthened the king to carry out the work he had begun, viz. 
the extirpation of idolatry from the whole land. In ver. 8 the 
words N'run Tity are surprising, not only because the prophet is 
called in ver. 1, not Oded, but Azariah the son of Oded, but also 
on account of the preceding nsojn in the absolute state, which 



Digitized by 



Google 



364 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

cannot stand, without more ado, for the atat. constr. IWKO (cf. ix. 
29). The view of Cler. and Ew., that by an orthographical error 
?! ,n )°!$ nas heen dropped out, does not remove the difficulty, for 
it leaves the stat. ahsol. nxiaan unexplained. This is also the case 
with the attempt to explain the name Oded in ver. 8 by transpos- 
ing the words Azariah ben Oded, ver. 1, so as to obtain Oded ben 
Azariah (Movers) ; and there seems to be no other solution of the 
difficulty than to strike out the words Oded the prophet from the 
text as a gloss which has crept into it (Berth.), or to suppose that 
there is a considerable hiatus in the text caused by the drop- 
ping out of the words 1? V^Sf " | 3' ! ! n ?^.. 1 P?™^ corresponds to 
iptn. Asa complied with the exhortation, and removed C 1 ??!), 
as in 1 Kings xv. 12) all abominations (idols) from the whole 
land, 'and from the cities which he had taken from Mount 
Ephraim : these are the cities which Asa's father Abijah had 
conquered, xiii. 19. " And he renewed the altar before the 
porch," i.e. the altar of burnt-offering, which might stand in need 
of repairs sixty years after the building of the temple. The 
Vulg. is incorrect in translating dedicavit, and Berth, in suppos- 
ing that the renovation refers only to a purification of it from 
defilement by idolatry. BH.n is everywhere to renew, repair, 
restaurare; cf. xxiv. 4. — But in order to give internal stability to 
the reform he had begun, Asa prepared a great sacrificial fes- 
tival, to which he invited the people out of all the kingdom, and 
induced them to renew the covenant with the Lord. Ver. 9. He 
gathered together the whole of Judah and Benjamin, and the 
strangers out of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon, who dwelt 
among them. Strangers, i.e. Israelites from the ten tribes, had 
come over as early as Rehoboam's reign to the kingdom of Judah 
(xi. 16) ; these immigrations increased under Asa when it was 
seen that Jahve was with him, and had given him a great victory 
over the Cushites. It is surprising that Simeon should be men- 
tioned among the tribes from which Israelites went over to the 
kingdom of Judah, since Simeon had received his heritage in the 
southern district of the tribal domain of Judah, so that at the 
division of the kingdom it could not well separate itself from 

1 C. P. Caspari, der Syrisch-ephraimitische Krieg, Christian. 1849, S. 51, 
explains the ahsol. nsiajn by an ellipse, as in Isa. iii. 14, viii. 11, " the pro- 
phecy (that) of Oded," but answers the question why Oded is used in ver. 8 
instead of Azarjahu ben Oded by various conjectures, none of which can be 
looked upon as probable. 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xv. 8-ia 365 

Judab, and join with the tribes who had revolted from the house 
of David. The grouping together of Simeon, Ephraim, and 
Manasseh, both in our verse and in xxxiv. 6, can consequently 
scarcely be otherwise explained than by the supposition, either 
that a part of the Simeonites had in course of time emigrated 
from the cities assigned to them under Joshua into districts in 
the northern kingdom (Berth.), or that the Simeonites, though 
politically united with Judah, yet in religious matters were not 
so, but abstained from taking part in the Jahve-worship in Jeru- 
salem, and had set up in Beersheba a worship of their own similar 
to that in Bethel and Dan. In such a case, the more earnest and 
thoughtful people from Simeon, as well as from Ephraim and 
Manasseh, may have gone to Jerusalem to the sacrificial festival 
prepared by Asa. In favour of this last supposition we may 
adduce the fact that the prophet Amos, chap. v. 5, iv. 4, viii. 14, 
mentions Beersheba, along with Bethel and Gilgal, as a place to 
which pilgrimages were made by the idolatrous Israelites. — Ver. 
10 f. At this festival, which was held on the third month of the 
fifteenth year of Asa's reign, they offered of the booty, i.e. of the 
cattle captured in the war against the Cushites (xiv. 14), 700 
oxen and 7000 sheep. W2f} 7>&n~p defines the ^naw more closely : 
they sacrificed, viz. from the booty they offered. From this it 
seems to follow that the sacrificial festival was held soon after 
the return from the war against the Cushites. The attack of the 
Cashite Zerah upon Judah can only have occurred in the eleventh 
year of Asa, according to xiii. 23 ; but it is not stated how long 
the war lasted, nor when Asa returned to Jerusalem (xiv. 14) 
after conquering the enemy and plundering the towns of the 
south land. But Asa may quite well have remained longer in 
the south after the Cushites had been driven back, in order again 
firmly to establish his rule there ; and on his return to Jerusalem, 
in consequence of the exhortation of the prophet Azariah, may 
have straightway determined to hold a sacrificial festival at which 
the whole people should renew the covenant with the Lord, and 
have set apart and reserved a portion of the captured cattle for 
this purpose. — Ver. 12. And they entered into the covenant, i.e. 
they renewed the covenant, bound themselves by a promise on 
oath ( n y3<P, ver. 14) to hold the covenant, viz. to worship Jahve 
the God of the fathers with their whole heart and soul ; cf. Deut. 
iv. 29. With nnaa Kia, cf. Jer. xxxiv. 10.— Ver. 13 f. To attest 
the sincerity of their return to the Lord, they determined at the 



Digitized by 



Google 



366 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

same time to punish defection from Jahve on the part of anyone, 
without respect to age or sex, with death, according to the command 
in Deut. xvii. 2-6. nvro Vft"] >6, not to worship Jahve, is substan- 
tially the same as to serve other gods, Deut xvii. 3. This they swore 
aloud and solemnly, njftTna, with joyful shouting and the sound of 
trumpets and horns. — Ver. 15. This return to the Lord brought joy 
to all Judah, i.e. to the whole kingdom, because they had sworn 
with all their heart, and sought the Lord tUiYr?33, with perfect 
willingness and alacrity. Therefore Jahve was found of them, 
and gave them rest round about. — In vers. 16-18, in conclusion, 
everything which still remained to be said of Asa's efforts to pro- 
mote the Jahve-worship is gathered up. Even the queen-mother 
Maachah was deposed by him from the dignity of ruler because 
she had made herself an image of Asherah ; yet he did not suc- 
ceed in wholly removing the altars on the high places from the 
land, etc. These statements are also to be found in 1 Kings it. 
13-16, and are commented upon at that place. Only in the 
Chronicle we have kdm DM instead of i&K (Kings), because there 
Maachah had just been named (ver. 10) ; and to the statement 
as to the abolition of idolatry, pT, crushed, is added, and in ver. 
17 ?&}&& ; while, on the other hand, after D7#, nVT DJ> is omitted, 
as not being necessary to the expression of the meaning. 

Ver. 19 is different from 1 Kings xv. 16. In the latter pas- 
sage it is said : war was between Asa and Baasha the king of 
Israel DTpD^a, t.e. so long as both reigned contemporaneously; 
while in the Chronicle it is said: war was not until the thirty-fifth 
year of Asa's reign. This discrepancy is partly got rid of by 
taking nDPipp in the book of Kings to denote the latent hostility 
or inimical attitude of the two kingdoms towards each other, and 
in the Chronicle to denote a war openly declared. The date, 
until the thirty-fifth year, causes a greater difficulty ; but this has 
been explained in chap. xvi. 1 by the supposition that in the 
thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign war broke out between Asa and 
Baasha, when the meaning of our 16th verse would be : It did not 
come to war with Baasha until the thirty-sixth year of Asa's rule. 
For further remarks on this, see on xvi. 1. 

Chap. xvi. War with Baasha, and the weakness of Asa's faith. 
The end of his reign. — Vers. 1-6. Baasha's invasion of Judah, and 
Asa's prayer for help to the king of Syria. The statement, "h> 
the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha the king of Israel 
came up against Judah," is inaccurate, or rather cannot possibly 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVI. 1-6. 367 

be correct ; for, according to 1 Kings xvi. 8, 10, Baasha died 
in the twenty-sixth year of Asa's reign, and his successor Elah 
was murdered by Zimri in the second year of his reign, ix. in the 
twenty-seventh year of Asa. The older commentators, for the 
most part, accepted the conjecture that the thirty-fifth year (in 
xr. 19) is to be reckoned from the commencement of the king- 
dom of Judah ; and consequently, since Asa became king in the 
twentieth year of the kingdom of Judah, that Baasha's invasion 
occurred in the sixteenth year of his reign, and that the land had 
enjoyed peace till his fifteenth year ; cf. Kamb. ad h. I. ; des 
Vignoles, Chronol. i. p. 299. This is in substance correct ; but 
the statement, " in the thirty-sixth year of Asa's kingship," can- 
not be reconciled with it. For even if we suppose that the 
author of the Chronicle derived his information from an autho- 
rity which reckoned from the rise of the kingdom of Judah, yet 
it could not have been said on that authority, KDK rpopo?. This 
only the author of the Chronicle, can have written ; but then he 
cannot also have taken over the statement, " in the thirty-sixth 
year," unaltered from his authority into his book. There re- 
mains therefore no alternative but to regard the text as erroneous, 
— the letters ^ (30) and * (10), which are somewhat similar in 
the ancient Hebrew characters, having been interchanged by a 
copyist ; and hence the numbers 35 and 36 have arisen out of 
the original 15 and 16. By this alteration all difficulties are re- 
moved, and all the statements of the Chronicle as to Asa's reign 
are harmonized. During the first ten years there was peace 
(xiii. 23); thereafter, in the eleventh year, the inroad of the 
Cushites; and after the victory over them there was the con- 
tinuation of the Cultus reform, and rest until the fifteenth year, 
in which the renewal of the covenant took place (xv. 19, cf. with 
ver. 10); and in the sixteenth year the war with Baasha arose. 1 
The account of this war in vers. 1-6 agrees with that in 1 Kings 
xv. 17-22 almost literally, and has been commented upon in the 
remarks on 1 Kings xv. In ver. 2 the author of the Chronicle 
has mentioned only the main things. Abel-Maim, i.e. Abel 
in the Water (ver. 4), is only another name for Abel-Beth- 
Maachah (Kings) ; see on 2 Sam. xx. 14. In the same verse 

1 Movers, S. 255 ff., and Then, on 1 Kings xv., launch out into arbitrary- 
hypotheses, founded in both cases upon the erroneous presumption that the 
author of the Chronicle copied our canonical books of Kings — they being his 
authority — partly misunderstanding and partly altering them. 



Digitized by 



Google 



3G8 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

*5W *$} rnJ3DD~?3 nw is surprising, "and all magazines (or 
stores) of the cities of Naphtali," instead of P«"^3 b? nVi»-$>3 »w 
^nw, « all Kinneroth, together with all the land of Naphtali" 
(Kings). Then, and Berth, think ny DU3DD has arisen ont of 
pK and OT03 by a misconception of the reading ; while Gesen., 
Dietr. in Lex. sub voce ^33, conjecture that in 1 Kings xv. 20 
nuatpo should be read instead of nh33. Should the difference 
actually be the result only of a misconception, then the latter 
conjecture would have much more in its favour than the first 
But it is a more probable solution of the difficulty that the text 
of the Chronicle is a translation of the unusual and, especially 
on account of the 'i H*'? '?> scarcely intelligible riTB3"73. 
nViJ3 is the designation of the very fertile district on the west 
side of the Sea of Kinnereth, i.e. Gennesaret, after which a city 
also was called rnis (see on Josh. xix. 35), and which, on ac- 
count of its fertility, might be called the granary of the tribal 
domain of Naphtali. But the smiting of a district can only be a 
devastation of it, — a plundering and destruction of its produce, 
both in stores and elsewhere. With this idea the author of the 
Chronicle, instead of the district Kinnereth, the name of which 
had perhaps become obsolete in his time, speaks of the rfcfOQ, 
the magazines or stores, of the cities of Naphtali. In ver. 5, too, 
we cannot hold the addition foDtODTiK n3E»}, « he caused his 
work to rest," as Berth, does, for an interpretation of the original 
reading, nyiTfi 3#3 (Kings), it having become illegible : it is 
rather a free rendering of the thought that Baasha abandoned 
his attempt upon Judah. — Ver. 6. In regard to the building of 
Mizpah, it is casually remarked in Jer. xli. 9 that Asa had there 
built a cistern. 

Vers. 7-10. Tlie rebuke of Hie "prophet Hanani, and Asa's crime. 
— Ver. 7. The prophet Hanani is met with only here. Jehu, the 
son of Hanani, who announced to Baasha the ruin of his house 
(1 Kings xvi. 1), and who reappears under Jehoshaphat (2 
Chi'on. xix. 2), was without doubt his son. Hanani said to King 
Asa, " Because thou hast relied on the king of Aram, and not 
upon Jahve thy God, therefore is the host of the king of Aram 
escaped out of thy hand." Berth, has correctly given the mean- 
ing thus: "that Asa, if he had relied upon God, would have 
conquered not only the host of Baasha, but also the host of the 
king of Damascus, if he had, as was to be feared, in accordance 
with his league with Baasha (ver. 3), in common with Israel, 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVI 7-10. 369 

made an attack upon the kingdom of Judah." To confirm this 
statement, the prophet points to the victory over the great army 
of the Cushites, which Asa had won by his trust in God the Lord. 
With the Cushites Hanani names also &'?", Libyans (cf. xii. 3), 
and besides 33^, the war-chariots, also D't-nja, horsemen, in order 
to portray the enemy rhetorically, while in the historical narra- 
tive only the immense number of warriors and the multitude of 
the chariots is spoken of. — Ver. 9. " For Jahve, His eyes run to 
and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong 
with those whose heart is devoted to Him ;" i.e., for Jahve, who 
looks forth over all the earth, uses every opportunity wonderfully 
to succour those who are piously devoted to Him. cy fwnn, to 
help mightily, as in 1 Chron. xi. 10. V?K ffi>B> tasrtsi is a relative 
sentence without the relative ~wp* with D? ; cf, 1 Chron. xv. 12. 
" Thou hast done foolishly, therefore," acil. because thou hast 
set thy trust upon men instead of upon Jahve, " for from hence- 
forth there shall be wars to thee" (thou shalt have war). In 
these words the prophet does not announce to Asa definite wars, 
bnt only expresses the general idea that Asa by bis godless 
policy would bring only wars (ntorro in indefinite universality), 
not peace, to the kingdom. History confirms the truth of this 
announcement, although we have no record of any other wars 
which broke out under Asa. — Ver. 10. This sharp speech so 
angered the king, that he caused the seer to be set in the stock- 
house, naairon rva, properly, house of stocks. n 9? i ??> twisting, 
is an instrument of torture, a stock, by which the body was 
forced into an unnatural twisted position, the victim perhaps 
being bent double, with the hands and feet fastened together : 
cf. Jer. xx. 2, xxix. 26 ; and Acts xvi. 24, efUdkev eh ttjv <j>v\a- 
ktjv xal tows 7roSo? ^a^aXuraro avrwv eh to l-vkov. " For in 
wrath against him (soil, he did it) because of this thing, and 
Asa crushed some of the people at this time." Clearly Hanani' s 
speech, and still more Asa's harsh treatment of the seer, caused 
great discontent among the people, at least in the upper classes, 
so that the king felt himself compelled to use force against them. 
YT}, to break or crash, is frequently used along with ?&}> (Deut. 
xxviii. 33 ; 1 Sam. xii. 3, etc.), and signifies to suppress with 
violence. Asa had indeed well deserved the censure, Thou hast 
dealt foolishly. His folly consisted in this, that in order to get 
help against Baasha's attack, he had had recourse to a means 
which must become dangerous to him and to his kingdom ; for 

2A 



Digitized by 



Google 



370 THK SECOND BOOK OF CHEON1CLES. 

it was not difficult to foresee that the Syrian king Benhadad 
would turn the superiority to Israel which he had gained against 
Judah itself. But in order to estimate rightly Asa's conduct, 
we must consider that it was perhaps an easier thing, in human 
estimation, to conquer the innumerable multitudes of the Ethio- 
pian hordes than the united forces of the kings of Israel and 
Syria ; and that, notwithstanding the victory over the Ethiopians, 
yet Asa's army may have been very considerably weakened by 
that war. But these circumstances are not sufficient to justify 
Asa. Since he had so manifestly had the help of the Lord in 
the war against the Gushites, it was at bottom mainly weakness 
of faith, or want of full trust in the omnipotence of the Lord, 
which caused him to seek the help of the enemy of God's people, 
the king of Syria, instead of that of the Almighty God, and to 
make flesh his arm ; and for this he was justly censured by the 
prophet. 

Vers. 11-14. The end of Asa! a reign ; cf . 1 Kings xv. 23, 24 
— On ver. 11, cf. the Introduction. — Ver. 12. In the thirty-ninth 
year of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet, and that in a 
high degree. The words Wn r6yop~i? are a circumstantial clause : 
to a high degree was his sickness. " And also in his sickness (as 
in the war against Baasha) he sought not Jahve, but turned to 
the physicians." &ti is primarily construed with the accos., as 
usually in connection with mrr or tynbx, to seek God, to come 
before Him with prayer and supplication ; then with 3, as usually 
of an oracle, or seeking help of idols (cf. 1 Sam. xxviii. 7 ; 2 
Kings i. 2 ff. ; 1 Ghron. z. 14), and so here of superstitious trust 
in the physicians. Consequently it is not the mere inquiring 
of the physicians which is here censured, but only the godless 
manner in which Asa trusted in the physicians. — Ver. 14. The 
Chronicle gives a more exact account of Asa's burial than 
1 Kings xv. 24. He was buried in the city of David ; not in the 
general tomb of the kings, however, but in a tomb which he had 
caused to be prepared for himself in that place. And they laid 
him upon the bed, which had been filled with spices (DTO, see 
Ex. xxx. 23), and those of various kinds, mixed for an anointing 
mixture, prepared. 0<3\ from JT, kind, species; D*3n, et vctria 
quidem. njrjo in Piel only here, properly spiced, from "pi, to 
spice, usually to compound an unguent of various spices, nnjrtp, 
the compounding of ointment ; so also 1 Chron. ix. 30, where it 
is usually translated by unguent n fV^, work, manufacture, is a 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVIL-XX. 371 

shortened terminus technieut for ngii nfeTjO, manufacture of the 
ointment-compoander (cf. Ex. xxx. 25, 35), and the conjecture 
that njri has been dropped out of the text by mistake is unneces- 
sary. " And they kindled for him a great, very great burning," 
cf. xxi. 19 and Jer. xxxiv. 5, whence we gather that the kindling 
of a burning, i.e. the burning of odorous spices, was customary 
at the burials of kings. Here it is only remarked that at Asa's 
funeral an extraordinary quantity of spices was burnt. A burn- 
ing of the corpse, or of the bed or clothes of the dead, is not to 
be thought of here : the Israelites were in the habit of burying 
their dead, not of burning them. That occurred only in extra- 
ordinary circumstances, — as, for example, in the case of the bodies 
of Saul and his sons ; see on 1 Sam. xxxi. 12. The kindling and 
burning of spices at the solemn funerals of persons of princely 
rank, on the other hand, occurred also among other nations, e.g. 
among the Bomans ; cf. Plinii hist. naL xii. 18, and M. Geier, 
de kctu Hebr. c 6. 

CHAP. XVU.-XX. — JEHOSHAPHAT'S REIGN. 

Jehoshaphat laboured to strengthen the kingdom both within 
and without. Not only did he place soldiers in the fenced cities, 
and removed the high places and the Astartes, but sought also to 
diffuse the knowledge of the law among the people, and by 
building castles and the possession of a well-equipped army, 
firmly to establish his power (chap. xvii.). In the course of 
years he married into the family of Ahab king of Israel, and, 
while on a visit in Samaria, allowed himself to be persuaded by 
Ahab to enter upon a joint war against the Syrians at Ramoth 
in Gilead, in which he all but lost his life, while King Ahab was 
mortally wounded in the battle (chap, xviii.). Censured on his 
return to Jerusalem by the prophet Jehu for this alliance with 
the godless Ahab, he sought still more earnestly to lead back his 
people to Jahve, the God of their fathers, bestirring himself to 
bring the administration of justice into a form in accordance 
with the law of God, and establishing a supreme tribunal in 
Jerusalem (chap. xix.). Thereafter, when the Moabites and 
Ammonites, with the Edomites and other desert tribes, made an 
inroad into Judah, the Lord gave him a wonderful victory over 
these enemies. At a later time he yet again allied himself with 
the Israelitish king Ahaziah for the restoration of the commerce 



Digitized by 



Google 



372 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

with Ophir ; bat the ships built for this purpose were broken in 
the harbour, so that the voyage was abandoned (chap. xx.). Of 
all these enterprises of Jehoshaphat, none are mentioned in the 
book of Kings except the campaign entered upon with Abab 
against Ramoth in Gilead, which is found in the history of Ahab, 
1 Kings xxii. 2-35. Jehoshaphat's reign itself is only charac- 
terized generally, but in such a way as to agree with the account 
in the Chronicle ; and, in conclusion, the alliance with Ahaz for 
the purpose of making the voyage to Ophir is shortly narrated 
in 1 Kings xxii. 41-57, but in a form which differs considerably 
from that in which it is communicated in the Chronicle. 

Chap. xvii. Jehoshaphat's efforts to strengthen ilie kingdom, 
internally and externally. — Ver. 1, or rather the first half of this 
verse, belongs properly to the preceding chapter, since, when the 
son immediately follows the father on the throne, the successor 
is mentioned immediately : cf. ix. 31, xii. 16, xxiv. 27, xxvii. 9, 
etc. Here, however, the account of the accession to the throne is 
combined with a general remark on the reign of the successor, and 
therefore it is placed at the commencement of the account of the 
reign ; while in the case of Asa (chap. xiii. 23) both come in imme- 
diately at the conclusion of the reign of his predecessor. Asa had 
shown himself weak against Israel, as he had sought help against 
Baasha's attack from the Syrians (xvi. 1 ff.), but it was otherwise 
with Jehoshaphat. He indeed put the fenced cities of his kingdom 
in a thoroughly good condition for defence, to protect his king- 
dom against hostile attacks from without (ver. 2) ; but he walked 
at the same time in the ways of the Lord, so that the Lord made 
his kingdom strong and mighty (vers. 3-5). This general cha- 
racterization of his reign is in ver. 6 illustrated by facts : first 
by the communication of what Jehoshaphat did for the inner 
spiritual strengthening of the kingdom, by raising the standard of 
religion and morals among the people (vers. 6—11), and then by 
what he did for the external increase of his power (vers. 12-19). 

Vers. 2-5. He placed forces (rti) in all the fenced cities of 
Judah, and garrisons (0 , ? , V?> military posts ; cf. 1 Chron. xi. 16) 
in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim, which his 
father Asa had taken ; cf . xv. 8. God blessed these undertakings. 
Jahve was with him, because he walked in the ways of David 
his ancestor, the former ways, and sought not the Baals. The 
former ways of David are his ways in the earlier years of his 
reign, in contrast to the later years, in which his adultery with 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVII. 6-9. 373 

Bathsheba (2 Sam. xi. ff.) and the sin of numbering the 
people (1 Chron. xxi.) fall. D^an are all false gods, in contrast 
to Jahve, the one God of Israel ; and here the word designates 
not only the Baal-worship properly so called, but also the worship 
of Jahve by means of images, by which Jahve is brought 
down to the level of the Baals ; cf. Judg. ii. 11. The ? before 
Cpya stands, according to the later usage, as a sign of the accu- 
sative. In the last clause of ver. 4, " and not after the doings 
of Israel" (of the ten tribes), ^pn, " he walked," is to be repeated. 
The doing of Israel is the worship of Jahve through the images 
of the golden calves, which the author of the Chronicle includes 
in the D?^3? B^.-rVer. 5. Therefore Jahve established the 
kingdom in his hand, i.e. under his rule; cf. 2 Kings xiv. 5. 
All Judah brought him presents, nmp, often used of tribute of 
subject peoples, e.g. in ver. 11 of the Philistines, cannot here 
have that signification ; nor can it denote the regular imposts of 
subjects, for these are not called nn3D ; but must denote volun- 
tary gifts which his subjects brought him as a token of their 
reverence and love. The last clause, " and there was to him (he 
attained) riches and honour in abundance," which is repeated 
xviii. 1, recalls 1 Chron. xxix. 28, 2 Chron. i. 12, and signifies 
that Jehoshaphat, like his ancestors David and Solomon, was 
blessed for walking in the pious ways of these his forefathers. 

Vers. 6-9. This blessing encouraged Jehoshaphat to extirpate 
from the land all idolatrous worship, and to teach the people the 
law of the Lord. 3? rOS, usually sensu malo, to be haughty, 
proud, cf. e.g. xxvi. 16, xxxii. 25 ; here sensu bono, of rising 
courage to advance in ways pleasing to God : and he removed the 
high places also, etc. 1i9 points back to ver. 3 : not only did he him- 
self keep far from the Baals, but he removed, besides, all memorials 
of the Baal-worship from Judah. On rrtoa and D , ">.cw, see on 
xiv. 2. — Ver. 7 ff. In the third year of his reign he sent five 
princes, i.e. laymen of high position, with nine Levites and two 
priests, into the cities of Judah, with the book of the law, to teach 
the law everywhere to the people. ?'n~ja is nom. prop., like 
IDrrja, 1 Kings iv. 10, " | i^."lf> 1 Kings iv. 9, and is not to be 
translated as an adjective, as in LXX. and Syr., partly on 
account of the {> prof., and still more on account of the singular, 
for the plural Tn ^2 must be used when it is in apposition to 
*$>. Nothing further is known of the men named ; the designa- 
tion of them as B , "!JS> suggests the idea that they were heads of 



Digitized by 



Google 



374 THE SECOND BOOS OF CHRONICLES. 

families or f athers'-houses. njiilK aiD, too (ver. 8), is one name. 
The " book of the law of Jahve " is the Pentateuch, not merely 
a collection of Mosaic laws, since in Jehoshaphat's time the 
Mosaic book of the law (the Pentateuch) had been long in exist- 
ence. ffW *iy3 33D signifies to go through the cities of Judah 
in different directions ; nya TB?, to teach among the people (not 
the people). The mission of these men is called by the older 
theologians a solemn ecclesiarum visitatio, quant Jotaphat lauda- 
biliexemph per universum regnum suum institute, and they differ in 
opinion only as to the part played by the princes in it. Vhringa, 
de synagoga vet. p. 389, in agreement with Rashi, thinks that 
only the Levites and priests were deputed ut docerent; the 
princes, ut auctoritate imperioque suo populum erudiendum in 
officio continerent eumque de seria regis voluntate certiorem face- 
rent ; while others, e.g. Buddseus, refer to ver. 9, ubi principet 
pariter ac Levitce populum doeuisse dicuntur, or believe with 
Grotius, docere et explicate legem non tantum saeerdotum eral et 
Levitarum, sed omnium eruditorum. Both views contain elements 
of truth, and do not mutually exclude each other, but may be 
harmonized. We can hardly confine "IB? to religious teaching. 
The Mosaic law contains a number of merely civil precepts, as 
to which laymen learned in the law might impart instruction ; 
and consequently the teaching probably consisted not merely in 
making the people acquainted with the contents of the law, bat 
at the same time of direction and guidance in keeping the law, 
and generally in restoring and confirming the authority of the 
law among the people. In connection with this there were many 
abuses and illegalities which had to be broken down and removed ; 
so that in this respect the task of the commission sent round the 
country by Jehoshaphat may be compared to a church inspection, 
if only we understand thereby not an inspection of churches in 
the Christian sense of the words, but an inspection of the reli- 
gious and moral life of the communities of Israel under the old 
covenant. 

Vers. 10 and 11. This attempt of Jehoshaphat brought him this 
blessing, that the terror of Jahve fell upon all the surrounding 
kingdoms; and not only did none of the neighbouring peoples 
venture to make war upon him, but also various tribes did 
homage to him by presents. Ramb. has already so understood 
the connection of these verses {erat hoc praemium pietatis Jow 
phati, quod vicini satisqxte potenles hottes non audereni adcersut 



Digitized by 



Google 



chap. xm. 12-19. 375 

iptum hiscere) ; while Berth, fails to apprehend it, saying that 
Jehoshaphat had time to care for the instruction of his people, 
because at that time the neighbouring peoples did not venture to 
undertake war against Jndah. The words "terror of Jahve," 
cf. xiv. 13, xx. 29, and " all the kingdoms of the lands," cf. xii. 
8, 1 Chron. xxix. 30, are expressions peculiar to the author of the 
Chronicle, which show that by these remarks he is preparing the 
way for a transition to a more detailed portrayal of Jehoshaphat's 
political power. D^KvBTO is subject, |t? partitive : some of the 
Philistines brought him presents (for HTOD see on ver. 5), " and 
silver a burden," i.e. in great quantity. KifD does not signify tri- 
bute, vectigal argento (Vulg.), for the word has not that significa- 
tion, but denotes burden, that which can be carried, as in t&p f K7, 
xx. 25. — OW?!? or , ;3"S?, xxvL 7, and more usually O^?, xxi. 
16, xxii. 1, are Arabian nomadic tribes (Bed&win), perhaps those 
whom Asa, after his victory over the Cushite Zerah, had brought 
under the kingdom of Judah, xiv. 14. These paid their tribute 
in small cattle, rams, and he-goats. (Q'Bta, Gen. xxx. 35, xxxii. 
15, Prov. xxx. 31.) 

Vers. 12-19. Description of Jehoshaphat 's power. — Ver. 12. 
And Jehoshaphat became ever greater, sc. in power. The partic. 
$n expresses the continuous advance in greatness, cf . Ew. § 280, 
6, as the infin. absol. does elsewhere, e.g. Gen. viii. 3. n ?y?? TP 
as in xvi. 12. — He built castles in Judah. niwa, only here and 
in xxvii. 4, from lV?y?, derivative formed from ii"V3 by the Syriac 
termination n*J— ,/ero. of J—; castle, fortress. On nfasDD n^ cf. viii. 
4,— Ver. 13. 'W nan nai&M is rightly translated by Luther, " und 
hatte viel Vorraths" (and had much store). "?t6o denotes here, 
as in Ex. xxii. 7—10, property, that which has been gained by 
work or business. The signification, much work, opera magna 
(Vulg., Cler., etc.), as also Bertheau's translation, " the works for 
equipping and provisioning the fortresses," correspond neither to 
the context nor to the parallel (synonymous) second member of 
the verse. The work and trouble necessary to equip the cities of 
Judah does not correspond to " the valiant warriors in Jerusalem ;" 
the only parallel is the goods and property which were in these 
cities, the provision of victuals and war material there stored up. 
•—Vers. 14-19. The men fit for war passed in review according 
to their f athers'-houses. The male population of Judah fell into 
three divisions, that of Benjamin into two. The prince Adnah 
held the first place among the generals, with 300,000 men of 



Digitized by 



Google 



376 TBE SECOND BOOK OF CHEONICLES. 

Judah. ftj <■?, at his hand, i.e. with and under him, Jehohanan 
had the command of 280,000 men, and Amasiah over 200,000. 
•tign is a contraction for OWN "il?. For what special reason it is 
so honourably recorded of Amasiah that he had willingly offered 
himself to the Lord (cf. for 3"«nn, Judg. v. 9) has not been com- 
municated. — Ver. 17 f. The Benjamites fell into two detach- 
ments : archers with shields (cf. 1 Chron. viii. 40) 200,000 men, 
under the chief command of Eliada, and " equipped of the 
army," i.e. not heavy armed (Berth.), but provided with the 
usual weapons, sword, spear, and shield (cf. 1 Chron. xii. 24), 
180,000 under the command of Jehozabad. According to this 
statement, Judah had 780,000 warriors capable of bearing arms. 
These numbers are clearly too large, and bear no proportion to 
the result of the numbering of the people capable of bearing arms 
under David, when there were in Judah only 500,000 or 470,000 
men (cf . 1 Chron. xxi. 5 with 2 Sam. xxiv. 5) ; yet the sums of 
the single divisions appear duly proportioned, — a fact which renders 
it more difficult to believe that these exaggerated numbers are 
the result of orthographical errors. — Ver. 19. These were serving 
the king. n?K refers not to the above-mentioned men capable of 
bearing arms, for rne? is not used of service in war, but to the 
commanders whom he had placed in the fortified cities of all 
Judah, " in which probably bodies of the above-mentioned troops 
lay as garrisons" (Berth.). 

Chap, xviii. Jehoshaphat s marriage alliance with Ahab, and 
his campaign with Alwb against the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead. 
— Ver. 1. Jehoshaphat came into connection by marriage with 
Ahab through his son Joram taking Athaliah, a daughter of 
Ahab, to wife (xxi. 6) ; an event which did not take place on 
the visit made by Jehoshaphat to Ahab in his palace at Samaria, 
and recorded in ver. 2, but which had preceded that by about 
nine years. That visit falls in the beginning of the year in 
which Ahab was mortally wounded at Kamoth, and died, i.e. the 
seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat's reign. But at that time 
Ahaziah, the son of Joram and Athaliah, was already from eight 
to nine years old, since thirteen years later he became king at 
the age of twenty-two ; 2 Kings viii. 26, cf. with the chronol. 
table to 1 Kings xii. The marriage connection is mentioned in 
order to account for Jehoshaphat's visit to Samaria (ver. 2), and 
his alliance with Ahab in the war against the Syrians ; but it is 
also introduced by a reference to Jehoshaphat's riches and his 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XVIII. 2-34. 377 

royal splendour, repeated from chap. xvii. 5. In the opinion of 
many commentators, this is stated to account for Ahab's willing- 
ness to connect his family by marriage with that of Jehoshaphat. 
This opinion might be tenable were it Ahab's entering upon a 
marriage connection with Jehoshaphat which is spoken of ; but for 
Jehoshaphat, of whom it is related that he entered into a mar- 
riage connection with Ahab, his own great wealth could not be a 
motive for his action in that matter. If we consider, first, that 
this marriage connection was very hurtful to the kingdom of 
Judah and the royal house of David, since Athaliah not only 
introduced the Phoenician idolatry into the kingdom, but also at 
the death of Ahaziah extirpated all the royal seed of the house 
of David, only the infant Joash of all the royal children being 
saved by the princess, a sister of Ahaziah, who was married to the 
high priest Jehoiada (xxii. 10-12) ; and, second, that Jehosha- 
phat was sharply censured by the prophet for his alliance with 
the criminal Ahab (xix. 2 ff.), and had, moreover, all but for- 
feited his life in the war (xviii. 34 f .), — we see that the author of 
the Chronicle can only have regarded the marriage connection 
between Jehoshaphat and Ahab as a mistake. By introdueing 
this account of it by a second reference to Jehoshaphat's riches 
and power, he must therefore have intended to hint that Jehosha- 
phat had no need to enter into this relationship with the idolatrous 
house of Ahab, but had acted very inconsiderately in doing so. 
Schmidt has correctly stated the contents of the verse thus : 
Josaphalus cetera dives et gloriosus infelicem adfinitatem cum 
Achabo, rege Israelis, contrahit. With which side the proposals 
for .thus connecting the two royal houses originated we are not 
anywhere informed. Even if the conjecture of Bamb., that Ahab 
proposed it to Jehoshaphat, be not well founded, yet so. much 
is beyond doubt, namely, that Ahab not only desired the alliance, 
bnt also promoted it by every means in his power, since it must 
have been of great importance to him to gain in Jehoshaphat a 
strong ally against the hostile pressure of the Syrians. Jehosha- 
phat probably entered upon the alliance bono animo et spe firmandae 
inter duo regna pacts (Bamb.), without much thought of the 
dangers which a connection of this sort with the idolatrous 
Ahab and with Jezebel might bring upon his kingdom. 

Vers. 2-34. The campaign undertaken along with Ahab against 
the Syrians at Bamoth in Gilead, with its origin, course, and 
results for Ahab, is narrated in 1 Kings xxii. (in the history of 



Digitized by 



Google 



378 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

Ahab) in agreement with our narrative, only the introduction to 
the war being different here. In 1 Kings xxii. 1-3 it is re- 
marked, in connection with the preceding wars of Ahab with the 
Syrians, that after there had been no war for three years between 
Aram and Israel, in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah 
came up to the king of Israel ; and the latter, when he and his 
servants had determined to snatch away from the Syrians the 
city Ramoth in Gilead, which belonged to Israel, called upon 
Jehoshaphat to march with him to the war against Ramoth. In 
the Chronicle the more exact statement, "in the third year,'' 
which is intelligible only in connection with the earlier history of 
Ahab, is exchanged for the indefinite D^E? PS? , " at the end of 
years ;" and mention is made of the festal entertainment which 
Ahab bestowed upon his guest and his train (its? 1PK Dpn), to 
show the pains which Ahab took to induce King Jehoshaphat to 
take part in the proposed campaign. He killed sheep and oxen 
for him in abundance, tfOT??!, and enticed, seduced him to go up 
with him to Ramoth. JPDn, to incite, entice to anything (Judg. 
i. 14), frequently to evil ; cf. Deut. xiii. 7, etc. >"><>£, to advance 
upon a land or a city in a warlike sense. The account which 
follows of the preparations for the campaign by inquiring of 
prophets, and of the war itself, vers. 4—34, is in almost. verbal 
agreement with 1 Kings xxii. 5-35. Referring to 1 Kings xxii. 
for the commentary on the substance of the narrative, we will 
here only group together briefly the divergences. Instead of 
400 men who were prophets, ver. 5, in 1 Kings xxii. 6 we have 
about 400 men. It is a statement in round numbers, founded 
not upon exact enumeration, but upon an approximate estimate. 
Instead of TnnK ON . . . ifen, ver. 5, in Kings, ver. 6, we have 
7nriK DM . . . ?J?Kn, both verbs being in the same number ; and 
so too in ver. 14, where in Kings, ver. 15, both verbs stand in the 
plural, notwithstanding that the answer which follows, "Jf™ '"vS, 
is addressed to Ahab alone, not to both the kings, while in the 
Chronicle the answer is given in the plural to both the kings, 
VTTyrn wg. In ver. 7a, *' he prophesies me nothing good, but all 
his days (i.e. so long as he has been a prophet) evil," the meaning 
is intensified by the VDJ"?3, which is not found in 1 Kings ver. 8. 
In ver. 9, the , 3t^T, which is introduced before the rP?, " and 
sitting upon the threshing-floor," is doe to difference of style, 
for it is quite superfluous for the signification. In ver. 14, the 
ambiguous words of Micah, " and Jahve will give into the hand of 



Digitized by 



Google 



CHAP. XIX. 1-8. 379 

the king" (Kings, ver. 15), are given in a more definite Form: "and 
they (the enemy) shall be given into your hand." In ver. 19, in 
the first naa npk nr, the "idk after the preceding "MM**! is not only 
superfluous, but improper, and has probably come into the text 
by a copyist's error. We should therefore read only nba nr, 
corresponding to the naa nr of Kings, ver. 20 : " Then spake one 
after this manner, and the other spake after another manner." 
In ver. 23, the indefinite nPK of Kings, ver. 24, is elucidated by 
Tgn nj ^, " is that the manner" (cf. 1 Kings xiii. 12 ; 2 Kings 
iii. 8), and the verb. 13^ follows without the relative pronoun, as 
in the passages cited. In ver. 30, only 33"in nfe> of the king are 
mentioned, without any statement of the number, which is given 
in Kings, ver. 31, with a backward reference to the former war 
(1 Kings xx. 24). In ver. 31, after the words, " and Jehoshaphat 
cried out," the higher cause of Jehoshaphat's rescue is pointed 
out in the words, " and Jahve helped him, and God drove them 
from him," which are not found in Kings, ver. 32 ; but by this 
religious reflection the actual course of the event is in no way 
altered. Bertheau's remark, therefore, that " the words disturb 
the clear connection of the events," is quite unwarrantable. 
Finally, in ver. 34, *W?JD nvi, he was holding his position, i.e. he 
held himself standing upright, the Hiph. is more expressive than 
the Hoph. "UpjjD (Kings, ver. 35), since it expresses more definitely 
the fact that he held himself upright by his own strength. With 
Ahab's death, which took place in the evening at the time of the 
going down of the sun, the author of the Chronicle concludes his 
account of this war, and proceeds in chap. xix. to narrate the 
further course of Jehoshaphat's reign. In 1 Kings xxii. 36-39, 
the return of the defeated army, and the details as to Ahab's 
death and burial, are recorded ; but these did not fit into the plan 
of the Chronicle. 

Chap. xix. The prophet Jehus declaration at to Jehoshaphat 's 
alliance with Ahab, and Jehoshaphat's further efforts to promote 
the fear of God and ike administration of justice in Judah. — 
Vers. 1-3. Jehu's declaration. Jehoshaphat returned from the 
war in which Ahab had lost his life, D^f, i.e. safe, unin- 
jured, to his house in Jerusalem ; so that the promise of Micah 
in xviii. 166 was fulfilled also as regards him. But on his 
return, the seer Jehu, the son of Hanani, who had heen thrown 
into the stocks by Asa (xvi. 7 ff.), met him with the reproving 
word, " Should one help the wicked, and lovest thou the haters 



Digitized by 



Google 



380 TEE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 

of Jahve J" (the inf. with f, as in 1 Chron. v. 1, be. 25, etc). 
Of these sins Jehoshaphat had been guilty. " And therefore is 
anger from Jahve upon thee" (?? *|VjJ as in 1 Chron. xxvii. 24). 
Jehoshaphat had already had experience of this wrath,