Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical and exegetical commentary on the books of Chronicles"

See other formats

„.-'; '■ '-^'-V ■ '■" ■ ' ^y^^:*?^^ 

'• -"^ ■■ ijK^^ki'* ':■:- ",*^* "^•' ^^ • ' -"?3Mr< 6gfr^ Q 

i' -■••<■; '. 


it ',-■' 

Inttritatbnal Crtliral Commentary 

on th Ipolp Striptuus of the #Ib anb 

|Uln ^tstanunts. 



Graduate Professor of Theological Encycloptedla and Symbolics, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York ; 


Regius Professor of Hebrcm, Oxford ; 


Sonutime Master of University College, Durham. 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2008 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 

The International 

Critical Commentary 

On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments 


THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, 
written by British and American divines, of a popular 
or homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for 
Schsools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, 
The Speaker's Comtnentary, The Popular Commentary (SchafiT), 
The Expositor's Bible, and other similar series, have their 
special place and importance. But they do not enter into the 
field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of 
Comineniaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum 
A. T. ; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum 
N. T. ; Meyer's Kritisch-exegctischer Kommentar ; Keil and 
Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar i'lber das A. T. ; Lange's 
Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's Handkommentar 
zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar zum N. T. Several 
of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged 
and adajjted, for the English-speaking public ; others are in 
process of translation. But no corresponding series by British 
or American divines has hitlierto been produced. The way has 
been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, 
Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the 
time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enter- 
prise, when it is practicable to combine British and American 
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive 
Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholarship, 
and in a measure lead its van. 

The International Critical Commentary 

Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series 
of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under the 
editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., in America, and 
of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., for the Old Testament, and 
the Rev. ALFRED Plummer, D.D., for the New Testament, in 
Great Britain. 

The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional, 
and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They 
will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts 
of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They 
are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be 
written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an 
Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discuss- 
ing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details 
of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the 
Commentary. Each section of the Text will be introduced 
with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details 
of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept 
distinct from matter of a more general character ; and in the 
Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with 
Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be 
dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical 
notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical 
and Archaeological questions, as well as questions of Biblical 
Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but 
not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will con- 
stitute a uniform series. 

The International Critical Commentary 


GENESIS. The Rev. John' Skixner, D.D., Principal and Professor o< 
Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Churoh 
of England, Cambridge, England. [Nmo Ready. 

EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
University of Edinburgh. 

LEVITICUS. J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. 

NUMBERS. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Mansfield College, Oxford. [A^ow Ready. 

DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- 
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. \Xow Ready. 

JOSHUA. The Rev. George Adam Smith. D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, United Free Church College, Glasgow. 

JUDGES. The Rev. George Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol- 
ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. \Now Ready. 

SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Professor of Old Testament 
I.iter.-iture and History of Religion, Meadviile, Pa. \N^o7v Ready. 

KINGS. The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D.. President 
and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York City. 

CHRONICLES. The Rev. Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.. [.Yf>w Ready. 

EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L.W. Batten, Ph.D., D.D., Rector 
of St. Mark's Church, New York City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, 
P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 

PSALMS. The Rev. Chas. A. Brigos, D.D., D.Litt., Gradua'e Fro- 
fessor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. \2 vols. A'ow Read'" 

PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. \^Now Ready. 

JOB. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of He- 
brew, Oiford. 

The International Critical Commentary 

ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., 

Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. 

ISAIAH. Chaps. XL-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. Peake, M. A., D.D., Dean 
of the Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of 
Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England. 

JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. 

EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Inter- 
pretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. Charles F. 
BURNEY, D. Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College, Oxford. 

DANIEL. The Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor 
of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. 
Michael's Church, New York City. 

AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R. HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime Presi- 
dent of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [A^ow Ready. 

MICAH TO HAGGAI. Prof. JoHN P. Smith, University of Chicago; 
Prof. Charles P. Fagnani, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New 
York; W. Hayes Ward, D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New 
York; Prof. Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary, New York, 
and Prof. H. G. Mitchell, D.D., Boston University. 

ZECHARIAH TO JONAH. Prof. H. G. Mitchell, D.D., Prof. John 
P. Smith and Prof. J. A. Bev\^er. 

ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart- 
ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready. 

ECCLESIASTES. Prof. George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli- 
cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [A^07i' Ready. 


Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., (Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia 
and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. WiLLOUGHBY C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and 
Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. \No'w Ready. 

ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. Gould, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa- 
ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Now Ready. 

ST. LUKE. The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., sometime Master of 
University College, Durham, \Nuw Ready. 

Thb International Critical Commentary 

ST. JOHN. The Very Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., Dean of St. 
Patrick's and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin. 

HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., 
LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, ana the Rev. WlL- 
LOUOHBY C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, 
Exeter College, Oxford. 

ACTS. The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, 
Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the 
Bishop of London. 

ROMANS. The Rev. WiLLlAM Sandav, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret 
Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. 
A. C. Headla.m, M.A., D.D., Principal of King's College, London. 

[^iVow Ready. 

CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. Arch. Robertson, D.D., LL.D., Lord 

Bishop of Exeter, the Rev. Alfred Plu.m.mer, D.D.,and Dawson Walker, 
D.D., Theological Tutor in the University of Durham. 

GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of New 
Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 

D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now 
Librarian of the same. [AVw Ready. 

PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. Marvin R. Vincent, 
D. D., Professor of Biblioaf Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New 
York City. \A^o~m Ready. 

THESSALONIANS. The Rev. James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of 
Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. Walter Lock, D.D., Warden 
of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 

HEBREWS. The Rev. A. Nairne, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King's 
College, London. 

ST. JAMES. The Rev. James H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New 
Testament Criticism in Harvard University. 

PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES BiGG, D.D., sometime Regius 
Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 

[A'Vw Ready. 

THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Rev. E. A. Brooke, B.D., Fellow 
and Divinity Lecturer in King's College, Cambridge. 

REVELATION. The Rev. Robert H. Charles, M.A., D.D., sometime 
Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. 



, ^The International Critical Commentary 












> ''\d^.r^-.f«tir»«*' 


rt • ■■ 



Copyright, 1910, by 

Published June, iqio 












THIS Commentary has been prepared not less for the readers 
of the Revised Version of the English Bible than for those 
of the Hebrew Text. Hebrew words, it is true, appear at 
times in the main comment. They have been frequently intro- 
duced to illustrate the origin of dijfferent readings arising through 
a similarity of letters; then their force is clear without a knowledge 
of the language. They also appear in connection with certain 
genealogies, notably those of i Ch. VH, VHI, where without 
their introduction critical comment would be impossible. Else- 
where in ignoring them the reader unacquainted with Hebrew will 
find the comment clear though less ample. 

The Books of Chronicles are secQndary; they are of interest 
mainly through the new view which they give of Israel's history 
compared with the earlier narratives. This fact has been con- 
stantly kept in mind in the preparation of this Commentary. 
Certain readers will doubtless feel that conclusions in details should 
have been given with more dogmatism and that the word "prob- 
ably" should less often occur. But about many matters of detail 
I am far from certain, although I have no doubt of the general 
historical, or rather unhistorical, character of Chronicles. I have 
aimed also to make the work comprehensive in giving the opinions 
of others. 

In regard to the literary structure of i and 2 Chronicles I cannot 
follow the view of those who regard the author throughout as a 
mere copyist, nor yet of those who hold that apart from his Old 
Testament quotations he composed freely with no recourse for 
information to other written sources. I have given the view of a 
free composition but allowed a recourse to non-canonical written 
sources. I have given marks of unity of style in portions alleged 
by some to come from other writers, although I am fully aware 




that if the Chronicler were a copyist these marks of unity might 
be due to his main source. I have little sympathy with that sub- 
jective criticism which prescribes beforehand an author's scheme 
of composition and then regards all contrary to this scheme as 
interpolations or supplements. Inconsistencies or redundancies 
are not proofs of a lack of unity of authorship, especially in the 
work of the Chronicler. 

Agreeably to the other volumes of this series, Yahweh appears 
regularly as the name of Israel's deity. But this transliteration of 
Yodh C*) by y and Waw (1) by w has not been applied in other 
proper names, since in a commentary on books containing so 
many proper names as i and 2 Chronicles, designed to be used 
in connection with the Revised English Version, it seemed best to 
retain the spelling of the proper names given in that version. 
MediSil Aleph («) and initial, medial, and final \iyin {';) in italicised 
names on their first appearance, but not necessarily on their 
immediate repetition or in juxtaposition with the Hebrew letters, 
have been represented by the smooth and rough breathings ("). 
The hard letters HetJi (n), Teth (^), Sad he ('i'), and Koph (p) 
have been represented by h, t, z, and k. (The introduction of s 
instead of z would have been too violent a change.) But none of 
these marks have been introduced, except incidentally, in the 
Roman type, and in some familiar names like that of Israel they 
do not appear. Modern geographical names appear in the spelling 
of the authorities cited. 

The completion of this volume had already been much delayed 
through serious illness, when in January, 1906, I suddenly lost 
the sight of nearly one-half the field of vision in both eyes. I felt 
then that I should relinquish my task, but Professor Briggs, the 
general editor, persuaded me to continue it and kindly allowed me 
to use the services of an assistant. I was fortunate in securing 
those of Doctor Madsen, a pupil of Prof. C. C. Torrey. He has 
worked jointly with me upon the book since that date, and while 
I am solely responsible for the work, his name properly appears 
upon the title-page. The parts which he has especially prepared 
under my direction are sections seven, eight, and of nine the 
Literature, of the Introduction, the commentary and notes on 


I Ch. XXI-XXIX, which had formed the subject of his doctor's 
thesis, and the textual notes on 2 Ch. XX-XXXVI. He has also 
amplified my own comment and textual notes on other portions 
and contributed notes on the composition of i Ch. I-IX, XV, XVI, 
and 2 Ch. I-IX. He worked out the restoration of the genealogy 
of Zebulun, i Ch. VII, and I am also indebted to him for most 
efficient aid in preparing the manuscript for the press and in 

I wish also to express my appreciation for assistance rendered 
in many ways by Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University. Too 
much cannot be said of the care exercised by the publishers in 
carrying this work through the press. 

This volume has many shortcomings, but I trust that it will fill a 
needed place, since nothing similar has been published in English 
later than Zoeckler's commentary in Lange's Commentary in 1876. 


New Haven, Conn., 
May, 191 o. 






§ I. Name and Order 

§ 2 

§ 3 

§ 4 

§ 5 

§ 6 

§ 7 

§ 8 

§ 9 

The Relation of Chronicles to Ezra and Nehemiah 2 

Date 5 

Plan, Purpose, and Historical Value 6 

The Religious Value 16 

Sources 17 

Peculiarities of Diction 27 

Hebrew Text and the Versions 36 

The Higher Criticism and Literature .... 44 


I-IX. Genealogical Tables with Geographical 

AND Historical Notices 57 

X-XXIX. The History of David 180 


I-IX. The History of Solomon 313 

X-XXXVI. The History of Judah from Rehoboam until 

the Exile 362 







Arabic Version. 



Original Greek 



American Revised 

where leading 
MSS. (uncials) 



American Revised 

are corrupt. 

Version, marginal 



Sinaitic codex. 




.\lexandrian codex. 



Authorized Ver- 



Vatican codex (as 
pub. by Swete). 



Complutensian edi- 



Deuteronomic por- 

tion (1514-17). 

tions of the Old 



Lucianic recension 

Testament, or 

(Lagarde's edi- 

their author. 







Basilian - Vatican 
codex (= XI 


Elohistic (Ephra- 
imitic) portions 
of the Hexateuch, 

Holmes and Par- 



or their author. 
English Revised 



Hebrew consonant- 
al text. 



English Versions. 



Holiness Code of 
the He.xateuch. 



Received Greek 




(6 (of I Esd.) 

The Greek text of 
I Esdras (prob- 
ably original Sep- 
tuagint and avail- 


Yahwistic (Judaic) 
portions of the 
Hexateuch, or 
their author. 

able for 2 Ch. 35. 



The narrative of J 


and E combined. 


/\r)J3JN.JCy V J 

n. i J. v^i.-< v-» 


= Knhib, the He- 


= Qere, the Hebrew 

brew text as writ- 

text as read. 



= Redactor, or editor. 


= Old Latin Version. 


= Revised Version. 


= The Massoretic 


= Revised Version, 

pointed te.xt. 

marginal read- 


= Kittel's primary 
Midrashic source 


of the Chronicler. 


= Syriac Peshitto 


= Kittel's secondary 


Midrashic source 


= Ambrosian codex. 

of the Chronicler. 


= New Testament. 


= Targum or Aramaic 


= Old Testament. 


= Priestly portions of 


= Vulgate Version 

the Hexateuch, or 


= Amiatine codex. 

their author. 


= Versions, ancient. 



= Amos. 


= Ezekiel. 


= Ezra. 


= The Wisdom of 

Jesus Ben Sira, 


= Galatians. 

or Ecclesiasticus. 


= Genesis. 



I, 2 Cor. 

= 1,2 Chronicles. 
= id., taken together. 
= Colossians. 
= I, 2 Corinthians. 
= Canticles = The 


= Habakkuk 
= Hebrews. 
= Haggai. 
= Hosea. 

Song of Songs. 


= Isaiah. 


= Daniel. 


= Deuteronomy. 


= Job. 

= Jeremiah. 


= Ecclesiastes. 


= John. 


= Ephesians. 


= Joel. 

I, 2 Esd. 

= I, 2 Esdras. 


= Jonah. 


= Esther. 


= Joshua. 


= Exodus. 


= Judges. 



I, 2K. 


I, 2 Kings. 


= Psalms. 



id., taken together. 


= Revelation. 





= Romans. 





= Ruth. 




I, 2S. 

= 1,2 Samuel. 





= id., taken together. 

I, 2 Mac. 


I, 2 Maccabees. 


= The books of Sam- 




uel and Kings 




taken together. 




I, 2 Thes. 

= 1,2 Thessalonians. 




I, 2 Tim. 

= 1,2 Timothy. 





= Tobit. 





= Wisdom of Solo- 









= Zechariah. 





= Zephaniah. 



= Ancient Heb. Tra- 


= C. J. Ball. 

ditions, see Horn. 


= id.. Genesis in Sa- 


= American Journal 

cred Books of the 

of Semitic Lan- 


guages aiid Lit- 


= W. von Baudissen. 



= Hebrew and Eng- 


= Apparatus for the 

lish Lexicon of 

Textual Criticism 

the OT., edited by 

of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., 

F. Brown, S. R. 

see Tor. 

Driver, C. A. 


= W. E. Barnes, 


= E. Bertheau, Die 

Chronicks in The 

Biicher der Chro- 

Cambridge Bible. 

nik^ in Hand- 


= Karl Baedeker, 

buck zum A. T. 

Palestine and 


= W. H. Bennett. 

Syria (cited in 


= id., Joshua in Sa- 

second and fourth 

cred Books of tlie 







= J. Benzinger, Die 


= Franz Delitzsch 

B iicher der 

(alw. when not 

Konige and Die 

followed by Par., 

B iicher der Chro- 

V. i.). 

nik in Kurzer 


= Friedrich Delitzsch. 

Hand - Commen- 


= id.. Wo lag das 




= id., Hebrdische Ar- 


= August Dillmann. 



= S. R. Driver. 


= S. Bochart. 


= id., Deuteronomy in 


= F. Bottcher. 

The International 


= K. Budde, Richter 

Critical Commen- 

und Samuel in 


Kurzer H and- 


= id., Genesis in 

Commentar zum 

Westminster Com- 

A. T. 



= id., Samuel in ^o- 


= id., An Introduction 

cred Books of the 

to the Literature of 


the OT. 


= A. Biichler. 


= id., A Treatise on the 


= F. Buhl. 

Use of the Tenses 


= id., Geographic des 

in Hebrews. 

Alien Paldstina. 


= id.. Notes on the 


"= C. F. Burney, iVo^es 

Hebrew Text of 

on the Hebrew 

the Books of Sam- 

Text of Kings. 



= Composition and 


= Encyclopcedia Bib- 

Historical Value 


of Ezra-Nehe- 


= Early Hist, of Syria 

miah, see Tor. 

and Pal., see Pa. 


= C. H. Cornill. 


= H. Ewald. 


= The Cuneiform In- 

Ew. § 

= id., Hebrew Gram- 

scriptions and 


the OT. (Eng. 


= id.. History of Is- 

trans, of Z^r.2), 

rael (Eng. trans. 

see Sch. 

of his Geschichte 
d. V. Israel). 


Syn. § 

= A. B. Davidson. 
= id., Hebrew Syn- 

Expos. T. 

= Tlie Expositor. 
= The Expository 


= Dictionary of t)ie 


= Geographic des Al- 

Bible, usually 

ten Paldstina by 


F. Buhl. 




George Adam 


= W. R. Harvey- 


id.. The Historical 
Geography of the 
Holy Land. 


= History of the Jew- 
ish People, see 


id., Jerusalem from 


= H. Holzinger. 

tlie Earliest Times 


= id., Genesis in Kur- 

to A. D. 70. 

zer Hand-Com- 



W. Gesenius, He- 


brew Grammar, 


= F. Hommel. 

ed. E. Kautzsch 


= id.. Ancient He- 


(Eng. trans, by 

brew Traditions. 

Collins and Cow- 


= History, Prophecy 


and tlie Monu- 



George Foot 

ments, see McC. 



= Paul Haupt. 



C. D. Ginsburg. 


= Gesenius' Hebrd- 



E. Glaser. 

isch€S und Ara- 


id., Skizze der 
Geschichte und 
Geographie Ara- 
biens, vol. II. 

mdisches Hand- 
worterbuch ilber 
das A. T., ed. 



K. H. Graf. 




id., Gesch. Biicher 

d. A. T. 
G. B. Gray. 
id., Hebrew Proper 



= Journal of Biblical 

= Jewish Encyclopae- 





id.. Numbers in In- 
ternational Criti- 
cal Commentary. 

H. Gunkel. 

id.. Genesis in 


J. H. Mich. 

= P. Jensen. 

= id.. Die Kosmolo- 

gie der Babylonier. 
= J. H. Michaelis, 

Uber lores Adnot. 

in Chron. 
= Fl. Josephus. 


= Antiquities. 


= Bell. Jiid. 



Kurzer Hand- 

c. A p. 

= contra Apionem. 

Commentar zum 


= Jahrbilcherfur prot- 

A. T. 

estantische The- 



Higher Criticism 


and the Monu- 


= Jewish Quarterly 

ments, see Sayce. 







F. Hitzig. 


= A. Kamphausen. 



i'AJJXJAVJ--. V i 


= Dk Keilinschriften 
a. d. A. T., sec 


= id., History, Proph- 
ecy and the Mon- 




= E. Kautzsch, Die 


= F. C. Movers. 

heilige Schrift d. 


= Mittheilungen und 

A. T. 

Nachrichten des 


= Keilinschriftliche 

Dentschen Pal- 




= C. F. Keil, Chroni- 


= Mittheilungen 

cles in Biblical 

der vorderasiati- 

Commentary on 

schen Gesellschaft. 

the OT. 


= B. Kennicott. 


= New Century Bible. 


= R. Kittel. 


= W. Nowack. 


= id., Biblia Hebra- 


= id., Lehrbuch d. 


Hebrdischen Ar- 


= id., Geschichte der 



= id.. Die Biicher der 


= S. Oettli, Die 

Chronik in Hand- 

Biicher der Chro- 

kommentar zum 

nik in Kurzge- 

A. T. 

fasster Kommen- 


= id., Chronicles in 


Sacred Books of 


= Orientalische Lit- 

the OT. 



= August Kloster- 


= Onomastica Sacra 


(ed. Lagarde). 

Koe. § 

= Fr. E. K 6 n i g , 


= Old Testament in 

Lehrgebdude der 

the Jewish 

He brdi s c h e n 

Church, see 




= A. Kuenen. 


= id., Historisch- 


= L. B. Paton. 

kritische Einlei- 


= id., The Early His- 

tiing in dieB iicher 
d.A. T. 

tory of Syria and 



= Herzog's Real-En- 


= An Introduction to 

cyclopddie fur 

the Literature of 


the OT., see 

Theologie und 




= Claudius Ptolemy. 


= J. Marquart. 


= J. F. McCurdy. 


= E. Riehm. 




= id., Handwortcr- 


— id., Die Listen der 

buch d. bibl. Al- 

Biicher Ezra und 




= Edward Robinson. 


= C. Siegfried and B. 

BR. or Res. 

= id., Biblical Re- 

Stade, Hebrdisch- 

searches in Pal- 

es W orterbuch. 

estine, etc., also 


= B. Stade. 

Later Biblical Re- 


= id., Geschichte des 

searches, i.e., "Vol. 

Volkes Israel. 

Ill of second ed. 


= id., with Sw., The 
Books of Kings in 


= A. H. Sayce. 

Sacred Books of 


= id.. Higher Criti- 

the OT. 

cism and the 


= F. Schwally, v. s. 



= Survey of Western 

Pat. Pal. 

= id.. Patriarchal Pal- 



= The Sacred Books 


= O. Thenius. 

of the Old Testa- 


= T. K. Cheyne. 

ment, ed. by Paul 


= C. C. Torrey. 



= id., Apparatus for 


= E. Schrader. 

the Textual Crit- 


= id., Cuneiform In- 

icism of Chroni- 

scriptions and the 

cles-E z r a-NeJie- 

Old Testament. 

miah in OT. Se- 


= E. Schurer. 

mitic Studies, 


= id., Geschichte des 

Harper Memo- 

jiidischen Volkes 

rial II. 

im Zeitalter Jesu 


= id., The Composi- 


tion and His- 


= id., History of the 

torical Value of 

Jewish People in 


the Time of Jesus 

in Zeitschrift fur 

C/^m< (Eng.trans. 

die altest. Wis- 

of the second ed. 

senschaft. Be i- 

of the above). 

hefte 2. 


= J. Skinner, Kings 


= A. Trommius. 

in New Century 


= id., Concordantice 


GrcBCce in Septua- 


= H. P. Smith, The 
Books of Samuel 

ginta Interpretes. 

in International 


= Julius Wellhausen. 

Critical Commen- 


= id.. Die Composi- 


tion des Hexa- 


= R. Smend. 





= id., De Gentihus et 
Familiis Judceis 


= Zeitschrifl fiir As- 


qua; in i Chr. 2. 4 


= Zeitschrijt fiir die 

numerantur Dis- 

A Ittestamentliche 




= id., Prolegomena to 
the History of 


= Zeitschrift der 
Deutschen Mor- 


= id., Der Text der 


Bilcher Samuel is. 


= Zeitschrift des 


= Hugo Winckler. 

Deutschen Pal- 

Gesch. Isr. 

= id., Geschichte Is- 




= Otto Zockler, The 


= id., with H. Zim- 
mern, Keilin- 
schiften u. Alte 

Books of Chroni- 
cles \n Eng. trans, 
of Lange's Com- 


= W. Robertson 


Numerals 1 

•aised above the Hne im- 


= id., Old Testament 


following the abbreviation 

in the Jewish 



edition of the work 








= article. 





= Assyria, Assyrian. 




ace. cog. 


cognate ace. 


= Babylonian. 

ace. pers. 


ace. of person. 

B. Aram. 

= Biblical Aramaic. 

ace. rei. 


aec. of thing. 

ace. to 


according to. 

c., cc. 

= chapter, chapters. 





= circa, about. 





= causative. 





= confer, compare. 



dira^ \ey6/jLevov, 

cod., codd. 

= codex, codices. 

word or phr. used 


= cognate. 


col., coll. 

= column, columns. 





= commentary. 





= compare. 





= concrete. 



Aramaic, Aramean. 


= conjunction. 











= daghesh forte. 

■ defective. 

= dele, strike out. 

= dittography. 

= dubious, doubtful. 






list of the peculi- 
arities of Ch. in 
Introduction, pp. 

= loco citato, in the 
place before cited. 

= literal, literally. 

= masculine. 
= modern. 



f. n. 







i. e. 




et aliter, and else- 
where, and others. 

: and following. 
. feminine. 
= figurative. 
=■ foot-note. 
= frequentative. 

- gentilic. 
= genitive. 

= haplography. 
= Hebrew. 
= Hiphil of verb. 
= Hithpael of verb. 

= idem, the same. 
= imperfect. 
= imperative. 
= indefinite. 
= id est, that is. 
= infinitive. 

= inscription, inscrip- 

== intransitive. 

=■ Introduction. 

— jussive. 




P-. PP- 













q. V. 






New Hebrew. 

Niphal of verb. 

: object. 
= often. 

= page, pages. 
= person. 
= passive. 
= perfect. 
= Piel of verb. 
= plural. 
= predicate. 
= pregnant. 
= preposition. 
= probable. 
= pronoun. 
= participle. 
= Pual of verb. 

= quod vide, which 

= reflexive. 
= relative. 

= Sabean. 
= suffix. 
= singular. 
= followed by. 
= substantive. 
= Syriac. 



text. n. 


times (following a 

textual note. 





= verse, verses. 
= vide, see. 
= verb. 

vide infra, see be- 
low (usually tex- 
tual note on same 
verse) . 

videlicet, namely, 
to wit. 

vide supra, see 
above (usually 
general remark 
on same verse). 


t indicates all passages cited. 

I indicates all passages in Ch.- 

Ezr.-Ne. cited. 

II parallel, of words or clauses 

chiefly synonymous. 

= equivalent, equals. 

-f plus, denotes that other pas- 
sages might be cited. 

1/ = the root, or stem. 

' = sign of abbreviation in He- 

brew words. 

'iJi = ncui, and so forth. 

= Yahweh. 
* indicates that Massoretic text 

has not been followed, but 
either Vrss. or conjectural 
Biblical passages are cited accord- 
ing to the Hebrew enumeration of 
chapters and verses: where this dif- 
fers in the English, the reference to 
the latter has usually (except in 
textual notes) been added in paren- 



The Hebrew name for i and 2 Chronicles, which were counted 
as one book in the Hebrew Canon, was Dibre hayyamim ("'"121 
D'^DTl), The events of days or times, Daily events. This expression 
preceded by the word book is of frequent occurrence in i and 2 K. 
(c/. I K. i4»'- " 15'- "■ ^' and oft.), also in Est. 2" 6' 10' and i Ch. 
27" and Ne. 12", but always (except Est. 2" 6' and Ne. 12") with 
the days defined, as, for example, the book of the days of King 
David (i Ch. 27"), or of the days of the Kings of Israel (i K. 14"). 
Thus also the Targum further defines the days of this title as 
"from the days of antiquity" («»^y ''CI"' jS") (PRE.^ iv. p. 85). 
It is not altogether unlikely that originally of the Kings of Jndah 
belonged to this Hebrew title {cf. the title in (^"'^ immediately 

The Greek title was originally The things omitted concerning 
the kings of Jndah in a twofold division (TrapaXetTrofievcov 
BacriXecov lovSa a, ditto tcov BacnXeioov lovSa /3 ^^ Swetc). 
The other uncials omit Bao-tXetui/ lovSa and tcov B' I', but the 
originality of this addition is witnessed by the nomenclature in 
the Ethiopic Church and by the Syriac version (Bacher, ZAW. 
XV. 1895, p. 305). This Greek title was appropriate, since the 
material of i and 2 Ch. apparently supplements the narratives 
of I and 2 S. and i and 2 K. 

Jerome, while retaining the Greek title Paralipomenon, sug- 
gested that of Chronicles, "since," he said, remarking on the 
Hebrew title, "we might more significantly call it the chronicle 
of the whole of sacred history." {Quod significantius Chronicon 


totius divincB historice possumus appellare) (Prol. galeat.). Thus 
arose the name adopted in our EngHsh versions. Luther used 
the same in his translation Die Chronika. 

In the printed Hebrew Bibles Chronicles is the last book of the 
"Writings" or the third division of the Hebrew Canon. This is 
its place according to the Talmud and the majority of Hebrew 
Mss. Some mss., however, among them the St. Petersburg Baby- 
lonian Codex and two in the British Museum, and the Spanish 
codices generally, place Chronicles at the beginning of the Hagiog- 
rapha. A Massoretic treatise, Adahath Debharim (1207 a.d.), 
declares this to have been the orthodox Palestinian order. This, 
however, is very doubtful. Chronicles by its late composition and 
supplementary character correctly finds its place at the close of the 
Hebrew Canon. The references in !Mt. 23" suggest also that at 
the time of Christ, or the collection of his sayings, this book closed 
the Canon. The transposition to the beginning of the Hagiog- 
rapha probably was because the bulk of its history preceded the 
dates assigned for most of the remaining Hagiographa. (On the 
order of the Hagiographa see Paton's Esther, pp. 1-3; Ginsburg's 
Introduction, pp. 1-8.) While in rabbinical literature Chronicles 
was regarded with suspicion, its historical accuracy being doubted 
by Talmudic authorities and it being held to be a book for homi- 
letical interpretation, yet its canonicity, as seme have thought, 
never seems really to have been questioned (/£. iv. p. 60; Buhl, 
Canon and Text of the OT. p. 31). 

In the Greek version Chronicles follows the Books of Kings 
(which include i and 2 S.). Occasionally it precedes them or 
drops out altogether. But these variations were local or individual 
and find no support in the uncial mss. of the Greek Bible (Swete, 
Intro, to the OT. in Greek, p. 397). The order in the English Bible 
is derived from the Greek through its use in the Vulgate. 


The Books of Chronicles are usually assigned to the same au- 
thor as that of Ezra and Nehemiah, which also are reckoned in the 
Hebrew Canon as one book. This is not only the general opin- 


ion of modern scholarship, but also was that of the Talmud, which 
ascribed them to Ezra. (Baba bath f. 15. i Ezra scripsit librum 
suum et genealogiam in libra Chronicorum ad se.) This also was 
the general view of the rabbins, the Church fathers, and the older 
commentators, at least as far as the Book of Ezra was concerned, 
that both that book and Chronicles were written by the same 
author, presumably Ezra. (For a list of those holding this opin- 
ion see Zoe. pp. 8/.) (Owing to the separation of Nehemiah from 
Ezra and the memoirs of Nehemiah being written in the first 
person, the view became widely prevalent that Nehemiah was the 
author of the book called by his name.) The reasons for finding 
a common authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah are as 
follows: — 

(i) The ending of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra are the 
same (2 Ch. 36" '• =Ezr. i*-'» to go up). This suggests that they 
were originally one work, a common portion of each book being 
retained at their point of separation when they were cloven asun- 
der, that their original unity might be recognised. This argu- 
ment, of course, only has force in view of the order of the books in 
the Hebrew Canon. The abrupt close of 2 Ch. is most naturally 
explained on the ground that originally it was continued by the 
story of the return given in Ezr. i. 

The separation in the Canon is apparently due to the fact that 
the contents of Ezra-Nehemiah were regarded as the more im- 
portant, since its narrative was a proper continuation of the 
sacred history already canonised in i and 2 S. and i and 2 K., 
and its narrative chronologically concluded the history of Israel; 
while Chronicles was only supplementary to i and 2 S. and i 
and 2 K., and therefore was not at first very highly valued and 
was only at a later period received into the Canon. 

Zoe., following Bleek {Einl.* § 149), doubts the unity of authorship and 
thinks the identity of 2 Ch. 36" '■ and Ezr. i'-'" better explained as coming 
from an editor (the author of i and 2 Ch.) who wished the second of two 
distinct works to be recognised as a kind of continuation of the first. 
He also holds that the plan of Ezra-Nehemiah in presenting recent 
history is against an original immediate connection with i and 2 Ch. 
(pp. 9/.). 


(2) The same general character pervades both works. Both 
show a fondness for the following particulars: — 

A. Genealogical and other lists of families and persons. 

Thus in Chronicles are the genealogies of the families of the twelve 
tribes and the houses of Saul and David (i Ch. 1-8); the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem (9'-='); the mighty men in David's armies (11^^-"); David's 
recruits at Ziglag (i2'-7- ^-'^- -"); the Levites, priests, and musicians that 
assisted in the removal of the ark (iS^-"- "-2^); the families of the Levites 
(236-23); the twenty-four courses of priests (24'-'^); heads of families, 
Kohathites and Merarites (242''-'i); the twenty-four courses of singers, 
their names twice repeated (25'-3'); the courses of gate-keepers (26'-!'); 
overseers of the Temple treasury {26-° ■^■*); Levitical officers outside, the 
Temple (2629-32); the twelve commanders of the twelve courses of the 
army (27i-'5); the princes of the tribes of Israel (2716-24); the twelve officers 
over David's substance (27"-'!); princes, Levites, and priests sent by 
Jehoshaphat to give instruction in the law (2 Ch. 17'-*); Levitical cap- 
tains under Jehoiada (23'); Levitical leaders in cleansing the Temple 
and Levites in charge of offerings in Hezekiah's reign (29"-" 3i'2-'5); 
Levites mentioned in connection with the repair of the Temple and the 
distribution of offerings at the passover festival in the reign of Josiah 
(348 '2 359). These are paralleled in Ezra-Nehemiah by the lists of the 
leaders, and of the families of the laity, the priests, the Levites, the 
singers, the gate-keepers, the Nethinim, the servants of Solomon, and 
those without genealogy who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr. 2'-*' Ne. 
y7-63); by the Usts of those who returned with Ezra (Ezr. 8=-<); of those 
both priests, Levites, singers, gate-keepers, and laity who had foreign 
wives (Ezr. iqis"); of those who signed the covenant, the governor, 
priests, Levites, and chiefs of the people (Ne. lo'-"); of the priests and 
Levites who participated in the promulgation of the law (Ne. 8*- ' 9*' ); 
of the builders of the wall of Jerusalem (Ne. 3'-"); of the princes (?), 
priests, and Levites who participated in the dedication of the wall (Ne. 
i2"-3«- 41-42); of the residents of Jerusalem (corresponding to the list of 
I Ch. 9) (Ne. II*-"). We r.lso have pedigrees corresponding to those 
in Chronicles, those of Ezra (Ezr. 7' -5) and of Jaddua (Ne. 12'°-"). 

B. Both works show a fondness for the description of the 
celebrations of special religious occasions. 

In I and 2 Ch. are descriptions of the bringing up of the ark (i Ch. 
15-16), of the dedication of the Temple (2 Ch. 5-7'°), of the restoration 
of the worship of Yahweh and the celebration of the passover under 
Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29-31), and of the passover under Josiah (2 Ch. 35); 
and in Ezra-Nehemiah are descriptions of the erection of the altar at 


the time of Joshua and Zerubbabel (Ezr. 3), of the dedication of the 
Temple (Ezr. 6i«-i8), of the celebration of the passover (Ezr. 6' '-22), of 
the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles in connection with the read- 
ing of the law (Ne. 8"-'*), and of the dedication of the walls (Ne. 12*'-"). 

C. In the attention paid to the priests, the Levites, and espe- 
cially to the musicians or singers and the gate-keepers, which latter 
classes are not mentioned elsewhere in the OT. 

The musicians are mentioned in i Ch. 6" 2- "iff.) gu 1510-21. j: t. i6<-" 
23' c. 25 2 Ch. 5'2s. 76 8" '• 2o"- " 23"- " 2925-28. so 2021 '- 34" 3515 and in 
Ezr. 31° «■ Ne. 11" 128- «• 27-29. «-47 136. 10, The gate-keepers are men- 
tioned (often with the singers) in i Ch. 9"-29 is''- 23. » i^ss 235 26'- "-'• 
2 Ch. 8i< 23<- " 31'* 34" 3515 and in Ezr. 2«- '» 7' 102^ Ne. 7'- « lo'^ <28) 
III' i22»- ♦'■ " 135 (Be. pp. xiv./.). 

Thus, whatever are the sources of these writings, exactly the 
same interest and motive of compilation or authorship appear in 
both, hence the conclusion that both are from the same person is 
irresistible. This is still further supported by the following fact: — 

(3) Both works exhibit in a marked degree the same linguistic 
peculiarities. This is fully exhibited in the list of the Chronicler's 
peculiarities of diction given on pp. 27^. 

§ 3- DATE. 

The data for determining the exact period of i and 2 Ch. 
taken from those books are very meagre. The books close with a 
reference to a decree of Cyrus in the first year of his reign (537 
B.C.), hence they cannot be earlier than that date. Money also is 
reckoned in darics (i Ch. 29'), the Persian coinage introduced by 
Darius I. (521-486 B.C.), hence they do not fall within the be- 
ginnings of the Persian period (537-332 B.C.). Then again the 
genealogy of David's family is apparently brought down to the 
sixth generation after Zerubbabel (who flourished 537 -I-) (i Ch. 
3 "-2*). This makes the date for i and 2 Ch., reckoning thirty 
years for a generation, not earlier than about 350 B.C. The Greek, 
Syriac, and Latin texts, however, read i Ch. 3"-2< differently (see in 
loco), bringing the genealogy down to the eleventh generation after 
Zerubbabel. This would place the date, reckoning again thirty 


years for a generation, at about 200 b.c. Thirty years, however, are 
probably longer than an actual generation among the Hebrews. 
Kamphausen reckoning on the descent of the Hebrew kings fixes 
the length at twenty-three years {Chronologic derhebr.Konige, pp. 
38/.); Kittel makes a generation even less, only twenty years 
{Kom. p. 26). On this last basis eleven generations after Zerub- 
babel would extend only to about 300 B.C. Yet (|, ^, and B 
probably have simply interpreted the difficult ^ te.xt, and hence 
do not really furnish a trustworthy basis for a date. The read- 
ing of the Vrss. was preferred by Kuenen {Einl. I. 2, § 29, i); 
also by Wildeboer {Die Litteratur des A. T. ^ 25, 2). 

But since i and 2 Ch. originally were joined to Ezra-Nehemiah, 
the period of the Chronicler can also be determined from those 
books. The list of the high priests given in Ne. 12'" '■ " f- extends 
to Jaddua, who according to Josephus {Ant. xi. 7, 8) was high 
priest in the time of Alexander the Great. Darius is referred to 
as the Persian (Ne. 12") in a way that suggests that the Persian 
! kingdom had already fallen and that the time of Alexander (336- 
323 B.C.) had been reached. Thus the close of the fourth century 
B.C., or 300, may be confidently given as the period of the Chronicler. 

The scholars who regarded Ezra as the author of i and 2 Ch. and also 
of the Book of Ezra, have refused to allow the implications just mentioned 
drawn from i Ch. 3"-^'', holding either that the passage contained no 
list of six or more generations after Zerubbabel (Davis, DB. p. 125), or 
that it was an insertion (Keil held both of these views, Comm. p. 82); 
and likewise those who held that Nehemiah wrote his book have regarded 
the lists of priests in Ne. 12'-=^ either as an insertion (Lange Crosby, Ne. 
p. 2) or as a list of descendants of the priestly family, the last of whom, 
Jaddua, might have been known to Nehemiah in his extreme old age 
(Keil, Intro., trans, by Douglas, § 149). 


The Books of Chronicles are a history of the kingdom of Judah 
from the enthronement of David to the fall of Jerusalem. This 
history begins with a long introduction, consisting in the main of a 
series of genealogical tables, showing the origin of Israel from the 
beginning of mankind, and their connection with other peoples 


(material derived from the Hexateuch), and giving likewise the 
clans or families of the tribes of Israel, with particular regard to 
those of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin (the three tribes most impor- 
tant for the post-exilic community), and also a list of the inhabi- 
tants of Jerusalem (i Ch. 1-9). Then commences the history 
proper, introduced with an account of the death of Saul (i Ch. 10). 
This history is written throughout from a priestly point of view. 
The writer is concerned above everything else with the life of 
Israel centred in the worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. He 
dwells at length upon the removal of the ark by David (i Ch. 13, 
15-16);] upon his thought of a temple (i Ch. 17) and his prepara- 
tions for its building (i Ch. 21, 22, 28, 29); upon its structure 
and furniture and dedication under Solomon (2 Ch. 2-7); upon 
its repairs in the reigns of Joash, Hezekiah, and Josiah (2 Ch. 
24<-'* 29'-" 34'"). And in connection with these last two re- 
pairs are given notable descriptions of passover festivals cele- 
brated at the Temple (2 Ch. 30, 35'"). 

The ministry of the Temple is also fully described. The divi- 
sions of the Levites and the priests and the singers and the gate- 
keepers, which are represented as established by David, are given 
at length (i Ch. 23-26). These ministers also not only take a 
prominent part in all the events connected with the Temple men- 
tioned above, but appear repeatedly in other history. Priests 
and Levites resort unto Rehoboam on the division of the kingdom 
(2 Ch. II'' '•). They are appointed by Jehoshaphat as teachers of 
the law (2 Ch. 17"^ ) and as judges (2 Ch. 198'' ). Levites take a 
prominent part in the coronation of Joash and the death of Atha- 
liah (2 Ch. 23'»). Priests withstand Uzziah when he would bum 
incense in the Temple (2 Ch. 26"«). 

The activity of the singers, or musicians, is prominent. They 
are mentioned not only in connection with the removal of the ark 
(i Ch. 15, 16) and the dedication of the Temple (2 Ch. 5'"), 
but they appear with the army of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 20"), at 
the coronation of Joash (2 Ch. 23"), at the cleansing of the Tem- 
ple and the celebration of the passover under Hezekiah (2 Ch. 
2Qi« b. u. 26. J8. JO 30"), and at similar events under Josiah (2 Ch. 34" 
35"). Their descent is also elaborately given (i Ch. 6"" <"-■•')). 


The writer, then, is of the same school as the author of the 
Priests' Code. Equally with him he delights in all that pertains 
to the ministry of the sanctuary. He also has the same fondness 
for statistics, and exhibits repeatedly similar exaggerations. He 
gives the weight or value of the gold 100,000 talents, silver 
1,000,000 talents, which David prepared as king for the Temple 
(i Ch. 22"); also 3,000 talents of gold and 7,000 of silver which 
David gave from his private purse (i Ch. 29*); and then again 
of gold 5,000 talents and 10,000 darics, of silver 10,000 talents, of 
brass 18,000 talents, of iron 100,000 talents, contributed by the 
rulers for the building of the Temple (i Ch. 29'); and likewise he 
gives in thousands the number of sheep and cattle ofifered at re- 
ligious festivals (i Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 29" '• 30" 35' '•); and the number 
of warriors: those who came to make David king, from the tribes 
of Israel, 6,800, 7,100, 4,600, 3,700, 3,000, 20,800, 18,000, 50,000, 
37,000, 28,600, 40,000, and 120,000 (i Ch. i2"-3« (23.37)); the officers 
of David in twelve divisions of 24,000 each, one division serving 
a month (i Ch. 27'-"); the warriors of Rehoboam 180,000 (2 Ch. 
II'); of Abijah 400,000 (2 Ch. 13'); of Jeroboam 800,000, of whom 
500,000 were slain (2 Ch. 13'"); of Asa from Judah 300,000, from 
Benjamin 280,000 (2 Ch. 14'), and of Zerah his opponent 1,000,000 
(2 Ch. 14'); of Jehoshaphat in five divisions of 300,000, 280,000, 
200,000, 200,000, and 180,000 each (2 Ch. ij^*-'^); of Amaziah 
300,000 and 100,000 more who were hired (2 Ch. 25* '■); of Uzziah 
307,500 under 2,600 chiefs (2 Ch. 261=); and of Ahaz (the total 
number of whose warriors is not given) 120,000 who were slain in 
one day (2 Ch. 28^). 

The writer likewise, after the manner of P, indulges in registers 
of names. These not only appear in the genealogical tables of the 
introduction (i Ch. 1-9) and in the classification of the ministers of 
the Temple and the officers of David (i Ch. 23-27), but in lists of 
heroes who came to David at Ziglag (i Ch. 12'-"); of priests, Le- 
vites, musicians, and gate-keepers who took part in the removal of 
the ark (i Ch. 15-16^); of princes, Levites, and priests sent through- 
out the land to give instruction in the law (2 Ch. 17' f); of captains 
(Levites) who conspired to place Joash on the throne (2 Ch. 23'); 
of heads of the children of Ephraim who commanded the return of 


the captives of Judah in the reign of Ahaz (2 Ch. 28''); of Levites 
who assisted Hezekiah in cleansing the Temple (2 Ch. 29'»-'<); of 
superintendents of offerings (Levites), also in the reign of Heze- 
kiah (2 Ch. 3 1 '2 '■); of overseers of the repair of the Temple, and of 
rulers of the Temple (all Levites) under Josiah (2 Ch. 34'^ 358 '•). 

The history is thus throughout of the character of the Priests' '1 
Code, both in its subject-matter and form of presentation, and is 
written entirely from the point of view of that legislation and thus 
as a supplement to i and 2 S. and i and 2 K. The priestly history " 
of Israel of the earlier books ceases with the concluding stories of 
the Book of Judges. Samuel and Kings, while witnessing to i j 
a few examples of priestly revision, convey no picture of Israel's | 
history as it should have been had the priestly legislation origi- .; 
nated with Moses and been upheld and carried forward by the I 
pious David and his godly successors. To remedy this defect was ^ .^- 
clearly the object of the Chronicler. He thus introduced a great | 
deal of new material, mentioned above, concerning the Temple and | 
its ministry and religious celebrations. But he was not simply I 
concerned with institutions and ceremonies and Levitical classes; ,' 
he was equally interested in the divine rule. He interpreted / 
Israel's life, after the pattern in the Priests' Code of its national ' 
beginning under Moses, as that of a church with constant rewards 
and punishments through signal divine intervention. This method 
had already in some measure been pursued, with Deuteronomy 
as a standard, in the earlier histories. The Chronicler, with the 
Priests' Code as his standard, aiming to give a more complete and 
consistent history, while drawing largely as a basis upon Samuel 
and Kings, modified their narratives. He made more universal 
the connection between piety and prosperity, and wickedness^ 
and adversity, heightening good and bad characters and their re- 
wards and punishments, or creating them according to the exigen- 
cies of the occasion. Thus grandeur is added to David by lists of 
warriors who came to him at Ziglag and of hosts who made him 
king at Hebron. On the other hand, his domestic troubles, his 
adultery, and the rebellion of Absalom are passed over in silence. 

The history of Solomon is similarly treated. No mention is 
made of the intrigue by which he came to the throne, or of his 


idolatries or troubles near the close of his life. After the disrup- 
tion no mention is made of the N. kingdom except incidentally. 
Its history is entirely ignored as that of an apostate or heathen 

Rehoboam, of whom nothing commendable is written in Kings, 
is approved and exalted in the early years of his reign (2 Ch. 11), 
clearly that he as well as his people may stand in sharp con- 
trast to Jeroboam and the northern tribes; and then later in ex- 
planation of the invasion of Shishak, he is accused, with all his 
people, of having forsaken the law of Yahweh (2 Ch. 12' ' ). 

Abijah, of whom in Kings only evil is recorded and whose brief 
reign of three years is absolutely colourless save in the mention of 
war between him and Jeroboam, is also transformed and exalted 
after the manner of Rehoboam, and is not only given a great vic- 
tory over Jeroboam, but made a preacher of the righteousness of 
the Priests' Code (2 Ch. 13). 

Asa according to Kings was a good king, and he removed idols 
and an abominable image made by the queen-mother, but it is said 
"the high places were not taken away." The Chronicler, how- 
ever, makes him at first the remover of high places, and gives him 
a mighty army and a victory over a Cushite host of 1,000,000 men 
of which the earlier narrative knows nothing (2 Ch. 14' -'s). Later 
the Chronicler quotes the passage concerning the high places but 
applies it to Israel, the N. kingdom, over which Asa had no control. 
Asa, according to the earlier narrative, invoked the aid of Syria 
against Baasha, King of Israel. This act is made the subject of 
prophetic rebuke, and Asa, from then on, is painted in dark colours 
as the oppressor of the prophet and the people. This wickedness, 
doubtless, was designed to be connected with his diseased feet 
mentioned in Kings. The Chronicler also adds that he sought, in 
his disease, not the Lord but physicians. 

Jehoshaphat is commended in Kings for doing "that which was 
right in the eyes of Yahweh" (i K. 22"), but the record of his reign 
is very brief. This gave the Chronicler a full opportunity, and 
hence, although Jehoshaphat is rebuked for his alliance with Ahab 
(an alliance mentioned in Kings), and the wreck of his merchant- 
vessels built in conjunction with Ahaziah, King of Israel (also men- 


tioned in Kings), is declared to be a punishment for the sin of such 
a partnership, he is yet exalted exceedingly. He is endowed with 
riches and honour in abundance. His army is very great, although 
apparently entirely superfluous, since a divine interposition of 
panic and self-destruction destroys an immense host of invaders 
from eastern Palestine (2 Ch. 20). But the name of the King 
seems to have suggested the special form of his good works. 
Jehoshaphat means "Yahweh judges,'^ and to him are assigned 
the commendable acts of sending teachers of the law throughout 
the land and the appointment of judges (2 Ch. 17' "■ 19* « ). 

Joram, who according to Kings did that which was evil, is mag- 
nified in wickedness and disaster. In his reign Edom revolted 
from Judah, and the Chronicler connected this, as the older nar- 
rative did not, directly with Joram's sins. Moreover, he also saw 
in Joram a seducer of his o\\'n people, and threatened him with 
fearful plagues through a letter from Elijah, who, according to 
the older narrative, had already died in the reign of Jehoshaphat. 
These plagues befall the monarch through a sack of Jerusalem 
by a horde of Philistines and Arabians, and a fearful incurable 
disease whereby the King's bowels fell out (2 Ch. 21). 

After the death of Ahaziah, who reigned only a year, Athaliah the 
queen-mother seized the throne, until at the end of six years she was 
deposed and slain through a conspiracy directed by Jehoiada the 
priest, and Joash was crowned. This conspiracy gave the Chron- 
icler the opportunity to make one of his most marked reconstruc- 
tions of history. According to the earlier narrative the conspira- 
tors are captains of the royal mercenary body-guards; according to 
the Chronicler they are captains of Levites, and the whole narra- 
tive is rewritten in the interest of the exaltation of the Levites and 
the preservation of the sanctity of the Temple (2 Ch. 23). The 
reign of Joash was unfortunate in the extreme. He suffered the 
loss of all the treasures of the Temple and of the palace in pur- 
chasing the withdrawal of Hazael, King of Damascus, from Judah, 
and later he was assassinated. The Chronicler tells how he de- 
sferved this fate. He makes him, after the death of Jehoiada the 
priest, an apostate from the worship of Yahweh and the murderer 
of the son of his old benefactor the priest. He adds also to his 


calamities by stating that at the time of his death he suffered 
great diseases (2 Ch. 24). 

Amaziah waged a most disastrous war with Joash, King of 
Israel. The wall of Jerusalem was broken down and the treasures 
of Temple and palace taken. Amaziah also met his death through 
a conspiracy. These dire events needed an explanation and the 
Chronicler introduces an apostasy of Amaziah in the worship of 
Edomitic gods and threatens him through a prophet with de- 
struction (2 Ch. 25'* 2). 

Uzziah, one of the best (2 K. 15') and most prosperous of the 
kings of Judah, became a leper and made his son Jotham regent. 
The Chronicler finds a cause for this leprosy in a usurpation of 
priestly prerogative in the burning of incense in the Temple, and 
he says, "The leprosy broke forth in his forehead before the priests 
in the house of Yahweh beside the altar of incense " (2 Ch. 26"). 

Ahaz was not a good king, and to deliver himself from the com- 
bined forces of Syria and Israel he successfully invoked the aid of 
Assyria and seems to have suffered no great loss (2 K. 16). But not 
so did the Chronicler write his history. He delivers him into the 
hand of the King of Syria with a very great loss in captives; and 
also into the hand of the King of Israel with the slaughter of 120,- 
000 men in one day and the capture of 200,000 wives, sons, and 
daughters. Edomites and Philistines also invade his land and the 
King of Assyria distresses him (2 Ch. 28'«). 

Hezekiah was a good king and in the older narrative he re- 
formed the worship of Yahweh and departed not from the divine 
commandments. The Chronicler accordingly magnifies at length 
his conduct, giving great prominence to the priests and Levites 
(2 Ch. 29). But Manasseh his son was an exceedingly wicked 
king, and he reigned the unusual period of fifty-five years. The 
Chronicler explains this anomaly by a repentance of Manasseh 
^fter an imprisonment, of which the older narrative knows 
nothmg, in Babylon (2 Ch. 33"^). 

Josiah was a good king and reformed the worship of Yahweh. 
As in the case of Hezekiah, the Chronicler magnifies this element of 
his reign, but Josiah met an untimely death at the battle of Me- 
giddo. This required explanation, and hence it is recorded that 


he was disobedient to a warning given by Necho from the mouth 
ot God (2 Ch. 35^' ' ). 

The Chronicler introduces on critical occasions warning and 
exhorting seers or prophets. At the invasion of Shishak, Shem- 
aiah addresses Rehoboam (2 Ch. 12'); at the overthrow of Zerah, 
Azariah exhorts Asa (2 Ch. 15'* ), and when Asa invokes foreign 
aid Hanani reproves him (2 Ch. 16' « ) ; and Hanani's son Jehu like- 
wise reproves Jehoshaphat for his alliance with Ahab, and Jehaziel 
encourages Jehoshaphat in the conflict with Moab and Ammon 
(2 Ch. 20'* ^■), and Eliezer prophesies against Jehoshaphat for 
his partnership with Ahaziah (2 Ch. 20"); Zechariah the son of 
Jehoiada the priest testifies against the people in the days of 
Joash (2 Ch. 24"); and Oded speaks unto the men of Israel in the 
reign of Ahaz (2 Ch. 28'" ). A few of these are mentioned in the 
earlier books but are unknown on these occasions or with such 
edifying speeches. They are clearly supplements by the later 

In many minute particulars the earlier accounts are glossed or 
revised. Of Saul's death it is added that he died for his trespass 
and because he asked counsel of one having a familiar spirit 
(i Ch. 10"). The statement that David and his men carried off 
the idols of the Philistines (2 S. 5") is changed to that of their 
destruction by fire at the command of David (i Ch. 14"). Noth- 
ing less, evidently, was regarded as suitable for such abominations 
from such a pious king. The ark entrusted to the care of Obed- 
edom does not remain in the house of Obed-edom (2 S. 6'*), but 
with this household in its own house (i Ch. 13")- This would 
keep it from defilement. Both Samuel the Ephraimite (i S. i') 
and Obed-edom the Gittite (2 S. 6"") are given a Levitical 
descent (i Ch. 6 '««• <"« ' 16" 26<'' ) as required of the servants of 
the tabernacle and the ark in P. 

Goliath the Gittite slain by Elhanan the Bethlehemite (2 S. 2i'») 
becomes Lahmi, the brother of Gohath the Gittite (i Ch. 20'). 
This removes the discrepancy with the story of David's conquest 
(i S. 17). David's sons are changed from "priests" (2 S. 8") into 
"the first at the hand of the king" (i Ch. 18"). A non-Levitical 
priesthood supported by David was unthinkable to the Chronicler. 


Yahweh, who led David to number Israel (2 S. 24'), since a direct 
divine temptation was not agreeable to the later theology, becomes 
Satan (i Ch. 2V); and agreeably to the later angelology the de- 
stroying angel is placed between the earth and the heaven (i Ch. 
21") instead of remaining simply by the threshing-floor of Oman 
the Jebusite (2 S. 24''). The price paid by David for the threshing- 
floor is changed from fifty shekels of silver (2 S. 24") into six hun- 
dred shekels of gold (i Ch. 21"), since, forsooth, the former sum 
was too paltry to be given by such a monarch as David for the 
future site of the Temple. Fire also is said to have fallen from 
heaven and kindled David's sacrifice, and also Solomon's, at the 
dedication of the Temple (i Ch. 2V-' 2 Ch. 7'). This is a mark 
of the later wonder-seeking theology. The high place at Gibeon 
where Solomon sacrificed is explained as the seat of the brazen 
altar and the tabernacle (2 Ch. 1='-"), particulars unexpressed in the 
parallel narrative in i K. (y). Thus the act of Solomon is kept 
within the priestly law. The gift of cities by Solomon to Hiram, 
King of Tyre (i K. g'" «•), becomes, to preserve, doubtless, the in- 
tegrity of the Holy Land, the reverse — a gift of cities by Hiram to 
Solomon (2 Ch. 8' '•). The removal of Pharaoh's daughter from 
the city of David into her house newly built by Solomon (i K. 9") 
is motived because the place in proximity to the ark must be kept 
holy (2 Ch. 8"). These striking glosses and changes by no means 
exhaust the number made by the Chronicler. Wherever he makes 
use of the earlier canonical narratives they are present in a greater 
or less degree. 

Thus the entire history of the kingdom of Judah has suffered 
reconstruction, and it is clear that the Books of Chronicles are a 
tendency writing of little historical value. The picture which they 
give of the past is far less accurate or trustworthy than that of the 
earlier Biblical writings; indeed, it is a distorted picture in the in- 
terest of the later institutions of post-exilic Judaism; and the main 
historical value of these books consists in their reflection of the 
notions of that period. Yet at the same time some ancient facts, 
having trickled down through oral or written tradition, are doubt- 
less preserved in the amplifications and embellishments of the 
Chronicler, These we shall have occasion to point out in our 


commentary. They are few indeed compared with the products 
of the imagination, and must be sifted Uke kernels of wheat from a 
mass of chafi (c/. S. A. Cooke, Notes on OT. History, p. 67). 

The following new material, exclusive of names and notices in the 
genealogical section, i Ch. 1-9, has been presented by Kittel, by the use 
of heavy type, in his commentary as historical: (i) the additions to the 
list of David's heroes (i Ch. ii^^-o); (2) the family of Rehoboam 
(2Ch. n'*-"); (3) the name of the father of the mother of Abijah (2 Ch. 
13^); (4) the number of Abijah's wives and children (2 Ch. 13"); (5) 
the teaching delegation sent by Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 17'-'); (6) details of 
the military might and building operations of Uzziah (2 Ch. 26'-** 
».is. u f.); (7) the same of Jotham (2 Ch. 27'''^ v. » in part only); (8) the 
invasion of the Edomites and Philistines in the reign of Ahaz (2 Ch. 
28'"); (9) the conduit built by Hezekiah (2 Ch. 32'°"); (^o) the place 
of Hezekiah's grave (2 Ch. 32^3^); (n) the enlargement of the wall 
of Jerusalem by Manasseh (2 Ch. 33'^). Of these (4) and (5) are 
probably of no historic worth; others are doubtful; some may be ac- 
cepted, especially (6)-(ii). (See the commentary in locis.) Genuine 
history has also been found in these additions of the Chronicler: (i) 
Abijah's victory (2 Ch. 13'-"); (2) Asa's victory (2 Ch. 148" (»-»«)); 
(3) Jehoshaphat's victory (2 Ch. 20'"); (4) Uzziah's resistance to the 
priests (2 Ch. 26"-"); and (5) the repentance of Manasseh (2 Ch. 33"-"). 
The ground urged for this, as far as the victories are concerned, is that 
the continued existence of the little kingdom of Judah for three hundred 
and fifty years with enemies on the south and revolted Israel on the 
north is hardly to be explained except on the hypothesis of some such suc- 
cesses as the Chronicler describes (2 Ch. i3"'- 14*^- "* > 20'" ), gained by 
Judah (Ba. pp. xx-x-xxxiii). This is a plausible but a specious argument. 
The kingdom of Judah was too poor a country to be very attractive to its 
neighbours or to entice distant hordes to make such invasions. Raids 
may have been made into Judah and some reminiscences of these may 
be behind these stories (see commentary), but nothing further can be 
affirmed. The motive for (4) and (5) is so strong that no historical prob- 
ability on the ground of their record can be asserted. A change of religious 
policy by Manasseh in his old age, considering how his reign is viewed 
by the prophets, is utterly unlikely. Winckler, in connection with his 
theory of the contact of the kingdoms of northern Arabia with Israel, has 
found historical reminiscences in the Chronicler's allusions to the Meunim 
(2 Ch. 26' I Ch. 4" 2 Ch. 20' (6), the Arabians (2 Ch. 17" 21" 14'*), and 
the Hagrites (i Ch. 5"" " "). The basis for this inference is the claim 
that the chronology of the appearance of these people in Ch. is correct. 
They are mentioned just when historically they might be expected 
{Musri, Meluhha, Ma'in, MVAG. 1898, pp. 42 ff.; KATJ pp. 142/., 


144). On the other hand it is strange that the older and more historical 
Books of Samuel and Kings contain none of these notices or similar ones, 
and it is readily credible that these names might have been current in 
post-exilic times (if not certain that they were), and thus at hand for the 
Chronicler to introduce as the enemies of Israel (We. Prol. p. 208; 
Noeldeke, EBi. I. col. 274). 


The religious value of Chronicles lies in the emphasis given to 
the institutional forms of religion. Forms, ceremonies, institu- 
tions of one sort or another, are necessary for the maintenance of 
religious life. The Chronicler, it is true, overemphasised their 
importance and his teachings are vitiated by a false doctrine of 
diWne interference without human endeavour, and a false notion of 
righteousness consisting largely in the observance of legal forms 
and ceremonies. Yet in his owm time, unless he had been a direct 
forerunner of Christ, he could not have been expected to give 
a different message, and in his day his message rendered a most 
important serv'ice. He belonged not only to the same school of 
wTiters as the author or authors of the Priestly element of the Pen- 
tateuch, but was kindred with the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, 
and especially Malachi. "The course of events since the restora- 
tion had made the Temple with its high priest and its sacrificial 
system a centre for the commimity much more than it had been 
before, but this very fact had a providential significance in view of 
the future. It was essential for Israel's preservation that the 
ceremonial obligations laid upon it should be strictly observed, 
and that it should hold itself aloof socially from its heathen neigh- 
bours" (Dr. Minor Prophets, II. in NCB. p. 297). However nar- 
\ row the Chronicler's teachings maybe considered and however arti- 
, ficial their products, without the shell of the Judaistic legalism and 
: ecclesiasticism it is difficult to see how the precious truths of divine 
'^revelation in Hebrew prophecy could have been preserved. Other- 
wise amid the encroaching forces of the Persian, Greek, and Ro- 
man civilisations they would have been dissipated and no place 
would have been prepared for the appearance of Christ and the 
growth of Christianity. The work of the Chronicler fostered the 


needed spirit of Jewish exclusiveness in its list of genealogies; it en- 
hanced Jerusalem as the rallying-point and centre of Jewish life ; it 
favoured the maintenance of a hierarchy and emphasised the out- 
ward forms of religion in sacrifices and national festivals, but all 
this contributed largely to the religious solidarity and strength of 
the people and gave them a tough quality. 

Through these writings the past also was ideahsed and glorified 
as a norm for present activity and future development. Nothing 
better than the authority of the past could have serv^ed in those days 
to intensify the loyalty and devotion of the ancient Jew. The divine 
law of retribution and special providence, which the Chronicler 
taught, was a most powerful factor also for preserving the Jewish 
Church. It must also never be forgotten that it was under the 
tutelage of men like the Chronicler that the Maccabees were nour- 
ished and that the heroic age of Judaism was inaugurated. 

§ 6. SOURCES. 

A. The source of canonical material. According to the 
sketch just given the Chronicler supplemented and in a measure 
revised the history of Israel narrated in the canonical books, es- 
pecially I and 2 S. and i and 2 K. These then constitute a main 
source of his work. The following are the parallels between his 
and the earlier writings. (These parallels include the Chronicler's 
modifications of the canonical material and hence are not as re- 
stricted as some lists which omit all observations and additions of 
the Chronicler. For these details see commentary.) 

I Ch. I'-S Gn. 5'-" 10'. 

'< jl>-23 " lO'-*- '•'• 13-"»- 22-2'. 

" 1^-", " Il'f-M, Cf. 175. 

" j28-34 " 2C'2-16a. 1-4. 19-16 f/ jglS 2l2 f . 

" j35-54 " •754. 6s. 10-14. 20-28. 31-43_ 

" 21-2. " 35"b-26 Ex. i'-« and elsewhere. 

" 25-S " 382-'- "'• 46'2'' Nu. 36'' «•. 

" 25, " 46'2'' Nu. 26" Ru. 4>8. 

" 2«-«, Jos. 7' I K. 5" (4")- 

" 2'-", Ru. 4'9-22 I S. i6«-9 2 S. 2'8 17M. 


I Ch 



2 S. 3^-5 s^- '^-'S cf. i3>. 
I and 2 K. 

Gn. 461° Ex. 615 Nu. 2612 1. 


Jos. 19^-^. 

Gn. 46' Nu. 265 '•. 

525. 26, 

cf. 2 K. 15'' '■ " 17' i8i'. 

J27-29 (61 


Ex. 6'«- "• '"'• 2' Nu. 3i7- i». 

51-4. 7 (16 

-19. 22) 

" 616-24. 

57-13 (22-28), 

" 62* I S. 1' SK 

539-66 (54- 


Jos. 2I'<'-13- 5-9. 20-39. 


Ne. ii^-i9». 


I S. 31. 


2 S. 5'-3- "-"'. 


" 2'?'"''. 


" 6i-». 

141-7- 8-17, 

" ell-16. 17-25_ 

15. 16, 

" 61=-". 


" 7- 


" 8. 


" 10. 


" III 1226-31. 






llS_2l7 (2), 





gl-12. 13-28, 



" 24. 

1 K. 3^-'=. 

" I02«-29. 

" rl5-30 (1-16). 

" 6 ^13-6I_ 

" 8. 

" qIO-28. 

«< iqI-I'- 14-29. 

" II"-". 

" 12'-". 

J 22- 3- 9-16 " 1421-31. 

I3I. 2. 22. 23 (14I), " 15I. 2. 7. 8. 

Ia\. 2 (2.3) JC16.19 " iell-16. 

j6i-6- 11-n " it;'7-2<. 

j82-34, " 222-55. 

2o31-2ll, " 22"-" <*0). 

215-10. 20, 2 K. S"-**. 

221-6- 7-9 " 825-29 gl6-28 iqH-U^ 

2210-2321, " II (11I-2O). 

24I-I4. 23-27 " 12I-I7- (ll2I— 12I6) J2l'-22(17-21). 

2C1-4. U. 17-28 " 141-**- l'-20. 



2 Ch. 26»-<- 21 -M, 

1421. 22 152-7, 

« 27'-3- '-», 

J 1-33-36. 38_ 

" 28'-*- ^- ", 

j62-4. 19. 20, 

" 29»- 2, 

l82- 3. 

" 32'-", 


" 32^^-", 


" ss'-'"- '"-^ 

2il-9. 18-24^ 

" 34'- '■ '■'^, 

22, 23' -3. 

" 35'- ''-'"• ^• 

27 36.-4 

2721-23. 28. 29-34 

« 365. 6. 8-12^ 

2-236. 37 24.'- 5* 

" 3622- 23, 


. I'-3^ 

The simplest explanation of the parallels (and the true one 
already assumed above and now universally accepted) is the direct 
quotation or paraphrase of the canonical books by the Chronicler 
and their modification by him, or, what amounts to the same thing, 
by a forerunner whose work he copied (a view mentioned below 
though not accepted). 

The evidence for this direct use is very clear. It is seen in the verbal 
agreements which appear in every parallel. (See commentary.) Cor- 
ruptions in the earlier texts are also repeated in the later. Cf. in i Ch. 
^]!p^\ io'», my:; iiis, jon 1414^ 'dSi iy^<>, inx 1721, i.-ii^x ja iScnx ('os) 
i8i«, 1-iy ? 1913, aoScn 20'; in 2 Ch., 'un nioaS and •'js Sy 4'3, "■aya 4", 
IvHy 721. 

The canonical text is also sometimes so closely followed as to introduce 
irrelevant expressions. Cf. 1 Ch. 650 (^s) 66"> <"">) (but present form 
possibly due to transcriber, v. in loco) 14* (iU') 15^' 20' (now David 
was abiding in J.) 20^ (the staff, etc.). The variations also between the 
two texts show the dependence of one upon the other. Chronicles, as 
might be expected from its less frequent transcription, in many instances 
preserves the more original reading (cf. 1 Ch. i' ^2 2"7 S''- '^ lo'- ^ 4. 7 
iiio. 29 136. 8. 9 f. 147 jjT^Sya, 12- 16 1712 «■ 21 r8'-"- " 19^ i* 2o» 2 Ch. 2" <") 
4")- An antiquated term is often replaced by a later one (cf. i Ch. io'2 
138 1529 ? 194 2i2- 2- 4). 

Statements jarring the Chronicler's sense of religious propriety or doing 
violence to his conception of the course of history were omitted or 
modified (see § 4, pp. 9-15). 

Other departures from the text are such as might be expected from one 
who was not a servile copyist. The Chronicler abridges frequently 
(cf. I Ch. ii-"- 24-27. 34-42 23-4 2 Ch. i6->3 31-79. 15-17 71-3 36'-"), and occasiou- 
■ally introduces words to emphasise an idea or to give clearness, and also 
pious phrases {cf. i Ch. ii^ 152s i8«- " 2 Ch. iS"). 


This direct use, however, was formerly questioned, because the 
variance between the parallels seemed destructive to the infallible 
inspiration of the Chronicler. Hence arose the theory (held by 
many commentators, and represented in its final and most perfect 
form especially by Keil) that the Chronicler and the writers of the 
canonical books both used common sources, and that the parallels 
were independent extracts from common sources, each made from 
a point of view peculiar to itself (Keil, Intro. § 141). 

To illustrate this view: In the account of Saul's death (2 S. 31 and 
I Ch. 10) there is agreement almost word for word until the treatment of 
the corpse of the King. The \\Titer of i S. says: The Philistines cut off 
his head, stripped off his armour and put his armour in the house of As- 
taroth, and then fastened his body to the wall of Bethshean. The Chron- 
icler says: They took his head and his armour and they put his armour 
in the house of their gods and fastened his head in the temple of Dagon. 
The original source of both of these accounts Keil held must have con- 
tained an account of both head and trunk, which the author of i S. followed 
as far as the trunk was concerned and the Chronicler as far as the head. 
Again in comparing 2 Ch. 2 with i K. 5'5-32 (i-is)^ in the former we read 
that when Solomon purposed to build the Temple he sent to Hiram, King 
of Tyre, and asked for a cunning workman and for timber and hewers of 
timber, promising much grain and wine and oil in return, while in i K. 
only timber and cutters of timber are requested and no promise of oil 
is mentioned. Here again Keil held that these are e.xtracts from a 
common source, one writer emphasising one particular and the other 

This supposition of Keil (an unnatural one compared with that 
of direct use and really not worthy of further consideration) breaks 
down completely if the results of recent scholarship in reference to 
the sources of the canonical books can at all be trusted, since these 
sources always appear in Chronicles in the same combinations in 
which they are found in the canonical books, and never apparently 
otherwise; i.e., they appear always edited and not in their original 

The names in i Ch. i'-^^ are grouped as they appear in Gn. lo^-'s. 
22", a combination of three sources, P, J, and R (Dr. Gn.). Gleanings 
from Gn. 35, 38, 46 representing P, J, and R appear in i Ch. 2. (No one, 
however, has ever seriously argued that the Chronicler had access to the 
sources of the Pentateuch, since, forsooth, to Keil and those of his 
school the Pentateuch had no sources in the modern sense.) 


In I Ch. i8 II 2 S. 8 is a combination of three sources. Glosses in 
2 S. 56 "> 23" (Budde, SBOT.) are reproduced in i Ch. ii* '«. The 
parallels with 2 S., however, are not favourable for presenting combina- 
tions because underlying 2 S. is almost entirely a single source. In i 
and 2 K. it is different, and here, following the analysis of Stade and 
Schwally {SBOT.), a number of sources appear combined in nearly 
every parallel in 2 Ch. In 1613 || i K. 3<-'5 three; in i"-'' |l i K. 
I026-39 three; in c. 2 || i K. 5'5-3o ci-ie; two; in 3>-5' || i K. 6, 713-5' 
three; in S^-;'" || i K. 8 three; in q'-^s || i k. io>-" two; in lo'-ii^ || 
I K. i2'-2< four; and thus in a similar manner throughout the entire list 
of parallels. (The analyses of Ki., Kau., Sk., give a similar result.) 

The Chronicler then used our present canonical books and not 
their sources for all matter common to both works. He might still, 
however, have used their sources for material not found in the 
canonrcal books, but of this there is not the slightest evidence and 
in form all new material (excluding genealogical matter and the 
Hst of David's additional heroes, i Ch. ii->'b-4v) [g of the compo- 
sition or style of the Chronicler. 

B. Sources alleged by the Chronicler. After the manner 
of the author of i and 2 K., the Chronicler refers to written sources. 
These are of two classes; first, those with general titles: (a) A Book 
of the Kings of Israel and Judah, for the reigns of Jotham, Josiah, 
and Jehoiakim (2 Ch. 27' 35" 368). (b) A Book of the KJngs of 
Judah and Israel, for the reigns of Asa, Amaziah, Ahaz, and Heze- 
kiah iy. i. (o)) (2 Ch. 16" 2526 28'= 32'2). (c) A Book of the Kings 
of Israel, for genealogies (i Ch. 9') and the reigns of Jehoshaphat 
(2 Ch. 20") {v. i. (m)) and Manasseh (2 Ch. ^^'»). (d) A Mid- 
rash of the Book of the Kings, for the reign of Joash (2 Ch. 24"). 

Secondly, those with specific prophetic titles: (e) The history (Ht. 
words or acts, so also below) of Samuel the seer, (f ) The history 
of Nathan the prophet, (g) The history of Gad the seer. These 
three are given for the reign of David (i Ch. 29=9). (h) The 
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite. (i) The visions of Iddo the seer. 
These two and also (f.) are given for the reign of Solomon (2 Ch. 
9"). (j) The history of Shemaiah the prophet, (k) The history 
of Iddo Ihe seer. These two are given for the reign of Rehoboam 
(2 Ch. 1 2 '5). (1) The Midrash of the prophet Iddo for the reign 
of Abijah (2 Ch. 13"). (m) A history of the prophet Jehu which 


is inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel, for the reign of Je- 
hoshaphat (v. s. (c)). (n) A writing of Isaiah the prophet, for the 
reign of Uzziah (2 Ch. 26"). (o) The vision of Isaiah the prophet 
in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, for the reign of 
Hezekiah (v. s. (b)). (p) ? A history of the seers for particulars 
concerning Manasseh (2 Ch. 33^^)- 

Authorities thus are given for the history of all the kings of 
Judah except Jehoram, Ahaziah, Amon, Jehoiachin, and Zede- 
kiah. (Naturally none are given for Athahah and Jehoahaz.) 
Also the following works are referred to : (q) A genealogical regis- 
ter compiled in the day of Jotham and Jeroboam II (i Ch. 5"). 
(r) The later history of David? (i Ch. 23"). (s) The chronicles 
(lit. words) of David in which the census taken by Joab was not 
entered (i Ch. 272^). (t) A collection of lamentations (2 Ch. 35"). 
The first three of these works (a) (b) (c) are generally allowed 
to represent a single work whose full title was. The Book of the 
Kings of Israel and Judah, or Judah and Israel, and the title 
of which in (c) is abbreviated — Israel representing the entire 
people and not specifically the N. kingdom, since under (c) 
the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Manasseh are treated. This work, 
which is cited as an authority for reigns as early as that of Asa and 
as late as that of Jehoiakim, was clearly a comprehensive one, but 
not the canonical Books of Kings, because it is cited for matters 
not in those books — i.e., genealogies (i Ch. 9'), the wars of 
Jotham (2 Ch. 27') and the prayer of Manasseh (2 Ch. 22^») and 
the abominations of Jehoiakim (2 Ch. 368). Neither was it the 
sources mentioned in i and 2 K. for the political history of Israel 
and Judah, since they were two distinct works. It may, however, 
have been a work dependent upon those sources (Be. p. xl.; Graf, 
GB. p. 192; Dr. EBi. I. col. 768, LOT.^^ p. 532), or since the real 
historical material derived from this book apart from that in the 
canonical books is extremely meagre it may have been dependent 
upon those books, a Midrash or commentary on them (Kuenen, 
Einl. p. 160). In their earliest form i and 2 K. may have contained 
fuller information than in their present Massoretic form. A war- 
rant for this inference lies in the occasional fuller text of (g, which 
implies an earlier, fuller Heb. text (Bu. Gesch. Altheb. Lit. p. 229). 


Winckler gives the following genesis of Ch. : — 
Pre-exilic chronicles of Israel and Judah. 
Exilic, lost book of Kings. Midrash. Legends of Prophets. Midrash. 


Musri, Meluhha, Main, MVAG. 1898, p. 42. 

In reality no one can decide the exact basis of any unknown work. 
Many and extensive volumes may lie before an author whose work is 
restricted and meagre. 

Whether the Midrash (e) was the same as this Book of Kings 
is uncertain. The pecuHar title would suggest a distinct work 
(so Be., Zoe., Oe., Ki.); on the other hand it is not apparent 
why if, as its title shows, it was a comprehensive work dealing 
with the kings generally, it should not be the same work as the one 
just mentioned (so Ew. Hist. i. p. 187; We. Prol. p. 227; Francis 
BrowTi, DB. I. P..395; Dr. (the probability) EBi. I. col. 768). 

The word Midrash (anic 2 Ch. 13" 24" f from cm to seek) in 
Rabbinic literature denotes an exposition, an exegesis. This frequently 
took the form of stories (such as those of Judith, Tobit, etc.), and the 
probability is that the Midrash of Kings was a reconstructed history of 
Israel embellished with marvellous tales of divine interposition and 
prophetic activity, such as have been reproduced in Ch. 

The prophetic writings (e) to (p) are not in all probability distinct 
works, but are illustrations of the usual Jewish manner of citing 
sections of comprehensive works. As in the NT. we read, "Have 
ye not read in the Book of Moses in the place concerning the 
Bush" (Mk. 12"), or more aptly, "Know ye not what the scripture 
saith in Elijah" (Rom. iV). The "histories" of Nathan, Gad, and 
the others are then the sections of which Nathan, Gad, etc., were 
the catchwords in the Book of Kings, i.e., the Midrash with the 
possible exception of (n) where the reference is probably to the 
Book of Isaiah (cc. 36-39), and also (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i), not 
unlikely refer to sections of our canonical books (v. commentary). 
This is proved first because the history of the prophet Jehu (m) 


and the vision of Isaiah (o) are expressly mentioned as in this Book 
of Kings, and secondly because the Chronicler never cites the au- 
thority of the Book of Kings and the history of a prophet for any 
one reign except where they are coupled together. The main 
sources used by the Chronicler are then, in all likelihood, only two, 
the canonical books and this Midrashic History of Israel, and if this 
latter was dependent upon the canonical books then in reality he 
had no really historical material apart from those books in their 
original form (v. s.). WTiether the Midrashic history contained 
all his extra-canonical genealogical material, or whether he gath- 
ered some from elsewhere through written or oral sources, it is im- 
possible to determine. 

It is also possible that the Chronicler has cited sources simply to 
produce the impression that he is writing with authority, and that their 
titles are mere literary adornments suggested by those in the Book of 
Kings. This is essentially the view of Torrey, who, speaking of the 
comprehensive work so generally held to have been used by the Chron- 
icler, says, "It is time that scholars were done with this phantom 
' source,' of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the 
external evidence is limited to the Chronicler's transparent parading 
of 'authorities'; while the evidence against it is overwhelming" 
{AJSL. XXV. p. 195). The uniformity of the Chronicler's non-canon- 
ical material certainly supports this view, yet at the same time it is 
also plausible that the Cnroniclcr may have had before him one or 
more sources from which he derived subject-matter which he freely 
composed in his own way. Certainly some of the new historical rem- 
iniscences preserved in Chronicles were, in all probability, derived from 
\\Titten sources. 

Eliminating the canonical quotations, the remainder of Chroni- 
cles is so marked and homogeneous in style that it has been 
usually (and properly) treated as the work of a single author, 
i.e., the Chronicler. (Thus We. Prol. p. 227; Dr. EBi. I. Art. 
Chronicles; and especially Torrey, AJSL. xxv. Nos. 2, 3, 1909.) 
In recent years, however, this remainder has been analysed 
into sources. This presentation has such scholarly support that it 
is worthy of statement, and throughout our commentary we give, 
with criticism, its conclusions. 

In an article published in 1899 (in ZAW.) Biichler, a German scholar, 
argued that our present i and 2 Ch. are a revised edition of a work that 



originally made no distinction between the priests and the Levites. 
This distinction he held was introduced later by the Chronicler, who 
magnified the position of the Levites and brought in the Levitical musi- 
cians. Under the influence apparently of Biichler's investigations, 
Benzinger, in his commentary (appearing in 1901), presented also the 
view that the Chronicler was much more an editor and mere compiler 
than in any way an independent wTiter. This result was reached 
through a study of the parallels with i and 2 S. and i and 2 K. Some 
of these parallels agree essentially verbally with their source, others 
show a considerable departure from the canonical text. These latter 
are held to come not from the hand of the Chronicler but from a fore- 
runner whose work he copied; and as the Chronicler was only in the 
main a mere copyist in his treatment of the canonical writings, so like- 
wise, it was inferred, must he have been in his treatment of his other 
source or sources. Hence his work contains almost no original composi- 
tion beyond inserted notices respecting Levites and musicians. (Movers 
had presented in 1833 essentially this view, Untersiichungen, pp. 163^.) 
Thus in i Ch. 10-29 o^^y cc. 23-27 are from the Chronicler. Of the re- 
mainder, cc. 10, II, 13, 14, 17-19 are from S. Chapter 12 reveals no 
special interest in anything Levitical; and c. 15 records six Levitical 
families instead of the usual three and modest numbers, hence, except 
a paragraph concerning Levitical singers (vv. i'-^^), both of these chap- 
ters are not from the Chronicler; c. 12 coming from uncertain sources 
and c. 15 from the work of a forerunner. Chapter 21 contains, with the 
absence of a sufficient theological motive, too great departures from 
2 S. to have been written by the Chronicler: hence it is from another 
work, which appears continued in cc. 22, 28, 29. This work is ad- 
mitted to be of the same vein and spirit of the Chronicler, showing an 
interest in the religious cultus alleged to have been developed by David, 
but is held to differ from the Chronicler's work: (i) in its more modest 
presentation of contributions for the Temple, 29'-^ (to be compared with 
2214-16^ a paragraph owing to the great numbers assigned to the Chron- 
icler); (2) in the Deuteronomic colouring and in the lack of interest in 
P, since no objection is raised to David's sacrifice at the threshing-floor 
of Oman. 

In 2 Ch. 1-9, which presents a history of Solomon's reign, following, 
with the single exception of a paragraph on Solomon's chariots and 
horses, the order of i K., the departures from the canonical text 
(2 Ch. i'8-2" (2'"')) are supposed to be too great to have come from 
the Chronicler, since the Tyrian artist is Huram-Abi, instead of Hiram 
(2 Ch. 2'2(i3) (see commentary), i K. 7''), with his mother a Danite instead 
of a widow from NaphtaH (2 Ch. 2i3('<) i K. 7'*), and he is a worker not 
simply in metals but weaving, etc., and the place Japho, unnamed in i K., 
is mentioned. Wanting also are the numbers of the workmen given in 


I K. 5"'- <"'■' and the embassy from Hiram to Solomon (i K. 5')- 
The Deuteronomic reason for building the Temple, i.e., a dwelling-place, 
is changed also into a priestly one, i.e., a place of worship (2 Ch. 2' «> i K. 
5'3 <5)). In the description of the Temple and its furniture, owing again 
to the variations from the account given in i K., the Chronicler is held 
to have had another source before him, and in part is this held also of 
the dedication. 

The remainder of 2 Ch. (cc. 10-36) is assigned by Benzinger to different 
sources, according to the character of the material. The Chronicler 
throughout is a copyist. He only composes introductory and concluding 
sentences and notices of the Levites. Kittel, in his commentary (1902), 
accepts the theory of Benzinger and builds largely upon his conclusions. 
He endeavours also to unify the various sources, and distinguishes (with 
a variety of type and letters on the margin) the work of the Chronicler 
and his predecessors. He warns one, however, against regarding the 
conclusions thus expressed as final. He points out, by his mechanical 
devices: (i) the material derived from the canonical books; (2) 
material next in age of various sort and origin, yet mostly of historical 
value (v. s- p. 15); (3) material from a Levitical wTiter, a forerunner of 
the Chronicler, who wrote between 500 and 400 B.C.; (4) Midrash 
material of two sorts (M and M^), taken in all likelihood from the cited 
sources of the Chronicler; and finally (5) material of a period later than 
the Chronicler, added by another Levite. 

This theory of the composition of Chronicles, as we have said, rests 
on the assumption that the Chronicler was essentially a mere copyist; 
but even if at times he follows most closely his canonical sources there is 
no reason why at other times he should not have been as free and 
original as the Levite who is introduced as his forerunner. Exact con- 
sistency is not necessary to the Oriental mind, and especially to a writer 
like the Chronicler. A Deuteronomic colouring, along with a colouring 
of the Priests' Code, implies no diversity of authorship, since every Jew 
would be naturally versed in Deuteronomy as a people's book, one 
probably read and studied far more by every pious Jew than the Priests' 
Code, even by a Levite. Neither also, with a variety of traditions before 
him, is there any reason why the same writer might not differently at 
times enumerate Levitical families or statistics concerning the Temple. 
The unity of style and composition, so individual and marked, already 
mentioned, is against this patchwork theory of composition, although 
its possibility in view of our limited knowledge cannot be denied. 



In common with other late books of the OT., Ch. (including 
Ezr.-Ne.) exhibits many peculiarities of phraseology and syntax. 
Many old words are made to do service in new ways either rare or 
unknowTi in the older language, and new words, the product of the 
late religious organisation and view-point, appear frequently. 
Also the incoming Aramaic, already a well-known language, had 
its influence on the Hebrew of the Chronicler, as is shown both by 
the presence of Aramaic loan-words and by many common Ara- 
maic constructions. The many peculiarities of syntax, which are 
against the common usage of the earlier writers, indicate that the 
compiler and author, who was bilingual, either used Hebrew with 
some difficulty or that the language itself was decadent in his day. 
In addition to its common late characteristics, this group of wTit- 
ings has marked peculiarities of style and vocabulary. Words and 
phrases not found at all elsewhere are met frequently both in pas- 
sages from older sources which have been worked over and, par- 
ticularly, in additions bearing the certain marks of the compiler. 
No OT. writer reveals himself more certainly. The reader feels 
almost instinctively when he passes from an excerpt from an older 
source to a paragraph by the compiler himself. Sentences are 
often awkward and unnecessarily involved. The author's pet 
phrases are introduced without stint and almost without fail on 
every possible opportunity. No doubt many of the marks of 
slovenly and careless composition which are so common are due to 
copyists' errors (see § 8 Text), but so many of them are certainly 
original that the compiler cannot be vindicated as a careful com- 
poser. Probably not a few errors of his text which have been 
ascribed to copyists were simply due to his own carelessness when 
copying from his sources. 

The following list contains the more marked peculiarities of the 
Chronicler's writings, including new words and phrases, old ones 
with a new or unusual sense, and syntactical usages peculiar to him, 
and also all of these found frequently in other late books as well as 
occasionally in earlier writings, but which are particular favourites 
with the Chronicler, hence characteristic of his style. For con- 


venience those found only in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. are marked with an 
asterisk (*). It should be borne in mind, however, that words or 
expressions marked rare or peculiar may have been common usage 
in the Chronicler's day, this statement being due merely to our 
meagre supply of literature of that period. 

1. '73N howbeit, but, 2 Ch. 1* 19' ^,2,'^'' Ezr. lo'^ also Dn. 10^ 21 -j-. (in 

older Heb. with an asseverative force, verily, of a truth Gn. 42^' 
2 S. 145 I K. i" 2 K. 4'* and with sHght adversative force, nay, 
hut Gn. 1719 (P) to 

2. n-iJN letter, 2 Ch. 30'- « Ne. 2'- « ' 65- i- '^ also Est. g'^- " f- 

3. ninx possession, i Ch. 7-' 9- 2 Ch. 11" 31' Ne. ii' and often in Ez. 

and P. 

4. ncN promise or command, sq inf., i Ch. 21''' 27^ 2 Ch. i" 14' 21' 

2921. 27. 30 3i4. 11 3521 Ne. 9", also 2 S. 24" 2 K. 8" Dn. Est. and 
5> ]y.']^ * purple, 2 Ch. 2^ f (a late form of ]^p.>^), cf. Aram. x,3)P,^: 
Dn. 5'- '« 23. 

6. n^X"^?* lands, designating districts of Israel's territory i Ch. 13' 

2 Ch. ii-s 155 cf. Gn. 26' ^, including Israel's territory Ezr. 3' 
(text dub.) 9'- 2- n Ne. lo^'; in any sense pi. is almost wholly 
late I Ch. i4'7 22^ 293° 2 Ch. 9=8 138 139 158 1710 20=' 3213- 13. \i 
34" Ezr. 9' Ne. 930 iqss, i;. No. 91. 

7. nnc'N wrong-doing, guiltiness, i Ch. 21^ 2 Ch. 24'' 28"'- "■ "• " 

2f'^'^'^ Ezr. 96 ^- '•■' '5 JO'" '5 t, infreq. elsewhere. 

8. ^^3 Niph. separate oneself (reflex, of Hiph.), i Ch. 12' Ezr. 6=' 9' 

ID"- 16 Ne. 92 io29, also Nu. 162' (P) f; he separated * i Ch. 
23'^ Ezr. 108 f . 

9. l'i3, r? byssus, I Ch. 421 15" 2 Ch. 21' 3" 5'=, also Est. i^ S'' and Ez. 

27'^ (where Cor. strikes out with ($) f- 

10. no j/)oJ/, fttio/y, 2 Ch. 14" 25>3 2814 Ezr. 9^ Ne. 3'^ also Dn. ii^^ 33 

Est. 9'o- >5- If' t- 

11. (3) pan * skilled, skilled (in), i Ch. 1522 25'- ' 27^2 2 Ch. 26^ 34'2 f 

(kindred meanings mostly late). 

12. n^o castle, palace; of Temple, i Ch. 29'- " f; of fortress near 

Temple, Ne. 2^ 7= f; Shushan </z€ palace, Ne. ii Est. i^- 6 a'- «• ' 
315 gu g,6. u. 12 Dn. 82 f. 

13. nfj^^a * fortresses, 2 Ch. i7'2 27^ f- 

14. ni3N no fathers' houses, families, clans, i Ch. 4'^ + 21 t. Ch. 

Ezr. 2^9 lo'^ Ne. 7" lo's, also often in P. 

15. D'hSnt no house of God i Ch. 633 911. 13. 26 + 51 1. in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., 

also of sanctuary at Shiloh Ju. iS''. 

16. anna, ni — , * chosen, i Ch. 7" 922 i6<' Ne. 519 f- 


17. Ti-iJ troop, of divisions of the army i Ch. -]* 2 Ch. 25'- '"• " 26", also 

Jb. 2925 Mi. 4'^ 

18. nsu * body, corpse, i Ch. lo'^ f (late, cf. NH. and Aram.). 

19. "MP * treasury, 1 Ch. 28" also 2820 (restored text) f {cf. NH.; a 

loan-word from or through Persian). 

20. rijp common-land, suburbs, i Ch. 5'^ 6" + 40 t. i Ch. 6, 13^ 2 Ch. 

II" 31I', also in Ez. and often in P. 

21. IT"' Niph. hasten one's self, hurry, 2 Ch. 26-", also Est. 6'^ f, Qal 

Est. 3'5 8" t (NH. id.). 

22. D'Jisrn * drachmcF, Ezr. 2" = Ne. 7"» Ne. 7"- 'i f; oui^"!!*,* i 

Ch. 29^ Ezr. 827 f. 

23. niH"! B^^T jee/fe Yahweh in prayer and worship, i Ch. 16" (=Ps. 

io5<) 28« 2 Ch. i2'< 14'- « 15'- 16'= 22' 265; o>nSN(n) 'i, 2 Ch. 
19' 266 30"; r\^n'h 't I Ch. 2213 2 Ch. 15" 20' Ezr. 6^'; d-'hSsS n 
2 Ch. i7< 31" 34' Ezr. 42. 

24. cnin * commentary, exposition, 2 Ch. 13-- 24^' f . 

25. '<^i.? n^i'i /zo/y adornment, only 2 Ch. 20^1 in prose, elsewhere in 

poetry i Ch. 16" = Ps. 96' Ps. 29^ f. 

26. 'n\n * how, I Ch. 1312, also Dn. 10" f (an Aram. form). 

27. nin'(S) SSn * praise Yahweh, of technical Levitical function, i Ch. 

i6^- '« 235- 30 253 2 Ch. 5"- " 20" 29'° 30^1 Ezr. 3"'- "• " Ne. 5", 
cf. I Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 20" t; SSn * abs. i Ch. 23^ 2 Ch. 76 8'< 
23" 29'<' 312 Ne. 12^^ I, 7;. No. 47. 

28. rT^r^ great number, i Ch. 29'^ 2 Ch. 11" 31'", also Je. 49'^ f; 

multitude, 2 Ch. ii-^ (corrupt v. in loco) 138 1411' 20=- '2- '5- 2< 
32', also Dn. 11'" " "• '- " and freq. in Ez., but only excep- 
tionally in early prose. 

29. v. kind, 2 Ch. 16", also Ps. 14413- " f (also in B. Aram. Dn. 3^ '• 

10. .5 t). 

30. mr * Hiph. rejects (= earlier Qal), i Ch. 28' 2 Ch. ii'< 29" f. 

31. n>7 ^^ enraged 2 Ch. 26" '^ f (weaker in earlier usage). 

32. Pi^TD refined, i Ch. 28" 29', also Is. 25^ Ps. 12^ f. 

33. mr * come out, appear, of leprosy, 2 Ch. 26" f. 

34. nnanp * binders, joints, i Ch. 22^ 2 Ch. 34" f- 

35. ^Jin * joy, I Ch. 16" Ne. S'", Ezr. 616 (Aram.) j (an Aram. word). 

36. r7.n month numbered not named, i Ch. 12'* 27=- ' *■ ^ ^- ' '• '"■ "• 

12. 13. u. 15 2 Ch. 2' + 12 t. 2 Ch., Ezr. 3' + 10 t. Ezr., Ne. 7" 
8=- "S also I K. 12"- " Je. i^ Ez. and oft. in P. 

37. nm seer, 1 Ch. 21' (= 2 S. 24") 292' 2 Ch. 929 r2'5g[92 2925 3318. 19, 

also 2 K. 17" Is. 29"' 30"' (2815 cf BDB.) Mi. 3? Am. 712, and 
applied to singers * i Ch. 25^ 2 Ch. 293" 35'^ f. 

38. prnnn strengthen oneself, 2 Ch. i' 12" 1321 15* (= take courage) 

171 21* 23' 25" 27« Ezr. 72' (= gain strength, also i S. 30' 2 S. 



3« I K. 20" Dn. io'9 (= ^a/;? strength) f; 5^- '•?.??' withstattd, 2 
Ch. 13'- ' t; 3? ^5'- ^^0^^ strongly with, 1 Ch. ii'" 2 Ch. 16' 
also Dn. 10" f. (Use in earlier books, put forth strength, use 
one's strength.) 

39. ^i")!" strength, of royal power, 2 Ch. 12' 26'^ also Dn. 11' f. 

40. N-'^n * fe sick, 2 Ch. i6'2 f (usually nSn). 

41. D''\'7nn * sickness, sufferings, 2 Ch. 24^ f. 

42. npSno * division, course, technical term of organisation of priests 

and Levites, i Ch. 23^ 24' 26>- '=■ i' 27'- '• =■ =■ <• «■ *• s- «■ ?■ s- 
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 28'- •'• 21 2 Ch. 5" 8'^- " 23* 31'- =• "• "■ " 
354- 1" Ezr. 618 (Aram.) Ne. ii'^ f- 

43. ■':??" * ^occf works, pious acts, 2 Ch. 6" 32^2 3526 Ne. 13" f- 

44. mxsn trumpet, as sacred instrument for use by priests only, 1 Ch. 

1^8 1^24. 28 166. 42 2 Ch. 5'2- 13 1312- 1^ 2028 2926- 27. 28 Ezr. 31" 

Ne. 1235- 41 also 2 K. 12" Ps. 98« and Nu. lo'- «• '• i» 31' (all 
P) t; general use 2 K. ii" •< = 2 Ch. 23'3- i' Ho. 5* f; "^xsn 
* Pi. and Hiph. sound a trumpet, 1 Ch. 152* 2 Ch. 512- i' 7* 
1314 2928 j-. 

45. ihy n3''on 'hSn'T'P according to the good hand of my God upon me, 

Ne. 2« Ezr. 7' 81s cf. Ne. 2I8; + mn^, Ezr. 728; om. 7\2^m, 
Ezr. 7«. 

46. nT> Hiph. praise, of ritual worship, i Ch. i6<- ''■ ^- '<■ '5. 41 2330 

253 2913 2 Ch. 513 73- 6 2022 312 Ezr. 3" Ne. iii' i22<- *', also 
freq. in Ps. and rare in earlier writings v. No. 47; Hithp. 
give thanks, in ritual worship, 2 Ch. 30^2 | ; confess Ezr. 10' 
Ne. 1' 92- 3, also in P, H, and Dn. 
47' '''2^?.'> r^'^'T'^^ thank and praise, i Ch. 16^ 233° 253 2 Ch. 513 312 
Ezr. 311 Ne. i22< cf. i Ch. 291' 2 Ch. 7«, v. Nos. 46, 27. 

48. Dfia D1'' * day by day (= earlier av o^), i Ch. 1222 2 Ch. 8i' 24" 30" 

Ezr. 3<- <• 6' (Aram.) Ne. 818 f- 

49. rn^nn * be enrolled by genealogy, i Ch. 433 51- '■ i? y^- '■ »■ " 91- 22 

2 Ch. 1215 3ii6- 17. 18. 19 Ezr. 282 = Ne. 754 Ezr. 8i- « Ne. 7* f- 
ij'n^ genealogy, Ne. 73 f. 

50. nnSirt generations, i Ch. 129 5' 72- <• 9 82' 99- '< 2631, also Ru. 41' 

and freq. in P. 

51. jn^ * Hiph. use the right hand, i Ch. 122 f. 

52. tpr; * aged, decrepit, 2 Ch. 361' f (f/"- t^'''''^';> «^m Jb. 12" 1510 29' 

32' t)- 

53. r33 * footstool, 2 Ch. 9" t (</• NH., id., step, stair; Aram., a rude 


54. pan 5e< up, prepare, i Ch. 932 i239 142 151 28' 2 Ch. i2i 17^ + 33 t. 

Ch., and Ezr. 33; esp. with 2^ set the heart, i Ch. 29I' 2 Ch. 
12" 193 2o33 3019 Ezr. 71". 


55. 0:2 gather, Qal i Ch. 222 Ne. 12" Ps. ^^^ Est. 4I6 Ec. 2«- ^ 3^ f. 

56. VP Niph. be humbled, humble oneself, i Ch. 20* 2 Ch. 7" 12^- '• '■ 

12 1^18 ^o" 3226 3312- 13- 23. 23 ^427. 27 3612 t, also Lv. 26^' (H) I S. 
7" etc.; Hiph. humble, subdue, i Ch. i;'" i8' (= 2 S. 8') 2 Ch. 
28>9, also Ju. 423 Dt. 93 Is. 258 Jb. 40>2 Ps. Si'^ 10712 f. 

57. lis; * bowl, I Ch. 28'7- i'- i'- i^- i'- '^ Ezr. ii"- "> 82' f- 

58. ':'3i.Dp * bemantkd, i Ch. 1527 f (c/. B. Aram. n';'2-i? Dn. 321). 

59. 'I'^n^o * crimson, carmine, 2 Ch. 2«- '^ 3''', possibly also Ct. 7* for 

'^nn?, f (a Persian loan-word). 

60. anr writing, i Ch. 28'' 2 Ch. 211' 35* Ezr. 2^2 = Ne. 76^ Ezr. 4', 

also Ez. 139 Dn. io2' Est. 122 312. » 48 gs- 9- s- 13 927 -j-. 

61. na^i'on onS of rows of shew-bread only, i Ch. 9^2 232^ Ne. 10'* f; 

'en jhSb' I Ch. 28" 2 Ch. 2918 t; ''^ ns-iyn 2 Ch. 13" t; 
n^pn'D 2 Ch. 2^ t; '3 Lv. 246- ' (P) f- (Earlier form was 
D^jsn Dn'7.) 

62. jyS * Hiph. fes^ 2 Ch. 3616 f (c/- NH. Hiph. zi., (5 and * Ethpa. z^.). 

63. J;?'^ Hiph. mock, deride, always in bad sense, 2 Ch. 30'" Ne. 2'' 3^^ 

' also Jb. 2i3 Ps. 228 Pr. 18' (for jH >''?jn\ c/. BDB.) f (</• 
NH. z<f.). 

64. I'ipSn * 5c/io/ar, i Ch. 25* f (late and NH.). 

65. nrj*'? chamber, cell, of the rooms of the Temple, i Ch. 926- « 232* 

2812 2 Ch. 31" Ezr. 829 io'5 Ne. lo^s- 39. lo 134. 5. s. 9 |^ also oft. 
in Ez.; of room at high place i S. 9=2 and i'^ (g (accepted as 
original We., Dr., Klo., Bu.) f- The word is used in the sense 
of store-room only in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. Cf. r\2m, No. 77. 

66. T n'?p consecrate, i Ch. 29^ 2 Ch. 139 i633 293', also Ez. 4326 Ex. 

28" 299- 29. 33. 35 3229 Lv. 8" 16" 21' Nu. 33 (all P), and Ju. 
175- 12 I K. 1333. 

67. noSs kingdom, sovereign power, i Ch. 11'° + 27 t. Ch., Ezr. i' 

46. e. 6 yi gi Ne. 9" 1222, also 26 t. Est., 16 t. Dn., Ex. 4", 5 t. Ps., 
3 t. Je., and elsewhere. (In earlier writings usually no'^nn or 

68. W'o commit a trespass, i Ch. 2^ 52^ io>5 2 Ch. 122 26'«- " 28'9- 22 

296 30' 36" Ezr. io2- i» Ne. i^ 132^, also freq. in Ez. and P; 
Sy.p trespass, 1 Ch. 9' lo'^ 2 Ch. 28" 2919 3310 36'^ Ezr. 92- * 
10', also Dn. 9' Jb. 21" and freq. in Ez. and P. 

69. «xn Niph. be present, 1 Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 5" 2929 3021 311 3432. 33 357. 

17- 18 Ezr. 825, also Est. i' 4I6 and Gn. 1915 (J) i S. i3'5 is ^i* f. 

70. a^jn-. offer free-will-offerings,* i Ch. 295- «• 9. 9. u. 17. 17 Ezr. i« 

2t8 35 -j"; q^e;- oneself, volunteer, 2 Ch. i7i« Ne. 112, also Ju. 
52. 9 -j-. (Cf. same in B. Aram. Ezr. 713. >s. is. le -j-.) 

71. 17: s^a^/i, I Ch. 2i2', also Dn. 71* (Aram.) f (NH. id.; a Persian 




72. ipn nan hath extended loving-kindness, Ezr. 7^8 9'. 

73. D'Dd: riches, 2 Ch. i"- '2, also Jos. 22' (P), Ec. 518 6^ f (prob. an 

Assy, or Aram, loan-word). 
74' C'Jf^ Ti^P oversee, overseer, 1 Ch. 1521 23^ 2 Ch. 2'- i' 34'2- 13 
Ezr. 38 9 J; also in the titles of 55 Pss. andin the title Hb. 31'. 

75. 3|ij Niph. te expressed by name, i Ch. 12^2 i6<i 2 Ch. 28'^ 31 is Ezr. 

82», also Nu. i'7 (P) f. 

76. Nrj /a/ce as wife (usually with '7), i Ch. 23=2 2 Ch. ii^'- =3 u.. ,« /»< ^i 

13-' 24' Ezr. 92 12 10" Ne. 13^5, also Ru. i^ A late usage. 

77. nrr; * chamber (a rare parallel of nrir^ ^. v. No. 65), Ne. 33° 

12" 13- t- 

78. "? •f\ ]p: * submit, yield to, 2 Ch. 30^ f; pnn t_ p: /i., i Ch. 292*; 

N-ixinS sy^ ]r}:give their pledge to send away, 'Ezr. lo'^; ^ 2";; jpj 
set the heart to do a thing, i Ch. 22" 2 Ch. ii'^ also Dn. lo'- 
Ec. i'3- 1- 721 89- 16 f. 

79. D^r.nj * Nethinim, i Ch. 9= Ezr. 2"- "• '« = Ne. 7^6- eo. 72 Ezr. 

nl. 21 (Aram.) g''- 20. 20 ^g, 226- 31 io29 nS. 21 -j-, 

80. "I3D * enumeration, census, 2 Ch. 2'^ f. 

81. nioj7 5erOTce of God, i Ch. 6'"- =3 913. 19. 28 2321- 26. 2s. 28. 32 243. 19 

251. 1. 6 268 28'3- 13. 14. 14. 15. 20. 21. 21 297 2 Ch. 8" 12' 24'2 2935 

3i2. 16. 21 352. 10. IS. 16 Ne. io33 %, also oft. in Ez. and P. 

82. Sip 1^2;?^? proclaim, 2 Ch. 30^ 36^2 = Ezr. i', Ezr. 10' Ne. 8", 

also Ex. 36« (P) f- 

83. Tiy * help, I Ch. 1231- 39 -j- (text dub., cf. textual notes; if correct 

Aram, loan-word). 

84. nr>; help of divine assistance, i Ch. i2'8 1526 2 Ch. 14'e " i83' 25* 

26' 328, also freq. in Ps., less freq. in earlier books; Niph. i Ch. 
520 2 Ch. 26'6. 

85. n>-Sy next to (in a series), 2 Ch. i?'^ '«• 's 31I6 Ne. 32- 2 -f 13 t. 

Ne. 3, i3'3, esp. late. 

86. ""I-Sj, •'^^I'-Sj: according to the guidance of, i Ch. 252 2. 3. e. e 2 Ch. 

23I8 26'3 292' Ezr. 3'", also Je. 531 3313. 

87. ^'I'J??'? * exceedingly, i Ch. 142 22^ 23" 293- 26 2 Ch. i' i6'2 1712 20" 

26« f. 

88. ncjJ rwe (for earlier Dip), i Ch. 20< 21' 2 Ch. 2023 Ezr. 2" = Ne. 

7" Ne. 8^ also Est. 4'* and freq. in Dn. 

89. T'?.?^ appoint, institute, establish (in earlier books station), i Ch. 

616 15I6. 17 i6'7 (= Ps. IO5IO) 17" 222 2 Ch. 8'^ 98 Il'5 22 ig6. 8 

2o2i 2413 {cf. Ezr. 2") 255- » 30S 312 338 352 Ezr. 38 Ne. 4' 6^ 73 
io33 1231 1311- 30, also Dn. jjii.13. i4j j^a^g a 5/a«^ (in a covenant), 
2 Ch. 3432. 

90. nsj? Sy ipp i/awti ow standing-place, 2 Ch. 30" 3431 3510 Ne. 13", 

Dn. 8'8 10" t; with Dip- for ncr Ne. 93 f; no verb Ne. 8' f- 


91. P'^x^Nn <Dy * peoples of the lands, 2 Ch. 13' 32"- >' ('Nn»U) 

Ezr. 3' 9'- 2 11 Ne. 9" lo^s, v. No. 6. 

92. ni IS}' possess power, be able, i Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 2'" 1321' 22', also Dn. 

108. 16 116 -j-; om. nz! 2 Ch. 141" 20" f. 

93. zyi: west, I Ch. 72s i2i« 26"- 's- '» 2 Ch. 32"' 33", also Is. 43^ 45^ 

59'9 Dn. 8» Ps. 75' 103'= 107' and Ju. 20" (corrected text, cf. 
Moore, Ju.) t- 

94. lODi -\z'-; riches and honour, 1 Ch. 29'2- ■» 2 Ch. i'- '^ 175 jgi 32", 

also I K. 3'3, Pr. 3'6 8'' Ec. 6- f. 
95« I""'?}' * ancient, 1 Ch. 422 f (an Aramaism, c/. Dn. 79- 's- 22). 

96. "^y nini inp n^n the fear of Yahweh came upon, 2 Ch. 14^^ 17'° 

19' 20«9 (a^nSx nns) f (elsewhere 'U1 ioi). 

97. Tdp * set free from duty, i Ch. 93' 2 Ch. 23' f. 

98. 13T2 * some sort of open portico, i Ch. 26"- '^ f (probably Persian 

loan-word; cf. a^yps 2 K. 23"). 

99. 'Xi-ipp * /u> or buttock, I Ch. 19^ (2 S. io< Dn\nipc-) f. 

100. D^n^xr: * cymbals, i Ch. 13' i5'6 "• 28 igs. 12 25'- ^ 2 Ch. 5'2 " 

2925 Ezr. 3>i' Ne. 122' f. 
loi. n^ps he-goat, 2 Ch. 2921 Ezr. 6'^ (Aram.) S'^, also Dn. S*- s. ». 21 -j-. 

102. ^ns * ««e<i, 2 Ch. 2'» t (Aram. word). 

103. '^5|-> receive, take, accept, 1 Ch. i2'9 21" 2 Ch. 29'6 22 Ezr. S^", also 

Pr. 192" Jb. 2'»- '" Est. 4^ 92' 27 -j- (a common Aram, word, cf. 
Dn. 2« 6' 7'8 t). 

104. ni3N ''VH-\ heads of fathers' (houses), i Ch. 7" ?>^- i" '^ 28 gs. 33. 34 

1512 239- 2< 24« " 2621 26. 32 271 2 Ch. i2 198 232 2612 Ezr. i5 2" 
31242- 8 8' io'«Ne. 7"- ■")8'3 ii'^ i2'2 22 23^ also Ex. 62* Nu. 312* 
322« 361- ' Jos. 14' 19" 21'- 1 (all P) t; the phrase with p*3 
expressed i Ch. s'*- ^- " 72- '• » " 9" 24% also Ex. 6" Nu. i* 
72 17" 25'^ Jos. 22'*; tt'N"^ (alone in same sense) i Ch. 5'- '2 
7' 828 -f- and (appar. combined with the idea oi first in a series) 

ot8. 11. 19. 20 

105. 3^*^ abundantly, i Ch. 4'" i2'» 223- ^ ^ s. s. u. 15 292. 21 2 Ch. i'^ = 

927 (= I K. I02') 284I89I. 9 Il23 I4H 159 168 175 l8l' 2 2026 24'1- 2< 

27' 29'5 3o3- 13 24 ^i5 2^2= 29 Ne. 923, also Zc. 14'^ 

106. i3-<., NU1 ten thousa)id, myriad, i Ch. 29'- '' Ezr. 2^* ^ Ne. 7*' 

Ezr. 2" Ne. 7'" ", also Ps. 68'8 Dn. ii'2 Ho. 812 Jon. 4" f- 

107. u'lDi property, goods, 1 Ch. 27" 28' 2 Ch. 2025 21"- " 31' 3229 35' 

Ezr. !<• « 82» 108, also Dn. ii"- "■ 28, and Gn. 12* 136 3118 36' 
46« Nu. i632 353 (all P), and Gn. i4'i- '2. le. 16. 21 iju -j-. 

108. jrrT Hiph. act wickedly, 2 Ch. 2o35 223 Ne. 933, also Jb. 3412 Ps. 

106' Dn. 9^ ii32 12'" (i S. 14" corruption, cf. Sm. Sam.) f. 

109. n'71-iJ nncu- great joy, i Ch. 299 2 Ch. 3026 Ezr. 3'2 13 522 Ne. 8'2 

12^3^ a common expression of the Chronicler. 


no. itJ' * prince, chkf, ruler, of religious office, i5'«- "• " 24'- ' 2 
Ch. 359 cf. I Ch. 155- « '■ 8- s. 10 (Is. 4328 corrupt), and asp. 
Dvn:n nt- * c/z/e/s of the priests, 2 Ch. 36'* Ezr. 8»^- « lo^ f. 

111. nniro * 5z«^er, i Ch. d'^ 933 + n t. Ch., Ezr. 2"- "• '» = Ne. 

^44. 67. 72 Ezr. 7' io2* Ne. 71 + 12 t. Ne. f. 

112. na'>np' * act of slaying, 2 Ch. 30'' f- 

113. n'|>u' * Niph. he tiegligent, 2 Ch. 29" f. 

114. n^t;' weapon, 2 Ch. 23'<' 32^ Ne. 4"- ", also Jb. ^3^^ 36" Jo. 2' f; 

sprout Ct. 4". 
115- ''JU'Sy' hear me (beginning a speech), i Ch. 28' 2 Ch. 13^ 15' 
2020 28" 295 1; c/. Gn. 23« (hear us), w.«- "■ "■ '^ (all P). 

116. onj.nB' * gate-keepers, of Temple, etc., a sacred function, i Ch. 

9" + 19 1. Ch., Ezr. 2«- " = Ne. 7"- » Ezr. 7' io=< Ne. 7' + 7 t. 
Ne. (also 2 S. 18^ but corrupt for i;:^'^ and 2 K. 7"'- ^ but of 
secular function). 

Also the following list of syntactical peculiarities appear either 
exclusively in Ch. (including Ezr.-Ne.) or are frequent else- 
where only in late books. 

117. Sentences are often abbreviated in a peculiar manner, producing 

an awkward reading; a the subject omitted (where earlier 
writers would not venture to do so), i Ch. g'"" 2 Ch. 18' «"^ 
(i K. 22^ otherwise) ig^*" 35^'; b expressed without a verb, 
I Ch. i5"» 2 Ch. ii^b (?) 15' i6i<'- '2a. b 2ii5 2618I' 28'"' 29' 
30'- ■">. Cf. Ew. Syn. § 303 b. 

118. The inf. cstr. is often used almost as a subst., i Ch. 7^- '■ '• *" 

922 2331 2 Ch. 3' 24>< {cf. Ezr. 3") 2,2,^^ 'Ezr. i" Ne. i2«. Cf. 
Ew. Lehrb. § 236 a. 

119. The art. n for the relative (derived from its demonstrative use), 

I Ch. 2628 298- 17 2 Ch. i< (p^na) 29's Ezr. 8'-* lo'^- i^. This 
use is very doubtful in early \vritings, viz. in Jos. lo^' i S. 9^* 
{cf. Dr. Notes on Sam.). Cf. Ew. Syn. § 331 6, also foot-note 
on p. 209, Koe. iii. § 52, Ges. § 138?. 

120. The relative omitted (in prose almost entirely confined to Ch.- 

Ezr.-Ne.), i Ch. 922b 12=3 1512b 291 (but v. in loco) 3b 2 Ch. 13' 
{cf. Je. 5') 1410 {cf. Is. 4029) 1511 i69 2022 2411 289 29" 3oi8b-i3» 
3i'9t> Ezr. i5- 6 Ne. 8'» 13". Cf. Ew. Syn. § t^^t, b, Ges. § 

121. np in two strange idioms is almost equivalent to the relative 

what, I Ch. i5'3 (njirN^an';') 2 Ch. 30' (^^n*?) f- See textual 
notes on these passages. 

122. The relative ^! combined with the prep. 3, i Ch. 25* (v. .« /<>«) 



123. The combination of two plural forms (contrary to better usage), 

I Ch. 7* ' " ■•" etc., also No. 91 above. Cf. Zunz, Gottesd. 
Vortrdge, p. 23. 

124. Words repeated, often strengthened by Sa, to express the idea of 

all considered distributively, i.e. every, as lyw'i '\';z', nii2>i n-iny, 
1^1 IV, ai'i Di\ I Ch. 26" 28»- » 2 Ch. 8^ ii'^ 19* 2825 
3i'» 32" 34" 3515 Ezr. io» Ne. 13=", also Est. i^- 22. 22 211- 12 3<- 

12. 12. 12. 12. 14 43 89. 9. 11. 13. 17. 17 g21. 27. 28 Ps_ ^rlS gyS 14CI3. 

125. Subordinate temporal and causal clauses are placed at the 

beginning of the sentence (where in the earlier language either 
they were introduced later, or, if placed at the beginning for 
sake of greater prominence, ■'IT'i was prefixed), i Ch. 2i'5 2 Ch. 

elJ yl j2^- '2 IC' 20^°- ^- ^ 22^ 24'*- ^''- ^ 26"- '"> 29-'- 2' "Jl'- * 

33" 34'^ Ezr. 9'- »■ ' lo', also Est. 9'- ^ Dn. S"*. is lost. ub. u. i9b 
ji2. 4 ig"". Cf. Dr. Notes on Sam., on i S. 17". 

126. The inf. (with S prefixed) at the end of a sentence, i Ch. is'^- 

19. 21 22' (VnjnS) 255 2 Ch. 5" 22''' 25'3 (2 K. 14"' otherwise) 
36" end E2r. 3". 

Also prepositions in usages either new or much more fre- 
quent than in earlier books. 

127. *? ■'? a strengthened form of i;? (in earlier writings either alone 

would serve); before a subst. i Ch. 4^' 12"- " 23^5 28' 2 Ch. 
1412 i6'2- " i7'2 268- " 28' 29" 31'" 361* Ezr. 3" 9<- « 10" f; 
before an inf. i Ch. 5' 13' 2820 2 Ch. 24'" 268- >6 29" 31' 
32" (2 K. 20' S alone) Ezr. 10", also Jos. 13^ Ju. 3^ i K. 
18" t- 

128. *? as the sign of the ace. (from Aram, influence): a with certain 

verbs (contrary to earlier usage), C'^^ frequently, '^'7.1 only in 
Ch.-Ezr., pin i Ch. 26" 29'^, T?? i Ch. 292" Ne. ii^, r|-,n 2 Ch. 
32I', also I Ch. 16" i8« 25' 2922- 22 2 Ch. 5" 6« 17' 24^ 3413 
Ezr. 8'«; b at the end of an enumeration, i Ch. 28"> 2 Ch. 
24'"' 26"'> 2823; c marking the definite object after an indefinite 
I Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 2'2 23'; d after the suSix of a verb (as in 
Syriac) i Ch. 52* 23" 2 Ch. 255- 'o 28", cf. Ne. 9^2; e defining 
the suffix of a noun i Ch. 7^ 2 Ch. 3i'6- 's Ezr. 9' io'<. Cf. 
Ges. § ri7n. 

129. S with the inf., expressing tendency, intention, obligation (less 

freq. in earlier writings), i Ch. 6^* 92^ 10" 22' 2 Ch. 2* 8'3 1122 
192 26' 3121 36" Ne. S'""; esp. after pN or kS it is not possible 
(permitted) to, there is no need to, 'h px i Ch. 23** 2 Ch. 5" 
20» 22' 35'* Ezr. 9", "7 nS I Ch. 5> 152 2 Ch. 1212 Ezr. 6« (Aram.). 
Cf. Dav. 5y». § 95 b, Ges. § 114/, Dr. TH. §§ 202-206. 


130. ''3'^ as regards all, that is all (in adding a summary or a further 

specification), i Ch. 13' 2 Ch. 5'^ 25^ 2815 3i'« 33' (so also 2 K. 
218) Ezr. js, also freq. in P. Cf. Ew. Syn. § 310 a. Also •? of 
"introduction," i Ch. 5= 7' 28'f =' 29^'> 2 Ch. 72' (S wanting in 
I K. 9«) Ezr. 7«. 

131. iDi''3 Di''-- 1?-'.'? (S omitted in earlier language, cf. Ex. s'^), i Ch. 

16" 2 Ch. 8'< 3i'« t- 

132. rxS * without or 50 //:a/ not, i Ch. 22^ 2 Ch. 14'^ 20-^ 21'* 36i« 

Ezr. 9" t- 

133. sS'^ * without, 2 Ch. 15'- ^ 3 1- 

134. ^.?"!^> * 2 Ch. ii'2 168 Ne. 5>8 f- 

135- ^'^-r as concerning, 2 Ch. 32'9, also Ps. 119'* (used differently in 

Is. 59" 63') t- 
136. 3 of accompaniment (without a verb), i Ch. 15" -" "■ 22 166 

25«'' 2 Ch. 512" 7« i3'» 35'^ Ezr. 3'2b. 


The Hebrew Text. — The text of Chronicles is in fair con- 
dition, though by no means up to the standard of many of the older 
Old Testament books. The late date of composition, together 
with the fact that these books probably were less read, hence less 
copied, than most of the Jewish Scriptures, would lead us to expect 
a better text. The many lists of proper names, where the context 
could not assist the scribe to the true reading, are responsible for a 
large number of the textual errors, but the narrative portions also 
are not free from serious corruptions showing that the text must 
have been handled freely for a considerable time. The late recep- 
tion of Chronicles into the OT. Canon {cf. Wildeboer, Origin oj 
the Canon of the OT. p. 152) allows for a considerable period of 
such freedom. The Hebrew mss. contain few variants and these 
involve largely only the Massoretic accentuation, and give little aid 
for restoring the true text. Baer, in his edition of the text {Liber 
Chronicorum), notes nineteen variations between the oriental 
(Babylonian) and occidental (Palestinian) texts, only fourteen of 
which concern the consonantal reading. Of these six are due to 
the confusion of 1 and "i, three to unimportant omissions of letters, 
and the remainder are equally insignificant. In seven instances 
the Qr. of the oriental text calls for the occidental reading. 


In the case of those portions of Chronicles which are parallel to 
the older canonical books the textual critic is particularly fortunate. 
The text of the sources with their versions may be used in addition 
to the versions of Chronicles as an aid for restoring the original text 
of Chronicles, as vice versa Chronicles is often useful for the criti- 
cism of the text of the older books, frequently preserving the orig- 
inal reading {y. p. 19). These older books, however, must be 
used with extreme caution for the purpose of emending the text of 
Chronicles, since many changes are due to the intention of the 
Chronicler. The text of the older books was already in a corrupt 
state when the Chronicler used them as sources. Frequently he 
made changes in the interest of better sense, doing the best he could 
with a difficult or corrupt reading, and often he simply incorpo- 
rated from his source an early corruption. The task of the textual 
critic of Chronicles is not to restore the original source reading of 
a given passage, but only to rewrite the text as nearly as possible as 
it came from the hand of the Chronicler. The failure to observe 
this pruiciple has often caused confusion. 

The Greek Versions. — The Greek version of the books of 
Chronicles (commonly supposed to be the Septuagint rendering 
of these books) is an extremely literal translation, belonging in this 
regard in the same category with the Greek of Ezekiel, Canticles, 
and Ecclesiastes. The Massoretic text is followed so closely that 
there can be no doubt that its translator had our Hebrew recension 
before him. We are not so well supplied with old Greek Mss. as in 
the case of many Old Testament books, but we possess a complete 
text of Chronicles in the uncials A (V century), B (IV century), 
and N (VIII-IX centuries), and for i Ch. 9" to irpwi io 19'^ S(IV 
century) is also available. Numerous cursives (al)out thirty) dating 
between the tenth and fifteenth centuries should be added to this 
list, but how many of these have any independent value has not yet 
been determined. 

In addition to this ordinary Greek version, the first book of 
Esdras, which begins with the translation of the last two chapters 
of 2 Ch., is an important witness for obtaining the original text of 
these chapters. This translation is much freer than the received 
text and has a different Hebrew recension behind it. The book is 


preserved in the uncials A, B, and N (except most of last chapter, 
cf. Holmes and Parsons), but not in N'; also in nearly thirty 

Before any critical use can be made of these two versions — for 
they are distinct versions — their respective ages must be deter- 
mined. That our received text of Ch. is really the translation of 
Theodotion has been maintained by such scholars as Grotius 
(1644), Whiston (1722), Pohlmann (1859), and Sir Henry Howorth 
(1893, 1 90 1 -2), but the evidence has been set forth most convinc- 
ingly by C. C. Torrey (see AJSL. vol. XXHI. pp. 121 ff., and 
especially ATC. pp. 60 _^.). He maintains that i Esd. represents 
the only extant remains of the real Septuagint of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., 
and this was later supplanted by the version of Theodotion, whose 
origin was soon forgotten and which was therefore accepted as the 
true Septuagint. The argument has generally been that since our 
Greek version bears the marks of late origin compared with the 
version preserved in i Esd., and since Theodotion 's translation 
of Daniel supplanted the older translation, it is plausible to sup- 
pose that the same thing has occurred here and our received text 
is really the rendering of Theodotion. Torrey, in addition to this, 
has collected much direct evidence that the received text is 
Theodotion's, and this he states along the following lines {A TC. 
pp. 60 ff.). (i) Theodotion's habit of transliterating words of 
diflScult or uncertain meaning, and often without any apparent 
reason, is one of his most striking characteristics (cf. Field, Hexa- 
pla, I. pp. xxxix-xlii, also Swete, Introduction, p. 46) and this is 
also the common practice of the translator of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. 
Seventy such words are listed and they appear regularly dis- 
tributed throughout these books. Some of them are identical 
with transliterations by Theodotion elsewhere. (2) Unusual 
translations in the Theodotion rendering of Daniel are duplicated 
in the Chronicler's books. (3) According to the custom of this 
translator, gentilic names are transliterated exactly instead of 
being given the Greek adjective ending, though these have often 
been substituted later in the mss., especially in L. In view of 
our meagre supply of extant passages from Theodotion's transla- 
tion (Daniel being merely a revision of the old Greek), from which 



his characteristics must be determined, this evidence is surprisingly 

Moreover, evidence is not entirely lacking that the Greek ver- 
sion of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. current before the time of Theodotion and 
apparently accepted as the Septuagint was not our "canonical" 
version, but a somewhat free translation of a different Hebrew 
recension and of which i Esd. formed a part. If our Greek was 
the accepted Septuagint in the time of Josephus, it is not surprising 
that he should have culled the story of the three youths from 
I Esd. (Ant. xi. 3, 2-8 = 1 Esd. 3-4), since this story is wanting else- 
where, but it is strange, as has frequently been noticed, that he 
should have quoted in other places from i Esd. in preference to 
the authoritative Septuagint version. In Ant. xi. i, i. Kupo? 6 
/3aai\ev^ Xeyet 'Ettci /xe o ^eo? 6 /xejiaro^ tt}? olKovfjL€VT]<i 
airehei^e ^acriXea, . . . rov vaov avrov oiKoBofxrjaco ev 
\epo(To\vixoi<; ev rrj 'loySai'a %wpa follows closely the text of 
I Esd. 2^'- but cf. 2 Esd. i^, which we should expect Josephus 
to prefer. So also Ant. xi. 2, 2 ySacrtXei)? Ka/x/Sucrr}? 'FaOv/xay 
TO) jpa(f)OVTi TO, TrpooTTiTTTOvra Kol BeeX^e/ift) KaX 'Ee/xeXto) 
<ypafXfjLarel Koi toU XolttoI^ toU arvvraaaop.evoL'i koI 
oIkovctlv ev ^ap^apeia kol ^oiviKr} rciSe Xeyet is certainly 
taken from i Esd. 2^' and departs widely from 2 Esd. 4" 
(notice the transliteration where i Esd., followed by Josephus, 
translates). If Josephus knew 2 Esd. as the Septuagint 
rendering of the canonical Hebrew text and i Esd. as the trans- 
lation of a variant uncanonical fragment, his preference for 
the latter is unaccountable. His action is perfectly clear, how- 
ever, if we suppose him to have been acquainted with only one 
Greek version, the Septuagint, of which i Esd. was a part. Again, 
a quotation from the Greek version of 2 Ch. 2'^ made by the Greek 
historian Eupolemus, writing about 150 B.C., contains the clause 
evXoyrjTo^ 6 ^eo? 0? rov ovpavov /cat rr)V 7/}!^ cKTiaev, which, 
as Torrey argued, is almost certainly taken from a version of 
which I Esd. formed a part (cf. ATC. p. 77, esp. f. n. 22). 

The accepted Greek text (Theodotion 's), therefore, is only of 
value for recovering the authoritative Hebrew of the second cen- 
tury A.D., and beyond the limited assistance from Josephus, is our 


chief early authority for criticising the text of i Ch. i to 2 Ch. 34. 
Field (Hexapla, vol. I.) notes a few readings from the version of 
Aquila (c. 125 a.d.) i Ch. 15" 25" 29", and a larger number from 
that of Symmachus (c. 200 a.d.) i Ch. 5" 9' 11^ 15" 2i>° 25' •' 26" 
2 Ch. 12' 15= 19" 23" 26^ 30= 31" 32^ 33' 34", but these are not ex- 
tensive enough to be of much value. For the criticism of 2 Ch. 
25-36 we may add the testimony of the true Septuagint as pre- 
served in I Esd. I. This dates from before 150 B.C., as is evidenced 
by the Eupolemus fragment (v. s., cf. Schur. GeschJ III. pp. 351 /.)• 

Both the old Septuagint (i Esd.) and Theodotion are available 
in two forms, the Lucian recension, based upon the Syro-Palestin- 
ian tradition, and in mss. representing the Egyptian tradition. 
The Lucianic text is found in the cursives 19, 93, and 108,* and 
these are the basis of Lagarde's edition of these books in Librorum 
Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum pars prior. The remaining mss. 
represent the Egyptian tradition and may be divided into two 
groups; one led by B includes also S and 55, the second includes A 
and the rest of the cursives. The remaining uncial N is un- 
certain, but seems to follow the A group more frequently than the 
B. The MSS. of the B group are probably Hexaplaric {cf. Tor. 
ATC. pp. 91/.). 

The Lucian recension is a thorough revision of the earlier Syro- 
Palestinian tradition. The many arbitrary changes, together with 
the natural textual corruption, make the task of detecting the 
earlier basic text a difficult one, hence Lagarde's Lucian text must 
be used with extreme caution. Doubtless some of its many con- 
flated readings go back to the true Hebrew text, but this cannot be 
assumed even when the reading would be a great improvement on 
our Massoretic tradition. Much of the plus of L does not even 
have a Hebrew original behind it. The Syro-Palestinian tradition 
back of the Lucian recension probably did not differ very widely 
from the Egyptian. The latter is better preserved by the A group 
of MSS. than by B and its followers. A has frequently been rep- 
resented as extensively corrected from the Massoretic text, but close 
examination shows that no such comparison with the Hebrew could 

*It appears from Swete, Introduction, pp. 154, 156, that 19 does not contain Ch. or i Esd. 
and that Ch. is wanting in 93, but c}. Holmes and Parsons, vols. II. V., where they are given 
in the lists of mss. containing these books and variants from them are frequently noted. 


have been made, since nearly every page contains palpable blunders 
which, in that case, would not have been allowed to stand. A con- 
forms more closely to the Hebrew because it has, on the whole, 
the better text, not because it has been made to conform, hence it 
should always be given the preference over B, other testimony being 
equal. The B ms. for Ch. is in especially poor condition. The 
proper names are often damaged beyond recognition, dittographies 
are only too common, and omissions by homoeoteleuton are very 
frequent. When compared with the A group and with the Syro- 
Palestinian tradition B often furnishes valuable aid toward regain- 
ing the original rendering, but it should not be quoted as Septua- 
gint or even as the Greek text, an all too common practice. Gen- 
erally speaking, when the A and B groups and the L recension 
agree they furnish the original Greek rendering, but it sometimes 
happens, especially in proper names, that none of these agree with 
the Massoretic text when the latter was doubtless the translator's 
original, all the Greek texts having become corrupted. 

In the commentary the received Greek, i.e., the version of Theodotion, 
has been quoted as (& and the Septuagint (in 2 Ch. 35-36) as 05 of i Esd. 
Generally speaking, when the reading of certain Greek MSS. has been 
cited, these are regarded as representing the original Greek rendering, 
hence a variant Hebrew text, but frequently a variant Greek reading 
found in one or more MSS. has been presented merely because it is of 
possible worth. When the original has been regained by a comparison 
of corrupt readings, it is cited with an asterisk (05*). 

The Latin Versions. — The Old Latin version would be of 
special value for the criticism of the text of Chronicles, since the 
Septuagint, from which it was made, has disappeared for all except 
the last two chapters (y. s.). Unfortunately the Old Latin fared 
little better. No extant ms. contains any extensive portion of 
these books, but a number of fragments can be culled from the 
Latin fathers, who quoted extensively from them. Sabatier (Bibli- 
■oriim sacrorum LatincB versiones anliqiicB, vol. L 1741) collected 
from these and ms. sources the ancient Latin version of the fol- 
lowing passages: i Ch. i" 2"- ". 66b ii« 1218. ssa j^a-u 218. ub. 12. 

13. 17 22'^" 28' 2 Ch. 6'^''-"'' IlSb. 6b. lJb-16a 1^2 l6"'-9. 12 iy3-7.. 
»b-12a jQ2b-U jO'""- ^^- 36-37 2l"- ""• 24^'"' 2K^^- *' '^-'8- 20. 27 26"'''" 


2q2 32=«''- "^ 33". These excerpts, however, must be compared 
with more recent editions of the Latin fathers before they can be 
trusted. In the case of i Esd. we are better off, the Old Latin being 
preserved in three Mss. (Paris MS. Bibl. Nat. lat. iii, the Madrid 
MS. E. R. 8, and a Lucca ms., cf. Swete, Introduction, p. 95). This 
version is of some value for recovering the Syro-Palestinian tra- 
dition of the Septuagint. 

The Latin version of Jerome, commonly called the Vulgate, was 
a new translation made from the standard Hebrew text of the end 
of the fourth century a.d., and independent of the Septuagint. Its 
late origin detracts from its critical value for textual purposes. By 
comparing it with the Theodotion Greek it frequently aids in the 
removal of corruptions which made their way into the Hebrew text 
at a comparatively late date. Its chief value, however, lies in the 
realm of interpretation, where it supplies an early rendering of 
the consonantal Hebrew text for the most part as it now stands, 
which is often superior to the modern influenced by Massoretic 

The Syriac Versions. — The first S\Tiac translation of Chron- 
icles is now a part of the Peshito, but originally Chronicles was not 
received into the Syriac Canon. Indeed, when the book was sub- 
sequently translated it did not meet with general acceptance. This 
Syriac version seems to have been the work of Jews of Edessa. 
While in most Old Testament books the Peshito follows the He- 
brew text faithfully and even literally, with here and there extensive 
influence from the Septuagint, Chronicles stands alone as the trans- 
lation of a mere Jewish Targum and exhibits all the faults which 
might be expected from such origin. One of its most striking 
characteristics is found in the fact that the text has very frequently 
been conformed to the text of Samuel and Kings. This is even 
true of extended passages, as where i K. 12"-'° followed by i K. 
14'-' are substituted for 2 Ch. ii5-i2'2. The substitute has the 
authority of the best mss. and must be accepted as the original 
Syriac text, i.e., the original translators had the text of S.-K. before 
them. Numerous other instances might be cited where the text 
agrees with S.-K. against Ch. in which we may possess the original 
Syriac text, but where its testimony is absolutely worthless for the 



criticism of the Hebrew text. Since there can be no doubt that 
either the translators, or perhaps some later copyist, frequently 
conformed Chronicles to its sources, the Peshito (^) may never be 
cited in support of readings of S.-K. as original in Chronicles. 
This fact, together with the character of its origin, makes the 
Peshito text of Chronicles practically worthless for critical pur- 
poses. For discussion, see Frankel, JPT. 1879, pp. 508^. 

The Peshito text of Chronicles is available in a number of edi- 
tions, but all go back to the Paris Polyglot of 1645. The London 
Polyglot (Walton's), published shortly after, reproduces the Paris 
text without change. The first edition was printed from a very 
poor MS., "Syr. 6" of the Bibliotheque Nationale. Recently 
W. E. Barnes has published the variant readings of the mss. avail- 
able to-day, and of the printed editions {An Apparatus Criticiis to 
Chronicles in the Peshitta Version, 1897). Walton's edition cor- 
rected by this apparatus furnishes a good Peshito text. 

The Syriac version of Paul of Telia was made in 616-7 a.d., 
from a Greek ms. ultimately derived from the Septuagint col- 
umn of Origen's Hexapla. This was first made known to Europe 
by Andreas Masius, who died in 1573, and he had a ms. which, 
with other books, contained Chronicles, but this has disappeared. 
The British Museum possesses a catena (Add. 12,168) contain- 
ing fragments of Chronicles and the Books of Esdras. The 
fragments of Chronicles are found on Foil. 57a-6oa (Wm. 
Wright, Cat. of Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. Part II. p. 905), just 
published by Gwynn (Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions 
of the Bible, 1909, Part II. pp. 5-17). The portions of i Esd. 
and Ne. were pubUshed by Torrey {AJSL. Oct. 1906, pp. 69-74), 
but the MS. contains nothing of i Esd, i. The Syro-Hexaplar 
text of I Esd., however, is found elsewhere and has been pub- 
lished by Lagarde (Libri veteris testamenti apocryphi syriace), 
hence we have its testimony for the recovery of the original 
Septuagint text of 2 Ch. 35, 36 (i Esd. i). 

The Arabic Version. — The Arabic version of Chronicles is 
available in printed form in the Paris and London Polyglots (v. s.), 
but is of little or no critical value. It is far removed from the orig- 
inal Hebrew, and as a translation of the Peshito text (cf. Burkitt, 



DB. I. p. 137) simply duplicates the testimony of that uncertain 
version (v. s.). 

The Ethiopic Version. — The Books of Chronicles are not 
extant in the Ethiopic version, which, however, does contain the 
first Book of Esdras. This is of value for regaining the Eg>'ptian 
recension of that portion of the Septuagint {v. s.). 

The Targum. — The Aramaic paraphrase of Chronicles, like the 
Targums of the other books of the Hagiographa, never had official 
significance and was a commentary rather than a translation. It 
was made from our Massoretic text and possesses little critical 
value. The text was first published by Matthias Friedrich Beck 
from an Erfurt ms. in 1680 and 1683. Later (17 15) David Wilkins 
published the Aramaic text from a MS. in the Cambridge Library 
with a parallel Latin translation {Paraphrasis Chaldaica in Librtim 
prioreni et posieriorem Chronicorum). It was also published by 
Lagarde in his Hagiographa Chaldaice, Leipzig, 1873. For a full 
discussion see Kohler and Rosenberg, Das Targum der Chronik, 
in Jud. Zeitschrift, 1870, pp. 72/., 135/., 263/. 

§ 9. the higher criticism and literature. 

The Books of Chronicles, from their supplementary and, through 
their genealogical material, their unedifying character, have never 
been a favourite field of study and investigation, hence their litera- 
ture has always been relatively meagre. The books also, in their 
variations from the other canonical writings, presented to early 
students peculiar difficulties. Jewish scholars in the period of the 
Talmud regarded them with suspicion, and later shrank from the 
many problems which their genealogies presented (JE. IV. p. 60; 
R. Simon, Hist. Crit. du V. Test. 1. IV.). Jerome, on the other 
hand, was extravagant in their valuation, declaring, "He who 
thinks himself acquainted with the sacred writings and does not 
know these books only deceives himself " {Epist. ad Paulinum de 
Studio Scripiurarum). And again, "All knowledge of the Scrip- 
ture is contained in these books " {PraJ. in lihr. Paralip., Epist. 
ad Domnionem) . This valuation rested, however, without doubt 
upon an allegorical interpretation and not upon any apprehension 
of the real character of i and 2 Ch. No one seems to have fol- 



lowed Jerome in his estimate, and while the books were gen- 
erally vindicated by the few Jewish and Christian scholars who 
commented upon them through the general assertion that they rested 
upon authentic sources and by explaining away all appearances of 
error, yet at the same time their discrepancies were made the basis 
of arguments against the authority of the sacred Scriptures {cf. 
Calmet, Comm. in V. T. IV. p. 510). (Spinoza had ridiculed the 
attempts of Jewish scholars to remove the discrepancies between 
the narratives of Chronicles and those of the earlier books and ex- 
pressed his wonder that they had been received into the sacred 
Canon by those who rejected the Apocryphal books, Trac. Theol. 
Politici, cc. ix. and x.) 

G. F. Oeder in his Freie Untersuchtingen iiber einige Biicher 
des A. T. (1771) spoke of their many corruptions (Ke.). But for 
real criticism and a worthy explanation we begin naturally with the 
introduction of Eichhom (i 780-1 782, 3rd ed. 1803). Eichhom 
went beyond the simple assertion of the Chronicler's use of au- 
thentic and reliable sources to a theory upon which the varia- 
tions and agreements between Chronicles and the earlier books 
might be explained. In regard to the genealogies he recognised 
that the Chronicler drew from the earlier canonical books, but 
along with them he held that he had access to registers carefully 
kept by the Levites and preserved in the Temple, serving as 
titles to inheritances. These registers, subject to copyists' mis- 
takes, were not always repeated in their complete form and many 
pedigrees were abridged, hence the genealogical variations in i Ch. 
The basis of the Chronicler's description of Da\nd and Solomon 
was an old life of those two monarchs, also the basis of the narra- 
tives in I and 2 S. and i K., which in the course of transmission 
through many hands had suflFered many changes, and in which the 
Chronicler also made changes, such as his introduction of Satan, 
the kindling of sacrifices by fire, etc.; also from historic records 
the Chronicler mentioned the lists of the priests and Levites, the 
contributions for the Temple, and other things of a similar nature. 
The various works cited by the Chronicler such as "the words of 
Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the Seer" (2 Ch. 12"), "the Mid- 
rash of the prophet Iddo" (2 Ch. 13") " the words of Jehu" (2 Ch. 


20'^), the writing of "Isaiah the son of Amoz" (2 Ch. 26"), and the 
works mentioned in 2 Ch. 32" 33'^'-, Eichhorn regarded as dis- 
tinct writings of contemporaries of Israel's kings, now lost; while 
the Midrash of the Book of Kings and the Book of the Kings of 
Judah and Israel (2 Ch. 25'' 27 ^ 28=^ 35" 368) and the Book of the 
Kings of Israel (2 Ch. 20'^) were secondary works; the last two 
being one and the same work and identical with the Book of the 
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah cited in i and 2 K. (Einl.^ ii. 595). 
Eichhorn held strongly to the reliability of i and 2 Ch., owing to the 
careful use of historical sources by the author. 

This representative view of Eichhorn was sharply criticised by 
De Wette (in his Beitrdge zur Einleitung, 18^). He, by com- 
parison, showed that Eichhorn's supposition of the Chronicler's 
use of the underlying sources of i and 2 S. and i and 2 K. was 
untenable. No real evidence was present that both the authors of 
the canonical books and the Chronicler had drawn their material 
from the same source; but far more likely all common passages 
were due to the use by the Chronicler of the canonical books. De 
Wette then examined the variations between the writings and he 
showed that through the Chronicler came marks of his late period, 
slovenly or careless writing, confusions and alterations of mean- 
ing, and that his additions were marked by a preference for the 
concerns of the Levites, a love of marvels, apologies and pref- 
erence for Judah and hatred of Israel, and embellishments of the 
history of Judah. Thus the unreliability of the Chronicler was 
abundantly shown. 

Of the Chronicler's sources De Wette made little. "Several 
writers," he said, "might have taken part in producing our present 
Chronicles. Who will contend about that ? But as the work lies 
before us it is entirely of one character and one individuality and 
thus may be assigned to one author " {Beitrdge, p. 61). The ques- 
tion of the reliability of the Chronicler was largely bound up in that 
of the Pentateuch, and of the general view of the Old Testament 
Scriptures. Scholars or writers of a so-called rationalistic tend- 
ency disparaged these books and accepted the conclusions of De 
Wette (a good example is seen in F. W. Newman's History of the 
Hebrew Monarchy, 1847), while on the other hand conservative or 


orthodox scholars held the general view of Eichhom in regard to 
sources and defended the trustworthiness of i and 2 Ch. through- 
out. Even upon those of a freer tendency, De Wette's work made 
less of an impression than might have been expected. Bertholet, 
who was willing to accept De Wette's low estimate of the historical 
worth of Chronicles (Eiiil. III. p. 983), argued in behalf of the use 
of common sources by the writers of Kings and Chronicles. 
Ewald also, who had a clear conception of the general character of 
the books, still in his history used them as a source of information 
very nearly upon a par with the other Old Testament books. The 
view in general was that the Chronicler, while often introducing the 
notions of his own age, yet carefully followed his sources, which, 
though more free and homiletic than the older canonical books in 
their treatment of history, yet were scarcely inferior as records of 
history — though when the two could not be reconciled the former 
were to be received as of greater authority. (C/. Bertheau's treat- 
ment throughout his commentary, 1854, 1873; Dillmann, PRE. 
II. p. 694, 1854, PRE.' p. 224, 1878.) 

De Wette's work was answered twelve years later in a small treatise 
by J. G. Dahler (De Librorum Paralipomenon Auctoritate atque Fide 
Historica Argentorati, 1819). Each alleged discrepancy, taken up in 
order from the beginning of i Ch. and through the two books, was 
examined by itself and explained away or harmonised; and the author 
concluded concerning the Chronicler: "Absolvendum eum esse ab istis in- 
justiscriminationibus, et fidem epis historicam , pnram esse atque iiiiegram." 
Dahler, as most of the apologists who followed him, overlooked the fact 
that the judgment of a work must be determined by the impression made 
by its phenomena grouped as a whole and that phenomena taken singly 
can ordinarily be explained away. It had been the great merit of De 
Wette's treatise that he "shaped the superabundant material to convey 
the right impression." 

Dahler's work was refuted by C. W. P. Gramberg in Die Chroiiik 
nach ihrem geschichtlickem character and ihrer GlaubwUrdigheit gepriift 
(Halle, 1823). This work was of little weight, owing to its charge of 
extreme falsification by the Chronicler. 

In 1833, C. r. Keilpublishedhisapologyfor Chronicles— .4 /)o/f?^e/z5c/zer 
Versuch ilber die BUcher der Chronik und iiber die Integretat des Buches 
Ezra. This work, essentially in its main contentiori, reproduced later 
in his OT. Intro, and Commentary on i and 2 Ch., held, as already noted 
above (see p. 20), that the Chronicler did not draw his material from 


the earlier canonical books of the OT., unless in the list of the patriarchal 
families (i Ch. 1-22), and hence the parallelism between i and 2 Ch. 
and I and 2 S. and i and 2 K. is due to common sources underlying each 
(the view of Eichhorn). Cf. examples mentioned above, p. 20. The 
varied charges brought by De Wette were refuted in detail and the 
Chronicler was absolved from all error of statement, although later Keil 
recognised in one instance that he was guilty of misapprehension 
(Intro. II. p. 82). 

In 1834 appeared Kritische Untersuchimg iiber die biblische Chronik, 
by F. C. Movers, a German pastor residing near Bonn. This work, 
although defending in a large measure the historical reliability of i 
and 2 Ch., since the author held to the Mosaic origin of the Levitical 
institutions, was characterised by much critical acumen. In the matter 
of sources the author advanced views practically identical with those 
current at present. He held that the Chronicler used first of all the 
canonical books, and secondly one other source, the Midrash or Com- 
mentary upon the Book of Kings. This Book of Kings was neither 
our Book of Kings, nor the "Chronicles" or Annals mentioned in 
Kings, but a work which the authors of Samuel and Kings had used, 
and whose author had made use of the Chronicles or Annals mentioned 
in Kings. But the Midrash or Commentary on this Book of Kings was 
a post-exilic work more didactic than purely historical, a connecting link 
between the canonical Scriptures and the Apocrypha. Of this work 
and of the canonical Scriptures the Chronicler was essentially a copyist. 
Movers' view in this respect is that of Benzinger and Kittel, already 
mentioned (see p. 25). 

The problem of Chronicles was also discussed in detail by K. H. Graf, 
in his Die Geschichtlichen Biicher d. AT. (1866). Graf examined the 
narratives of Chronicles in the light of those of the canonical books, and 
his conclusions were similar to De Wette's respecting the work as a tend- 
ency writing largely unhistorical in character. He differed from Movers, 
holding that the Chronicler was not a mere copyist and that to him as 
an independent writer belonged the characteristics of his work and not 
to a Midrashic source. On the other hand, he rejected the notion that 
he had no other sources than the canonical books and allowed historical 
reminiscences in his new material. The next most fruitful discussion 
of our problem is Wellhausen's brilliant chapter on Chronicles in his 
ProlegomenazurGeschichte Israels (i8-j8, 1883, Eng. trans. 1885). There 
the position of De Wette is restated and the Chronicler's work is ex- 
hibited essentially in the character which we have given, although we 
are inclined to find more of historical reminiscence in certain instances 
than Wellhausen allows, but his sketch of the Chronicler's work as a 
whole is correct. For the recent views of Benzinger and Kittel respect- 
ing the composition of Chronicles see pp. 25 /. 



(Authors of the most important works are indicated by the heavy type.) 

Text. — S. Baer and F. Delitzsch, Liber Chronicorum (1888) (text 
with critical and Massoretic appendices by Baer and an introduction 
by Del.); David Ginsburg, aoinoi d^noj niin (1894), pp. 1676- 
1808 (text based upon the Bomberg Bible of 1524-5, with variant read- 
ings in the foot-notes); R. Kittel, The Books of Chronicles in Hebrew 
(1895) (in Haupt's Sacred Books of the OT.) (the unpointed text, with 
critical notes trans, by B. W. Bacon); R. Kittel, Bihlia Hebraica, II. 
(1906) pp. 1222-1320 (text with foot-notes citing variants in mss., Vrss., 
and Bibl. sources). 

Translations and Commentaries. — Hieronymus (d. 420), Quaes- 
tiones Hebraicce in Paralipomena in appendix to vol. III. of his works 
(pub. in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 23, coll. 1365-1402); Theodoret, 
Bishop of Cyrus (ist half of 5th cent.), Quaestiones in Paralipomena 
(pub. in Migne's Patrologia Grceca, vol. 80, coll. 801-58); Procopius 
Gazseus (ist half of 6th cent.), Commentarii in Paralipomena (pub. in 
Migne's Patrologia Grceca, vol. 87, part I. coll. 1201-20); Rabanus 
Maurus (c. 776-856), Commentaria in libros duos Paralipomenon (pub. 
in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 109, coll. 279-540); David Kimhi 
(i 160-1235) (Kimhi's commentary on Ch. was pub. in the Rabbinic 
Bible of 1547 and elsewhere); Levi ben Gerson (1288-1344) WTote com. 
on Ch. (Rich. Simon, Hist. Crit. p. 28); Alphonsus Tostatus (Tostado), 
Comment, (on hist, books of the Bible, 1507); R. Joseph fil. David 
Aben Jechija (Comment, in Hagiogr. 1538) (Carpzov); R. Isaac bar R. 
Salomo Jabez (Hagiogr. Constantinople) (Carpzov); Basil. Zanchius, 
In omnes divines libros notationes (1553); Erasmus Sarcerius (1560) 
(Carpzov); Vict. Strigel, Libb. Sam., Reg., et Paralipom. (1591); Lud. 
Lavater, Comm. in Paralip. (1599); Sebastian. Leonhardus (1613) 
(Carpzov); Ni'~. Serarius, Comment, in libr. Reg. et Paralip. (1617); 
Casp. Sanctius, Comment, in 4 libr. Reg. et 2 Paralipom. (1625); Jac. 
Bonfrerius, Comment, in libr. Reg. et Paralip. (1643); Hug. Grotius, 
Annotatt. in Vet. Test. (1644) (Paralip. in edition of 1732 (Basil) vol. I. 
pp. 175-89); Arthur Jackson, Help for the Understanding of the Holy 
Scrip.; or Annot. on the Hist, part of the OT. 2 vols. (1643 and 1646); 
Thomas Malvenda, Commentaria in sacram Scripturam (1650); Christ. 
Schotanus, in Biblioth. historice sacra V. T. vol. II. (1662); D. Brenius, 
Annot. Paral. (in Opera Theologia, 1666, foil. 21-23); Fran. Burmann, 
Comment. . . . Paralip. . . . (1660-83); Jacob Cappel, Observationes 
in Lib. Paralip. (in Comment, et Not. Crit. in V. T. by Lud. Cappel, 
1689, pp. 651-4); S. Patrick, A Commentary upon the Historical Books 
of the OT. (1694; Ch. in new edition, vol. II. (1842) pp. 464-618); Jo. 



Clericus, Commentarius in Velus Test. vol. II. (1708) pp. 519-640; 
Matthew Henry, An Exposition oftJie Historical Books of the O. T. (Ch. 
in vol. II. 1708); H. B. Starck, Nota sel. critt. philoll. exegg. in loca 
dubia ac difficiliora Pent., . . . Chron., . . . (1714); J- H. Michaelis 
and Rambach, Annott. in Paral. (1720) (in Uberiores Adnotationes in 
Libras Hagiographos V. T., J. H. Mich, wrote on i Ch. and Rambach 
on 2 Ch.); S. J. Mauschberger. Comm. in LL. Paralip. . . . (1758); 
J. D. ISIichaelis, Uebersetzung des AT. tnit Anmerkk.filr Ungelehrte, vol. 
XII. (1785) pp. 151-310 (the trans.) and pp. 171-304 of app. (notes); 
A. Calmet, Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libras Testatnenti, vol. IV. 
(1791) pp. 512-827; Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible (Ch. in vol. II. 
182 1); F. J. V. Maurer, Cotnnientarius Grammaticus Criticus in 
Vetus Testamentum, vol. I. (1835) pp. 232-44; J. Benson, Tlie Holy 
Bible with Critical, Explanatory and Practical Notes (Ch. in vol. II. 
1850, pp. 233-388); Chr. Wordsworth, Kings, Chronicles, etc.^ (1868) 
(vol. III. of The Holy Bible with Notes and Introductions); C. F. Keil, 
Biicher der Chronik (1870) (in Biblischer Kotmnentar ilber d. AT. Eng. 
trans, by Andrew Harper, 1S72); B. Neteler, Die Biicher der biblischen 
Chronik (1872); E. Bertheau,' Bucher der Chronik^ (1873) (in Kurzgef. 
Exeget. Handbuch zum AT.); George Rawlinson, Chronicles (1873) 
(in vol. III. of The Holy Bible, edited by F. C. Cook); O. Zbckler, in 
Lange's Bibelwerk (1874) (Eng. trans, by J. G. Murphy); E. Reuss, 
Chronique ecclesiastique de Jerusalem (1878) {La Bible, IV. part); Clair, 
Les Paralipomenes (1880); Vilmar, Josua bis Chronika (1882) (in 
Prakt. Erkl. der Heil. Schrift herausgegeben von Chr. Miiller); C. J. 
Ball, in Bishop Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (1883); P. C 
Baker, I. and II. Chronicles (in TJie Pulpit Commentary of Spence and 
Exell), 2 vols. (1884); S. Oettli, Bucher der Chronik (1889) {m Kurzgef 
Exeget. Kommentar z. AT.); M. J. Tedeschi and S. D. Luzzatto, Com- 
mentar zu den BB. Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah und Chronik (1890); J. 
Robertson, in Book by Book (1892), pp. 111-19; W. H. Bennett, The 
Books of Chronicles (1894) (in The Expositor's Bible); E. Kautzsch, 
Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments (1894), translation, pp. 936- 
1012, critical notes in supplement, pp. 91-9S; R. G. Moulton, Chroni- 
cles (1897) (The Modern Reader's Bible); W. E. Barnes, Tiie Book 
of Chronicles (1900) (Cambridge Bible); I. Benzinger, Die Biicher der 
Chronik (1901) (in Kurzer Hand-Commentar z. AT.); A. Hughes- 
Games, The Books of Chronicles (1902) (Temple Bible); R. Kittel, 
Die Biicher der Chronik (1902) (in H andkommentar z. AT.); R. de 
Hummelauer, Comment, in Librum I Parallponi. (1905); W. R. Harvey- 
Jellie, Chronicles (1906) (The Century Bible). 

Critical Discussions. — Richard Simon, Histoire Critique du Vieux 
Testament (1685), Book I. Chap. iv. pp. 27 /.; Joh. Gottlob Carpzov, 
Introductio ad Libras Canonicas Bibliorum Veteris Testamenti (1731)1 


Part I. pp. 279-303; J. G. Eichhorn, Einl.^ II. (1803) pp. 579-601; 
W. M, L. de Wette, Kritischer Versuch iiber die Glaubenswiirdigichkeit 
der BucJier der Chronik (1806) {Beitrage zur Einl. in d. AT. vol. I.); 
L. Bertholdt, Einl., Part 3 (1813), pp. 963-91; J. G. Dahler, De 
lihrorum Paralipom. auctoritate alque fide historica (1819); C. P. W. 
Gramberg, Die Chronik nach ihrem geschichtlicJien Charakter und ihrer 
Glaubwilrdigkeit neu gepriift (1823); C. P. W. Gramberg, de geloofwaar- 
diglieid en liet belang van de Chron. voor de Bijb. Gesch. (1830); Die 
Biiclier der Chronik. Ihr Verhaltniss zti den Biichern Samuels und der 
Konige; ihre Glaubwilrdigkeit, und die Zeit ihrer Abfassung, in Tlieolo- 
gische Quartalschrift (Tubingen, 1831), pp. 201-82; C. F. Keil, Apolo- 
getisclier Versuch iiber die Chronik (1833); F. C. Movers, Kritische 
Untersuchungen iiber die biblische Chronik (1834); W. M. L. de Wette, 
Einleitung in d. AT.'' I. (1852) pp. 237-259; T. H. Home, Introduction 
to the Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures^" (1856), vol. II. pp. 673-688; 
K. H. Graf, Die Gefangenschaft und Bekehrung Manasse's, 2 Chr. t,;^, 
in TIteologische Sludien und Kritiken (1859), pp. 467-94; J. Bleak, 
Einl. (i860) pp. 371-401 (4th ed. 1878, Eng. trans, from 2nd ed. 1869); 
Gerlach, Die Gefangenschaft tmd Bekehrung Manasse's, in Theol. 
Studien u. Kritiken (1861), pp. 503-24; W. H. Green, Date of Books of 
Chronicles, in Princeton Review, XXXV. (1863) p. 499; K. H. Graf, 
Die Geschichtlichen Bilcher d. AT. (1866) pp. 114-247; Abr. Rahmer, 
Ein Lateinischer Commentar aus dem 9. Jahrhund. z. d. BUcfiern d. 
Chronik kritisch verglichen mit d. Judischen Quellen (1866); De Wette- 
Schr. Einl. (1869) §§ 224-33; H. Ewald, History of Israel,'^ I. (1869) 
pp. 169^.; Kohler and Rosenberg, Das Targum der Chronik, in Jiid. 
Zeitschrift (1870), pp. 72/., 135/"., 263/.; J. Wellhausen, De Gentibus 
et Familiis Judais quce i Chr. 2. 4. enumerantur (1870); C. F. Keil, 
Einl.^ (1873) §§ 138-144 (Eng. trans, from 2nd ed., 1870); W. R. 
Smith, Chronicles, Books of, in Encycl. Britannica^ (1878); R. O. Thomas, 
A Key to the Books of Samuel aiui the Corresponding Parts of Chronicles 
(1881); Frz. Delitzsch, The Book of the Chronicles, in Sunday School 
Times (1883), Nov. 24, pp. 739/.; G. T. Ladd, The Doctrine of Sacred 
Scripture (1883), I. pp. 108/., 373/.. 546/., 686/.; E. Schrader, COT. 
[1883] (1888) II. pp. 52-59; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena (1883), pp. 
176-237, Eng. trans. (1885) pp. 171-227; J. L. Bigger, The Battle 
Address of Abijah, 2 Chr. 13: 4-12, in OT. Student, vol. 3 (1883-4), 
pp. 6-16; F. Brown, The Books of Chronicles with Reference to the 
Books of Samuel, in Andot'er Review, I. (1884) pp. 405-26; Miihling, 
Neue Untersuchungen iiber die Genealogien der Chronik i, 1-9, und 
deren Verhaltniss zum Zweck dieses Buches, in Theolog. Quartalschrift 
(1884), pp. 403-50; W. H. Brown, The OT. Explained, Giving the Key 
to the Harmony of the OT. Writings, and espec. the Books of K., Ch., etc. 
(1885); Comely, Hist, et crit. Introductio in V. T. libros sacros Compen- 



ditim, II. I (1887), pp. 311/; A. Kuenen, Onderzoek^ I. (1887) pp. 
433-520, German trans., Einl. part I, div. 2 (1890), pp. 103-89; 
M. S. Terry, Chronicles and the Mosaic Legislation (1888), in Essays on 
Pentateuchal Criticism (edited by T. W. Chambers, and republished 
under title Moses and his Recent Critics, 1889), pp. 213-45; E. Alker, 
Die Chronologie der Bucher Konige und Paralipomenon . . . (1889); 
B. .Stade, Gesch:^ (1889) I. pp. 81-84; C. H. Cornill, Einleitung (1891), 
pp. 268-276, Eng. trans. (1907) pp. 225-39; L. B. Paton, Alleged Dis- 
crepancies between Books of Chronicles and Kings, in Presbyterian 
Quarterly (Richmond, Va.), vol. 5 (1891), pp. 587-610; G. Wildeboer, 
Origin of the Canon of the OT. [1891] (1895) pp. 142 /., 152, 162; 
K. Budde, Vermutungen zum "Midrasch des Buches der Konige," in 
ZAW. vol. 12 (1892), pp. 37-51; A. C. Jennings, Chronicles, in The 
Thinker, vol. 2 (1892), pp. 8-16, 199-206, 393-401; C. G. Montefiore, 
Hibbert Lectures (1892), pp. 447 #-, 454, 483; H. E. Ryle, Canon of the 
OT. (1892) pp. 138/., 145, 151, 162; W. R. Smith, OTJC' (1892) pp. 
14 jf., \2>2 ff.; H. Winckler, Alttestatnentliche Untersuchungen (1892), 
pp. 157-67 {Bemerkungen 2. chronik als geschichtsquelle); A. C. Hervey, 
The Book of Chronicles in Relation to the Pentateuch (1893); H. H. 
Howorth, The True Septuagint Version of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, in 
The Academy (1893), vol. 44, pp. 73/.; E. Konig, Eitil. (1893) § 54; 
W. Sanday, Inspiraiion (1893) (Bampton Lectures), pp. 102, 244, 253^., 
398, 443, 455; H. Varley, The Infallible Word . . . the Historical 
Accuracy of the Books of Kings and Chronicles (1893); R. B. Girdlestone, 
Deuierographs, Duplicate Passages in the OT., their bearing on the Text 
attd Compilation, etc. (1894); T. F. Wright, Chronicles, in New Church 
Review, I. (1894) pp. 455-6; W. Bacher, Der Name der Biicher der 
Chronik in der Septiiaginta in ZAW. vol. 15 (1895), pp. 305-8; S. R. 
Driver, The Speeches in Chronicles, in Exp. 5th series, vol. i. (1895) pp. 
241-56, vol. 2, 1895, pp. 286-308; Valpy. French, The Speeches in 
Chronicles; a reply, in Exp. 5th series, vol. 2 (1895), pp. 140-152; 
F. Kaulen, Paralipomena, in Kirchenlexikon, vol. 9 (1895), pp. 1479/.; 
S. Krauss, Bibl. Volkertafel in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, in 
M onatsschrift fur Geschichte u. Wissenschaft d. Judefithums, vol. 39 
(1895) pp. i-ii, 49-63; G. Wildeboer, Lit. d. AT. (1895), pp. 404-420; 
W. E. Barnes, The Midrashic Element in Chronicles, in Exp. 5th series, 
vol. 4 (1896), pp. 426-39; G. B. Gray, HPN. (1896) pp. 170-242; 
W. E. Barnes, The Religious Standpoint of the Chronicler, in AJSL. 
XIII. (1896-7) pp. 14-20; W. E. Barnes, Chronicles a Targum, in 
Expos. T. VIII. (1896-7) pp. 316-19; T. K. Cheyne, On 2 Ch. 14 : 9, 
etc., in Expos. T. VIII. (1896-7) pp. 431/.; H. L. Gilbert, Forms of 
Names in I. Chronicles 1-7, in AJSL. XIII. (1896-7) pp. 279-98; 
Fr. Hommel, Serah the Cushite, in Expos. T. VIII. (1896-7) pp. 378/.; 
W. E. Barnes, An Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta 


Version (1897); W. D. Crockett,^ Harmony 0/ the Books of Samuel, 
Kings and Chronicles, in the Text 0/ tiie Version of 1884 (1897); W. E. 
Barnes, Errors in Chronicles, in Expos. T. IX. (1897-8) p. 521; John F. 
Stenning, Chronicles in the Peshitta, in Expos. T. IX. (1897-8) pp. 45-7; 
W. Bacher, Zu I. Chron. 7 : 12, in ZAW. vol. 18 (1898), pp. 236-8; 
F. Brown, Chronicles I. attd II., in DB. I. (1898) pp. 389-397; A. 
Klostermann, Die Chronik, in PRE.^ III. (1898) pp. 85-98; Schiirer, 
Gesch.^ (1898) II. pp. 309, 339/., III. p. 311, Eng. trans, (from. 2nd ed.) 
II. i. pp. 309, 340, iii. p. 162; W. J. Beecher, Is Chronicler Veracious 
Historian for Post-exilian Period? in The Bible Student and Religious 
Outlook (Columbia, S. C), vol. 3 (1899), pp. 385-90; Adolf Biichler, 
Zur Geschichte der Tempelmusik und der Tempelpsalmen, in ZAW. 
vol. 19 (1899), pp. 96-133, 329-44; Grigor Chalateanz, Die Bilcher 
Paralipom. nach der dltesten. Armen. Uebers., etc. (1899); Hope W. 
Hogg, The Genealogy of Benjamin; a Criticism of I. Chron. VIII., in 
JQR. XI. (1899) pp. 102-14; A. van Hoonacker, Le Sacerdoce Levitique 
dans la Lot et dans I'Histoire (1899), pp. 21-116 {Les pretres et les 
levites dans le livre des Chroniques); E. Kautzsch, The Literature of the 
OT. (1899) pp. 1 2 1-8 (trans., with revision, from supplements to Die 
Heil. Schr. d. AT."^); J. Koberle, Die Tempelsdnger im AT. (1899) pp. 
81-150 (Chronika); O. Seesemann, Die Darstellungsweise der Chronik, 
in Mitth. u. Nachr.f. d. Evang. Kirche in Russland, 55 (1899), pp. 1-16; 
W. R. Smith and S. R. Driver, Chronicles, Books of, in EBi. I. (1899) 
coll. 763-72; T. G. Soares, The Import of Chronicles as a Piece of 
Religio-historical Literature, in Am. Jour, of Theo. III. (1899) pp. 251- 
74; M. Berlin, Notes on Genealogies of the Tribe of Levi in i Chron. 
23-26, in JQR. XII. (1900) pp. 291-8; J. A. Howlett, Wellhausen and 
the Chronicler, in The Dublin Review, vol. 126 (1900), pp. 391-411; 
K. D. Macmillan, Note Concerning tJie date of Chronicles, in Presby- 
terian and Reformed Review, XI. (1900) pp. 507-11; Hope W. Hogg, 
The Ephraimite Genealogy (i Ch. 7 : 20 jf.), in JQR. XIII. (1900-01) pp. 
147-54; G. O. Little, The Royal Houses of Israel and Judah (1901); 
J. Marquart, The Genealogies of Benjamin, in JQR. XIV. (1902) pp. 
343-51; J. W. Rothstein, D. Genealogie d. Kgs. Jojachin und seiner 
Nachkommen (i Chron. 3 : 17-24) in Gesch. Beleuchtung (1902); 
W. H. Bennett, Chronicles in JE. IV. (1903), pp. 59-63; Mos. Fried- 
lander, Genealog. Studien z. AT. D. Verdnderlichkeit d. Namen in d. 
Stammlisten d. Bticher d. Chronik (1903); C. C. Torrey, The Greek 
Versio7ts of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, in Proceedings of the 
Society of Biblical Archceology, XXV. (1903) pp. 139/.; W. J. Beecher, 
The Added Section in I Chron. XI-XII, in The Bible Student and 
Teacher, vol. i. New Series (1904), pp. 247-50; R. St. A. Macalister, 
The Royal Potters i Chron. 42', in Expos. T. XVI. (1905) pp. 379/.; 
R. St. A. Macalister, The Craftsmen's Guild of the Tribe of Judah, in 



Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1905), pp. 243-253, 
328-342; P. Asmussen, Priesterkod. u. Chr. in ihrem Verh. zu einand., 
in Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken (1906), pp. 165-179; G. Tandy, I a. II 
Chron., an Elementary Study in Criticism (Interpr., Oct.) (mentioned in 
Theolog. Jahresbe., 1906); S. A. Cook, Critical Notes on OT. Hist. 
(1907), pp. 67 n. I, 98 n. 3, 104 n. i, 114/., 118 n. i; H. H. Howorth, 
Some Unconventional Views on the Text of the Bible. VII Daniel and 
Chronicles, in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archceology, XXIX. 
(1907) pp. 31-38, 61-69; S. K. Mosiman, Zusammenstellung u. Ver- 
gleichung d. Paralleltexte d. Chr. u. d. dlteren Biicher d. AT. (1907); 
S. R. Driver, LOT." (1908) pp. 516-540; C. C. Torrey, The Ap- 
paratus for the Textual Criticism of Chronicles-Ezra-N ehemiah, in 
Harper Memorial II. (1908) pp. 55-111; W. E. Barnes, The David of 
the Book of Samuel and tlie David of the Book of Chronicles, in Exp. 
7th Series. No. 37 (1909), pp. 49-59; A. Klostermann, Chronicles, in 
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyl. vol. III. (1909) pp. 68-71; C. C. 
Torrey, The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator, in 
AJSL. XXV. (1909) pp. 157-73, 188-217. 




L Primeval genealogies with a list of kings and phylarchs 
of Edom. — This chapter serves to introduce the genealogies of 
the tribes of Israel by showing Israel's place among the nations 
and thus corresponds to the ethnic discussions with which mod- 
ern writers frequently open their histories. Its matter is derived 
entirely from Gn. 1-36. All the genealogies of those chapters are 
included in this compilation except that of the descendants of 
Cain (Gn. 4'8-22). The author's method of abridgment, in giving 
Hsts of names (vv. '-■' et al.) without stating their relation to one 
another, shows that he assumed his readers to have been thor- 
oughly familiar with the narratives of Genesis. 

While the source is clear, the question has recently been raised whether 
the chapter is substantially in the form in which it was left by the 
Chronicler or whether an original nucleus by him received numerous 
additions until the genealogical material of Gn. was exhausted. Ben- 
zinger maintains that the original text comprised only vv. '-■"' ('^''- '^^-■^- 
'*''. The Vatican text of 05 lacks vv. "-23, which are in the Hexapla under 
the asterisk (Field), and a sort of doublet exists in vv. '^-is and vv. ^^- ^. 
These facts have furnished the ground for assuming the secondary 
character of vv. "-2'. But the significant words vlhs "L-fjti AiXhfj. Kal 
'Airaoip, found in this lacuna of (^^, are certainly a remnant of v. " 
— so marked in Swete's edition — thus making it extremely probable 
that the original (6 contained the whole passage. (This omission by 
Origen is only one of many illustrations which might be cited of the 
poor quahty of the text which he had; see Tor. ATC. pp. 94/-) The 
parallels, vv. "-'^ and vv. ^^- ^, are not indicative of two sources, since 
in one the compiler is tracing the collateral lines, while in the other it is 
his purpose to give the lineal descent of Abraham. The transposition 



of vv. "-" (= Gn. 2512-16) and vv. "-" (= Qn. 252-O has no significance, 
since it is easily explained, the descendants of Ishmael, the first-born, 
being placed first and those of Isaac, by the compiler's habit, come last. 
Equally trivial is the repetition of the substance of v. ^sa in v. ^Ja. fhe 
descendants of Esau (vv. '* ^■) are as much in place here as the descend- 
ants of Ishmael and of Abraham by Keturah. Hence there is little 
cause to doubt that the first chapter of the Chronicler's history has 
come down to us in essentially the same form in which it left his hand. 

1-4. The ten antediluvian patriarchs and the three sons 
of Noah. — This list of names is a condensation of Gn. 5 by the 
omission of the chronological statements and those of descent from 
father to son; and the list in Gn. is apparently modelled after the 
Babylonian one of ten ancient kings which has been preserved by 
Berossus (Dr. Gn. p. 80, K AT J pp. 531/., Gordon, Early Trad, of 
Gn. pp. 45^.). The names appear in some instances to have been 
derived from the Babylonian list and are also directly connected 
in a large measure with the names found in the genealogies of 
Gn. 4 (J). — 1. Adam] i.e., man or mankind, an appropriate 
name for the first man, the father of the human race; hence a 
proper name (Gn. 42^ 5'-^, RV. wrongly in Gn. 3" ^\ v. DTX, 
3. BDB.).—Set}i] (Gn. 4" ' 5' ^ f) derived in Gn. 4^% proba- 
bly from mere assonance, from T]''^ "to appoint," hence, "sub- 
stitute"; the meaning or derivation is otherwise entirely 
obscure. — Enosh] (tl^lJK) (Gn. 4^^ 5^ «■ f) poetical word for 
man and probably in folk-lore a name like Adam for the first man. 
The third Babylonian name Amelon or Amilarus has also the same 
meaning. — 2. Kenan] {]2'^^) (Gn. 5« ^- f) to be connected with 
Kain (j">p) (Gn. 4' ^■), with the meaning of "smith," and thus 
corresponding with the fourth Babylonian name Ammenon, which 
is equivalent to "artificer." — MahalaPel] (Gn. 5'^ ^^ also a Judah- 
ite, Ne. iv 1). The meaning is "praise of God." It is possibly 
a Hebraised form of the fifth Babylonian name Megalarus, a cor- 
ruption of Melalarus. — Tared] (Gn. 5'* s , also a Calebite 4'8 f), 
from the root meaning to go down, but the significance of the name 
is not apparent. — 3. Hanoch] EVs. Enoch (Gn. 5'^ « , also the first- 
bom of Cain, Gn. 4" '•, also a son of Reuben, i Ch. 53). He, from 
his "translation," is the most notable of the ten patriarchs (Gn. 


5"). The name may mean "dedication," and might in the story 
of Cain be connected with the building of the first city (Gn. 4"), or 
if derived from parallel Babylonian king Enmeduranki. who 
probably was the mythical high priest of a place linking heaven and 
earth, the name might imply dedication to the priesthood. This, 
considering Enoch's religious character, is more plausible. The 
initiation of Enoch into heavenly mysteries, according to the later 
Jewish story, probably arose from a connection between him and 
the Babylonian parallel, since the latter was the possessor of such 
knowledge. — Methicshelah] (Gn. 5^1 «■ |), "man of missile." The 
corresponding name in Gn. 4" is Methushael = Babylonian mutu- 
sha-ili, "man of God." The corresponding name in the Babylo- 
nian list Amempsinus=cwe/-6'zn, "man of the god Sin"; hence 
"missile," shelah, is probably another title of Sin, i.e., of the moon- 
god. — Lamech] (Gn. 4^^^- 5^5 « f). The important position of the 
Lamech in the line of Cain, where he is the father of the representa- 
tives of three social classes — nomads, musicians, and smiths — and 
in the line of Seth, where he is the father of Noah and grandfather 
of the representatives of the three races of mankind, reveals the 
probable identity of the two persons in origin, but whence the name 
is derived is still obscure, probably from an ancient Babylonian 
god. — 4. Noah] (Gn. 5^' «■ and frequent in story of the flood, Gn. 
6-10, Is. 54» Ez. 14'^- 20). The Noah of Gn. 5" (J) is clearly the 
husbandman who produced wine (Gn. 9"^ ), and thus gave man 
rest, refreshment, and comfort in his toil. Why the hero of the 
flood also bore this name is not clear, since no certain connection is 
discernible between the name Noah (nj) and Ut-napishtim, the 
name of the Babylonian hero of the deluge. — Sheni] (w. "• =< Gn. 
^32 510 713 gi8. 23. 26 f. jq' • =' '• '' 1 1 '» '■ j) means renown, i.e., glory, 
and apparently was a name of Israel {cf. Gn. g^^ Blessed be Yah- 
weh the God of S hem, i.e., of Israel). — Ham'] (v. » Gn. 5" 6'° 7" 
pi 8 iQi. e. so) superseding possibly the name Canaan in an earlier 
list of Noah's three sons (cf. Gn. 9" J) is possibly derived from 
Kemet the Egyptians' name of their country {DB., art. Ham; 
EBi. II. col. 1204 absolutely denies this connection). Ham 
stands for Egypt in Ps. yS^' 105"- " 10622. Thus Ham appro- 
priately represented the peoples southward from Palestine. — 


Japheih] (v. ^ Gn. 5" 6'" 7" 9"- "■ " lo"- ^ =' f ). According to Gn. 
9" the word is from the root (nilS), meaning " to be open " (so 
BDB., MargoHouth in DB. suggests a derivation from nS** "to be 
fair)," but the real origin is still obscure. It primarily comes 
without doubt from some appellation of the peoples or country 
lying to the north and west of Israel, because in those directions 
the descendants of Japheth are found (w. 5-7). Japheth may 
have represented originally the Phoenicians, since the expression 
dwelling in the tents of Shem (Gn. 9") points to a land ad- 
jacent to Palestine {DB. Extra vol. p. 80). 

2. jrii] so too Gn. 5'- '^s., but ^ Kaivdv, U Cainan, in both places, 
show a different pronunciation of the diphthong which may have been in 
use in the Chronicler's day, cf. Ki. SBOT. pp. 52/., Kom. pp. 2/. 

5-7. The descendants of Japheth. — These verses are taken 
directly without change from Gn. 10''-' (P). Whatever variations 
the two texts now exhibit are due to the copyists of one or the other 
unless the text used by the Chronicler differed from the archetype 
of 1^. This is also true of all other cases where the Chronicler 
clearly reproduces the exact words of his parallels. For variations 
see textual notes. These nations or peoples m.ust all be sought to 
the north and west of Palestine. — 5. Gomer'\ (v. « Gn. lo'' '■ Ez. 
388, name of a person Ho. i' t) a^ people of Asia Minor identical 
with the Gimirrai of Assyrian inscriptions. Their territory in 
Armenian is called Gamir. It corresponds to Cappadocia. They 
are the Kimmerians of the Greeks. — Magog] (Gn. 10^ Ez. 38' 39* f) 
from collocation in Ezekiel and from assonance is closely related 
to Gog, which apparently is the Gagaia of the Amama tablets, a 
designation of northern barbarians. The traditional identification 
with the Scythians is plausible {EBi. II. coll. i'j4'jf.).—Madai]i.e., 
the Medes mentioned frequently in the OT. — Javan] (v. ' Gn. 
lo'- * Is. 66" Ez. 271'- " Dn. 8^' lo^" 1 1" Zc. 913, pi. Jo. 4^ (3^ f) the 
Greeks, or more properly the lonians. — Tubal and Meshech] 
(mentioned always together Gn. 10' Ez. 27'3 ;^2^* 38' '■ 39', except 
Is. 66", where Tubal occurs alone and Ps. 120', where Meshech, 
alone). They are the Tibali and Miishku of the Assyrian inscrip- 


tions and the Moschoi and Tibarenoi of Herodotus (iii. 94, vii. 
78). In the Assyrian period their home was north-east of CiUcia 
and east of Cappadocia; later they retired further to the north to 
the mountainous region south-east of the Black Sea (Dr. Gn.). — 
Tiras] (Gn. 10- f) formerly identified with the Thracians (so Jos. 
Ant. i. 6. i) but now generally with the Tyrseni (Tvparjvoi), a pi- 
ratical people of the northern shores and islands of the /Egcan Sea 
(Hdt. i. 57, Thuc. iv. 109). Tiras has also been regarded as the 
same as Tarshish v. ' (W. Max Miiller, Orient Lit. Zeititng, 15 Aug. 
1900, col. 290). — 6. Ashkenaz] (Gn. 10' Je. 51" f). Their home, 
according to Jeremiah, was in the region of Ararat, and they are 
undoubtedly the Ashkuza, Ishkuza of the Assyrians; an ally of the 
Assyrians from the reign of Asarhaddon onward, and possibly 
identical with the Scythians {KAT.^ p. loi); the Hebrew name has 
arisen apparently through a confusion of letters (TJSti'S instead of 
TliU'S). — Riphath'^] not yet clearly identified or located; ac- 
cording to Josephus (Ant. i. 6. i), the VsLph\a.gon'ia.ns.—Togarmah] 
(Gn. 10= Ez. 27'* 38^ f ). The references in Ez. indicate a northern 
country furnishing horses and mules, usually identified with the 
Armenians and by some connected with the city Tilgarimmu of the 
Assyrian inscriptions {EBi. IV. col. 5129, Del. Par. p. 246). — 7. 
And the sons ofJavan] to be sought naturally among the countries 
or peoples belonging to the Greeks.— Elishah] (Gn. 10* Ez. 27 'f), a 
land that according to Ezekiel furnished " blue and purple," hence, 
since these dyes were procured from shell-fish, a Grecian maritime 
country: lower Italy and Sicily have been suggested (Dill.), the 
Cohans (AioXet?) (Del.), Elis (HXt?) (Boch.), Carthage as 
though called Elissa (SS.). — Tarshish] (Gn. 10^ and frequent else- 
where), commonly identified with Tartessus in Spain, yet not con- 
clusively so. Tarsus in Cilicia has also been named (EBi. IV. col. 
4898). — Kittim] (Gn. 10^ Nu. 24" Is. 23'-"' Je. 2"' Ez. 27* Dn. 
11'" f) represents Cyprus. The name is derived from the city 
Kition on the south-east shore of the island. — Rodanim f] (Gn. 10* 
wrongly Dodanim) people of the Island of Rhodes. 

6. ns''-n] about thirty MSS. (Kennic, Gin.), 05, H, and Gn. 10' noni, 
which is to be restored as the original (Kau., Ki.). — 7. niyicnni] Gn. 
10* tt'itynm. The final n probably arose through the influence of the 


preceding nri^N and is to be removed (Kau., Ki.). — D''jnni] Gn. au"ni. 
The former is the true reading, supported in Gn. by some Heb. MSS. 
(Gin.) and <g and accepted by Ball (SBOT.), Dill., Holz., et al. 

8-16. The Hamites. — This passage is also without change 
from Gn. io«-«- ''-'«-; vv. «-' (P), «• "'»* (J). The intervening 
verses, Gn. lo', the summary Gn. lo'-'^ descriptive of the kingdom 
and cities of Nimrod, are omitted as irrelevant in a brief outline. 
Geographically the Hamites were south and south-west of Palestine 
and included also the so-called Canaanite peoples of Palestine. — 
8. Cush^ (Gn. lo' and frequent elsewhere) (see \'v. ' '■) the land 
and people of upper Egypt, commonly called Ethiopia. — Mizraim] 
Egypt. The Hebrew word is usually accepted as a dual referring 
to upper and lower Egypt, though also regarded simply as a loca- 
tive form (EBi. HI. col. 3161). — Put] (Gn. 10^ Je. 46' Ez. 271" 30* 
38^ Na. 3' f), usually reckoned as the Libyans (so rendered by (S 
in Je. and Ez.) but more probably the Punt of the Egyptian in- 
scriptions, the district of the African coast of the Red Sea, " from 
the desert east of upper Egypt to the mod. Somali country" 
(W. Max Mliller in DB.). — Canaan] reckoned as a son of Ham 
because so long under Egyptian control and from the religious 
antagonism of Israel toward the Canaanites. — 9. The sons of 
Cush], as the notes below show, were located on the Red Sea and 
eastward in Arabia. This might imply a migration from Africa 
across the straits into Arabia. — Seba] (Gn. 10' Ps. 72'° Is. 43' |), 
formerly after Josephus identified with Meroe between the Nile 
and the river Atbara, but more recently after indications by Strabo, 
with a district on the west shore of the Red Sea. — Havilah] (Gn. 
2" 10' 29 25'8 1 S. 15' I Ch. I" -j-). These passages require several 
Havilahs or they indicate the uncertain geographical knowledge of 
the ancients regarding southern Arabia and Africa. As repre- 
sented here it may be on the African coast, a little south of the 
straits of Bab-el-Mandeb (Dr. Gn.), or Havilah is a large central 
and north-eastern Arabian district of which sometimes one part is 
referred to and sometimes another (EBi. II. col. 1974). — Sahtah] 
(Gn. 10' t) probably to be connected with the old Arabian town 
Sabata, an ancient trading emporium, the capital of Hadramaut. — 


Rama] (Gn. 10' Ez. 27" -j-) in Ez. associated with Sheba and 
thus without doubt a district of Arabia (the 'PafjifiavLTai of 
Strabo). — Sabteca] unknown but to be sought in Arabia. — 
Sheba] (Gn. 10^ mentioned frequently) the wealthy district or 
people of south-western Arabia famous for traders. — Dedan] (Gn. 
10' also mentioned frequently). The references point to both 
northern and southern Arabia, due most likely to the extension of 
the trade of the people who were probably a tribe of central or 
southern Arabia. The name occurs in Sabean and Minean in- 
scriptions. — 10. Cush]. The original writer of Gn. probably 
thought Cush represented Ethiopia. Many modem writers, how- 
ever, think of a Cush representing the Kasshii of the Assyrian 
inscriptions, the l^ocraraloL of the Greek writers, a predatory 
and warlike tribe dwelling in the mountains of Zagros near Elam, 
who were so influential that they provided Babylon with its third 
dynasty of kings for some five and a half centuries, beginning about 
the middle of the eighteenth century B.C. — Nimrod] (Gn. 10^ 
Mi. 5« f) not yet clearly identified. Two theories prevail con- 
cerning him: (i) that he is a historical character, most likely Nazi- 
maraddash, one of the later Kassite kings (c. 1350 B.C.) (Haupt, 
Andover Rev. 1884, Jul. p. 94, Sayce, Pat. Pal. pp. 91, 269); (2) 
that he is the same as the mythological Babylonian hero Gil- 
gamesh (KAT.^ p. 581). — 11. And Egypt begat]. The change of 
form of expression is due to the use of the document J by the 
compiler of Genesis. — Ludim] (Gn. lo'' Je. 46% sg. Ez. 30*). In 
the last two of these passages this people is mentioned with Cush 
and Put (see v. «). Otherwise than thus a people of Egyptian or 
adjoining territory, they are unknown and have not been identified, 
— 'Anamitn] (Gn. lo'^ -j-) not yet idenii&ed.—Lehabim] (Gn. 
10" f) equivalent to Lubim, the Libyans (Na. 3' 2 Ch. 12' 168 
Dn. II" f), who dwelt on the western border of Egypt. — NapJi- 
tiihini] (Gn. 10" |) not yet definitely explained or identified 
(for conjectures see EBi. II. col. 1697). — 12. Pathrusim] (Gn. 
io»< t) the people of Pathros (Is. 11" Je. 441- '^ Ez. 29'^ 30'^ f), 
upper Egypt. The word is an Egyptian compound meaning 
south-land. — Cashluhim] unidentified. — The following clause, 
from whence the Philistines went forth, is misplaced. It should 


follow Caphtorim, the people of Caphtor, since that country is re- 
peatedly mentioned as the ancient home of the Philistines (Am. 
9' Dt. 2" Je. 47^), see further textual note. Caphtor is usually 
identified with Crete yet also and perhaps with more probability 
with the southern coast of Asia Minor, called by the Egyptians 
Kef to (see EBi. III. col. 3715). In either case its people are 
children of Egypt through political relationship of the Phihstines 
with Egypt. — 13. Sidon his first born]. Sidon was later eclipsed 
by Tyre, but its original greater prominence is seen in the fact that 
when Tyre had gained a reputation the Phoenicians were still 
called Sidonians (Dt. 3' Jos. 136 i K. ii* 163'). — Heth] (frequent 
in Gn.) represents the Hittites, the Cheta of Egyptian monu- 
ments and Hatti of the Assyrian, who from 1600 to 700 B.C. were 
an independent power north and north-east of Palestine with 
centres at Kedesh on the Orontes and Carchemish on the Eu- 
phrates. Offshoots of this northern nation seem to have settled 
at Hebron and elsewhere in Palestine. Any ethnic connection 
of the Hittites with the Canaanites is uncertain. Jastrow (EBi. II. 
col. 2094) regards Heth in Gn. as a gloss. — 14. This verse with 
vv. '5 ' , giving various Canaanitic peoples, is a supplementary 
addition to J in Gn. (SBOT. Oxf. Hex., Gu., Dr., et a!.). For 
similar enumerations cf. Gn. i5>9-2i Ex. y- '' 13^* 23" ^s ^32 341' 
Dt. 7' 20'^ Jos. 3'" 9' 11^ 128 24". — The Jebusite] the tribe 
anciently inhabiting Jerusalem (Jos. 15^ " 2 S. 5^', et al., men- 
tioned frequently). — The Amorite] (very frequent) with a double 
usage: (i) the people ruled by Sihon east of the Jordan, Nu. 21'% 
et al.; (2) the pre-Israelitish people west of the Jordan, a usage 
especially in E and D (Dr. Dt. p. 11), very frequent also in the 
inscriptions — in Amarna letters, northern Palestine, in Assyrian 
inscriptions the land of the Hebrew kingdoms and in general " the 
West" (EBi. I. col. 641). (On an early Amoritic Semitic in- 
vasion both of Babylonia and Palestine, see Pa. EHSP. pp. 25 ff.) 
The Amorite is a racial name while Canaanite is a geographical 
name, and thus the two become general designations of the pre- 
Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine (Dr. Gn. p. 126). — The Gir- 
gashite] (Gn. 10" 152' Dt. 7' Jos. 3'° 24" Ne. 9^ •)•). Their lo- 
cation is uncertain. — 15. The Hivite] mentioned frequently and 


usually taken as a petty people of central Palestine connected 
with Gibeon, Jos. 9' 11'', also with Shechem, Gn. 34', with Her- 
mon, Jos. ii^, and Mt. Lebanon, Ju. 3'. Perhaps in these last 
two passages Hittites should be read {EBi. II. col. 2101). The 
following five names do not occur in other lists and are geograph- 
ical, representing the inhabitants of five cities of northern Palestine. 
— The Arkite] of Arka, mentioned frequently in Assy. ins. and a 
city of importance in the Roman period, the birthplace of Alexan- 
der Severus (a.d. 222-235), the mod. Tell Arka, about twelve miles 
north of Tripolis (EBi. I. col. 310). — The Sinile] of a place not 
positively located but appearing in the Assy. ins. Siannu grouped 
with Arka {EBi. IV. col. 4644). — 16. The ArvadUe] of Arvad 
(Ez. 278- 11), mentioned in the Amarna letters and frequently in 
Assy, ins., the mod. Ruad, twenty-five miles north of Arka (Baed.'« 
p. 354). — The Zemariies] (Gn. lo'^ f ) of a city or fortress Simirra, 
mentioned frequently in Amarna letters as Sumur and Assy, ins., 
known to the Greeks, ihe mod. Sumra (Baed.'' p. 351), six miles 
south of Arvad. — The Hamathite] of the well-known and fre- 
quently mentioned Hamath on the Orontes, fifty miles east-north- 
east of Arvad, mod. Hama (Baed.< pp. 368/.). 

9. snaDi] Gn. 10' nri2Di. — Nryii] Gn. nc;?-M. — 10. iiaj] (& + 
Kvvriybs = n^s is probably a gloss from Gn. 10'. — 11-23. These vv. 
are wanting in (S^ {v. s.). — 11. D^ni*^] Qr. oniS, Kt. Dini'?. Ki. 
prefers the latter on the basis of (&^^, but 0^ . is transliterated in the 
same manner elsewhere. — 12. dtib'Ss ds'D IKS'" -yt?i< Dnnoa pni]. This 
transposition seems required by Am. 9' Dt. 2"-^ Je. 47* and, in spite of 
all the Vrss. giving the present order, is regarded as the original in 
Gn. io'« by Dill, and Ball (SBOT.), not, however, by Holz. Ki. 
assumes it to have been the original order, in our text, but it is more 
probable that the Chronicler had our present Gn. text before him. 

17-23. — The Semites. — These verses, wanting in (g^ and 
placed by Ki. as a subsequent addition (but v. s.), were taken orig- 
inally without change from Gn. 10"=', vv. " '• (Ch. v.") P, w. 
^*-" (Ch. vv. '8") J. The Semites geographically were, in the 
main, in a central zone between the Japhethites and the Hamites. 
Political considerations and a knowledge of racial affinities as well 
as the geographical situation may have influenced their grouping. 


— 17. 'EI am] mentioned frequently in Assy. ins. Elama, Elamma, 
Elamtu, and in the OT. (Gn. lo" 14'- » Is. ii'' 21' 22' Je. 25" 
4C)3i-39 (seven times) Ez. 32" Dn. 8-), a land and people east of Baby- 
lonia, lying directly at the head of the Persian Gulf to the north 
and east. Civilisation early flourished there, and about the 
twenty-third century b. c. an Elamitic suzerainty was exercised 
over Babylonia. Racially the Elamites were entirely distinct from 
the Semites. Their inclusion among the Semites was due either 
to their proximity to Assyria (Dr. Gn.) or because in very early 
times the land was peopled in part at least by Semites (Del. 
Par. p. 321). — Asshiir] the kingdom and people of Assyria, fre- 
quent in inscriptions and OT., situated in the upper portion of 
the Mesopotamian valley about the middle course of the Tigris. 
The people were closely akin to the Phoenicians, Arameans, and 
Hebrews. As conquerors from the fourteenth to the eighth cen- 
turies B.C. they have well been called the Romans of the East. — 
Arpachshad] (vv. '8. 24 Qn. lo"- 2* nio-u -j-) obscure, formerly 
identified with 'Appajra'^lTi'} (Ptol. vi. i. 2), the hill country of 
the upper Zab, in Assy. ins. Arrapha (Del. Par. pp. 124 /.), 
Arhaha (Sch. COT. I. p. 97), but this does not explain the final 

syllable; hence a compound of rp^> = Arabic jLsJ "boundary" 

and Keshed = Chaldeans, hence boundary or land of the Chalde- 
ans (Sch. COT. I. p. 98); or after the Ass}Tian Arba-kisddi, 
" land of the four sides or directions " (Del. Par. p. 256) ; or of four 
banks, i.e., of Tigris and Euphrates (Jen. ZA. xv, p. 256); or a 
contraction of Ar = Ur, the ancient home of Abraham and pa 
the Egyptian article and Keshed, i.e., Arpachshad, Ur of the 
Chaldeans (Hom. AHT. p. 292); or a contraction through 
copyist's error of '^S'lt^ representing Arrapha, etc. (see above) 
and Keshed, the passage having originally read Elam and Asshur 
and Arpach and Keshed (Che}'Tie, EBi. I. col. 318). This last 
would be the most plausible were it not for the appearance of 
Arpachshad in Gn. 11'°-". — Lud] (Gn. 10" Is. 66" Ez. 27'° 30^ f) 
naturally Lydians of Asia Minor, Assy. Luddu, also obscure since 
it is difficult to see why in this connection they should be men- 
tioned between Arpachshad and Aram, and they were not at all a 
Semitic people. Jensen would identify them with a land of 


Luddu mentioned in Assy. ins. and apparently on the upper 
Tigris {Deutsche Lit. Ztg. 1899, No. 24, v. Gu. Gn.). — Aram] 
frequent in OT. and ins.; not a land, rather the name of a 
Semitic people dwelling north-east of Palestine widely spread. 
Their inscriptions of the eighth century B.C. have been foimd at 
Zenjirli in the extreme north of S}ria, and inscriptions at Tema, 
north of Medina, show them to have been in north-western Arabia 
about 500 B.C. Other inscriptions show them to have been on the 
lower Tigris and Euphrates. Indeed, in Babylonia and Assyria a 
large portion of the population, if not the larger, was probably 
Aramean at a very early date. But their especial land was 
Mesopotamia, yet while the Assy. ins. never place them west of 
the Euphrates, that was their home par excellence in the OT. 
They are distinguished by special names as "Aram of the two 
rivers" (Gn. 24'° Dt. 27,^ '^'^i Ju. y) (rivers uncertain, naturally 
the Euphrates and Tigris, but according to some the Euphrates 
and Chabor), "Aram of Damascus" (2 S. S^), "Aram of Zobah" 
(2 S. lo^- *). From their position or other causes their language 
became widespread, both as a language of commerce and 
diplomacy (Is. 36"), and after the exile it supplanted Hebrew as 
the language of the Jews (Noeldeke, EBi. I. col. 276 Jff.). — The 
four following peoples or districts are in Gn. the sons of Aram, 
which statement was probably originally here {v. i.). — 'Uz\ 
(v. « Gn. 2221 36" Jb. I' Je. 252" La. 42' f). The connection 
here and in Gn. 22^', where Uz is a son of Nahor, suggests a 
people or district to the north-east of Palestine, while its appearance 
in the list of the Horites (Gn. 36^8) and in connection with Edom 
(La. 4=') suggests a tribe or locality south-east of Palestine. The 
name has not yet been clearly identified in the Assy. ins. (but 
see Del. Par. p. 259). — Hul] (Gn. 10" f ) unidentified although 
possibly to be seen in HalVa (Del. Par. p. 259), a district near Mt. 
Masius. — Gether] (Gn. 10" f) unidentified. — Meshech] in Gn. 
10" Mash f , which is without doubt the true reading, representing 
the district of Mt. Masius. (On Meshech see v.'.) — 18. Shelah] 
(v. " Gn. io''< ii'i'- »'• "• '5f). Cf.v.K Since 5/ze/a/i is the second 
element of Methuselah (cf. v. '), it is probably the name of a god. 
(Q". Mez, Gesch. d. Stadt Harran, p. 23, v. Gu. on Gn. 11''.) — 


Eber] an eponym simply derived from Hebrews ('''"i2J?) or from 
the geographical term indicating the early home of the Hebrews 
"beyond the river," i.e., the Euphrates (Jos. 24= ' ) or Jordan, 
cf. "beyond the Jordan " (pn%T "l^j;) Gn. 50'°- ■' Jos. 17^ Dt. 
V" et al. (some thirty times), BDB.— 19. Peleg] (v. " Gn. 10" 
1116. 17. 18. 19 I) derivation and representation uncertain. Sayce 
connects with the Babylonian palgu, "a canal," and makes the 
land Babylonia divided by canals (Expos. T. viii. p. 258). 
Hommel compares the land of el aflag in central Arabia (Gu. Gn.). 
Usually the division of the land is interpreted as referring to the 
dispersion of population, Gn. 9" lo^^ jjs — Joktan]. This ap- 
pears in the primitive tribe Kahtan of Arabian genealogists, but 
this fact is usually assumed to be derived from the OT. and thus of 
no historical value. The name then in its Biblical origin is still 
entirely obscure, but the thirteen sons, w. ""^ are clearly Arabian 
tribes or localities, only a few of whom can now be definitely 
identified. — 20. Almodad] unidentified, a compound possibly of 
ha " God " and Tf'D fr. Ill either active or passive God loves 
or is loved (BDB.), or the word means the family Maudad in ins., 
especially the Gebanites in their relation to the kings of Ma 'in 
(Gl. Skiz. ii. p. 425). It is possibly to be connected with places in 
Hadramaut (see Holz. Gn.). — Sheleph] appears in tribal and 
local names Sale/, Salf, near Yemen (Gl. ib.). — Hazarmaveth] 
mentioned in Sab. ins. and preserved in the mod. Hadramaut, 
the name of a district in southern Arabia a little east of Aden. — 
Jerah] (Gn. io=« f) not clearly identified (but see Gl. ib.). — 21. 
Hadoram] (Gn. 10", in i Ch. i8"'2Ch. 10" names of persons). 
Possibly Dauram in the neighbourhood of Sand. — Uzal] (Gn. 10" 
Ez. 2718 f) generally identified with Sand, capital of Yemen. 
Glaser disputes this and seeks it near Medina {EBi. IV. col. 
5239, Gl. Skiz. ii. pp. 427 ff.). — Diklah] (Gn. 10" f) uniden- 
tified. — 22. 'Ebal] ('Obal Gn. lo^') usually connected with the 
local name 'Abil in Yemen. — Alnma'el] (Gn. lo^' |) unidentified. 
— Sheba]. See v. '. Perhaps here a colony of the main people 
is meant. — 23. Ophir] (Gn. 10"). Whether this Ophir is the 
same as the land of gold and the terminus of the voyages of 
Solomon's fleet is uncertain. BDB. regards it as an entirely 


distinct place. Others identify the two and place Ophir on the 
eastern coast of Arabia stretching up the Persian Gulf {EBi. III. 
col. 3513 ff.). — Havilah]. See v. K This must be a Havilah con- 
nected with the district in Arabia. — Jobab] (Gn. 10", elsewhere 
name of a person, cf. v) generally regarded as unidentified. 
Glaser discusses the sons of Joktan with the following conclusion: 
"Almodad, Shalaf, Hadramaut, and Jarah represent the entire 
southern coast of Arabia from Bab-el-Mandeb to beyond Mahra; 
Hadoram, Uzal,and Diklah the Serat range from San'a to Medina; 
Obal, Abimael, and Sheba the Tihama from 'Asir and from 
Hidjaz (eventually from Yemen) and the Sabderland; Ophir, 
Hawilah, and Jobab, eastern and central Arabia unto 'Asir- 
Hidjaz" {Skiz. ii. pp. 435/-). 

17. oixi] <S* (= (6) and Gn. lo^s + oin ij31, which should be sup- 
plied (and the following i dropped), since these words have probably 
fallen from the text by a copyist's error (Ki., Bn.), although it is pos- 
sible that the Chronicler assumed that the relation of Uz, etc., to Aram 
would be understood, and hence the omission, cf. v. ■• (Be., Ke., Zoe., 
Oe.). JH 1N11XC-1NI for )'y;^ is doubtless a corruption of 'nsv dini before 
which ^i2 must have fallen out. — '\'^!~)\ six MSS., &, and Gn. U'cv A 
district Mash appears well attested by the cuneiform inscriptions. 
Itt'D appears in v. ' Gn. 10' Ps. 120*, and from greater familiarity 
was probably inadvertently substituted by a copyist (Bn.), yet 
perhaps already in the Chronicler's text of Gn., since (& there 
has Mocrox- — 18. i^^'] (S>^^ + tov Katvav /cat Katvav e'yivvr)aev as 
<& of Gn. 10='. This plus is certainly not original here. Note the 
addition of Kaivtiv in (S^ of v. ■*. — 20. nicixn] <&^ ApafiuO, ^ 
Aaepfj-ud, B Asarmoth. Ptolemy (vi. 7. 25) and Strabo (xvi. 4. 2) 
speak of XarpaiMOTirai and XarpanuiTai, and Sabean inscriptions write 
rmsn alongside of mmxn {ZDMG. xix. pp. ?39#., xxxi. 74 ff.), hence Ki. 
(SBOT.) points n^D — or riD — cf. ri.^'T'? and mnVs. Since m;:nxn is a 
foreign word and as such might have been changed by the Hebrews in 
order to provide it with a meaning, and since rn might well have 
been transliterated fiud by Greeks, Ki. now (Kom.) retains pointing 
of M.— 22. 73n-] Gn. 10=8 Sau'. 

The descendants of Japheth are fourteen, of Ham (omitting 
Nimrod), thirty, and of Shem, twenty-six, making seventy in all, 
representing the seventy nations of the globe which played an 


important part in Jewish thought. Cf. also the occurrence of 
seventy in Nu. ii'^ Lk. lo' ^■. 

24-27. The descent of Abram from Shem. — Abridged from 
Gn. Ill"-" (P) by retention of the names of the patriarchs only, cf. 
vv. '-^ This list in the priestly document was clearly designed to 
bridge over a period of considerable length of which there was 
nothing to record. The names appear to be derived from tribes 
or places, or possibly in some instances from deities (see Shelah, 
Ren, and Terah), and also some are found in the older list of J 
(Gn. lo^^- " and see above, vv. '* ' ). — Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, 
'Eber, Peleg] (see vv. "• "• ''■ '^).—Ren] (Gn. iv^- '^- ^o- ^' f) 
probably the name of a god {EBi. IV. col. 4087, cf. Mez above, 
V. '8). — Serug] (Gn. ii^" "i. 22 23 -j-) a district and city, Sarugi in 
Assy, ins., near Haran, well known to Arabic and Syriac writers of 
the Middle Ages. — Nahor'\ (Gn. 11", etc., fifteen times, Jos. 24^). 
The name of a deity (Jen. ZA. xi. p. 300, Skipwith, JQR. xi. p. 254) 
and also without doubt a tribe whose city was Haran. — Terah] 
(Gn. ii2< ". 26 27. 28. 31. 32 Jqs. 24^ -j") Identified with an ancient 
deity (Tarhu, Turgu) whose worship was widespread in north- 
ern Mesopotamia and adjoining districts and whose name has 
been preserved apparently in the element rapK of many Cilician 
Greek names (Jen. ZA. vi. p. 70, Hittiter, p. 153). — 27. Abram 
that is Abraham]. In the narratives of Gn. the progenitor of 
Israel is first known as Abram (ii2«-i75) until (17^) his name 
is changed to Abraham, and henceforward he is known by the 
latter name. The name Abram is equivalent to Abiram, "the 
(divine) father is lofty," and Abraham is only another way of 
spelling the name, although it is possible that two persons, of the 
two different names, may have been fused into one, "Abram a 
local hero of the region of Hebron" and "Abraham the collective 
name of a group of Aramean people, including not only the He- 
braic clans but also the Ishmaelites and a number of other desert 
tribes" (Pa. EHSP. p. 41). The historical character of Abraham 
is maintained by Ewald {Hist. i. pp. 300 ff.), Kittel {Gesch. 
i. § 16), Cornill {Hist. People of Is. p. 34), Hommel {AHT. 
pp. 146/.), McCurdy {HPM. §§ 444-448), Ryle (mDB.), and 
others, but the basis for this belief seems somewhat sentimental. 


Abraham's character is a creation of the prophetic period and he 
seems to have been created to connect together the peoples kindred 
to Israel in a genealogical system of relationship. It is possible 
that he came from an ancient deity worshipped in southern Judah, 
especially at Hebron. A suggestive name for this deity is seen in 
Ram (D1) lofty (cf. "Elyon" most high, Gn. 14"). A southern 
Judean clan bore the name of Ram (2"). Sarah (princess), the 
wife of Abraham, has been clearly identified as a goddess (Jen. 
ZA. xi. p. 299). 

24. Ki. after his view of ^^ inserts 'J3 before Dtt' (v. s.). — 27. 
Nin 013N] wanting in (^^ and so omitted by Bn., but original 05 
probably supported il| (cf. ^^^). 

28-33. Sons of Abraham, Ishmael, and Keturah. — 28. The 

sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael]. This statement has no 
exact parallel in form in Genesis. Isaac, although the younger, 
is mentioned first, since Israel came from him. Vv. "" are con- 
densed from Gn. 25^^-'^^ (P) and w. '^-33 from Gn. 252-^ (J). The 
change of order from that of Genesis introducing the sons of 
Ishmael before those of Keturah is noticeable. — Isaac] probably 
represents a tribe whose original name may have been Isaac-el 
(^Spn^'') corresponding to Ishmael, Israel, etc. This tribe 
seems to have dwelt in southern Judah, since the home of the 
patriarch is placed there. Why the tribe should form a link in the 
genealogy and become prominent in the story is not clearly known. 
The relationship between Israel and Edom clearly demanded for 
Doth a common father, and he might well be seen in an ancient 
tribe which had been absorbed into both. A deity has been found 
also in Isaac through the expression "Fear [of] Isaac" (Gn. 
31" ") (Luther, ZAW. xxi. p. 73). — Ishma'el] (Gn. i6"- ''■ '« et al.) 
the personification and without doubt the ancient historical name 
of a group of tribes regarded as near kinsmen of Israel dwelling in 
the northern part of the Sinaitic Peninsula and, according to the 
sons mentioned below, extending further into Arabia. — Nebaioth] 
(Gn. 251' 28' 36' Is. 60' t)> ^^^ Kedar] (Gn. 25-3 Is. 2i'« 42" 60^ 
Je. 2'° 49" Ez. 272' f). Both of these tribes are mentioned in 


Assy. ins. among the conquests of Ashurbanipal (Del. Par. pp. 
296 /., 299). The latter appears the more widely spread and 
prominent; both dwelt at some distance east of Edom and 
Moab and the latter at the time of Ashurbanipal extended up to 
the Hauran. Whether the Nebaioth were the later Nabateans is 
uncertain. (See EBi. III. col. 3254.). — Adhbe^el] (Gn. 25'^ -j-) also 
in Assy. ins. with home south-west of the Dead Sea toward the 
Egyptian frontier (Del. Par. p. 301). — Mibsam] (Gn. 25 '3, also in 
the genealogy of Simeon i Ch. 4" |) not mentioned elsewhere. — 
30. Mishma] (Gn. 25'% likewise in the genealogy of Simeon 
I Ch. 4^6 26 -j-) possibly the name is preserved in Jehel Misma, one 
hundred and sixty miles east of Teima, or in another Jebel 
Misma one hundred and twenty miles north-west of it (Dill., 
see Dr. Gn. p. 242). — Dumah] (Gn. 251^ Is. 21", perhaps there 
Edom, Jos. 15" in Judah, where we should probably read Rumah 
f ) the oasis Duma now usually called dl-Jbf, on the southern 
border of the Syrian desert, mentioned by Ptolemy and Arabic 
geographers (Dr. ib.). — Massa'\ (Gn. 25'^ f) in Assy. ins. and 
located near the Nebaioth (Del. Par. pp. 302 /.). — Hadad] (Gn. 
25'^) not identified. — Tema] (Gn. 25'^ Jb. 6'^ Is. 21'* Je. 25^3 -j-) 
mod. Teima, south-east from the northern end of the Elamitic 
Gulf.— 31. Jetur and Naphish] (Gn. 25'=^ i Ch. 519 q. v. f).— 
Kedmah] (Gn. 25'^ -j-) not identified. — 32. Keturah] (Gn. 25' * 
f). The name means "frankincense" and might appropriately 
be chosen as the name of the mother of tribes trading in or 
producing that commodity. The sons of Keturah were tribes 
dwelling east and south-east of Israel which the Hebrew historian 
recognised as kin to Israel but held them less closely related than 
those called Ishmaelites (v. s.), and hence the Chronicler called 
their mother a concubine, a term not used of her in Gn., or else 
from the feeling that Sarah properly was Abraham's only wife. — 
Zimran] (Gn. 252 -j-) usually connected with the city Zabram 
(Ptol. vi. 7. 5) west of Mecca on the Red Sea. As a tribal 
name it may have been derived from Zemer ("IDT), mountain goat. 
Very Hkely the same people appear in the "Zimri" (Je. 
25"). — Jokshan'] (Gn. 252 = f) unknown. — Medan] (Gn. 25^ f). 
Comparisons of doubtful worth have been made with a Wady 


Medan near Dedan and with a Yemenite god Madan {EBi. III. col. 
3002). This probably is not a real name but has arisen by a 
copyist's error from the following word. — Midian] (Gn. 25^ and 
frequently) a well-known people early disappearing from history, 
dwelling east of the Gulf of Akaba, whose nomad branches 
made forays into Edom (Gn. 36" Nu. 22^ ') and across Gilead 
into Palestine (Ju. 6-8). The name Midian appears in MoSiava 
on or near the Gulf of 'Akaba (Ptol. vi. 7. 2), mod. Madyan 
{EBi. III. col. 3081). — Jisbak'\ (Gn. 252 j-) unidentified unless 
with Yasbak, a district in northern Syria mentioned in Assy. ins. 
{KB. I. p. isg).—Sli2tah] (Gn. 25= f) the tribe of Job's friend 
Bildad (Jb. 2"). This has been identified with Suhi of the 
Assy, ins., a district on the Euphrates near Haran, but this is 
doubtful. — Sheha and Dedan]. Cf. v. ». Different sources give 
different genealogical relationships. The Chronicler has here 
omitted from his source the sons of Dedan, given in Gn. 25^''. — 
33. 'Ephah] (Gn. 25^ Is. 6o^ cf. in Judah and Caleb i Ch. 2^« '•) 
probably the Hayapa, a north Arabian tribe mentioned in Assy. 
ins. (Del. Par. p. 304). It dwelt in the district of Midian 
(Noeldeke, EBi. III. col. 3081). — 'Epher] (Gn. 25-', name 
in genealogy of Judah i Ch. 4'', Manasseh 521 -j-) possibly a dit- 
tography of the previous 'Ephah. This tribe and the three fol- 
lowing, Hanoch, Abida , and Elda ah (Gn. 25^ f except Hanoch 
cf. V. ', a Reubenite 5=), have not yet been clearly identified. 
{Cf. Gl. Skiz. p. 449.) 

28-31. This condensation has retained of Gn. 25'2- is* only the first 
two words nnSin nSx, the sufl&x a— also being added, □.nn'?in. Vv. 
29b-3i follow the text of Gn. 25"b-i6a to n'^xi almost exactly. — 29. Sx3-ini] 
sotooGn. 25'3, but (B Na/3e(ai) 77X in both places. — 30. ycu'DjGn. 25'^ 'Ci. 
— Nrc] Gn. 'Di. — -nn] some Mss. i^n. Gn. 25'^ the same as Ch., but 
there many mss. nn.— ^^•^^■:1] (g Oaiixav.—Sl. n-ip] 519 3-11J.— 32-33. 
mS> Dniax itj^^d] have no direct verbal parallel in Gn. The remainder 
of w. 32-33 follow the text of Gn. 252-^ beginning with pnr pn, except that 
jti-pi ijai is substituted for ^'^> ]•^p^^ and after p-11 are omitted rn pi 'J3i 
CdnSi QiB'VisSi D-wj'N. B adds these words, so also 05* plus Pa7oi;7;X 
Kai Na^SaiTjX after Kai vloi Aaidau, following (B of Gn. 25'. The 
Chronicler probably omitted the clause since iwn is a son of DB> 
according to v. ". 



34-42. The sons of Isaac and Esau, including the sons of 
Seir. — V. '* has no exact verbal parallel in Genesis; v." is con- 
densed from Gn. 36'- =■••'; v. =« from Gn. 36"- '^^ where Timna' is 
described as the concubine of Eliphaz and mother of Amalek; v. " 
is taken verbatim from Gn. 36'^^; vv. '^-*- are taken verbatim, 
with slight omissions, from Gn. ^6^".^ (P). — 34, 'Esau] (Gn. 
2^26 t. ti ai.^ frequent in Gn.) identified with Edom (Gn. 36'- «• "); 
ancestor of the Edomites, Gn. 369- " {cf. v."); "probably orig- 
inally a god whom the Edomites regarded as their ancestor" 
(Noeldeke, EBi. II. col. 1182). — lsraei\ In Gn. the second son 
of Isaac was primarily called Jacob (Gn. 25-'^). Israel is the 
name given later in connection with a special revelation (Gn. 
32" 35'°)- The Chronicler prefers Israel to Jacob in speaking 
of the people (9') and so the OT. writers generally. Jacob is more 
poetic. The truth lying back of the two names is probably that 
an older tribe, Jacob or Jacob-el, was fused into Israel. — 35. 
Cf. Gn. 36<- 5", where the mothers of the sons are given: Adah 
of Eliphaz and Basemath of ReiCel and Oholibamah of Jeiish, 
Jalam, and Korah. — Eliphaz] (Gn. 36^ «•, one of Job's friends 
Jb. 2'i et al.) from Teman v. '«. — Re'ti'el] (Gn. 36^ » , Moses' 
father-in-law Ex. 2^^ Nu. 10", a Gadite Nu. 2'^, a Benjaminite 
I Ch. 98). For the first half of the name cf. w-K—Je ush] (Gn. 
36'»-, a personal name i Ch. 7'" 8" 23"° " 2 Ch. ii'^). — Ja'lam] 
(Gn. 36* ■< " ■\). — Korah] both personal and clan or guild 
name in Israel doubtless historically showing a connection with 
Edom {cf 2" 9"). — 36. {Cf. Gn. 36".) — Teman] is elsewhere 
in OT. the name of a district in northern Edom (Am. i'^ Je. 49'- -" 
Ez. 25" Hb. 3^ the home of Job's friend Jb. 2" cf. 1 Ch. i"). — 
Omar] (Gn. 36" •' f). — Zephi] (Zapho Gn. 36" '^ -j-). — Gdtam] 
(Gn. 36" '^ f ). — Kenaz]. Cf. v. *', elsewhere connected with Caleb 
(Jos. 15" Ju. I" 3'- ") showing that the Calebites were closely 
allied with the Edomites. — Timna ] in Gn. 36'2 the concubine of 
Eliphaz and the mother of Amalek. In Gn. 36=2 j q\^ j39 Timna 
is the sister of Lotan, and in Gn. 36^° i Ch. i^' chief or clan of 
Edom. These variations are not surprising considering the origin 
of genealogies. Gunkel regards Gn. 36i^» as an insertion in P. — 
Amelek] an ancient people south of Canaan, and marauders 


(Nu. 24'° Ju. 3" et al.). Their place in Gn. 36'= as a subordinate 
clan of Esau points to their later position of inferiority or extinc- 
tion {cf. I Ch. 4"). — 37. These clans from Gn. 36'^ are otherwise 
unknown. But as the names of other clans or individuals cf. 
Nahath 6""6) 2 Ch. 31", Zerah 2' Ar" 6« 9« 2 Ch. 148 <", Shammah 
I S. 16' 2 S. 23"- «, probably i Ch. 27^ (BDB.). All of these 
sons of Eliphaz and Reu'el are given in Gn. 3615 b. 3,5 chiefs 
of Edom; and also in Gn. 36'' Jensh, J a lam, and Korah. — 
38. Seir'\ in Gn. 362'' called the Horite, showing that the writer 
there had in mind the earlier inhabitants of the land of Edom. 
Hence they properly are sons of the country Seir rather than of 
the race Edom. Seir, the territorial name meaning "hairy," is 
probably equivalent to "wooded," "covered with brushwood." 
The name appears in the Sa aira of the Egyptian inscriptions 
{EBi. II. coll. 1 182/.). — Lotan] (Gn. 36i"'- " f) possibly to be con- 
nected with Lot (Gn. II" 12* et al.), derived from the ancient 
name of the country east of the Jordan; in Egyptian inscriptions 
Riiten, Luten (Pa. EHSP. pp. 38, 59, 123). — Shobal] (v. "» Gn. 
2620- 23 29^ in Caleb 25»", in Judah 4'- ^ -j-). On meaning of name 
as young lion cf. Gray, HPN. p. 109. — Zibeoti] (v. "» Gn. 36=- 
u. 20. 24. 29 -j-^ The name means hyena (Gray, HPN. p. 95). — 
'Anah] (v. "» Gn. 36^ '^ 's- 20- "■ 25- 29 -j-). The present text of Gn. 
gives Anah (36^) a daughter of Zibeon and (36^^) a son of 
Zibeon. — Dishon] (Gn. 36^', son of Anah 36=5, 26 j ch. i"- "', 
chief Gn. 36'° f). The name means pygarg, a kind of antelope 
or gazelle (cf. Dt. 14'). — Ezer] (v. '^ Gn. t,6''- 2- 30 -j-). — Dishan] 
(v. '2? Qn_ ^521. 28. 30 -j-) clearly a mere variant of Dishon.— 39. 
Lolan]. Cf. v. 'K — Hon] (Gn. 36", a Simeonite Nu. ly |). As 
a clan name this is striking. Perhaps originally in Gn. it was 
the Gentilic adjective. (On meaning cf. Dr. Dt. 2^\). — Honiam] 
(Hemam Gn. 36" f). This name possibly has connection with 
Heman 2« since Zerah was Edomitic as well as Judaic, cf. v. ". 
— Timna']. Cf. v. '\ — 40. Shobal]. Cf v. ". — 'Aljan] ('Alwan 
Gn. 36" I) possibly to be compared with 'Eljon, the Most 
High, the name of a deity. — Manahath] (Gn. 36" f). Cf. i Ch. 
2" 8« but probably vdth no connection with the foregoing. — Eball 
(Gn. 36" f). Cf. with 'possible identification in name (not 


locality) with 'Ebal of V-\—Shephi] (Shepho Gn. 36^' f). Cf. 
for meaning ''211' bareness, hare height. — Onam] (Gn. 36", a 
chief of Judah i Ch. 2^'- "f). Probably the name is identical 
with Onan, Gn. 38* i Ch. 2K — Zibe'on]. Cf. v. ^\ — Aijah] (Gn. 
36'^, father of Rizpah 2 S. 3' ai"- '"■ ^^ f) meaning hawk, cf. Lv. 
II'* Dt. 14'^ — 'Anah]. Cf. v. =». Gn. 36-* adds: "This is Anah 
wdio found the hot springs ( ?) in the wilderness, as he fed the 
asses of Zibeon his father. " — 41. 'Anah]. Cf. v. ''^. — 
Dishon]. Cf. v. ''. — Hamran] (Hemdan Gn. 36-^ f). The form 
in Chronicles suggestive of 111211 he-ass, Hamor the father of 
Shechem, considering the other animal names in this section, is not 
improbably the true one. — Eshban] (Gn. 36^^ -j-). — Jithran] (Gn. 
362% also man or clan of Asher i Ch. 7" f). Cf. Jether, a common 
name. — Cheran] (Gn. 7,6-^ f). — 42. Ezer]. Cf. v. ^^. — Bilhan] 
(Gn. 36", a Zebulunite i Ch. 7'"t)- Some connect with Bilhah 
the concubine of Jacob (Stade, Gesch. i. p. 146, A. i). — Za'wau] 
(Gn. 36" f). — Jaakan] (Akan Gn. 36" f) perhaps arisen from 
and Akan (jp/l) or possibly to be connected with "the sons of 
Jaakan" Nu. ;iy- Dt. io\—Dishan]. Cf. \. ^K—Uz]. Cf. 
V. '^ — Aran] (Gn. 36" f). 

34. SniU"'! lU';"] ^B 'IaKd)/3 k. 'Hcraiy, * /cat Hcrai/ k. la/cw/S. The intro- 
ductory Kai of the latter points to ^ as original Qi. This is adopted by Ki. 
and Bn. since the son of the promise, though the younger, precedes in 
V. =8. — 36. IBS] about thirty mss. and Gn. 36" iflx. (S here and in Gn. 
2w^a/3 = IDS. This may represent an ancient scribal error (1 for 1), 
wherefore the reading of Gn. is probably original. — ?Jp] OS, %, Ul, Gn. 
36" 'pv — p'^cj;i j?jr:ri] Gn. 36'- id^Sn*? nSni rz"; 73 id^'^nS cj^^^ij n.i'n yjcn 
pScy TN. (S^ Kai TTjs 'AjuaXi^K and * ©a/uva 5e t; TraXXa/CT; 
EXi(^af- ereKev avT-q (other MSS. axiTui) tov A/j-oKtik are doubtless 
harmonising glosses, probably originating in (I. The text of Ch. is not 
likely a persistent variant as Bn. maintains. The Chronicler may have 
misread Gn., taking j."j::pi with the preceding as a masc. name (cf. v. " 
= Gn. 36*") and reading the following, there was a concubine to 
Eliphaz the son of Esau, and she hare to Eliphaz Amalek. — 37. mr] 
Gn. 3613 'n.— 38. itt">-i] (g and Gn. 36^1 •> instead of f, so Ki. SBOT., 
Ball, SBOT., on Gn. 362'. Ki. Kom. retains '■'t.— 39. DO^m] Gn. 
36" Kt. amni, Qr. Dcni. (g in both places Al/iav, hence Bn., Ki. BH. 
D?3'>ni. — 40. 7;S'] many mss., (SS and Gn. 36^3 if"-;, adopted by Ki. and 
Bn. — ^a::'] Gn. ifl'i'. ($^ Xw<pap, of which ^ Sw/3 is probably a mu- 

I. 43-54.] RULERS OF EDOM 77 

tilation, = "iflC = icr, v. s. v. 3^—41. |VJ"ni] «al + ^ai EXiPafui 
QvyaTTjp Ava, cf. Gn. 3626. — pen] (gs 'Efxepuiv, *'!-) A/wt5a(/x). Many 
MSS. and Gn. 36^ p^n, favoured by Ki. holding the root icn better 
suited for a proper name. — 42 . ip>^] twenty-two MSS. and Gn. 36" ipyi 
but read with CS'ad, Iff, g>, ||i>'n, cf. Nu. 333"- Dt. lo^. 

A correspondence between the three lines of descent from Noah 
through Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and the three lines from 
Abraham through Isaac, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah, has 
been found. As the descendants of Noah appear in seventy 
peoples, so likewise the descendants of Abraham may be reckoned 
as seventy tribes, Ishmael furnishing twelve; Keturah, thirteen; 
Isaac, two; Esau, sixteen (five sons and eleven grandsons); Seir, 
twenty-seven (including Timna v.") (Be.). Another reckoning 
omits Timna (v. ") but includes Ishmael (Oe.). Others reject the 
idea of seventy tribes having been designed by the Chronicler 
(Ke., Zoe.). This latter appears quite probable. 

43-51a. The kings of Edom. — Taken from Gn. 36"-" (J 
generally but Dr. P). Since no king is the son of his predecessor 
and their residences change, it is probable that these kings were 
rulers and comparable to the judges in Israel or represented dif- 
ferent dynasties frequently changed as in northern Israel. The 
phrase before there reigned a king oj the children of Israel (v. ") 
may either mean before a king reigned in Israel, i.e., before Saul, 
or before a king of Israel reigned over Edom, i.e., before the con- 
quest of Edom by David (2 S. 8'^). This latter interpretation is 
to be preferred (Buhl, Edomiter, p. 47, Dill., Holz., Gu.). — 43. 
Bela the son of Be or]. The name is so similar to "Balaam the 
son of Beor" (Nu. 22-24) that some have regarded the two per- 
sons as identical (EBi. I. col. 524, Gray, Nu. p. 324). Bela also 
son of Benjamin, 8', Reubenite 5'. — Dinhabah] (Gn. 36" f) 
location unknown. — 44. Jobab] (Gn. 36'', cf. v. ") otherwise 
imknown. — Zerah] Cf. v. ". — Bozrah] (Gn. 36" Is. 34* 63' Je. 
49'=- " Am. I '2 -j-) mod. Busaireh, twenty miles south-east of 
the Dead Sea and thirty-five miles north of Petra (Dr. Gn.). — 
45. Husham] (Gn. 362^ '■ f cf. Hashum Ezr. 2" Ne. 7"). — 
Teman]. Cf. y.^K — 46. Hadad] (Gn. 36" '•, cf. also vv.^" ' , 
an Edomite who troubled Solomon i K. ii'< "• f) the name 


of an Aramean deity found in the names Ben-hadad, Hadad- 
ezer. — Bedad] (Gn. 36" f) possibly to be connected with a 
range of hills called el-Ghoweithe, on the eastern side of the 
upper Arnon (Dr. Gn., Gu. Gn.). — 47. Sanilah] (Gn. 36" '• f ). 
— Masrekah] (Gn. 36^^ f ). The name may mean " place of choice 
vines," cf. Nahal Sorek "wady of choice vines" (Ju. 16'). — 48. 
Sha'id] (Gn. 36" '•) the same name as that of Saul, King of Israel, 
and also of clans of Simeon (4^^) and of Levi (6' '">). — Rehobolh] 
(Gn. 36", name of a well Gn. 26", and Assyrian city Gn. 
lo'i I). — The River] is certainly not the Euphrates and the place 
Rahaba a little south of the mouth of the Habor (Dr. Gn.), 
but the river of Egypt, i.e., the Wady el-Artsh (Gn. 15'*) (Winck. 
Gesch. Isr. I. p. 192). — 49. Ba al-hanan] (Gn. 36'* ' , an official 
of David i Ch. 27^8 j-). The name "Baal is gracious," a synonym 
of Hannibal {cf. also Elhanan, Johanan), points to the worship 
of Baal in Edom (Dr. Gn.). (Still "Baal" is more a generic title 
than that of a specific deity.). — 'Achbor] (Gn. 36'' ' , also a cour- 
tier of Josiah 2 K. 22»2- '< and perhaps Je. 26" 36'2 -j-, BDB.). 
The name means "mouse." — 50. Hadad] (Hadar Gn. 36", but 
some forty Mss. and Samaritan mss. read Hadad). Cf. v. ". — 
Pai] (Pa'u Gn. 36" f). Perhaps we should follow (g of Gn. 
and read Pe or ("ilJJS), a mountain and city north-east of the 
Dead Sea not definitely located (cf Nu. 23'' Dt. 3"). The 
mention of his wife and her maternal ancestry is striking; pos- 
sibly through this connection he laid claim to the kingship. 
The names occur only here and in Gn. 36'', except Mehetabel, 
"God confers benefits," which is the name of an ancestor of the 
false prophet Shemaiah (Ne. 6'°). — Me-zahab] means "waters of 
gold." — 51*. And Hadad died] not in Gn., probably a copyist's 
or the Chronicler's blunder, thinking that the list of kings con- 

5l''-54. Tribal chiefs of Edom.— Taken from Gn. 36^°-" with 
briefer introductory formula and omission of the concluding sum- 
mary. Why the Chronicler should have given these as chiliarchs, 
tribal chiefs, when he omitted in the previous lists this title given 
in Gn. 36'5-'3 jp-^o^ is not clear unless he felt that they were the 
followers of the kings. This list has been differentiated from the 


I. 43-54.] RULERS OF EDOM 79 

previous ones because the chiefs were heads of territorial 
subdivisions and not purely tribal and possibly ruled after the 
conquest by Israel (Dr.). — 51^. The chief of Timna] and 
similarly in the names following. — Timna ]. Cf v. '«. — Aljah] 
('Alwah Gn. 36^° f) perhaps identical with Alwan v. 40. — 
Jetheth] (Gn. 7,6*" ■\).— 52. Oholibamah] (in Gn. 362- »• '<• 's. « the 
wife of Esau, 36^' as here f). — Elah] probably the seaport usually 
called Elath. — Pinon] (Gn. 36^') probably Punon of Nu. ;}^*^ ' , 
between Petra and Zo'ar (Onom. 299, 123). — 53. Kenaz]. Cf. 
v. ". — Teman]. Cf. v. ". — Mibsar] and Magdi'el] (Gn. 36*^ f) 
both in the Onom. (277, 137) located in the district of Gebal (south 
of the Dead Sea), and the former, under the name of Mabsara, as a 
considerable village belonging to Petra. — 'iram] (Gn. 36^'). A 
king of Edom 'Arammu is said to bv, mentioned in Assy. ins. 
(Ball, Gn. p. 94). 

43. Ssntt'^ . . . D-iDScn] (g^ ol ^aaCketi avrwv = oniDSon adopted 
by Bn., Ki. SBOT. The latter inserts a^3'?Dn with the succeeding 
relative clause as a footnote. Ki. Kom. follows 1|, which is better, since 
<&^^ make the originality of the Vatican text doubtful. — Before jjSa Gn. 
3632 has DiNa ^Sc■'1. — yh^l 05 BciXa/c, ® aySa were influenced by the simi- 
larity to the names in Nu. 22 {cf. Sayce, art. Edom in DB.). — 46. ma] 
(6 here and in Gn. 36'^ BapaS = ^^3. — nry] Qr., some MSS., H and Gn. 
3635 nil]?. <S T€0da(i.)tJi here and in Gn. = a name like D(i)ny, hence Ki. 
has a lacuna in the text. — 47. Vv. ^'b-"* in 05^ follow v. "■>. — 50. Sya 
pn] many MSS., CS, Gn. 36" + -ii33y p. — Mn] Gn. "nn, but there some 
MSS. of ^ and of the Samaritan Pentateuch ^^^ which, as the dynastic 
name of Edom, Ball, SBOT. adopts. Ki. influenced by I'tos BapaS of 
igB corrects to mn. — ij;d] many mss., B, Gn. lyiJ. (^ in both places 
^oywp = lyD and so Bn. More likely nyo - lyc. — V. ""^ is wanting in 
(S'*, and so considered a later addition from Gn. by Bn., but the con- 
fusion of the Vatican text at this point discredits its value. — 51. hdm 
Tin] wanting in Gn.— The text of Gn. 36<''=' ^vy idiSn didb' hSni 
nnciio oncpcS anncccS allows the phylarchs to have been contempora- 
neous with the kings previously recorded, while its substitute ^or'H rmi 
Di-iN suggests that they followed the kings (Be.). This is given directly 
in H, Adad autem mortuo duces pro regibus in Edom esse coeperunt ; so also 
in 21. Probably, however, the Chronicler's change was simply that of 
condensation without introducing an exact order of succession. — niSy] 
Qr., many MSS., U, ®, Gn. 36<'' niSy. (& TuXa = nSv probably from 


II-IX. The descendants of Jacob. — The pedigrees of the sons 
of Jacob are arranged according to the geographical position of 
the territory occupied by the several tribes. With Judah (23-423) 
as the proper starting-point, the Chronicler passes through Simeon 
(4"-") on the south, sweeps around the Dead Sea through the east- 
Jordanic tribes, Reuben (5'-'"), Gad (5"-"), and the eastern half- 
tribe of Manasseh (5^3 ' ) from the south to the north, and, after 
inserting Levi (5"-6«« (6' -*'))> with his cities in both eastern and 
western Palestine (Jos. 21), at this convenient point, crosses into 
the northern part of western Palestine to Issachar (7'-^), Zebulun 
(7"-" corrected text, see on c. 7), Dan (7'2 corrected text), Naphtali 
(7'3), Manasseh (7''-'0, Ephraim (7^°-''), and Asher (73°-'"'), com- 
pleting the circle with Benjamin (cc. 8, 935-44) and the list of the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem (9' 34) unless this list came from another 
and later hand. Asher should appear earlier in the list, but see 
comment on i Ch. 730-31. (^j^ 27'^ « Asher is wanting.) More 
space is given to the descendants of Judah than to those of any 
other tribe, one hundred verses in all, while the tables of the 
house of Levi occupy eighty-one, Benjamin fifty, and a scant 
eighty-six suffice for the other ten tribes combined. Before 
inquiring further into the question of authorship — or, more 
properly, editorship — it may be observed that this is exactly what 
should be expected from the Chronicler. Chronicles-Ezra- 
Nehemiah is primarily a Levitical history of the Judean people. 
In the body of the work events of the N. kingdom are ignored, 
except as they touch Judean affairs. Hence it is not strange 
that the Chronicler should have collected the most genealogical 
notices for Judah and Levi. Benjamin also would receive special 
attention, since according to the post-exilic conception that tribe 
remained loyal to the house of David and was part of the S. 
kingdom (i>. EBi. art. Benjamin, § 7). 

The analysis of these chapters depends upon the idea of the Chron- 
icler's character and purpose. With the premise that he intended these 
chapters only to serve as an introduction to his history of the Davidic 
kings, the task of striking out those parts of the genealogies carried down 
beyond the time of David becomes merely mechanical. But this premise 
cannot be sustained only on the ground that these tables precede the 

n. 1-2.] THE SONS OF ISRAEL 8l 

Davidic history. Nor can an analysis be based on the presupposition 
that the Chronicler would be careful to avoid conflicting details either 
in his own composition or in the matter he incorporated, since all that 
Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. reveals about his character as a writer stamps him as 
anything but consistent. The first chapters do not appear to be only 
an historical introduction cast in a genealogical mould, but also a 
genealogical and geographical preface to the succeeding chapters. As 
such they served a useful purpose, especially for a period of Hebrew 
history without a chronological era. As a reader consulting a modern 
history of Israel for information concerning one of the kings can turn 
to the chronological appendi.x first to learn the dates of his reign which 
' suggest the general setting, so the reader of Chronicles could learn the 
chronological position by consulting the table of the kings (3'" *■), or, 
if it were a high priest, the table of the high priests (6^ ^- (5=' "■) ). 
Furthermore the Chronicler may have introduced some genealogies 
without any particular reason aside from his own interest in them. C. i 
clearly shows that he used practically all the genealogies he had for the 
early history, hence it is reasonable to suppose that the following chapters 
contain pretty much everything he was able to find. He seems to have 
considered it more important that a genealogy should be preserved than 
that it should be consistent with others already incorporated. An 
account of the geography of many of the tribes was also of interest to 
the reader of the Chronicler's history. This was probably suggested by 
the account of the distribution of territory in Jos. 12-24, which precedes 
the history of the Hebrews in Palestine recorded in Ju.-S.-K. These 
geographical notices are omitted strangely enough from the records of 
those tribes which occupied what was known as Galilee in the later 
times, viz., Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, and Asher. A possible explanation 
may be found in the fact that this territory is not involved in the 
Chronicler's history. Instead of giving the dwelling-places of Judah 
and Benjamin he inserts the inhabitants of Jerusalem (9' « ), their com- 
mon great city. 

II. 1-2. The sons of Israel. — These are introduced as a basis 
for the subsequent enumeration of the famihes of Israel. They 
are given as follows, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and 
Zebulun, the six sons of Leah, Dan, son of Bilhah Rachel's maid, 
Joseph and Benjamin, sons of Rachel, Naphtali, also a son of 
Bilhah, and Gad and Asher, sons of Zilpah Leah's maid. The 
position of Dan before the sons of Rachel, instead of after, is strik- 
ing. Otherwise the order is the same as in Gn. 35^^'"^^ and Ex. i'-' 
(omitting Joseph), late priestly narratives (P), where Dan follows 
Benjamin. The tribes, however, are not enumerated uniformly in 


the Old Testament, cf. Gn. 468-" 492-" Nu. i'-' 'o" 13*'' 26^-'* 
Dt. 2,3'"''' ^t al. (For a full exhibition of the orders of arrangement, 
of which there are some seventeen different ones in the Bible, and 
for a discussion of the subject, see EBi. art. Tribes by G. B. 
Gray, also art. in Exp. Mar. 1902.) 

II. 3-1 V. 23. The genealogies of Judah. — This passage con- 
tains: (i) the descendants of Judah to Hezron's sons Jerahmeel, 
Ram, and Caleb (s'-'); (2) the descendants of Ram down to 
David and his nephews (2'"-") ; (3) descendants of Caleb, including 
the family of a son born to Hezron in his old age (2""); (4) the 
descendants of Jerahmeel (2"-"); (5) a supplementary table of 
Jerahmeelites (2'^-"); (6) supplementary tables of Calebites 
(2"-"); (7) supplementary tables of the descendants of Ram (c. 3); 
(8) a second genealogy of Judah (4'"). 

At first sight we seem to have here a confused mass of genealogical 
matter accumulated through various insertions (the view of Bn., Ki.). 
Both 2'* '■ and 2" «■ contain tables of Calebites, but if either were a 
later addition we should expect the interpolator to have placed his 
supplement in direct connection with the other, but now they are 
separated by vv. "-". Similarly we should expect c. 3, if secondary, 
to be placed after 2'°-'^. On the other hand, as the work of the Chron- 
icler, the order is natural. First he gives his primary genealogical 
material in the order Ram, Caleb, and Jerahmeel, and then appends 
supplementary matter {v. i.) concerning each in reverse order. This 
reversal of order is the Chronicler's habit {cf. i< «• " « et al.). (2' gives 
the sons of Hezron as Jerahmeel, Ram, and Chelubai ('31S3). Since 
Ram is considered first (2'° "■), we should expect his name to appear 
after that of Chelubai, according to the Chronicler's habit of consider- 
ing the last first (v. s.). The name Ram may have fallen from the 
text of V. 5 by haplography, since the first word of v. '" is also Ram, 
being reinserted later in its present place. In that case final ' of 
'<2^h^ represents the initial 1 of ai pni- One is tempted to find support 
for this suggestion in (B^^ where Kal 'Apd/a actually follows 6 XaX^/3, 
but since 6 'Pd/x also precedes it, the former could be due simply to dit- 
tography. However, it is not necessary to suppose that the Chronicler 
would be consistent with his usual scheme.) 

The first table of Caleb's descendants (2»« ^ ) is regarded as secondary, 
by Benzinger, who finds the original list of Calebites in vv. "-so*. This 
is possible, especially if only one table of Calebites is ascribed to the 
Chronicler, but against it may be urged that as Jerahmeel of the sons 
of Hezron comes first in v. ', the Chronicler would be likely to place the 

n. 1-2.] THE SONS OF ISRAEL 83 

list of his descendants last. Since the position of Ram's descendants 
seems to be firmly fixed (2'° "■), the proper place for the table of the 
Calebites is between these two, that is, just where it is found. Benzinger 
has also unnecessarily considered the passage concerning the family of 
Segub (221-23) to be out of place, but this passage forms a necessary intro- 
duction to V. 24 (corrected text v. i.). Although the latter is a doublet 
to V. '">, since Ashur is probably the same name as Hur, and Ephrathah 
is to be identified with Ephrath, the Chronicler who differentiated Hur 
and Ashur elsewhere (V) may have done so here also. Then 2^^-'^ 
was introduced by the Chronicler in this place because the birth of 
Segub, Hezron's death, Caleb's marriage to his father's wife, and the 
birth of Ashur are successive events in Caleb's life. This is further 
attested by the chronological order shown in v. ", and Azubah diid, and 
Caleb took, etc. On this principle vv. ''-^^ constitute a perfect unity. 

2*^-" is doubtless an appendix to the descendants of Jerahmeel, since 
V. '"', these were the sons of Jerahmeel, is certainly a closing formula. 
Hence we have an appendix for each of the three sons of Hezron, 
Jerahmeel (2^-^'), Caleb (2""), and Ram (c. 3). The first of these was 
probably put in the form of an appendix either because the compiler 
recognised the variant tradition regarding the genealogy of Sheshan 
(cp. V. ^ and v. '') or because he differentiated the two Sheshans, hence 
w. ^ ^- had no direct connection with Jerahmeel. The second appendix 
with its geographical names and the third with its list of kings constitute 
proper material for postscripts. The reverse order of these additions 
is so suggestive of the Chronicler that it is safe to ascribe them to his 
original compilation in the absence of any strong evidence to the contrary. 

The first verse of 4'" is regarded by Benzinger as a superscription in 
which five descendants of Judah, Perez, Hezron, Caleb (so read for 
Carmi, v. i.), Hur, and Shobal, are co-ordinated as sons, while according 
to 2^ I'- they are members of a descending line. He further supposes 
that the Chronicler then took these up in reverse order. He strikes.out 
as secondary the verses which interrupt this scheme, viz. vv. ^-'f is. 21-23. 
It is doubtful, however, if v. • ever was intended as a superscription to 
w. '-2'. This verse is directly connected with v.', with which it shows 
the Judean descent of the Zorathites, cf. 2^'. The Chronicler apparently 
used the device of putting the first five descendants in juxtaposition as a 
convenient abridgment {cf. ii ^ " ^■), since their relationship was well 
known or could be learned from c. 2. Where he passes beyond well- 
known names (v. =) the relationship is indicated. The following 
genealogies seem to be nothing more than short tables of Judean families 
which the compiler considered worth preserving. There is no good 
reason why they could not have come from the Chronicler, nor is there 
much ground upon which to argue for their authenticity. On the age 
of the material, see c. 4. 


The source from which the Chronicler derived those genealogies not 
found in the OT. is uncertain. There is Httle likelihood that he had a 
book of Judean genealogies. More probably he used all the material 
which came to hand, connecting the names when possible with one of the 
older branches of the family. Identity of names was sufficient for this 
purpose (see below on 2-"). 

II. 3-8. Sons of Judah. — These verses, except v. ', contain 
gleanings from the historical books. The writer seems hard put 
to find descendants for certain branches of Judah. — 3. The sons 
of Judah Er, Onan, etc.], derived from Gn. 38, (/. Gn. 46"'-. — 
And Er the first horn of Judah, etc.\ This remark is taken ver- 
batim from Gn. 38', hence Bn. without reason infers the passage 
secondary to Ch. The omission to record the similar fate of 
Onan, Gn. 38'°, is noticeable. Here, however, as elsewhere the 
Chronicler assumes that his readers are familiar with the narratives 
of the Hexateuch. The story of the untimely death of Er and 
Onan implies that two of the ancient clans of Judah early disap- 
peared. — The Canaanite mothers Shu a and Tamar indicate a 
union of Israelite Judean stock with Canaanites. Reminiscences 
of early tribal history were thus preserved in folk-tales. For 
descendants of Shelah cf. 4-' 9^ Ne. ii\— 4. And Tamar his 
daughter-in-law bore to him Perez and Zerah] derived from Gn. 
38"-=°. Perez and Zerah were the youngest clans of Judah. 
Zerah, perhaps the autochthonous, was according to Stade of pure 
Canaanitish stock originally and at first surpassed Perez, but later 
declined (Ge^f/z. I. p. 158). — 5. The sons of Perez: Hezron and 
Hamul], also a direct quotation from Gn. 46'^, cf. Nu. 2621. On 
Hezron see ^'v. ' « . Beyond the family of the Hamulites, Nu. 26^', 
no descendants of Hamul are given elsewhere in the Old Testa- 
ment. (On the name see textual notes.) — 6. The sons of Zerah: 
Zimri and Ethan and Heman and Calcol and Darda'^]. Zimri is 
Zabdi of Jos. 7'- '» (for change of spelling see text. note). Ethan 
the Ezrahite, Heman, Calcol, and Darda sons of Mahol, are men- 
tioned in I K. 5'i (431) as distinguished wise men whom Solomon 
surpassed. Hence since Ezrahite (Tl'lTS) might be explained as 
a descendant of Zerah (BDB.) and may be regarded as an attrib- 
utive of Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the Chronicler evidently 

n. 3-8.] SONS OF JUDAH 85 

placed these wise men as descendants of Zerah (Meyer, Entst. Jud. 
p. 161). This identification has generally been accepted (Be., 
Ke., Mov., but not by Zoe.). Ethan and Heman occur also in 
I Ch. as the names of two Levitical singers of the time of David, 
Ethan =Juduthun, 6" ^**> 15'^ i^, and an Ethan is also given among 
the ancestors of Asaph, i Ch. 6" <«', and Heman i Ch. 6'8 "s) 
j64i. 42 251- •1-6. From the point of view of the Chronicler, since 
this Ethan and this Heman are Levites they cannot have been 
identical with those of our passage. Pss. 88 and 89, however, 
according to their titles are maschils of Heman the Ezrahite and 
Ethan the Ezrahite. Since Ps. 88 is also Korahite it is probable 
that Ezrahite Ethan and Heman in the titles of these Psalms repre- 
sent both the Levitical singers and the wise men of i K. 5" (43'). 
In short, the one Ethan and the one Heman of Israel's early tradi- 
tions, synonyms of wisdom, seem each in the genealogical system 
or notes of the Chronicler to have been evolved into two persons. 
Ewald (Hist. III. p. 278) thought that the two great singers of the 
tribe of Judah were taken by the Levitical music schools into their 
company and family and were afterward in the titles of Pss. 88, 89, 
reckoned to the tribe of Levi. When these wise men lived, 
whether they were cotemporaries of Solomon or traditional wise 
men of a more ancient past, we have no means of knowing. Ac- 
cording to Seder Olam Rabba (ed. Meyer, p. 52), they prophesied 
in Egypt. (For a fanciful interpretation of their names connecting 
them with Job and his three friends see Klo. on i K. 5".) — 7. And 
the S071S of Canni]. The plural (''J3) sons of is sometimes used 
in genealogical lists when only one son or descendant follows, cf. 
vv. 8- 30. 31. 42 Qn. 36" 46" Nu. 26'. — 'Achar the troubkr of Israel, 
etc.] 'Achan Jos. 7'- '«■ ■'• "■ ^4 222" (see text. note). The brevity 
of this notice of Achar and the omission of Zabdi the connecting 
link between Achar and Carmi is another assumption of familiarity 
with the narratives of the Hexateuch. — 8. Azariah]. Nothing 
further is known of this Azariah. Whether the Chronicler meant 
an immediate or remote descendant of Ethan cannot be deter- 
mined. The name is very common. No other Zerahites are given 
elsewhere in the Old Testament except Sibbecai the Hushathite, 
and Maharai the Netophathite, two of David's captains, 27"- ". 


3. pB'] <S 2auas = >"!?'. — 5. Sinni] the root Sen with the meaning 
spared BDB. is favoured by the name n>Scn^ on a seal {EBi., art. 
Hamul). <S 'E.p.ovt}\ (« lefwvTjX by dittography of the preceding I) = 
Sicni = Skidhi from icn + '?}< brother-in-law of God. This seems a more 
likely derivation, cf. 4.^, but the meaning is dub., see Ki. SBOT., Kom., 
SS., We. DGJ., p. 22. — 6 . 'ICt] Jos. 7' "^21, (S ZaM^p(e)t in both passages. 
The confusion of 3 and c is phonetic, of t and -\ graphic. — >'-ni] many 
MSS., C6^ + MSS., &, (5, I K. 5" y-nii, adopted by Ki. — 7. According to 
Jos. 7' Carmi was the son of Zabdi = Z/wr/ (z^. s.), hence 1^3 i-»Dt •<J31 
may have fallen from the text or the Chronicler assumed this relationship 
was known. — "IJ>'] Jos. 7' ]y;. In the former we have an assimilation 
of the name of the man to that of the valley of Achor (Dill.) or the latter 
arose from a scribal error, cf. (&^ in Jos. Axap. 

9-55. The Hezronites. — Whatever may have been the relative 
position of this clan of Judah in the early history of the tribe, to the 
Chronicler Hezron was the all-important clan. Of it he reckoned 
by descent not only the royal family of David but also the great 
clans of Jerahmeel and Caleb. The accounts given of them are 
evidently from various sources. V. ' (excepting the word Ram, 
see below) is derived from some old source other than the Old 
Testament. Vv. '"-'* appear to be taken directly from Ruth. 
Vv. 13-17 in contents are drawn from i and 2 S. Vv. 's-^*, regarded 
by Ki. as an insertion (but see above), are derived partially from 
the Hexateuch, although considerable matter is new. Vv. " « are 
entirely independent of anything elsewhere in the Old Testament. 
Of these, \^. "-"^ according to Ki., w^ho follows We., represent 
early material, w. =<-■" late, vv. ^^is early, v. " late, v. *' early, v. *• 
late, w. <' '• early, vv. "" late. 

9. The sons of Hezron. — Hezron] \^^'■ " " " " 4', appears 
also as a son of Reuben Gn. 46 » Ex. 6'^ Nu. 26=' i Ch. 53, and 
as the name of a place indicating the southern boundary of Judah 
Jos. 15' {cf. also Kerioth-hezron Jos. 15"). i'lin is to be con- 
nected with "l^n enclosure {HWB.'\ BDB.). A Hezronite then 
is a villager or dweller in a permanent settlement, a kraal, in con- 
trast to movable encampments. "I'^T! appears in the names of 
several localities of southern Judah and Simeon besides the two 
mentioned; Hazar-addar Nu. 34s Hazar-gaddah Jos. 15", Hazar- 
susah in Simeon Jos. 19', cf. i Ch. 4^', Hazar-shu'al in southern 


Judah Jos. 15" = I Ch. 4" Ne. 11", in Simeon Jos. 19'. Names 
from this root are also common elsewhere (v. BDB.). Under 
Hezron then we may have indicated only semi-nomads inhabiting 
a fixed abode and the name may have come from no political clan 
but only from a social class from which the Hezronites of Nu. 
26" '^ were evolved, and which occasioned this son of Perez and 
likewise the son of Reuben. — Jerahmeel], w. '^ « ". 42^ represents a 
clan dwelling in the days of David in southern Judah, i S. 2710 
3029. — Ratn] as a second son of Hezron is suspicious because (i) 
the Old Testament elsewhere knows of no Judean clan Ram co- 
ordinate with Caleb and Jerahmeel, (2) the descendants of 
Ram, which follow w. '"-'^ are given not in families and cities 
as in the case of those of Jerahmeel and Caleb, \'\'. "" «-<<• 
*«"', but simply in the pedigree of David. Ram is plainly intro- 
duced as a son of Hezron by the Chronicler from Ru. 4". The 
original statement from another source was evidently, and the 
sons of Hezron Jerahmeel and Chelnbai, and this was the intro- 
duction to w. "-"• «-<< "• *», where the descendants of Jerah- 
meel and Caleb are given. — Chelubai], equivalent to Caleb w. 
"-" q. V. 

10-12. The ancestry of David. — Ram begat 'Aminadab, etc.]. 
Omitting the words prince of Judah, derived from Nu. i ', this 
pedigree of Jesse is taken verbatim from Ru. ^^^b-a^^ n jg ap- 
parently artificial, for i and 2 S. know only of Jesse the father of 
David the Bethlehemite. Salma or Salmon was the reputed 
founder of Bethlehem, cf. w. "• ". Nashon the son of Aminadab, 
according to P, was the prince of Judah during the Exodus, Nu. i' 
2' et al. Out of these materials the author of Ruth, or some other 
genealogist, with the added names of Boaz and Obed, possibly 
ancestors of Jesse, constructed this genealogy, placing Ram as the 
son of Hezron at its head. Two facts probably led to the selection 
of Ram: (i) in genealogical lore, the ancient Ram was the son of 
Jerahmeel i Ch. 2", but David plainly was not a Jerahmeelite, 
hence the father's name could not be used in his pedigree, and we 
have not Hezron, Jerahmeel, Ram, but simply Hezron, Ram; and 
(2) the appropriate meaning of the word "lofty," cf. We. DGJ. pp. 
17/., Bertholet, Com. on Ru., p. 69. 


13-17. The family of Jesse.— 13. And Jesse begat his first 
horn Eli'ab, etc.]. According to i S. la-" '• 17'' Jesse had eight 
sons, Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah, and four others whose 
names are not mentioned, and David the youngest. ^ gives eight 
here, adding EHhu from 27", which ^ there has probably by cor- 
ruption (28''^S becoming in''^«, (S EXia/3). Was the number 
eight or seven? According to Budde (SBOT.) the sections con- 
taining I S. 16'° ' 17'' are among the latest additions to the book 
from a Midrash after 400 b. c. Another Midrash, equally current 
then, may have been followed by the Chronicler or invented by 
him, giving the number seven and also the names of the three 
sons, Nethan'el, Raddai, and Ozetn, which are not given elsewhere. 
The genuineness of the name Nethau'el is doubtful, since (accord- 
ing to Gray, HPN. p. 233) it is of post-Davidic formation. 
Raddai and Ozem (see v. ") could well be genuine as far as their 
forms go. — 16. And their sisters Zeruiah and Abigail]. These are 
recorded for the sake of their distinguished sons. According to 
2 S. 17'^ ^ Abigail was the daughter of Nahash and hence she 
has been regarded as a step- or half-sister of David (Be., Ke., 
Zoe., Oe., et al.). Probably, however, the |^ of 2 S. 17" is corrupt 
and Jesse should be substituted for Nahash ((g, B, We. TS., Klo., 
Bu. SBOT.). — And the sons of Zeruiah Abishai* Jo'ab and 
'Asah'el]. These heroes are repeatedly named as sons of their 
mother I S. 26«2S. 2'8,etc. The name of their father is nowhere men- 
tioned. Of the three brothers, Asahel according to the narrative 
of 2 S. 2'»-« was clearly the youngest, but which of the other two 
was the older is uncertain. The order here suggests Abishai; that 
of 2 S. 218, Joab. — 17. And Abigail bore 'Amasa and the father, 
etc.] derived from 2 S. 17". — The Ishniaelite] the true reading 

{v. i.y 

9, UlSa] (6* XaXe/3 = 2^2, » XajSeX.— 10. >J3] (B rov otKov = ro.— 
11. ndSb' bis] (& and Ru. 4" poSiP but Ru. 42" nc'7S', cf. We. DGJ p. 37. 
— 13. ib'^n] many MSB. (Kennic.) ''V, which may be simply a correction 
from the preceding ^U"., v. 12. Since the author would be likely to use the 
same spelling, "U'-n has been taken for an original '•^''i, SS., Ki. SBOT. 
— aijONi]. 05 A^a. is a phonetic error common in (&. — 16. icax] ii^" 18'^ 
iQii- '5 2 S. 10'", but elsewhere in i and 2 S. 'tt'ON, and so Ki. in Ch.; 


(g 'A/Seio-d, 'A/3to-(7d. — 17. ^SNi'C'^'n] 2 S. 172= ^Sn-i-.^'^h. The latter is an 
error of transcription or a Massoretic revision, Dr. TS., Bu. SBOT., 
and authorities generally. 

18-24. The family of Caleb. — Caleb appears in the history 
of David as a clan inhabiting southern Judah and apparently dis- 
tinct from Judah (i S. 25= 30"). According to the narrative of the 
Hexateuch, Caleb the cotemporary of Joshua, the reputed founder 
of the clan, was a Kenizzite (Nu. 32'^ Jos. 14* •*), and since Kenaz 
appears among the grandsons and dukes of Edom (Gn. 36"- '^ *^ 
I Ch. i'«- 53)^ the clan Caleb was originally of Edomitic origin, 
kindred with the Amalekites. They claimed the conquest of 
Hebron and Debir (Jos. i5'3-i7 ju. i"-''). Carmel was also 
one of their towns. Through the influence of David during his 
reign at Hebron they were probably incorporated into the tribe of 
Judah. They are not mentioned subsequently in OT. history 
until Caleb appears in our genealogical lists, vv. '*-2<- "-<' 4"-'^='. 
His prominence here shows at once that Calebites must have been 
conspicuous in post-exilic Judah, forming possibly the bulk of 
the tribe, since the Chronicler knows so few other families. In 
these lists are assigned to Caleb or his descendants towns of 
southern Judah, — Ziph, Mareshah, Hebron, Korah, etc., vv. «", 
clearly the pre-exilic dwelling-places of the clan, and also towns 
further north, Kirjath-jearim, Bethlehem, Eshtaol, Zorah, etc., 
vv. 'o-^i. These latter towns, without doubt, were the post-exilic 
homes of the Calebites. During the exile they were dispossessed 
from their southern Judean homes apparently by the Edomites, 
who after the fall of Jerusalem took possession of southern Judah, 
compelling the earlier inhabitants to move northward. The 
Edomites themselves were driven northward by the Nabateans 
(see Mai. i'), cf. Ez. 35'" '^ 36' (We. DGJ. pp. 28 /., Meyer, 
Entst. Jiid. p. 115, Torrey, JBL. XVH. i. 1898 pp. 16 /.). Singu- 
larly enough in view of the prominence given to Caleb in i Ch., 
there is no direct mention of Calebites in Ezra and Nehemiah; only 
an indirect reference in Ne. 3', where among the repairers of the 
wall is Rephaiah the son of Hur, ruler of half the district of Jeru- 
salem. Now Hur represents clearly, from the appearance of the 
name among Caleb's descendants in v\'. "■ ^^ 4'- ■•, a Calebite family. 


In the notices of the Calebites and Jerahmeelites (vv. ^ ^ ) in this 
chapter have been seen reminiscences of an original migration of a 
portion of Israel from the south into Canaan (S. A. Cook, Notes on OT. 
p. 40, et al.). Such an immigration of Calebites, at least, most likely 
took place (Moore, Ju. p. 31), but a simpler explanation of these 
notices is that the descendants of these clans desired an honourable 
place among the post-exilic Jews and the Chronicler, favouring this 
desire, gave them a prominent place in his work. The theory that 
the Jerahmeelites played any such conspicuous part in the history of 
Israel as is alleged by the editor of EBi. is utterly without foundation. 

18. And Caleb begat sons from ' Azubah his wife daughter of 
Jerioth*]. Under Azubah (n^^TJ?, forsaken) is probably a refer- 
ence to the abandoned home of the Calebites in southern Judah 
(v. s.), and the daughter of Jerioth (ri'y^'', tents) probably 
looks back to the early nomadic life of the Calebites (We. DGJ. 
p. 26). — And these were her sons Jesher f, Shobab, and Ardon |]. 
These sons of Azubah represent pre-exilic Calebite families which 
dwelt in southern Judah. Shobab is also the name of a son of 
David 35 i4< 2 S. 5'^ — 19. When Azubah died then Caleb took to 
himself Ephrath]. Since Ephrath is equivalent to Ephratha v. '» 
4*, a name of Bethlehem Mi. 52 Ru. 4", and possibly the name of a 
district in northern Judah (cf Ps. i32«, Del.), this new marriage 
clearly expresses the movement of the Calebites northward and 
their settlement in northern Judah (v. s., cf. v. "). — Httr] the 
leading family or stock of post-exilic Calebites (cf. Ne. 3', v. s.). 
Identifying him with Ashhur v. ''* 4% he appears as the father, i.e., 
founder or coloniser, of Tekoa and his sons of Bethlehem, Beth- 
gader, Kirjath-jearim vv. "-". (Such a shortening as of Ashhur 
into Hur is not uncommon, c/. Ahaz = Jehoahaz cor. I. p. 255.).— 
20. And Httr begat Uri, etc.]. This genealogy of Bezalel, the 
reputed skilled workman of the Tabernacle, is taken verbatim 
from P, Ex. 31^ 3530^ cf. 2 Ch. i^ It illustrates how material has 
been brought together in these lists. The identity of a name 
seemed a sufficient cause to give a genealogical connection. Proba- 
bly, however, the prominence of the family of Hur and its possession 
of artisans led to the origination of this descent of Bezalel. Vv. 
"-" are singular in this connection, interrupting the story of Caleb's 
matrimonial alliances (but v.s.). — 21. And afterwards]. The refer- 


ence is plainly to v. '. — Machir father o/Gilead] a son of Manasseh 
mentioned as the father or conqueror of Gilead in Nu. 26" 32=' 
Jos. 17' Dt. 3'*''. In Ju. 5 Machir stands for the tribe of Manasseh. 
He was clearly the most important clan of the tribe. — Segtib] not 
mentioned elsewhere, possibly an error of transcription for Argob, 
the district inhabited by Jair (Dt. y* Jos. 13"), who in v. " appears 
as his son. — 22. Jair] given as a son of Manasseh (Nu. 32^' Dt. 
3'* Jos. 13"), also one of the minor Judges (Ju. 10'). — And he had 
twenty three cities in the land of Gilead]. With Jair are repeatedly 
connected the tent villages Havvoth Jair v. " Dt. 3'^ Nu. 32^' 
Jos. 13'°; thirty cities Ju. 10' ' ; sixty cities, wrongly placed in 
Bashan, Jos. 1350 i K. 4'^ The number given for these towns 
evidently fluctuated. They represent the northern portion of 
Gilead. — 23. Geshur and Aram] Geshur, an Aramean tribe 
dwelling in the region of Argob and at the time of David an inde- 
pendent kingdom 32 2 S. 3' 13"'- 15'; Aram, a generic geo- 
graphical term for the country including northern Mesopotamia, 
Syria, and as far south as the borders of Palestine {cf. i"). Here 
the Arameans adjoining Geshur are evidently meant. — Kenath and 
her daughters sixty cities] a district perhaps the modern Kanawat 
east of Argob in Bashan {cf. Nu. 32"). When these were lost to 
Israel is unknown, probably before the reign of Omri, since from 
then on the border fortress between Israel and Syria was Ramah 
(St. Gesch. I. p. 150). — All these were the sons of Machir] the 
summary of a section originally larger probably than vv. 2'-". 
The introduction in the midst of a list of Hezronites from the three 
sons, Jerahmeel, Ram, and Caleb, of those through another son 
by a later marriage renders the contents of vv. ^'-^ surprising, and 
especially are they strange in connecting in any way the Hezron 
of Judah with members of the tribe of Manasseh. Whether the 
historical fact of the incorporation of Judaites with Manassites 
lies back of this or whether the whole notice arises from a misunder- 
standing of genealogical material is uncertain. In the latter case 
Hezron may represent a Reubenite clan of that name {cf. 5^) which 
coalesced with Gileadites (Meyer, Entst. Jiid. p. 160, Steuernagel, 
Einw. Isr. Stdmme, p. 19). In the former case it is possible that 
in post-exilic times a colony of Jews had settled east of Jordan in 


Gilead, and that through this fact arose this genealogical connection 
between Hezron of Judah and Machir (Bn.). In Jos. 19" men- 
tion is made of Judah [on] the Jordan, which has been thought to 
point to such a colony (yet the phrase may be a corruption). 
Judas Maccabeus undertook a campaign in that district in order 
to rescue Jews from the hand of the heathen. Ki., on the other 
hand, holds vv. '^'- to contain ancient material referring to a union 
of families of Manasseh, refugees from northern Israel, with those 
of Judah about 600 b. c; cf. the emphasis placed upon the cities 
of Jair in Dt. — 24. And after Hezron died Caleb went in unto 
Ephrath the wife of his father *] another genealogical notice of 
the setdement of the district of Bethlehem by the Calebites, cf. vv. 
19. 6o_ "Yhe taking of a father's wife was asserting claim to the 
father's possessions (cf. 2 S. 16" i K. 2'^-"), and well expressed the 
legitimacy of Caleb's residence in northern Judah. — And she bore 
Ashhur] clearly a repetition of v. •'=. Ashhiir and Hur must be 
identical. — The father of Teko'a]. Hur was probably the exilic 
or post-exilic founder of Tekoa, or the family settled there. 
Tekoa, mod. Teku'a, is about five miles south of Bethlehem. The 
place is frequently mentioned (4^ 2 Ch. ii» 20^° 2 S. 14= Am. i' Je. 

18. myn' nxi nz'n nairj? ns T'Sin |nsn p aSsi] (g^ reproduces M. 
* has for T^Sin eXa^ev; & for Tin. jc ; Tint, pn. B combines (6*, 
M, and S> accepit uxorem nomine Azubah de qua genuit Jerioth. This 
Ki. (SBOT.) follows, m;?n^ ns TiSri nrs nairp nx npS, but in Kom., 
BH. he follows ^ nx inrx 'I jc. We. (DGJ. p. ^;i) reads na 
niyn' instead of '•> pni. M yields And Caleb son of Hezron begat of 
Azubah his wife and of Jerioth (AV., RV., Kau., Be., Oe.). Caleb then 
has children of two wives, but the context suggests those of only one wife, 
Azubah, 's''- ^^^. J. H. Mich, met this difficulty by regarding Jerioth as 
another name for Azubah, the waw in HNi being explicative. Ke. and 
Zoe. follow & regarding Jerioth the daughter of Caleb and mother of the 
sons of V. isb. On the whole, we prefer the reading of We., preferred by 
Bn. It still leaves the harsh construction of njirj? ns after "rSin denot- 
ing the mother and not the child (nj^N is probably a gloss to render this 
obvious). A parallel construction, however, may be found in Is. 66', 
where i'?'« Hiph. has the force to cause to bear, or HvX may be taken as 
equivalent to nxD, cf. |0 nSiii 8'. — 24. ni^x jnxn nirxi npiDX a':'^^] M 
adhered to by Ke., AV., RV. is clearly corrupt. (6 has ^X^ej* Xa\^/3 


ett 'E<f>pd9a Kal i) yvvrj 'E<Tepo)v 'A^id, so E. The true text, rendered 
above, undoubtedly was h-'Jn jnxn ns'x nmsN aSo k3, We. DGJ., pp. 
14/., Ki. — nnr.s]= "\in-B*{<, We. DGJ. p. 15, SS., cf. Syaa-N = Syatvs 
8" 9", Tints'iN 718. In vv. "• '» 4^ he is called iin, cf. S>'3 -Syjtt'x S'". 

25-33. The families of the Jerahmeelites. — Jerahmeel in the 
time of David was an independent clan like that of Caleb, in- 
habiting the Negeb of Judah (i S. 27'" 30"). It is not mentioned 
in subsequent history. Whether it played any part in the post- 
exilic Jewish community, or whether this genealogy having been 
preserved with that of Caleb was therefore recorded by the Chroni- 
cler, we do not know {v. s. on w. "-'^). All the names given are 
comparatively early ones and favour the antiquity and historicity 
of the list. — 25. Ram'\ v.", cf. vv. '• '» Jb. 32*. A possible con- 
nection has been seen between this family and Abram. The name 
by some is supposed to represent an ancient deity {v. s. i"). — Bu- 
nah and Oren f]. — Ozem] v. '* f. — His brother *]. So we must 
probably read in place of the proper name Ahijah. — 26. 'Aiarah]. 
This name of the mother of the most widely extended family of 
the Jerahmeelites is to be compared for its original meaning and 
derivation with Hezron, v. ', and probably arose from the Jerah- 
meelites inhabiting Ataroth (mitDp), protected places (We. DGJ. 
p. 15). Ataroth alone appears as a local name, Nu. 32' '< Jos. 16', 
and also in combination Jos. 16* 18" Nu. 32" i Ch. 2". That 
Atarah was a second wife probably shows that the earlier sons of 
Jerahmeel represented nomad families, while her descendants 
those of a more settled life. — 0^iam'\ v. *', also the name of a family 
of Edom i^" Gn. 36" f, perhaps connected with Onan the son of 
Judah, V. '. — 27. Maaz and Jamin and Eker]. Maaz and Eker 
are mentioned only here. Jamin is among the sons of Simeon, 
Gn. 46'°. — 28. Shammai]. Cf. 2'-^- '«■ <"• " 4". — Jada] v. «, 
for compounds of root from which it comes (yT*), see i". — 
Nadab] v. "> a frequent name. — Abisfmr] v. " -j-. — 29. Abihail * ] 
name of the wife also of Rehoboam 2 Ch. 11" and a man's name, 
a Levite Nu. 3'^, a Gadite i Ch. 5'% and the father of Esther Est. 
2" 9" f. — Ahban and Molid f ]. — 30. Seled f]. — Appaim] v. =' f . — 
31. Jish'i] 2" 4^°- « 52^ I, a name thus of frequent occurrence. — 
Sheshan] vv. "• ^'- 35 -j-. — Ahlai] 11^' f. — 32. Jether] a frequent 


name. — 33. Peleth] Nu. i6' a Reubenite. Possibly there is con- 
nection with Beth-pelet a city of southern Judah, Jos. 15" Ne. 
I !■■'«. — Zaza]1i. — These were the sons of Jerahmeel] the conclusion 
of this list of Jerahmeelites. None of these families or persons 
are mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament (except Sheshan 
below), and hence nothing more can be said concerning them. 
The fact that Onam is also the name of a family of Edom and Ja- 
min of one of Simeon suggests a close relationship with those 

25. n>nN] the name of a fifth son, Ahijah, AV., RV., Kau., B, ®; 
the name of the mother of the preceding four sons, a D following dsn 
having fallen out, the text having stood 'ND Dxx Ozem of Ahijah, 
Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe. 05 dd{\(pbs aiirov = rfnx has been follovired, 
so Ki. # ^ooiZU. = roN', We. DGJ., p. 15. — 29. S^n-'iN] read with 
many mss., <^^, SinoN. — 30. won] also v. ". Ki. emends to Dno« 
after (S" 'E(f>pdifi, § >o li N '^, since a name D'SN is suspicious. We. 
DGJ., but 05^ may be a corruption of Acfxpai/j. (6*. — d>:2 nS] also v. '^, 

see Ges. § 152M. — 31. ipiri] CS^ 'iffe/M-qX, § ) tS^), both of which 

Ki. (SBOT.) thinks point to a divine appellative at the end, hence 
following the indication of (6^ letrcrouet he reads virs - ■<\p] - '7j;3tt'N 
cf. We. TS., on 1 S. 14". 

34-41. The pedigree of Elishama a descendant of the Je- 
rahmeelite Sheshan.— 34. And Sheshan had no sons bid daugh- 
ters]. To reconcile this statement with v. '"> it has been assumed 
that Ahlai was a daughter of Sheshan, "sons" there indicating 
only descendants (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.) This is possible, but for 
w. "-" the Chronicler probably had an entirely different source 
from that of w. '^-«'. (Ki. regards them as a late section added 
to the work of the Chronicler, giving another and fuller story of 
the lines of descent from Sheshan and placed here as an appendix 
to the families of the Jerahmeelites.) — Jar hi]. Of this Egyptian 
nothing further is known, and also nothing further of the four- 
teen descendants recorded in w. "-■". Although many of the 
names occur elsewhere, in no case can they be probably 
identified with those persons. We do not know also when 
Elishama' (v. ^'), whose pedigree is so carefully recorded, flour- 
ished. Since Sheshan is the tenth in descent from Judah, older 


commentators thought of him as residing in Egypt not far from 
the period of the Exodus and placed the period of Ehshama four- 
teen generations later or near the close of the period of the Judges 
(Ke.). More likely Elishama represents some one near the time 
of the Chronicler. If, however, Jarha lived as early even as 1000 
B. c, and Ehshama about 600 b. c, there is nothing in the charac- 
ter of the names given against the genealogy being genuine. They 
stand in sharp contrast with others which appear to be made up 
from names current in the Chronicler's own time (Gray, HPN. 

P- 235)- 

42-55. Families of Caleb. — Cf. w. '^ 2*. Vv. ^2-" ^' *' ^"^ 
belong together and come apparently from the same source as vv. 
56-33^ Vv. " *'• so"^-" appear also of common origin, and belong 
to the late material of i Ch. (We., Ki.). — 42. The brother of 
Jerahmeel] v. '. — Mesha *] an early family of Caleb (if text is not 
altered) of which nothing further is known; in 2 K. 3^ the name of 
a king of Moab. (^ has Maresha, see below. — Ziph] two places of 
this name are given among the towns of Judah: one Jos. 15^% still 
unidentified, the other Jos. 15", cf. i S. 23'^ » 26^, the modern Tell 
Ziph one and three-quarters hours south-east of Hebron (Baed.* 
p. 170). This latter is here referred to. — Maresha^] the name 
of a well-known town of the Shephelah, Jos. i5*< 2 Ch. 11 ^ 149 «• 
20" Mi. i'= I, the modern Merash (Baed." p. 116). It is difficult, 
however, to bring this place in connection with Hebron, although 
Hebron may in some way have been colonised therefrom. Well- 
hausen regards the name, from the preceding words "sons of," 
as purely gentilic, and not to be connected with the town. Proba- 
bly both Mesha and Maresha are due to dittographies from v. ■" 
and the verse originally read Sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel, 
. . . his first-born the father of Ziph and the father of Hebron. 
The name of this first-born may lie hidden in Mesha or Maresha. 
— 43. And the sons of Hebron]. The descendants now given are 
mostly, if not all, geographical names. — Korah]. The connection 
suggests a town of southern Judah, although mentioned elsewhere 
in the OT. only as a family or descendant of Levi. — Tappuah] 
equivalent to Beth-tappuah Jos. 15", the mod. Taffuh west of 
Hebron {SWP. III. pp. 310, 379; Baed.' p. 152). — Rekem] 


Otherwise unmentioned, probably a town of southern Judah. A 
town of this name is given as belonging to Benjamin Jos. i8", 
also the name of a king of Midian Nu. 31* Jos. 13^'. — Shama ] 
perhaps the same as Eshtemoa' (Hithp. of same stem) Jos. 155" 
21'*, cf. the mod. Semu'a identified with Eshtemoa (Rob. Res. II. 
p. 194). The location of Eshtemoa in the immediate neighbour- 
hood of Hebron favours this identification. — 44. Rahajn]. The 
root (Dri"l) appears in Jerahmeel. — Jorkeam] probably Jokdean 
Jos. 15", mentioned before Juttah, mod. Yata, east of Hebron 
(Baed.'' p. 169). — Shammai] (in v. " a Jerahmeelite tribe, in i" 
Edomite), not identified as a geographical name, perhaps gentilic; 
a name of common occurrence, cf. v. ".- — 45. Ma on] Jos. 15" 
I S. 252, mod. Alain south of Hebron (.SIFP. HI. pp. 404, 415; 
Baed.* p. 144). — Beth-zur] Jos. 15^8 2 Ch. 11' Ne. 3'% mod. 
Beit Sur, four miles north of Hebron {SWP. HI. p. 311; Baed.^ p. 
112). — 46. And Epliah the concubine of Caleb,* etc.]. This verse 
is entirely obscure. Neither Ephali, Haran, Moza, nor Gazaz 
can be identified with any places, families, or persons mentioned 
elsewhere. Ki. joins with v. "^ and marks as a later addition to i 
Ch. — 47. Jahdai]. The connection with the foregoing is not given 
and the name has been taken as that of another wife or concubine 
of Caleb; more probably Jahdai is a descendant of Caleb whose 
name in the original connection has fallen from the text. Of the 
following sons none are otherwise known unless Pelet is identical 
with Beth-pelet a town of southern Judah Jos. 15". The verse 
according to We. and Ki. is to be connected with v. «. — 48. 
Ma acah] entirely unknown, since this cannot be connected \\ ith 
the Aramean Maacah or with various persons mentioned else- 
where in the Old Testament of the same name (3^ 7"^ 8" 11", etc.). 
— Sheher f] and Tirhanah f] are equally unknown. — 49. And 
Shaaph begat*], a continuation of v.". — Madmannah] from Jos. 
15" a well-known to\\Ti of southern Judah, possibly Umm Deinneh, 
twelve miles north-east of Beersheba (SWP. HI. pp. 392, 399). — 
Sheva -f] except Qr. 2 S. 20", entirely imknown. — Machbena] 
perhaps the same as Cabbon, a city of southern Judah Jos. 15*° 
(BDB.). — Gibe a] possibly the same as Gibeah Jos. 15", mod. 
Jeba, eight miles west of Bethlehem (SWP. HI. p. 25), although a 


locality further south would be more natural. The name "hill" 
can readily be thought of as belonging elsewhere. — And Achsa 
was the daughter of Caleb]. Thinking that the Chronicler dis- 
tinguished more than one Caleb and that the son of Hezron differed 
from the son of Jephunneh Mov. regarded this clause as an inter-- 
polation from Jos. 15'% cf. Ju. i'^ It is wanting in ^. Ke., recog- 
nising two Calebs, ben Hezron and ben Jephunneh, held the latter, 
the father of Achsa, to have been a descendant of the former, and 
bath, daughter, here to signify in a wide sense female descendant. 
The original framers of these genealogies probably sought no 
explanation of a Caleb ben Hezron and a Caleb ben Jephunneh, 
but identified the two and gave Achsah as a daughter in each 
case. — 50. These were the sons of Caleb]. This summary 
looks backward, not forward, cf. v. "'', and closes the list of pre- 
exilic Calebites in their ancient homes in the vicinity of Hebron. 
The sons of Hur the first-born of Ephratha]. These words intro- 
duce a new paragraph giving the Calebites of the post-exilic period 
(see above vv. '^ ' ). — Shobal the father of Kirjath-jearim, 51, 
Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Beth-gader]. 
These three, sons of Hur, are either the post-exilic founders of the 
three towns mentioned, or an adoption of the reputed founders of 
those places by the later Calebite settlers. According to Ru. 4" '■ 
Salma was the great-great-grandfather of David. — Beth-gader] 
(115 Jos. 12"), Gedor, see 4*. — 52. And the sons of Shobal . . . 
were Re'ajah^, half of the Manahtites^]. This passage is utterly 
obscure. The emendations are derived from v. '"* 4^. — 53. The 
Ithrites and the Piithites and the Shumathites and the Mishra ites]. 
Nothing further is known of these families of Kirjath-jearim. Two 
of David's heroes were Ithrites 2 S. 23^8 1 Ch. ii^"; their connection, 
however, may have been with Yattir i S. 30" (Klo., Sm.). — And 
from these went forth the Zorathites and the Eshtd' olites]. From 
these families or the Mishraites alone came the inhabitants of 
Zor'ah (mod. Surah, SWP. III. p. 158) Jos. 19^' Ju. 13' "^ etc., 
and of Eshta'ol (mod. Eshua near Surah, SWP. II. p. 25) Jos. 
15" 19^' Ju- 13", etc. — 54f . The sons of Salma] the heading of the 
following places and families. On Salma cf. vv. " ^\ — Netopha- 
thites] Ne. 12", cf. 2 S. 23=8 2 K. 25", the inhabitants of Netophah, 


Ezr. 2" Ne. 7''^, probably a village near Bethlehem, identified with 
the ruin Um Toba north of Bethlehem (SWP. III. p. 52), or pos- 
sibly Beil Nettif (Rob. Res. II. pp. 16/., but see Baed." p. 124). — 
Ataroth-beth-jo'ab] an unknown place. — Half the Manahtites the 
Zorites]. Cf. v. ^^ One half of this otherwise unknown family 
seems to have dwelt at Kirjath-jearim and the other at Zorah. — 
And families of the scribes inhabiting Jabez, Tir athites, Shima- 
thites, Sucathites]. The mention of the scribes shows clearly that 
we have a post-exilic notice, since it is doubtful whether families 
of them existed earlier. The location of Jabez is unknown, cf. 
4' '•. In the three families Jerome recognised three different 
classes of religious functionaries, B canentes atque resonantes et in 
tabernaculis commorantes. © explains somewhat similarly, except 
that the Sucathites are those "covered" with a spirit of prophecy. 
Be. follows H, except that he regards the first class as gate-keepers 
(Aram, yiri =Heb. "ij/w'). We. {DGJ. pp. 30/.) finds underlying 
the three names nyir. a technical term for sacred music, "^12*^ 
the Halacha or sacred tradition, and n^'Iw' which he connects, 
following Be. and B, with HDID booth (so also Ki.). Buhl 
{HWB.^^) derives the last two names from unknown places. Ke. 
interprets as descendants from the unknown Tira, Shemei and 
Sucah. Bn. finds too obscure to explain. — These are the Kenites 
who came from Hammath f the father of the house of Rechab] an 
obscure statement. The Rechabites, Je. 35= »-, probably became 
an integral part of the post-exilic Jews, and families of scribes, 
perhaps from their ancient loyalty to Yahweh (2 K. lo'^ ■■), seem 
to have been reckoned as belonging to them along with their other 
connection with Salma. That the Rechabites were also Kenites 
(Ju. i'^ 4" I S. 15^) is not improbable. An indication of their 
position in post-exilic Judaism may be seen in the fact that one of 
their number, Malchijah ben Rechab, was the overseer of one of 
the Judean districts, Ne. y*. 

42. p-\3n i2,s nirno '>:2^ in i3« Nin i"id3 j:!:"a '?!<::mi ^ns 2*^3 ijai]. 
This text is probably corrupt. ^ has na'nn instead of ytt"!: which Ki. 
follows and strikes out ''ax before pnan as a gloss (Kom., BH.). yu"p 
following Sxcn-ii may have arisen from the preceding jjcit-'Sn v. <• 
(a similar confusion from the present text appears in d, where in place of 



pc^c, the text has yctt'^SN), and nir-ic may be a transmuted dittography 
of yj^D with ■'jai added. Under this conjecture the original text as far 
as can be restored was jnon ^^ni r|n >on nih n^a . . . Snchi^ inx oSo >J3. 
A first-born who occupied perhaps first the district of Ziph, or small 
town Ziph, and later Hebron, is a not unnatural supposition from 
the story of Caleb's relation to Hebron given in Jos. 14^ ^- 1513. It is 
also possible that yif->v has fallen out before n8»-\a through the simi- 
larity of names. — 44. Dj;|-n"'] cf. 0>npi Jos. 15". The two names are 
without doubt identical. — 47. jtrij] 05* Trjpa-w/j,, cf. = Zuyap, which, even 
if corrupt, supports p in the ^ text, hence Ki. ^f")^ — 48. n'?'>]. The 
subject HDi'a requires n-<^_^^, Ges. § 145M. — 49. r\-;-y iSni] to be read 
lya' "i^'i, since f]';\y has already been mentioned in v. *'', and v. <' most 
probably is its continuation, We. DGJ. p. 19, Ki. — 50. p] some MSS., 
(8, H ''J3, required since several sons of Hur are enumerated. — 51. nrhv"} 
^^^ I,a\ufi<hK — 52. DNin] read nisi. This correction is made ac- 
cording to 42, since the former is meaningless, so Ki. — ninjcn] Tinjcn 
according to v. ". — 55. i3u'j] Qr. "'2t?'i\ 

III. 1-24. The descendants of David. 

1-9. David's children. — The sources of this hst are 2 S. 3'" 
5'*-" 13'. With the exception of Amnon, Adonijah, Absalom, 
Solomofi, and the daughter Tamar, these children are known 
only by name. Some names have suffered in our passage through 
transcription. Instead of Daniel v. ' we should read after 2 S. 3' 
Chileah (y. i.). Otherwise the names of the sons bom in Hebron 
present no variations. Of those bom in Jerusalem the Chronicler 
gives Shim a (SVI2tl^) v. ^, for Shammua (yiOto') 2 S. 5'*, Elish- 
amd (yaty^S) V. « for Elishiid (yiC^'^S) 14' 2 S. 5'5 which 
should be read here (Bn., Ki.). The textual corruption in this 
latter case is very evident, since Elishamd appears as the name of a 
son in V. ' 2 S. 5'^ The two names Eliphelet (t3^2''^S) v. ^, and 
Nogah (n)!2) V. ', which are wanting in 2 S., have clearly been 
developed in transcription and should be struck from the text (Ki.). 
Instead of Eljadd (yT''?^) (v. « 2 S. 5'*), the original true name 
probably was Bdaljadd (y*i'''?J?3), given in 14', the change 
having been made to avoid the use of Baal (Ki., Dr. TS.). Bath- 
shu'a (yity-ni) v. S instead of Bath-sheba' (ynty nn) 2 S., i K., 
is a phonetic variation arising from the similar sound of 2 hh 
and "I w. The length of David's reign in Hebron and of that in 
Jerusalem are taken from 2 S. 5^ 


1. jnana n'^xi] 2 S. 32 pi^n^ d^jj nnS •n';'vi. — ^S1J] on con- 

struction, see Dav. Sy>i. § 81 R. 3. — ii33n] 2 S. moa in>i. — >ji:'] 
read with (& >itn, cf. other ordinals with art. 2 S. 3' has inja'Di.-'?Niji] 
a corruption of 2NS3 of 2 S. where C§> has AaXouia = nxSi, so also 
(S^'- here, but ^ AafivirjX. These variations point to a corruption of ^nSj 
into hn'^t into Sniji, so Ki. In favour of this are the errors of trans- 
mission in w. «'■ (v. s.). The name of the second son of David still 
remains doubtful, however, since the name ^n^^d occurs nowhere except 
in 2 S. 3' and 3nS looks like a dittography, see Stenning, DB., art. 
Chileab. — Suon^] 2 S. -F Saj p-^'n, but 05 there agrees with Ch. — 2. 
oiSa'^N':'] twenty mss. and 2 S. omit '^. — 3. SaoxS] 2 S. 3* Sa^jN ja, but <S 
there read 'xS. & has been corrected from l| of 2 S. —'n] 2 S. 3^ db'n 
m. ^ corrected from 2 S. — 4. iS iSu nir-r] 2 S. inS i-iS> nSs. & 
conflates. — 5. mjid'^ni] cf. 14^ = 28. 5'^ — nSij] point with many 
MSS. nSij, Ges. § 69^ — ayvi'] 14^ 2 S. 5'' iima', c/. i S. 16'. — i!t& ra'^] 
one MS., H, 2 S. II and i K. i >'a;^' na, 05 B-npad^ee {v. s.). — 6. jJOiriSxi] 
two MSS., 145, 2 S. 5" Jiiv — (^'. 5.). — 6. 7. njji aSfl^S.xi] wanting in 2 S. 
(i'. .r.). — 8. jjt''?n] 14' yT^^'ai (v. s.). — n;';:'n] must be read nyatt* after 
.striking out njji bSdiSni (i;. j.). 

10-14. The line of descent from Solomon to Josiah. 

— These are the kings of Judah who reigned during this 

15-16. From Josiah to Jehoiachin. — 15. The sons of Jo- 
siah]. The four sons are mentioned because with Josiah the 
regular succession from father to son of the kings of Judah ceased. 
Their names and order of enumeration present difficulties. Three 
sons of Josiah are mentioned in 2 K. whose births were in the fol- 
lowing order: Jehoiakim, 2 K. 23"; Jehoahaz, 2 K. 232'; Zedekiah, 
2 K. 24'8. According to Je. 22" Shallum was another name of 
Jehoahaz. The Chronicler then has either given Johanan an 
otherwise unknown eldest son of Josiah, and has misplaced in re- 
spect to birth Shallum, who should be recorded as older than Zede- 
kiah (Shallum and Zedekiah were sons of the same mother Hamu- 
tal, 2 K. 23=' 24"), or Johanan stands for Jehoahaz (as a copyist 
error, Ki.) and Shallum was regarded as still a different son. — 16. 
The sons of Jehoiakim]. On the plural sons cf. 2^ — Jeconiah] 
Je. 24' 292, called also Coniah, Je. 22"- 29 37', the king Jehoiachin 
2 K. 248-'5. — Zedekiah his son] is otherwise unknown; probably 
an error, having arisen because Zedekiah succeeded upon the 


throne his nephew Jehoiachin {cf. v. '^^ 2 K. 24"). The state- 
ment may be from a glossator. 

17-24. The house of David from the captivity in the line 
of Jehoiachin. — 17 f. And the sons of Jeconiah the captive 
She^alti'el his son and Malchiram and Pedaiah and Shen'azzar, 
Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah]. The adjective captive 
(assir "IDS) having lost the art. was taken in (g, U, (H, also AV., 
RVm., as a proper name. In ^ it makes a part of the following 
name. Kimchi, followed by some of the older commentators, re- 
garded the last six as sons of Shealtiel, since Zerubbabel v. •» 
appears in Hg. i»- »*• " et al. Ezr. 32 et al. as his son, i.e., grandson. 
But the copula before Malchiram suggests the usual interpretation, 
i. €., that all of them were sons of Jeconiah. ^ introduces his 
son (1J3) after each name, giving a continuous line of descent 
from Jeconiah, and in v. '^ Pedaiah is omitted and Zerubbabel 
and Shimei are made the sons of the preceding Nedabiah. 
This last is clearly wrong. Of these sons nothing further is 
known unless Shenazzar is identical with Sheshbazzar "the 
prince of Judah" (Ezr. i*- "). This is probable {cf. Meyer, 
Entst. Jud. pp. 75 ff., Rothstein, die Genealogie des K. Jojachin, 
p. 29) (v. i.). Koster regards Shenazzar as a fiction of the Chron- 
icler in order to make of the Persian officer an Israelite (Wieder- 
stellimg Israels, pp. 28 /. 40). Meyer regards the Davidic 
descent as real. Rothstein identifies Shenazzar with Pedaiah 
{op. cit. pp. 27 ff.). — 19. The sons of Pedaiah Zerubbabel 
and Shimei]. In Ezr. 3^ « s^ Ne. 12' Hg. i'- '2. h 2^- ^\ cf. Mt. i" 
Lk. 3", Zerubbabel who was the prince of Judah under whom the 
Jews returned from Babylon is called the son of Shealtiel. This 
also is the reading of (^^, Salathiel taking the place of Pedaiah. 
C^^ also omits Shimei. The usual explanation, however, has been 
that Pedaiah was Zerubbabel's real father, but succeeding Shealtiel, 
of whom no sons are mentioned, as the head of the family of David 
or Judah, Zerubbabel was called his son. Of Shimei nothing 
further is known. — And the so?is* of Zerubbabel : Meshullam {cf. 
5") and Hananiah and Shelomith their sister] otherwise un- 
known; the unusual mention of the daughter Shelomith shows 
either a marked personality or the founder of a family. — 20. And 


Hashuhah f and Ohel f and Berechiah and Hasadiah f, Jushab- 
hesed f Jive] are also otherwise entirely unknown. It is not 
evident why these sons should have been enumerated as five; 
possibly they were children of one mother or born in Pal- 
estine after the return (Be.) (see text. n.). The names of 
Zerubbabel's children have been thought to express the hopes 
of Israel at that time, Meshullam meaning "Recompensed," 
cf. Is. 42'5; Hananiah, "Yahweh is gracious"; Shelomith, 
"Peace"; Hashubah, "Consideration"; Ohel, "Tent," i. e., 
"Dwelling place of Yahweh"; Berechiah, "Yahweh blesses"; 
Hasadiah, "Yahweh is kind"; Jushab-hesed, "Kindness returns" 
(Be.). — 21. And the son of Hananiah Pelatiah and Jesha iah], on 
son for sons, cf. 2^, — the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of A man, the 
sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shecan-iah]. This list has been inter- 
preted in two ways, (i) Hananiah was the father of six sons 
before four of whom sons was written because they were 
founders of distinguished families of the time of the writer (Be.). 
(2) From sons of Rephaiah to the end of the chapter is a genealog- 
ical fragment representing branches of the family of David, whose 
connection with Zerubbabel was unascertainable (Ke., Mov. p. 
30). Instead of "^^2 (S, B, ^ have lii "his son" and the verse 
reads And the son of Hananiah was Pelatiah and Jeshiah his son, 
and Arnan his son, and Obadiah his son, and Shecaniah his son. 
This is preferred by Bn., Ki., Kuenen, Einl. pp. 114 /. et al. 
and brings the descendants of David, including those of w. "-24^ 
to eleven generations after Zerubbabel, and thus, it may well 
be assumed, to the time of the Chronicler {v. Intro, pp. 5 /.). — 
22-24. Of the persons here named nothing further is known. In 
V. " the sons of Shemaiah are enumerated as six. Since only 
five are given, a name has either fallen from the text, or we 
should omit and the sons of Shemaiah and read and Hattush (v. i.). 
None of the names here given as descendants of Zerubbabel 
appear in the genealogies of Christ recorded in Mt. i' ^- Lk. 
3" ^•. Some have thought to identify or connect Hattush with 
the one recorded in Ezr. 8^ Ki. holds that if this is the case 
he is the son of Shecaniah and, as mentioned, and the sons of 
Shemaiah should be struck out. Then and the sons at the begin- 


ning of the verse is correct and the number six is accounted for. 
The name Hattush, however, is not infrequent (Ne. 3'° 10* 12'). 

17-24. Rothstein in his somewhat fanciful monograph on these verses 
{pp. cit. s.) presents the following: In vv. " '• read n^DNn and omit "ija 
at end of v. '^. SheaUiel and Malchiram were born before Jehoiachin 
was released by Evil-Merodach and were probably put to death by 
Nebuchadrezzar, in view of the rebellious character of the Jews, that the 
line of David might be childless. The name SheaUiel, " I have asked of 
God," was given because the father had prayed for a son, and the name 
Malchiram, ' My king is exalted," because it was of double meaning, 
a possible expression of allegiance to the Babylonian king or of trust in 
Yahweh the King. Pedaiah and the other sons were born after their 
father's deliverance. This is revealed in the meaning of Pedaiah, 
"Yahweh hath redeemed," and of the other compounds of Yahweh, 
which are similar expressions of hope and trust. Shenazzar on the other 
hand is not the name of another son, but the Babylonian name of 
Pedaiah which reappears in the Sheshbazzar of Ezr. 1 '. Sheshbazzar and 
Pedaiah are the same person. The correctness of Pedaiah's fatherhood 
of Zerubbabel (v. 's) is maintained. Zerubbabel's name implies his birth 
in Babylon, while his brother Shimei=^Shemaiah "Yahweh hath heard" 
was born in Palestine. At the beginning of v. 20 read q^z'd ija (v. also 
s.) and revise the names reading nou'n "Yahweh considers," instead of 
n2'yn (v. s.), and SN^n^. ('^xm'') "Yahweh causes to live," instead of '^hk 
(v. s.) and nnu'v "Yahweh brings quietness," instead of ion 2Z'v 
(v. s.). V. 2' should read n^D-M . . . n>Dii r^■>';'i'^<^ niaSo n>jjn '>:2^, the 
verse mentioning only the sons of Hananiah, >J3 being repeated through 
copyist error. Instead of inx read n^nx. In v. " eliminate niyDC ij3i 
as copyist error and read Cijnv S>eji is an equivalent for Snjv and in 
place of the unexampled nna read nn;y and instead of nnyj read 
T^''-]VJ. In v. 2» read "■m instead of pi. The remaining names of the 
section, in vv. "'-, are correctly transmitted and full of meaning. In 
^r>?.''^'??? "Unto Yahweh are mine eyes" is a confession and prayer of 
trust in Yahweh for the fulfilment of promised deliverance from present 

17. ids] read nDxn, the preceding word ending in n has caused the 
loss of the art. — 18. nxxja"!] has been identified with ixau-a' of Ezr. i' 
(v. s.). A comparison of the Greek MSS. of i Esd. 2" and 2 Esd. i' 
shows that Xava^aaffapos was the original form in 05 of Ezr., hence 
-\X3i:'B' probably read isajir originally. — yncin] is either abbreviated 
from nrt>, or a textual error (BDB.).— 19. n>nfl] (Sb^ + 10 mss. SN^nSNtf 
may be a correction from Hg. or Ezr. (v. s.), either by the original 
translator or by a later scribe. Possibly something has fallen from the 


text after nnD.-jai] read with some mss., 05, B, •'Jit, so Kau., Ki., Bn. 
— 20. Since seven sons and one daughter are inconsistent with the clos- 
ing word t'cn, Bn. regards this verse as a later interpolation. Ki. 
suggests the insertion of nSy'n ij3i at the beginning {BH., so also Roth- 
stein, op. cit.). — 21. pi] some MSS., <S, &, QI, 'J3i.— ^jj] (S, B, (S*) four 
times 1J3 + 1J3 at the end {v. s.). — 22. .T>jor -"jai] may be an error for 
'V pi, so 05, 19, §• (but V. s.). — 23. pi] read with some MSS., <&, SI, 
1J31. — 24. inv-iin] Qr. in;nin, (g-^ fiSowa (so (& in 5^^ 9'), H Oduia = 

IV. 1-23. Fragmentary genealogies of families of Judah. 

The meaning, date, and connection of these genealogical notices are 
very if not entirely obscure. They look almost like a gathering of genea- 
logical pebbles rolled together from various quarters, consisting of 
older and younger parts that are kept together only by the common con- 
nection with the tribe of Judah (Zoe.). Several of the leading "fathers" 
are Calebites, i.e., Shobal, Hur, Ashhur, Chelub, Kenaz, Othniel, and 
Caleb. Hence the lists represent members of that clan, and Caleb 
should be substituted for Carmi in v.' (We., Ki., Zoe.). Whether the 
names and relationships reflect pre-ex. conditions or post-ex. is difficult 
to determine. Ki. in SBOT. regarded the passage, with the excep- 
tion of V. ' and a few phrases, as from the older sources of Ch. along 
with 2^6 -33 *--*^- "• <». We.'s view is similar, that in the main pre-ex. 
conditions are reflected. Be. held, on the other hand, from the mention 
of a number of the names in the history given in Ezr. and Ne., that we 
have a classification of the tribe of Judah actually made in the time 
between Zerubbabel and Ezra, so that these apparently broken and 
incoherent genealogies were plain to the readers of the time of the 
Chronicler. Meyer also finds in the passage a reflection of the same 
conditions when the Calebites had settled westward in Judah (Entste- 
hung, p. 164). Bn. finds also post-exilic conditions {Kom. p. 13). Ki. 
in Kom. adopts this view. 

1. Introduction. — The sons aj Judah; Perez, Hezron, Caleb*, 
Hur, Shobal]. ^ and all Vrss. have Carmi (''i2"l3), but clearly 
from 2*- *• '• 5" we should read Caleb (We., Ki., Zoe., Bn.) (per- 
haps originally '^2b^ easily transmuted into ''J312, cf. 2' ''il'?3). 
According to 25- '• 's «• ^o these sons of Judah are not co-ordinate, 
but after the analogy of i', a line of descent. The treatment, how- 
ever, in the following vv. suggests co-ordinate sons of whom the 
youngest, Shobal, is considered first, v. =, then the next older, Hur, 
vv. '-'", and then the ne.xt, Caleb, vv. "-'*. Next should follow sons 


of Hezron and of Perez. The sons of Shelah w. ^i-" ^lay then 
be regarded as an appendix. 

Bn. finds in v. '« either a fragment of the line of Hezron and in w. 
17-20 the line of Perez; or following 2'^* (as the text stands!) where Ashhur 
is a son of Hezron, the line of Hur having been restricted to vv. ^■* and 
that of Hezron through Ashhur appearing in 2-* + 45-10, ^g regards these 
verses (a^^ + 45->o) as the original Hezron list of c. 4, which originally 
stood after the Caleb list, vv. "■'*, and he holds also The sons 0/ Perez 
were Jehallelel and Ezrah to have fallen out before vv. '6-20^ and thus he 
would bring everything into order. Ki. adopts essentially this second 
alternative. Both Bn. and Ki. regard the sons of Shelah, vv. 21 "^ as a 
later addition. 

2-10. Sons of Shobal and Hur. — 2. And Reaiah the son of 
Shobal]. Cf. 2". Reaiah is a family name among those who 
returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr. 2" Ne. 7'°. — Jahath] is a fre- 
quent Levite name (6=^- ^s c2o. 43) 2310 «. 24" 2 Ch. 3412 •]-). — 
Ahumai f and Lahad f] entirely obscure. Instead of Ahuniai 
we should probably read after (^ Ahimai (Gray, HPN. p. 279), 
especially if a compound of nX, since all other proper names 
which are compounds are spelled thus (see list under nX, BDB.). 
— These are families of the Zorathites]. Cf. 2", where Zorath- 
ites are connected with families of Kiriath-jearim whose father 
was Shobal. Zorah, mentioned in Ne. ii^^, was a residence of 
post-exilic Jews, and hence of interest to the Chronicler. Ki. 
(SBOT.) regards v."- as from a later hand than v. 2°. — 3. And 
these are the sons of Hur* father of 'Etam]. ^ is meaningless. 
This restoration is the most plausible {v. i.). 'Etam is obscure. 
Since Hur appears in v. •• as the founder of Bethlehem, we might 
conclude (adopting the reading above) that v. ' refers to the post- 
exilic localities of the Calebites and identify Etam with the one 
near Bethlehem (2 Ch. ii«) mod. Ain Aitatn (Bn.) (Etam, DB.). 
But Jezreel and Gedor, the names of towns of southern Judah 
(Jos. 15"-"), suggest that our record is of pre-exilic conditions and 
Etam may be the one in Simeon near Rimmon, cf. v. ^K No de- 
cision can be reached. — Ishma f ] and Idbash f] are entirely 
obscure, also their sister Hazzelelponi or the Zelelponite f or Zelel 
shade {cf. Zillah Gn. 4") (v. i.). — 4. Pemi'el and Ezer] persons, 


families, or localities otherwise unknown. The former cannot be 
connected with Penuel east of the Jordan (Bn. mentions Penuel a 
clan of Benjamin 8='); 'Ezer may be identified with 'Ezrah v. ". — 
The location of Hushah is unknown. Two heroes of David's 
guard were Hushites, 2 S. 21 '« 23" i Ch. ii^s 20^ 2711. — Gedor\ 
Cf. V. 18 12', mentioned with Halhul and Beth-zur, Jos. 1558, and 
generally identified with mod. Jediir (Rob., Res.^ ii. p. 13), six and 
one-half miles north from Hebron. Beth-gader (2^') is the same 
place. — These are the sons oj Htir the first born of Ephrathah the 
father of Bethlehem]. Cf. 2^" ' . The words after Hur are ace. to 
Ki. (SBOT.) a gloss.— 5. Ashhiir]. Cf 2'\— Father of Tekoa] a 
gloss ace. to Ki. (SBOT.) cf. 2^^. — The reference under the wives 
HePah and Na arah is obscure. No such places or districts have 
been identified in Judah. (A towTi Na arah was on the borders 
of Ephraim, Jos. 16'.) Possibly Naarah (""IpJ), "maiden," is 
enigmatic, denoting earlier settlements or conditions, and Helah 
(nS^n), "weak," later and less favourable ones. The names of 
several children of both wives, however, may be connected with 
southern Judah, the pre-exilic home of the Calebites. — 6. Ahuzzam 
f ]. Cf. Ahuzzath the friend of Abimelech, Gn. 26". — Hepher] the 
name of a town mentioned with Tappuah (Jos. 12'^) and Socoh 
I K. 4'", and hence evidently of southern Judah. — Temeni f ] the 
word (''JIliTl) means a Southerner, i. e., of southern Judah, cf. 
Teman (patronymic ''^J2\1) the name of Edom, Gn. 36", etc. — 
And the Ahashtarites f] ("'"in'u-'nsn) entirely obscure. The word 
has been given a Persian origin (BDB.). Be. thought there was no 
occasion for this. A textual corruption, however, may underlie it 
and the reference still be to early abodes or families of the Calebites. 
Or it may have originally stood without the connective in apposi- 
tion with the preceding names, being, at the time of the Chronicler, 
a family name of those who traced their origin to the places of 
southern Judah previously mentioned. Possibly also it simply 
summarises the previous families as the Ashhnrites (EBi. II. col. 
1921) {v. i.). — 7. Zercth f and Zohar *]. The latter is the family 
name of Ephron of Hebron, Gn. 23 « 25 «, and of a son of Simeon, 
Gn. 46'". — Ethnan] ('JHS') probably identical with Ithnan 
(pn"*) a city of southern Judah Jos. 15". — 8. And Koz]. The 


abrupt introduction of Koz is striking. Perhaps he has fallen 
from the list of the sons of Helah and should be supplied, so QI. 
He is thus restored at the end of v. ' by Ki. {v. i.). Possibly his 
name was struck out from these lists intentionally, since Hakkoz 
appears as a post-exilic priestly family (24'° Ezr. 26' Ne. 7") and 
the writer desired that the Judean Calebite or non-Levitical origin 
of tliis family might not appear. The identity of names, however, 
may be purely accidental (cf. 24'°). — Anub f ] probably to be con- 
nected with Anab (ijy), Jos. 15''", a town near Debir, mod. 
Anab {SWP. III. pp. 392/.). The names Koz (rip) thorn, and 
Anub (mjy) grape, suggest an allegory, a thorn here bringing forth 
a grape, cf. Mt. 7^^ (Zoe.). — Of Zobebah f and ihe families of 
Aharhel f son of H arum f nothing further is known. Instead of 
Zobebah probably Jabez should be read (v. i.). — 9. And Jabez 
was more honorable than his brethren]. The abrupt introduction 
of Ja bez if not corrupted into Zobebah (v. ') is striking. He 
probably belonged to the family of Koz and was the reputed 
founder of Jabez (2"), and hence represents Calebite scribes of the 
family of Hur who had enjoyed some special prosperity. The 
cause of this prosperity is given in vv. "'• '". His mother had given 
him a name of ill omen, but he had prayed that its significance 
might not be fulfilled and God granted his request. — Now his 
mother called his name Ja bez (^3^) saying I have borne him with 
pain (D^y)] a popular etymology and explanation of the name 
Jabez. Cf. similar explanations of the names Moab and Ammon 
(Gn. 19" '), and of the sons of Jacob (Gn. 29"- 33. 35 ^o^- «, etc.). 
The transposition of the letters 3Xy to |*;2J^ is noticeable. The 
name is equivalent to 2'^]^*', meaning He causeth pain. — 10. And 
Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, Oh that thou wouldest 
surely bless me and enlarge my border and that thy hand would be 
with me and thou wouldest keep back evil so that no sorrow shouldest 
befall me/]. A prayer that the evil signified by his name might 
be averted. — And God granted that which he asked]. This ex- 
plains V. '". 

3. DBiy ^3K n''Ni] some mss. ij3 instead of un and others i2N-ija; 
(S Kal oCro( viol Alrdv; ^ vi.^gl.tV)]? .Agio] *5 — jii^oto, And these 
are the sons of Aminadah; B Ista quoqiie stirps Etam. Something 


seems to have fallen from ^. Kau. follows (S. Ki. on -Mn '<J3 n'^Ni 
DB''j; (And these are the sons of Hur the father of Etam) (also Bn.). — 
'jioSSxn] may be read the Zelelponite or taken as a personal name 
Zelelponi, meaning, Give shade thou that turnest to me (BDB.). It 
is better to see in uis a dittography from the following Snijo. The 
name then is SSxn or perhaps '^'^x. One is tempted to write SnSs 
shade of God. — 6. dtrn] some MSS., SI Dtnx, U Oozam. — iirrnNn] 
perhaps a corruption of ■"mnrs'n the Ashhurites (v. s.). — 7. nnxi] read 
with Qr. inxi, <S Kal Zdap. — p.TNi] 01 + vi|->i, adopted by Klo. PRE.^ 
iv. 94, followed by Ki., Bn. — 8. Ki. following Klo. inserts Y^y 
among the sons of Tip, also suggesting as possible that naasn = y^y 
— 9. Y2p] in popular etymology derived from 3Sj? (v. $.). It is not 
necessary to suppose with Klo. that the name read asyi, cf. 7='. — 10. 
on] a particle of wishing, BDB. as ib (3), Ges. § 1516, or of con- 
dition with conclusion suppressed, Oe., Kau., Ges. § 167c. — ^^"J!? n^B'jJi] 
is difficult to translate. (^ yvCxriv = rtyrc. The readings ^S^]2 and 
naiD have been suggested. Ki. thinks an error lies in the verb and 
reads 'D nnai. Better retain M. — ''3xj; vSaS] noun-suffix as object of 
inf., Ges. § 115c; penult syllable closed, Ges. § 6ia. 

11-15. The sons of Caleb.— 11. And Calub] i.e., Caleb 
{cf. 2' and above on v.'). — Of Sliuhah f nothing is known. (| 
has in place of the brother of Shiihah, " the father of Achsah " Jos. 
15", clearly a makeshift in an obscure passage. Buhl (HWB.^'^) 
suggests the reading Hushah, cf. v. ••. — Mehir f] and Eshton f] 
are also entirely obscure. — 12. Beth-rapha] a place or family 
otherwise unknown. A Benjaminite Rapha is mentioned 8=, and 
Kapha collective sing., or plural Raphaim (mss. vary), 20^ refer to 
the giant aboriginal race of Palestine. A vale (itJDJ?) of Rephaim 
near Jerusalem is also mentioned, Jos. 15^ i8'« 2 S. 5'«- =2. — 
Paseah]^ a post-exilic family name of Nethinim, Ezr. 2*^ Ne. 7^', cf. 
Ne. 3^ — Tehinnah ^father of the city Nahash]. This looks like 
a reference to some post-exilic Jewish settlement, but is utterly 
obscure. — Recah f]. (B>^^ (probably original ($, see text, n.) have 
Recab, and this probably furnishes the true reading and explana- 
tion of the families given in vx. " '•. They were Recabites, cf. 2". 
— 13. And the sons of Kenaz Othni'el and Seraiah], Cf. Ju. i" 
where Othniel is called the son of Kenaz, and is either the nephew 
or brother of Caleb (Moore in loco favours the latter). Othniel 
probably represents a clan. Seraiah (not an infrequent name 


from the time of David onward) as the brother of Othniel is 
mentioned only here. It smacks so strongly of an individual and 
the later period of Israel's history that it probably represents a 
post-exilic connection, cf. v. 14 {cj. Gray, HPN. p. 236). — And 
the sons of OthnVel Hathath f] entirely obscure. — 14. And 
Meonothai f] (TliiyDI) probably represents inhabitants of 
Ma' on, cf. 2". One would expect a connection with Othniel to 
have been indicated. Possibly Hathath represents a mutilation 
by copyist of Me onothai or its original, or perhaps and Meono- 
thai has fallen from the text after Hathath {v. i.). — 'Ophrah] 
entirely unknown. The word occurs as the name of the city of 
Benjamin, Jos. 18" i S. 13'', and also as that of one of Manasseh 
Ju. 6". — And Seraiah begat Joab the father of the Ge-harashim] 
i.e., Valley of Craftsmen, for they were craftsmen]. Ge-harashim 
is mentioned with Lod and Ono Ne. 11", and it may be identified 
with the ruin Hirsha east of Lydda (DB.). Of this Joab nothing 
further is known. Probably a Kenizzite Othnielite Seraiah was 
the reputed father of a Joab who established a post-exilic colony 
or settlement of craftsmen near Ono and Lod. Indeed in post- 
exilic times if not earlier the Kenites, whom some have regarded as 
the smiths or craftsmen of ancient Israel (Sayce, Art. Kenite, DB.), 
may have been reckoned as Calebites. — 15. And the sons of 
Caleb the son of Jephnnneh] Nu. 7,2^^ Jos. 14^- ". The link con- 
necting Caleb with Kenaz is apparently omitted as well known. 
The enumeration of descendants of Othniel before those of Caleb 
son of Jephunneh is in accordance with the method in this chapter 
of mentioning the younger members of a family first, cf. Shobal 
v. 2 before Hur, and Hur before Caleb or Kenaz. — Caleb the son of 
JephufiJieli] a Kenizzite, Jos. 14^- '% one of the twelve spies whom 
Moses sent into Canaan, Nu. 13' 14*, who was rewarded for this 
service with the ancient city of Hebron, Jos. 14". — '/;• f * and 
Elah ■\ and Naam f] entirely obscure. One is tempted to join Ir 
("I"*!;) city, with Elah and find a reference to the city Elath (n^i< = 
n^"'i<). Dill., Gn. 36*«. At all events Elah is an Edomitic name 
which may be seen in El-paran (p£ ^''S) the wilderness south of 
Judah. Possibly post-exilic Calebites looked upon the ancient 
Edomitic city of Elath as having belonged once to their clan. — 


And the sons of Elah, Kenaz*]. This statement is surprising unless 
Elah as suggested is the name of the district of Elath or El-paran, 
which might have been the early home of the Kenizzites, or the 
name of the tribe of which Kenaz was an offshoot. Ki. thinks a 
name has fallen from the text and that another son was enumer- 
ated with Kenaz. Both Bn. and Ki. regard v. '* as an insertion. 
This is probable; some one missed an allusion to Caleb the hero of 
Judah and inserted a bit of genealogical lore concerning him. 

11. ^^VL^' ^nx 21S31] (B xal XaX^jS iraryp Aa-xo-(^) is a correction from 
2". — 12. i:'nj] (&^^ +\(f>ov 'Ea-e\o5ix{v) rov X€i'ef(e)/, l a. Addo/j. r. 
Keve^aiov, adopted by Bn., Ki., since it supplies a connecting link 
with V. ". Ki. recognises the difficulty raised by this unknown EcreXw/i 
being represented as a son of Tehinnah and of Kenaz at the same time, 
which he explains as a mixture of families. But Eo-eXw^a is merely a 
corruption of Eaedujv (cf. (gi- AOdopi.) = |1.-t^x, hence (B read jins'X ^hn 
vipn which in turn originally was 'i? 'H 'H, the brother of Eshton was 
Kenaz, an early gloss to connect with v. '^ — hd^] (S^^ 'P^jx^i/S of which 
•* Vrjda is a corruption, hence (S = 23^, cf. 2". — 13. n.^n] <&^ + Kal 
Mauvadei, B ct Maonathi = \'nijiyDi, adopted by Bn. and Ki. — 15a^. 
1^ hSn n>y (gB "H/5 'ASai, ^ "Rpa 'AXd, "B Hir et Ela = hSni n^;, so 
Ki. This we have adopted. We. (DGJ. p. 39) retaining ?^ sees in 
iT-j? an equivalent of an^j?, a duke of Edom i^'. — 15b. ij^i rjr'i h'^n] 
some Mss., (B, "B, SI ^iP nSx >jai. Possibly a transposition should be 
made and we should read up ^J3 nSx, these are the sons of Kenaz 
referring to the contents of w. "-'?. The clause then would be 
a gloss, since vv. '8--° without doubt continue the list of Calebites. 
Ki. Kom. supposes something to have fallen from the text before upi. 

16-20. Sons of Perez? — 16. JehalleVel'\ only here and as a 
personal or family name of the sons of Merari (2 Ch. 19^'). 
Since the connection of Jehallelel and Ezrah (v.") is not given, 
Ki. following Bn. (v. s.) supplies: "And the sons of Perez, 
Jehallelel and Ezrah." In view of the sonship of Ziph one is 
tempted in the place of Jehallelel to read Jerahmeel, since in 2" 
Ziph is the son of Mesha, son of Caleb, brother of Jerahmeel 
(EBi. II. col. 2^46).— Ziph]. Cf. 2'\—Zipha f] fem. of Ziph, 
possibly a dittography. — Tiria f ] and Asar'el f ] entirely obscvu-e. 
The latter may be a form of Israel (see text. note). — 17^. And 
the sons* of Ezrah] Ezrah possibly same as Ezer v. ••. — Jether] 


common name, cf. 2'^ — Mered f]. — Epher] name of son of 
Midian i'^ Gn. 25% and of member of tribe of Manasseh 52*. — 
Jalon |]. — IT** f. ^, repeated in U, AV., RV., gives incomplete 
meaning. Usually the clauses are rearranged as follows: ('^b) 
A7id these are the sons of Bithiah ■\ the daughter of Pharaoh, 
whom Mered took, i.e., to wife, (■''') and she conceived [and bore] 
Miriam and Shammai and Jishbah f the father of Eshtemoa ('*'') 
and his Jewess wife bore Jered the father of Gedor and Heber 
the father of Soco and Jekufhi'el -f the father of Zanoah (Be., 
Ke., Zoe., Oe., Kau.). d adopted by Ki., requiring only a slight 
change in the text, gives the following : And J ether begot Miriam 
and Shammai and Jishbah the father of Eshtemoa and his Jewish 
wife bore Jered the father of Gedor and Heber the father of Soco and 
J ekuthiel father of Zenoah; and these are the sons of Bithiah the 
danghter of Phara oh whom Mered took . . . The names of the 
sons of Mered by Bithiah must then have fallen from the text. 
This rendering presents three lines of maternal descent among the 
grandsons of Ezrah (v. '^"), since a Calebite wife must be assumed 
where none is particularly mentioned. — Miriam'] elsewhere in the 
OT. only of Moses' sister, is here evidently a man's name. — Sham- 
mai]. Cf. 2=«. — Eshtemoa ] 6" <"' Jos. 155" 21'^ i S. 30=8 the 
present village es Semu^a south of Hebron {SWP. III. p. 412). — 
Jered f ] except antediluvian patriarch, Gn. 5'^ « . — Heber] a name 
also of the son of Asher 7^' '• Gn. 46" Nu. 26", of a Benjaminite 
8", and of the Kenite husband of Jael Ju. 4"- " 21 ^s". In this 
last is an association with southern Judah. Cf. also Hebron 
containing the same root. — Gedor]. Cf. \.*. — Soco\ Two places 
bore this name, one near the valley of Elah Jos. 15" i S. 17' i K. 
4'° 2 Ch. II' 28'8 modern Kh. Shiiweikeh {SWP. III. p. 53; Rob. 
BR.^ II. pp. 20/.), and the other south-west of Hebron near Eshte- 
moa , Jos. 15^8, also identified, modem name same as the other 
(SWP. III. pp. 404, 410; Rob. BR.' I. p. 494)- This latter is 
probably the one here mentioned. — Zanoah]. Two places also 
bore this name, one near Beth-shemesh, Jos. 15'* Ne. 3'' 11'", 
mod. Zanu'a {SWP. III. p. 128; Rob. BR.' II. p. 16), the other 
south-west of Hebron, Jos. 15", mod. Kh. Zanuta {SWP. HI. pp. 
404, 410/.; Rob. BR.' II. p. 204 note). Here again the latter is 


probably the one referred to in the text. This passage as a whole 
points to some interesting traditions respecting the origin of the 
families of southern Judah. In the "daughter of Pharaoh" we 
may see some intermixture of an Egyptian element in the families. 
— 19. Another entirely obscure genealogical fragment. — Hodiah] 
the name of several post-exilic Levites, Ne. 8' g'' lo" (">> i4'5. — 
N'aham -f-]. — Ke ilah] place of Judah frequently mentioned, Jos. 
15^', Ne. 3'^ '■ (especially in connection with David i S. 23' * ), 
identified in mod. Kila east of Eleutheropolis and north-west of 
Hebron. — Garmite f]. — Before Eshtemoa the word father has 
probably fallen out. — Maacathite f ]. There may be some con- 
nection between this person or family and Maacah, the concubine 
of Caleb mentioned in 2^\- — 20. And the sons of Shimon -j- Amnon 
and Rinnah f Ben-hanan and Tilon f and the sons of Jish i 
Zoheth -j- and the son of Zoheth . . .]. This verse is entirely 
obscure. The name of the son of Zoheth has fallen from the text 
and the relationship between Rinnah and Benhanan (Rinnah son 
of Hanan) is not clear. Probably a connective should be placed 
between them. — Atnnon] elsewhere name of David's eldest son 
slain by Absalom, 3' 2 S. 3' 13' "•. — Jish'i]. Cf. 2''. 

16 . Ss-jti'Si] d Iciparfk = Sx-ifN. This Ki. adopts with the remark 
that possibly even before the time of the Massorites the name Israel 
was altered where employed for individuals in order to preserve it 
in the original form for the chosen people only. (Si^ Aa-epij kuI 
luaxei-jJ.. — 17. ]3i] Heb. MSB. (see Gin.), (B, "B •'J31, so Kau., Ki., 
adopted. — 17t> . The transposition given above requires nS."^! after "\nm, 
see BDB. under n-\n. (g Kal iy^vvrjcev^l^dep^ henre Ki. an:; rx '^•'^^r> i,i>i. 
■ — 19. snj] (^ -\- Kal Aava (or AaXetXa) irarrjp KeeiKd, Kal 'Zu/xeiiov 
(Itefieyuv) iraTrip 'Icofidv, Kal vioi NaTjyu. ^e{u)fjL€iu)v probably represents 
jvcu' or per, thus establishing a connection with v. =". "Narifi is 
doubtless a corruption from Naxe^* = nf^Ji hence the phrase, if orig- 
inal, fell out by homoeoteleuton. Ki. BH. restores as follows: 
Bnj ^j3i ]C(i)'' 13s (tr)pi•sl^M r\^^';p 13N ^f'')^S^(1). The double rela- 
tionship of ihe father of Keilah, however, introduces a new difficulty. 
— 20. pSi.-ii] Qr. and (&'' pS>ni. 

21-23. Sons of Shelah. — A brief notice of families of 
reputed descent from Shelah, whose stock seems to have 
almost entirely disappeared. Cf. for the only other descendants 


recorded 9* Ne. 11°. — The sons of Shelah son of Judah were *Er 
father of Lecah f and Ladah f father of Maresha and families 
of the linen workers of Beth-ashbea f and Jokim f and men of 
Chozeba | and Jo'ash and Saraph f who ruled in Mo^ab and 
returned to Bethlehem*]. '£r elsewhere is the brother of Shelah, 
who died untimely (cf 2'). Since Maresha is the well-known 
town of the Shephelah and Lecah not unlikely is the same as 
Lachish (Meyer, Entst. p. 164) and Chozeba is probably 
identical with Chezib (Gn. 38) = Achzib Jos. 15" Mi. i»* ap- 
parently also in the Shephelah, Beth-ashbea' , otherwise unknown, 
is to be sought in the same region. In the place of returned to 
Bethlehem, AV., RV. have following M Jashubilehem, a proper 
name parallel with Saraph, but the rendering given (Ki.) having 
the support of ($, H, is undoubtedly correct. — Now the records are 
old] i.e., those of these families of Shelah. — These are the potters 
and the inhabitants of Neta'im f and Gederah]. Netaim is other- 
wise unknown. Gederah is mentioned in Jos. 1536. RVm. trans- 
lates them rendering, those that dwelt among plantations and 
hedges. — The clause, They dwelt there in the king's service] is an 
evident look backward. — These obscure w. ='-" probably preserve 
the family traditions and relationships of certain weavers and 
potters of the post-exilic times. The reference to Moab and a 
return points to some story similar to that of Ruth. A connection 
between Joash and Saraph, especially from their ruling in Moab, 
and the post-exilic clan Pahath-moab "Governor of Moab," Ezr. 
2" 8< 10'° Ne. 3" 7" io'5 (H)^ has been seen {cf. however, Pahath- 
moab, DB.). Bn. holds v. " entirely unintelligible. 

A very readable exposition of these obscure verses in the light of the 
discovery of jar handles in S. Pal. inscribed with names similar or 
identical to those here given is presented in the Pal. Exploration 
Fund Quarterly Statement 1905, by R. A. Stewart Macalister, under 
the title, The Craftsmett's Guild of the Tribe of Judah, pp. 243 ff., 328^. 

21. In jjatrx a corruption of Sya'J'N has been found, see EBi. Names 
§ 42. — 22. nnS nu'^] Be., adopted by Ki., DnV pi? nr^. (S^ ^oi 
dTr^(TTp€\pev aiiTov a^edrjpelv ddovKielv. U renders the entire verse after 
the style of an old midrash: Et qui stare fecit Sole?n virique Mendacii, 
et Securus et Incendens qui principes fuerunt in Moab, et qui reversi 
sunt in Lahem. 


24-43. Genealogy, geography, and history of Simeon. 

The notices of Simeon naturally follow those of Judah owing to 
the close connection between the tribes, cf. Ju. i'. The lot of 
Simeon was south of Judah, and his cities, Jos. 19'', were within 
Judah's limits and in Jos. 1526-32. 42 included in the lists of that tribe. 
The account falls into four parts: vv. 2^-" his sons and the geneal- 
ogy of Shimei; w. -s-" their dwelling-places; vv. ^^-s* their princes; 
w. 's-43 historical notices. Of these, vv. =!*• ^^-'^ are derived from 
canonical sources {v. i.). The genealogy of Shimei, the list of 
princes, and the historical incidents at the close are of unknown 
origin. The last were introduced by the Chronicler simply to 
show additional dwelling-places. 

24-27. The sons of Simeon and the genealogy of Shimei. 
— 24. These names appear in Gn. 46'" Ex. 6^^ Nu. 26'^". For 
variations see textual note. Nothing is known of the clans which 
they represent. — 25 f . A line of descent from Shahil, whose mother 
was a Canaanitess, Gn. 46'" Ex. 6'% i.e., the clan contained Canaan- 
itish elements. — Mibsam] and Mishma] are names also of de- 
scendants of Ishmael i^" Gn. 25'% suggesting thus a commingling 
of the Simeonites with Arabians. — Hamu'el *] interesting as one 
of the few OT. names compoimded with DPI "father-in-law," i.e., 
kinsman. Hamuel = "a kinsman is God" or "kinsman of God." 
m wrongly Hammuel = "heat, wrath, of" or "is God." — 
Zaccur] is a frequent post-exilic name. — 27. Nothing further is 
known of this Shimei who surpassed his brethren in the number 
of his household or clan. 

28-33. The dwelling places of Simeon. — This passage is a 
transcription with shght changes (v.i.) of Jos. ig^-^. — 28. Be^er- 
sheba] the well-known outpost of southern Judah present ruin 
Btr es Seba {SWP. III. p. 394). — Moladah] Ne. 11", perhaps the 
Alalath of Jos. {Anl. XVIII. 6. 2) identified by Robinson (BR.^ II. 
p. 201) with Tell el Milk, east of Be'ersheba'. This is questioned 
by Buhl (GAP. p. 183) and Conder (SWP. III. pp. 403, 415) — 
Hazar-shual] 29 Bilhah] or Bilah (see text, note), 'Ezem'] and 
Tolad] have not been identified, likewise 30 Bethu'el] equivalent 
to Beth'el i S. 30" unless Beit Aula west of Hulul (SWP. III. p. 
302). — Hormah] according to JE in Nu. 21^ received its name "de- 


struction" from defeat of the Canaanites before the entrance of 
Israel into the land of Canaan. According to Ju. i" its original 
name was Zephath and the change took place through its destruc- 
tion by Judah and Simeon. Arguing from the name Zephath it has 
been located at Sebaita (Buhl, GAP. p. 184). This is doubtful (see 
Moore on Ju. i"). The city belonged to Judah, i S. 303°, and is 
frequently mentioned Nu. i^'^^ Dt. i" Jos. 12" 15" 19". — Ziklag'] 
the city given to David for a residence by Achish King of Gath, 
I S. 27^, perhaps Asluj a heap of ruins south of Beersheba (Rob. 
BR} II. p. 201), but more generally identified after Conder {SWP. 
III. p. 288) with Zuhelike south-east of Gaza (so Buhl, GAP. p. 
185). It was a post-exihc residence, Ne. ii-*. — 31. Beth-marka- 
both] house of chariots, not identified. — Hazar-susim] enclosure of 
horses, identified in the ruin Susim ten miles south of Gaza (DB.). 
— Beth-biri] probably corruption of Beth-lebaoth Jos. 19'. A 
possible reminiscence of the Lebaiyoth mentioned in the Tell el 
Amarna tablets; not identified. — Sha'araim] Sharuhen Jos. 19*. 
This latter preserves the true and ancient name of the place, since 
it appears in the list of the towns conquered by Thotmes III. 
(Mtiller, Asien iind Eiiropa, pp. 158, 161). The town seems to 
have early lost its importance or disappeared, and the name may 
have been corrupted into Sha'araim. It has been identified in 
the ruin Tell esh Sheriah, twelve miles north-west of Beersheba 
{SWP. III. p. 262). — These were their cities until David reigned'] 
a parenthetical clause introduced by the Chronicler, either a refer- 
ence to David's census (Ba.) or more probably implying that from 
the time of David onward these cities no longer belonged to Simeon 
(Be., Oe.). This was clearly the case with Ziklag, assigned by 
Achish King of Gath to David and afterward transferred to Judah. 
Some of them are given also in the list of the towns of Judah 
in Jos. 1526-32, cf. also i S. 30=". Moladah, Hazar-shual, Beersheba, 
and Ziklag appear in Ne. n^e-zs as residences of post-exilic Juda- 
ites. — 32. And their villages] belongs with the cities enumerated in 
w. 28-31, and is not a designation of those following. — 'Etam] is a 
textual corruption or substitution for 'Ether, cf. Jos. 15" 19' i S. 
303" (where M 'Ethak), not yet clearly located, although placed at 
the ruin ' Aitim near Eleutheropolis (SWP. III. p. 261).— 'Ain- 


rimmon] Jos. 15" 19^ Ne. ii^' Zc. 14'°, a proposed identification is 
Kh. Unim er Rumanim north-east of Beersheba (SWP. III. p. 
261, Buhl, GAP. p. 183). — Token f ] not yet identified. — 'Ashan] 
544 (59) Jos. 15" 19' 21 '« (SBOT.) I S. 30'°, a priestly city not yet 
identified. — Four *]. ' Ain-rimmon was wrongly read as two places, 
hence |^ through corruption has_/zz'e. — 33. Baal\ a curtailment of 
Ba'alaih-be'er ra^math-negeb. "Mistress of the well, the high place 
of the South" Jos. 19% clearly some old place of worship whose 
locality is unknowTi. — And they had a genealogical enrollmejit] i.e., 
the members of the tribe of Simeon inhabiting these places had 
records showing their proper tribal descent and hence held a true 
place in Israel. This observation is the Chronicler's substitute 
or paraphrase of the phrase according to their families Jos. 

34-43. Princes and conquests of Simeon. — A paragraph 
slightly annotated taken from some old source (Ki.). It contains 
a list of names w. ^^-", an explanation of the persons mentioned 
V. ^% their conquest or raid in the direction of Philistia vv. 2'-*' and 
in the direction of Edom vv. ■'^-". — 34-37. The descent of three of 
these Simeonites is given: Joshah one generation, Jehu three, and 
Ziza five, but their connection with families of Simeon is not given, 
unless, in the case of Ziza (v. ")^ instead of Shemaiah ("'•J^Oti') we 
read Shimei (^pJity) cf. vv. ^e «-. Judging these names as a whole, 
they are of a late formation (Gray, HPN. p. 236). — 38. These 
enumerated by name, etc.]. This explanatory statement probably 
came from the Chronicler (Ki. SBOT.). — 39. And they came to 
the entrance of Gerar,* etc.]. iJJ has Gedor cf. \.*, but a slight 
emendation gives Gerar ((^, Ki., Graf, Buhl, die Ed. p. 41), which, 
considering the locality of Simeon, is probably the true reading. 
The expedition then was toward Philistia. — 40. For the inhabitants 
there formerly were of the children * of Ham] a clause, perhaps 
editorial (Ki. SBOT.), explaining the security felt by the inhabit- 
ants or the liberty felt by the Simeonites in seizing their territory. 
The Hamites represent either Egj'ptians, Ethiopians, or more 
probably Canaanites. Cf. the similar quiet and peace of the 
inhabitants of Laish Ju. 18". — 41. And came these who were writ- 
ten by name in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah]. Whether 


the record (Be.) or the raid (Ke., Zee., RV.) of these Simeonites 
was made in the days of Hezekiah is uncertain from the Hebrew 
text; probably the latter and the written record may only refer 
to their mention above vv. 3^-". — And they smote their tents and the 
Metinim who were found there]. The Meunim are usually con- 
nected with the Edomitic city Ma' an south of the Dead Sea, 
twenty-five miles west of Petra (Be., Ke., Oe., Zoe., Bn.) (this is 
doubtful. Buhl, die Ed. p. 41), or with the Arabian Mineans (Gl. 
Skiz. p. 450, Yemen, Ency. Brit.^, Winckler, KAT.^ p. 143). 
The (^ fjiLvaLOv<; favours this, cf. also 2 Ch. 26'. — And they ex- 
terminated them]. There is no reference here to a religious 
motive in the use of the word Din to destroy (BDB. cf. 2 Ch. 20-^ 
32'< 2 K. 19" Is. 37")- — Unto this day]. Cf. v. ", i.e., unto the 
time of the composition of the Chronicler's source. — 42. And of 
them of the sons of Simeon five hundred men went to Mt. Seir]. 
The relation of these Simeonites to those previously mentioned is 
entirely uncertain. The words /ro;« the sons of Simeon have been 
held to draw a distinction between these five hundred and the 
Simeonites previously mentioned (Graf, Der Stamm Simeon, p. 30), 
and contrariwise to identify them (Be.). — 43. The remnant of the 
Amalekites] i.e., those who had survived the attacks of Saul and 
David (i S. 14^' 15' 2 S. 8'') and other foes. These conquests of 
Simeon whereby the tribe gained new possessions remind one of 
the similar expedition of Dan (Ju. 17, 18), and we are inclined to 
receive the record as genuinely historical (rf. Graf, Der Stamm 
Simeon, p. S'^ ff.). This historicity is doubted by Stade (Gesch. 
I. p. 155) and Wellhausen (Prol. pp. 212 /.). The late origin 
of the names in vv. '^-"^ (v. s.) may be said also to point in the 
same direction. The motive, however, for the fabrication of such 
a story is not readily apparent. Some of the older writers saw in 
this conquest of Mt. Seir the establishment of an Israelitish king- 
dom there which served to explain the oracle concerning Dumah 
Is. 21" '• (Mov. p. 136) and (by Hitzig) the kingdom of Massa 
(?) Prov. 30" 31' (cf. Nowack, Prov. p. xix.). For a full discussion 
of the movements of the tribe of Simeon and also further views 
on this passage, which is accepted as recording history, cf. art. 
by H. W. Hogg, EBi. IV. coll. 4527 /. 


24. This list of sons of Simeon appears also in Gn. 46'° Ex. 6'^ Nu. 
2612-13. The variations are as follows: Snidj, Gn. and Ex. Sxic\ 
& has in all cases initial \ otherwise the Vrss. support 1^ in the several 
passages. Epigraphically ■> is a more probable corruption from j than 
the converse. Either form is etymologically obscure (Gray, HPN. 
p. 307). Following ]'Di Gn. and Ex. have ins, and ^ has here ?(ji|. 
2''i^ (&^ ^lapelu is in the parallels p;'', preferred by Ki. and Bn. (but 
(8^ 'lapeiv is probably influenced by the preceding lafj.eiv, original (S 
being that of ^'lapet^S; ^ ■ in« is doubtless corrected from the parallels 
as in many other places, hence is worthless as evidence), mr, Gn. and 
Nu. -ins. — 27. ct;'] (B^^ rpels. — 28-31. Jos. 192-6 nN3 onSma DnS >nM 
^\^2^ j'^psi nmm Sin^i nSinSsi axyi nSai h];yif nsni mSini pau'i j?ac' 
Dn>ixni n-\B';? cSsy onj? jnna'i nivsaS noi noiD ism n^oisn. The 
changes are the omission of Jjaa' and the insertion of 3 before the names 
except SjjiB' ixni mSiD, as the use of i3::'ii required, and nnhz for nS3> "^Nina 
for Sihdj nSin for nSinSx, d>did for nDiD> >Nn3 ^'•2 for niNaS iT'a, 
and anya' for jnns'. The insertion of the clause nm ^SD ny onnj; hSn 
has separated annsn from the previously enumerated cities so that it 
is in apposition with the cities of v. ^^^ thus all the Vrss. and Kau. — 32. 
]im ]^'j is one place and we should read 3?3is instead of tfcn after 
Jos. 19', where ]^ry has fallen from the text (Bennett, SBOT.). In 
Jos. D3'J7 does not appear. Probably it is a corruption of iny, Jos. 19' 
15^2 I s. ^q3o (where ^ has inj;). — 35, Ninii] d" + s mss. ^^l oBtos read- 
ing Nini. — 37. niycs*] Ki. SBOT. corrects to lysr, to agree with v. 26, 
so also Stade, ZAW. V. p. 167. <B^ Xv/xewp = lU'cir', cf. v. ^\ — 40. 
an' nam I'^sn] //;e land is wide of {on) both hands, cf. Ju. 18'° Is. 22'* 
(BDB. 1> 3J).— p] (g + TiDi' utw;' = iJ3. It + sHrpe.—Al. 
a^r^'cn] Qr. cju'c^i- 

V. 1-26. The east-Jordanic Tribes. 

The records of Reuben, Gad, and the eastern half-tribe of Manasseh 
are arranged in general on the same plan as that of Simeon. There is ( i) a 
genealogical introduction giving the sons of the progenitor of the tribe 
and any immediate descendants (omitted for Gad and eastern Manas- 
seh), (2) an account of the territory occupied by each tribe, (3) a list 
of princes or chiefs, and (4) historical incidents connected with new 
dweUing-places. (2) and (3) are transposed for Reuben and Gad. It is 
difficult to see how this order could have been the result of various 
interpolations. We have rather a piece of work which has come down 
to us in essentially the same form in which it left the Chronicler's hand. 

1-10. Reuben. — The tribe of Reuben early became insignifi- 
cant, losing its territory through the encroachments of Moab and 
being probably absorbed in Gad. Like the account of Simeon, 


that of Reuben also falls into four paragraphs: w. '■' a list of 
Reuben's sons with remarks on the birthright ; w. « -« the genealogy 
of Beerah, a Reubenite prince carried away captive by Tiglath- 
pileser; vv. '-= the genealogy and dwelling-place of Beerah's 
brethren; v.'" a notice of a war with the Hagrites. The Chron- 
icler gives the sons of Reuben as they are found in Gn. 46 ^ Nu. 
26' '•. The source of the genealogy of Beerah is unknown. 
Vv. «''■ ' may have been composed by the Chronicler from Jos. 
13" and Nu. 32'- '«. The incident in v. ■» is introduced to show 
how the Reubenites came to possess new dwelling-places east 
of Gilead. 

1-3. And the softs of Reuben the first horn of Israel]. These 
words are separated from their predicate by the following paren- 
thetical statements va'. '^ i3-2, and hence are repeated again in v.'. 
— For he was the first born but since he defiled the couch of his father 
the birthright was given to Joseph son of Israel]. Reuben's de- 
filement of his father's couch and his subsequent loss of his 
birthright are derived from Gn. 35" 49^ and the passing of the 
birthright to Joseph from Gn. 485. The adoption by Jacob of 
Ephraim and Manasseh was equivalent to giving Joseph a double 
portion or the inheritance of a first-bom Dt. 2V^-". — But he is 
not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright]. This 
refers to Joseph — in the tribal registers Reuben held the first place. 
Cf. Gn. 468 ff- Ex. 6'^ ^- Nu. 26= "-. — For Judah was ^nighty 
among his brethren and a prince was from him]. In reality, 
however, the pre-eminence of the first-bom seemed to belong to 
Judah, of whom was the house of David. — 4-6. The sons of 
Jo^el]. The connection of Joel with Reuben strangely enough is 
not given. Ki. after ^, A, substitutes Carmi (v. '), but the oc- 
currence of Joel in v. » is against this. The sons of Joel are the 
persons following. Their names are not inconsistent with the 
implied date : Ba al as a proper name could only be early (see 
Gray, HPN. p. 237). That a remnant of the tribe of Reuben 
should have suffered the captivity of their Sheikh during the As- 
syrian invasion (2 K. 15") is historically not improbable. No 
record of this is mentioned elsewhere. — 7-9. And his brethren] i.e., 
the brethren of Be^erah, and hence apparently his contemporaries 


of the Assyrian period (Be., Bn.) and not of the time of Saul (v. '") 
(Ke., Zoe., Gray, HPN. pp. 237 /.). This latter assumption, 
however, is justified from the territory assigned to the Reubenites. 
They in all probability had been dispossessed entirely from the land 
of Moab by the time of Tiglath-pileser (b. c. 745-728). — Beta] 
represents a wide-spread clan whose descent, like that of Be'erah, is 
also from Jo^el, but by a different and shorter line. — Shema ] is 
not unlikely Shimei or Shemaiah (v. "). — 'Aro'er] well-known 
city on the north bank of the Amon Dt. 2'^ 312 4<s Jos. 12' 139, 
mentioned as southern boundary of Reuben Jos. 13 '^ — Nebo] 
east of Jericho, Nu. 323- ^s ^3^' Is. 15^ Je. 48'- ", the name also of a 
mountain Dt. 32^' 34'. — Baal-meon] probably a gloss, since it is 
a town lying between Nebo and 'Aro'er, mentioned in Nu. 32'- =« 
Jos. 13'' Je. 48" Ez. 25', or else we have an example of the Chron- 
icler's lack of geographical knowledge. Both Nebo and Baal- 
meon are mentioned on the Moabite Stone. — Entrance of the 
w-ilderness] i.e., the eastern boundary of their territory was the 
wilderness which extends east of Moab and Gilead to the Eu- 
phrates. — In Gil e' ad]. Gilead while usually designating territory 
north of Moab extending from Heshbon to the Yarmuk, is also 
applied to the country as far south as the Arnon (Dr. Dt. 3*''). 
—10. An independent notice of the activity of the Reubenites. — 
Hagriles]. In the Assyrian inscriptions the Hagritcs {Hagaranu] 
are mentioned along with the Nabateans [^Nahatu] among the 
conquests of Sennacherib and located in north-eastern Arabia 
{COT. 11. pp. 31 /.). In the same locality they are placed by 
Strabo and Pliny. Later in the Syriac, the name was used as a 
general designation of the Arabians, and at the time of the Chron- 
icler either this had taken place or a portion of them had migrated 
westward and were pressing on the eastern frontier of Palestine 
(Gl. Skiz. I if. 407/.). Their proximity to Palestine is clearly indi- 
cated in Ps. 83' <«>. A connection between Hagar the mother of 
Ishmael and the Hagrites is most probable, although it has been 
questioned (Dill. Gn. 2^^^). That fighting was carried on with 
Arabian tribes in the days of Saul is most likely and a reminiscence 
of this may be here found. The lack of orderly connection between 
the sons of Reuben and the notices following, and the lack of such 

V. 11-17.] GENEALOGY OF GAD I2i 

connection between the notices also, suggest to some that we have 
here not an original composition of the Chronicler but a grouping 
of fragmentary traditions respecting the tribe of Reuben. 

1. •'^nx';] pi. of extension Ges. § 124a, Koe. iii. § 26oh; so used 
elsewhere Ps. 63^ 1323 Jb. 17" except Gn. 49'' M, but ^ allows pi. and 
parallelism suggests it; Ball, SBOT. so emends. — 10133] (S eiXoylav 
i.e. 10313, also v. 2 ij evXoyia toO 'Icoa-^cp, but the context indicates that 
the birthright and not the blessing is concerned (Bn.). — trn-'nnS x'^i] 
1 adversative Koe. iii. § 375!. On inf. cf. Ges. § 114. 2. R. 2, Dr. TH. 202 
(2), Dav. Syn. § 95 (b). — 2. iijjSi] rare use of S to introduce a new 
emphatic subject, cf. BDB. 5 e (e). — 4. Sxp •>J3] <&^ IW77X vlbs avrov 
is evidently an effort to establish a connection with the preceding verse. 
— niycts'] 05 + Kal BawtA seems to have grown out of a dittography of 
1J3. — 5. Sj;3] (gB iun\, so also di' + BaXa (= BoaX). — 6. idnjSs njSn] 
an incorrect way of spelling iDx';'s nSjn 2 K. 1529 iG'". ip';'3 nSjn 2 K. 
17", arising probably from a natural mispronunciation repeated in v. ^ 
and 2Ch. 2820. — 9. ni3iD NisS •\y]. This inf. phrase is found elsewhere 
with the proper name Hamath, cf. Am 6" Ju. 3' Jos. 13', etc., except Ez. 
47", where Cornill reads Hamath. — ni? "^^i^] instead of the more usual 
ni3 inj Dr. TH. 190. — 10. on^VnNO I3'ii'ii] (g KaroiKoOvres iv a-Krjvaii = 
D'SnN3 oniri adopted by Bn. (who reads 'N ^3E'''), because it gives better 
sense than H^. — '^•;] ® Iws = iy. 

11-17. Gad. — The sons of Gad are introduced by the state- 
ment that they lived "over against" the Reubenites (v."). This 
departure from the usual introductory formula, the sons of, is likely 
responsible for the omission of Gad's sons as given in Gn. 46'" 
Nu. 26'^-'^ The enumeration of the chiefs of Gad with their 
brethren (vv. '--'5), and the notice concerning their territory and 
date (w. '^-"), are followed by the account of a war which resulted 
in the extension of their territory (vv. "■"). This time the three 
east-Jordanic tribes combined in a raid upon the neighbouring 
Bedouins. Very likely this is an expansion, of a midrashic nature, 
of the same incident recorded in v. •» (so Bn.), but the Chronicler 
found them different enough to use both. — 11. The omission of 
the lists of sons of Gad, as given in Gn. 46'^ Nu. 26'*-'', is notice- 
able. — Bashan] here and in vv. '^ ■«■ " the dwelling-place of Gad 
with Salecah, mod. Salkhad, as the north-east limit. This use of 
Bashan for Gad's territory is peculiar (Bn. regards the word here as 


a gloss; Ba. in v. '« emends to Jabesh). Bashan elsewhere is the 
name of the country north of the Yarmuk and according to Dt. 3'' 
Nu. 32" Jos. 13" the territory of Gad was in Gilead south of 
Bashan. Not unlikely the Chronicler, having located Reuben in 
Gilead, was misled to place Gad in Bashan. — 12. Jo'el the first and 
Shapham f the second and J a nai f and Shaphat]. Jo'el perhaps 
the same as the Reubenite Joel of vv. <■ «, a family or clan whose 
members might be reckoned as belonging to either or both of the 
tribes. — 13. Of their fathers' houses]. The term father's house is 
used (i) of an entire tribe, since this is named after a common 
father Nu. ly'^^) Jqs. 22'^; (2) generally, of the division next after 
the tribe, the clan, Nu. 3^*; (3) of the division after the clan, the 
family Ex. 12^ i Ch. 7'- '. Cf. Dill. Ex. 6'K — Micha'el] h'i^T'Ci 
"Who is like God." A name only occurring in the post -exilic 
literature 6" <") 7^ 8i« 1220 2718 2 Ch. 21^ Ezr. Ss. — Meshullam] 
ubXH'O "Kept safe," i.e., by God, also another name especially fre- 
quent in the post-exilic lists 313 8'' 9'- «■ " '• 2 Ch. 3412 Ezr. 8'« 
iQis. 29 Ne. y- «• 30 6'8 8< lo^- o 21 (^o n'- ^ 12"- '«• ". 33_ — Sheba"\ 
y^ty perhaps an abbreviation for Elisheba y^li^'^^S "God 
swears" (?) EBi. II. col. 3291. — And Jorai-\ and Jacan-f and 
Zia f and Eber]. These names with those of v. '^ correspond well 
to ancient clan names. Apparently eleven clans of Gad are enu- 
merated, (g^ while mentioning only seven names in v. '^ has the 
numeral eight instead of seven. This suggests that in v. " originally 
stood eight names, giving the tribal number of twelve clans. The 
seven or original eight are mentioned separately because their de- 
scent is traced in vv. '< '• (v. i.) from Guni (''i'^), which may be a 
corruption of Shuni (""iliy) a son of Gad (Gn. 46"= Nu. 26'5-"), or 
the converse, since Guni is a clan name of Naphtali. — 14-15. 
These are the sons of Abihail] i.e., those persons or families men- 
tioned in V. '3. Abihail elsewhere name of a Levite Nu. 3^5, and 
the father of Esther (Est. 2'^ 929). — The son of Huri f tlie son of 
Jaroah f the son of Gile ad the son of Micha'el the son of Jeshisliai f 
tlie son of Jahdo f the son of Buz . . . the son of ' AbdVel the son 
of Guni]. There is a break in the pedigree at Buz according 
to M (so Bn., Ki., Kau.), but Ahi (TIN) appears as a fragment 
and it is better after (g^^ to make the line of descent con- 


tinuous. On Guni see v. ". — 16. In Gilead] since Gad's terri- 
tory elsewhere is placed in Gilead (Nu. 32>- "• 29 Dt. 3'2 Jos. 22' 
13='*). — In Bashan] v. s. v. '>. — Pasture lands] only used here of 
lands in a district and not with a city, unless we should so read the 
following {cf. 6^° <"))_ — Sharon] (]T\'^) not mentioned elsewhere 
as a district east of the Jordan. Better after (^^ read Sirion 
jT'lty (Ki., Bn.), which would bring the territory of Gad as far 
north as Hermon and explain their dwelling in Bashan; per- 
haps pniy is a corruption of ^It^D (Dt. 31°, see Driver, Com. 
4" Jos. 139- '^- 21), the table land, between the Arnon and Heshbon 
and here used for the southern territory of Gad (Be., Zoe.), we then 
read in all the upland pastures. — With their exits] i.e., on the inter- 
pretation just given of Sharon, where the pasture lands sink into 
the Ghor of the Jordan. If Sirion is read, substitute IJ? to for h]/ 
with (after (g, Ki., Bn.), to their limits. — 17. All of them] i.e., the 
families of the Gadites mentioned in vv. "-'^ — In the days of 
Jothafn king of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel]. 
These two kings, since Jotham may have acted as regent for his 
father Uzziah, were near enough together to have been regarded 
as contemporaries. The terminus ad quern of the history of these 
trans- Jordanic tribes, according to the Chronicler, is their captivity 
through Tiglath-pileser during the period immediately following 
the reigns of these kings, and it is not impossible that his gene- 
alogies may be based upon some records made of families or locali- 
ties at that time. 

18-22. Conflict of Reuben, Gad, and the Half-tribe of 
Manasseh with adjoining Arabian tribes. — This account fol- 
lows the genealogy and location of Gad, perhaps to keep a propor- 
tion in closing the section on each tribe with a notice of a war, cf. 
v. '" w. 25-26^ or since w. " '■ concerning the half-tribe of Manasseh 
end with the fall of the tribe, the narrative of a success in which 
they shared is placed more fitly earlier. — 18. On the prowess of 
the men of Gad and Manasseh cf. li^- ^i. On the number 44,760 
cf. Jos. 4'2, where 40,000 from the eastern tribes cross the Jordan 
with Joshua. In Nu. i^'- ^^- '* Reuben has 46,500 men of war, 
Gad 45,600, and all Manasseh 32,000. In Nu. 26'- 's- '^ Reuben 
has 43,730, Gad 40,500, and all Manasseh 52,700. — 19. Hagrites] 


see V. •". — Jetur and Naphish and Nodah f] Arab tribes. The 
names of the first two are among the sons of Ishmael Gn. 25'^ 
I Ch. 1 5'. Jetur gave the name to the district Iturea, whose inhabi- 
tants were celebrated in the Roman times for their prowess in 
arms (GAS. HGHL. p. 544). Nothing further is knowTi of the 
other two. — 20. And they were helped against thetn] i.e., by God 
(for a similar use of the Niph. of "iT^ cf. 2 Ch. 26'5 Ps. 28^). — 
And all that were with them'] i.e., the three tribes associated above 
with the Hagrites. The pragmatism of the Chronicler comes out 
strongly in this verse. — 21. For a similar enumeration of booty, 
cf. Nu. 3132-35 — 22. Unto the captivity] i.e., the Ass>Tian captivity 
under Tiglath-pileser cf. v. ^^ The period of this war is not men- 
tioned. The account, according to Bn., is an amplification of 
that of v. '", and from another hand than that of the Chronicler, 
although entirely in his spirit {cf. v. ^o). A historical basis for 
the narrative lies in the struggles between the children of Israel 
east of the Jordan and their Bedouin neighbours. 

12. zsz't'] (&\ "U t — . — Oflun] ® 6 -/pafj.iJ.aTetjs. — 13. on\-iiaN piaS] Ges. 
§ i24r cf. Ex. 6'< Nu. i^- < et al. — ->3;'i] nine mss. i3>:i, (g k. Zl^-qb. — 14. 
nn^] dub. one ms. (Kennic.) yn'' which was probably read by (S, "B. — 
nn^] Baer ^-\r\\, (&^ '\ovpei, ^ leSSat, hence Ki. iin>. — irn : rn] (I* trans- 
poses and renders as one proper name Ax'i3oi/f, while ^ also has one 
proper name ZajSoi'xaM, which is certainly corrupt; ^ omits "'nx. — 18. 
N2S iNX'] going out to the host, i.e., those able to go to war, cf. 7" 123' 36 
Nu. i3. 20. 22 g< a/. On construction Ges. § ii6/k^19. 311Ji] Gn. 25" 
na-jpv — 20. anc>'r] prep, a? with the suf. of the third pers. pi. + the 
relative .v {€' before a guttural), -z; is used instead of t.I'n in the later 
books, Ec, La., Jon., Ct., Ch. (3 times, 25*, see note, 27") and once 
in Ezr. (S'"), and late Pss. cf. Ges. § 36. — -\ioj?ji] And he suffered him- 
self to he entreated by them, inf. abs. with change of subj. after a perf. 
Ges. § 113Z. For a similar use of Tjy in Niph. tolerativum, cf. Gn. 25=' 
2 S. 21'^ 2425 2 Ch. 33'3- 19 Ezr. 8=3 Is. 1922.— 21, a^i'cn] one MS. (Kennic.) 
na'cn, so also (&^^. 

23-24. The half of Manasseh east of the Jordan.— The 

genealogy of IManasseh is inserted later when the tribe is con- 
sidered as a whole (7" « ), hence we have only the dwelling-places 
and the heads of fathers' houses of the eastern half -tribe of Manas- 
seh in w. "2^ — 23. From Bashan] i.e., from the territory occupied 


by the tribe of Gad, see vv. "• '«. — Ba al-hermon] not to be identi- 
fied with Baal-gad Jos. ii'^ 12' 135 (which probably should be the 
reading in Ju. 3', so Budde), since that was located in the Lebanon 
valley on the western slope of Hermon. Ba al-hermon of our verse 
must be sought in connection with the eastern slope. It may well 
then have been mod. Bdneds, which has usually been identified as 
Baal-gad (see Moore on Ju. 3'). — Senir] a peak or part of the 
range of Hermon, probably near Damascus between Baalbek and 
Horns (see Dr. on Dt. 3" and Haupt Ct. 4^). — And Mt. Her- 
nwn] a phrase explaining Senir as Mt. Hermon. — They were 
very numerous]. The tribe of Manasseh as a whole, judging from 
its history, seems to have been one of the most prolific during the 
early period of Israel. — And these were the heads of their fathers' 
houses] i.e., the heads of family groups (cf. Now. Arch. I. pp. 
300 /.). — 24. 'Epher *]. If |^ is correct then a name has fallen 
from the text. 'Epher and Jish i look like old clan names; the 
others, EWel, 'Azri'el, Jeremiah (Jirmejah), Hodaviah, and Jah- 
di'el, look late (Gray, HPN. p. 238). Nothing further is known 
of these families or their heads. The names show no connection 
with the sons of Manasseh given in Nu. 26^8 «■ Jos. 172 »• unless 
'Epher (13^) and Hepher ("iSn in Nu. 28''') are identical. 

25-26. A summary of the fate of the two and a half tribes. 
— 25. And they transgressed] (^'^'Ci*'']). The word '7j;o is a priestly 
word found in P, Ez., and Ch. frequently and almost exclusively. 
The subject here is the two and a half tribes. Cf. v. ". — And they 
went a whoring after, etc.] (''inS t^T"'!). Cf. Ex. 34'5- 's Dt. 3i'« 
Lv. 17^ 20^ Nu. 1539 Ju. 2" 8"- "_ The expression denotes 
apostasy from Yahweh in the worship of other gods. This 
figure with a similar force with the use of the noun is frequent in 
the prophets (esp. Ho., Ez.). For a discussion of its full meaning 
cf. Dr. Dt. 31'^ — 26. And the God of Israel stirred up the 
spirit] (m"l . . . "IJ^"*!). Spirit here denotes an unaccountable and 
uncontrollable impulse. Cf. for parallel usage 2 Ch. 21'^ 36" Ezr. 
I'- 5 Je. 51" Hg. i'^. — Pid] is identical with Tilgath-pilneser {cf. v. "). 
The error of the Chronicler in mentioning them as two distinct 
persons has arisen from his source 2 K. 15"- ", where they are thus 
mentioned. Pulu was the original name of the Assyrian king who 


assumed Tiglath-pileser on his usurpation of the throne. Hence 
the confusion of the sacred writers. In Babylonia Tiglath-pileser 
continued to be known by his original name Pulu (c/. COT. I. p. 
219, DB. Tiglath-pileser). — Halah and Habor (and Hara and) the 
river of Gozan]. These names are derived from 2 K. 17* 18" 
with the exception of Hara (i<ir!), which is out of place (as well 
as the conjunction and before and after it) if not meaningless 
(v. i.). The Chronicler identifies the fate of the eastern tribes 
through the ravages of Tiglath-pileser with that of Israel in gen- 
eral after the fall of Samaria. Habor] is the mod. Khabur (ancient 
Chaboras), the well-kno\^Ti tributary of the Euphrates rising in 
Karajab Dagh (ancient Mons Masius), and emptying, after a 
course of some two hundred miles, into the Euphrates south-east 
of the mod. to\^^l of ed Deir. Gozan] clearly a district through 
which the Habor flowed, to be identified with the Gauzanitis of 
Ptolemy, and the Gu-za-na (nu) of the Assyrian inscriptions 
(COT. I. 267, KAT.^ 269). The meaning and location of Halah 
are not so certain. (S in Kings has "rivers of Gozan" implying 
that Halah as well as Habor was a river, but such a one has 
not been satisfactorily located. It is probably a province (Assy. 
Halahhi) not so very far from Harran (KAT.^ p. 169). — Unto this 
day]. These words probably have arisen by a misunderstanding 
of the text of 2 K., which has and cities of the Medes (v. i.). 

23. "'Sn ^i2^] (g k. ol i]ij.laeis. — pmn ini] (^ + k. iv rq. Aipdvq. 
is doubtless a gloss. — 24. "ifl>i] Gin. quotes two Targums to support 
the omission of 1. which is wanting also in d, "B, ^, and so Ki. — n^-iini] 
on pronunciation cf. 3^^ — 26. nrn orn -\'; jnj inji nihi -nam n':'n^] 
are probably derived from •'in nyi ]ni -\nj nnnai n'^m of 2 K. ly^ 
18", and the deviations seem to have arisen either from careless transcrip- 
tion or because the Chronicler quoted from memory (Be.). N"(n may 
be a reminiscence of the reading na '''\!'\, which appears in (5 of 2 K. 
If, 181', so Be., Ki., Bn. That nin ovn ny has arisen from •'iD nyi 
appears probable from the fact (6'- gives both in 2 K. 17* (not i8")- K.I0. 
gives this as the original reading. Ke. thought of the Chronicler's 
statement resting on another authority. 

V. 27-VI. 66 (VI. 1-81). Genealogy and geography of 
Levi. — This section contains: (i) the line of high priests from 
Aaron to Jehozadak (i.e., to the exile), introduced by a genealogical 


table showing Aaron's relationship to Levi, 5" -4' (6'-i5); (2) lines 
of descent of singers from Levi through his three sons, Gershon, 
Kehath, and Merari, 6'-'5 (i6-30)j (^^^ the genealogical tables of 
the three singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, 6^^-^^ (31-47)^ (4) 
notices concerning the services of Levites and sons of Aaron, 6'^-^* 
(48-49)j (^) g, list of the high priests to Ahimaaz {i.e., to the time 
of David), 6^^-^^ cso.ssjj (5) the cities assigned to the sons of Aaron, 
639-45 (64-60)j (y) t^c tribal territory in which the cities of the 
Levites lay, 6^^-^° ("-es)^ (g) the cities of the Kehathites (exclusive 
of sons of Aaron), 651-" w--o}-^ (^^ the cities of the Gershonites, 
656-61 (7i-76)j (10) the cities of the Merarites, 6"-« cj-sd. These 
records of the tribe of Levi present a number of difficulties and 
their meagreness considering the importance of the tribe of Levi 
is striking. They are repeated with more or less fulness, however, 
when the writer treats of the classes of the priests and Levites 
and singers (235 ^- 24' «• " b. 251 a). 

V. 27-41 (VL 1-15). The sons of Levi and the line of 
high priests from Aaron to the captivity. 

This line of high priests is in part a doublet with 635-38 cso-ss) and is 
regarded by Bn., and Ki. SBOT., Kom., as a later addition, since a list 
of priests naturally would follow the genealogical introduction in 6' ^• 
(16 ff.)_ j\s the matter now stands, this introduction is given in 527-291 
(6'-3a)_ The list also is carried down beyond David, while the other 
material of c. 6 stops with David. Hence it is held to be more natural 
that this list should be secondary to the other 635-38 (50-53) than vice versa, 
since an interpolation which added nothing would not naturally be 
made. On the other hand, there is some strong internal evidence 
against the priority of the second list, 6=5-38 (so-ss). Although s"-^^ 
(6'-3) and 6i-< (w-is) do duplicate each other in part, it is not unrea- 
sonable to hold that the former passage was intended to introduce priests 
and the latter Levites. Moreover, 6=^ ms) describes the duties of all the 
priests, the sons of Aaron, and 63' 3- (54 s.) jg concerned with the cities of 
all the Aaronides. The list of high priests included between those two 
verses seems out of place, and it is unlikely that the Chronicler intro- 
duced it there. A scribe who expected a list of the sons of Aaron after 
the verse describing their duties — just as a list of Levites precedes the 
verse detailing their duties — may then have inserted this partial list of 
the high priests from 53° »■ (6* ^ ), that being the only one available. 
Without the second list of the high priests, the arrangement of the 


material is characteristic of the Chronicler's order, i.e., the genealogy of 
the high priests and the genealogy of the Levites; the duties of the 
Levites and the duties of the priests; the cities of the priests and the 
cities of the Levites. 

27 (1). Gershon, Kehath, mid Meran]. These three sons of 
Levi appear in Gn. 46'! Ex. 6'« Nu. 3'' 26", and represent three 
great families of Levites which clearly existed at the time of the 
composition of P (c/. 6' <'^' 23^). — Gershon] (piyii) as in P, else- 
where in Ch. Gershom (mtmi D'jni), cf. 6- «<'«'•' e^ a/.— 28 (2). 
And the sons of Kehath, 'Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel]. Cf. 
as a source for these names Ex. 6'^ Nu. 3'' and for their repetition 
53 (18) 2312. Hebron's appearance as a descendant of Levi and thus 
a Levitical family name shows that a portion of the ecclesiastical 
tribe of Levi came from priests who had ministered at the sanctu- 
ary of Hebron. What underlies the other names is unknown. 
Uzziel is the only one smacking of artificiality or a late formation 
(Gray, HPN. p. 210).— 29 (3). Sources for the children of 
Amram and Aaron are Ex. 6^"- " (except Miriam) Nu. 2659 '•. 
Cf. for repetition 23'= (except Miriam) 24'- ^ 

30-41 (4-15). The line of high priests. — Eleazar v. '» "' was, 
according to P, Aaron's successor in the high priesthood Nu. 20"; 
Phinehas Eleazar's son and successor, Jos. 24=^ Ju. 20^8. Abishna, 
Bukki, 'Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah (vv. ^o-ss (s-d) are en- 
tirely unknown, not mentioned elsewhere except below 6"" " 
Ezr. 7' -5. Ahitiib \.^* (s) jg given as the father of Zadok 2 S. 8'' 
I Ch. i8'«. If we look for historical accuracy, he is not to be 
identified with Ahitub the father of Ahimelech, the father of Abia- 
thar I S. 14^ 2220, since the establishment of Zadok as priest in the 
place of Abiathar is regarded as the fulfilment of the prophecy of 
the disestablishment of the house of Eli (i K. 2-'- ^^). His ap- 
pearance as the father of Zadok in 2 S. 8", our author's source, is 
undoubtedly due to a textual corruption (see i Ch. i8i«). Zadok 
V. ^ («>was priest under David with Abiathar 2 S. 8" 152* »■ and put 
by Solomon in the place of Abiathar (see above). Ahima az v. '= ''> 
was a son of Zadok, cf. 2 S. 15"- =^ et al. ' Azariah v. ^^ o) is men- 
tioned as a son of Zadok i K. 4^. The notice of v. ^e do) he it is 
that executed, etc., out of place in v. " "O), belongs to him, the first 


mentioned, Azariah (Be., Bn., Ki., Ba., Zoe., Oe.). Of Jehonan, 
Azariah, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shalhim, and ' Azariah, vv. 
35-40 (9-H)^ ^rg hg-vc HO fuTther record than in the Chronicler's 
genealogies, cf. 9" Ezr. y'-* Ne. iv\ except in the case of Ama- 
riah, who may be identified with Amariah the high priest during 
the reign of Jehoshaphat mentioned in 2 Ch. 19". Hilkiah 
V.'' ("' is apparently the high priest of the reign of Josiah, 2 K. 
22< et al. Seraiah the father of Jehozadak v. <« <'^' was high priest 
at the fall of Jerusalem, b. c. 586, and was taken captive and put to 
death at Riblah (2 K. 2518-21), while Jehozadak went into captivity 
V. ^' "5', and appears as the father of Jeshua the high priest of the 
return, Ezr. 32 5= io'« Ne. 1225 (Jazadak) Hg. i' Zc. 6". The pur- 
pose of this genealogy is to connect Jehozadak with Aaron and 
thus legitimise his priesthood. The line of descent including 
Aaron from the Exodus to the captivity consists of twenty-three 
members and is artificial in structure, since allowing forty years 
or a generation for each member, we have 40 x 12 -I- 40 x 11, 
or 920 years. This period fits into the priestly chronology of the 
historical books, whereby 480 years elapsed from the Exodus to 
the founding of Solomon's Temple (i K. 6'), and 480 years from 
thence to the founding of the second Temple (see Chronology of 
OT., DB.), and the captivity occurred in the eleventh generation 
of this second period. According to this scheme also Azariah the 
thirteenth member (v. '^ o)) ministers in Solomon's Temple. 

As an apparent list of high priests from the entrance into 
Canaan until the captivity, this genealogy presents some note- 
worthy features. Members of the house Eli: Eli, Phineas, Ahitub, 
Ahimelech, and Abiathar (i S. 14^ 2220), naturally do not appear, 
since this house was set aside for that of Zadok (i K. 2"- 55)^ but 
the omission of the high priests Jehoiada (2 K. ii' 2 Ch. 22", etc.) 
and Urijah (2 K. 16" «■) and an Azariah in the reign of Uzziah 
(2 Ch. 2620) between Amariah of Jehosphat's reign and Hilkiah 
of Josiah's, is striking {v. s.). 

VI. 1-4 (16-19). The sons of Levi.— On w. > =• "«• 's) cf. 
5" -» (6'- 2). — Libni and Shimei]. Cf. as a source for these names, 
Ex. 6" Nu. 3'S and their repetition 23', and also 23' '• 26" where 
instead of Libni we have La dan (py^)- Libni without doubt is to 


be connected with the priestly city Libnah (Jos. 21"). — Mahli and 
Muslii]. Cf. as source Ex. 6" Nu. y and repetition 2321 24". 
Mushi C'll'ID) has been connected with Moses, as though the 
family derived their name from that of Israel's law-giver (We. 
Gesch. pp. 151/.); also with Misri or Musri (EBi.). 

5-6 (20-21). A fragment of the pedigree of Asaph. (Be., 
Bn., Ki., but not Zoe.) Cf. yv.^*-'' os-u). This conclusion is 
suggested by the pedigree of Heman, which follows, and seems 
warranted when we compare the list of names (A) with those in 

yy_ 2<-28 (39-43) (B). 

















Je'atherai. Ethni. 

The variations between Jo'ah (nSI"*) and Ethan (Jfl'^K), 'Iddo 
(ny) and 'Adaiah (-'•'Ij;), Je'atherai C'lrN'') and Ethni ('':nS), 
might easily have arisen in transcription. Shimci may have been 
omitted from (A) by oversight, or since Libni is wanting in (B), 
Jahath and Shime i may have been transposed and the tradition 
may have fluctuated in regard to the descent of Asaph whether 
through Libni or Shimei {cf. v. = "" and 23"', where Jahath is the 
son of Shimei) and B thus have given the latter view. 

7-13 (22-28). A pedigree of Heman (Be., Bn., Ki., Ke., Oe., 
Zoe.). — This pedigree which ends in Abijah is broken or irregular 
in the present Heb. text: cf. v. 'o <25>, where without connection 
with the foregoing Sha'ul of v. ' <24) ^g have The sons of Elkanah 
Amasai and Ahimoth, and in v. '• '^e; ^e have Elkanah repeated. 
The second should be omitted (after (i», ^) and reading his son 
instead of sons of (133 for '^^'2) the verse should read Elkanah his 
son (i.e., the son of Ahimoth), Zophai his son. In v. ^'^ *") at the 
close should be added Samii^el his son (Ki. after ^^). Also in v. " 
Joel should be supplied and the verse read And the sons of Samu^el; 

VI. 1-38.] 



the first-born Joel and the second Abijah (H''^^ "'Jti^m ^KT') 
(Ki. BH., RV. after (g^, ^, v. '» "=> i S. 8^). Joel was the father 
of Heman (v." '"')> hence this pedigree is that of Heman, and 
corresponds to that given in vv. '«>'-" '"•'-s^). As in the case 
above of Asaph, the substantial oneness of these lines of descent 
is revealed at once by placing them side by side. 









Assir, Elkanah, 





































The names Kehath, equivalent to Kohath, Izhar, and Korah (B) 
are derived from Ex. 6" 21, 

In respect to the variations: 'Amminadab appears in Ex. 6" 
as the father-in-law of Aaron, and may have been placed for Izhar 
in (A) through an o-'/ersight {(^^ has Izhar) (v. i.). Assir and 
Elkanah are either redundant in (A) through a similar cause or 
have fallen out from (B). UrVel and Zephaniah are difficult to 
explain as equivalents. The names 'C/zziaA and 'Azariah are inter- 
changeable (as in the case of the well-known King of Judah). The 
differences between the other corresponding names have probably 
arisen through transcription. Cf. the letters in the Hebrew teit. 


This pedigree is clearly artificial. A portion of its construc- 
tion comes from i S. i", where Elkanah is mentioned as s. Jeroham, 
s. Ehhu, s. Tohu, s. Zuph. Zuph is probably a district, and Tohu 
(Toah, Nahath) a family (r/. Tahath i Ch. 7"; We. Prol. p. 220). 
The story of Samuel shows distinctly that he was not a Levite, for 
then he would have belonged to the Lord without the gift of his 
mother (i S. i" '•). He is made a Levite by the Chronicler ac- 
cording to the notions of his own times respecting Samuel's service 
at the sanctuary. The names of Samuel's sons are derived from 
I S. 8^ 

14. 15 (29. 30). The pedigree of Asaiah the Merarite.— This 
pedigree to correspond with those of vv. '-'' <'«■=*> should present a 
line of descent of Ethan (w. "-'^ (^4-47))^ but a close similarity of 
names is here wanting. Still they have been held sufficiently 
alike to warrant this inference (Be.). 'Asaiah may be the one 
mentioned in 15^ as chief of the sons of Merari. It is noticeable in 
this pedigree that both Lihni and Shimei here are Merarites, while 
above v. ^ "^' they are Gershonites. 

1. Dsnj] so also v. 28 157^ av;nj vv. 2- ^- "■ se^ elsewhere panj. (g" in 
this c. Te{e)5(Tuv, in 15' Trjpardfj., (6'^^ in all — <ruv, § ^n 4',. ^, H Gerson 
in V. 2. Since the source (Ex. 6'8) has Gershon and the Chronicler differ- 
entiates Gershom and Gershon in c. 23, it is likely that ps'nj was original 
here also. — 7. 3ijicj;] v. 23 Ex. 6^^- =' ei al. inxi, which seems original 
here, anrcy may have arisen in consequence of a dittography of the 3 
from the following ij2, a nns^ resembling 3^J^DJ? very closely in ancient 
writing. — 7. 8. 1J3 -\''DN1 ij3 qDONi 1J3 njpSx ij3 T'Dn ij3 mp]. Accord- 
ing to Ex. 6=4 the sons of Korah were idnoni njpSxi T'Dy Either 
the compiler had a variant tradition or the text is corrupt. The latter 
seems probable. 1 before ^D'JN and 1 before tdn are out of place in the 
text as it stands. (S^ reads 'Apecrei vlh% avrov, EX/cai'd Kal A^iadap vlbi 
avTov, 'Aaepel v. a. Since the tendency would be strong to insert 
vibs avTov after 'EX*cam (cf. (&^ of v. '" k. viol E\Kava Afiacra vlbs 
avTov Afiiosd vlb% avrov) this omission is striking. The same tendency 
would be potent in the Heb. te.xt. Consequently we conjecture that the 
original read 1J3 -»>dn', rj3 rio^asi hj^Sn T'Dn ij3 mp Korah his son, Assir, 
Elkanah and Ebiasaph his sons, Assir his son {i.e., the son of Ebiasaph). 
These slight changes restore the harmony with v. 22 and with Ex. 6=4, 
account for the 1 before fl°''2^< and for that before T'Dn (rj3 having 
been misread 1 1J3), also explain the omission of 1J3 after njpSx in the 
Heb. underlying (6". This and the ua after the first i^DN were added by 



some copyist who overlooked Ex. 62^. — 10. niD^nx] v. 20 and 2 Ch. 29'^ 
nnn, adopted by Bn. — 11. rup^K 1J3 mp'^n] Kt. iJ3, so (5, QF, g», is to be 
preferred to Qr. \J3 (z;. 5.). The second njpVN, omitted in some iiss., 
(&, &, should be dropped, so Bn., Ki. {v. s.). — ''Six] v. 20 Kt. T'X, Qr. lis. 
I S. ii D^BiS = ■'flis (We. e/ a/.) and lix-p. Probably the original 
name was 1«. — nm] v. i^ run, i S. i' inn. Ki. {SBOT., Kom.) adopts 
inn as the best authenticated. The other forms could have originated 
in scribal errors. — 12. aN''V><] v. !» ':'n^'^.n, i S. i' nvt^'tn. The versions 
give no aid. The last two (meaning " My God is God " and " He is my 
God") may have been interchanged. 'r'N^Vx appears ten times in the 
OT., all in Ch., cf. zh^^h (the brother of David) 2^^ i S. 166, and ■in'';'^ 
(Qr. Kin — ) I Ch. 2f^. — M2 Snidc is added by Ki., on the basis of CSS 
as indispensable. It is not improbable that the compiler, after gathering 
what information he could from i S. i', went on to enumerate the sons 
of Samuel from i S. 8^ without stopping to make a connection so well 

16. 17 (31. 32). David's appointment of the singers.— 16 

(31). — House of Yahweh] is used here generally both for the tent 
where David placed the ark, and the later Temple (cf. 9=3). — 
Afler the resting of the ark] i.e., after the bringing up of the ark 
from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem (2 S. 6^ ''). — 17 (32). 
The tabernacle of the tent of meeting] (Iy1f2 ^nX i^ti-'D). A com- 
bination of two terms employed in P for the tabernacle and applied 
to the tent erected by David for the ark {cf. 16' ^■). Technically 
Mishkan (tabernacle, dwelling-place) denoted the wooden portion 
of the tabernacle, while 'Ohel (tent) the curtains or hanging 
(Ex. 26'- « '• 3511 36" '■ 39" 40" Nu. 3" cf. also Ex. 39=^ ^^2. e. 29^ 
where the combination given above is used to indicate the wooden 
structure). — According to their right] (DlSEw'IS^ cf. 24' ^ 2 Ch. 30'^). 
The reference apparently is to the order or position prescribed 
by David for the singers, a subject taken up in detail in c. 25. 
According to vv. 24 <39) 29 (44) ^^g guild of Heman occupied the 
central position with that of Asaph on the right and Ethan on the 
left. The Chronicler thus held that the musical services later 
adopted in the Temple were established by David in connection 
with the tent in which he had placed the ark. 

16. T'D^n] appointed, a peculiar force cf. 15"'- 16'^ 22^ 2 Ch. 8" 
9' ii's 22 195 8 2i2i 24" 255 '^ et al. (1. 89). — ''■^.'' Sy] over the service, cf. 
BDB. i\ 5. h. 


18-32 (33-47). The three singers Heman, Asaph, and 
Ethan, and their lines of descent. — These three singers, who 
are assigned to the time of David, represented in reality three choirs 
or guilds of the post-exilic period and were quite modern in their 
development, for according to Ezr. 2^' Ne. 7" the sons of Asaph 
and singers were equivalent, and the singers were distinct from 
the Levites. (This distinction is held by Sm. p. 26; OTJC." p. 
204; Baudissin, Gesch.desA. T. Priesterthicms,pp. 142^., also DB. 
IV. p. 92; Nowack, Heb. Arch. ii. p. iii; on the other hand, Tor- 
rey claims that no such distinction can be found in Ezr. and Ne., 
Com p. and Hist. Value of Ezr. and Ne. pp. 22 /.) Gradually, 
however, singers were evolved into Levites and the three guilds. 
Remains of steps of this evolution and fluctuating traditions appear 
in the Levitical genealogies. In Ex. 6^' the three sons of Korah are 
Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph ( = Ebiasaph), i.e., father of Asaph, 
and hence we should expect to find Asaph a descendant of Korah, 
but according to vv. ^^-^s (3943) he is not. Also we find Assir and 
Elkanah placed not co-ordinate but following each other (vv. '■' 
(22-24) 22 (37)) (yet scc hi loco). Dififerent genealogists certainly 
worked over these names. The sons of Korah appearing in the 
titles of the Pss. (42. 44-49. 84. 85. 87. 88) probably mark a 
step in this evolution earlier than the formation of the three 
guilds. Korah in i Ch. 2" is associated with Tappuah as a 
son of Hebron. This indicates either a place or Judean family 
of that name from which came the Levitical Korahites (We. Is. 
und Jiid. Gesch. pp. 151 /.). 

A noticeable difference of length appears in these genealogies : 
thus Heman has twenty links, Asaph fifteen, and Ethan only 

The relation of the genealogies in 6i'5 (i«-30) to those of the 
singers in 6'8-32 (33-4?), xhe latter genealogies are probably depencJ- 
ent upon the former, which originally may have been of Levites not classi- 
fied as singers. The inconsistencies which make this statement doubtful 
are removed by textual criticism {v. i.). The writer simply appropriated 
these genealogies in order to find Levitical pedigrees for the singers. 
The genealogy of Heman, 6'8-2' (33-38)^ jg the same as the line of descent 
through Kehath, 6'-i3 (22-28)^ Heman being made the son of Joel, the son 
of Samuel. Thus he becomes contemporaneous with David, between 


whom and Samuel there is but one generation, viz., that of Saul. This 
writer errs in making Mahath (= Ahimoth) the son of Amasai, c/. 61" (") 
where they are brothers, but see also 2 Ch. 2912. The genealogy of Ger- 
shon, 65 '• (20 f. )^ is not sufficiently long (only eight generations) to bring 
the last, Jeatherai, down to the generation of Saul, hence Malchijah, 
Maaseiah,* Michael, Shimea, and Berechiah were added by the writer 
of 62<-28 (39-43)^ thus making it possible to regard Asaph as the contempo- 
rary of David. Similarly, the genealogj' of Merari, 6" '• <" '■\ consist- 
ing of only eight generations, is too short to reach from Merari to the 
singer Ethan, the contemporary of David, hence a number of generations 
were added by the writer of Ethan's genealogy, 6"-32 (44.47 >_ Moreover, 
he seems to have departed from the genealogy of Merari after Shimei, 
and to have added eight generations, Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, Amaziah, 
Hashabiah, Malluch, Abdi, and Kishi, before Ethan. 

The source of the genealogies of the singers. Of the additional 
names inserted before Asaph, Berechiah occurs elsewhere in 32" 9" 
15"- 2' 2 Ch. 28'2 Ne. 3<. ^o 6i8 Zc. i'- ', = Jeberechiah Is. 8^ f; Shimea 
(n;^cu') in 6'= '^o as a Levite (but spelling ']JDB' it is very frequent in the 
writings of the Chronicler, especially as a Levitical name); Michael 
eight times elsewhere in the writings of the Chronicler and in Nu. 13" 
(P) Dn. id"- 21 12'; Maaseiah* nineteen times elsewhere in Ch.-Ezr.— 
Ne. and in Je. 21' 292'- 25 25* 373; Malchijah twelve times elsewhere in 
Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. and Je. 21' 38'- ^. Hence these names are late (except 
Shimea) and favourites with the Chronicler. Similarly the additional 
names to the genealogy of Ethan occur in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. as follows: 
Bani, 13 times (or 15, see BDB.); Amzi, 2; Hilkiah, 5 (besides fre- 
quently as the high priest of Josiah's time); Amaziah, 2 (besides fre- 
quently as the well-known King of Judah); Hashabiah, 14 (always a 
Levitical name); Malluch, 6 (also always Levitical); Abdi, 3 (the last 
three do not occur elswhere); Kishi, as Kushaiah only in 15'', but as 
Kish, 5 times. On this ground alone it is conclusive that these gen- 
ealogies of the singers were composed by the Chronicler or in his 
day. Furthermore, 6'^-'8a (3i-33a)^ where the ear-marks of the Chron- 
icler are evident (notice T'Dj;n, 1. 89; omny Sy oaDtt'ca ncyi and Dno;jn, 
cf. oncjJ 2 Ch. 7*, onnyn Ne. 12"), is a part of this same piece. 
Hence it is most probable that the Chronicler himself gave the 
singers these pedigrees descending from the three sons of Levi. No 
doubt the latter had already claimed Levitical descent. The Chron- 
icler may have utilised some current genealogies of the singers to sup- 
plement the Levitical tables of 6* ^- "o o. The identity of one 
name would be sufficient to make the connection, which may ac- 
count for the omission of the last four names of the table of Merari 
(v. s.). The fact that Ethan is used here and in i5>' «■ while elsewhere 
we find Jeduthiin (i6<' 25'- '• « 2 Ch. 5'2 29" 35'*) is not significant. 


The Chronicler could have identified the two as well as a later interpo- 
lator. The objection has been raised (by Bn.) that elsewhere in Ch- 
Ezr.-Ne. — except 15" ^- which is doubtless dependent on this passage — 
Asaph seems to figure as the chief singer (c/. i65-' Ne. 11") and he is 
always mentioned first. But it is by no means certain that the WTiter 
of these genealogies intended to exalt Heman's guild of singers above 
the Asaphites. Although Heman is placed first, he is not called the 
chief. Asaph's descent is traced from Gershon, the oldest of the sons of 
Levi, which may imply that his guild was recognised as the oldest. His 
position on the right hand, possibly an indication of the position this 
guild occupied in the service at the Temple, was a post of honour, 
cf. Gn. 48" Ps. iiQi. 

18. innpn] (g, H, ^, © nnp. — 19-21. On S^v'^K) mn> r\-i, nnn, see 
above w. ^'2. According to v. 2" "'a'cy was the father of nnn, v. " makes 
him out the brother of nis-'ns = nn:;. Possibly v. 20 jg dependent on 
some text which had 1J3 after Picnx = nno {cf. d*- quoted above on 
\y. ">■ 5), or V. 20 is due to the carelessness of the compiler. ^^ of v. 1° 
may be corrected from this verse. — 22. iD^aN p i^Dx] v. s. w. ''■ '. — 
25. n^c'ya] read with some MSS., (S'', ^ n^t'yn:, so Bn., Ki. — 28. Dir-ij] 
V. s. V. '. — 29. •'•;.>p] many iiss., Kt. (Oriental text), <S^, !H ^u'lp, 15" 
in^B'ip, c/. 2 Ch. 29'2 na;? p v-'p. — 30. 31. ^xcn p n>p'^n p] ha^ fallen 
from the text of (i»^ by homcEOteleuton. (S* i/ios XeXxtou* viov kyjo-aai. 
supports iH (Ki. BH. is misleading). 

33. 34 (48. 49). A description of the service of the Levites 

and the priests. — This description is according to P and the as- 
signment there by Moses. — Their brethren the Levites] i.e., all 
Levites not singers and not priests. The term Levite is social as 
well as tribal. The subordinate ministry of the Levites is here 
meant (cf. Nu. 3* ^ ). The duties of the priests are summarised 
as service at the altar of burnt offering (cf. Ex. ay'-^), at the altar of 
incense (cf Ex. 30'-'), and in whatever functions were connected 
with the rooms of the sanctuary (cf. Nu. 4'^) (the term holy of 
holies cannot be restricted here to the innermost sanctuary), also 
to make an atonement for Israel]. The priests made an atonement 
through sacrifices for individuals (Lv. 42° 'i 8^* 10" et al.) and for 
the entire people on the day of atonement (Lv. 16'*), and also on 
other occasions of stress and fast (2 Ch. 29^^). The term to make 
an atonement is used here to indicate the priestly ministry in general. 

34. ^D3^i] inf. cstr. with u'cw, a continuation of an^'ttpc, Ges. § 
114/), Dr. TH. 206, Dav. Syn. § 92 R. 4. 


35-38 (50-53). The high priests from Aaron to Ahimaaz. 

Cf. 52''-3^ (6^-8). — This genealogy if not the original with the Chron- 
icler {v. s.) is repeated here to give data to the time of David. 

39-66 (54-81). The dwelling-places of Levi.— This section, 
with rearrangement and some slight abridgment, is taken from 
Jos. 215-39. Jn that passage a general statement of the number and 
locality of the cities of the priests and Levites (Jos. 21*-') precedes 
the enumeration of the separate cities of both priests and Levites. 
Here on the other hand the separate cities of the priests are first 
enumerated (vv. 39-45 (54 -eo Jqs. ai'^-'^) and then is given the 
general summary (vv. "-5° <^'-"> Jos. 215-9) and then follows the 
enumeration of the separate cities of the Levites (vv. ^'-se (66-8i))_ 
In this order v. ^o (65) forms no proper introduction to the following 
verses. It can only introduce according to its place in Jos. 
•yry_ 69 £f . (54 a.)_ Hcnce thls, with the preceding verse, is held to 
have come from a marginal annotation made by some reader 
familiar with the narrative of Jos. and later to have been inserted in 
the text (Be., Ki.), or the entire list of Levitical cities (vv. "-6« 
(66-81)) ig a later supplement (Bn.), or a copyist through error re- 
arranged the original material of the Chronicler. But it is more 
likely that the Chronicler himself was guilty of this unskilful 
arrangement. Wishing to separate the account of the priestly 
cities from that of the Levites, he transposed the verses. That he 
should have transcribed and left Jos. 21 ' (v. =" (">) where it did not 
harmonise with the text is not strange. He is guilty elsewhere of 
similar infelicities (see Intro, p. 19). 

39-45 (54-60). The cities of the priests.— Taken from Jos. 
21'°-". — 39. And these {i.e., the following) are their dwelling places 
according to their settlements within their boundary] from the 
Chronicler, since these words are not in his source. The proper 
introduction (Jos. 21') is given in v. ^o (ss) (ii_ s.). — To the sons 0/ 
Aaron, etc.]. With these words commences abruptly the quota- 
tion from the book of Joshua. — Of the family of the Kehathites]. 
Cf. 5" (6'). — The first^ lot]. The word first, supplied from Jos. 
21'", is necessary for clearness of meaning. — 40 (55). Hebron] 
Kirjath-arba Jos. 20% which, according to Jos. 14'^, was the 
more ancient name, mod. El-Khaltl, twenty-three miles south 


and a little west of Jerusalem; one of the oldest and most 
notable cities of Palestine, built seven years before Zoan in 
Egypt (Nu. 1322); the burial-place of Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob (Gn. 23"' 25' 35" «• 50'^); David's residence when 
king over Judah (2 S. 5^); the place of the death of Abner (2 
S. 3"), and headquarters of the rebelhous Absalom (2 S. 15' ' ). 
— And the suburbs]. Cf. 2 Ch. ii'*. — 41 (56). This verse 
harmonises with the previous verse the gift of Hebron to Caleb 
recorded in Jos. 15". Both verses (this and the preceding) in 
the book of Joshua are editorial insertions (Bennett, Jos. 
SBOT.). They interrupt the narrative. — 42 (57). Cities]. The 
plural is an error. Only Hebron was a city of refuge. Hence 
after Jos. 21" read city. The Chronicler has here abridged 
(v. i.). — Libnah]. A city in the lowland of Judah of some histor- 
ical importance {cf. 2 K. 8" 19^ 23"). Its location has not been 
clearly identified. — Jattir] in the hill country of Judah (Jos. 15^* 
21'^ I S. 30" f), mod. 'Attir thirteen miles south by west from 
Hehvon.—Eshtemoa]. Cf. 4'^ — 43 (58). Hilen] Holon Jos. 
21'=; in the hill country of Judah mentioned in Jos. 155' between 
Goshen and Gilo; not identified. — Debir] also called Kirjath- 
sepher (Jos. 15" Ju. i" '■), a place of importance in the Negeb 
or southern Judah, identified with DahariyeJi, some ten or twelve 
miles south-west of Hebron (cf. Moore, /;/. pp. 25 /.). — 44 (59). 
AsJian] written 'Ain Jos. 2i'« (v. i.), mentioned among towns of 
Judah Jos. 15^2^ and of Simeon Jos. 19' f : clearly then in southern 
Judah: not identified. — Belh-sJiemesh] on the borders of Judah 
Jos. 15'", but assigned to Dan Jos. 19"', the mod. 'Ain Shems in 
the valley of Sorek south of the railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem 
and not far from the half-way point (Baed.« pp. 14, 126). The 
place was probably an ancient Canaanite sanctuary (cf. for his- 
torical references i S. 6^ «■ i K. 4' 2 K. 14" 2 Ch. 2521 28'8). — 
45 (60). Geha] a town frequently mentioned (8" i S. 13' 2 S. 5" 
I K. 15" 2 K. 238 2 Ch. i6« Ne. 11" 12=9 Is. 10" Zc. 14'°), mod. 
Jeba south of the pass of Michmash. It is about four miles 
north by east from Jerusalem. — Alemeth] (Almon Jos. 2i'8) 
mentioned in the genealogies 8^6 9^2^ identified with mod. Almtt, 
three and a half miles north-east of Jerusalem, beyond Anathoth, 


which is distinguished as the home of Jeremiah (Je. i' 11 2'- 23 29" 
32' ^-j also mentioned in 2 S. 23'^ i K. 2'^^ Ezr. 2" Ne. 7" n^i Is. 
io"'f),mod. 'Anata three miles north-east of Jerusalem. — Thirteen 
cities]. Only eleven are mentioned in the present text of Ch., 
hence probably Jutta found in Jos. 2i'« and Gibeon in Jos. 21" 
should be supplied in vv. ** '• (v. i.). 

39b-45 compared with Jos. 21"'-" show the following variations, some 
of which appear abridgments of the Chronicler and others seem to have 
arisen in the transmission of his text, and should be restored from Job. 
We give as the former: v. -"b the omission of ^hm before ''J3'?, and •'iziz 
'>^h after innpn (nns-'cS instead of 'cn in Jos. represents the true text, 
since the formula /raw the families of the tribes is not used, see SBOT. 
on Jos. 21^); v. " pnn Nin pjjjn >3N P31n n-'ip nx cut down to pan hn 
and y\i<2 read for inj; v. " inrnNa omitted after n:o->; v. " jnon omitted 
after ]'\7\i< and nxnn after tsSpn. The latter omission appears also in 
V. 52, cf. Jos. 21^'. In vv. " '• the sums of the cities as given in Jos. 21'^ " 
are omitted. Variations through careless transmission appear: v. '"> 
irN-i omitted after Snun; v. ^2 >-,j; instead of -\^V' n^anjc pni omitted 
after pan and after ■in\ which phrase also with nai and with pyaj have 
fallen out of vv. ""'■•, v. « animnDrca instead of pie'ijci. The ]^"J 
of V. ** is the true reading instead of py of Jos. 21'^, cf. on Jos. in loco 
d, SBOT., Dill., and also Jos. 15" 19^ Probably also with variations 
due to copyists should be classed: v. " jS^n instead of jSi, cf Jos. 15"; 
V. « nnSj; instead of ]mhy with Anathoth after instead of before. 

46-50 (61-65). A summary of the Levitical cities.— Taken 

directly from Jos. 21^-' {v. s.). — 46 (61). And the rest of the children 
of Kehath had by lot out of the families of the tribe of Ephraim and 
out of the tribe of Dan and out of the half tribe of Manas seh ten cit- 
ies^]. The present fH is corrupt and meaningless and must be thus 
restored according to Jos. 2i\ Be. suggested that the confusion 
may have arisen from the deliberate omission of the reference to 
the tribe of Dan {cf. y'^). The sons of Kehath, or the first main 
division of the Levites, omitting from their number the priests, had 
in the territory of Ephraim and Dan, adjoining Judah,and in West 
Manasseh ten cities enumerated in part in vv. ^i" (66-70), — 47 (62). 
The sons of Gershom representing the second main division of the 
Levites had thirteen cities, enumerated in vv. s^-^' <"-"', in the 
territory of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and the east-Jordanic tribe 
of Manasseh.— 48 (63). The sons of Merari, the third and final 


main division of the Levites, had as their possession twelve cities 
enumerated in part in w. "" I'^-su, — 49 (64). This verse gives a 
summary of the preceding. — These^ cities]. The word ikese 
supplied from Jos. has perhaps fallen from the text. — 50 (65). 
By lot] out of place by copyist's error, belongs to the previous 
verse. This verse in Jos. begins a new paragraph and is here 
entirely out of place introducing the matter of vv. ="'-« (sib-eoj 
(V. s.). 

46. pns'^cc] Jos. 21^ riiE'J'cn to be preferred (Bn.), but omnss'r^S 
with nr:;c as in vv. *'"■ is preferred by Ki., and also Bennett, as the true 
readingin Jos. 2i5'-, SBOT. — HiOO ^xnci p n-jcci anijN noc is to be sup- 
pHed after rniJt'cn from Jos. in place of •'xn n-c-o n-'sn^D n^sn as is 
required by the te7i cities. — 47. Disnj] Jos. 21^ P'^'^J, v. s. v. '. — aninoiJ'c'^] 
according to their families, i.e., of Gershonites, Jos. MJ1 rnau'cc from 
families of the tribe, etc. (but v. s.). — Instead of 7\z>m nccci Jos. has ixn?;i 
'c nac and after T'^'^^, '^■>1J2. — 48. b'wz] is wanting in Jos. 21' (but cf 
05). — 49. V. s. In Jos. 21^ the verse closes with T'a nin> nix "Wsj 
Snua n2>r. — 50. V. s. — jD^ja '«J3 nacci] wanting in Jos. (but cf. (6 
and Jos. 21^). 

51-66 (66-81). The cities of the Levites (in distinction from 
the priests). — Taken directly from Jos. 2120 -39 with some abridg- 
ment, and the text has evidently suffered through transcription. 
— 51 (66). And families of the sons of Kehath had cities of 
their lot,^ etc.] thus correctly Be., Bn., Kau., Ki., after Jos. 21'°. 
— 52 (67). The city* of refuge] since only Shechetn was a city 
of refuge. — Shechem] a little over thirty miles north of Jerusalem, 
figures frequently in the early history of Israel {cf. Gn. i2« 2>y^ 
35* Jos. 24i- " Ju. 9 I K. 12). It is the mod. Ndhidus, a city of 
24,800 inhabitants (Baed.^ p. 217). — Gezer] an ancient Canaan- 
itish city not occupied by the Israelites (Jos. 16'° Ju. i" contra 
Jos. 10") until conquered by "Pharaoh king of Egj'pt" and pre- 
sented to Solomon i K. g'^ : the mod. Tell Jezer, some twenty 
miles west by north from Jerusalem, and the site of recent excava- 
tions (cf. R. A. Stewart IVIacalister, Bible Side Lights from the 
Mound of Gezer, Lon. 1906). — 53 (68). Instead of Johneam 
Jos. (21") has Kihzaim, which, according to Be., Bn., Ki., 
is to be preferred. No site corresponding to either name has 


been found. — Bcih-horon]. There were an upper and a lower 
Beth-horon (2 Ch. 8=) "near the head and the foot respectively 
of the ascent from the Maritime Plain to the plateau of Ben- 
jamin, and represented to-day by Beit 'Ur el foka and Beii 
'Ur el lakla." The towns are a little over two miles apart and 
some ten or twelve miles north-west of Jerusalem. For refer- 
ences to these towns and their ascent cf. Jos. io'° '• i6'- ' 18'^ '• 
21" I S. 13'^ 2 K. 8' 2 Ch. 8^ 25". Between v." (68) and v. «< 
<«", intentionally (Be.) or carelessly (Bn.), has been omitted Jos. 
2123 "And from the tribe of Dan Elteke and its suburbs and 
Gibbethon and its suburbs." — 54 (69). Aijaloji] a city of Dan; 
mod. village of Ydlo, a little to the north of the Jaffa road, 
about thirteen miles from Jerusalem. Cf. for references 8'3 2 Ch. 
g'" 28" Jos. 19" 2V-* Ju. 1^5 I S. 14='. The valley of Aijalon 
was a famous battle-field (cf. GAS. HGHL. pp. 210-13). — 
Gath-rimmon] (Jos. ig^^ 21" ■(•) not identified; probably a httle 
to the east of Joppa. — 55 (70). Instead of 'Aner ("IJJ?) read 
after Jos. 21" Taanach ("l^n), the frequently mentioned city 
of the plain of Esdraelon (cf. 7" Jos. 1221 17" 1918 e. 2125 ju. 
I" 515 I K. 4'2), mod. Taannuk some four and a half miles 
south-southwest from Lejjim (Megiddo) (BDB.). — Read also 
instead of Bile am (D>':'2) Ible'am (cv'72^). Cf. Jos. 17" Ju. 
I". Jos. 21" has by dittography Gath-rimmon, but (g^ le^ada, 
hence Dill., Bennett, SBOT., et al., as above. Ibleam was also 
in the plain of Esdraelon and its name appears preserved in 
the Wady Belameh in which the village Jentn lies (Baed.'' p. 
223). — The words /or the rest of the families^ of the sons of Kehath 
are a fragment of Jos. 2i^«, which reads: "All the cities of the 
families of the rest of the children of Kehath were ten with their 
suburbs." The compiler or transcriber, having omitted Jos. 21", 
felt compelled to omit the numeral, but retained the adjoining 
words, then meaningless. — 56 (71). From the family of the half- 
tribe^ etc.] a use oi family before the name of tribe arising from 
abbreviation of text in Jos. 21" where the word is plural and refers 
to the Gershonites (v. i.). — Golan'] a city of uncertain site which 
gave its name to the district Gaulanitis mentioned by Josephus 
(Ant. xvii. 8. i, xviii. 4. 6), and appears in the mod, Jaiilan 


east of the Jordan and Sea of Galilee {EBi. II. col. 1748) (Dt. 4^' 
a city of refuge, Jos. 20' 21" f). — ' Ashtaroth] mentioned with 
Edrei as one of the royal cities of Og King of Bashan (Dt. 1* Jos. 
Qio 124 1312). The name indicates that it was a seat of the worship 
of Ashtoreth. Its location has not been clearly fixed. Some 
identify it with el Mezeirib, some twenty-five miles east of the 
southern end of the Sea of Galilee, others with el 'Ash'ari, some 
three miles north of that place (DB. I. pp. 166 /.).— 57 (72). 
Read according Jos. 2128 Kishion (('"'w't!) (cf. Jos. 19") instead 
of Kedesh (U^lp) (Dill., Bn.). Conder prefers Kedesh, which he 
thinks may be identified near Ta'anach (DB. III. p. 4). The 
former place has not been identified. — Daberath] Jos. ly'^ 21^8 •)•, 
the present Deburige at the foot of Mt. Tabor (BDB.).— 58 (73). 
Ramolh] same as Remeth Jos. 192' (Bn.), mod. Er Rameh in 
southern part of plain of Esdraelon (Baed.^ p. 222). Ki. prefers 
Yarmuih of Jos. 21" (BH.). — 'Anem] (Ciy) a scribal error, is 
'Ain-gannim (Ci^ ]^y) Jos. 21^^ 19-', mod. Jenin near the 
south-east end of the plain of Esdraelon; a village now of some 
importance, with 1,500 inhabitants (Baed.^ p. 223). — 59 (74). 
Mashal] (hu'^l) better after Jos. 22" Mish'al (^S'li'C), site un- 
kno\\Ti. — 'Abdon] (Jos. 213" •\) mod. 'Abdeh ten or more miles 
north by east of Acco and some five east of Achzib. — 60 (75). 
Hitkok] (pipn). Read after Jos. 21=' Helkath (npbn), cf. Jos. 
19" |, the site is uncertain. — Rehob]. This town in Asher has not 
been located. It is to be distinguished from the Rehob at the head 
of the Jordan valley (Nu. 13^' i S. lo^- «), and also the one men- 
tioned in Jos. 19=". — 61 (76). Kedesh in Galilee] (Jos. 21"), 
Kedesh-naphtah (Ju. 4^), elsewhere simply Kedesh (Jos. 12" 19" 
Ju. 4' ^- 2 K. 15"), a city of refuge, the home of Barak, a place 
of importance mentioned by Josephus, mod. village of Kedes, west 
of Lake Huleh. — Hammon] Hammoth-dor (Jos. 21^2) Hammath 
(Jos. 1958). Probably Hammoth is the true reading {cf. 'Ka/xood 
^^) and the town is the mod. Hamnidm a short distance south of 
Tiberias {DB. II. p. 290). — Kiriathaim] (CTi''"lp) a variation of 
Kartan {IPDp) Jos. 2V\ not identified. — 62 (77). Levites as in 
Jos. 2 1 5^ must be supplied after the rest (□'•"iriun), otherwise the 
expression is meaningless. — Two cities of Zebulun, Jokne am and 


P'ariah, mentioned in Jos. 21", have fallen from the text (cf. (B^). 
— Instead of Rimmono (IJID"!) read Rimmon, since the last syllable 
has arisen from a union with a following waw (') (cf. Jos. 19'^), or 
perhaps Rimmonah. Jos. 2V^ has Dimnah (nJDl). Rimmon 
has been identified with Rummaneh north of Nazareth (DB.). 
— Instead of Tabor (')^2^\), which is nowhere mentioned as a 
city of Zebulun, but on the border of Issachar Jos. 21", Jos. 
21" has Nahalal ('^^HJ), mentioned also in Jos. 1915 Ju, i", 
not clearly identified (Moore, Ju. p. 49, but see DB. III. p. 472). 
Ki. Koni. has a lacuna in place of any name. — 63 (78). And 
beyond the Jordan at Jericho, east of Jordan]. These words are 
wanting in ^ in Jos., although the first three (ini'' p^^'b ^^^131) 
appear in C^^^ Jos. 2i'«. On the expression the Jordan at 
Jericho cf. Nu. 22' 263 Jos. 20 ^ The cities mentioned in 
w. »3<'8)-66(8i) correspond exactly with those given in Jos. 2136-39. 
— Bezer] a city of refuge (Dt. 4" Jos. 20^) mentioned on the 
Moabite stone; not identified. The phrase in the wilderness, 
wanting in ^ in Jos. {cf. Jos. 20") but appearing in (^^, and fol- 
lowed by "plain" (I'w'^D) in Dt. 4" Jos. 20^, shows the location 
of the city in the flat table-land east of the Jordan. — Jahzah] a city 
also assigned to Moab (Is. 15* Je. 48'^) on the border of the territory 
of the Amorites (Nu. 21" Dt. 2"), location unknown. — 64 (79). 
Kedemoth] somewhere north of the upper Am on, not identified 
(BDB.). — Mepha'ath] mentioned as in Aloab Je. 48=', not identi- 
fied. — 65 (80). Ramoth in Gile'ad] one of the cities of refuge (Dt. 
4*' Jos. 20*), mentioned in wars between Syria and Israel i K. 
22' «■. At the battle of Ramoth-gilead Ahab was slain (i K. 
22»<-i7). The location is uncertain: sites suggested Reimim, es 
Salt, and Jerash, the last directly east of Samaria and some 
twenty-three miles beyond the Jordan, with probability in its 
favour (Selah Merrill, E. of the Jordan, pp. 284 ff.).— Ma hanaim] 
a place of note east of Jordan (cf. Gn. 32" 2 S. 2« » 17^^ " 19" 
I K. 2' 4'<), identification not certain. — 66 (81). Heshbon] 
the former capital of Sihon, King of the Amorites (Nu. 21"), 
assigned to Moab (Je. 48^'), mod. Hesbdn some fifteen miles 
east of where the Jordan empties into the Dead Sea. — Jazer] an 
important town; a district of Reuben was called "the land of 


Jazer" (Nu. 32', also mentioned Nu. 32^ '= Jos. 13" 21" 2 S. 
24* I Ch. 26-", and assigned to Moab Is. 168 '■ Je. 48^2). 
Jerome placed it eight or ten miles west of Philadelphia and 
fifteen miles from, i.e., north of, Heshbon (Onom. 86. 24. 131. 
18). Merrill regards this as correct and identifies with Khurbet 
Sar (DB. II. p. 553). 

51. .-iinD-:-:":!] rendered in RV. as a partitive, is better read after 
Jos. 2i2o and (S'-, 13, 'C*?! (Be., Ke., Zoe., Bn., Ki.). — a'^nj] is a copyist's 
error for d'^hu in their lot, but this error may have been taken over from 
Jos. by the Chronicler, since CS^^ of Jos. have tGjv lepiwv airQv, doubtless 
a corruption of ^^ t. opiusp a. = zh^2>. — 52 . See text. n. on v. ''2. — 
53. Here and in the following verses the numbers found in Jos. are 
wanting. — 55. Dy'^^] (S"* omits, ^l^Xaafj., ^le^Xaafi = Di'^3'' (v. s.). — 
nns::'C^] should be pointed as pi. after Jos. — 56. The text of Jos. 212? 
is 'ui n-j3 ■'sna □■'i'?n nna-^sa jii'iJ ija'^i. — The words the city of refuge 
of the manslayer appear in Jos. before Golan. — 58. .""^s»v(] Jos. 21=3 
ni2i^, but Jos. 19=1 .""57.. 

VII. 1-5. The genealogy of Issachar. — Of this section, only 
V. ' is derived from canonical sources {v. i.). The remainder was 
either composed by the Chronicler or is from an unknown source. 
Instead of closing with an account of dwelling-places, there is a 
record of the number of fighting men, as is also the case in the 
records of Zebulun {v. i.) and Asher ((/. v. *"). — 1. And the sons 
of Issachar Tola and Pu'ah and Jashiib and Shimron]. Cf. for 
source Gn. 46" Nu. 26" '■. In Ju. 10' we read of one of the minor 
judges, Tola' the son of Pu'ah, the son of Dodo a man of Issachar 
and he was dwelling in Shajnir. This shows that traditions 
varied in respect to the relationship of the clans of Tola' and 
Pitah; but the former if not the more ancient was clearly the more 
pre-eminent. It is possible that the four sons of Issachar are simply 
reflections of the statement given above in the form. Tola the son 
of Pu'ah dwelling in Shamir; Jashub derived from dwelling 
(^u'T') {cf. the variation Job ^T' in Gn. 46'3) and Shimron from 
Shamir ("i"»Du); o^"; ^^'^^ versa, that the late editor of the "Minor 
Judges" came on this concise list of names in P and constructed 
his statements therefrom {cf. H. W. Hogg in OLZ. vol. 3 (1900) 
col. 367). Shimron has been regarded as standing for the city 



of Samaria (Noeldeke, EBi. III. col. 3275). — 2. And the sons oj 
Tola were Uzzi and Rephaiah and Jeri^el f and JaJimai f and 
Jibsam f and Shemu'el heads of their fathers' houses mighty men 
of valor]. The first, third, and fourth of these names look like 
those of ancient clans, while the second appears late, and thus 
is suggested a combination of early and late traditions. — Accord- 
ing to their genealogical divisions, etc.]. The writer has prob- 
ably preserved here and in the following verses midrashic 
interpretations of David's census (2 S. 24). — 3. The sons of 
Uzzi present a group of late names (Gray, HPN. p. 238). — 
Five]. The four grandsons were reckoned as sons. — All of them 
were heads] or altogether there were five heads, five distinct 
families or clans. — 4. And with them]. The reference is to the 
five clans or families of v. ' which numbered 36,000 warriors. — 
5. And the reckoning * of all the families of Issachar, the 
mighty men of valor, was altogether 87,000]. In v. ^ the sons of 
Tola, six clans, are numbered at 22,600; in v. * the sons of 
Uzzi, five clans, 36,000. These two together make 58,600, leaving 
28,400 to be furnished by the remainder of the tribe, i.e., the 
clans Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, and also Tola reckoning 
him as a clan distinct from his sons {v. Bn. in loco). In Nu. i" 
the warriors of Issachar were 54,400, in Nu. 26" 64,300. 

1. •'J3S1] for the construction see Ges. § 143^- Ke., Zoe., Oe., Kau., 
Bn., prefer to emend to "'J31. (&^ Kai ovtoi viol = ■'ja n'^Ni, cf. 2' 3'. — 
HNifl] Gn. 46", Nu. 26M nifl. - 3'^;] Qr. (cf. 05, B) aic-v Gn. 3r 
is a text, error, SBOT. (see above for an original acr). — 2. j.'Sin'^] an 
addition defining annN rria, appears a corruption (Zoe.) and should be 
struck out. — annSnS] is better connected with the last half of the 
verse (Be., Ke., Ki.). — 5. nn^nsM] Bn. after Klo. reads Dcn^nm, as in vv. 
7b 9. 40b and removes the following Bw'nv^ni. Possibly an original D has 
fallen out before on-nxi, the preceding word ending in 2. Then 1 is a 
corruption for f and we should read 'N JD and connect with the preceding 
verse, translating /or they had more tvives and sons than their brethren. 
De'n''nni should be transposed to a position after on^'nN*, and final "^dS 
should be struck out. — a''S''n maj] v. Ges. § 1249. 

VII. 6-11. The genealogy of Zebulun. — This genealogy 
which 1^ apparently ascribes to Benjamin is peculiar. The intro- 
ductory words The sons of are wanting; nowhere else in ^ are 


the sons of Benjamin limited to three; Jedia'el is elsewhere un- 
known as a Benjaminite name, a most striking thing when the 
sons of Benjamin are so often mentioned; and this section as a 
Benjaminite genealogy forms a doublet to c. 8. 

Not only are the names of the sons of Bela (v. ') entirely different 
from those in any other list of his sons (r/. 8^ Nu. 26^" and (^ of Gn. 
46-'), but they are uncommon or unknown to the tribe of Benjamin. 
While the other lists of Bela's sons differ from each other, showing 
variant traditions, they are agreed in employing the same names. 
On the other hand, Ezbon is only found elsewhere as a son of Gad 
(Gn. 46'% cf. Nu. 26'«); 'Uzzi is a common priestly and Levitical 
name Ne. i2"'- " i Ch. 5" '■ (6^ '■) 6«« <^" Ezr. 7* Ne. 11", appears 
among the descendants of Issachar (72- 3) and once as a Benja- 
minite (98); 'UzzVel, though a very common name, is not Benjamin- 
ite; Jerimoth (mO"'"!'') is a Benjaminite name in 8'< (miSI''), but 
there we should probably read Jeroham (DFI"!'') with 8", cf. 9' 
(Jerimoth of i2« i^) is doubtless a Judean name, v. in loco); Iri does 
not occur elsewhere. Thus we have apparently a variant tradi- 
tion which has only one certain Benjaminite name and that a 
common one elsewhere. 

The case is similar with the sons of Becher (v. «). Of these, 
Zemirah occurs only here (but cf. Zimri 8'«); Jo ash, Eliezer, 
Elio'enai (but cf. Elienai 82°), 'Omri, and Abijah are more or less 
common but unknown as Benjaminite names; the same is likely 
true of Jeremoth (see above, Jerimoth). The last two names, 
'Anathoth and Alemeth, on the other hand, are common Benjaminite 
names. Anathoth occurs elsewhere as a personal name only in Ne. 
10" <'^', where the tribe is not given, but is frequent as a place-name 
in Benjamin. Alemeth is also a place-name of Benjamin and is a 
personal name in 8^^ and 9". Only these two, therefore, are cer- 
tainly Benjaminite and they alone are geographical. 

Of the third branch (v. '») not only Jedia'el but his son Bilhan 
and his grandsons Chenaanah, Zethan, Tarshish, and Ahishahar 
are not known as Benjaminites. Je iish (Kt. tl^'^y) is met with 
in 8^9 (tS^iy), and a Benjaminite Ehud ("linX), the son of Gera, 
is familiar from Ju. y^- '« +. Benjamin, the son of Bilhan, is 



This genealogy of Benjamin is not only unique in its content 
but is in the wrong place in a geographical arrangement of the 
tribes, and a doublet (v. s.). Now, the genealogy of Zebulun is 
wanting in the Chronicler's account. Kittel (Kom.) indicates his 
belief that the original text contained this tribe by supposing a 
lacuna after Naphtali (7'^). But Zebulun belongs rather after 
Issachar, whom he follows in thirteen out of seventeen OT. lists, 
including 2' '• and 27'^ f- (cf. also 12=" '■ 12^" 2 Ch. 3o>8), but not 
546 ff. (61 fl.) where the order is not the Chronicler's but dependent 
on Jos. 21. In five more — in three of which the principle of 
arrangement seems to be geographical from south to north — the 
order of these two is reversed. Thus we have the strange genealogy 
of Benjamin just where the lost one of Zebulun should be. 

Further there is a striking similarity between the list of Zebulun 's 
sons as given in Gn. 46 '^ and the names appearing in the first verse 
of our list, as follows : 

Gn. 46'^ ^«^n^i ji^si TiD p^nr ^ini 

I Ch. r ntr^tr ^syn-'i naai y^i p^jn. 

If the former was the original reading in i Ch. 7s plus the 
Chronicler's addition of nty^w', it is easy to see how the present 
reading arose in copying. T "'J^ was read as JCJ^; ib^ as j;^3; 
"no ] as -1331 {cf. -nn, y.'", = "133 Nu. 26=^). The last two of 
course followed as a necessary result of the first from the influ- 
ence of Gn. 46", and the well-known Zebulunite p^J< (cf. Ju. 
12" '•) had to be cancelled, as the final HD^D* required only 
three names. ^Xyi^ is then a corruption of ^ts^n"' (for y as 
a corruption of h, cf v. '^, n3y!3 for rO^Cn), a corruption 
which may have been in the Chronicler's text of Genesis. 

This hypothesis explains: the absence of initial ''^3; the other- 
wise unknown "?t<j;"'T> as a son of Benjamin; the final "ti'^tl' 
when Gn. 46^' (|^) knows ten sons of Benjamin (but corrected 
text nine, see on 8'-='), Nu. 26'' '• five, and i Ch. 8' '■ five; the 
strangeness of the following names; and eliminates the doublet 
while restoring the missing Zebulun in the proper place. 

When once the error had been made, the tendency to make 
the table plainly Benjaminite would naturally be strong. Bela and 
Becker in vv. '• " followed of necessitv. % has carried the matter 


still farther by substituting Vj^a.] (doubtless an error for "Vsia.) = 
^2D*S) for ^SJ?"'!'' in vv. «■ '» ". Anathoth and Alemeth were 
added to the list of v. ^, none of the others being geographical, and 
Ehud was inserted into v. 1° from Ju. 3'*. It is tempting to suppose 
that the anomalous Benjamin had the same origin. Then the 
first scribe simply placed "'i^DTI'p TlHS on the margin, and 
these words made their way into the text in reverse order as 
separate names. This tendency to add Benjaminite names is 
illustrated further by the appendix Shu p pirn also and Hup pirn 
(v. '2^') from Gn. 46^', which is out of place even as the list stands 
(cj. ntr^U' V. 8). 

In spite of the meagreness of Zebulunite material in the OT., 
there are some striking points of contact between this genealogy 
and Zebulun besides the resemblances of the names of v. « to 
Gn. 46'^ pnifS (v. ') suggests j^'nS (Ju. i2s-i»), a "minor 
judge" of Bethlehem of Zebulun (see Moore, Judges, p. 310). 
It is significant that (^^^ (probably representing the original Greek 
tradition) in Ju. read Ecrey8&)i/ = ji;3"iS, making it still more 
probable that we have the same name in both passages, the Chron- 
icler having found it with the second and third consonants trans- 
posed. This judge is introduced here just as Eton, the other 
Zebulunite judge, is in Gn. 46'*, and as Tola, the judge of Issachar 
(Ju. 10'), in Gn. 46" and i Ch. y- =. A point of contact with 
Zebulun is found also in the striking name Tarshish, in v. '", 
which is unknown as a Hebrew man's name. As is well known, 
this name stands in the OT. for all great shipping interests. Now, 
the special characterisation of Zebulun in Gn. 49'^ is the fact 
that he shall be "a haven for ships (JT'iX)." Such a connection 
with Tarshish could be given to no other tribe, and least of all to 
the inland tribe of Benjamin.* Furthermore, the name Che- 
naanah, found elsewhere only as the father of the prophet Zedekiah 
(i K. 22"- =^ = 2 Ch. iS'"- "), a favourite with Ahab (!), with the 
meaning "toward Canaan," i.e., Phoenicia, is singularly appro- 
priate in a tribe of which the same passage in Gn. says, "his 
border shall be upon Sidon." 

* That paSN - 1^3 N' and that Tarshish is more appropriate as a Zebulunite name 
were suggested by Professor C. C. Torrey after reading the preceding. 


Aside from this passage Zebulunite names are few in the OT. 
Among the princes of the tribes during the Wilderness Period 
was an Eliab the son of Helon as prince of Zebulun (Nu. i' 2' 
y2i. 29 iQis)^ and a Gadiel son of Zodi represented the tribe as one 
of the spies (Nu. 13'"). At the division of the land Elizaphan the 
son of Parnach was the prince who acted for this tribe (Nu. 34"). 
Among the judges we find the Zebulunites Ibzan and Elon (Ju. 
12 s '-) {v. s.). The Chronicler's list of the captains of the tribes 
in the time of David contains the Zebulunite Ishmaiah son of 
Obadiah (i Ch. 27'^). 

The emended text of this genealogy is rendered as follows : 6. The 
sons of Zebulun* : Sered*, and Elon'*, and Jahle'el* (or Jedta'el), 
three. 7. And the sons of Sered*: Ezbon, and 'Uzzi, and 'UzzVel, 
and Jerimoth, and 'Iri,-\ five; ... 8. And the sons of Elon*: 
Zetnirah-\, and Jo ash, and Eliezer, and Elioenai, and 'Omri, and 
Jeremoth, and Ahijah. All these were the sons of Elon*. 9. . . . 
10. And the sons of Jahle'el* (or Jedia'el): Bilhan. And the 
sons of Bilhan: Je'ush, and Chena'anah, and Zethan], and 
Tarshish, and Ahishahar-\. 11. All these were the sons of 
Jahle'el * (or Jedia'el) . . . 

The total enrolment of the warriors of Zebulun is here 22,034 
(v. ') + 20,200 (v. ») + 17,200 (v. ") = 59,434 against 50,000 
(i2» (33))^ 57,400 (Nu. I"), 60,500 (Nu. 26"). 

While Zebulun's genealogy appears clearly, as stated above, in 
behalf of the view generally held that the genealogy is that of Ben- 
jamin, Jediael may be regarded as the equivalent of Ashhel men- 
tioned in the list of Benjamin's sons in 8' Gn. 4621 Nu. 26^8 — {. e., 
" Known of God " has been substituted through religious scruples 
for "Man of Baal" (c/. for similar changes of names 3* 8^* ' ); then 
may be emphasised the presence of the Benjaminite names Jerimoth 
(vv. ' '■), Anathoth and Alemeth (v. «), Benjamin and Ehud (v. '"), 
and Shuppim and Hiippim (v. '^ ^. j.). 

6 . Snjjitii n33i pSa pnij^] read instead (or '^xj?n>i) Snhn^^ pVxi niD pSar ij2 
restored from Gn. 46'* (v. s.). — 7. ySa] read "no {v. s.). — 8. 133 bis] 
read p'?N {v. s.). — r\rhyt mnjpi] as a later gloss should be struck out 
{v. 5.). — -10. Sxpn^] read possibly Sn'th'', so also in v. ", and strike out 

ID1JJ1 -nnsi {v. s.). 


12. The genealogy of Dan. — The first two names in this 
verse, Shuppirn and Huppim, are a late addition to the preceding 
section derived from Gn. 46^' (restored text) Nu. 26", and are a 
part of the process by which that genealogy was made over from 
being Zebulunite to Benjaminite {v. s. on vv. «-"). The endings 
should be am as in Nu. and not im as though plural, since the 
adjectives are Huphamite (^ttfiin) and Shuphamite (''CSIt^)- — 
The sons of Dan, Hushim his son, one^] (y. i.) The name */r 
doubtless arose from a corrupt text through the influence of 'Iri, 
V. ^ Hushim appears as the one son of Dan in Gn. 46", and in Nu. 
26" as Shu ham. Hushim as a Benjaminite name in the corrupt 
passage 8»-", probably helped to corrupt this passage after the 
preceding had been made a Benjaminite genealogy (t>. s.). Aher 
("l^^^), M, seems very probably a corruption of the numeral one 
(inK), since to add the number was a favourite practice of the 
Chronicler, cf. vv. >■ »• ' ei al., and lack of genealogical material 
was a special reason for the addition here. 

12. Dsm Dfliri] are a later addition, cf. Gn. 46" Nu. 262s (^i 5). — 
-inN 'J3 DCn T-y ua] read with Klo. PRE. ^^N ij2 orn p ^J3, The sons of 
Dan Hushim his son one on the basis of Gn. 46" and C6 which read ij3. 
This seems preferable to finding Ji hidden in nnN (Be.). Bacher thinks 
T>7 ^J3, " sons of the city," euphemistic for p ^J3, to which the Chron- 
icler objected because of the idolatry practised by the Danites (Ju. 18'" 
I K. 1229), and compares the Talmudic use of n'j? for Tn (Rome); 
nn{< 1J2 has a similar import and is a gloss to "vy ija {ZAW. xviii. 
(189S), pp. 236-8). 

13. The genealogy of Naphtali, cf. Gn. 46=^ ' Nu. 26^8 ' . — 
This brief genealogy is taken word for word from Gn. 46" * with 
the single omission of these before sons of Bilhah which stood in 
the original clause with reference to the sons of Dan as well as 
those of Naphtali. 

13. Sxixni] 23 MSS., Gn. 462* Nu. 26" without the second v — aiS^'i] 
seven mss., Gn. and Nu. 26" oSuh. 

VII. 14-29. Manasseh and Ephraim. — The Chronicler 
groups the two sons of Joseph together, giving (i) the genealogy 
of Manasseh (vv. '^-''), (2) the genealogy of Ephraim (vv. =« "), (3) 


dwelling-places of Ephraim (v. "), (4) dwelling-places of Manas- 
seh (v. "). The genealogy of Manasseh, while not without con- 
nection with those given in Jos. 17^ ^- Nu. 26=' «•, is presented in 
quite an independent form. Kittel (SBOT. Kom.) ascribes it to 
an older source. To the same source he gives w. 2' (f™™ ""'^ Ezer)-n 
of the genealogy of Ephraim. There is no reason to doubt that 
w. *8-2' belong to the original compilation of the Chronicler, 
since it can hardly be contended (with Bn.) that the Chronicler 
does not describe the dwelling-places elsewhere {cf. 4290-586 9^ etc_) _ 
The contents of these verses are derived from Jos. 16* *• 17" "■, 
which were rewritten by the Chronicler. It appears that instead 
of trying to give all the dwelling-places of these two tribes, the 
writer intends to describe their combined territory by giving the 
cities on the southern and on the northern borders. Shechem, be- 
longing to Ephraim, then, defines the boundary between the two 
tribes. Possibly Ayyah, whose site is unknown, was given for the 
same purpose. 

14-19. The genealogy of Manasseh. — 14. The sons of Ma- 
nasseh^ which his Ara?naic concubine bore: she bore Machir the 
father of Gile'ad]. This statement is identical with Gn. 46'*'"' 
(|5- Machir appears as the eldest son of Manasseh and as the father 
of Gilead in Jos. 17'= and Nu. 36'. In Gn. 50" the birth of 
Machir and also of his sons is placed in Egypt. The descent here 
given from an Aramaic conctihine points to a different story and 
arose probably from the close association and admixture of the 
Manassites east of the Jordan \\ith the Arameans. In Ju. 5'< 
Machir represents a tribe in Israel, evidently Manasseh. He 
is called the father of Gilead because the clan of Machir conquered 
Gilead. — 15. And Gilead took a wife whose name was Ma'acah 
and the name of his sister was Hammolecheth f and the name of his 
brother Zelophhad *]. Ma'acah represents the small Aramean 
kingdom, district, or people situated east of the Sea of Galilee near 
Mt. Hermon, hence either adjoining the territory of Manasseh 
Dt. 3'< Jos. 12' or included in it Jos. 13". Cf 2 S. io« where 
the King of Ma'acah is hired against David, and Gn. 22" 
where Ma'acah the tribal father appears as a son of Nahor. 
Ma'acah the wife of Gilead reflects the same historical circum- 


stances as the Aramean concubine, v. •«. Hammolecheili (she who 
reigns) (nS^lSn) is to be compared with Milcah (queen) (nS^C) 
the wife of Nahor (Gn. ii"), and reflects probably, with Ma'acah, 
a close connection with the Arameans. While the name here may 
be tribal (Gray, HPN. p. ii6), it undoubtedly was originally a 
divine title. In Nu. 2628" (P) Zelophhad is given as the fourth 
in descent from Manasseh through Machir, Gilead, and Hepher. 
—16. 17. And Maacah the wife of Gilead^ bore a son and called 
his name Peresh ■\ and the name of his brother was Sheresh f; and 
his sons, Ulam and Rekem; and the sons of Ulam, Bedan\: these are 
the sons of Gilead, etc.]. These sons or clans are otherwise en- 
tirely unknown. For a reoccurrence of the name Ulam cf. 8", 
of Rekem 2'''- Jo^. 18" Nu. 31 » Jos. 13='. For further sons of 
Gilead connected with the tribe of Judah see 2=' ^ .— 18. Ishhod f]. 
—Abiezer] in Jos. 17^ a son of Manasseh and in Ju. 6"- '^- ^* '' the 
family of Gideon.— i/a/rfo/;] in Nu. 26'' 27' 36" Jos. 17' one of the 
daughters of Zelophhad.— 19. Shemida] probably originally stood 
also in v. '« as,a son of Hammolecheth: a son of Manasseh Jos. 17', 
a son of Gilead Nu. 26''.— Ahjan ^].—Shechem] a son of Manasseh 
Jos. I7S a son of Gilead Nu. 26'K—Lekhi f] (''Hp^) possibly cor- 
responds to Helek (p^n) Nu. 26'° Jos. I7^ and Amam f (Dy^:«) 
to Noah (nyj) daughter of Zelophhad Nu. and Jos.— The writer 
here has not clearly distinguished between the clans of eastern and 
western Manasseh. His scheme differs considerably from those 
of Jos. and Nu. (see Manasseh in DB. III.). 

14. The name Ashriel (S^nrs), while suggested by Jos. if- Nu. 263', 
where Asriel appears among the sons of Manasseh or Gilead, is proba- 
bly a dittography arising from the following mS> -ia>x and is to be struck 
out of the text (Mov., Be., Zoe., Oe., Kau., Bn., Ki.).— 15. The present 
text ■inD'?x •'jrn ofi r^y;ri mnx D'^i did-^Si d^'DhS t\vh npS niDDi yields the 
following: And Machir took a wife of Huppim and Shuppim {i.e., 
of these Benjaminite famihes, cf. v. '=) and the name of his sister was 
Maacah and the name of the second Zelophhad. But according to vv. 
16. 18 Ma'acah was the wife of Machir and Hammolecheth his sister. 
Mov. changed Vnnx to nnx and read and the name of the first was 
Maacah and the name of the second Zelophhad. But Zelophhad in Nu. 
2633 271-7 362-12 Jos. if is a man. The connection of Machir or his wife 
with Huppim and Shuppim looks strange also. Hence these words 

Vn. 20-29.] GENEALOGY OF EPHRAIM 1 53 

are better regarded as a gloss from v. '^ or an original position on the 
margin and the text further emended as follows: nntJ'i na*!* npS ij;Sj 
nnoSs rnN oa'i nsSnn inns ozn n3j;n with translation above (Bn., Ki.). 
Gilead is read instead of Machir as the husband of Maacah because the 
sons given in v. " are called the sons of Gilead, hence in v. '^ Gilead is to 
be read instead of Machir. 

20-29. The genealogy of Ephraim. — (Cf. Ephraim Gene- 
alogy, Hogg, JQR. XIII. [Oct. 1900] p. 147.) Viewing this section 
as a whole, it exhibits little dependence upon OT. sources and 
shows considerable complication of material or is very corrupt. — • 
20. 21*. This line of descent abruptly ending in v. ='* may origi- 
nally have formed a part of one of Joshua and suffered the inter- 
ruption of vv. 2ib-2<. Ezer and Elead cannot have been its final 
members in this connection, because the context regards them as 
immediate sons and not later descendants of Ephraim. But what- 
ever the design of this line of descent, it has been constructed out 
of a list of sons of Ephraim similar to that in Nu. 26'^ ' . These 
may originally have completed the statement. And the sons of 
Ephraim. These sons were Shuthelah (n^nVw'), Becher (1D3), 
here Bered (Tli), Tahan (inn), here Tahath (ririH), and also 
'Eran (py) son of Shuthelah {cf. La'adan \T^b v."). The 
two names 'Ezer and Ele'ad, v. ^^ (the latter occasioning Eleadah 
V. 20), seem on the other hand to have belonged to the narrative 
2ib-i4^ which is entirely independent of the material of Nu. Zabad 
(l^nT) v. 21 may be derived from and Bered (l"li1). (On whether 
Becher or Bered belonged to the earliest list of Ephraim's sons, 
V. Hogg art. s., also EBi. col. 1320). — 21*'-24. A story explain- 
ing the name of Beriah, the founder probably of Beth-horon 
and possibly a reputed ancestor of Joshua.; — And the men of Gath 
who were natives in the land slew them] i.e., 'Ezer and Ele'ad, 
because they came down to take away their cattle. This patri- 
archal story is difficult of explanation. In the light of the story 
of the sojourn in Egypt, this raid, if by immediate sons of Eph- 
raim, must have been made from Egypt, in spite of the ex- 
pression "go down" (Tl"*). This was the explanation of the 
earlier commentators, who regarded Ephraim and his children as 
historical persons. But the use of TiV "go down," points almost 



conclusively to a foray from Mt. Ephraim into the plains of 
Philistia, and this little narrative is probably a reminiscence of 
some such event (Be., Ki.). Two Ephraimitic families, .Ezer and 
Ele'ad, probably were destroyed in such a raid, and the original 
Ephraim, who mourned many days, was the tribe or the hill country. 
Cf. Rachel weeping in Je. 31'^ Or the narrative may be entirely 
imaginary, a purely etymological legend to explain the Ephraimitic 
family name Ben ah (ny'lD as though derived from "^"13 "in 
evil"). (On this narrative cf. Ew. Hist. I. p. 380; Sayce, Pat. 
Pal. p. 202; We. Prol. p. 214; EBi. Beri'ah.) — Benah] a Le- 
vitical name 23'°, also that of a son of Asher vv. =» '■ Gn. 46'' 
Nu. 26^% and in the list of the descendants of Benjamin 8"- ". 
See further on w. s" '. — 24. And Jiis daughter was Slie'erah-\ 
and she built Beth-horon the lower and the upper, and Uzzen- 
slie'erah f]. This verse in its present form is suspicious because 
elsewhere in the OT. the founders of cities are men. — Beth- 
horon]. Cf. 6" <^''. — Uzzen-she^erah] as a place is entirely un- 
identified and otherwise unknown. — 25. And Rephah ■\ his son 
and Resheph f ]. The present text of v. " suggests her son instead 
of his son. Perhaps after Resheph, "his son" should also be 
supplied (Ki.). — And Telah j] (n^n) an abbreviation probably 
of Shuthelah (n^miT) v. 'K—Tahan]. Cf Tahath v. 2».— 26. 
Ladan] (py^ probably from pp with f prefixed see w. "■ ^'), 
elsewhere a Levite name 23' '■ 262'. — ' Ammihud] and Elishama] 
are taken from Nu. 1'°, where the latter the son of the former 
is the "head" of Ephraim, but only here is Nun (v.") the 
father of Joshua brought into connection with them. — 27. This 
is the only record of Joshua's line of descent and its late and 
artificial character reveals itself at once. — Non] (]12) elsewhere 
in OT. Nun (jlj). — 28. A brief description of the possessions 
of Ephraim through the mention of the southern boundary 
Bethel, mod. Beitin, ten miles north of Jerusalem, the eastern 
Na'aran (Jos. 16' Na'arah) placed by Jerome and Eusebius 
within five miles of Jericho, not identified (Bn., but see EBi.), 
the western Gezer, and evidently the northern Shechem unto the 
unknown ' Ayyah or 'Azzah. — 29. Four principal and well-kno^N-n 
towns of Manasseh are here enumerated, beginning with Beth- 

Vn. 30-40.] GENEALOGY OF ASHER 1 55 

shean, mod. Beisdn, on the east in the Jordan valley, and passing 
westward through the plain of Esdraelon, where Taanach mod. 
Taannak, and Megiddo mod. el-LejjUn (Baed.^ p. 224), are 
located, to Dor mod. l^antura on the coast. Cf. Jos. 17" Ju. i". 
— These two verses in contents are agreeable to Jos. 16^ «f- 17" « 
but not in form, and hence are either a composition of the Chron- 
icler or from the source of the genealogies given above. 

24. 25*. Hogg {op. cit.) restores as follows: n''3 rs nja -\\:;n xin 
lem mmv hni \v^-;r^ pni ppnnn ]nin, He it was that built Belh-horon 
the lower and the upper and 'Irhcres (cf. Tiranath-heres Ju. 2^) and 
Hepher (Jos. 12"). — 25. I^''^^] t^en MSS. + 1J2. — 28. n^^] many Jiss. 
and editions (including the Bomberg Bible) r\v;_. — 29. /31 njyri] ($ -\- 
Kol BaXaaS (coi al Kw/j-ai avrijs, cf. Jos. 17" n\iij3l DJj'?3'>i. 

30-40. The genealogy of Asher. — 30. 31. And the sons of 
Asher, Jimnah and Jishvah and Jishvi and Benah and Serah, 
their sister, and the sons of Bert ah, Heher and Malchi'el]. This 
statement is identical with Gn. 46' ^ In Nu. 26" '■ Jishvah 
(mtS''') is wanting; and hence Jishvah (mty) and Jishvi {'^^V^) 
represent the same clan, the dittography already appearing in 
Gn. In Jimnah (nitt"') one may see a form of Jamin ([''D'') 
right hand, i.e., a southern clan. The appearance of Beriah as a 
clan of Ephraim and a family of Benjamin (cf. v. ") has been 
alleged to indicate that the tribe of Asher originally came from the 
region of Mt. Ephraim and was an offshoot of the early Hebrews 
who settled there (Steuernagel, Einwand. Is. Stdmme, p. 31). 
Possibly then a connection might be found between Jimnah and 
Benjamin. Heber and MalchVel are of especial interest because 
they seem identical with the Habiri and Malchiel mentioned in the 
Amarna tablets {JBL. XL [1892] p. 120, Hom. AHT. p. 233). 
A connection also may be seen between Heber and Heber the 
Kenite (Ju. 4") {v. Heber EBi.). — The father of Birzaith] a 
supplementary clause not in Gn. Birzaith is probably the name 
of a town, not identified (n''ni prob. =n''nS'n "olive-well"). 
— 32-34. And Heber begat Japhlet f and Shower (?) and Hotham 
(?) and Shu a f their sister. And the sons of Japhlet f, Pasach f 
and Bimhal f and 'Ashvath f. And the sons of Sheiner his 


brother* Rohgah f and Huhbah f and Aram]. Shemer and 
Shomer, v. ", are identical, with preference for the former (Bn., 
Ki.). A connection between Hubbah (n^in) and Hobab {22T\) 
Ju. 4" {cf. Heber v. 3') has been seen. — 35. And the sons* of Helem 
his brother Zophah f and Jimna | and Shelesh f and 'Amal f]. 
Helem is undoubtedly the same as Hotham in v. ^\ but which is 
correct cannot be determined. Ki. prefers the latter. — 36. 37. 
And the sons of Zophah Suah f and Harnepher | and Shiial and 
Beri-\ and Jimrah-\, Bezer and Hod f and Shammah and Shilshah 
f and Jithran and Be'era ]. — 38. And the sons ofJether, Jephnnneh 
and Pispa f and Ara |]. Jether is clearly the same as Jithran 
V. ". — 39. And the sons of'Ulla, Arah, Hanni'el and Rizia]. 'Ulla 
stands clearly by corruption for one of the previously mentioned 
"sons," but which one it is impossible to determine. As is seen 
from the daggers above, fully one-third of the names of the de- 
scendants of Asher occur only here, and the remaining third, 
omitting vv. ^^ '•, do not occur elsewhere in connection with Asher. 
The names are not distinctly personal, and many of them un- 
doubtedly represent places as well as families {cf. Bezer v. " a 
Reubenite to\\-n Dt. 4", Shu'al v. '«, and Shilsha v. " = Shalisha, 
the names of districts i S. 13' 9^). Jithran v. " is the name of 
a Horite clan, Gn. 36", and Arah v. ^- of a family of the return Ezr. 
2^ These names as a whole, then, are ancient, either preserved in 
Asherite families of the time of the Chronicler or taken from some 
ancient record about the Asherites (Gray, HPN. pp. 239 /.). — 
40. On derivation of these statistics cf. v. ^ — 26,000]. According 
to Nu. I" Asher numbered 41,500 men and according to Nu. 26" 
53,400. The census here, however, is evidently confined to the 
clan of Heber. 

34. In place of 'nx with following 1 read rns his brother, cf. v. " 
(Bn., Ki.). — njnni] Qr. ^^^p^.. — n3n>] Qr. n3ni. — 35. Instead of pi 
read 'J3i, as the context demands. — 37. }"i.~m] two mss. ipm, (&'^ le^ep, 
rf. V. 38. — 40. o~-(n3] part, of "na only in the writings of the Chronicler, 
cf. g-- 1 6" Ne. 5'8 (1. i6). 

VIII. The genealogy of Benjamin.— (C/. Hogg, JQR. XI. 
Oct. 1893, pp. 102 jf.) The conditions here reflected are clearly 


post-exilic, as appears for the following reasons : (a) The places 
of residence, not mentioning Jerusalem, are towns recurring in 
the post-exilic history — Gibea (v. «), cj. Ezr. 2^8; Lod and Ono 
(v. '2), cf. Ezr. 2"; Gibeon (v."), cJ. Ne. 7". (6) Many of the 
names belong also to that period, viz. : Meshidlam, Hanan, 'Elam, 
Hananiah, Anthothiah (Anathoth), cf. Ne. lo'"- "• '= '"■ ". i\ (c) 
The coincidence between the residence in or connection with Moab 
(v. «) and the name Pahath-moab representing an important family 
among the post-exilic Jews (Ezr. 2« 8*, etc.). (Be. conjectures 
that the birth of this Pahath-moab, "prince of Moab," is referred 
to in V. '.) {d) The Benjaminites had a considerable part in the 
post-exilic community along with the children of Judah and the 

1-5. The sons of Benjamin. — And Benjamin begat Bela his 
first horn, AsJihel the second and Aharah | the third and Nohah f 
the fourth and Kapha the fifth. And the sons of Bela' were Addar 
and Gera and Abihiid and Abishua' and N daman and Ahoah f 
and Gera and Shephuphan f and Huram]. This list of sons and 
grandsons of Benjamin is a development of the original list of On. 
462> where the sons of Benjamin, in the restored text (Ball. 
SBOT.), appear as three sets of triplets: Bela , Becher, Ashbel ; Gera, 
Na aman, Ahiram; Shnpham, Hiipham, and Ard. These appear 
also in Nu. 26^^-^", with the variation that Becher and Gera are 
lacking, probably through an error of transcription (the former 
perhaps having found a place among the sons of Ephraim Nu. 
26'*), and that Na'aman and Ard are subordinated as sons of 
Bela . (In Gn. 4621 (g not only is Na'aman the son of Bela' but 
also Gera, Ahiram, Shnpham, and Hnpham; and Ard becomes the 
son of Gera.) Tradition then fluctuated between assigning nine 
sons immediately to Benjamin or a portion of them mediately 
through Bela . Examining now the names in our text, if we omit 
Ahihiid and Abishua' (to be considered below) we find that the 
others are apparently simply those of the underlying list of Gn. 
given, where not identical, in corrupted forms and with repetition. 
Becher ("132), which seems to be entirely lacking, lies hidden in 
first-born ("l32); Aharah (mni<) and Ahoah (nnS) are tran- 
scribers' variations of Ahiram (DITIi^); Nohah (niTli) and 


Kapha (XS"l) are likewise probably variations of Na'aman 
(|DVJ)and Gera (S"li); Addar (mS') of Ard (TiS) and Huram 
(D"nn) of Hupham (CSin) (Hogg, op. cit.). Since Nohah and 
Kapha are between Ahiram and Ard, Shupham and Hupham, 
after the order in Nu., have been, with less probability, found in 
them (Ke., Zoe., Bn.). In regard to ^6i/m^ and Abishud , which 
follow Gera in \w. ^ *, these proper names seem to have arisen 
from the qualifying phrases /a/ A er of Ehud (according to Ju. 3'') 
and father of Shua {Shua' (^111-*) appears as a Judahite or Ca- 
naanite personal name in Gn. 38^, but most likely here is a cor- 
ruption of Shual (^yitr) a district of Benjamin, i S. i3'0- Of 
these "sons" the hidden Becher appears in the family of Sheba', 
who revolted against David (2 S. 20' ^ ), and in Bechorath in the 
line of the descent of Saul (i S. 9'). Saul probably was of the 
clan of Becher (Marquart, Fundamente, pp. 14 /.). In Nu. 26^* 
Becher is among the families of Ephraim. Sheba the Bichrite 
was also from Mt. Ephraim 2 S. 20='. Such a close connection and 
interchange between Benjamin and Ephraim is natural. Ashhel 
is equivalent to Ishba'al (^^t^S* = f?j;2ty''N), man of Baal, the 
name of Saul's son {cf. v. ='). Gera appears in Ju. 3'* as the 
father, i.e., family, of Ehud. The other sons or clans of Benjamin 
are not mentioned elsewhere except in the genealogical connections 
just given. 

6-28. The descendants of Ehud (?). — These verses, ^-''\ pre- 
sent apparently, with their descent from Ehud the Benjaminite hero 
and judge, a list of five heads of fathers, i.e., post-exilic families: 
Elpa'al (w. " '■ ^^), Beri'ah (vv. "• ■«), Shemd {Shimei) (vv. ■'• '''), 
Shashak (w. '<• '^), Jeroham {Jeremoth) (vv. '^- "), with their 
sons, i.e., households or sub-families (y\. ^^■'^^), residing in Jerusalem 
V. 28 (?) (^^ l_y Vv. «-'^, which give their descent or connection 
with Ehud, are exceedingly obscure and corrupt, not only from 
customary errors of transcriptions in lists of names, but also from 
legendary or historical notices which, probably made originally as 
marginal notes, became later a portion of the text. — 6. And these 
are the sons of Ehud]. The text fails to give these sons of Ehud 
who are the heads of fathers {i.e., of families) of Gebd , unless at the 
end of v. " (Be., Ke., Zoe.) or hidden in the utterly obscure sentence 


And they carried them captive to Mahanath (nino ^^s DI^J!"*!)- 
This latter is the view of Hogg {op. cit.), who finds therein the 
proper names Iglaam (after the (^ rendering of D^j" cyXaafi in 
V. ') and 'Alemeth (cf. '• «). (That HD^y jlO^y should have been 
corrupted into nnJD ^S arose from the reading of ub^n as a verb 
and thus seeking an expression to correspond to the verbal idea.) 
— 7. And N a avian and Ahijah and Gera]. These three names 
are clearly a dittography from w. * ' , where they appear in the 
same order. Ahijah ("TIX) is a variation of an original 
Ahiram (D'TTiS). — He carried them away captive: and he 
begat 'Uzza and Ahihud]. One is tempted to see in these ob- 
scure words a continuation of the dittography. Cf. the texts 

Hogg renders them: Arid Iglaam begat 'Uzza and Ahishahar]. 
Ahishahar ("int^TlS), a Benjaminite name in 7'° and suggested 
by Shaharaim in v. '», is substituted for Ahihud (^^"'^S). (The 

text ■:'«'?in D^nnD* in^ns* nsi becomes n^^i^i nnir^ns n«i.) 

With adherence to the Massoretic text, these verses have yielded 
the statement that Ehud's sons mentioned at the end of v. ' 
were carried to Manahath, a place of uncertain situation {cf. 2"), 
by Na'aman, Ahijah, and Gera, the last being the principal insti- 
gator of their removal (Be., Ke., Zoe.). Others, rejecting this in- 
terpretation, regard the verses as corrupt beyond restoration (Kau., 
Ki., Bn.). — 8-11. And Shaharaim begat in the field of Moab 
after he had sent them away Hushim and Baara his wives, and 
he begat from Hodesh his wife Jobab, etc. . . . these his sons are 
the heads of fathers; and from Hushim he begat Abitub and Elpa'al. 

Knv3 nsi D^'Jin Dn« in^j jd ^siis^ rn^'2 Tb^n nnnu^i 

^ys'rH nSl 21tD^2N n« n^^in D"'t:'nt:i m2«. These verses, 
like the preceding, appear corrupt beyond only the most tenta- 
tive restoration ; Shaharaim is without connection with foregoing 
text; begat v, « has no object; Hushim is elsewhere a man's 
name (y'^). The grammatical constructions are also very harsh. 
A suggested restoration of vv. ' ' is, And Shaharaim begat 
in the field of Moab, after he had driven them (i.e., the Moab- 


ites) out, from Hodesh his wife Jobab, etc.] the words omitted 
arising from a gloss written by some one who wished to show that 
the sons of Hushim had rights of age earlier than the founding of 
Lod and Ono v. '• (Bn.). The rendering of Hogg (see above for 
the beginning of v. *) is: And he (Iglaam) begat in the field of 
Moab Mesha their sister and Hushim {and his wife was Ba'ara). 
And Ahishahar begat Jobab, etc. These were his sons heads of their 

fathers' houses (cns in^tT jis =nn'ins* stT^s; iTin !» =nntr''ns'; 

iriwS is a dittography from following iiT»). Possibly, for an- 
other rendering of v. «, a fem. proper name is concealed in 
^T\bV ('/• t^*'T^ )D v. ^). Then cn« is a corruption for "intl'S, and 
Vtyj (which (^ read intl'i^) is to be struck out, and we have and 
Shaharaim begat in the field of Moab of Shilho (?) his wife, 
Htishim and Baara. — 11. According to the text, the sons of Sha- 
haraim by his wife Hushim are here enumerated. If, however, 
we connect the D of D'^DTIDI with the last word of v. '", reading 
DrilD^ their fathers, Hushim becomes the subject of begat (l"*?!!!)- 
(The text originally may have been D''tl'*n 1^1''1.) And hence 
he is the father of Abitub and Elpa'al and (omitting the misplaced 
clause and the parenthetical clauses) of Beriah, Shema v. ", 
Shashak, and Jeremoth v. '*. These five names, repeated in 
w. 16- "s- ='• ". 27^ clearly go together as sons of a common ancestor. 
Ahio V. '^ ('iTiX) is not a proper name, but after (^ ITIi^ or "TIS 
his brother or his brothers (Be., Oe.), or reading DnTIt? their 
brothers (Ki., Bn., Hogg). — 12*. And the sons of Elpa'al were 
'Eber, Misham and Shetned]. This clause appears to have 
wrongly come into the text through some transcriber's blunder, 
inasmuch as Elpaal's sons are given below in vv. " ^ , and the 
names of three there are sufficiently similar to these to establish 
their identity ((n^'uT) lOtt' D^t^^n n^V v. ''% ntS'^"' D^tt-'D n^n 
'' '•). — 12^*. He built Ono and Lod and their dependencies (daugh- 
ters)]. The reference is to Elpaal (Zoe., Oe., Hogg).^ — Ono] mod. 
Kefr 'And, some seven miles east and a little south from Ja£fa 
and five miles north of Lod (in later literature Lydda), mod. Ludd, 
which is eleven and three-quarters miles south-east from Jaft"a on 
the railway to Jerusalem (SWP. H. pp. 251. 267, Baed.< p. 11, cf 
Schiir. Gesch.^ H. p. 183, n. ^t,). These towns are mentioned in 


the OT. only in the writings of the Chronicler and then usually 
together as towns inhabited by the children of Benjamin (Ne. ii"^), 
and of which sons, with those of Hadid, returned from Babylon 
with Zerubbabel (Ezr. 2^3 Ne. 7"). The towns themselves, how- 
ever, are ancient. Ono occurs in the list of Palestinian towns con- 
quered by Thotmes III, and, according to Mariette, Brugsch, 
and others, but not W. Max Miiller, Lod also {v. Lydda EBi.). 
Their possession by the post-exilic Jews, which is clearly referred 
to in this building, seems to have taken place not immediately on 
the return of the Jews from Babylon, as might be inferred from the 
references (given above) in Ezra and Nehemiah, but at the close 
of the Persian and the beginning of the Grecian period, when the 
Jews gradually spread out from the territory in the immediate 
vicinity of Jerusalem. First in 145 b. c. did the district of Lydda 
come into the possession of the Jews through a decree of Demetrius 
II (i Mac. 11=% Meyer, Entst. Jud. p. 107, Schiir. GeschJ I. p. 183). 
Hence the inference that this statement is very late (Bn.). The 
references to Moab, v. *, and Aijalon, v. '', may refer to similar 
colonisations or settlements of Jews. — 13. And Beriah and 
Shenia ] sons of Hushim; a continuation of the enumeration 
of v. " {v. s.). Beriah, cj. 7='- '". Shema {Shimi v. 2') probably 
the name of a place 2^' '•, a Reubenite 5^, a priest Ne. 8< f. — 
These'\ i.e., Beri'ah and Shcwa'. — Aijalon] Jos. 19" 21^* Ju. i^^ 
ei al., the present village of Ydlo, a little to the north of the Jaffa 
road, about thirteen miles from Jerusalem (SWP. III. p. 19, Baed.* 
p. 93). — These put to flight the inhabitants of Gath]. This state- 
ment is entirely obscure. Owing to the common name Beri ah 
here and in 7^3, this route of the men of Gath may be regarded as 
connected with the event underlying the narrative of 7^' (Be., Oe., 
Bn.; this connection is not favoured by Ke., Zoe.). The story of 7" 
looks like the reminiscence of some pre-exilic happening, but since 
here we are concerned with late post-exilic families, this sentence 
probably arose from a marginal note. — 14. And their brethren'^ 
Shashak f and Jeremoth]. On the emendation and connection of 
this verse with the foregoing see v. >'. — 15. 16. The six sons of 
Beriah. Zebadiah a common name v. " (where perhaps a dittog- 
raphy from this verse) 12' 26^ 2 Ch. 17^ i9>i Ezr. 8^ lo^". ' Arad f 


(name of city Nu. 21' ^^*'> Jos. 12'^). 'Eder, cf. 23" 24" (also 
name of a city Jos. 15^')- Michael, see 5" (Steuernagel, Ein- 
Tvanderung Is. Stamme, p. 30, reads ^S''3'?D and connects with 
the clan of Asher of that name, cf. 7='). Ishpah f . Joha also 
11^^ — 17. 18. The seven (?) sons of Elpdal. Zehadiah, see v. '^ 
Meshullani, see 5'^, probably Mish'am in v. '^ Hizki f . Heber 
mentioned among the sons of Beri'ah of the tribe of Asher 7", 
probably the same as 'Eber v. '^ Ishmerai f probably SJiemed 
in V. '^ Izli'ah f. Jobab, cf. v. ^, otherwise name of Arabic 
people Gn. 10=", King of Edom Gn. 36" '•, Canaanitish King 
of Madon Jos. iiK — 19-21. The nine sons of Shime'i (''J?I2yl^, in 
V. '3 pDw ). Jakim also 24'^ Zichri common, vv. "• " 9'* 26" 
2 7 "6 2 Ch. 1715 23' 28' Ne. II' 12". Zabdi, three other persons 
are mentioned of this name: (i) 27', (2) Ne.' 11'^, (3) Jos. 7'. 
Eli enai I, but probably the same as the name Elio'enai, occur- 
ring as the name of five distinct persons in (i) 3" '•, (2) 4^% 
(3) Vi (4) Ezr. 10" with Ne. i2^», (5) Ezr. 10". Zillethai, cf. for 
another occurrence of the name 12^". £/^''eZ, name of eight ad- 
ditional persons or families: (i) v. "^^ (2) 5''<, (3) 6'' <=^', (4, 5) 
II"- ■", (6) i2>', (7) 15' with •>, (8) 2 Ch. 31'^ 'Adaiah, seven 
other persons or families of this name are mentioned: (i) 6" <*", 
(2) 9'2 Ne. ii'=, (3) 2 Ch. 23', (4) Ezr. 10=', (5) Ezr. 10", (6) 
Ne. lis (7) 2 K. 22'. Beraiah f. Shimrath f.— 22-25. The 
eleven sons of Shashak. Ishpan f. 'Eber, cf. v. '=, a common 
name: (i) the son of Shelah i'* +, (2) a Gadite chief 5", (3) a 
priest Ne. 12-". The tradition of the name is uncertain; Baer 
adopts Ebed (^25^), so (g. EHel, see v. "o. 'Abdon, also as name 
of distinct persons or families: (i) v. »" 9'% (2) 2 Ch. 342°, (3) Ju. 
12'^- '^ Zichri, see v. •'. Hanan, common name v. '^ 9*^ 11" 
Ezr. 2« Ne. 7^' 8' lo"- ='• " i3'3. Hananiah, also a very com- 
mon name from the time of Jeremiah onward, see BDB. Elam, 
a geographical name Gn. 10" et al., that of a Korahite 26^, and 
of two prominent families in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah 
Ezr. 2' 8' lo^ Ne. 71^ lo'^ and Ezr. 2" Ne. 7" Je. i2«. The 
post-exilic occurrence of the name suggests a connection with 
Elam, Persia. This Cheyne regards as highly improbable and 
suggests its origin from an abbreviation 'Alemeth (HD^y) or 


'Almon (pia^y), a Benjaminite name {cf. 7^ and v. s. v j) (EBi. 
11. col. 1254). 'Anthothijah f, to be associated with the Levit- 
ical Benjaminite town Anathoth, Jos. 2i'8 Is. loso Je. i' et al.; a 
personal name 7 ' and Ne. io=°. Iphdeiah f . Penii'el {Peni'el Qr.) 
cf. 4". — 26. 27. The six sons of Jeroham (Jeremoth v. "). This 
name appears in the pedigree of the prophet Samuel i S. i' i Ch. 
612. 19 (27. 34). also as that of five other persons or families: (i) 
98- 'S (2) 12^ (3) 27", (4) 2 Ch. 23S (5) Ne. ii>^ Shamsherai f. 
Shehariah f (cf. Sheharain v. «). ' Athaliah, the name of the Queen 
of Judah 2 K. ii" ^ , and of a member of the family of Elam 
Ezr. 8'. Jaareshiah f. Elijah, besides being the name of the 
prophet, is only elsewhere given in the OT. as the name of a 
priest, Ezr. io=', and an Israelite a son of Elam Ezr. lo^^, who 
had foreign wives. Zichri, cf. v. '^ — 28. These were heads of 
fathers, i.e., of families, according to their genealogies they were 
heads] a reiteration after the manner of P. — These dwelt in 
Jerusalem'] i.e., all of these families whose heads are enumerated. 
This dwelling is clearly meant to be of the time of the Chronicler. 
— It is doubtful, however, whether this verse belonged originally 
in this context. It agrees verbatim with 93^ with the omission of 
the words of the Levites (D"*"!^^) and seems to have come into its 
present place along with v. "=935^ from c. 9. The subscription 
stating that these families dwelt in Jerusalem is contrary to the 
tenor of this chapter, which has already placed Elpaal as the 
builder of Ono and Lod, and Bert ah and Shema at Aijalon. The 
form of statement In Gibeon dwelt, etc., is parallel to nothing in 
c. 8, while in c. 9 it has a parallel in v. \ Hence the inference with 
apparent correctness has been drawn that w. ^s-s* originally stood 
in c. 9 and are here an insertion (Mov., Meyer, Entst. Jud. p. 161). 
Others have felt that the double record was due to the Chronicler 
and appropriate not only here in the list of the Benjaminites but 
also in c. 9, as the proper introduction to the narrative of Saul, c. 10 
(Be., Ke., Zoe., Ba.). Still again, the original place has been 
thought to have been here and its repetition due to the fact that 
9'-=' is a supplement to the work of the Chronicler, and after its 
insertion a transcriber who had texts before him both with and 
without this supplement copied 8^8 «• = g^* » twice (Bn.) (on 


this theory the omission of 8" ' is difficult) (Ki. regards 9=' ^ as 
already in Chronicles before the supplement c. 8). 

29-38. The genealogy of the house of Saul, repeated in 
Q36.44 (see V. "). — 29. 31. In Gibe on dwelt the father of Gibeon 
Jeiiel,^ and the name of his wife was Ma'acah and his first born son 
' Abdon then Zur and Kish and Baal and Ner^ and Nadab and 
Gedor and Ahio and Zecher and Mikloth*]. Gibeon mod. village 
of el Jib, five or six miles north of Jerusalem, the seat of a Hebrew 
sanctuary i K. 3*- ^ et al., and mentioned many times in the OT. 
and occurring in connection with the post-exiHc history of the 
Jews Ne. 3' 7". Its post-exilic importance, or its association as 
the place of the sanctuary 2 Ch. i', may have led to its substitu- 
tion in the text in place of an original Gibeah, the home of the 
family of Saul. Jcuel, derived from 9" (^Nlj;*', Qr. ^S"'j;''). 
Maacah, name of frequent occurrence cf. 2*^ 3^ 'Abdon, cf. v. ". 
Zur (IIX), name of a prince of Midian Nu. 25'5 31 s Jos. 13"; 
here undoubtedly to be connected with Zeror ("iTli') in Saul's 
pedigree, i S. 9'. Kish, father of Saul i S. 9' et al. Ba al, perhaps 
the original was Abiba'al (7y2''2t<) {cf. Marquart, Ftindanienie, 
p. 15). It has also been compounded with the following Nadab 
(31J), but the intervening Ner, given in 9^^, also here in (g'^, is 
against this; yet, at any rate, Baal is probably an abbreviation 
(Noeldeke, EBi. Names § 57). Ner and also Mikloth f (v. 5°), from 
their mention in w. " '■, should be inserted as in 9'^ '• (Be., Ke., 
Zoe., Oe., Bn., Ki.). Ner, elsewhere always of the father of 
Abner the captain of Saul's host {cf. 1 S. 14^° et al.). Gedor, 
as a personal name only here; on place-name cf. 4^. Ahio, as 
a personal name cf. 2 S. 6' '•, where We. reads his brother as the 
reading in v. ". Dr. prefers there the proper name Ahio 
{TS. p. 204). (J5^ has his brother here. Zecher f, in 9" Zecha- 
riah. — 32. Shimeah •)■] 9=8 Shimeam f. — Now these indeed 
opposite their brothers dwelt with their brothers in Jerusalem]. 
This sentence is difficult to understand in its connection. The 
usual interpretation has been that these refers to the family of 
Mikloth or Shimeah, and that in opposite their brothers the refer- 
ence is to Benjaminites dwelling in Gibeon or elsewhere outside of 
Jerusalem, while with their brothers refers to fellow tribesmen in 

Vm. 29-38.] GENEALOGY OF SAUL 165 

Jerusalem (Be, Ke., Zoe., Oe.). The emphasis certainly is on 
the dwelling in Jerusalem. Ki. regards the words as a late gloss. 
Ba. suggests "The heading of a hst which has been lost." Bn. 
brings to a close here a paragraph of Benjaminite families in 
Gibeon of the period of the Chronicler. Vv. "-ss giving the line of 
Saul, he regards as of doubtful origin, although probably from the 
Chronicler and with its heading, which should correspond to i S. 
9', missing. Hogg, after finding in vv. «-" the descendants of the 
clan of Gera, sees in v\'. ^"-'^ the descendants of Becker, "the only 
other Benjaminite clan known to history." He reads """i^i ''321 
"And the sons of Bichri were Abdon, etc." V. " he connects with 
V. 2 8 as a part of an element having arisen in its present form 
from its original place in c. 9. — 33. And Ner begat Abner*] 
(Be., Oe., Kau., Ki., Bn.). {M Kish. also 9".) Abner is clearly 
the true reading, since in 9^^ {v. also v. 5") Ner and Kish are 
apparently brothers, and in i S. 9' Kish is the son of Abiel, and in 
I S. 145' both Ner and Kish are sons of Abiel, according to the 
reading now generally adopted (see Sm. Com. in loco) (Ke. re- 
tained Kish, regarding the Ner here mentioned as "the progenitor 
of the line from which Saul was descended "). Zoe. gives the same 
view, but thinks owing to the prominence of Abner originally there 
was in the text, "And Ner begat Abner and Kish begat Saul." — 
Jonathan and Malchi-shua are given among Saul's sons in i S. 
14^', where also Eshbaal (^•.'^trS = ^J?2u'"'«) is to be found in 
Ishvi (•'•itr*' = T^'ki'S*, T* = r^r\\ having been substituted for ^yn) 
(see Sm. Com. in loco). Elsewhere Eshbaal or Ishbaal appears 
in I and 2 S. as Ishbosheth (riw'2w'\S Bosheth "shame" tak- 
ing the place of Baal). These changes were made to avoid the 
abhorred name Baal and such recensions seem to have been made 
at a later date than the composition of i Ch. {cf. Ashbel v. '). 
Abinadab probably belongs also to the original text of i S. 14^^ 
since Jonathan, Malchi-shua, and Abinadab are mentioned as slain 
with their father on Mt. Gilboa (i S. 31^ i Ch. lo^). — 34. Merib- 
baal f] g^"- {hy2 Il^D), in 9^°'' Meri-ba'al {h'jn ''"lO). The former 
gives the meaning "Baal contends," and is preferred by Nestle 
(Eigennamen, p. 121) and Noeldeke (EBi. Names, § 42), the latter 
supported by (g^ in 8^^ Mepi^aaX, "Hero of Baal," by Bn., Ki. 


(SBOT.), Gray (HPN. p. 201), and Kerber {Hehrdischen Ei- 
gennamen, pp. 45/.)- In 2 S. 4* 9^ et al., this son of Jonathan is 
called Mephibosheth (nti'2''£i3)- Bosheth is a substitution for 
Baal {v. s.), while Mephi (""SD) is probably a corruption of 
Meri (''"ID). This latter already appears in (g^, here and 9^", in 
Me/i(^i/Saa\, — Micak] frequent personal name, cf. 5^ — 35. 
Pithon-\\ — Melech-\] "king" probably with reference to deity, 
and like Baal an abbreviation. (S® has MeX^j^T^X, ^ MoX'x^itjX 
(^S"'3^:3).— rarea ] (j;nN*n) t Tahrea | 9^'.— yl/ws] besides 'the 
King of Judah, as a personal name only here. — 36. Jeho'addah] 
(myin"') t' -^'^Va/t (nny) 9^= ^.— AUmeth]. Cf. jK—'Azma- 
veth] (niDTy, Ki. SBOT. mOTy) "Death is strong," occurs 
also as the name of one of David's heroes ii" 2 S. 2y\ and of 
one of his officers 27"^ and as either a family or place name in 
12', and that of a place, mod. Hizmeli, four miles north-east of 
Jerusalem, hence of Benjamin, Ezr. 2-* Ne. 12" with Beth Ne. 
7^8. — Zimri] name of King of Israel i K. 16' et al., of the prince of 
Simeon Nu. 25", cf. also 2\ — Moza], the name elsewhere only 
2". — 37. Bina |]. — Raphah]. Cf. for occurrence of name else- 
where 20'' 2 S. 21'^ Raphiah 9", cf. for occurrence of name 3^' 
4"72Ne. 3'. — £/'a5o/i] name not infrequent, (i) 2^% (2) Je. 29=, (3) 
Ezr. 10". — Azel or ^za/ -j- (unless Zee. 14^)]. — 38. Azrikam his 
first bom*], (g, S>, have '1"13I1 his first bom instead of M 11^^ 
Bocheru, which latter reading has clearly arisen from the falling of 
one of the six sons from the text and thus supplies the deficiency. 
The absence of the connective before T\^2 shows also that the 
word originally was first born. Some MSS. of ($ {cf. Holmes) supply 
a son Aaa at the close (but not (i>^^^). ^ divides the name 'Azri- 
kam into vj-j-pk and >a.fcjs. — Ishma'el] occurs frequently as a proper 
name in the late Hebrew and Jewish period, (i) Je. 40' «■, (2) 2 Ch. 
19", (3) 231, (4) Ezr. 10". — Sheariah f]. — 'Obadiah] frequent name. 
— Hanan] see v. ". — The names in w. ^^-'^ of the descendants of 
Saul are clearly designed to be personal, and since no necessarily 
late names appear among them and since they are free from 
repetitions such as appear in the artificial genealogies of the 
priests and Levites (cf. s^" «• (6* '■) 6^ «• '" s.))^ there is no reason 
to doubt their genuineness (Gray, HPN. p. 241 ). Twelve genera- 


tions from Saul are given, which would bring the record down to 
near the period of the exile. 

39. 40. Not given in c. 9. — Eshek^ his brother] i.e., the brother 
of Azel (Be., Ke.), if the verse has its right context. — Ulam] only 
here and 7'^ — Je'ush] see 7'°. — EHphelet] name of son of David 3* 
14' and two persons mentioned in Ezr. 8'^ 10". — Bow men\ Cf. 
2 Ch. 14^ — One hundred and fifty']. This number fits in well with 
those given of families in Ezr. 2' ^^ — These verses may be taken 
as a fragment without close connection with the foregoing (Bn.) 
or following directly on v. " (Meyer, Entst. Jud. p. 161, Hogg). 
Hogg reads Shua (yVw') or perhaps Shual (^yiw-*) in place of 
'Eshek (ptrj?) and finds thus a continuation of a line of descent 
from Gera v. ••. Then, of course, his brother refers to the con- 
nection with Ehud v. ■". 

IX. 1-34. The inhabitants of Jerusalem. — This section 
in w. 2-"- "a has marked affinity with Ne. 11'-". Both 
passages enumerate the inhabitants of Jerusalem on the same 
general plan, with striking coincidences in the names of the 

(i) The children of Judah according to the clans of Perez, Shelah 
{v. i.), and Zerah, with representatives of the same name for the first 
two, since "Ulhai (''.■^i>) (v.'') is equivalent to 'Athaiah (n\-i>') (ii«), 
and 'Asaiah (nii:>j;) (v. s) to Ma'asiah (n^rys) (iis). (2) The chil- 
dren of Benjamin, with Sallu son of Mesh nil am in each (v. ' 11'). (3) 
The priests with Jedaiah, Jehoiarih, Jachin in each (v.'" 11'°), 'Azariah 
(nnrj) equivalent plainly to Seraiah (nnr), since their pedigrees are 
the same, i.e., the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the sonof Zadok, 
tJte son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, the ruler of the house of God (v. " 
11"), and 'Adaiah, the son of Jeroham with the same names Pashhi(r and 
Malchi'jah in his pedigree (v. '^ ii'^) and Ma'asai the son of'Adiel the 
son of Jahzerah . . . the son of Meshillemith the son of Imnter 
(n-'DSa'a p . . . m-n-' p Sn''ijj p isryn) (v. 12), equivalent to " Amashsai 
the son of 'Azarel the son of Ahzai the son of Meshillemoth the son of 
Immer " (nia'^a'O p vnx \2 Ss'-iry p >d-^d>') (ii"). (4) The Levites with 
Shemaiah the son of Hashshub the son of 'Azrikam the son of Hashabiah 
and Mattaniah the son of Mica the son of Zikri (or Zabdi) the son of 
Asaph and 'Obadiah (Abda) the son of Shema'iah (Shammua) the son 
of Galal the son of Juduthun in each (vv. '<''^ ii'^- '^). (5) The 
gate-keepers with 'Akkub and Talmon in each (v. '^ 11"). 


These similarities have found an explanation in the continuity 
of the families of Jerusalem before and after the exile, our chapter 
giving the former, and Ne. ii the latter (Ke., Zoe., Oe.). Such 
actual continuity with its preservation in records can hardly be 
seriously maintained, although it probably was the notion of who- 
ever gave this chapter its place in i Ch. (Bn., Smd. List. p. 7, 
Meyer, Entst. Jud. p. loi). This writer is usually regarded as the 
Chronicler, but since the Chronicler has treated other matters in 
cc. 1-8, and since he systematically considers the duties of the 
Levites and gate-keepers (vv. "-s') in 26^'^ «•, it has been held 
that this chapter is an interpolation (so Bn.). Its author seems to 
have taken a register of post-exilic inhabitants and given it a place 
here on the supposition that this register represented also pre- 
exilic conditions (Smd. List. p. 7, Bn.). The chapter seems re- 
lated to Ne. II, through their both having a common source (Be., 
Smd., Ba., Bn., Ki.), and the differences between them may be due 
to changed conditions of population in Jerusalem — Ne. 11 repre- 
senting those of the time of Nehemiah and our chapter those of 
the time of the Chronicler (Ki.). Both chapters are regarded by 
Meyer {Entst. Jud. pp. 189 /.) as free fancies of the Chronicler 
without historical worth. This is possible. 

In favor of the Chronicler's composition of this chapter may be 
alleged the fact that the Chronicler in the preceding chapters with 
few exceptions deals with the dwelling-places of the tribes. The 
city of Jerusalem could not well have been overlooked, it is argued, 
and yet could not be assigned to any one tribe, hence the list of 
inhabitants from three tribes, Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. 
(The words in v. ', And of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh, 
are wanting in Ne. 11, and since none such are enumerated in the 
following verses, are probably a gloss. Yet v. i.) (For further 
points on introduction v. i. w. ^ ^•.) 

1. And all Israel was registered]. This sentence appears like 
a reference to the foregoing genealogies of i Ch. and has been so 
taken (Ke., Zoe., Oe.), but the following statement, "behold they 
are written, etc.,^' rather implies that v. ' is an independent intro- 
duction to this section (Be.) from the hand of the interpolator 
(Bn.). All Israel is not the ten tribes taken in contrast to Judah 


(Be.) but either all the tribes in general (Ke., Zoe., Bn.), or better, 
Judah and the elements which adhered to the S. kingdom after 
722 B. c. (Ki.). — The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah] 
thus (B, B, Meyer, Entst. Jud. p. 100; "The Book of the Kings of 
Israel" M, AV., RV., Zoe., Kau., Ki., and generally. Judah, 
then, according to this latter rendering, is the subject of the follow- 
ing verb and the next clause reads "and Judah was carried away 
captive, etc." On this "Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah" 
cf. 2 Ch. 27' 35" 36 8, where it is mentioned in connection with 
Jotham, Josiah, and Jehoiakim (v. Intro, pp. 21 ff.). Here the 
reader is referred to this work for the registration of all Israel, 
while the writer confines himself to that of the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem. — They were carried away, etc.]. This can refer only 
to all Israel as represented in Judah. The subject need not be 
Judah of the text, but can readily be supplied. The sentence serves 
as an introduction to the following enumeration, since the cap- 
tivity had become the dividing point in historical reckoning. — 
2. A modification of Ne. 1 1^ — First] i.e., chief, after the suggestion 
of Ne. II', "And these are the chief men of the province who 
dwek in Jerusalem " ('\y^ nj''ni2 'w'S"! nbn), and the list vv. " «• is 
taken as that of chief men (Ba.); or the first after the return from 
the captivity, i.e., the inhabitants of the land in the first century 
after the restoration (cf. use of jtySI in Ne. s'^ 7^) (Be.); but the 
position of this chapter shows that the writer designed to give pre- 
exilic inhabitants and it is better to take first with that force (Ke., 
Zoe., Oe., Meyer, Bn., Ki.). — In their possessions and their cities]. 
These words are almost meaningless here. They can only signify 
that the inhabitants of the land generally were divided into the 
four following classes. They are an abridgment of " In cities of Ju- 
dah dwelt each one in his own possession in their cities" (Ne. ii'), 
where the point is that those enumerated in the following verses 
as inhabitants of Jerusalem formerly resided outside of the city 
in which they had now chosen of their own free will to dwell 
(Ne. 1 1 2). — Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim]. 
These words also are taken from Ne. 11', from which "and the 
sons of Solomon" has been omitted, possibly because at this time 
this designation had ceased, "sons of Solomon" being compre- 


hended under the Nethinim. Israel, i.e., laymen not of Levitical 
descent (cf. Ezr. 2'° 10* et al.). The Nethinim, Temple servants 
reckoned as inferior to the Levites, although later probably amalga- 
mated with them. They are only mentioned here and in Ezr. 
2«. 68. 70 y? gn. 20 ]N^g_ ^26. 31 y46. 60. 73 jq" (28) n'- 2'. Thcy probably 
were of Canaanitish origin — most likely to be connected with the 
Gibeonites (Jos. 9") and the foreigners mentioned in Ez. 44'. 
— 3. And in Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah and 
certain of the children of Benjamin]. These words appear also 
in Ne. ii^ — And certain of the children of Ephraim and Manas- 
seh\ These words apparently have been added to this post-exilic 
register to make it fit pre-exilic conditions. According to the 
Chronicler, members of Ephraim and Manasseh adhered to the 
S. kingdom (2 Ch. 28' 30"- '^ 349). They are not, however, men- 
tioned by him in connection with the restoration. 

4-6. The sons of Judah. — 4. Ne. ii^^ begins with "From the 
sons of Judah," which may be supplied as the heading of this 
verse (Ki.) or the equivalent of this heading may be seen in the 
son of Judah, with which the verse ends and which is not found in 
Nehemiah. — Uthai f] Athaiah Ne. iV ■\ (y. s.). The names, 
whichever is original, are obscure and of uncertain meaning. — 
'Ammihud]. Cf. 7=6. — 'Omri]. Cf. 7^ — Itnri] Ne. 32 f. — Bani]. 
Cf. 6=', a frequent name in Ezr.-Ne. — This line of descent is 
entirely obscure and different from the one given in Ne. ii^ — 
Perez]. The most conspicuous clan of Judah {cf. 2* «). — 5. The 
Shilonites] {'^lh''VT\ Ne. ii^ '•i^un) correspond with the Shela- 
nites C'J/w^n) given in Nu. 26" as the family or clan from Shelah 
the son of Judah, cf. 4'^K—Asaiah]. Cf 4^^ Ma'asaiah Ne. 11* 
{v. s.), whose Hne of descent through six ancestors from "the 
Shilonite" is given. — 6. Zerah]. Cf. 2« the third clan of Judah. 
— Je'uel], Cf. 9^ Not given in Ne., where the corresponding 
verse (ii«) reads "and all the sons of Perez," the last word an 
error for Zerah (Meyer, Entst. Jud. p. 187, note). — Six hundred 
and ninety] in Ne. ii« the number is "468 men of strength," i.e., 
capable of military service. The larger number may indicate the 
increase of population of this clan at the time when this chapter 
was written. 


7-9. The sons of Benjamin.— 7. Sallu the son of Meshullant] 
given also in Ne. 11^ f; t)Ut with a decidedly different pedigree. 
It is not improbable that ^'son of Hodaviah son of Hassenuah" 
(ni<lDn \2 rT'lTin ]2) is a corruption or derivation of "Judah 
son of Hassenuah" (ukSIJDn p mi""') Ne. 11' (rT'nin and 
ni'in'^ are confused in Ezr. 2*" and 3'), and hence the pedigree 
of this Sallu son of Meshullam has here been entirely omitted. — 
8. Ihneiah f] has been seen in "Gabbai" or "Gabbai Sallai" of 
Ne. II'. — The other heads here mentioned, Elah and Meshullam, 
are without correspondences in Ne. — 9. The number in Ne. is 

10-13. The priests. — Here the correspondence with Ne. is 
very exact {v. s.). The material, however, is given more com- 
pactly, since only one enumeration is given v. ", cf. Ne. iV^- "• ^*. 
Six priestly families are mentioned, Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and 
Jachin, v. '", without pedigrees, apparently because these three 
names appear among the priestly families who received courses or 
appointments for service in the Temple at the time of David : 
Jedaiah, the second course 24'; Jehoiarib, the first 24^; Jachin, 
the twenty-first 24". Jeda iah also appears as a family name in the 
Hst of the priests who returned with Zerubbabel Ezr. 2'^ Ne. 
7=", and as the name of two chiefs of the priests of the same period 
Ne. i2« '■. Jehoiarib or Joiarib (Ne. 11'°) is the name of a priestly 
house of the days of Joiakim v'hose head was Mattenai Ne. 12", 
and from which the Maccabees were descended (i Mac. 2"). 
Persons of this name also are mentioned among the priests who 
went up with Zerubbabel Ne. 12% and with Ezra Ezr. 8'«. 'Adaiah 
and Ma'asiah (v. s.) v. '^ belong most likely to the same category 
as the other three families, since, while not names of priestly houses 
mentioned in 24'->«, the former is given as a descendant of Malchi- 
jah, who held the fifth priestly course (24'), and the latter from 
Immer, who held the sixteenth (24"). ' Azariah v. ", for which we 
should read Seraiah, after Ne. ii^', probably represents a similar 
priestly family that appears among the list of the priestly families 
of the time of Joiakim Ne. 12'=. A priest of the same name is 
given in Ne. i2> among those who returned with Zerubbabel. 
The genealogy of Seraiah, however, is that of the high priest 


Seraiah, the father of Jehozadak, who went into captivity, with the 
variation of Meshidlum for ShaUum and the insertion of Meraioth. 
Cf. 5'« " (6'2 f ). While it is possible that this is the true genealogv 
of this Seraiah and that he represents the high priest's family, the 
view is plausible that this genealogy has arisen through the gloss 
of some one who identified Seraiah with the high priest of that 
name (Bn.). ' Azariah most likely came into the text from " Azariah 
the father of Seraiah" (5^" (6'^)). The ruler of the house of God 
may refer either to Ahitub or 'Azariah (Seraiah). This latter may 
have arisen from 2 Ch. 31", where Azariah of the reign of Hezekiah 
is given that ofi&ce, or it may describe an actual office of the time 
of this record. This office may not mean that of the high priest, 
since in 2 Ch. 31* several such rulers are mentioned. The sum 
of the numbers of these priestly families given in v. " is 1,760, 
while in Ne. 11 "2- '^ " we have 822, 242, and 128, a total of 1,192. 
V. ■' not only contains this single summary but groups together 
phrases found scattered in Ne. 11. And their brethren the heads 
of their fathers^ houses has its correspondence in ii'^ '•; mighty men 
of valor, in 11'^; the work of the service of the house of God, in ii'^ 
In addition to the names given here, Ne. 11" mentions an overseer, 
"Zabdiel the son of Haggedolim." 

14-16. The Levites. — 14. ^/^gma'^'a/? appears in Ne. ii'^with 
the same pedigree except that instead of closing with /row the sons 
of Merari (''"na ""Ji |i3) the line closes with "son of Buni" 
("•^13 ]2)- This latter may have arisen from the former (Be.). 
The name is frequent and given in connection with the Merarite 
Juduthun in v. " and 2 Ch. 29'''. (Ne. ii'^ has no parallel in our 
passage.) — 15. Bakbakkar f ] is a strange name, perhaps the same 
as Bakbukiah Ne. ii'^ — Heresh f and Galal] are wanting in 
Ne. II. — Mattaniah, etc.] in Ne. 11" (v. s.) is styled "the chief 
to begin the thanksgiving in prayer," RV. The text probably is 
corrupt (see Mattaniah, EBi.). — 16. 'Obadiah] (v. s.). — And 
Berechiah son of Asa the son of Elkanah who dwelt in the villages 
of the Netophathites] entirely wanting in Ne. 11; appears like a 
marginal gloss added by some one to complete the list of Levitical 
singers rather than the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Elkanah 
represents the family of Heman, the Kehathite, otherwise not 


represented here {cf. 6'8"''). The villages of the Netophathites are 
mentioned in Ne. 12^8 as the residences of "the singers." Netopha 
has been identified with "C/mw Toba," north of Bethlehem 
(SWP. III. p. 52), or Beit N'etttf, about twelve miles west of Bethle- 
hem (Rob. BR. II. pp. 16/., rejected by Bn., Baed.^ p. 124). The 
number of the Levites (in Ne. 11" 284) is entirely omitted. This 
list of the Levites is principally that of the guilds of singers. 
17-34. The gate-keepers and their duties. — In this section 
only w. "■ "^ are paralleled in Ne. 11 and the remainder is a 
further description of the personnel and duties of the gate-keepers 
of the Temple and possibly of some additional Levites. The 
statements, however, are somewhat contradictory and confused. 
Conditions of the writer's own time v. 's^, of the Davidic period 
v. ", and of the Mosaic period are not sharply distinguished. Like- 
wise the status of the gate-keepers is not definitely outlined. They 
are introduced as though distinct from the Levites (v. " compared 
with V. '<), and yet they are called Levites (vv. "• ■^). Their office 
goes back to the Mosaic period (vv. " f ), and yet David and 
Samuel are said to have ordained them in their office (v. "). 
They appear in the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and yet 
they, or at least a portion of them, are given residence in villages 
outside of the city (\'^^ "• 25), Jn the description of their duties 
the writer passes at once, without any indication of the fact, in 
v. 26b (Be., Ke., Oe., Zoe., Bn., Ki.), or in v. " (Ba., ARV.), to the 
duties of the Levites in general. And finally in v. " the statement 
is made that these are the singers and in v. " we have a subscription 
apparently of an altogether different paragraph, i.e., a list of the 
chief men of the Levites who dwelt at Jerusalem. A partial solu- 
tion of these difficulties may be found in the following considera- 
tions : (i) The gate-keepers, probably in the earliest post-exilic 
period, were regarded as distinct from the Levites, and this distinc- 
tion was made in the first list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
reflected in vv. '*• " Ne. iV^- ", but later they, or at least the chief 
gate-keepers, were reckoned as Levites (vv. '' '■ " c. 26). (2) The 
tradition respecting their origin may have been this: first, that 
along with the other officials of the Temple they were instituted 
by David and Samuel (v. " cf. 16" 26' ff), and then, secondly, that 


this institution applied only to the subordinate gate-keepers who 
resided in the country (vv. "■ «), while the chief gate-keepers who 
resided in Jerusalem (v. ") traced their ofl&ce to the Mosaic period 
(w. " '). (3) The abrupt transition of subject may be due to 
corruptions of the text or the omission of verses originally written 
(y. i.). 

17. ShaUiim, Akkub and Tahnon] are among the six fami- 
lies of gate-keepers who returned with Zerubbabel according to 
Ezr. 2". Shallum does not appear in Ne. ii'', probably through 
a copyist's oversight. He is mentioned with the others in Ne. 12=* 
under the name MeshuUam (see also v. "). — Ahiman] (jChS) 
wanting in Ne., and elsewhere only the name of a son of an Anakite 
Nu. 13" Jos. 15'^ Ju. 1'° f, is suspicious and may have arisen from 
the following their brethren (CnTiX) (Ba.), written perhaps to 
take the place of Ater, which may have been dropped from the 
original text, since four names are needed (r/. Ezr. 2" and 10=*, 
where Ater ("'itlS) may have been corrupted into Uri (''"I't^)). 
Or this fourth name, Ahiman, may have been coined to meet the 
requirement of v. ", the original document of the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem having only three names. — 18. And up to this time]. 
The reference is to the period of the writer, i.e., of the Chronicler 
(Ki.), or of his interpolator (Bn.). At that time Shalhim was 
stationed in the king's gate on the east side of the Temple area. 
The eastern gate of the court of Solomon's Temple may have been 
called the king's gate and the ancient name may have been pre- 
served in the second Temple; or this name, since the natural en- 
trance for the King would have been directly from the palace on 
the south, may have been derived from Ezekiel's temple, in which 
the royal entrance is placed on the east (Ez. 46' ^).— Of the camp of 
the sons of Levi] that is, the Temple with its chambers and courts, 
an expression derived from Nu. 2", and paralleled in the "camp 
of Yahweh" 2 Ch. 31-, and doubtless used to indicate that the 
families of the gate-keepers (v. ") already at the time of Moses were 
"in office" {cf. v. "'>). — 19. Shallum'] clearly the same as the Shal- 
lum of V. '^, and identical with Meshelemiah 26', Shelemiah 26'^ — 
Keepers of the thresholds], i.e., gate-keepers. Cf. for the use of 
this term 2 Ch. 34' 2 K. 121° ('' 23* 25'8 Je. 35*. — Of the tent] i.e., 


either of the tabernacle or the Temple; the term could apply to 
either (see v. ") and probably was used with that intent; or the 
writer may have meant David's tent (2 S. 6'') (Zoe., Oe.). — And 
their fathers were over the camp of Yahweh keepers of the entrance]. 
There is no record of this in P, but since the Korahites were 
given descent from Kehath (Ex. 6'* -'), and since the Kehathites 
held the first place among the servants of the holy place and were 
responsible for the holiest vessels (Nu. 4* «■), this tradition could 
easily have arisen. The camp of Yahweh is the tabernacle, and 
the entrance is the entrance into the court of the tabernacle (Ke.), 
or the reference is to the camp of Israel and its entrance (Ba.). 
The former, the more usual explanation, is to be preferred. — 20. 
And Phinehas the son of Ele azar was ruler over them in time past]. 
This tradition may have arisen from Nu. 25= ^-j where in v. « is 
mentioned the "door of the tent of meeting" where all the congre- 
gation of Israel were gathered, and in v. ', "Phinehas arose from 
the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand," as 
though he were an officer there on duty, in command of the keep- 
ers of the gate. — May Yahweh be with him!] an instance of the 
Jewish and Oriental custom of uttering a pious wish when men- 
tioning the name of a distinguished righteous dead person. — 
21. Zechariah, etc.] a continuation of the glorification oi Shall um 
V. ", since (identifying Shallum with Meshelemiah and Shelemiah) 
(262- ") Zechariah was his son. Zechariah clearly was a man of 
prominence in the priestly traditions, " a discreet counsellor " 
(26'^). In connection with w. " f. the tent of meeting must be 
imderstood as the tabernacle at Gibeon (Bn., Ki.) or the tent 
for the ark during the time of David, while as a continuation 
of w. " '• clearly the Mosaic tent is meant (Bn.). Vv. '^b-zi are 
parenthetical and probably a gloss, since by making the gate- 
keepers' office an institution of the Mosaic period they appar- 
ently contradict the statement of v. «, where David and Samuel 
are iis founders (Bn., Ki.) (yet v. s.). — 22. All of them who were 
chosen for gate-keepers at the thresholds were 212]. This state- 
ment is a continuation of v. '«". Cf Ne. ii>», where the number 
is 172. — They were reckoned by genealogies in their villages]. 
The emphasis is on the final phrase in anticipation of v. «. — 


David and Samu'el the seer established them in their office of 
trust]. This statement respecting the work of David is agree- 
able to the Chronicler's view of his having organised the personnel 
of the sanctuary, priests 24', Levites 23" 24", singers 25' «•, 
gate-keepers 16^8 and implicitly in 26' ^■. Samu'el is called the 
seer after i S. 9% also so called in 26^' 29^9, likewise Hanani 2 Ch. 
16 '• »«. This is the only record of Samuel's participation in ar- 
rangements for the sanctuary and it is a good example of Jewish 
Midrash. Historically, his activity could only have been in con- 
nection with the tabernacle placed by the Chronicler at Gibeon 
(16" 2 Ch. i^), since he died before the death of Saul, and hence 
before the reign of David. — 23. They and their children were at 
the gates of the house of Yahweh, the tent-house, for guards]. This 
statement refers to the families of gate-keepers living in Jerusalem. 
The two expressions, the house of Yahweh and the house of the 
tent, seem used to cover both the case of the Temple and the period 
of David before the Temple was built. The second expression 
then either refers to the tent of the ark on Mt. Zion (cf. 16") or 
the tabernacle at Gibeon; or the writer may not have distinguished 
between them. This last is most likely. For guards, i.e., guardi- 
ans of the gates, cf. Ne. JK — 24. Cf. the arrangement of the gate- 
keepers in 26'^ « . — 25. And their brethren who were in their vil- 
lages were obliged to come every seven days, from time to time, to 
be with these]. No mention elsewhere is made of the gate-keepers 
dwelling in villages. The singers, however, did so (see v. '^). 
These, i.e., the gate-keepers mentioned in v. '^». — 26. For the 
four chief {heroes of) gate-keepers were in continual office (trust)] 
i.e., they did not rotate from time to time as the under gate- 
keepers. The four clearly represented the four families of v. '"». 
— They are the Levites]. From this it would seem that the under 
gate-keepers who resided in the villages were not yet reckoned as 
Levites. The writer possibly has meant to distinguish two classes 
of gate-keepers: first those of the four families of v. ", who traced 
their office to the time of Moses, were acknowledged of Levitical 
descent, resided in Jerusalem, and whose representatives held the 
continual office of chief gate-keepers and whose duties are de- 
scribed in vv. "•= '•; secondly the under gate-keepers, who resided 


out of Jerusalem, traced their office to David and Samuel, and 
performed their duties at stated intervals, and were not reckoned 
as Levites {v. s.). — And they were over the chambers and the 
treasuries of the house of God\ These words either introduce a 
new paragraph speaking of the duties of the Levites in general 
and not of the gate-keepers (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Kau., Bn., Ki.) 
or the four chief gate-keepers are still the subject (U, EVs., Ba.). 
In 26^° 2-, after the enumeration of the gate-keepers, a list of in- 
dividual Levites who were over the treasuries is given. Chambers, 
store-chambers in which tithes and sacred vessels were kept. 
Cf. 2 Ch. 31=- "• '= Ne. 13^-'. These were both a part of the 
Temple itself (judging from the plan of Solomon's and Ezekiel's 
Temples, see DB. and EBi.), and possibly separate buildings in 
the courts (26'-') (Bn.). Very little, however, is known of Zerub- 
babel's Temple. — 27. They lodged round about the house of God, 
for upon them rested the duty of watching, and they had charge 
of opening {the temple) every morning]. The subject is either 
the Levites who had charge of the stores of the Temple and 
hence were required to guard them with care day and night, or, 
as the last clause suggests, the principal gate-keepers. Open- 
ing (nnSD) may also be rendered key, as elsewhere Ju. 3" Is. 
22" f, hence they were over the key, i.e., it was incumbent upon 
them to open the storehouses every morning (Be.). — 28. And 
some of them had charge of the utensils of service]. Probably the 
more costly traditional gold and silver utensils (28'^ »• Dn. i* 
5= ff ) are here referred to, since they were to be accurately counted. 
— 29. The holy utensils] from the connection would appear to 
have been those used in the offerings of the products of the soil. 
— 30. A statement suggested by the last word of v. "; perhaps 
a gloss (Bn., Ki.). Its motive is to show the limitation of the 
work of the Levites in connection with the spices. On the work, 
cf. Ex. 3o"-38. — 31. Shallum] is the family name and Mattithiah 
the first born represents a different period of time from that in 
which Zechariah was the first bom {cf. vv. i'- " 26^). The name 
Mattithiah is frequent i5>8- 21 16^ 253- *' Ezr. 10" Ne. S^f, but 
none of its bearers can be identified with this person. — In the 
office of trust over the pastry of fiat cakes]. C/. Lv. 2' «• 6' «• <•< « > 


7" «•, etc. — 32. Kehathites]. One of the three great divisions of 
the Levites, cf. Nu. 3'^- "• ". — Their brethren'] with reference to 
the Levites mentioned in v.". For the way of arranging the 
show-bread, see Lv. 24^ " •. — 33. A subscription out of place, since 
the singers are not mentioned in the immediately foregoing verses. 
It either was written in reference to vv. '<-'«, which relate princi- 
pally of singers (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.), or it closed a hst of sing- 
ers who dwelt in the Temple chambers and were freed from other 
service (D''*ni2S H^ti'^i), which has been omitted from the text 
(Bn., Ki.). — For day and night they were in their work] the 
reason why they were freed from other service. On peculiar 
sentence v. i. — 34. Another subscription, either going with v. " re- 
ferring to all the Levites mentioned in w. '"i*, or it is a repetition 
of 8^' and has come in here with w. '=" and has been adjusted 
to the context by the insertion of the Levites, see S^^. 

4. A comparison with Nf. n* suggests that several names have 
dropped from this line, thus: 

Ne. 11* y\Q 'J3D Sn^Shd J3 rr'tODtt' p nncN p n'-nar ]3 n>rj; p ninjj. 
I Ch. 9^ v">fl ''J3 |D ''ja p nrN p ^icj; p nin>cy p ^niy. 

— ncN] wanting in (&, since the transliteration would be the same as 
that for nny, cf. (&\ — 5. •'jS'-irn] Ne. ii' 'jSiyn, read with Nu. 262" 
'J'r?'!') so Be., Ke., Oe., Kau., Bn., Ki. — iiaan niB'j;] the first-horn 
appears wrong when none of Asaiah's brothers are given. 06 read 1132, 
which is certainly wrong as far as the suffix is concerned (after p 
''j^ti'n). Possibly the original was ina p n>B'y cf. ina p r\'y^yri Ne. ii^ 
— 10. a'-iMDM] Ne. ii'" incorrectly '1 p. — 11. nntjn] Ne. ii" nna'. 
— 12. am' p] Ne. 1112+ ninar p iscx ]3 n'SSs p. — p Sxny p ^ifyni 
oSc'D p mrn>] Ne. ii'^ ■'tns p Snitj? p ■»Drsj;i. — .t'dVc'd] Ne. n'l — , 
so <S. — 13 presents in iK a long series of constructs (Dav. Syn. § 26). 
Probably, however, before naxSo a ■? from the influence of the final 
letter of S'n has fallen from the text (Ges. § 128c), or according to 
Ne. 11'' an ^^y has been omitted {cf. 23^^). — 15. Since tfin has no 1 pre- 
fixed, Hj read ^^^\n carpentarius. Instead of SSji cin Cheyne reads 
nSnnn cs'i, "the leader in the song of praise," and places after Mat- 
taniah . . . son of Asaph {EBi. ii. col. 2019). — -nDi] some MSS., Ne. 
II" nar. — 16. n^ystt' p nnayi] Ne. yica' p siavi. — n'Ds] 32 mss. tiDs, 
read iM. — 18. nun::] pi. Ges. § 1246 or e. — 20b. is>' nin>] (g /coi 
oCtoi /ier' avTov, & oiici* "j^i^itfo, H coram Domino, AN., RV. 
"And the Lord ivas with him." — 22. 7\-ot^ 1 a"d 2j ^n accusative of 
the obj. Ges. § 1250! n. — 23. nnca'cS] /or guards, cf. Ne. 7', BDB. 

IX. 35-44.] GENEALOGY OF SAUL 1 79 

niDtrc, I. — 25. N13S] inf. with S of past time with implied injunc- 
tion, Dr. TH. § 204, Ges. § 114^. — aiDin nyaa-'?] definite, regular, 
and expected, since present to the mind, see Ges. §§ 134W, 1269. 
— 26. ncn] Dr. TH. § 201 (i). — omSh on] an independent clause clos- 
ing a section (Kau., Ki. Kom. Das sind die Leviten). (6 omits an 
and 1 (before ^^^) and connects with the following. Ke. (followed by 
Zoe. and Ki. SBOT., and BH. doubtfully) also connects with the 
following and suggests that the original text for vni OM^n oni was pi 
vn QiiSn. — 27. For om Be. reads Dnc-i. — 33. n3x'^::3 on-'Sy nS'iSi err •<2] 
literally, by day and by night there was upon them in the work, i.e., they 
were busy day and night in their work. The clause is peculiar both 
in having no subject expressed and in the peculiar force of 3 with 
the noun. Cf. 1. 117 a, Ew. § 295 e, BDB. a V. note. 

35-44. The genealogy of Saul.— A duplicate of S^'-^' (see 
pp. 164-7). 


This history of David falls into two parts: (i) x-xx contain- 
ing an account of his reign; (2) xxi-xxix preparations for the 
building of the Temple and the orders and arrangements of the 
servants of the Temple, (xxi serves as connecting link between 
the two sections, since it could be appropriately classed with 

X. The death of Saul. — The entire connection of David with 
Saul is passed over and the Chronicler begins his history of David 
with an account of the death of Saul taken from i S. 3I'•'^ with a 
few slight variations due partly to intention, partly to accident, and 
in some instances preserving a better text than the present ^ of 
I S. 

1. The narrative of the battle of Mt. Gilboa is introduced ab- 
ruptly, the Chronicler taking for granted that the events which led 
to it were well known to the reader. The introductory clause 
Now the Philistines fought against Israel is a general statement 
which was conveniently supplied by the source. In i S. it serves 
to reintroduce the main theme after a digression concerning 
David's attack upon the Amalekites. — Each man of Israel fled] 
implying that the defeat turned into a panic in which each man 
cared for his owti life. This has been substituted by the Chron- 
icler for the more general statement in i S. "and the men of 
Israel fled," and was doubtless intentional to make the account of 
the defeat more vivid. — And fell down slain in mount Gilboa]. 
According to i S. 28^, the Philistines were encamped at Shunem 
(the mod. Solam) and the Israelites were gathered together on Mt. 
Gilboa (the mod. Jebel Fukua). This ridge commands the en- 
trance to the southern angle of the Plain of Esdraelon through 
Dothan, and also the main highway from Esdraelon to the Jordan, 


X. 1-14.] DEATH OF SAUL l8i 

viz., that through the Valley of Jezreel. It was, therefore, a point 
of extreme importance to Israel and to the Philistines alike. To 
the former it was the connecting link between the tribes north of 
Esdraelon and those to the south, while to the latter it meant con- 
trol of the important trade-route which drained the rich grain-fields 
of the Hauran and passed on to the gardens of Damascus. The 
Israelites failed to profit by the advantage they had gained in 
possessing themselves, in advance, of the key to the situation. 
— 2. And the Philistines pursued Said and his sons closely] is 
paralleled by the action of the King of Syria who commanded his 
charioteers at the battle of Ramoth-gilead to attack only the person 
of the King of Israel (i K. 223'). — Jonathan, Abinadab, Malchi- 
shiia\ Cf. 8''=9'3. — 3. The archers hit him\ The Heb. idiom 
has it, "the oxcYiexs found him." — 4. Draw thy sword and thrust 
me through]. Cf. Ju. g^\ — But his armorbearer woidd not] either 
because of his reverence for his lord (Sm.), or, more likely, from 
fear of blood-revenge {cf. 2 S. 2"), which would be all the more 
certain to overtake one who slew the Lord's anointed {cf. i S. 26^). 
— Then Saul took his own sword and fell upon it]. One of the 
rare cases of suicide in the OT., cf. v. ^ 2 S. 17" i K. i6>' f, also 
2 Mac. io'3 14^1 -«6. — 6. The abridgment, all his house, for "his 
armorbearer and all his men" of i S., can scarcely be a reference 
to Saul's servants (Ba.), yet it is certain that Saul's house did not 
perish at that time {cf. 2 S. 2^ '•). This is probably nothing more 
than a careless statement by the Chronicler. Still, Bn. prefers 
the text of Chronicles. — 7. The valley from which the men of Israel 
saw the defeat was that of Jezreel {cf. Ho. 1='). — They forsook 
their cities] one of which was doubtless Beth-shan, where the bodies 
of Saul and his sons were exposed (i S. 3i>''- '==). The tenure of 
the Philistines was of short duration, for m 2 S. 2' we find Abner 
making Ish-bosheth king over Jezreel. Yet this kingship may 
have been one of vassalage to the Philistines. — 9. And took his 
head] implying that he had been beheaded, a fact directly stated in 
the parallel. — 10. And they put his weapons in the house of their 
gods] just as the sword of Goliath had been deposited at the 
sanctuary at Nob (i S. 21 '). — The variation of the text of v. ""^ and 
I S. 31""^ suggests that in the original both readings were found : 


i.e., the passage read, His weapons they placed in the house of 
Astarte, his skull they nailed in the house of Dagon and his body 
they exposed on the wall of Beth-shan (Be., Zoe., Oe., Bn.) : other- 
wise I S. preserves the original text (We., Dr., Ki., Sm.) and, as 
is most hkely, we have here a modification of the Chronicler. — In 
the house of Dagon] to whom there were temples at Gaza (Ju. 
16''' ff) and at Ashdod (i S. 5 i Mac. lo'^-ss 114), Dagon may be 
derived from ^1, fish, hence has been described by David Kimhi 
as having the head and arms of a man and the body and tail of a 
fish, or from jjn, corn, whence Philo Byblius makes him a god 
of husbandry. The latter seems more appropriate for the in- 
habitants of the Philistine plain, but the uncertain origin of these 
people leaves the question open (cf. Del. Par. p. 139; Sayce, Rel. 
Bab. pp. 188/.; Scholz, Gotzendienst, pp. 238 j/".; Baud, in PRE."^ 
III. pp. 460 _^.; Jen. Kosmol. pp. 449 _^.). — 11. 12. All the in- 
habitants^ of Jabesh-gilead]. These paid a debt of gratitude to 
Saul (cf. I S. II'-") by recovering his body and those of his sons — • 
according to i S. in a raid by night — and giving them honourable 
burial in a sacred place, under the oak in Jabesh. Burying the 
dead was considered an act of piety {cf. Tob. i'* 2^). — The doubtful 
phrase "and burnt them there" of i S., considered original by 
Sm., was omitted by the Chronicler, since burning was looked upon 
as something abominable (Am. 2'). — The exact site of Jabesh- 
gilead is uncertain. The name is still preserved in Wady Yabis. 
Eusebius places it six Roman miles from Pella. Oliphant sought 
it in the ruins Meriamln, and so more recently Merrill (but see 
Buhl, GAP. p. 259). Robinson conjectured the ruins ed Deir 
on the south side of the wady but somewhat off the road from 
Beisan to Jerash (so GAS.). — 13. 14. This reflection upon the 
death of Saul with the observation that Yahweh turned the king- 
dom unto David is direct from the Chronicler, and after his 
manner cf. 2 Ch. 12" 1318 211" 24^* 252° 27^ 28''. The cause of 
Saul's death is found in his trespass of not keeping the word of 
Yahweh, probably with reference to the disobedience recorded in 
I S. 13" '• 15'-", and Saul's consultation with the witch of Endor 
I S. 28' ^. In V. "» Saul is apparently misrepresented, since ac- 
cording to I S. 28* Saul did ask of Yahweh but the Lord did not 

X. 1-14.] DEATH OF SAUL 183 

answer him. Doubtless the thought of the Chronicler was not 
far from that of the mod. commentator who writes, "Saul had 
neglected to seek the favour of Jehovah with proper zeal and then 
inquire of Him" (Zoe.). 

1. icnSj] preferred as the original form by Bu., Sm. i S. 31' 
CDnSj. — 'z^a Dj>i] I S. 1CJX 1DJM. On u^x in distributive sense cf. Gn. 
95 lo* 40*- 5 Ex. 12' and often. — ^i'^Sj] i S. jj^hin also v. ^. — 2. . . . >-inN 
nnx] I S. 312 PNi . . . PN. On the Chronicler's usage with nnx 
cf. Ju. 2o<5 I S. 1422. — jnjr] i S. injin\ The spelling jnji> is found 
elsewhere, in i S. 132- ^ and some 27 other times. — 3. Sixa' S;*] i S. 
3i3 'a- Sn. The substitution of *?>' for Sn may be due to the influence 
of Aramaic, which does not use Sn. Bn. regards ^]} as the original. — - 
ne'|i3 D>nicn] i S. 'pa o^z'in omrn. The Chronicler has preserved the 
better order and according to Bu. the better text. If awm belonged 
to the original text it should precede Dmon (Dr.). — onvn p SnM] i S. 
anicno ind '?n''i. Probably the Chronicler's text is an abridgment. 
The verb Sn'i presents a diflaculty. Dr. takes it from Sin "trembled." 
Sm. thinks that C5 takes the word from S'^n, we think more likely from 
nSn, an apocopated Hoph. or for ri^nn (Klo.), cf. 1 K. 22'* = 2 Ch. 18" 
and 2 Ch. 35='. (B renders here and 2 Ch. 18^3 3523 by the same word 
iirdveaav, iirbveaa. Bu. gives the clause up as hopelessly corrupt. — 
4. n-l;'j-'?n] I S. 3i< K'.fjS. — Before iSSynni i S. has ij->imi. The Chron- 
icler's text is better (Bu., Sm.). — 5. annn] i S. 31^ lann, which after 
<S is to be preferred (Bn.). — 1DJ7 is omitted after no'i. Bn. regards 
both as additions to the original text, pdm is wanting in (S^ by haplog- 
raphy. — 6. ma nni mo Voi] an abridgment of i S. 318 So dj vhz Nrji 
nm Hyr^n ova vz'iH. — 7. c^x So] i S. 31' iit-jn. — pnya -\Vi(\ preserving 
more nearly the original text and an abridgment of i S. of which the 
present text is \-y-\''ri lajja -isnsi pcyn -\aj;3 Iw'n, and in which laya each 
time is probably a corruption of n>'3 in the cities of {YAo., Bu., Sm.). 
Dr. retains the present text of i S. — SxiB'> ^tfjN, are the subject of iDj 
in I S. (& has here lapa-ffK, from which Kau. supplies Snib'^ >Vitt, 
so also Ki. Some subject seems necessary. (&^ with iraj before 
lapayfK = '1 So may retain the original reading of Ch. Then the 
verb must be put in the sg. with d. — ann>"] i S. onyn pn. — ona] i S- 
jno. — 8. I S. 3i«has Pii'Sa' px before rjo. — 9. pni vj'nt pn ins-m ^r^•3■'va^^ 
vSo] I S. 31^ rSo PN vd'^'DM i!fxi PN mioM. — ^inSr»i] Pi. requires as its 
object the head and weapons of Saul (so Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Sm.). 
Since, however, the inf. "w^h implies a personal subject it may be 
well to understand messengers as the object of inStt»M and point as 
a Qal (Kau., Ki., Bu.). — anusy nx] i S. 'j? po, the former is to be 
preferred (Bu., Sm.). — 10. oninSs P'o] probably a direct departure 


from I S. 31" nnnsfj? n>a. mncj; sg. (Dr., Bu., Sm.). — inSj'^j pni 
JUT no iypi-i] I S. Jtt' no nnina ij?pn ipmj nxi. Instead of U'pn, they 
drove in as a tent pin, we probably should read U'i?n in i S. they 
exposed after Lagarde (Dr., Bu., Sm., Ki., Bn.). — 11. eo'' Ss u'ccm 
-I/'Sj] I S. 3 111 v'^J a'O' o^" vS« lyDiVM. Ki. restores the latter in his 
text of Ch. (SBOT., Kom.). <& read ly'^J op'' Sd, which suggests 
'j CJ^ oa''' Sd as original here, so Kau., Bn. — ~wh So nx] i S. "itfN nt*. 
— 12. After Sin i S. 3112 has nSiSn Sa wSii. — nsu . . . rou n^ isa'M] 
I S. mu . . . n^j PN inpM. The Chronicler has substituted the 
Aram, and late Heb. word hdu, found in the OT. only here, for 
HMj. — After vja the Chronicler has also omitted j'lT no nmns. — divSom 
na^oi] I S. ntt'3'> 1N3M. The Chronicler perhaps has only added the 
sf. because the vocalisation originally may have been the same ((&, 
&). — Ch. omits a:;' dpn idic'ii. — uoo nS^n nnn animrxy nN n^p^i] i S. 
3ii3n:;oi3 S^i'sn nnn napii amnicxy nx inpM.— 13. The verse presents 
the heavy peculiar style of the Chronicler. — Sins'S] inf. used instead 
of the finite verb (Ew. § 351 c, Ges. § 114/', Da v. Syn. § 96 R. 4), cf. 
6'*. — amS] inf. in a supplemental sense equivalent in meaning to gain 

XL 1-3. David made king over all Israel. — The Chronicler 
omits, as foreign to the purpose of his narrative, David's reception 
of the news of Saul's death, his reign over the tribe of Judah, and 
his contest with the house of Saul (2 S. 1-4), and proceeds at once 
to David's establishment as kmg over all Israel. The narrative 
is a close copy of 2 S. 51-^ — 1. In 2 S. instead of all Israel "all the 
tribes of Israel came," who represented the adherents of the house 
of Saul in distinction from the tribe of Judah over which David 
was reigning. The Chronicler, having in view the main fact rather 
than the details of the history which he is passing over in silence, 
uses Israel as including Judah with the rest {cf. w. ' ' ). — 3. 
According to the word of YaJiweh by the hand of Samuel]. These 
words are the Chronicler's contribution to the narrative taken 
from 2 S. It has been inferred that the Chronicler had among 
his sources a "Testament of Samuel" (Bn.), but perhaps it is 
sufi&cient to think of i S. 15^' i6i- '. 

1. SN-\iyi So IXapil] 2 S. 51 Ssitt'i i[23tt' So 1X3M. — ICnS] 2 S. ICXS ICNM 

where nsNM is wanting in B and nnxS in ($. — njn] 2 S. ujn. — 2. 
The third dj is wanting in 2 S. 5'. — N'lsiDn nns nSn] 2 S. ijiSj? iSd 
N-ixiD nn".-) nr^s. — Nocm] 2 S. ocni is probably a scribal error, Ges. 

XI. 1-9.] DAVID MADE KING 185 

§ 74*. — l^n?K nin^] 2 S. nin^, also CS^ in ch. followed by Ki., SBOT., 
but the Greek tradition seems rather to support ^, cf. (B^^, H. — The 
second iny is wanting in d and 2 S., hence is omitted by Ki., SBOT. 
—3, onh] 2S. 53 + I'-cn. 

4-9. The capture of Jerusalem. — This is a somewhat free 
and modified transcript of 2 S. s^-'". The chronological notices of 
2 S. 5* '• are omitted here to be inserted in a more appropriate 
place (29"). — 4. Chronicles has all Israel engaged with David 
in the assault upon Jerusalem, while 2 S. speaks of "the king and 
his men," i.e., his body-guard or warriors. The Chronicler has 
added the archaeological note explaining Jerusalem as though 
anciently called Jebiis. This is after the usage of P, cf. Jos. 15' 
igi6. 28 ju_ jgio. 11 Jebiis as the ancient name of the city is proba- 
bly a mere fancy derived from the fact that the Jebusites dwelt 
there at the time of David. In the Amama tablets the name 
Urusalim repeatedly occurs, while there is no trace of a name cor- 
responding to Jebus. Jerusalim is also given as the name in 
Ju. I'- " Jos. 15" 2 S. 5« {cf. Moore on Ju. 19'°). — And there 
were the Jebusites the inhabitants of the land\ In 2 S. we have 
"against the Jebusites the inhabitants of the land," which phrase 
sets forth directly the thought of an attack upon non-Israelites 
as the purpose of David, while Chronicles has turned the words 
into a description of the conditions of the time of David. — 5. 
Chronicles gives but the first part of the defiant speech of the Jebu- 
sites to David, omitting the scornful boast of the impregnability of 
Jerusalem, that the blind or the lame could defend it (2 S. 5'). 
Probably the reference to them was no longer understood. — 6. 
This verse is far smoother and quite different from the obscure 
parallel in 2 S. Although this prowess of Joab with its reward is 
nowhere else mentioned, it probably was not an invention of the 
Chronicler, and his later position as commander-in-chief may have 
had some connection with the capture of Jerusalem in spite of the 
fact that he led the men of David earlier (2 S. 21'). — 8. Millo] 
part of the fortifications of Jerusalem; location and meaning are 
obscure (</. 2 S. 5' i K. g^^ ^4 1127). The Chronicler placed it in 
the city of David 2 Ch. 32^ (for discussion GAS. /. II. pp. Aoff.). — 
And Joab restored the rest of the city\ This statement has no 


parallel in 2 S. The rest of the city means the city apart from the 
citadel; David thus rebuilt the fortress and Joab the rest of the 
city. This legend concerning Joab may have arisen from the 
prominence of the family of Joab in post-exilic Israel, 4'* Ezr. 2« 
8» (We. TS.). 

4. Ssnu'i Sdi n>n] 2 S. 5« vu'jxi nScn. (S^ adopted by Ki., SBOT., 
favouredby Bn., follows 2 S. (6^ and ^ agree with 1|. — ^ys;'' iDuin uv^] 
2 S. airv iDi3''n ha. — 5. Dia^ oa'i ncN^] 2 S. idnm. — 8. 2^200 i^yn j^m 
a^aon -ip Ni'^cn ]d] 2 S. 5' nnoi niSdh jd 20D imt pM. (gs omits 
3>3Dn nj?i NiScn jc. 05^ follows l|. jodd is suspicious, especially 
with the art., so perhaps the original was 'n'':iri n;n and to the palace 
(Bn., Ki.)- — ^J3 (njaii) is here used with the meaning to rebuild with 
the added notion of enlarging, cf. 2 Ch. 8^ ii^ 26-, merely rebuild- 
ing, 2 Ch. 32^ 2,3^- 16 (BDB.). — -cpn -\N'a> pn n">n> dnvi] wanting in 
2 S. <S^ has Kal iTroKifi-qcrev koL eXa^ev rrjv ir6\iv with David as the 
subject. O5I' follows If. § translates: "Joab gave his right hand to 
the rest of the men who were in the city." This paraphrase is 
based upon the rendering of n^n^ to keep alive (so Ba.). But the 
meaning to restore is supported by (6^ irepieiroiria-aTo, and the use of 
nip in Ne. ^^K — 9. r\^^\^] 2 S. 5'" +>n'^x. 

10-47. David's mighty men. — This section is taken from 
2 S. 23'-" with the exception of the introductory v. '", and w. 
4ib-47 which give the names of sixteen additional mighty men not 
recorded elsewhere. These additional names and the superscrip- 
tion, V. 26»^ have suggested that the entire list, vv. '^^■", came from 
a source independent of 2 S. (Bn.) and perhaps the source of 2 S. 
(Graf). Another explanation is that vv. ^^^-" are out of place, 
belonging in c. 12 between v. ' and v. » (Bu. in Com.). The names 
in vv. ■'"'-<' are in many instances if not all of persons from east of 
the Jordan. The first twelve of these heroes given in w. " "f- are 
mentioned again as monthly commanders of the army of David 

10. And these were the chief of the mighty men who belonged 
to David who held strongly with him in respect to the kingdom, 
together with all Israel to make him king]. These words explain 
the Chronicler's introduction of the list of the mighty men at this 
point in his narrative. He regarded them as participants in the 
coronation of David. In fact, many of these mighty men probably 

XI. 10-47.] DAVID'S MIGHTY MEN 187 

won their places in subsequent campaigns of David and were 
unknown at this time (We. Prol. p. 173). — According to the word 
of Yahweh unto Israel^ is a good example of the Chronicler's re- 
ligious comment and view-point of David's reign. 

11-14. The three mightiest. — This section is incomplete. 
Vv. 9b-iia of 2 S. 23 have been omitted by a copyist {v. i.), so that 
the name of the third hero Shammah is lacking and his exploit is 
assigned to Eleazar the second hero, whose own exploit has been 
omitted. — 11. Instead of Jashobeam we should read Ishbaal, and 
instead of thirty, three, of whom Ishbaal was the foremost, coming 
before Eleazar and Shammah. After 2 S. also eight hundred 
should be read instead of three hundred. — 12. Dodai *]. v. i. — 
Ahohite]. Cf. v. ". — 13. Pas-datnmim] wanting in 2 S. 29', 
Ephes-dammim (i S. 17') (v. i.). — 14. They stood, etc.]. Read 
after 2 S. 29", he stood, etc. 

10. D^imnnn] cf. 2 S. 3« Dn. lo^^ and for references 2 Ch. i'. — 11. 
nsDD] 2 S. 238 mcB', which Ki. prefers here. But the probability is 
that Ch., the harder reading, has preserved the original, since the 
sum is given in 2 S. 23'' (cf. Bn.). — U^2V^] (g^ leae^ada, ^ lea-ffe^aaX, 
which are certainly not corruptions of ^ lajSaafi = M- 2 S. atf' 
nauo, CS^ le<Tl36cr6€ ^ Iecr/3aaX. The Lucian text reveals the true 
reading h-jT^'' or hjl^zfn (Dr., Ki., et al.). The reading of 2 S. is a 
corruption of nao-a'iN, cf. S^'. — •■jicon-p] 2 S. ^jDonn = ijcsnn (We. 
TS., Dr., Bu.). In 272 we have '^xiar p, which Bu. adds to the 
text of 2 S. The reference in Hachmonite is unknowTi. A cor- 
ruption of DiJ-n''D has been seen in it (EBi.). — D'-tt'iSsiri sr^n] Qr. 'n 
D'tt'iSir'n, 2 S. iiffhs^n tfNi. Thus the Heb. texts provide three render- 
ings, chief of the thirty (^^ in Ch. preferred by Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.), 
chief of the captains, chief of the third part (of the army), so QS^ in 
2 S. preferred by Ba. C6>^ in both 2 S. and Ch. represents B'NI 
na'Str'n, chief of the three. This (preferred by We. TS., Dr., Bu., 
Kau., Now., Ki., Mar., Bn.) is probably original. The three were 
Ishbaal, Eleazar v. ", and Shammah son of Agee 2 S. 23". — 111? 
inijn pn] 2 S. 23* uxyn ijny. The latter text is meaningless and the 
former is generally accepted as the true reading in 2 S. (cf. Dr., 
Bu.), although unsupported by (B (cf. We. TS.). Mar. reads in 2 
S. nxj.'D his axe, instead of inijn his spear. — a'Sc] 2 S. njct:', which is 
to be preferred, since Ishbaal had the first place and three hundred 
are mentioned slain by Abishai, v. 20 (Ki., Bn.).— 12. ja iiySx] is 
wanting in 27*, probably through copyist's error (Dr., Ki.). Mar. 
regards this omission as the better reading for 2 S. 23". — nn] 2 S. 


nn, which is the true reading. Otherwise the text of 2 S. for this 
verse is inferior to Ch. and is to be restored accordingly (Dr., 
Bu.). — 13. cai dd] usually taken as equivalent to o^m dsn (i S. 
17'), is a misreading of osina 2 S. 23'. Mar. with probability 
sees in both 2 S. and Ch. a corruption of D'ndi pi3j?3 (c/. v. '^ 
14' 2 S. 5!'- -2 23'3). — After ncnSnS a copyist has omitted that 
portion of the text found in 2 S. 23 between DB* iDDSi D"inB''7D3 
nDnScS V. 3, and n^nS o^ntt'^D iddnm v. •', through the eye wandering. 
— For Dnij?c, barley, 2 S. 23" has a-^'i^iy, lentils. It is impossible to 
determine which is correct. — 14. The verbs laxipii) niS^SM, and ^T^ 
are to be read in the sg. after 2 S. 23'^ and (B (Ki., Bn.). A copy- 
ist was either misled by the pi. in IDJ v. " (also sg. in 2 S.) or in- 
troduced these plurals by design to associate David with Eleazar 
(Ke., Ba.).— ya-i^i] 2 S., (& v;>\ 

15-19. The exploit of three mighty men at Bethlehem (= 

2 S. 23"-"). — The compiler of 2 S. probably thought that the 
actors of this story were the three mighty men just mentioned, but 
since they are three of the thirty chief and the thirty have not yet 
been mentioned, they are probably entirely diflferent and the story 
is out of its original connection (We. TS., Dr., Bu., Bn.). V. '"» 
appears to have been the true conclusion of w. "-'<, and w. '5-'9» 
probably came after the list of the thirty (in 2 S. \^. ''-'^* after 
v.") (so Bu., SBOT.). The variations between Ch. and 2 S. are 
few and imimportant. — 15. Unto the stronghold"^ of 'Adidlam] 
see below. — The Philistines were in the Valley of Rephaim, a 
plain south of Jerusalem. According to Josephus {Ant. vii. 12. 4) 
it was twenty stadia south of Jerusalem and reached to Bethlehem. 
Cf. 145 Jos. 158 i8'5 2 S. 5'8- M 2313 Is. 17s, Buhl, GAP. p. 91. — 
18. And the three brake through the host] an exploit probably made 
by night and possible through the loose discipline of the time, 
cf. I S. 26«-'-. — The water was too precious to drink, hence David 
poured it out, as a libation offering, unto Yahweh. — 19. Shall I 
drink the blood of these men] for the risk at which the water was 
brought made it equivalent to their blood, cf. the command not to 
eat the blood of animals but "to pour it out on the ground Hke 
water," Dt. i2'«- "-25 1^23. 

15. (g of 2 S. 23" omits s-NT and is followed by Bu., SBOT., 
who thinks the word has come from 2 S. 23".— isn] the true read- 

XI. 10-47.] DAVID'S MIGHTY MEN 189 

ing. 2 S. TXp. — myn] 2 S. the same. Read mxn after v. '« (We. 
TS., Dr., Bu., Kau., Ki., Bn.). Adullam was a hill fortress, not a 
cave, cf. Baed.", p. 1.24. Buhl, GAP. p. 97. — njnc] an equivalent 
suggested by the following D''jn for the more unusual n''n of 2 S., 
if the latter is the true reading. — 16. iixji] 2 S. 23" asm. — 17. in.-im] 
2 S. 2315 niN,-iii. On the apocopated form of Ch. see Ges. § "j^hh. 
— mac] 2 S. isac. nxn a we// of living water, but i^a properly a 
cistern. The change may have been intentional. To-day no well is 
found at the gate of Bethlehem, Rob. BR.'^ I. pp. 470. 473; SWP. 
iii. p. 28; so also v. 's. — 18. n-^'^^n] 2 S. 231^ D>"iajn na'':'B'. — idjm] 
Pi. t, 2 S. iDn Hiph. — 19. ^nVxc] 2 S. 231? mn\ jn in such an 
expression is the better usage. — nntr-N] necessary to complete the 
sentence is lacking in 2 S. The original of 2 S., however, may 
have been different (see Bu., Sm.). — .iiCBja] in 2 S. preceded by 
DiaSnn which is restored here by Oe., Kau., who went at the risk of 
their lives. The prep, in that case is 3 pretii as here in nnvi'sja* 
in the following clause. Without this restoration the 3 is that of 
accompaniment, Ges. § iiQw, cf. Gn. g* Lv. i7'3, the blood of tliese 
men shall I drink with {i.e., and therewith) their lives (Ke., Ki.). — 
Dwan Dma>flja >d] an explanation of the previous nnicoja from the 

20-25. Exploits of Abishai and Benaiah (- 2 S. 2y^-^^). — 
The immediate connection of these verses with the preceding and 
the reference in the present Hebrew text to the three suggest that the 
two heroes Abishai and Benaiah were members of the triad who 
broke through unto the well at Bethlehem and constituted a second 
triad of heroes distinct from the first three and also distinct from 
the thirty. This view apparently appears in U and AV. and RV., 
and was generally that of ancient interpreters. The prevailing 
modem view, however, is that those who drew the water at Bethle- 
hem are entirely unknown and that, further than in their exploit, 
they do not constitute a triad of heroes distinct from the thirty, 
and in short only one such triad is mentioned, viz. Ishbaal, Eleazar, 
and Shammah. The text presents a certain amount of confusion 
and uncertainty. Abishai and Benaiah, while not equal to the 
three (vv. ^i 25)^ yet clearly form a class by themselves, but whether 
distinct from the thirty (according to Dr., Mar.) or enrolled among 
the thirty (according to Kau., Bu., Ki.) is not clear. — 20. 21. And 
Abishai,^ the brother of Jo'ab, was the thirty's'^ chief, and he 
swung his spear over three hundred slain and he had renown like 


the three. Among the thirty^ behold Jie* was in honor and he became 
their captain, yet he did not attain unto the three]. For further 
events in the Hfe of Abishai cf. iSi^ i S. 26« «• 2 S. 16' 18^ 2ii« '■. — 
22. Benaiah the son of Jehoiada' from Kabze'el was a man of 
valor"^, mighty in deeds. He slew two young lions having gone 
to their lair ;'^ and he went down and slew a lion in a pit on a 
snowy day\ The prowess of Benaiah in conflict with wild beasts 
is here vividly set forth; in the following verse his prowess as a 
warrior. — Kabze'el] was a town in south Judah, unidentified, cf. 
Jos. 152' Ne. ii^s. — 23. Five cubits high] a touch of description 
wanting in 2 S., as also like a weaver's beam, derived probably 
from the story of Goliath, i S. 17' 2 S. 21". Another resemblance 
to the Goliath story is the fact that the Egyptian was slain with 
his own weapon, i S. 17^'. — 24. And he had renown like* the three 
mighty men]. Cf. v. 2°. 

20. ijyjN] 2 S. 23' 8 correctly la-'ax, so also C5, cf. 2". — nc'i'^irn] 
2 S. Kt. the same; Qr. '>tt''7!;'n : but some mss. (see Gins.) and 2 S. 
have DiS'Stt'n, the true reading, adopted by Be., We. TS., and schol- 
ars generally (not by Ke., Oe.). — x*?!] Qr. and 2 S. iSi, so also 05, 
13, ^. The xS is preferred by Mar., who reads '2 Dp ab, he was 
not reckoned among the three. Others generally read iS. — Instead of 
nir'V'^o we read with Bu. and Sm. nrSco. Dr. retains iU in 2 S. 
with a similar meaning. "Abishai and Benaiah had a name beside 
'the Three' though not fully equal to theirs." Kau., Ki., and Bn. 
read di::'':'B'3. — 21. nsriScn p] 2 S. 23'^ the same; a comparison with 
V. =5a shows that we should read D''B'iSa>n p (We. TS., and scholars 
generally). Dr., Mar., Sm., translate "more than the thirty, etc.," 
which puts Abishai and also Benaiah (see v. ^) in a distinct class 
by themselves apart from the thirty. In favour of this is the fact 
that the number thirty is complete without them (cf. 2 S. 23'^). 
Others translate "from among the thirty," thus enrolling the two with 
them (Kau., Ki.). — a''j^a] retained by Ki. with the rendering "stand er 
zweifach in Ehren^^; rejected by Kau., Bn., who (as above) substitute 
ijn from v. "^, which is the reading of We., Dr., and Bu. in 2 S., 
where we have lan, a certain corruption. Sm. prefers to read Nin. 
— 22. p] before ^^n tfiN should be omitted as CS in 2 S. 232", since 
Benaiah and not his grandfather is clearly described (We. TS., 
Dr., Kau., Ki., et al.). — Zi^hyD 3"\] usually rendered mighty in deeds 
but by Bu., since his origin is here described, mighty in possessions, 
the striking thing being that a man o^f wealth should be a hero.. — 

XI. 10-47.] DAVID'S MIGHTY MEN 191 

2Nia Sn'^in ^jb* pn] C6 in 2 S. and (B^ here have Sxnx ija ■'j-^r pn, 
adopted by We. TS., Kau., Dr., Ki., Bn., and the last four also 
read 3N1DD. Retaining the text the rendering has been given, He 
smote the two altar pillars of Moab (Ba., WRS., Religion of Semites, 
note L). The use of njn is against this. We prefer with Bu. after 
Klo. (owing to similarity of Ssns wdth n.x in the next sentence) 
DNiinn-'7N nNH ijp ^yc\ This places in a natural order the exploits of 
Benaiah. Otherwise two of warfare are separated by one of hunting. 
The prep. Sk is used in a pregnant sense. — 23. mn ens] 2 S. 23^1 
nxiD c^x preferred by Ba., while the reading of Ch. is preferred by 
We. TS., Dr., Bu., Mar.— 24b. See v. 2«.— 25. See v. "'. 

2&-47. The mighty men of valor. Vv. ^^-"^^ = 28. 2^-'^-^^^. 
— The title given in v. ^^'^ (wanting in 2 S.) to this section shows 
that the Chronicler regarded this list as independent of those men- 
tioned above. The addition of the sixteen names in w. 4ib-47^ 
carrying the number far beyond thirty, has probably led to the 
removal of any relation to the thirty by the omission of that refer- 
ence in V. * and of the summary in v. "'. Compared with 2 S. the 
list is better preserved in Chronicles. The great majority of these 
men, apart from this list and the one in 2 S., are otherwise unknown 
and hence require no comment. Nine of them, with Jashobeam, 
Eleazar, and Benaiah (v. s.), however, appear in the Chronicler's 
list of the captains of David's host (ay^-'^). 

26-41. — 26. 'Asah'el] {cf. 2>6 27') slain in the war with Ish- 
bosheth. — Elhanan] the name also of the slayer of Goliath (2 S. 
21" cf. 20^*); the two have been regarded as identical. — 27. Sham- 
moth the Harorite] perhaps identical with Shamhuth mentioned 
in 278;- V. also i. — Helez]. Cf. 27'°. — Pelonite] v. i. — 28. Ira]. 
Cf. 2'j\—Tekoite] from Teko'a, cf. 2^*.—Abi ezer]. Cf. 27 '2.— 
' Anathothite] from 'Anathoth, cf. 6" («"'. — ^29. Sibbecai] 2 S. 23" 
Mebunai (v. i.). Cf. 27". — Hushathite] from Hushah, cf. 4*. — 
'llai] an uncertain name (v. i.). — Ahohiie] reference unknown. — 
30. Maharai]. Cf. 27". — Netophalhite] from Netophah, cf. 2''*. 
—Heled] 2 S. 23^9 Heleb (v. i.).—31. Benaiah]. Cf 27'^— 
Pirathonite] of Pir'athon, a town in Ephraim {cf. Ju. i2>5). — 32. 
Hurai] 2 S. 23'° Hiddai (y. i.). — Brooks of Ga'ash]. Particular 
wadys frequently designate localities; Ga'ash in the hill country of 
Ephraim. — Abi'el] 2 S. 23^' Abi-'albon, probably Abi-ba'al (v. i.). 


— 'Arbaihite] from Beth-'arabah, a town of Judah or Benjamin 
(cf. Jos. i5«- «'). — 33. 'Azmaveth]. Cf. 12K — Bafiarumite] (im- 
proper spelling V. i.) from Bahurim, a town of Benjamin {v. i.). — 
Sha albonite] from Sha'albim, a town of Dan {cf. Jos. 19^-)? ii63,r 
Aijalon. — 34. Hashem] 2 S. 23^2 Jashen {v. i.). — Gizonite] un- 
certain {v. i.). — Harariie] uncertain. — 35. Sacar] 2 S. 23" 
Sharar (v. i.). — EMpJial] 2 S. 23^^ Eliphelet (v. •?.). — 36. This verse 
is entirely uncertain, probably corrupt {v. i.). — 37. Carmelite] 
from Carmel, a town near Hebron. — Naarai] 2 S. 23'^ Pa'arai 
(v. i.). — 38. V. i. — 39. Berothite] from Beeroth, a town of Benja- 
min. — 40. 'ithrite]. Cf. 2".— 41. Uriah the Hittite] the officer 
whose wife David took. — Zabad] wanting in 2 S. This completes 
the list given in 2 S., where is added "thirty and seven in all" 
(2 S. 235'). Zabad may have belonged with the list in 2 S. and for 
some reason have fallen from the text, thus making a complete num- 
ber of thirty-seven (cf. 2 S. 23"). Chronicles, lacking Elika (see 
V. 27)j furnishes 3 + 2 -I- 30 = 35 names. Usually, however, 
Zabad is grouped with the fifteen new names in v\'. "-<'. 

— 26. cStih >inj] tlie men of valor, wanting in 2 S. 23'^ On 
the pi. see Ges. § 124^. — After jnv 2 S. has Eis''?a>3. — Instead of 
^•^^•^ read •'in {cf. v. '2). — anS pias] 2 S. "? no. — 27. nici:'] 2 S. 232* 
HDS'. ^B here and 27' rmoc, preferred by Ki. {SBOT., but not 
Kom.) and Bn. — •'nnnn] 2 S. mnn, usually followed (Be., Ki.), since 
a locality "nn ]';j is mentioned in Ju. 7', near Mt. Gilboa. Bn. 
regards this as entirely indecisive. Alar, and EBi. (art. Harodite) 
emend to n-t;'.-!, connecting it with 'Arad, a town in the Negeb. In 
27* this warrior is called an Izrahite (^mf), but the true reading is 
probably ^mr, Zerahite. This favours a Judean origin and so far 
the emendation of Mar. and EBi. — After r^r^v 2 S. has another 
hero ''Tinn Np^^x, Elika the Harodite, but since he is wanting in (6^^, 
Mar. rejects him. However, this omission is probably due to homce- 
oteleuton. — -■'ji'^sn] 2 S. 23"^ ^\2^£i7\. This latter is perhaps to be pre- 
ferred, since we know of a corresponding place e'^s no, a town of 
Judah, Jos. 15" Ne. ii^s (Be., Ki.). Yet in 27"' we have iji'^sn 
and Helez belongs to Ephraim. Bn. well says we know too little of 
towns to determine the true reading. Mar. after (&^ KeXudel in 2 S. 
reads inSi'pn, the Keilathite. — 29. oaD] 2 S. 23" ■'J3C. Ch., it is 
generally acknowledged, has the true reading, since Sibbecai the 
Hushathite is mentioned in 2 S. 2i'8. — •'Sv] 2 S. 23" pc'^x, but C5^ 
'EXXwy ^ AXXaj*, hence the name may have begun with y, but the 



second half is uncertain. We. TS. has pSj?. — 30. iSn] 2 S. z^'^^ aSn. 
The former attested by 27" nSn, and as proper name by Zc. 6'-'>, is 
read (nSn) by Bu. {SBOT.) and Mar. in 2 S.— 31. "ijnyifln] 2 S. 
2330 ijnyiD, The former with the art. is correct. — 32 . i-iin] 2 S. ''-\n. 
It is uncertain which is correct, but the former is preferred by We. 
TS., Bu., yet the latter by Ki. — '?ni3n] 2 S. 2331 paSy ^as-. Ch. is 
supported by (B^ of 2 S. We. TS., Bu., read Sya-iaN. — 33. ••cnnan] 
read ■'minan. The reference is to Bahurim, cf. 2 S. 3'^ 16* 17I8 jqi? 

1 K. 2'. 2 S. has "'Cman. — 34. ■'ja] after (&^ in 2 S. 23^2 to be struck 
out, a repetition of the last three letters of the preceding word (Dr., 
Ki., Bu., Mar., Bn.). — orn] 2 S. rJ'\ The former is preferred in 2 
S. by Mar. — 'jvjn] wanting in i§ of 2 S., but (8^ has 6 Vovvi, which 
gives the true reading ^jun, the Gunite, of a family of Naphtali, Nu. 
26^s (Dr., Bu., Ki., Mar.). — ayy ]a ;njini] 2 S. nctt' jnjin\ (gi- in 2 
S. has ja and is followed by scholars generally. Whether we should 
read njs' or ncc is uncertain. The latter is preferred by Ki. after 
CS*-. We. 7^5. prefers the former (or njn) and thinks that Jonathan 
was a brother of Shammah, 2 S. 23", since both were Hararites. — 
35. ta"'] 2 S. 23" -\-\Z'. Ki. prefers the former. Bn. the latter, since 
supported by <&^ in 2 S. — "'j'^dh vnx ■•macn isn (36) : iiN p VaiSn] 

2 S. 23'< "ij'^jn Sa.T'ns ja djjiSn Taycn ja •»aDns ja oSdiSn. Kau. re- 
tains the text of Ch. Bn. reads dSaiSn and 'jSjn after 2 S., but re- 
gards the text of 2 S. as a whole as entirely corrupt. Ki. prefers the 
text of 2 S., inserting from Ch. only nsn nis in the place of "laDnN 
ja. Bu., SBOT., follows 2 S., except that he reads n-'a instead of |a 
before Tiaycn. We prefer: Eliphelet the son of . . . the Ma'acathite, 
Ell am the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite. — 37. lats p nyj] 2 S. 23" 
laixn >">>'i3. Of these two readings between which Dr., Ki., and Bn. 
are undecided, that of Ch. is probably the later, ja having been in- 
serted before the place adjective (Bu.). — 38. pj^nx Snv] 2 S. 2336 Snj' 
|nj ja. (§■* in Ch. has ta, which is to be read in the place of ins 
(Ki., Bn.), but it is impossible to determine which name is correct, 
probably Snj'' because Sxr is too common to have likely suffered cor- 
ruption. — nnac] 2 S. naxc. The reading of 2 S. is of the name of a place; 
if followed (Ki., but all is uncertain, Bn.), then ja represents a proper 
name, •'ja Bani 2 S. — njn is hardly correct. Read either njn after 
2 .S. the Gadite (Ki.) or ''N-tjn the Geraite, i.e., of the Benjaminite clan of 
Gera (Mar.). 

42-47. The sixteen persons including Zabad (v. *') added by the 
Chronicler to the list given in 2 S. are all otherwise unknown and 
we have no other source for determining the correctness of the 
names given. — 42. ' Adina the son of Shiza the Reiihenite, chief 


of the Renhenitcs and with him thirty\ These words would well 
fit into a statement of a gathering of Reubenites unto David 
similar to that of the Benjaminites, the Gadites, and the Ma- 
nassites mentioned in c. 12. Then the names following would 
be a fragment of the list of the thirty who were with 'Adina 
and the original place of these verses might well be c. 12 be- 
tween V. ' and V. * (Bu. v. s.). In favour of this is the fact 
that the gentilic adjectives in w. "-^' represent places east of the 
Jordan. If this view is not taken, then instead of thirty with 
him ('^ T'^y), we should read over thirty (□'•'^•y^ b]^) (Be., Ki., 
Bn.). According to Ba. thirty with him is a marginal note de- 
signed to follow V. ^'^ — 43. The Mithnite] is entirely obscure. — 
44. The ' Ashterathite] i.e., from Ashtaroth, a city of Bashan, Dt. 
i^ Jos. 9'" et al. — The 'Aro'erite]. The reference probably is to 
Aroer in Moab {cf. 58). Another Aroer was in southern Judah, 
I S. 30"^ — 45. The Tizite]. The place referred to is entirely 
unknown. — 46. The Mahavite] v. i. — 47. The Mezobaite] v. i. 

46. DMH'Dn] is an impossible form for a singular gentilic name, 
Kau. and Ki. give it up as hopelessly corrupt. Be. suggested ''Jn^n the 
Mahanite, i.e., from Mahanaim east of the Jordan. Qs'^ has Maweij' 
possibly representing 'r>cn the Meonite, i.e., probably one from Beth 
Meon, a city of Reuben, Jos. 13'' (d^ Miel, ^ Maio^t, are corruptions 
of ^). — 47. ninssn] is also a corruption. Kau. and Ki. attempt no ren- 
dering. Possibly we should read n3'x;:/rom Zobah {cf. v. ^s) (Be., Ba.). 

XII. 1-23 (1-22). David's recruits when estranged from 
Saul. — In I S. 221'- we are told how David became captain of a 
band made up of his kinsfolks, fellows in distress, debtors, and 
discontented and desperate men generally. That is a narrative 
of history, while in this present chapter we have a Jewish Midrash 
or interpretation whereby David's recruits become the choicest 
and most valiant representatives of the tribes of Israel, and come 
to him in such numbers that instead of some four hundred or six 
hundred men (i S. 22= 27*), he has under him a great host like 
the host of God (v." '")). Our chapter then has no real his- 
torical worth. The names it contains, however, probably are 
not fictitious, but are those of leading men of the tribes some of 
whom in actual life may have been associated with David. 



The chapter is assigned by Bn. to the Chronicler's sources; according 
to Ki. vv. '-" may have been written by the Chronicler, but contain here 
and there material of good historical worth; vv. «"<' he assigns to M. 
The heavy style of vv. i- ' <*> suggests that they were written by the 
Chronicler (c/. 11'" 23^^ 27'), and the exaggerated statement of v. 23 (22) 
is certainly characteristic of him (c/. especially 22^ "■ '* ^■). In the light 
of the loyalty of Benjamin to Saul, even long after his death (2 S. 16' s- 
20), the statement that large numbers of Benjaminites deserted to 
David (vv. ' ^- '^ ^- ^'^ s. )) ^nd among them even a Gibeathite, one from 
Saul's home to%\-n, is historically suspicious. Benjamin formed a part of 
the kingdom of Ishbaal (2 S. 2^). Since certainly in post-exilic times 
Benjamin held a high position in the Jewish community (Ne. 11' ^■), it 
was an act of pious imagination to relieve this tribe, and especially those 
families which were represented in this late community, from the odium 
which would attach to those who followed the house of one whom Yah- 
weh slew (10"). Only in a work like the Chronicler's where David is 
exalted far above even the builder of the Temple (cf. cc. 22^7".) and where 
Saul is ignored, except to show his ignominious end, should this vindica- 
tion of late Benjaminite families be expected. Hence this treatment of 
the Benjaminites points to the authorship of the Chronicler. Some of 
the names may be old, for he would probably include the reputed 
ancestors of well-known Benjaminite families of his own day. Just how- 
much of this passage may be from an older source is, therefore, uncertain. 
The name Bealiah (niS>'3), v. » '*>, is certainly old {v. i.). 

1-8 (1-7). The recruits from Benjamin at Ziklag. — 1. 

On David's sojourn at Ziklag cf. i S. 27'-'. — While he was tinder 
restraint through Saul] i.e., while because of Saul he was not 
free to come and go in Israel. — Helpers in war]. Cf. the use of 
the verb ("iTy) to help in v\'. '^ ds) 22f. (2if.). — 2. Using both the right 
hand and the left in [slinging] stones and in [shooting] arrows with 
the bow]. The Benjaminites are mentioned elsewhere as left- 
handed and expert slingers (Ju. 3'^ 20"^). — Of the kinsfolks of Said 
of Benjamin]. This statement is probably wide of the historic 
truth, since even on the death of Saul the tribe of Benjamin re- 
mained faithful to his house, cf. 2 S. 2'5- 25^ and much less can 
we believe that such desertions to David took place during Saul's 
lifetime. The prominence of the Benjaminites in post-exilic 
Israel may have contributed to the origin of such stories. — 3. 
Ahiezer] elsewhere the name of the chief of the Danites. Nu. 
112 225 y66. 71 io25 -j-_ — JoasJi tJic ^OH* of SheMCL luh * f {or J eh osha- 


ma *) the Gibe atJiite]. The local reference is to Gibeah of Benja- 
min or of Saul the mod. Tell-el-Ful, two and a half miles north of 
Jerusalem. — And JizVel | {Jezu'el or Jezo'el, Kt.) and Pelet {2" •\) 
sons of Azmaveth]. Azmaveth is the name also of one of 
David's mighty men (11" cf. 8^^). — Beracah f and Jehu the 
' AnathotMte\ Anathoth was a Benjaminite town, the mod. 
'Andta, three miles north-east of Jerusalem (SWP. III. 7). — 4. 
Ishmdiah f the Gibeonite]. Owing to Saul's treatment of the 
Gibeonites, a Gibeonite might well have passed over to David. 
Cf. 2 S. 2I'-^ — A mighty man among the thirty and over the thirty]. 
It is noticeable that the list of mighty men given in ii'^ "• is not 
called the thirty in Chronicles. Ishmaiah's name also is not in that 
list, hence the conception of the thirty here appears to be different 
from that of the author of 2 S. 23. — 5 (4''). The Gederathite] i.e., 
from Gedera, a town of S. Judah Jos. 15'"', perhaps the ruin 
Jedtreh nine miles south of Ludd {SWP. III. 43), or since the 
context seems to require a Benjaminite town, perhaps the village 
Jedtreh north of Jerusalem {SWP. III. 9), or possibly the town 
was Gedor Jos. 15^8 south-west of Bethlehem mod. Jedur (Bn.). 
— 6 (5). Etnzai f and Jerimoth {cf. 7^) and Be'aliah]. This last 
name {n'^b]!2), Yahweh is Baal, represents an early period when 
no objection was taken to the identification of Yahweh with Baal 
{cf. for similar names 8' S'^ 93' n" 14'). — Shcmarjahu f and 
Shephatjahu]. Written in the shorter form (H'^t^StT, "nDty), 
these names are quite common. — The Haruphite or Hariphite]. 
A Ilareph appears among the sons of Caleb (2='). — Sons of 
Ilariph are mentioned among those who returned with Zerubbabel. 
— 7 (6). Ishshijahu f] a name not infrequent in shorter form 
Ishshiah. Cf. 7^ 24^1 et at. — Joezer f]. — Jashobe am]. Cf. 11". 
— The names Elkanah and 'Azarel are frequent. — Korahites]. 
We are to think of persons from the town of Judah rather than 
members of the Levitical clan, cf. 2". — 8 (7). From Gedor*] 
V. s. V.' "*>> cf. 4^. Clearly from v. * (^''> on we have a list of 
Judeans rather than Benjaminites, as though two lists had here 
been combined (Be.). Perhaps the introductory words for the 
Judeans have fallen from the text (Ba.). (Ke. held that all were 
Benjaminites, some residing in Judean cities.) 

Xn. 1-23.] DAVID'S RECRUITS jg>j 

1. iJflD] because of. DBD. hjd 6 a and c. — 2. ntt'ii •"trpj]. This 
phrase occurs also in 2 Ch. 17" and Ps. 78' (where inn should be 
struck from the text as an explanatory gloss). (§ omits ^cp: con- 
necting m'p(2) with nt;? v. ', and supplies a verb (o-^evSof^rai) be- 
fore D''J3N3. — 3. nyna'n ■'ja] (so Kau.) read perhaps with (g niynty p 
(Ki., Ba.), or possibly the original read ycE'ni p (r/. yns'in, 3I8). 
Then a dittography of the following n caused the trouble. — 'i'^itm 
Qr. Ssnii] some mss. read Snp and Sxr perhaps a corruption of Sx^ini 
"God sees" (EBi.) (cf. v. '). — 6. ■'cnnn Qr. ^Dnnn] with the first 
form agree T'ln ij3> nnn Nt. 72* lo^o. — 8. inj.-i] text of Baer. Tnjn 
text of Ginsburg and Ki. BH. Heb. mss. vary, (6 — 5w/). 

9-16 (8-15). The recruits from Gad.— Chronologically (fol- 
lowing the Hebrew text) this paragraph precedes vv. '-» (", since 
David dwelt in the fortress (v. ' («') before he went to Ziklag. — 
9 (8). Separated themselves] i.e., from the other Gadites who were 
on Saul's side (Be., Ke., Zoe.). The verb expresses more than 
the simple going over to David which is the rendering of Kau. 
and Ki. — To the stronghold in the wilderness]. When David was 
fleeing from Saul he sought refuge in the stronghold of Adullam 
(11" '• I S. 22< f ) and in others (i S. 23") located in the wilderness 
of Judah. It was during this period of his life that these Gadites 
are represented as coming to him. The reference is not to any 
particular stronghold. — Men of the host for battle]. This expression 
indicates that these recruits were trained soldiers {cf. 7"). — 
Arranging the spear and the shield] i.e., in order for battle, a 
peculiar expression also found in Je. 46'. The more usual one is 
given in v. " (24 >. On their likeness to lions in the fierceness of 
their appearance or onset, and to roes for swiftness, cf. 2 S. i'^' 2'^. 
—11 (10). Mashmannah "W—l^ (13). Machbannai "W—lh (14). 
Heads of the host] i.e., chief warriors (Ke., Zoe.), better, leaders 
or commanders (Be., Kau., Ki., RV.). Ki. after H carries forward 
this idea of leadership to the next clause : the least one over a 
hundred, the greatest over a thousand. With this rendering one 
would expect ^y instead of b- The true interpretation is that the 
smallest, or weakest, could cope with a hundred, and the greatest, 
or strongest, with a thousand (Be., Ke., Zoe., Kau., RV.). Cf. 
Is. 30" Lv. 268. — 16 (15). In the first month] i.e., the month 


Nisan (April), the period of the barley harvest, when the Jordan is 
at its flood {cf. Jos. 3'5). In the summer the Jordan is easily ford- 
able, but after the melting of the snows on the mountains in the 
spring it is hazardous to cross. — And they put to flight all [the 
inhabitants of] the valleys on the east and on the west]. The 
writer evidently has in mind that the adherents of Saul opposed 
the passage of these Gadites to join David. 

9. On the plural force of njn cf. Gn. 10'^ ^- 12^ Kon. iii. § 256 e. 
— "I??!?]- The pathah under x is due to the close connection with 
the following word. (B^^ omit the phrase and also have dwi> rijs 
ipi^/xov, implying that the Gadites came from the wilderness evidently 
to Ziklag (cf. V. '). — n:ni njs]. Instead of ncii the Venetian pointed 
text, 1526, curiously had pc, perhaps through the influence of Je. 
46^ (Be.). — nnnS] on use of inf. see Ges. § 1140. — 14. itt-y tib'v] Ges. 
§ 1340. 

17-19 (16-18). Additional recruits from Benjamin and 
Judah. — This paragraph reads like an insertion from another 
narrative between the accounts of the recruits from Gad and 
Manasseh. The omission of the mention of personal names is 
striking, and especially the vivid and dramatic form of the nar- 
rative. — 17 (16). Benjamin and Judah]. The point of view is 
post-exilic, cf. v.'. — Unto the stronghold]. Cf. v. ^ (s). — 18 (17). 
And David answered and said]. The Hebrew idiom employs two 
verbs in introducing speakers in a colloquy where in English 
usually only one is used. — // in peace you have come unto me to 
help me then shall mine heart be at one with you; but if to betray 
me to my adversaries, although no wrong is in my hands, may the 
God of our fathers see and judge]. On this beautiful commitment 
by David of his cause to God, with his assertion of innocence, cf. 
I S. 24"-'5. — 19 (18). Then the spirit took possession of Amasai] 
lit. put him on, as a garment, clothed itself with him. Cf. 2 
Ch. 242° Ju. 6" (see Moore in loco). — Chief of the thirty (YA.)]. 
In 1 1" we have found according to the true reading that Abishai 
was chief of the thirty, hence Ki., after the interpretation of Be. 
and others, reads here Abishai instead of 'Amasai. Others (Ke., 
Zoe., Oe., Ba.) prefer to identify Amasai with Amasa (Stl'ISJ^), 
whom Absalom made his commander-in-chief and later David, 



and whom Joab treacherously slew (2 S. 17" 19'* ('" 20"'). — And 
he said]. These words are wanting in ^, but are given in (g. — 

Thine [are we] O David, 
And with thee O son of Jesse, 
Peace, peace to thee. 
And peace to thy helpers * 
Fo7 thy God hath helped thee.] 

This response is a beautiful bit of Hebrew poetry. David's whole 
career from the point of view of the OT. narrators had been 
marked by evidences of divine assistance. — The hand\ David's 
company of four hundred or six hundred men (iS. 22^272). The 
word hand is usually used of marauders {cj. v. " 2 Ch. 22' i S. 
Tpi. 16. 23 1 K. ii24 e/o/.). 

18. -\r\h 23S] equivalent to nnx aaS. Only here is in> used as a 
substantive. — ''D33 Dnn xSa] neg. circumstantial clause Ges. § 156c. 
Use of nS with prep, is chiefly poetic and late, cf. v. 34. — 19. aTiSs'n] 
Qr. D^f^Sifn. The former is generally preferred and is the reading 
of (&, &, B. — ^p;?i in q'7]. (& read qc>:i nn iS & also read i';'^ re- 
peating it, and has otherwise amplified the verse and also the preced- 
ing verse. — The pi. T'liyS should be read after (gi, H. 

20-23 (19-22). The recruits from Manasseh.— 20 (19). 
And of Manasseh some deserted to David] lit. fell. For the use of 
the verb '7SJ with this force cf. 2 Ch. 15' 2 K. 25" Je. 21' 37'* 39' 
52"^ — When he went with the Philistines against Saul]. Cf. i S. 
28' ' 29' ' . The clause is used to describe the very time when 
David received his recruits from Manasseh. As soon as he re- 
turned to Ziklag they came v." (^o) and assisted him in his raid 
against the Amalekites v. " <2'>. — And he did not help them*] a 
continuation of the previous clause. — Because on advice the 
tyrants of the Philistines had him sent away saying: At the price 
of our heads he will desert to his master Saul]. The phrase at the 
price of our heads is suggested by i S. 29^ The thought is that 
David would reconcile himself to Saul through some act of treach- 
ery involving the death of the Philistines. — 21 (20). When he 
returned (lit. went) to Ziklag there deserted unto him from Manas- 
seh 'Adnah f, etc.]. This verse fixes more exactly than v. " d') 
the time of the accession of these recruits and defines their person- 


ality. Except 'Adnah (2 Ch. 17'* f) and Zillethai (cf. S^"), their 
names are not especially rare. — Chiefs of the thousands of Manas- 
seh\ The writer is thinking of the military divisions of the tribe 
of Manasseh according to P {cf. Nu. 3ih- is. 62. 64). — 22 (21). 
And they]. It is difficult to determine whether the pronoun refers 
to the seven IManassites just mentioned (Ke., Zoe.) or all the 
recruits w. '-^i <■■"'> (Be., Oe.). — The band is the Amalekites who 
sacked Ziklag during David's absence (v. s. and i S. 30' '■). — 
23 (22). This verse explains the host, the last word of the preced- 
ing verse. — Like the host of God] i.e., a very great host. The 
epithet, "of God," is used to distinguish a thing that is very great 
(Dav. Syn. § 34 R 6). {Cf. i S. 14'^ Ps. 36^ 80" Jon. y.) On 
the wide remove of the writer from historical fact see above. 

20. a-i^J]. While David and his men might be taken as the sub- 
ject, it is better to read with ^ (?) the verb sing. 0"i;j?, with David 
as the subject (Ki.). — 21. ipd'^d]. The choice of nSn here may have 
been determined by noSV i S. 29". — 22. The word nnj (1. 17 ?) is 
used of the Amalekites in i S. 308- ". 23. — 23. DV3 dt> r\-;^] (1. 48). 
This phrase is given elsewhere without rj?S. This verse is not un- 
likely from the hand of the Chronicler instead of from his source. 

24-41 (23^0). The number of the soldiers who made David 
king at Hebron. — These verses are another account of the events 
already related in ii'-'. Their object is to show the completeness 
of the assembly of all Israel to make David king, and especially to 
set forth the military pomp of the occasion.— 24 (23). And these 
are the numbers of the heads of the armed men of the host]. The 
word heads occasions a difficulty. Ordinarily heads (Q*'w'S"l) are 
interpreted leaders, commanders, or chiefs : and so here by (i>, II, 
Be., Ki. This meaning, however, does not agree with the context, 
since the number of the heads in that sense is only given of the 
house of Zadok (v. =' '^s'), of Issachar (v. " <'='), and of Naphtali 
(v. 36 (34)) • all of the other numbers are of the units of the tribes. 
Hence it has been thought with probability that the heading 
originally belonged to a list which, like w. " (26) 28 (2?)^ con- 
tained the names and numbers of chiefs and warriors (Be.). 
Others interpret heads as polls, persons (Ba.), after Ju. 53° (a usage 
not paralleled elsewhere with ti'S"! but requiring rhib^, see 


Moore in loco), or as bands, divisions, after Ju. 7'" -" 9^4 n- ** i S. 
II" (Ke., Zoe., Oe.). The host is the army of Israel after the 
usage of P. — To turn the kingdom of Saul to him according to the 
word of Yahweh]. Cf. 10'^ ii^- '". — 25 (24). Bearing the shield 
and spear"] the large shield (riji') covering the whole man in 
contrast with the small shield (i^D) carried as a protection against 
arrows. The spear (nDI) was a lance for thrusting. — The num- 
ber of Judah is noticeably small compared with the numbers from 
the northern tribes. Ke. explains that since David had already 
reigned seven years at Hebron, Judah and Simeon needed to 
send only relatively few men, merely to witness the ratiiication 
of his kingship by others. The enigma really remains unsolved. 
—28 (27). And Jehaiada the prince of the house of Aaron] iden- 
tified with the father of Benaiah (ii"- "■' 2 S. 8'^) (Raschi, 
Kimchi, Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ba.); a simple uncritical reflection 
of Jehoiada the priest that brought Joash to the throne (2 K. 
II, 12) (We. Prol. p. 174). The former view probably was 
the design of the writer, since according to i K. 2^8 » , Benaiah 
slew Joab in the Tent of Yahweh, and hence from the point of view 
of the Chronicler, having such access to the sanctuary, he naturally 
would have been of Levitical descent and his father might well 
have been a leader of the Levites — distinct from Abiathar the priest 
— at the time of David's coronation. In the following verse 
Benaiah's cotemporary Zadok is mentioned as a young man 
(lyj), thus in the proper age relation to Benaiah's father. — 
29 (28). And Zadok]. T\\\sZ2iddk,\\\iow\\h twenty two captains 
of his father'' s house is represented as associated with Jehoiada, is 
probably designed to be the priest who with Abiathar was at the 
court of David (2 S. 8") and who later supplanted Abiathar 
entirely (i K. 2=5). The twenty-two captains are a reflection of the 
twenty-two priestly classes of the post-exilic period 24^-'* Ne. i2'-'- 
12-21 (We., Bn.), yet the twenty-two classes are doubtful. — 30 (29). 
For until now] i.e., up to the time of David's coronation, the event 
which the writer is describing.- — The great part of them kept 
their allegiance to the house of Saul] lit. kept the charge of the 
house of Saul, a form of expression used frequently of the care 
of the sanctuary (23'^ Nu. i" y- ^^ et al.). The writer com- 


pletely ignores the fact that according to 2 S. 2'° not only Ben- 
jamin but all Israel except Judah adhered to the house of Saul 
until the death of Ishbaal. — 31 (30). Of ox in their fathers^ }iouses\ 
This is the usual rendering {cf. 5"). But Be. preferred according 
to their fathers^ houses, i.e., that was their order (for this use of ^ 
cf. BDB. 5 i (a)).— 32 (31). And from the half-tribe of Manas seh] 
i.e., from Manasseh west of the Jordan. The other half, east of 
the Jordan, is mentioned in v. =« '"^ — Who -were designated by 
name]. Cf. 16" 2 Ch. 2815 31 19 Nu. i" Ezr. 8^°. The writer as- 
sumes that a roll of individuals was kept and thus these eighteen 
thousand were summoned to come to make David king. — 33 (32). 
And from the children of Issachar those having an understanding 
of the times knowing what Israel should do]. This applies to the 
two hundred heads or leaders. The meaning probably is that they 
were skilled in astrological lore and thus knew what Israel shoidd 
do (OF and some of the Rabbins, Be., Oe., BDB. nj? 2 b cf. Est. 
I"), though others have found here only the thought of prudent 
men who knew what the times demanded (Ke., Zoe., Ba.). This 
characterisation of members of the tribe of Issachar has been 
brought into connection with the inquiries made at Abel, a town 
of Issachar, according to 2 S. 20'^ (We. Prol. p. 174). — And all 
their brethren at their command]. The number of these is strangely 
omitted, and perhaps has fallen from the original text. — 38 (37). 
One hundred and twenty thousand]. The round number of forty 
thousand for each tribe. — These contingents that came to make 
David king present a total as follows : 

Judah 6,800 Issachar ... ? 

Simeon .... 7,100 (200 chiefs "and all 

Levi 8,300 their brethren") 

(4,600 "from Levi," Zebulun . . . 50,000 

3,700 with Jehoiada, Naphtali . . . 37,000 

Zadok, and 22 captains) (with 1,000 chiefs) 

Benjamin .... 3,000 Dan .... 28,600 

Ephraim .... 20,800 Asher .... 40,000 

Half Manasseh . . 18,000 Tribes E. Jordan 120,000 




The basis upon which these numbers were reckoned it is im- 
possible to determine. The writer's object clearly is to magnify 
the part taken by the tribes of the subsequent Northern kingdom 
in David's coronation. He has imparted a pleasing colour to his 
statistics by the variety of phrases with which he describes the 
tribal hosts. — 40. 41 (39. 40). CJ. tor descriptions of similar joy 
and feasting 292°-" 2 Ch. 78-'" i K. S^-^s 2 Ch. 30" « . While 
sacrifices are not mentioned here, they would naturally accompany 
a coronation festival with its oaths of treaty or allegiance {cJ. Gn. 
2146. 64), — Food, of jiour\ i.e., bread stuffs made of wheat or barley, 
usually in the form of thin flat round cakes. — Pressed cakes of 
figs]. Cf. I S. 2518 30'^. In making these the figs are sometimes 
first beaten in a mortar and then pressed into a cake (DB.). — 
Bunches of raisins]. Cf. i S. 25'8 30'* 2 S. 161. These were 
dried grapes, probably also pressed into cakes. 

24. d has TCI dv6/iaTa (niDiy instead of noDD), This probably 
was written by a careless transcriber through the notion that the 
verse was a subscription of the preceding verses. — On the omission of 
IB-N before in3, see Ges. § i55(i. Bn. after d inserts icx. — Nix*? Vi'^nn] 
V. " NJX ^xiSn, those equipped for the host, i.e., for war, cf. Nu. 318 
32^' Jos. 4". This phrase is parallel with N3X inxii v. ^, cf. 5I8. — 
34, N3X iNXv]. See v. ^. — ncnVa '•Sa ^33 ncnSn iDiy] setting in order 
for war with every kind of weapon of war, cf. v. '. — i^JjSi] Ges. 
§ 114/'. (&, 19, and some Heb. mss. have itj?S preferred by Kau., Bn., 
while the text is adhered to by Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ki. Here and in 
V. " "nj; is apparently used as a synonym of T\y, which word actually 
appears in v. '' in some mss. {q. v.). Perles suggests as original in 
both passages the word iir which in Babylonian as saddru has the 
technical meaning " arranging (an army) in battle array." A copyist 
then inserted Tip as a gloss to this foreign word in both places, whence 
arose the form in;; by combination of the two {OLZ. 8, 1905, col. 
181). — 3*71 3S NS3] with one heart, lit. " with not a heart of two kinds," 
cf. Ps. 12', for construction Ges. § 123/. Dav. Syn. § 29 R. 8. On 
sVa cf. V. 18. — 35. num] w. '• ^ nnii. It is uncertain whether we 
should draw a distinction between these (Now. Arch. I. p. 362), al- 
though the former has been regarded as the heavier weapon used by 
great warriors (2 S. 2^' 23^') (EBi. art. Spear). — 37. N3S ^sxr] cf.v. 
**. — 39. m}'] some MSS. and (S ^2-\y preferred by Kau., Bn. (id. or 
'■"y). cf v. »<. 


XIII. 1-14. The removal of the ark from Kiriath-jearim. 

— This narrative is taken from 2 S. 6'-", but is provided by the 
Chronicler with an introduction w. ' -^ fitting it into his conception 
of the organised hosts of Israel and of the activity of the Levites at 
that time. In giving the removal of the ark immediately after 
David's coronation and capture of Jerusalem (ii'-') the Chronicler 
has departed from the order of 2 S., where accounts of David's 
building himself a house, and of his family and of his victories 
over the Philistines (2 S. 5"'"), precede the mention of his removal 
of the ark. The Chronicler has clearly placed this last event first 
in order to magnify David's concern for the worship of Yahweh. 
David's religious acts are the main thing with the Chronicler. 
Others are mere episodes in the King's career. 
. 1. For such consultation with all officers of the realm cf. 28' 
2 Ch. I-. This representation may be due to the Chronicler's 
desire to minimise the suggestion of the arbitrary authority of the 
King seen in the books of S. and K. (Ba.). — 2. All the assembly oj 
Israel] i.e., the assembly of officers. — Let us send in every direction 
(Oe., Ba.) or let us send quickly (Be., Ke., Zoe., Ki.)]. The former 
rendering (RV.) is the better according to the meaning of the verb 
(|*1£), cf. On. 28'^ Is. 543 Jb. 1'° (but v. i.). — Who are left in all 
districts 0/ Israel] i.e., those who did not come to make David king 
in Hebron. The writer closely coimects the removal of the ark 
with the assembly of the hosts described in the previous chapter. — 
The priests and the Levites]. The narrative in 2 S. has no word 
concerning the participation of the priests and the Levites. Their 
introduction here is due to the point of view of the Chronicler. Ev- 
erything must be done according to P. — In their cities that have 
pasture lajids]. An express provision of the Levitical and priestly 
cities was that pasture lands, the immediately adjoining suburbs, 
should go with them (Nu. 35' '-, see also Jos. 14^ 22" »• i Ch. 
539 B. voi B.) 2 Ch. 11'^). — 3. And let us bring up [fit. round] the ark 
of our God]. The Chronicler varies in his use of terms designating 
the ark. In passages independent of Biblical sources he calls it 
the ark of God v. ^ 151- 2. 15. 24 2 Ch. i^, the ark of the covenant of God 
i6% the ark of Yahweh 153- '=• " i6< 2 Ch. 8" and the ark of the 
covenant of Yahweh 16" 22" 282- 1% and m the Biblical excerpts he 


has allowed to remain unchanged ark of God vv. « ' and the ark of 
the covenant of Yahweh 2 Ch. 52- ', and has substituted for the 
ark of Yahweh, the ark of God vv. i^. 13 Qj^g ark) '< 16', and for the 
ark of Yahweh, the ark of the covenant of Yahweh 15"- 26. 28. 29^ 
and the same also for the ark of God 17'. Thus while a tendency 
is shown toward preferring the term God to Yahweh, since in no 
instances is the ark of Yahweh allowed to stand in a Biblical 
extract, yet since this term is used by the Chronicler himself, we 
have no real consistency of usage. The preference, however, of 
the Dtic. term the ark of the covenant of Yahweh is noticeable. — 
For we have not sought it in the days of Said] i.e., we have made no 
inquiry concerning it (cf. 1 S. 7' ' ). — 5. From Shihor of Egypt]. 
In Is. 23' Je. 2'« Shihor clearly stands for the Nile. The name 
properly seems to have been that of an arm or branch of the 
delta or canal of the Nile (Shihor, DB., EBi.). In this passage 
and the parallel one Jos. 133 the name is more applicable to the 
Wady el Arlsh or the Brook of Egypt, which is elsewhere taken as 
the south-western limit of the Promised Land (Nu. 34' * Jos. 15* " 
I K. 8« 2 Ch. 78 Is. 27'=) (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ba.). Ki. thinks of 
the most eastern arm of the Nile delta; Bn., that Shihor is in our 
text through careless transcription. Probably at the time of the 
Chronicler one thought of the Nile as well as the Wady el 'Arish as 
the ideal boundary of the ancient kingdom of Israel {cf. Spurrell 
on Gn. i5'0- — Even unto the entrance of Hamath] the northern 
boundary of Israel (Nu. 13=' 34' Jos. 13' Jg. y) identified with the 
Beka', a broad valley between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon watered 
by the Orontes, in which was located the city of Hamath, mod. 
Hamd. — Kiriath-je'arim]a. city of the Gibeonites west of Jerusalem 
(identification uncertain) (cf. Buhl, GAP. pp. 166/.). The ark 
was placed there after its return by the Philistines (i S. 7' ' ). — 
6. From this verse to the end of the chapter the narrative is taken 
directly from 2 S. 62-" with few variations (yet a marked one in 
V. '<), and the text is on the whole here better preserved than in 2 S. 
— Baalah] was another name for Kiriath-jearim (Jos. 15'"- '" 
18"). The name shows that the place was an ancient sanctuary 
or seat of Baal-worship. — Yahweh enthroned above the cherubim 
whose name is called over i/*] i.e., over the ark; signifying that 


the ark belonged especially to Yahweh (Oe., Bn., v. i.). This 
description of God probably did not belong to the original text 
of 2 S. 6^ — 7. New cart] to avoid any possible defilement. 
— Abinadab]. Cf. i S. 7'. In 2 S. 6' the house of Abinadab 
is located on a hill and 'Uzza and Ahio are his sons. The 
Chronicler has omitted these particulars and also the verb and 
they bore it (^^St^*''^)• — 8. On the instruments of music v. i., 
and cf. i5'«- "■ ^K — 9. Chidon] the name probably of the owner 
of the threshing-floor. — 10. That Uzza met his death from some 
cause now utterly unknowTi while the ark was being brought, may 
be historical, and the reason assigned would be most natural (cf. 
15"). On the other hand, the story may have originated in an 
endeavour to explain the meaning of the local name Perez- uzza 
V. ". — 14. And the ark of God abode by the house of Obed-edom 
in its own house] i.e., the ark was in its tent alongside or near the 
house of Obed-edom. This statement is a modification of that of 
2 S. 6'^ {v. i.) where the ark is represented as placed in the house 
of Obed-edom. The Chronicler, however, evidently could not 
conceive of the ark placed in an ordinary dwelling and modified 
the text accordingly. On Obed-edom as a Levite cf. 15". 

1. na'] followed by two genitives, cf. 2 Ch. 11' 12" Ges. § 128(1. 
OJB fierk tQv Trpea-^vr^pwv Kal before ne* is not likely original. — 
1UJ SdS] in short with every leader. For the force of S v. BDB. h 5 e 
(d). ^^ Kal fierci iravThs Tjyovfiivov probably had no different underlying 
Heb. — 2 . 3i!a UT^y dn]. ^•; has here the force of a dat. cf. Ne. 2^- ' Est. 
i" 3' et al. — irnSx .-nn'> p] cf. Gn. 24*". — r^^hz■>i nxicj] for the con- 
struction V. Ges. § i2oh. (& connects nxio: with previous clause and 
renders eiudwdr]. This suggests that 1^ is corrupt. SS. conjecture 
n-i|-ij or nx-inj Niph. forms, favoured also by Kau., Bn., BDB.; nxi: 
Klo., who connects with previous clause and renders und ivir von 
Jahve unserm Gotte Gu?ist dazu erlangen. Ki. BH. after (S reads 
nnxij, and from Yahweh our God it is acceptable. Both H and & 
favour connecting the verb with the previous clause. — u^nx Sj?]. hy 
interchanges with Sx in late Heb. v. BDB. Sn note 2 and "jj? 8. — nisiN] 
this plural of |'is is almost wholly late (some twenty-two times in i 
and 2 Ch.) used, as here, for districts of Israel, cf. also 2 Ch. ii'^' 15', 
as well as countries adjoining Israel 14" 22' 29'", et al. (1. 6). — 3. 
inja'-\T] (S imtth-t_ j may be a corruption of i, or vice versa. — 4. 
p nis-yS] on the use of inf. after -\Tinqf. 27=3 2 Ch. 21' Ps. 106" Est. 


4', Ew. § 338 a. — 6. Snib'i Sdi nn 'ryi] 2 S. 6^ ityn opn ^ai in i'?''! Dp>i 
inN. In 2 S. 6' the people who are with David are only thirty 
thousand, while according to Ch. v. ' David has assembled all 
Israel. — niin^S . . . nnSjja]. The text in 2 S. is corrupt. Ch. prob- 
ably preserves the original with the insertion of onp> r\'<'\p Sn (Bn.). 
Bu. in 2 S. (SBOT.) reads nnin> nSya. — Nipj "ws D''3non acv r\^n> 
oa'] 2 S. vSy Don^n att" nisas mn< db' do unpj la's. Both texts 
appear faulty. Dr., Bu., after 05, omit ob* = in 2 S. Kau. substitutes 
in Ch. the text of 2 S. with this omission and that of 'ax. Bn. 
with Oe., after ($, reads v^]j lor, and thinks the Chronicler changed 
the order of 2 S. purposely to avoid placing the ark in close con- 
nection with the God of Israel as Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of 
War, and instead merely refers to the ark as of Yahweh . . . whose 
name is called over it; the last phrase indicating merely ownership 
(for ref. see BDB. I. Nip Niph. 2. d. (4).). Ki. BH. reads ids' 
DC — 7. nj;3J3 . . . insifM na^in in 2 S. 6'- * are a dittography and to 
be struck out. The Chronicler has, however, omitted the remainder 
of V. < in 2 S. — 8. Dn''BOi IJJ Sja] 2 S. 66 D^'-^rna •■xp S33. Ch. has 
the true reading. — nnxxnai DTiSxDai] 2 S. oiSxSxai D''PJ?JD31. The latter 
text is the original (Be., Zoe., Dr.). The motive of the change was 
to introduce instruments better known or more in use. The onxxn 
are often mentioned by the Chronicler (i5«- ss i6«- « 2 Ch. s'^'- 
j^ii. 14 j^i4 2o28 el al.) (1. 44). — 9. fi^a] 2 S. 6« has JIDJ which as a 
part, fixed is meaningless (v. Dr.). — n^ hn] wanting in || of 2 S. is 
required by Heb. usage (Dr., Bu.). — 2 S. has also insM instead of 
thnS. — itacc'] read perhaps lecc', see BDB. — 10. Compared with 2 S. 
6^ whose text is quite corrupt, Ch. has here the original text. — 11. 
in-'i] <& Koi rj9ijij.ria-ev, which is also the rendering of 1^ inii in i S. 
15", hence the emendations to icm or n.^>j proposed by Dr., Bu., 
SHOT., do not appear necessary (Sm. on i S. 15")- — Tis '3] 2 S. 6' 
y\o Ti'X Sy. — 12 . d^'hSiSD 1 and 2] 2 S. 6' nin\ — idnS] 2 S. idsm. — How shall 
I bring the ark unto me]. 2 S. " How shall the ark come unto me." — 
13. i^D.-i] 2 S. 6'° I'DiS n3N. — 14. Before n>3» of 2 S. 6" the Chronicler 
has inserted nj? and he has also inserted after 'Obed-edom ini32 {v. s.). 
— iS nrx Sa nxi onx laj? n^a nx]. C5 omits no and 2 S. reads hn 
ipia Sa PNi mx nay. 

XIV. David in Jerusalem. — This chapter is taken from 2 S. 
5'>«. As already remarked, the Chronicler has varied the order 
in 2 S., giving the first place to David's removal of the ark, c. 13, 
and now the second to his buildings, his family, and his victories. 

1. 2. David's assistance in building from Tyre.— The em- 
bassy from the Phoenician King with gifts of cedars and skilled 


slaves was a recognition of David's great power, his friendship 
being worth cultivating, and this prosperity indicated that God 
had established David as king over Israel, for his kingdom was 
exalted on high. 

1. Di^n] Qr. has Dim preferred by Ki. (see his note SBOT.), and 
also occurring in 2 Ch. 2^- '" '• 8^- '* 9^'. In S. and K. we have ai^n. 
This is what we should expect from a compound of nx, which is 
generally seen in Hiram {v. BDB., dt'H after nx; also v. Ahumai 4^). 
Diinx is, of course, possible like '?xij3. — i^p lunni] 2 S. 5" J2n ^tfini 
T'p. — ni3 iS njaS] 2 S. ^n'7 n^a M2>\ The Chronicler is fond of 
using the inf. of purpose and substitutes it for the -waw consec. — 2. 
id] 2 S. 5'2 ''31. It is difficult to determine whether the omission of the 
lis a slip or intentional by the Chronicler to show why David knew 
that Yahweh had established him as king. — mz'i] must be taken as a 
Niph. pf. 3. fem. and so ® of 2 S., where l| has i^dSdo Na'j. The 
Chronicler has substituted the common word of late Heb. ipidSd, and 
also inserted for emphasis nS>":;S, a phrase peculiar to Ch., to intensify 
the verb, cf. 22^ 23I' 293- 25 2 Ch. i» 2o'3, with ^;' 1612 1712 26^ (1. 87). 

3-7. David's sons born in Jerusalem. {Cf. 35-8 2 S. 5"'^) — 
The Chronicler has omitted from 2 S. the mention of the con- 
cubines, either as derogatory to David (Bn., but cf. 3') or because 
according to 3' the sons here mentioned were only those of wives 
(Be.). The names of the sons correspond to those given in 2 S., 
except as in 3^ ^- '» {q. v.) we have the two additional names 
Elpelet and Nogah w. '•'• «», and correctly Beeliada (yT'^yjS) 
instead of Eliada (VT'^^S*), cf. y. 

3-7. Besides the omission of dtjSd before D'Cj, the Chronicler has 
omitted the reference to Hebron, but has preserved the true reading 
oSriT'i instead of oVi'iT'D. He has also given nn nSvi instead of 
nnV n'^vi, and also we have in v. < ani'ivn, instead of anVn, followed 
by the additional words vn ntJ'S. The retention of nj? (v. *) is 
meaningless, since the record 2 S. 3^-5, to which it refers, is omitted. 
For variation in the names see above. 

8-12. David's victory at Baal-perazim. {Cf. 2 S. 5"-^'.) — 
The Chronicler follows here very closely the text of 2 S. The only 
specially noteworthy variations are his removal at the end of v. * 
of the reference to the stronghold, which perhaps he did not under- 


stand and which in meaning is not perfectly plain (see Sm.); his 
substitution of Elohim for Yahweh w. '"• ", and the new statement 
in V. '=, q. V. — 8. Over all Israel]. David as King of Judah had 
not been a menace to Philistia and it is possible that he thus ruled 
with some kind of consent from the Philistines, but they naturally 
could not countenance the extension of his power over all Israel. 
— 9. In the valley of Rep ha im] very near Jerusalem, through which 
passes the railway from Jaffa (Baed.^ p. 15) (GAS. HGHL. p. 
218). — 10. Inquired of Yahweh] by the sacred lot, the Urim and 
Thummim or the Ephod (r/. Ju. i' i S. 23*- « 9.12 ^q? f. — n^ Ba'al- 
perazim] should probably be identified with Mt. Perazim of Is. 
28". The site is unknown. The meaning is "Lord of breakings." 
If the name is not more ancient than David, to wit, that of some 
sanctuary of a god, then Baal is equivalent to Yahweh, who, as the 
remainder of the verse implies, had given them the victory that 
day. — 12. In 2 S. 5" we read that the Philistines left the images of 
their gods and that David and his men took them away. Here we 
read that David commanded and the images were burned with fire. 
The Chronicler could not think of any other disposal of idols by 
David than their destruction according to the law, Dt. 7'- ". 

8. nn ni:'':j] 2 S. 5" m pn in-.i'a. — hz] wanting in 2 S. — anijaS nsii] 
2 S. n-nxnn Sn i-im. Probably the stronghold of Adullam was meant 
(Bn.). — 9. rj^B^] 2 S. 5'8 irjr. This latter is by Ki. preferred. Bn. 
says it is impossible to determine which is original. — 10. a''n'?f<3] 2 S. 
519 nino. — Dnrji] 2 S. arm. — i*:-] 2 S. nn Sn. — a\'"rji] 2 S. pa ]Pi >o 
3\ntt»'?Dn nN, a good illustration of abridgment by the Chronicler. 
— 11. iS>-M] 2 MSS., (^ sg., 2 S. 5^° in K2^i. — D\nSNn] 2 S. ninv — no] 
2 S. '•ioh. — 12. cn^n'^.x pn] 2 S. 5*' Dn^axj; PN. Ch. supported by 
<B in 2 S. doubtless preserves the original reading (Dr., Bu., Bn., Sm.). 
A transcriber of 2 S. refused to call idols gods. — S'«3 iflnit'M in isnm] 
2 S. ve'jNi nn on'^''>i, v. s. 

13-17. David's victory over the Philistines in the valley 

(= 2 S. 5"-" with the addition of v. "). — V. '^ has been abridged 
with the loss of Repha'iin, the name of the valley. Elohim, as 
above, has been substituted for Yahweh in vv. '^-'^ and inserted in 
V. '% gi\ang and God said. Emphasis has been placed on David's 
inquiry of God by inserting the word again. — 13. In the valley] 


i.e., of Rephaim {v. s.). — 14. Philistines are to be attacked 
on flank or rear. — 15. Whett thou hearest, etc.]. The omen for 
attack was to be the sound of the wind in the trees: the wind was 
regarded as a manifestation of Yahweh (cf. 2 S. 22'' i K. 19" '■ 
Jb. 381). It is not necessary to think that the trees before this 
event were regarded as sacred. — 16. From Gibe' on even to Gezer]. 
The former (cf. 8") indicates the quarter of attack and the latter 
(cf. 6" '"') the Canaanitish city the probable place of refuge 
and escape of the Philistines. The distance is some sixteen 
miles. This scene of the battle may account for the Chronicler's 
omission of Rephaim in v. ". — 17. The Chronicler has given an 
exaggerated significance to this victory quite in the line of his 
desire to glorify David. 

13. 2 S. 5" has niSj?S after Qine'Sij and iirtsji instead of itas'ij'' (see 
V. ») with a^ND-\ after pep. — 14. (F. s.) DniSj?D 3D.t onnnx nSyn kS] 2 S. 
5" Dn>ini< "^N 3Dn D^yn nS. The text of 2 S. is preferable. A frontal 
attack is forbidden and one commanded on the rear. Chronicles gives 
the wrong connection to onnn^s, and yet adapted it probably by changing 
its force from behind them to that of following in a straight direction 
after them. an^Sys is either an original addition of the Chronicler, or 
possibly the original of 2 S. was Dn>'?p nSyn nS and we have by over- 
sight in Chronicles an interchange of prepositions (Be., Bn.). — In both 
texts read 3D instead of jdh (Dr., Bu., Ki., BDB.). — 15. ncnSaj Nxn tn] 
" paraphrase with much loss of originality and vigor " of 2 S. 5" IK 
y\r\r. — 16. 'd njno pn ^T^] 2 S. 5" 'd nx y\ — pyajD] 2 S. j?3JC. The 
former is the true reading, cf. Is. 28^' " where Perazim and Gibeon are 
mentioned together as scenes of celebrated victories. The Philistines 
are in the onsfli pcj? south of Jerusalem. David advancing from the 
south does not approach them in front, but makes a circuit and assails 
their rear. From Gibeon, on the north-west of Jerusalem, would thus 
just indicate the quarter from which his attack would be made " (Dr.). 

XV.-XVI. The bringing of the ark to the city of David.— 

This narrative differs, especially in its elaboration, from the paral- 
lel in 2 S. 6'^-''. In 2 S. the impulse for the second removal of the 
ark is derived from the blessing which the ark had brought to the 
house of Obed-edom and which had taken away the fear of the 
King (v. >'», cf. V. '), and the removal itself is described as per- 
formed by the King and the people without the mention of a priest 


or a Levite. In Chronicles, on the other hand, this blessing of the 
house of Obed-edom is mentioned only incidentally (i3'< = 2 S. 6") 
and is not made the motive which led David to carry out his original 
intention of bringing the ark to Jerusalem. The King, apparently 
having realised that the failure of the first attempt was due to a 
non-compliance with the Levitical law, now proceeds to bring up 
the ark with due ecclesiastical state and ceremony. 

If we exclude 15"-" " "•> and in 16' the words, and Obed-edom and 
Jeiel . . . and Asaph (v. i.), the narrative runs smoothly and is probably 
the composition of the Chronicler. The sixfold division of the Levites 
(vv. '-'") is somewhat peculiar and has been given as the ground for 
assigning 15'-" to an older source (so Bn., Ki.), but the text does not 
imply that Elizaphan, Hebron, and Uzziel were co-ordinated with Kehath, 
Merari, and Gershon as sons of Levi. Subordinate members of a family 
might have become heads of classes beside those named after their 
forefathers (c/. 2 Ch. 29" ^ ). According to Nu. 3""- the family of 
Elizaphan, the son of Uzziel, had charge of the ark and in the light of 
Nu. 4" where the transportation of the sacred utensils is committed to 
the sons of Kehath only, it is surprising that the descendants of any but 
this family should be represented. The tradition that there were only 
three sons of Levi was firmly established by the time of P (see on 5" 
(6')). Hence we think it simpler to suppose that the Chronicler himself 
introduced the representatives of the three great divisions of the Levites 
beside those from the family of Kehath. These men with their brethren 
do not represent necessarily all the Levites, but merely those assigned 
to this task, which accounts for the small number. 

The Psalm fragments (16'") may be later interpolations (Hitzig, 
Reuss, Bn.) or more probably they were introduced by the Chronicler 
(Ki. Kom. p. 70). 

The evidence that 15"-"- " was added later, is as follows: (i) The 
corrected text of v. " {v. i.) refers to twelve singers whose names are 
found to that number, followed by the names of two gate-keepers, but 
in vv. ""■ the whole number are classified as singers, including the 
well-known gate-keeper Obed-edom {cf. 15" 16" 26*- *• *• ") and 
one new name Azaziah {v. i.). (2) Although the Chronicler gives 
lists of singers elsewhere, he never classifies them according to their 
instruments (except 16' v. i.). (3) The phrase pidS;? Sj? (v. '") is 
found elsewhere only in the titles of Pss. (9' 46' 48" f, see BDB.), and 
the same is true of n-'j^Gcn Sy (v. ", cf. Ps. 6' 12' f)- nxjs'^ precedes 
the latter in both Pss. cited, and in Chronicles nxjS follows the phrase. 
If the Chronicler had been interested in these musical terms, we should 
expect them elsewhere in a narrative so replete with references to the 


singers. (4) The notice concerning the elsewhere unknown gate- 
keepers (v. 23) seems to take the place of the two in v. ". On the 
other hand, v. " may have come from the Chronicler, since he knows 
a Chenaniah, a Kehathite (2629), who would be a suitable prince of the 
carrying. The Chronicler thought the singers needed instruction (25'), 
and he might well have thought the bearers of the ark also required 
directions after the ill-fated ending of the first attempt (13'°). Either 
the reference to Chenaniah in v. " is also secondary or v. " is from 
the Chronicler. 

The development of i5'6-24 seems to have been somewhat as follows: 
The Chronicler wrote w. '^-"- "■ "a. An interpolator interested in the 
classification of singers according to musical instruments added vv. 
'»-" taking all the names except Azaziah from the preceding lists. He 
found the text of v. ^^ in its present corrupt form {v. i.) and so concluded 
that all the names were those of singers. There is no indication in the 
present text of v. '* that Mikneiah concludes the list of the singers. 
Then, supposing the names of the gate-keepers to have fallen out after 
DnyViTn (v. '*), he added two gate-keepers (v. "), probably appropriating 
the names from 9'^ The final clause of v. ^^ originated in a marginal 
gloss contradicting the statement in v. '". 

The interpolator of vv. i'-^'- " also inserted the words, and Ohed-edom 
and Jeiel, and Asaph into 16^. Obed-edom and Jeiel were added 
since otherwise only one harp-player would have been mentioned (c/. 
15") and the insertion of and Asaph assigns to him the cymbals as in 
15". Since the phrase, Obed-edom also the son of Jeduthun, in 16^* 
is probably a gloss {v. i.), there is every reason to doubt that Obed-edom 
was known to the Chronicler as anything but a gate-keeper, and since 
his position as a singer (15^' 16*) rests in all likelihood upon the inter- 
polator's misunderstanding of 15'*, there is little probability that in 
history the family of Obed-edom were ever anything except gate-keepers. 

XV. 1-15. The general preparation for bringing up the 
ark. — These verses have no direct parallel in 2 S. Six Levites 
were assigned the task of carrying the ark, the Chronicler possibly 
thinking of a representative of each of the three great classes of 
the Levites as at one end and three representatives of the Kehath- 
ites at the other. The two priests who were appointed doubtless 
had the task of covering the ark (cf. Nu. 4'=). These were 
commanded to sanctify themselves. — 1. And he made for himself 
houses]. The reference is either to the erection of other build- 
ings besides the palace which David had built with the assist- 
ance of Hiram (14') (Be.) or to the internal construction of the 


palace as a residence for wives and cliildren (Ke., Zoe., Oe.). — 
And he prepared a place for the ark God]. Some kind of a 
permanent enclosure is clearly meant where a tent could be 
erected for the ark. The old tabernacle, according to Chron- 
icles, was at Gibeon (2 Ch. i^, cf. i Ch. 16" 21"). — 2. Then] 
i.e., after the ark had been three months in the house of Obed- 
edom (13'*) (Be., Ke., Zoe.), or better after the preparation 
mentioned in v. ' when, according to the writer, David is ready 
to renew the attempt to bring up the ark. — The observation about 
the Levites is made in view of the death of Uzza (13'°). It is im- 
plied that the Law had not been observed in carrying the ark on 
a cart (13')- For the law cf. Nu. i'» 4'^ 79 Io'^ — 3. This state- 
ment or its equivalent is lacking in 2 S., although such an assembly 
might be inferred from 2 S. 6'* where all Israel is mentioned. — 5. 
Uri'el]. The name occurs in the Kehathite genealogy of Elkanah 
6» ("'. He is mentioned first because the Kehathites had the 
duty of carrying the furniture of the sanctuary, Nu. 4". — 6. 
'Asaiah ]. A Merarite of this name with his genealogy is mentioned 
in 6" <'<". — 7. Jo'el]. One of this name is mentioned in 23^ as a 
son of the Gershonite Ladan and the head of a family. — 8. Eliza- 
phan]. Cf. 2 Ch. 29" where Elizaphan also represents a division 
of the Levites. In Nu. 33" the prince of the Kehathites is Elizaphan 
the son of Uzziel. — Shemaiah] a name of frequent occurrence 
{cf. 9"). — 9. Hebron] a son of Kehath in 5=8 (62) 6' ('8> 23'^ Ex. 
6" Nu. 3". — Eli' el] in the genealogy of Heman 6" <3<) and the 
name of a Levitical overseer appointed by Hezekiah 2 Ch. 31", 
elsewhere in Chronicles as the name of non-Levites cf. 5=^ S^"- " 
ii<« ' i2'2 01). — 10. 'Uzzi'el] like Hebron a son of Kehath in pas- 
sages given above v. ' — ' Amminadab] the name of a son of Kehath 
in 6' <") i^ut there the name is a textual error for Izhar. — 11. Zadok 
and Abiathar the priests]. This double priesthood is mentioned 
in 2 S. 8" {cf. I Ch. i8'« for true text) 152'- 35 iqu 20" and came 
to an end in the reign of Solomon when Abiathar was deposed 
(i K. 2"- »). — 12. Of the Levites] is here used in the general 
sense, including the priests, cf. v. '<. — Sanctify yourselves] (cf. 
2 Ch. 5" 29'- •'• 34 30'- "• '< 31'* 35«) by the washing of the 
body and the garments and the keeping aloof from every defile- 


ment, avoiding sexual intercourse {cf. Gn. 35' Ex. igi"- '< " ' ). 
— Unto the place which I have prepared for it\ Cf. vv. '■ '. 
On the construction see textual note. — 13. The verb bear (Xtt'J) 
may be supplied in the first clause (Oe., RV., cf. v. '; 3J has 
prssenles, on (g v. i.). — Made a breach upon us\ Cf. 13". — For 
•we did not seek it (or him) aright]. The text is ambiguous, the 
pronominal object of the verb may either refer to the ark as in 
13' {q. V.) (Ba.) or to God (Ke., Zoe., Oe., and most). The 
former, however, is to be preferred : We did not search out and 
bring up the ark in the right way. — 14. David's request is com- 
plied with. — 15. Upon their shoulders]. Cf. Nu. i'" 7', but see 
text. n. 

1. nry] is here taken with the force of nja by Be., Kau., Ki., while 
Ke., Zoe., Oe. give the force to prepare (see nrj? BDB. II. 3). — 2. nn^h] 
on use of inf. cf. Ges. § 114/. — 7. O'i'ij] read }v>:nj, see on 6'. — 12. 
iS 'mj'jn Svv] equivalent to 'iJi 'dh Dipa Sx Ex. 2320. On the omission 
of the relative see Ges. § 156M (d), Dav. §§ 144, 145 Rem. 5, Ew. § 
333 b; for the same construction where preposition precedes verb 2 Ch. 
I* and very similar i Ch. 29' 2 Ch. i6» 3o'"-. — 13. nji-NnacS] apparently 
a combination of nnS and njrNi3, the union being formed as in the case 
of na with short words, nrs Ex. 4', od^d Is. 3", nsSno Mai. i" (Be.). 
ncS then has the force of is's hy wherefore, because, Ew. § 353 a, Koe. 
ii. §§ 2. 389h. Hence Kau. renders the clause : Weil ihr das erste Mai 
nicht zugegen wart. BDB. (under nn i. e) renders: Because ye were 
not (employed) /or what was at first. Ki. retains the interrogative force 
and renders: Warum wart ihr dock bisher nicht da? (8^ reads Sri oiK 
iv Tip TTpdrepov iifias elvai irol/jiovi (^ omits irol/Mvs). Bn. then re- 
gards i^ as a corruption and reads '"»3 duidj d.^s n*? ^d. — 15. Dfln32] 
is wanting in (S^a and hence is regarded as a gloss derived from t\P22 in 
Nu. 7' by Bn., Ki. — In P the carrying staves of the ark are a^-\2 Ex. 
25" '■ Nu. 4^ et al., D13 the frame or flat surface on which the utensils 
of the sanctuary were carried Nu. 4"'- '^ also the grapes of Eschol Nu. 
13", see Gray, Com. in locis. — oniS;*]. The suABlx refers to the implied 
pi. in OD.13. 

16-24. The musical arrangements for bringing up the ark. 

— On the composite character of this section, see above. — 16. And 
David cormnanded] expresses the Heb. idiom more nearly than the 
spake to of EVs. {v. i.). — The chiefs of the Levites]. The reference 
may be to the six enumerated in w. '-'" repeated hi v. ". — With 


psalteries and harps and cymbals]. These three instruments are 
often mentioned together by the Chronicler v. " 13' 16' 2 Ch. 5" 
29" Ne. 12". The cymbals expressed by meziltayim are mentioned 
only in Chronicles. In 2 S. 6^ Ps. 150' the Heb. word for cymbals 
is zelzelim {cf. 13'), although we cannot distinguish between the 
instruments (Now. Arch. I. pp. 272 /.). — 17. On the three singers, 
Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, cf. 6'^" "'-<'' 25' «•. — 18. Their 
brethren twelve] should be read instead of their brethren of the sec- 
ond degree (v. i.). The singers here mentioned are given again in 
w. " '• and in part in 16' {v. s.). — Zechariah] has been identified 
with the Zechariah of 9^' 26^- '< (EBi. IV. col. 5390). The name is 
an Asaphite, probably family, name in 2 Ch. 2o'< Ne. 12"- ■••. — 
The following Ben, wanting in v. " 16', should be read Bani 
(v. i.). A Bani appears in the line of descent of the singer Ethan 
(6" <"') and as an Asaphite (Ne. 11"). — 'UzzVel*] (so read also 
in V. " 16' instead of 'Azt'el, Jei'el) the name also of a musician, 
a son of Heman, in 25*, and of a son of Jeduthun in 2 Ch. 29'*. — 
Sherniramoth]. A Levite of this name appears also in 2 Ch. 17* f. 
— Jehi'el] the name of a son of Heman 2 Ch. 29'* Qr., also else- 
where frequent. — 'Unni] wanting in 16', a Levite in Ne. i2» Qr. f. 
— Eli'ab] a frequent name, not elsewhere of a musician. — Beniah] 
in an Asaphite pedigree 2 Ch. 20'*. — Ma'aseiah] wanting in 16'. — ■ 
Mattithiah]. Cf. 9", a son of Jeduthun 25'- ". — Eliphelehu f and 
Mikneiah f ] both wanting in 16'. — 'Obed-edom]. This historical 
Philistine caretaker of the ark, a native of Gath, 2 S. 6"' ' , is trans- 
formed by the Chronicler, or the school which he represents, into 
a Levite of the division of the gate-keepers, v. ^* i6'« 26* «•, and as a 
Korahite gate-keeper (26'- *), he is a Kehathite. On his appearance 
as a singer see above and on 16". — Je'i'el] a name of frequent oc- 
currence; in an Asaphite genealogy 2 Ch. 20'<. The name is 
doubtless used for the same individual as Jehiah (v. ") but which 
is correct cannot be determined. — The gate-keepers] i.e., Obed-edom 
and Jeiel, cf. 9'' " . With the Chronicler both singers and gate- 
keepers are fully recognised as Levites. — 19-21. The singers are 
now divided into three divisions according to their musical parts. 
— With cymbals]. Cf. v. i«. These instruments fell to the con- 
ductors to mark the time (art. Music, DB.). — To sound aloud] 


perhaps equivalent to beating time (Ke., Zoe.). — With psalteries], 
Cf. V. '% stringed instruments perhaps not unHke the Greek lyre. 
— Set to AlamotJi] lit. to (the voice of) young women, i.e., in soprano 
(cf. Ps. 46' 48'S BDB. niS^j;). The phrase is obscure. Kau. 
and Ki. refuse to translate. — Azaziah] wanting in v. '« and 16', 
hence may not be original. — With harps]. Cf. v. '«, stringed 
instruments whose difference from the psalteries is not entirely 
clear, but they were probably more harp-Hke. — Set to the Sheminith 
lit. upon the eighth, i.e., prob. to a deep octave or in the bass, 
cf. Ps. 6' 12'. — To lead]. The musicians led the service of song. 
— 22. Chenaniah]. Cf. v."^ the name also occurs of Levites in 
26" and as Conaniah, which Ki. after (^ prefers here, 2 Ch. 31" '• 
35'. — Chief of the Levites in the carrying] i.e., he had charge of the 
duty of carrying the sacred furniture and directed the carrying 
(of the ark) because he was skilful. This is the usual interpreta- 
tion, but the word massa, meaning bearing, carrying, uplifting, is 
rendered uplifting of the voice, song, by ($, EVs., Oe. (U prophetia). 
— 23. Berechiah]. For the occurrence of the name in kindred lists 
cf. V. '^ 62< »9) 916. — Elkanah]. Cf as above g^\ Elkanah, 
derived from the father of Samuel, appears in the genealogy of 
Heman, cf. 6">-^' '"-"'■ ''-=' "^-'^i. The introduction of two gate- 
keepers here in addition to those of vv. " ^4 jg striking and suggests 
that this section is composite. — 24. Shebaniah] also the name of a 
priest in Ne. 10'' <<> 12'^, and of Levites in Ne. 9^ '• 10'° and per- 
haps I Ch. 24" f. — Joshaphat] an abbreviated form of Jehosha- 
phat. Neither name occurs elsewhere as that of either a priest 
or a Levite. — Nethan'el] the name of priests in Ezr. 10" Ne. 12", 
of Levites in 26^ 2 Ch. 35" Ne. 1236. — 'Amasai] not elsewhere a 
priest's name, but in the genealogy of the Kehathite Heman, 6'° 
(26). 20 (35)^ and of the Kehathite Mahath, 2 Ch. zg'^. — Zechariah] 
not elsewhere the name of a priest; of Levites see v. >«. — Benaiah] 
not elsewhere as a priest's name; as Levite see v. '«. — EWezer] a 
priest's name in Ezr. iqis. — Sounded with trumpets] (hazozeroth 
ril"l^^n) the long straight metal horns with flaring mouths, 
mentioned almost entirely as a sacred instrument (v. =« 138 2 Ch. 
i5'< 2o=« 29"- " Ezr. 3'" Ne. 12^^- ■" espec. Nu. lo'-') in distinction 
from the shophar, the curved horn of a cow or ram used in early 



Israel especially in signals of war (Ju. 3" 6'< 7* i S. 13' 2 S. 2", etc.), 
but also by the priests (Jos. 6< Lv. 25"). The seven priestly 
trumpeters before the ark were doubtless suggested by Jos. 6*. — • 
'Obed-edom and Jei'el* were gate-keepers for the ark] a curious 
repetition from v. '* {q. v.), probably a gloss. 

16 . icnm] a late use of inx with the force command followed by inf. 
+ S of pers. (1. 4), cf. 2 Ch. 14^ 29^' 31^ Est. i'"; so Kau., Ki. — Tinyn^] 
inf. instead of the direct discourse in older writings, Ew. § 338 a, cf. 
j^4 27" 2 Ch. I's. — annS] inf. expressing means, Ew. § 280 d, Ges. § 
1 140. — ':'i|"'3]. On use of 3 cf. Ew. § 282 d, Ges. § iigq, BDB. 3 
III. 4. — nncjrS] S should be struck out: a dittography. — 17. inicip] 
(gB Keitralov, (^^ Kiffalov, hence with reference also to ^B'^i 6" we 
should read in"ia'i|i (Ki.). — 18. O'ljircn dhipn oncyi] D^jtt'D occurs else- 
where only in i S. 15' and Ezr. i'", where the text is corrupt in both 
places (see BDB. njt:'D and authorities there cited), hence is suspicious. 
After subtracting the two gate-keepers, the following list contains twelve 
names. Accordingly we conjecture that the original read an^nN anc;'! 
ia'j7 O'jB', and with them their brethren twelve, the first two consonants 
of Qija'Dn having come in by dittography caused iry to fall out. — 
Snmjjm p innor] p is wanting in (g, v. '", and i65, but it would naturally 
be omitted before the copulative, since it is used nowhere as a proper 
name. Probably 1 and ' have been transposed and the copulative 
before the resulting 'J3 has been connected with the preceding word, 
accordingly read "^Nnj/'l ^J3i nn^r. The spellings of the first and of 
the last of these names are supported by v. 2° Snm;'i n^-\3i and partially 
by 16' '?N'>3;> n^'-ioi {q. v.). — aNi'?N] without 1 suggests some disturbance 
of the te.xt (see Ki. SBOT.). (S has 1. The preceding name is dubious, 
cf. 05.-19. ru-nj]. On constr.. Dr. TH. 188, Ges. § i3i<f.— 22. 
in\:ji] ^BNL have Kwyena, Xwvena, lexovia, hence Ki. reads 
in'jji3. — xiT'DJi] wanting in (6, and so omitted by Ki., Bn. — Ntt'ca -\D] 
<g &px<^v tQv ifiSQiv, NU'sn -lU' followed by Ki., Bn., the former ren- 
dering NS'D with reference to carrying the ark, the latter being un- 
certain, V. s. — -\D''] inf. abs. Oe. regards it as a noun or ptc. — 24. o^nxsnEJ 
Hiph. ptc. from denom. ixxn Kt. cixxna Ges. § 530 (for Dnx-\xnD 
Stade, Gram. 280) or onxxriD Baer, also BDB. Qr. o^ixriD Ges. § 530, 
Baer, Koe. i. § 305 e). Cf. 2 Ch. 5-2 76 13H 29", Piel 2 Ch. 5" f (1- 44)- 
— n''n'>] read after v. " SN'y\ 

Following the clue of 16^ Bn. and Ki. give the original of vv. '"■ as 
follows: The Levites appointed Asaph the son of Berechiah the chief 
and Zechariah the second in rank, then Uzziel, and Shemiramoth, Jehiel, 
Eliab, Beniah, Mattithiah, and Obed-edom and Jeiel, the gate-keepers. 


The names omitted are regarded as coming from a later annotator who 
has also added vv. 19.24a. y. 24b js a still later gloss (but see above). 

25-XVI. 3. The bringing up of the ark.— The Chronicler 
took these verses from 2 S. 6^^^-^^, making such alterations as were 
necessary according to his view of the affair, which is shown in the 
preceding passage. — 25. So David, etc.]. The connection is with 
V. » after the details concerning the preparation have intervened. 
2 S. makes no mention of the elders of Israel and the captains of 
thousands. — The ark of the covenant of Yahweh] in 2 S. "the ark 
of God" or "the ark of Yahweh," cf w. " » '• with 2 S. 6"- »»• 
'•■ ". This change is a touch of the school of the Chronicler, cf. 
13'. — 26. When God helped the Levites]. The Chronicler piously 
introduces the divine agency as the cause of the auspicious begin- 
ning of their undertaking. 2 S. has "when they that bare the ark 
had gone six paces." — 7^hat they sacrificed seven bullocks and seven 
rams]. According to 2 S. David is the sacrificer and the sacrifice 
is "an ox and a fatling." Ke. and Zoe. harmonise the passages 
by making them refer to two distinct occasions, 2 S. describing the 
start and i Ch. the conclusion of the journey. But the sacrifices 
of the conclusion are mentioned in 16'. Ba. points out that the 
small offering of 2 S. is represented as David's and the large one 
of Chronicles as that of the King and his elders. For special 
sacrifices consisting of the same numbers of the same animals cf. 
Jb. 42' Nu. 2^- ", also 2 Ch. 29='. — 27. With a robe of byssiis]. 
Not only David but also the Levites and singers are represented 
as wearing processional robes of white linen. — And upon David 
was an ephod of linen] from 2 S. is perhaps a gloss. According 
to 2 S. David wore only an ephod, which was a scant skirt or kilt, 
and thus he was liable to shameful exposure (EBi. II. col. 1306) 
2 S. 6'<- »". According to the Chronicler, David wears the priestly 
robe. The Chronicler omits all reference to David's dancing 
save incidentally in v. ". The scandal of the exposure of his per- 
son is passed over in silence. — 28. 2 S. mentions David along with 
Israel and introduces only one musical instrument, the shophar 
or horn (cf. v. '*) occurring in Chronicles only here. On the other 
instruments, the addition to the text of 2 S., cf vv. "■"• 'f. — 29. 



It is a mark of the unskilful art of the Chronicler that this single 
verse of the episode of Michal's judgment on David should be 
here introduced when the story as a whole with its reflection on 
David is omitted. — 1. Peace-offerings] were largely eaten by the 
worshippers; hence indicative of feasting. — 2. He blessed the 
people]. The king as well as the priest exercised this function; 
cf. Solomon's blessing (i K. 8") omitted by the Chronicler 
(2 Ch. 7' "■). — 3. A portion] uncertain whether of flesh or wine 
{v. i). 

25. D'jSnn] strike out n, a dittography, so Kau., Ki. — ans— \a;] 2 S. 
6'* + nn nv which is superfluous here, cf. v. '. — 27. San^r] either a 
denom. verb from BAram. n'^^ij Dn. 3" or from ^33 with i inserted, 
BDB. Be. thought yn S^;'C3 SaiDS a corruption of r; Soa ididc (as 
in 2 S. 6'<) through illegibility, and this emendation is accepted by BDB. 
{v. Y^2 p. loi). More likely the change was intentional, as the omission 
of nin> •>jfl'? would show. The statement also that "the Levites that 
bare the ark " danced would then be inappropriate, while a description 
of their sacred vestures is a natural touch of the Chronicler. — la'n]. 
Either the art. is to be omitted or read nc'D2 instead of nit'Dh, cf. v. ". 
— amiT'cns] is an explanatory gloss (Zoe., Bn.) by a reader who under- 
stood az'^ZT^ to refer to the lifting up of the voice in song, cf. v. "* 
(Kau.). — 29. inn] 2 S. 6" n>m. The latter is striking in pre-exilic 
literature, Dr. TH. 133, Dav. § 58 c, and is probably a corruption. 
— Nj]. On the perfect cf. Dr. TH. 165. — pna-ci ipic] instead of 
nanoci hod in 2 S., a substitution made either to suggest a more 
dignified movement or because more intelligible. id"\3D is an aw. Xey. 
and ITDD a 5ii Xcy. — XVI. 1. cnSKn'- 2] 2 S. 6>' mni, cf. i3». — 
After iHN 2 S. has iDipca. — 'iji niSp ia'«-\p''i] 2 S. nini ijsV mSi; hpy 
DicStt'i. — 2. nini] 2 S. 6" + niNas, cf. i3«. — 3. The Chronicler con- 
denses Sx-i!t'> Jinn S3S oyn SjS of 2 S. 6'' into Snis'i r^N SdS. — 133] 
(the ordinary word for loaf, Ju. 8' i S. 2" 10' Pr. 6" Je. 37") 2 S. nSn 
elsewhere only in P of a sacrificial cake, implying that the people 
received cakes connected with the peace-offerings. — 2 S. has in ^, 
not (&, the numeral, nnx, nnx, with each gift. — The exact meaning 
of ifi'i^N oTT. Xe7. is unknown; the renderings in the Vrss. vary (for full 
discussion cf. Dr. TS., pp. 207/.). 

XVI. 4-6. The Levites appointed for service before the ark. 

— These verses are original with the Chronicler with the omission 
of the words, and Obed-edom and Jeiel, and Asaph, from v. » 
(v. s.). The appointees already mentioned (15" " ) were set aside 


merely for the purpose of bringing the ark in state to Jerusalem. 
They consisted of three chief singers with twelve of their brethren 
and seven priests. Here we have only one chief singer with seven 
of his brethren and two priests. The reason for this reduction in 
the numbers is to be sought in w. ^s «-. The Chronicler thought 
the tabernacle with the altar of bumt-ofifering was at Gibeon at this 
time. The occasion of bringing up the ark to Jerusalem was so 
important as to call for the participation of all the priests and 
Levites. When this had been accomplished, they were divided 
for service in both places. Asaph and seven of his brethren were 
assigned to service before the ark in Jerusalem, while Heman 
and Jeduthun and the rest of those mentioned by name (v. <') 
were appointed to the worship in the tabernacle at Gibeon. Only 
two priests were appointed for services as trumpeters before the 
ark. Thus the reductions are not in the same proportion. We 
should expect Asaph with but four of his brethren. The number 
two for the priests may have been suggested by 15" or Nu. lo'- ', 
while a large number of priests was indispensable at the altar of 
burnt-offering. vSince the service before the ark is represented 
as of a musical character entirely, the larger number of singers 
appointed to that service is accounted for, also the number seven 
may have influenced the Chronicler (r/. 15^^). 

4. The administration of the Levites was one of prayer and 
song as is implied by the following words, both to commemorate 
and to thank and to praise Yahiveh the God oj Israel. These in- 
dicate three forms of service, the first a liturgical prayer at the 
presentation of that part of the meal-offering which was burnt, 
i. e., the memorial (cf. Lv. 2-- '• '« 5'' 6« "5) Nu. 5=« and 
explanations of the titles of Pss. 38 and 70 espec. Briggs, Psalms, 
i. Intro. § 39 (b)); the second refers to the use of Psalms that 
prominently confess and give thanks to God; and the third to 
praises like those of the Hallelujah songs (Zoe.). The Levites 
were assigned the duty "to thank and to praise Yahweh" at the 
daily burnt-offerings and at all burnt-offerings (23'° «■) of which 
the meal-offering constituted a part (Nu. 28' ^ ), hence all three 
of these liturgical forms are connected with the burnt-offering. 
Since the Chronicler represents that no regular sacrifices were 


made in Jerusalem at this time (cf. 21=8 «•), it may be inferred that 
these Levites were to conduct the musical liturgy before the ark 
at the same time that the offerings were being made on the altar at 
Gibeon with corresponding musical service. The two priests also 
(v. 6) sounded the two silver trumpets as if present at the burnt- 
offerings (2 Ch. 29=«-=8 Nu. ID'- 2- 10). — 6. JahazVelldotsnot ap- 
pear in 15^^ For occurrences of the name cf. 12' «''> 23" Ezr. 8*. 

4. jnn] C5 + T\'>-\i. — 5. Sn-i;;''!] read ''?<mj;i as also in i5'«- " q. v., 
so Ki. — ^NH''^] in 15" n>n> but cf. i5>«. 

7. An interesting statement showing that Psalms of thanksgiving 
(Hodu Psalms) were assigned to a particular class of singers 

8-36. A Psalm of thanksgiving. — This is a compilation from 
verses found in the Psalter, vx.^ " = Vs. 105'-'', w. "-" = Ps. 96, 
w. '^-'6=Ps. 106 '■ ■•'•<«. The variations from the text of the Psalter 
are slight. The original place of these verses was in the Psalter, 
since v\'. '-" are clearly a fragment of Ps. 105. (This is now 
universally admitted, although Hitz. and Ke. held the original 
place to have been in Ch.) Hence, since v. =' corresponding to 
Ps. 106^8^ is the doxology marking the close of the fourth book 
of the Psalter, it is a fair and usual inference that the Psalter had 
already been arranged in five books at the time of the Chronicler. 
Yet it may be further said that if the small fragment w. '<-" 
existed independently of Ps. 106 (so ChevTie), and if the whole 
section, \'a". '-'', is an insertion of a later date than the period of 
the Chronicler (so Bn.), this inference cannot be made. 

8-22 =Ps. 105' -'5. According to Briggs, the first five verses 
are an introductory gloss, making the Ps. into a Hallel. — 8. 9. 
Two tetrameter synthetic couplets : 

Give thanks unto Yahweh, call upon his name; 
Proclaim among the peoples his doings. 
Sing unto him, make music for him; 
Muse upon all his wondrous deeds. 

The Hebrew shows assonance between the first and third, and the 
second and fourth lines, these ending in the sounds and aii re- 


spectively. Each couplet consists of three clauses, the first two short 
composing one line, and the third a tetrameter and so a line by it- 
self. In the first couplet the first clause calls upon the worshipper 
to pay divine honours, the second clause is a stronger repetition of 
this call, and the third commands him to proclaim the deeds of 
his God among the peoples; in the second couplet the movement 
is similar. — Call upon his name] may also be rendered "proclaim 
his name," which is preferred by Briggs, but the former is better 
suited to the structure of the stanza. The second couplet shows 
that this clause strengthens the preceding command instead of 
anticipating the following. — Make music for him]. The verb 
(IttT) may either mean to sing to (7) God, Ps. 27* loi' 104", 
also here according to BDB., or it may be used of playing musical 
instruments, Ps. t,t,'^ cf. 144' (parallel to ri"l''w'N), 71" 98' 147' 
149^ The parallelism of Ps. 144' suggests that the latter meaning 
may have been intended here, so Briggs. — These two couplets 
are based upon Is. i2< '•, which reads as follows : 

"Give thanks unto Yahweh, call upon his name; 
Proclaim among the peoples his doings. 
Commemorate for his name is exalted, 
Make music (1"1CT) unto Yahweh for he hath %. 

done excellent things, 
Let this be known in all the earth." 

The first two lines were taken verbatim; the last three were re- 
duced to the same form as the first two. The words "in all the 
earth" — parallel to "among the peoples" — may have been origi- 
nal in Ps., but not in Chronicles. — 10. Glory in his holy name] 
i.e., his name as sacred and separate from all defilement. — Of 
them that seek Yahweh]. Briggs substitutes as original the per- 
sonal pronoun, him, instead of the divine name for the sake of 
the assonance. — 11. Seek his face continually] that you may 
gain knowledge of his greatness, even as when men sought the 
face of an earthly king, i K. lo^*. — No assonance appears in this 
verse, but in 12 there is an apparently intentional resemblance of 
sound (niphle'othau . . . mophethaii) in the midst of the lines 
instead of at the ends. — Commemorate] celebrate by recounting, 


His wondrous deeds which he has done] and his marvels] espec. 
the miracles of the Exodus, cf. Ps. 105". This is done in Pss. 
105 and 106, but most of these wonders of Hebrew history are 
omitted here. — 13. The original text of Ps. probably read, "Ye 
seed of Abraham, his servant. Ye sons of Jacob, his chosen one" 
(so Briggs), which in Chronicles has become, Ye seed of Israel, 
his servant (pi. in (| is not likely original), Ye sons of Jacob, his 
chosen ones. The Chronicler copied the pronominal suffixes from 
the present text of Ps., where the assonance has been destroyed 
by a copyist's misunderstanding, by which the plural his chosen 
ones, i.e., the sons of Jacob, has been substituted for the singular 
his chosen one, i.e., Jacob rather than Esau (Briggs). Israel was 
doubtless substituted for Abraham, since it makes a more obvious, 
though less poetic, parallel, cf. v. '^ — 14. He, Yahweh, is our God; 
In all the earth are his jiidginents] an assertion of the world-wide 
rule of Yahweh. — 15-22. The Psalmist then recalls the covenant 
which Yahweh made with the three patriarchs in turn, with 
Abraham] Gn. 15, 17, 22'5-'8, his oath unto Isaac], Gn. 262-5, unto 
Jacob for a statute], Gn. 28^^-^^, and to Israel for an everlasting 
covenant], Gn. 35^-'^; and how when they were but a few in num- 
ber (so read instead of ye, v. i.), cf. Gn. 34'°, he suffered no man to 
wrong them], as in the relation of Abraham to the Canaanites, of 
Isaac to the men of Gerar, of Jacob to Laban and to Esau, and 
reproved kings for their sokes], Pharaoh Gn. 12'^, and Abimelech 
Gn. 2o'-^ The patriarchs are represented as anointed kings only 
here and in the parallel Ps. In Gn. 20' (E), Abraham is termed 
a prophet. — 23-33 =Ps. 96"' 2''-'- ""> '"■ '"^ iib-i3b_ xhe strong 
beginning of Ps. 96 is weakened by omitting vv. '^ 2% since they 
are inappropriate here (Be.). In these verses an appeal is made to 
all the earth (v. "), and Yahweh is proclaimed as the one efficient 
God who alone has done wondrous deeds among all peoples (v. ^*). 
He is contrasted with the gods of other peoples which are things of 
nought and have done nothing for their worshippers, cf. Is. 40" '■ 
44' "■ Je. 2" Ps. iiS*-S while Yahweh made the heavens (v. "). 
All peoples are admonished to bring offerings unto Yahweh and 
to worship him (v\. =»• "). All nature shall rejoice, the heavens 
and the earth, the sea with all its life and the field with all its life, 


and the trees of the forest, for Yahweh cometh to judge the earth. 
The conclusion of Ps. 96, v. '^ed^ jg omitted in Chronicles, since 
the Ps. does not come to an end with v. ". — 34-36 =Ps.io6i *"<■ **. 
The first of these verses is a common liturgical phrase with which 
Pss. 106, 107, 118, and 136 begin and makes also an appropriate 
closing, Ps. 118", cf. also Je. 33" Ezr. 3" i Mac. 4=^ — 35. And 
gather us together and deliver jts from the nations]. In Ps. "and 
gather us from the nations" is a clear reference to the dispersion 
and so inappropriate to the time of David. The writer sought 
to remove this significance of the phrase by inserting the words, 
and deliver us. — Verse 36, the doxology of the fourth book of Ps., 
is not unsuitable here. 

12. ini£3] Ps. 1055 VD. — 13. SxT^> pit] Ps. 1055 annas jjnr. — 15. 
mot] Ps. 105' npr ($^, fivrjfj.oveiJOfxei' has grown out of (B'^^ nvrjfjLovevwv 
<=■ nDi. Ki. BH. prefers the reading of Ps. but the Chronicler may 
have changed to pi. imv. intentionally to accord with vv. ' ' '"• '2- 
**• " +. — 16. pnifS] Ps. 105' pn'j'''S which spelling also occurs in Je. 
2,7,'^^ Am. 79- "s. — 19. osnvna] Ps. los'^ onvna, likewise i MS., <S, U. 
This is the better text. — 20. nsSscci] lis wanting in Ps. 105'^. — 21. 
c"nS] Ps. 105'* onN. — 22. iN''3j3i] Ps. 105'' ixoj'?!. — 23. dp Sn] Ps. 
962 orS. — 24. m23 r-v] Ps. 96' without rs. — 25. Nnui] 1 wanting in 
Ps. 96*. — 26. nin'i] (& k. o debs rj/jLuit/ = ijinSsi. — 27. icpD3 nnm] Ps. 
96' iunpC3 nnNon. nnn is a late word frequent in Aram., elsewhere 
in OT. only Ne. 8">. The word place may have been substituted 
for sa7ictuary because more general and better fitting the abode of 
the ark before the Temple was built (Zoe.). — 29. vjd'?] instead of 
rnnxnS, Ps. 96', because the Temple was not built. — t^np nmnj]. The 
meaning is dub. RV. in holy array (margin in the beauty of holiness), 
better in holy attire. Perles suggests a connection with the Babylonian 
addru "to fear " and interprets veyieration before the sanctuary, though 
this rendering is excluded in 2 Ch. 20^', which he regards as corrupt 
{OLZ. 8, 1905, col. 127). — V. "= corresponds to Ps. g6^^. — 30. This 
verse is composed of Ps. 969'> "'' "">. — iijdSc] Ps. 96^ vjb::. — 31. 
Composed of Ps. 96"* and loa. — ncNM] Ps. 96'" nsN. — Ps. 96'°'= 
Dns'D3 D''D]; in^ wanting in Ch. — 32. Composed of Ps. 96" •> and u*. 
— nntrn yhp] Ps. 96'2 •>yff fSi?\ — 33. ijdSd n;;\n ixy] Ps. 96'2b na l,j 
^jflS n3;> 's;?. — n3] Ps. + N3 >o. — 35. inoNi] wanting in Ps. 106". — 
yyyv* m'jN] Ps. u^nSx nin\ — ijSixm] wanting in Ps.— 36. nrs'^i] Ps. 
106" nD.xi. — niniS SSni] Ps. ni-iSSn. Thus the poetic termination 
of Ps. 106 is turned into an historical statement. On SSn cf. Ges. 
§ 1132- 


37-43. Levites appointed for service. — A continuation of 
w. ■•-«. — 37. A resume of vv. < '•. — 38. And 'Obed-edom and his* 
brethren sixty-eight and Hosa to be gate-keepers]. We must either 
read his with (g, H (Bn.) or transpose and Hosa to a position be- 
fore and their brethren, etc. (Kau., Ki.). The phrase and 'Obed- 
edom the son of Jeduthnn* is probably a marginal gloss which made 
its way into the text in the wrong place. The glossator finding 
Obed-edom represented as a singer in 1521 16' gives him a place in 
the family of Jeduthun, the singer (see below on v. "). In 26' the 
gate-keepers of the family of Obed-edom number sixty-two. — 
On Hosa cf. 26'°. — 39. Thus according to the Chronicler there 
were two sanctuaries, the ark brought to Jerusalem constituting 
one and the tabernacle with its other furniture at Gibeon consti- 
tuting the other (21" 2 Ch. i = -«). At this latter Zadok and his 
brethren ministered. — On the high place which was at Gibe' on cf. 
I K. y ' .— 40. On the continual offerings cf. Ex. 29" Nu. 283- «. — 
And to do all that is written, etc.] i.e., everything which was the 
priests' duty to do in the sanctuary. — 41. With them] i.e., with 
Zadok and his brethren at Gibeon were placed the two guilds of 
singers represented by Hemaji and Jeduthun, while the guild of 
Asaph (v. ") ministered before the ark at Jerusalem. — And the 
rest of the chosen] refers to all the singers chosen at this time. — 
Who were designated by name] i.e., those so designated in 15" 
who did not serve in Jerusalem (v. '). — 42. And in possession of 
therti were trumpets and cymbals for musicians and other instru- 
ments used in sacred song*] lit. and instruments of the song of God. 
With song of God, cf. song of Yahweh, Ps. 137* 2 Ch. 29". — And 
the sons of Jeduthun at the gate] is dubious. Chronicles does not 
know of any sons of Jeduthun who were gate-keepers except 
"Obed-edom the son of Jeduthun," v. ", a late gloss possibly 
dependent upon the statement here. Some words may have 
fallen from the text between Jeduthun and at the gate. — 43. Taken 
from 2 S. 6'"'- '»» and thus is a continuation of v. '. 

37. vnxSi tiDN*^] S with direct object, Ges. § iiyn. — aio or nanS] 
cf. Ex. 5" 16* et at. — 38. pnni] is merely a copyist's variation of 
linn\ — 39. pns pn] obj. of 3ij;m of v. ". — 42. nnnyi] BDB. ay 3. b. 
— pnnM is\-i] wanting in (& and to be omitted as a dittography 


from V. ■" (Kau., Bn., Ki.). Be. holding that 'nr\ -i'8> 'So were equiva- 
lent to the nnjD2i D'''?3j of v. ' rearranged vv. " '• somewhat after the 
order of v. ' reading: •'O nin-'S nmnS nofa lapj '\Z'H onnan iNn 
Dvc'i'o D^-iSiCi nnsxn pnnM iD\ni T'tt' 1^33 non oSipS. — 43. 

3Dm] 2 S. 2-y^\ 

XVII. The promise to David in view of his purpose to build 
a temple for Yahweh. — Taken with slight variations from 2 S. 7. 
According to Dt. 12^" '• unity of worship should become law 
after the Israelites had passed over Jordan and when Yahweh 
had given them "rest" from all their enemies round about, and 
had chosen a place "to cause his name to dwell there" (i.e., when 
the Temple should have been built). This "rest" came in 
with David and Solomon, cf. 2 S. 7'- " i K. 5" «' (We. Hist. 
of Isr. pp. 19 /., n.). If the narrative in 2 S. 7 is as late as 
the Exile (so Sm. Com.) the writer probably knew of this Deuter- 
onomic provision and sought to show why this unity of worship 
was not ushered in by David through the erection of the Temple 
when "Yahweh had given him rest from all his enemies round 
about" (v. '). To the Chronicler, David, the man of blood, in no 
wise fulfilled this condition {cf. 1 Ch. 22' ' ), hence he omitted 
from 2 S. 7' the words "Yahweh had given him rest, etc.," and 
substituted I will subdue all thine enemies (v. ">) for "I will cause 
thee to rest from all thine enemies" (2 S. 7"). 

1-15. Nathan's message to David. — 1. 2. When David dwelt in 
his house] probably the one built with the aid of the King of Tyre, 
14' = 2 S. 5". — Nathan, the prophet] (vv. "■ =• '« and parallels in 
2 S. 7, 2 S. 12' + 6 times in 2 S. 12, i K. i' \- 10 times in i K. i, 
2 Ch. 29" Ps. 512 (title) BS. 47"; in the phrase "acts of Nathan the 
prophet" I Ch. 29^' 2 Ch. 9"; and frequent as a personal name 
elsewhere) was the well-known court prophet during David's reign 
and one of the supporters of Solomon at his accession, i K. i. — 
Lo, I dwell in a house of cedar and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh 
is under curtains]. The contrast between David's regal palace 
and the humble resting-place of the ark was sufficient to indicate 
his intention to his religious adviser, who immediately responded, 
Do all that is in thy heart, for God is with thee. — 3. Nathan's 
first impression that God would favour David's undertaking was a 


mistaken one. — It came to pass the same night, that the word of God 
came to Nathan] doubtless in a dream. — 4. Thou shall not build 
me a (lit. the, v. i.) house to dwell in] is expressed in 2 S. in the form 
of a question equivalent to a negative. — 5. For I have not dwelt 
in a house from the day I brought up Israel, i.e., from Egypt (so 
2 S.), unto this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle*]. 
This statement was not literally true, since the sanctuary at Shiloh 
seems to have been a fixed structure (see Dr. in DB. IV. p. 500 a, 
also EBi. IV. col. 4925, § 2).— 7-14. H. P. Smith finds traces of 
rhythmical structure in this oracle, but not without extensive 
emendation (see Com. in loco). — 7f. I took thee from the pasture, 
from following the sheep] as narrated in i S. 16" «■. From this 
humble origin Yahweh had made David a prince over Israel and 
promised to make his fame like that of the great men of the earth. 
It is implied that David's honour is great enough without the 
added credit of building the Temple. — 9. And I will appoint a 
place for my people Israel and will plant them] i.e., the establish- 
ment of the people in the promised land in safety from their enemies 
was not yet accomplished, hence the time for the building of the 
Temple as set forth in Dt. 12"' '• had not yet come {y. s.). — 10. 
Will build thee a house] certainly means a dynasty and not a build- 
ing. — 11. Thou must go to be with thy fathers]. 2 S. "thou shalt 
sleep with thy fathers" is the more usual phrase (r/. Gn. 473» (J) 
Dt. 3i'« I K. 210 II" 2 Ch. 262, etc.), while that of Chronicles has no 
exact parallel, yet c/". i K. 2' Gn. 15'^ The motive for the change 
in Chronicles is difficult to determine. Boettcher (Aehrenlese) 
thought the expression to go was more indeterminate and that it 
was introduced by one believing in the continuation of David's 
life. — 12. A direct reference to the Temple to be built by Solomon, 
with which is coupled the fundamental Messianic promise. 
In 2 S. the verse may be a gloss (so Sm.). — 13. The foreboding 
of iniquity with its punishment contained in 2 S. 7'* is omitted 
evidently to avoid a sombre thought. "So sensitive is the Chron- 
icler for the honour of David and his house that he cannot even 
endure in the mouth of Yahweh a reference to its faults" (Ki.). 
— As I took it from him that was before thee] i.e., from Saul, who is 
mentioned by name in 2 S. iy. i.). — 14. But I will settle him in 


my house and in my kingdom forever] 2 S. "Thy house and thy 
kingdom shall be made sure forever before thee." The change of 
Chronicles (2 S. has the more original text) is due to the point of 
view of the Chronicler, who regards the kingdom as a theocracy, 
cf. "upon the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh" 28=, "thine is the 
kingdom, O Yahweh" 29", "upon the throne of Yahweh" 29". 
My house must be taken parallel to my kingdom, thus referring to 
the people of Israel. 

1. Ch. has nif!<3, imt twice, njn and nij-n^ nnn nini n^-^3 jnx where 
a S. 7'- 2 have 13 > ■i'^::n , nj hni, n>^>-\>n ^1P3 2-y< d^h'^ni p-iN. The 
Chronicler by his last phrase has given a clearer description of the 
position of the ark. — '^^.n] Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. has elsewhere 'jn, except 
Ne. i» {LOT.^^, pp. 155 /., foot-note). — 2. Ch. has again i^n in 
the place of iScn, and has omitted lS before nr;'. — 3. D^n'7Nn] 2 S. 
7« mnv — jnj] 6 MSS., & + t<''2jn, which is not original, cf. 2 S. — 4. 
nj;? T>n Sn] 2 S. 7' in Sn nay Vs. — nac*? non iV nj^.i nnx nS] 2 S. 
\"i3B'S P'a >'? njan nnsn. The latter is undoubtedly the more orig- 
inal statement, non is either definite with the idea, the house which 
shall be built, not by thee, but by thy son (Bn.), or Ges. § 1269, 
only definite in the writer's mind and to be rendered indefinite in 
our idiom. — 5. '?n-iB'> nx 'n^Vin ns'x arn p] 2 S. 7* '>J3 tn "in^'n orcS 
onxcD VNii'v — ptrcci Shn Sn Srivs:: n^nsi] 2 S. ps'cai Sn.xn iSnpa n^nxi. 
This latter is probably the true text (Be., Kau., Ki., Bn.). Bu. 
(SBOT.) after Klo. reads pS'D Sn pccn Snx Sn Shno -jSnnD n^nxi. 
"Thus only," says Bu., "does the necessary sense of shelter under 
strange roofs find proper expression whereas M (in 2 S.) expresses a 
wandering about in and with a shelter belonging to it corresponding 
to the later fiction of ijJiD Sns in P." But one would expect this 
later fiction to be shown by the text of Ch. rather than S. (Bn.). — 6. 
After '-22^ 2 S. 7' has ^i2. — >e:3;;.] the true text. 2 S. iB3i*, a clear 
case of copyist's confusion of letters. — ''cy] 2 S. + Snib" pn. — 7. p 
nns] 2 S. 7' -\nN2 supported by Ps. 78". — Before '?nti:"' 2 S. has 
Sj:, an unnecessary repetition and perhaps not original. — 8. pn;Ni] 2 
S. 7' n.^i — . — 2 S. has Snj after l:z'K <g in 2 S. agrees with Ch. in 
its omission, hence Ch. has the true text (We. TS., Dr., Bu., Sm.). 
— 9. As in V. ' the preposition with ^c;* is repeated before '^x-iB" in 
2 S. 7'". — inSaS] 2 S. i.-iijyS. Bn. thinks the text of Ch. is original, 
but the use of nSa in Dn. 7" suggests that this verb was supplanting 
the older and more usual njy. (S rod TaireivCxrai reproduces the text 
of 2 S. Perhaps 1^ comes from a late transcriber. — 10. o^cc'^i] 2 S. 
7" 2rn pSi. In both texts after ^ in 2 S. i should be omitted (Dr., 
Bu., Bn., Ki. ?). To retain the i causes a reference in v. "^ to the 


Egyptian oppression, but this is a thought alien to the context, in 
which rather the blessings secured by the settled government of David 
are contrasted with the attacks to which Israel was exposed during 
the period of the judges. — ^OM^f ^3 pn ^nyjjm] 2 S. ^o^n '?3n iS ^nn^jni. 
We. TS., Dr., Bu. prefer for the text of 2 S. as more agreeable to 
the context V2\s Sjd iS 'nn^jni. Bn. prefers in Ch. ra^s as demanded 
by the context. — n^n•< -\h ni2-< noi -\h njNi] 2 S. nir;?> no ^3 nin'i ^h i^jni 
nin> ^''. Both of these texts are harsh. Ki. in Ch. removes 1 before 
n'3. (6 read ^S^JS^ and I will magnify thee. This is followed by 
Oe. and commends itself to Bn. In that case we should read njax, 
cf. the first person in v. '■; nini has then arisen from n\ni the first 
word of v. ". Bu. (SBOT.) gives as the true text in 2 S. nS luo >jjni 
mn^ ^'7 nry' n-'j 'd. Sm. suggests that the material of v. "> is a gloss 
(see his full comment). — 11. n«ni] wanting by error in 2 S. 7'' (Dr., 
Bu.). — n>mN ay pj'^"'] 2 S. y^^^2n pn p^du'i followed by <B in Ch. — 
y:20 n^Di is'n] 2 S. TJJDD ns> ib-n, also (g in Ch. The change in Ch. 
has been made to point more definitely to Solomon. — ipidSd] 2 S. 
inaSDD, see 14'. — 12. "h] 2 S. 7'^ 'sa'"?. — indd] 2 S. inaSoD ndd. (gin 
2 S. supports the text of Ch. — 13. On omission see above. — tdn] 
supported by (S in 2 S. 7'= where il^ has 11D\ and preferred as more 
pointed by Dr., Bu., Sm. — i^joS 7\^^ tj'xc] 2 S. \Pi>Dn •\z'n hMov oyn 
T'jflSc. The shorter *fxt of Ch. is original (Be., We. TS., Dr., 
Bu., Sm.). — 14. D^v; -\y psj n\Ti inddi oSiyn ijj ipioScai ipoa inipioi'm] 
2 S. 7'^ dSij; ny poj nTt'< -inD3 tjcS qSv i;? hpoScci ^,-l13 jcnjl 

16-27. David's prayer of thanksgiving. — Thus David ex- 
pressed his gratitude for the divine promise delivered by Nathan. — 
16. Then David went hi], the newly erected sanctuary (Be.) or 
possibly his own house, — and sat before Yahweli]. This posture in 
prayer is peculiar in the OT., but for instances among related 
peoples, see Sm. on 2 S. 7". Standing (Gn. 18" i S. i-^), kneeling 
(i K. 8" Ps. 95« Dn. 6" <"") and prostration (Nu. 16^5 i K. 18") 
were the usual postures. — The prayer begins with an expression 
of wonder that Yahweh should have exalted one so humble and 
from such an unimportant family, — Who am I, O Yahweh God, 
and what is my house, that thou hast brought me thus far? — 17. 
This verse is obscure both here and in the parallel text of 2 S. 
{v. i.). — 18. What shall David continue to say unto thee?* for 
thou knowest thy servant]. This rendering is of a text corrected 
from 2 S. {v. i.). David's heart is too full for utterance, yet God 
will understand his servant. — 19. Again the text is doubtful. — 20. 


All that men have heard reveals the uniqueness of Yahweh, beside 
whom there is no other God. — 21. According to Geiger {Urschrift 
und Uebersetzungen, p. 288) this verse in its most original form 
contained a contrast between Israel's God and the gods of other 
nations. His reconstructed te.xt (v. i.) is rendered as follows : And 
who is like thy people Israel? (Is there) another nation in the 
earth which a god went to redeon to himself for a people and to give 
to himself a 7iame and to do for them great and terrible things in 
driving out from before his people a nation and its gods. But the 
Chronicler, or rather his forerunner in 2 S., applied all this to 
^srael by the change of another (int<) to one ("nS) and other 
changes until Chronicles read : And who is like thy people 
Israel ? a unique nation which God went to redeem to himself as a 
people, giving to thyself a name by great and terrible things in driv- 
ing out nations from before thy people, which thou didst redeem 
from Egypt. Chronicles passes from the third to the second 
person, not an unusual construction. — 22. It is Israel's glory 
that the true God had chosen them in preference to any other 
nation, that they should be his people and he should be their God. 
— 23. The King prays that the message borne by Nathan, the 
prophet, may be established forever. — 24. Saying, Yahweh of 
hosts is the God of Israel * and the house of thy servant David is 
established before thee]. The prayer seems to be that the people 
may say that Yahweh is Israel's God, and that David's house 
has the legitimate right to rulership by divine choosing. The 
change from third to second person is awkward, but possible (v. s. 
v. "). Thus King David puts the rights of his house to rule 
beside the right of Yahweh to be the God of Israel, and wishes 
them as firmly established. He justifies the boldness of this 
petition by recalling the divine revelation which he had received 
through Nathan, — 25 thou hast revealed to thy servant that thou 
wilt build him a house. — 27. The prayer closes with an assertion 
of the confidence of the worshipper that Yahweh has blessed his 
house and what he has blessed, shall be blessed forever. In this 
the text differs from that of 2 S., where the last verse is a prayer 
for this blessing. Bertheau regarded the text of 2 S. as the original 
because the request for the fulfilment of a promise and also for 



new blessing has its proper place at the close of the prayer. This 
very fact, however, Benzinger alleges as the reason why we should 
look for the change of a perfect into an imperative, and not the 
converse. The request for fulfilment he finds in v. "_ xhe 
leading thought, he says, of David's prayer is that Yahweh through 
his revelation has already brought a blessing and made a beginning 
with salvation (w. '«■ ") ; therefore Da\id's house will endure, for 
whatever Yahweh once blesses, remains blessed forever, and this 
thought is disturbed by the introduction of the imperative. 

16. ^:tt] 2 S. 7i« 13JN, cf. V. '. — a^nSs hi.t] 2 S. mn^ >:-\h. — 17. 2 S. 
719 has nu" after japn. — stiSn] 2 S. nin'* >j-in. — S;-] 2 S. Sn. — imo •"jpiNii 
nSpnn msn]. (Some Heb. mss. have '\^P2 instead of 11.13, which helps 
not at all in solving the textual difficulty.) Atid (thou) hast regarded 
me according to the estate of a man of high degree, AV., RV. 2 S. 
DiNH mi.1 HNn, And this too after the manner of men, RV., And is 
this the law of man? AVm., RVm. Both of these texts are clearly 
corrupt and are unintelligible. (& in Ch. has Kal iireWh /le ws 6pa<yi% 
dvdpuirov Kal v^ua-ds /xe, the last clause of which, a}id thou hast exalted me 
(■'j'^p.'^i), gives good sense, and from the first half Bn. would derive 'JNin 
HNico and render, Du liessest mich schaicen etwas wie eine Vision. Ki. 
gives l| up as hopelessly corrupt. Oe. reads 'jS>Dn din niin^ ^ji-'Nii, 
Thou regardest me after the manner of a man (i.e., in thy condescension), 
O thou who exaltest me. Ke. gave a similar meaning but retained nS^cn 
(as corresponding to pinir^) as regards the elevation, i.e., the elevation of 
my race (my seed) on high. Wc. TS., after hints of Be. and Ew. (see 
Sm.), reads in 2 S. aisM pin ijsin ,4 nd thou hast let jne see the generations 
of men, i.e., hast given me a glimpse into the future of my descend' 
ants. Bu. adopts this and then from n'^yc in Ch. adds o'?^'?. Kau. 
favours the reading of We. TS. — 18. px niajS ^Sn T'n iiy i''Di> no 
niay] 2 S. 720 •yhn •\2-h -wj in I'Dr n^i. Ke. defends the text of Ch. 
as the original because the more difficult. Zoe. allows it. Oe. reads 
135S after 05 rod Sofdo-ai and thus obviates the harsh construction 
of ^^3y PN. But li3j; pn is wanting in (& and came probably by 
copyist oversight from the second half of the verse and iodS is likely 
an error for i3iS, hence the text of 2 S. is to be preferred (Be., 
Kau., Bn., Ki.). — In 2 S. -[-^2'; is followed by ni' ^Jix. Ch. omits 
'JIN, and nil', in iH, goes with v. ". — 19. ii.t] see v. >'.— ■|-<3>] 2 S. 
7" 1131, which Be. and Ba. regard as the original reading but (6 in 
2 S. agrees with Ch. and is followed by Bu., SBOT., Sm. rightly 
(Bn.). — After j-"iiS 2 S. has 1133; but wants mSnjn '73 pn. (&^ in Ch. 
omits the clause. Bu. in 2 S. rearranges v. '"> (after Reifmann given 


in Dr.) (see Sm.), pxth rhyt^n Sa ns Tiaj; ymnV p'^cj:. The Chron- 
icler, however, had clearly the present order in 2 S. before him. — 20. 
Ch. has retained only mni out of o D''n'7N nm^ nSnj ja Vy in 2 S. 7" 
before px. The words n'rij p ■?>• may be represented in the ^3 on 
mSnjn of the previous verse (Be ). — 21. Both the texts of Ch. and 
2 S. 7" give evidences of corruption, but the former is the better. Ch. 
has rightly ^xtj" instead of '^nt^'t, T^n instead of '\D^ri, and 'Z^-m instead 
of IX-in':', while 2 S. has correctly 1'^ arz''? instead of l*? avz'^, and nSnj 
instead of n'?njn. Both texts require emendation of inx into inN 
after (S^ in 2 S. Ch. has omitted aa*? mcy^i (to be read bhS 'Si) after 
ns' and also at the end of the verse vn'^N. The passage according 
to Geiger {Urschrift, p. 228) followed by We. TS., Dr., Bu., Sm. 
(and Ki. in Ch.), originally read as follows : "inN ^u SNniri ^D3?^ 'm 
niN-iiji niSnJi onS pis';jSi qv iS dis'Si ayh iS nnsS D'hSn ^S^ is'n i>i*<3 
vhSni mj idp ijdd B-nj*:. Bn. emends avj'S reading arm and thus re- 
tains the second person and the clause respecting redemption from 
Egypt, which clause Ki. regards as an insertion or marginal note. — 22 . 
l.-ini] 2 S. 7" -^ piD.-^i. — 23. nin>] 2 S. 7" a\n'^N ninv— jcn-] 2 S. apn. 
— 24, px''!] wanting in 2 S. 7^* and to be struck out as a dittography 
from V. '3, — SxTi''' ^n^'x] wanting in 2 S., also to be struck out as a 
mere repetition of the following S.STi"'S dtiSn. — 2 S. has Snis*' Sy and 
has nini before jiaj. — 25. in'?!*] 2 S. 7" Ss-ir'' inS.s niN3S mnv — nuaS 
n>3 1*^] 2 S. ^'7 njax n^a nsN*^. — After ti3>' nxd 2 S. has 12S pn and 
after tjdS, pnth nSonn pk. The former is necessary to the text, but 
the latter is probably a needless copyist addition (Bn.). — 26. The 
text of 2 S. 7^' is fuller and as follows : a-ri'^Nn Nin nnx ni.T> >ji« nnjji 
TMi'^ry naiKH pn ^^3y Ss -\2ipi pen vn> ina-ii. — 27. iiaS p'^nih] 2 S. 7" 
T131 Sxm. — aSiyS iiaai P313 mn> np« id] 2 S. Pian nin'> 'jin nps ^j 
d'^U"'^ T'^y P'3 T13' ^Psiam. On these changes see above. 

XVIII. 1-13. A summary of the foreign wars of David.— 

Taken with slight variations from 2 S. 8'-'*. David defeats the 
Philistines and acquires Gath with its dependencies and conquers 
Moab, Zobah, Damascus, and Edom. As a con^eq aenoe of the de- 
feat of the King of Zobah, the King of Hamath sends gifts, hence 
David controls practically all of Syria south of Hamath except the 
Phoenician cities and the remaining cities of Philistia. — 1. Gath and 
its daughters] instead of the unintelligible ''bridle of the mother 
city" RV. of 2 S. 81. Whether the reading of Chronicles is the orig- 
inal is impossible to determine. We. TS. and Dr. think it derived 
from 2 S. — 2. The Chronicler omitted from 2 S. the passage, "and 
he measured them with the line, making them to lie dowTi on the 



ground; and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full 
line to keep alive," possibly because this harsh treatment of the 
Moabite captives cast reflections upon the character of David 
after the previous kindness shown him by the Moabite King, i S. 
22^ '■. Of that incident the writer of 2 S. 8^ seems to have had no 
knowledge (Sm.), but the Chronicler certainly must have been 
acquainted with it. This fact, then, rather than the excessive 
cruelty of the measure, probably influenced him, cj. 20^. — And 
brought tribute] probably, as in the days of Mesha, this consisted 
of wool, 2 K. y. — 3. Hadad'ezer*]. Chronicles has here and else- 
where Hadarezer, cf. vv. '• '" >° ig''- 's, as also (B in all the parallel 
passages in 2 S. The original form of the name was of course 
Hadad^ezer, as in 2 S. M, and i K. 11". The component Hadad 
appears in the name Benhadad, carried by a number of kings of 
Damascus of later times, i K. i5'«- 20 = 2 Ch. 162- ■< i K. 20', etc. 
Of these Ben-hadad II. is known in Assyr. ins. as Dadda-id-ri 
(var. Hdri) = Aram. Hadad-idri = Heb. Hadadezer {KB. i, 
p. 134, n. i). Hadad was the name of a Syrian deity. The name 
signifies Hadad is help (Dr.) (see Sm.). — Zobah] an Aramean 
state of consequence during the reigns of Saul (i S. 14") and 
David, mentioned in Assyr. ins. as Subutn or Subiti (see Del. 
Par. pp. 279^., Schr. KAT.^ pp. 182^.), and situated according to 
Noeldeke between Damascus and Hamath {EBi. I. col. 280 § 6). 
— Unlo Hamath] is an addition to the text of 2 S. Whether from 
a glossator or, as is more likely, from the Chronicler, the statement 
is an inference from vv. » ^ . Hamath is identical with the mod. 
Hamd on the Orontes about one hundred and fifteen mfles north of 
Damascus. — As he went to establish his hand by the river Euphrates]. 
The subject is either Hadadezer (Be., Zoe., Dr.) or more probably 
David (Oe., Ba., Sm.). — 4. A thousand chariots and seven thousand 
horsetnen] but according to 2 S. David took a thousand and seven 
hundred horsemen and no mention is made of the chariots. Since 
(i> of 2 S. agrees with Chronicles, the Chronicler did not likely alter 
the text, but rather reproduced what he found. — David hajustrung 
all the chariot horses] as a measure to insure peace, cf. Jos. 11 «■'. 
The Hebrews among their hills were slow in adopting cavalry and 
chariots, but David now began their use, for he reserved from them 


[horses] /or a hundred chariots. — 5. Aram of Damascus^. Aram 
is a singular collective for the Arameans. The Aramean kingdom 
with Damascus as its chief city played an important role in the 
history of Syria until it was finally overthrown by Tiglath-pileser 
III in 732 B. c. Damascus itself is a city of extreme antiquity, 
although early references to it are few and uncertain. It appears 
as Timasku in the list of the Syrian conquests of Thotmes III, and 
as Timalgi, Dimalka, in the Amarna letters. — The independence of 
Damascus was also threatened by this attack upon Zobah, hence 
the willingness to succour Hadadezer. — 6. Then David put garri- 
sons^ in Aram of Damascus] as was his custom to do to subjected 
peoples, cf. V. '^ — The writer piously ascribes the credit for David's 
victories to Yahweh, cf. v. '^ — 7. Shields of gold] is a somewhat 
doubtful rendering, more likely arms or armour (Ba. Exp. Times 
X. pp. 43/.). Of gold would refer to the decoration. — 8. Tibhath] 
(so read also in 2 S. 8' f) and Cun f] (2 S. Berothai) are other- 
wise unknown. Furrer (ZPV. viii. p. 34) identifies the latter with 
the mod. Kuna near Bereitan. — Wherewith Solomon made the 
brazen sea and the pillars and the vessels of brass] is an addition 
from the hand of the Chronicler, whence it made its way into (|i 
of 2 S. — 9. Tou, king ofHamath] (2 S. To i) is otherwise unknown. 
Hamath, regularly mentioned as the northern boundary of Israel, 
on the western side of Hermon immediately north of Dan. This 
kingdom had plainly been threatened by the Arameans whom David 
defeated. — 10. Hadoram, his son] (2 S. Joram). Nothing further 
is known of him. The name appears as that of an Arabian tribe 
in 1 2' (q. v.). — Upon the defeat of Hadadezer Tou hastened to 
send his son to bless David, i. e., to congratulate him, possibly to 
acknowledge his suzerainty, and to purchase his favour with gifts. 
— 11. These also did king David dedicate to Yahweh] together with 
the spoils of war from the nations, Edom, Mo^ab, 'Ammon, the 
Philistines, and 'Amalek. 2 S. adds "and from the spoil of Hadad- 
ezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah." We have no other mention 
of a war of David with Amalek except that in i S. 30, where we 
are told that David distributed the spoil among his friends in 
Judah (vY.^' « ). — 12. And when he returned he smote Edom* 
in the Valley of Salt eighteen thousand]. This is probably the 



original text here, an abridgment of 2 S. 8", "And David made a 
name. And when he returned from his smiting of Aram, he 
smote Edom,* etc. " M of Chronicles, Moreover A bshai the son of 
Zeriiiah, is due to a curious misreading of a copyist (v. i.). The 
Edomites may have taken advantage of the absence of David and 
the army, when they were far north, to make a hostile raid, as the 
Amalekites did when David left Ziklag to go north with the Philis- 
tines (i S. 30). The Valley of Salt is only mentioned in connec- 
tion with Edom, 2 Ch. 25" 2 K. 14' Ps. 60'. On account of its 
proximity to the salt mountain, Khashm Usdum, and to the Salt 
Sea, it has been identified with the plain es-Sebkhah, at the southern 
end of the Dead Sea. — 13. And he put garrisons in Edom] as he 
had done in Damascus, v. «. The pious formula which closes v. » 
is repeated here verbatim. 

1. npn] 2 S. 8' -t- in. — nipjai pj nx] 2 S. hdnh jhd dh, which is 
quite unintelligible (see Sm.). — 2. On omission see above. — 3Nid vn>^] 
2 S. 8^ asm >nni. — 3. iTy-nn] many mss., 2 S. 8' irjj-nn. Ch. pre- 
serves a corrupt spelling, which since it appears in (5 of 2 S., 'Adpaa^ap, 
may have been found in this form by the Chronicler. — Ch. has 
omitted am p. — nncn] wanting in 2 S. Bn. thinks it is a corruption 
of nnSn, at Helam, see 19". — 3''sn'?] 2 S. 3TnS. The former is read 
after Dr. by Bu., who thinks it represented in iiria-Tijffat. of 05 in 
2 S. — ma] wanting in Kt. of 2 S., given in Qr. and some mss. — 4, 
Dia'iD d^'dSn P'J2^^ 331 ']hit] 2 S. 8* Dia-ifl pwd yasn r\hn. (6 in 2 S. 
agrees with Ch. But 1| of 2 S. is likely nearer to the true reading, 
which may have been originally seven hundred chariots, cf. 2 S. 10", 
to which was added a thousand horsemen, and finally by other ad- 
ditions and changes the text of Ch. appeared (see Bn.). — 5. N3'i] 
2 S. 8^ N3ni. — In lar-n instead of pii'm we have an unusual spelling, 
cf. V. « and Syriac - rn rfV** For a full discussion see J. Halevy, 
Revue Semitique, 1894, pp. 280-283. — i-yTinS] see v. '. — 6 . dosj gar- 
risons given in 2 S. 8^ has fallen from the text as the object of 
Di'^1. It is found in the Vrss. — "mn] 2 S. '•nm — ^•>rh'^'] 2 S. in nx. The 
former gives the better idea, Yahweh gave victory to David. — 7. Sj? 
n3y] correct over against na;? *?« of 2 S. (Be., Dr., Bu., Sm.). — 
aScni dnom] wanting in g». — 8. nn3'Jc] true reading confirmed by (S 
in 2 S., where in || na3D, cf. On. 22". Kau. reads n3Q!?i. — ji3Ci] 2 S. 
"'1-11301. (& in both 2 S. and Ch. has iK tQv iKXeKTuv = nni3D cf. 
16" or in3CD (Bn.), '>nn3D (Sm.). Nothing is known of a city of either 
name. — '^^^ n-^';? r\2] wanting in 2 S., an addition by the Chronicler, 
V. S.—9. i>'.-^] 2 S. 8» >-;p, but the text of Ch. is confirmed by <K in 


2 S. and is the more probable form (Dr., Bu.). — n^ix -^^z] wanting in 
2 S. — 10. ^\'^\y^'^] 2 S. 8'° adds the King's name. — ain-] 2 S. Eir, 
but since (S in 2 S. has leddovpav the text of Ch. is to be preferred 
(Dr., Bu.). — rrmi e]D3^ ant ^'7^ '^oi] 2 S. ■''r'ji 3nr '''?ji i]Do ^^d vn n^ji 
ntt'n:. — 11. n::'j] 2 S. 8" u^-ipn and also after dmjh the additional 
clause !;'33 irx. — dun:;] 2 S. 8'^ din::. The text of Ch. is to be 
preferred (see Sm.). — 2 S. has after p'^D^'ci the additional clause 
nais iVo am p iiy-nn S'^;:'di. — 12. ens pn n^n n>nx p "•joni] 2 S. 8" 
D"\« PN imano 12"'3 d;* nn C'>'). The first clause, And David made a 
name, the Chronicler clearly omitted. Instead of 13^3 the original 
after ^ in 2 S. was ni-oi (Bu., Ki.). This by a copyist has been 
corrupted into p 'rjs, and then some hand has added the missing 
name of the mother T\'\-\-i. ri^rt may have been the correct reading in 
2 S. (We. 7^5., Bu.), where as the text now stands we must substi- 
tute ais for ms, or possibly the original text may have contained 
two clauses and as a whole read : din r.s i.-ii^nr: i3i'3i Dr in vpy 
mx ON njn (Bu., SBOT., somewhat after Be., who read And Joab 
the son of Zeruiali smote Edom when he returned from the conquest 
of Aram). Ke. read as Bu. except l-i instead of hd-i. The words of 
the title of Ps. 60, n'^c n"J3 anx pn •\■'^ axr 2Z'^^, support the reading of 
Be., yet the title most probably is subsequent to the text of Ch. with 
i3B'3i (Bn.). — 13. After D"3ij 2 S. 8'« has the additional clause S22 
D^asj ar anx, which (if not a dittography) the Chronicler naturally 
omitted as superfluous. — vhm] 2 S. ^n>i. 

14-17. Administrative officers. — Taken from 2 S. 8'5-'». — 14. 
The King himself acted as chief justice, thus making himself acces- 
sible to the people, cf. 2S. 15- '' . — 15. David's nephew Jo^ab the son 
of Zeruiah (David's sister) was over the host]. Cf. 2'«. — Jehosha- 
phat the son of Ahiliid was the recorder]. This Jehoshaphat 
always mentioned in this way (2 S. 8'« 20" i K. 4^ f) held office 
also in the reign of Solomon (i K. 4'). The functions of the 
recorder ("1"'3TlD, lit. the one who causes to remember) are nowhere 
defined exactly. Most likely his duty consisted in reminding the 
King of important business (see Bn. Arch. p. 310, Now. Arch. I. 
p. 308). — 16. Zadok, the son o/Ahitiib]. Cf. 5" (6^). — Ahimelech* 
the son of Abiathar]. V. i., cf. 24'. — Shavsha was scribe]. The 
spelling is doubtful {v. i.). The scribe ("l2"iD) was the King's 
secretary, an office distinct from that of the recorder. Shavsha's 
two sons acted as scribes. in the reign of Solomon (i K. 4^). — 17. 
Benaiah the son of Jeh&iada J see 11", was over the Cherethites and 


the Pelethites] the King's guard (cf. 2 S. i5'« 20' + v. " Qr. i K. 
j3s. ay — yifid David's sons were about the king] is the Chronicler's 
paraphrase for 2 S. "And David's sons were priests " because he 
could not understand how any could be priests except, according 
to P, the sons of Aaron (see Intro, p. 13). 

14. 2 S. 8'5 has nn after 'n^i. — 16. nn^ax p iScaKi air^nx p pnxi] 
<S, V, 2 S. 8" ^So^^!< the true reading for Ch., but since Abiathar 
is mentioned as priest before, during, and after David's reign, most 
modern scholars prefer to read in 2 S. after & Abiathar the son of 
Ahimelech (Dr.). The change, however, should go further and we 
should read in 2 S., but not in Ch., aia^nx p iSo^nx p inuxi pi-ixi 
(see Bu. Com.). — xi'ir] supported against hit;- of 2 S. by n"'-' 2 S. 
20^5 and HZ'>Z' i K. 4'. — 17. >m3n *:<;] 2 S. 8" \-n3m by error. — 
iSnn T'S D''ja'NTi] 2 S. o^jno. 

XIX-XX. 3. David's war with the Ammonites and their 
Aramean allies. — Taken from 2 S. 10'-" 11' i22«- 3» '>. The 
Chronicler has omitted the narrative of David's kindness to the 
house of Saul, 2 S. 9, because he passes over entirely David's 
relation to Saul; and he has also omitted the episode of David's 
crimes in connection with Bathsheba, 2 S. 11. 12, because it 
reflects upon the character of the King. In this story of the Am- 
monite war the direct variations from that of 2 S. are of minor 
importance, chiefly those of a magnifying character to give David 
greater glory, or to simplify the narrative (see especially below 

yy_ 6. 7. 16. 1 9"N_ 

XIX. 1-15. The King of Ammon insults David.— 1. Na- 

hash the king of the children of 'Ammon] (v. = 2 S. io= i S. ii'- '• ' 
and perhaps also 2 S. 17") was already on the throne during the 
time of Saul (i S. ii> «•), but this does riot imply a very long 
reign, since we have no exact chronology for the events of either 
Saul's or David's reign. — 2. When the Kingof Ammon died, David 
resolved to show kindness to his son Hanun because of some 
kindness which the father had shown him. What this kindness 
was, the history does not tell us. Bertheau suggests it may have 
been during the time when David was persecuted by Saul. Hiram's 
love for David led to a similar mission upon the accession of Solo- 
mon (1 K. 5'» <■)). — 3. The princes of Ammon, suspecting another 


aggressive move on the part of the Hebrew King, warned their 
lord in the scornful question, Thinkesi thou that David desires to 
honor thy father because he hath sent comforters unto thee ? — 4. 
With a reckless determination to provoke war, Hanun insulted 
the ambassadors of David. — The beard was held in high esteem 
among the Hebrews. To remove the beards and shorten the 
robes of the ambassadors to near the waist, was an insult indeed. — 
5. David saved the feelings of his messengers and upheld his own 
dignity by directing that they should remain at Jericho until their 
beards should be grown. — Jericho] (in*!'') is the well-known town 
in the lower Jordan valley, the mod. Eriha, about fourteen miles 
(as the crow flies) from Jerusalem. 

1. ti'nj] wanting in 2 S. 10', which has pjn before 1J3. Bu. after 
We. TS. omits ii:n. — 2. o] 2 S. 10' ib'so. — aox'^c] wanting in 2 
S., which has the additional phrase injj? tj and *?« instead of hy 
before vox. 2 S. lacks SvS before y\t<, though given in some MSB., and 
also irnjS pjn Sx. — 3. 2 S. 10' adds dh^j-in after pjn, and instead of 
yha v-^y; 1x3 I'lxn SjnSi ^D^S1 -i|inS ■inj.'j, 2 S. has nv^ '"^t* "ipn ni^ya 
T'Sx v\2y rx ^n n'^;;' n^onSi nSji'^i. — -i^D-rn] precedes the subject to 
throw stress upon the idea conveyed by the verbal form, Dr. TH. 
§ 135 (4). — 4. anSjii] 2 S. io< a:pi ^xn nx n'^j^i. — r-]';-^!:::^]. The Chron- 
icler has given a less offensive word than an>pina' of 2 S. (Bn.). — 5. 
^\2^'^] and O'B'Jxn hy] are wanting in 2 S. lo'. 

6-15. The first campaign. — 6. 7. The Chronicler has quite 
rewritten 2 S. lo^'', which reads "The children of Ammon sent 
and hired (of) Aram Beth-rehob and Aram Zoba twenty thou- 
sand footmen and (of) the King of Maacah a thousand men 
and (of) Ishtob twelve thousand men." We. TS. and Bu. omit 
"a thousand men," since the Chronicler has a total of 32,000. 
The sources or the motives of the changes introduced in the text 
by the Chronicler are mostly obscure. That he should convert 
footmen into chariots is obvious enough to make the victory of 
David so much greater; and possibly a similar motive, and his 
love of detail setting forth magnificence, may have led him to 
insert as the compensation the enormous sum of a thousand tal- 
ents of silver. According to 2 Ch. 25^ Amaziah hires 100,000 men 
for a hundred talents. " Ishtob " may have been omitted as obscure 


or because originally joined with Maacah or through oversight.. 
Aram-naharaim may have been substituted for Beth-rehob be- 
cause the Chronicler identified the latter with Rehob of Jos. 
1928, which as a possession of Asher could not belong to the Ara- 
means. Since Arameans from beyond the River took part in the 
second campaign (v. '«), Aram-naharaim was an easy substitute. 
The assembling of the host at Medeha is a touch of detail descrip- 
tion, but scarcely corresponds to the actual fact, since Medeba is a 
city of northern Moab. In some way it may have been confused 
with Rabbah of Ammon. — Aram-naharaim'] "Aram of the two 
rivers," i.e., probably the Tigris and the Euphrates, cf. V. 
— Aram-ma'acah] (Dt. 3* Jos. 13") was a small Aramean kingdom 
not far from Damascus in Gaulanitis. — Zobah]. Cf. i8k — 
Medeba] (Nu. 2V Is. 15= Jos. 13'- '« f; also Moabite Stone 
n^ino, line 8) was about six miles south from Heshbon. — 9. The 
children of Ammon awaited Joab's attack al the gate of the city, 
doubtless Rabbath Ammon, while the Aramean forces were at 
some distance in the field. — 10. 11. Joab prepares to attack the 
Aramean allies himself with the flower of the army, because they 
were probably the stronger, while his brother Abishai with the rest 
of the people draw up before the Ammonites. — On Jo^ab and 
Abishai* see 2'^ — 12. If the forces of Joab should show themselves 
unable to cope with their Aramean antagonists, Abishai should 
send him re-enforcements, and in case Abishai should be put to 
the worse, Joab promised to help him. — 14. 15. Joab's help, how- 
ever, was not needed, for the Ammonites lost heart when they saw 
their Aramean mercenaries in full flight, and retreated within the 
walls of their city. — And Jo'ab came to Jerusalem]. For the time 
the campaign was closed. 

6-7. vi'N^nn] 2 S. lo^ vj>N3j. — i-'n oy] 2 S. in3. The remainder of 
these verses is quite different in 2 S. {v. s.). — 8. D''-i3jn N3x S;] 2 S. 10' 
C^i3jn N^xn S3. Dr. accepts 2 S., the construction being that of ap- 
position. Bu. follows Ch. putting xas in construct, but both of these 
readings convey the wrong idea that the host consisted of mighty men. 
The original undoubtedly was anajm N-3xn So (Th., Graetz, Oe., Bn.), 
since the mighty men were David's body-guard. — 9. n^/H n.^fl] 2 S. 10' 
•y;-yn nro. Ch. has the original reading (Be., Bn.). The city is 
Rabbah, the royal city of Ammon. — 'ui DiiSoni] 2 S. repeats the 


names of the four allies. Ch. has given a natural paraphrase. — 10. 
iinNi o^jd] 2 S. lo' -iinxai d^jdc. — -iinn] 2 S. ^iin^. Bu. follows Ch. 
— 11. ia'3N] 2 S. 10'° ^jyox, which is the better spelling, so also 
V. "^ cf. ii2». — i3-i;"'i] 2 S. T^yi. — 12. nj.'ViTi''] 2 S. io'» nyitt^S. — 
"l^nya'ini] 2 S. iS jr^a'inS vn^Sm. It is impossible to determine which 
text is original (Bn.), though probably that of 2 S. — 13. n;] p-\N, 
ark, was probably the original text of 2 S. lo'^ (see Sm.). — 14, ijaS 
nanScS din] 2 S. 10" oino nnnScS. The wording of Ch. is the more 
graphic. — 15. r\r:i7\ oj] and vns] are wanting in 2 S. io'<. (6 reads 
a«ii //2£y a/jo fled from the presence of Joab and from the presence of 
his brother. Hence it is inferred that 3NV ^jds stood in the original 
text after aix (Ki.). — 2 S. has after m'j?n (2 S. T'yn) the additional 
clause pc); "ij3 S'S axr yi'^^. .The unrelieved statement of Ch. aiid 
Joab came to Jerusalem is certainly very abrupt, and more likely an 
abridgment of an original than that the text of 2 S. should be an 
expansion of an original represented in the text of Ch., as Bn. 

16-19. The second campaign. — In this the Arameans come 
with re-enforcements from the far north in order to regain their 
lost prestige. — 16. The Arameans had apparently returned to the 
north, where they rallied and sent messengers and brought out the 
Arameans that were beyond the River, i.e., the Euphrates. Accord- 
ing to 2 S. it was Hadadezer who sent for the northern Arameans. 
Either his authority e.xtended to the region of Mesopotamia or 
he only applied to the Arameans of that country for assistance. — 
Shophach] (v. ", Shobach 2 S. lo'*- '* |) the commander of 
Hadadezer's army, was placed in command of the new troops. — 
17. David in turn gathered all the fighting men of Israel together, 
crossed the Jordan, and came upon them; or better perhaps after 
2 S. (7'. i.) and came to Helam, an unknown place. — And set the 
battle in array against them]. These words are superfluous and 
have arisen from a repetition of the text (v. i.). — Apparently 
David commands in person on this expedition. — 18. The Arameans 
were again defeated. — Seven thousand chariots] 2 S. 10" "seven 
hundred chariots," an intentional change by the Chronicler to 
magnify David's victory. But the change of "forty thousand 
horsemen" (2 S.) io forty thousand footmen can only be explained 
on the ground that the Chronicler preserves the original text. 
Otherwise no footmen would be mentioned in 2 S. — 19. This 


victory was complete and the Arameans were reduced to the 
position of a subject people. 

16. liJJj] 2 S. io'5 f]n. — The Chronicler has abridged and simpHfied 
the narrative of 2 S. by omitting the clauses " and they were assembled 
together," "and they came to Helam." The latter may be a wrong 
insertion in 2 S. (Bn.). He also has retained one plural subject through- 
out referring to the Arameans, thus they sent messengers and they brought 
out, etc., where 2 S. has "Hadadezer sent messengers and brought out," 
etc. — 13iw] 2 S. 13VJ', so also v. ". — 17. ur^'^n N3m] to be read with 
2 S. riDxSn NSM, Qr. ncSn and he came to Helam (Be., Bn., Ki.). 
This proper name occurs twice in 2 S. 10, in v. '^, the gathering-place 
of the Arameans, and secondly in v. " parallel to its substitution 
here. It is possible that in the first instance Helam, read by Cornill in 
Ez. 47" after Sibraim and situated between the border of Damascus 
and the border of Hamath, is meant. If this is accepted, Helam was 
the northern rallying-point for the Arameans called from beyond the 
River (2 S. lo'^ and the reading of M upon them is correct and 2 S. 
10" should be corrected from Ch. and not vice versa. — Dn'^.x tij'm 
are to be struck out as a dittography from the following and the pre- 
ceding words. — nnnSn din n^<^pS imt ii/m] 2 S. lo"' in nxipS din idi>'m. 
<&^ follows 2 S. and * Ch., while in 2 S. 05" follows Ch. and * 2 S. 
Either there was a variant tradition which made David initiate the 
action or more likely this change was due to the Chronicler and 
some MSS. of (§ came under its influence. — 18. D'd'^n] 2 S. 10'^ niNC. — 
•hx-s v-ii.] 2 S. canij. The text of Ch. is to be preferred as original. 
Dr. and Bu. read ens. — n^on josn Ti' ^Bl-• nxi] abridged from 2 S. 
Dtt* PCM njn 1X3$ -itt' l^itt' PN1. — 19. 2 S. 10" has noScn So with naj? 
'n in apposition as the subject of ini^l— hdn n'^i imay^i T-n d;] 2 S. 
INIM anayi Snt.;*i px. The Chronicler is more concerned with David 
than Israel and has paraphrased accordingly. 

XX. 1-3. The conquest of Ammon. — 1. And it came to pass, 
at the time of the return of the year, at the time when kings go out] 
is doubtless what the Chronicler copied from 2 S. 11', but there 
the original was "at the time when the messengers went forth," 
i.e., a year after David first sent messengers to Hanun, 19^ = 2 S. 
10' (see Sm.).—And Jo\ih led forth the strength of the host and 
destroyed the land of the children of 'Amnion, and he came and 
besieged Rabbah] a paraphrase of 2 S. "And David sent Joab, 
and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the 
children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah." The Chronicler 


sharpens the narrative by making it more individualistic. — It 
seems a curious oversight on the part of the Chronicler to have 
retained from 2 S. Now David was abiding in Jerusalem, the words 
introducing the story of Bathsheba and out of place in the Chron- 
icler's narrative, since in the following verses David is clearly in 
the field with the army. — And Jo'ab smote Rabbah and destroyed it\ 
Cf. 2 S. 12^5 where the text is faulty (see Sm.). According to what 
seems to have been the original text of 2 S., Joab captured a 
fortification which protected the city's water. With victory thus 
assured, he sent for David that the latter might have the glory of 
taking the city. By the Chronicler's abridgment, the King appears 
abruptly on the scene in time to take part in the sacking of the 
city. — Rabbah] (2 S. 11' Am. i'< Je. 49' and frequent) the mod. 
'Amman, thirteen and one-half miles north-east from Heshbon, 
twenty-eight and one-half miles east from the Jordan, was the 
capital of the Ammonites (cf. Baed.'' pp. 142 ff.; Buhl, GAP. 
p. 260; and on the history of the place Schlir. Jewish People, II. i, 
pp. iigff.).—2. And David took the crown of Milcom*] the national 
god of Ammon (i K. ii'- " 2 K. 2313) and probably distinct from 
Molech (see Moore, EBi. III. col. 3085). The name has not been 
found outside the OT. If this emendation is correct, this state- 
ment implies that an image of the deity was found at Rabbah. 
A parallel to the idol's crown has been found in that of the Delian 
Apollo. — And he found the weight^ a talent of gold and in it was a 
precious stone\ The weight is probably an exaggeration, since it 
came upon David's head, i.e., it was worn by him. — 3. This verse 
has been interpreted to mean that David tortured the captives, and 
also that he put them at forced labour. The latter seems the more 
likely, hence we render, And he set * them at saws and at picks 
and at axes. 

1. pnS'] wanting in 2 S. 11'. On other variations from the text of 
2 S. see above. — 2=2 S. 12'". — Tin] supplied by the Chronicler. — 
d::';'c] their king, so also 2 S. (&^^ MoXxo(X)/i ^aciKiws avTwp, and ■ 
in 2 S. MeXxoX toO ^acnX^ws avrQi' (other MSS., MeXxo^t, — w/x). B 
Tulit aiitem David coronam Melchom de capite ejus. Jewish com- 
mentators interpret as a proper name, d';';'D (cf. 1 K. ii'- " 2 K. 
23"), adopted by We., Dr., Sm., Kau., Oe., Bn., and others. — nssDM 


S'iis'd] better "^pccn xscm (Bn.). 2 S. n'^pti-c. — na] wanting in l| of 
2 S., but given in &, ®, H, and necessary (Dr., Bu., Bn.). — 3. •\^'•'^] 2 
S. 12" D^^'^^. The text of Ch., a aw. \ey., was preferred as original by 
Be., Ke., Zoe., but that of 2 S. correctly by Ki., Bn. — .-injD3] 2 S. 
Srnjn nnuc, axes of iron. This latter is the true text. 2 S. has the 
additional unintelligible clause pSoa D.-nx n''2yni. 

4-8. Philistine champions slain. — Corresponds with 2 S. 
21"-". The Chronicler passes over the story of Tamar and 
Absalom, Absalom's rebellion, and the atoning vengeance on the 
house of Saul, recorded in 2 S., as foreign to the purpose of his 
history. This brought him to the account of the slaying of the 
four sons of a Philistine giant, 2 S. 21 '5-". The account of the 
destruction of the first the Chronicler omits probably because he 
thought it unworthy of David that he should wax faint and require 
to be rescued by one of his men, 2 S. 2i'5-'7. He gives then simply 
the story of the death of three sons of the giant, but departs from 
the narrative of 2 S. by changing the statement "Elhanan slew 
Goliath the Gittite" into "Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath 
the Gittite," v. ^ This change by the Chronicler was undoubtedly 
made to reconcile this story with that of i S. 17, where Goliath the 
Gittite falls by the hand of David. The discrepancy in S. is due 
to the different sources of the stories. — 4. Sihbecai the Hushathite 
(2 S. 21" I Ch. 11=' and the corrected text of the parallel 2 S. 23" 
I Ch. 271' f ), i.e., Sibbecai from the town of Hushah (cf. 4*). He 
was of the Judean family of Zerah. — Sippai f ] {Saph 2 S. 2i'« f) 
otherwise unknown. — 5. The place of this war, Gob in 2 S., was 
probably omitted because obscure, just as Gezer was substituted 
in the preceding verse {v. i.). — Elhanan, the son of Jair] (2 S. 
2i'»; and another of David's chiefs 2 S.. 232^ = 1 Ch. ii^^ •{•). — 
Lahni f] is a fiction from the lehem of Bethlehem in the text of 2 
S. 21" (v. i.)— Goliath the Gittite] (i S. 17^- '' 21'° 22'° 2 S. 21'' f). 
— The staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam]. It is a mark 
of the Chronicler's carelessness that he should have retained this 
clause descriptive of Goliath when, according to his text, Goliath 
merely identifies Lahmi.— 6. 7. The unnamed giant was slain by 
Jojtathafi the son of Shime'a. This nephew of David is ap- 
parently called Jonadab in 2 S. 13' "■. 


4. nayni] a corruption of 2 S. 21" nij? ■•nm which C6 has (Be., Zoe., 
Oe., Ki., Bn.). — ^rj3] 2 S. 3J2 wi Gob. The Chronicler probably sub- 
stituted Gezer for the obscure Gob, which is likely the original form. 
It is considered the original here by Zoe. and Ki., while Be. preferred 
Gezer in both places. But Gezer was a Canaanite city. Klo. reads 
Gath. — Nfi-in n^^^'a •<dd pn] (many mss. and editions d^ndih) 2 S. nt< 
7^3^n nSo Ti'X ']D. — r;2y\] wanting in 2 S., and probably an addition 
of the Chronicler (Be., Zoe., and Bn. think the word may have fallen 
from the text of 2 S.). — 5. 2 S. 21'=' has 3iJ3 after nrnSc. — mp^ ja ]}n^K 
n-'Sj inn >i2rh dn (Qr. n''>")] 2 S. n^Sj pn ■'cnSn n^'a np< p jopSn (omit- 
ting a''jnN after •<'\'J\ which is a dittography from the following clause). 
The Chronicler has changed the original text given in 2 S. to avoid a 
discrepancy with i S. 17, where David slays Goliath {v. s.). '\'<y is 
clearly to be preferred to n;*' (Bu.). Ba. favours the assumption 
that Goliath is a title and not a proper name and thus harmonises 
the two statements concerning the death of Goliath. — 6. hid] 2 S. 21'" 
pnD a corruption (Dr., Bu.). — >3ini oi-isry n'cn w vryaxsi] 2 S. nyaxNi 
lODa j;3-\xi Dnr;? Z'-yy w v'?j-i nvasNi vt- probably an amplification 
of the original. — V^u] 2 S. I'^v — 7. n>'ds'] so Qr. in 2 S. 2121, but Kt. 
'';;na' and i S. 16' nrr. — 8. n'^ij Sx] 2 S. 21'* n'?^ hVn ny3-\N pn. The 
Chronicler has omitted the numeral because he has omitted the story 
of the death of the first of the four brothers. nSij should be pointed 
n'^ij, Ges. § bgt, cj. 3*. SN = nSN these, v. BDB. 

XXI-XXIX. The preparations for the building of the 
Temple and the personnel of the servants of the Temple. 

— In these chapters David is said to have made such prepara- 
tions for the building of the Temple as to make him deserve the 
entire credit for its erection. It is to him that the Temple site is 
revealed in consequence of the sinful numbering of the people and 
the propitiatory sacrifice (2i'-22'). The material necessary for 
the building and its furnishings, greatly in excess of what could 
possibly have been used, is represented as collected by him, gold, 
silver, bronze, iron, timber, hewn stones (22''-''- "), and even precious 
stones, with variegated stuff and fine linen (see on 29^), in astonish- 
ing abundance. Workmen in wood and in stone, in gold, in 
silver, in bronze, and in iron are also supplied without number (see 
on 22" '•). Even the plans are prepared in advance and delivered 
to Solomon by David with proper public ceremony (28" «•). 
The princes are commanded to give the young King all possible 
assistance in carrying out the great undertaking (22" '■), Solomon 

XXI. 1-8.] DAVID'S CENSUS 245 

himself being admonished to conduct himself piously to secure 
prosperity for the work (28 ^ '•). Thus every problem is anticipated 
and solved by David. Solomon becomes merely the representa- 
tive who carries out the predetermined plans, and is thus robbed 
of the credit for that performance which the earlier historical 
writings put down as his greatest giory. The organisation of the 
Temple servants, which grew up during the long period between the 
completion of the Temple and the post-exilic period of the writer, is 
also credited to David in defiance of historical facts. 

Modern critics have usually considered the greater part of cc. 21-29 
to be from the Chronicler (so Ki., SBOT.). But recently, Biichler 
has come to the conclusion that cc. 22. 28/. are a part of an extensive 
extra-canonical source which he thinks the Chronicler used here and 
elsewhere (Zur Geschichte der Tempelmusik und der Tempelpsalmen, 
ZAW. 1899, pp. 130/.). Benzinger carries Biichler's position still 
further, maintaining that c. 21 (ultimately taken from 2 S. 24), except- 
ing w. »• 28 ff.^ is from the same source, but he ascribes 22"-" 28''» 
14-18. ao f. ag'o-ao to the Chronicler {Kom. pp. 61, 62, 64). Kittel now 
adopts Benzinger's position (Kom.). Biichler's whole theory is based 
upon radical textual emendation which discredits his results (/. c. pp. 
97 ff-)- The Chronicler's omission, in the preceding chapters, of 
everything which is in any way compromising to the character of 
David, properly prepares for this presentation of the crowning acts of 
his life. The passage must be late post-exilic, and since we find 
many indications of the Chronicler's hand (v. i.), we can see no good 
reason why practically the whoh section should not have been written 
by him. 

XXI. 1-XXII. 1. David's census and the plague.— This 

passage is dependent upon 2 S. 24, but deviates from it in a 
number of important particulars, (i) Satan (v. ') instead of Yah- 
weh (2 S. 24') is the instigator of the census. (2) The ofi&cers of the 
army, there associated with Joab (2 S. 24^), are omitted, and also 
the description of the country traversed and the time occupied 
in taking the census (2 S. 245-8). (3) The results of the census 
differ (cp. v. ^ with 2 S. 24'). (4) According to Chronicles no 
count of Levi and Benjamin was made (v. «), while according to 
2 S. all the tribes seem to have been counted. (5) David sees the 
destroying angel "between earth and heaven" (v. '«), while in 2 S. 


he is simply described as "by the threshing-floor" (2 S. 24'«). (6) 
The elders appear with David, and both are clothed with sack- 
cloth and fall prostrate (v. •«). This description is wanting in 
Samuel. (7) Chronicles also adds the representation that Oman 
on seeing the angel went into hiding with his four sons (v. ^o). (8) 
The price paid for the threshing-floor varies (cp. v. " with 2 S. 
24^*). (g) The fire from heaven is not mentioned in 2 S. (10) 
Vv. 26_22« are wanting in 2 S. Although these variations are 
extensive and Chronicles has reproduced 2 S. 24 in a freer manner 
than in the earlier parallels, there is little ground for the view that 
the Chronicler must have used an intermediate source. Of the 
main variations, (i), (5), (6), (7), and (9) might be expected from 
any late writer including the Chronicler; (2) is an abridgment 
most natural from him; (3) rather reveals the Chronicler after the 
gloss has been omitted (see v. '); (4) is in accord with his religious 
attitude. Even if an earlier hand were certain, (8) must be an 
exaggeration due to the Chronicler, while (10) is recognised as 
coming from his hand (except 22', which is certainly an integral 
part of the preceding paragraph, v. i.). 

Benzinger, followed by Kittel, holds that since these variations cannot 
be explained on any one principle, neither by the theology of the Chron- 
icler, overlooking exceptions, nor as an abridgment, the Chronicler did 
not take the chapter directly from 2 S. However, too much stress should 
not be laid on the variations in this case, since the Chronicler would 
doubtless have omitted this account as doing David discredit had he 
not found a new use for it, i.e., to show how the site for the Temple was 
selected, a thing not hinted in 2 S. The changes seem natural enough 
from the Chronicler. He abridges what is to David's discredit (2 S. 
jQi-io) and expands that which does him credit (2 S. 24'^). 

1-8. The census. — 1. Now Satan rose up against Israel and 
moved David to number Israel]. According to 2 S. 24' Yahweh 
moved David to number the people. Some commentators have 
held that Satan has fallen from the text of 2 S. (Ew., Zoe., Oe., 
et al.), but this finds no support in textual criticism. The intro- 
duction of Satan, who appears in Jb. i« 2> as an angel bringing 
complaints about men before God (cf. also Zc. 3' ^), is due to the 
Chronicler, who desired to remove the ofi'ence caused by the state- 

XXI. 1-8.] DAVID'S CENSUS 247 

merit that Yahweh was the direct instigator of an act portrayed 
as sinful. David sinned by ordering a census to be taken without 
having been commanded to do so by God {cf. Ex. 3o"-'« and the 
lustratio populi Rotnani, introduced by Servius TuUius, which 
took place on Mars-field after each census, see Varro, de Re Rustica, 
ii, I.; Livius, i. 44, cf. iii. 22; Dionysius, iv. 22). According to 
Thenius, Zoe., Ba., el al., the arrogance of David revealed in the 
census was the principal cause of Yahweh's anger. But such 
conduct, though possibly the basis of the popular view taken of a 
census, is not hinted in David's prayers (w. '• "); the census is 
regarded by the writer as a sin per se. A connection between an 
epidemic and the crowding of people in narrow quarters for 
enumeration has been found by some. — For the use of Israel 
instead of "Israel and Judah" (2 S. 24>) see below, v.^. — 2. And 
David said to Jo'ab, and to the princes of the people, go number 
Israel]. The census was a military measm-e, hence was entrusted 
to Joab and only those "that drew sword" (v. =^) were numbered. 
On Jo^ah, cf. 2'«. — From Be'ersheba' even to Dan] i. e., the extreme 
southern and northern limits (see Buhl, GAP. pp. 69 /.). Beer- 
sheba, the modem Bir-es-Seba\ on north bank of Wady es-Seba' 
(cf. 4=8), lay twenty-eight miles (as the crow flies) south-west from 
Hebron, and was an ancient sanctuary (cf. Am. 5'). For 
bibhcal derivations of the name, cf. Gn. 21=" (E), 26^ (J) (see 
Buhl, GAP. p. 183, with references there). Dan, the modern 
Tell-el-Kddt, had the original name of Laish (t^i^) Ju. 18", 
Leshem (DU^^) in Jos. 19". It lay in the extreme north of Pales- 
tine, and according to Onom. (2nd ed. Lag. 249. 32, 275. ss) 
was four Roman miles west from Panias (see Buhl, GAP. pp. 
238/., with references there; also GAS. HGHL. pp. 473- 480, 
who identifies Dan with the modern Banias). For the Chronicler's 
habit of defining limits from south to north, cf. 2 Ch. 19^ 30^ Ne. 
II'", also I Ch. 135. — 3. AndJo'ab said. Let Yahweh increase his 
people as much as one hundred tiynes, is not my lord the king, are 
not all of them servants of my lord?^] (v. i.). Popular superstition 
connected a plague, and consequently a large decrease of the 
population, with the taking of a census. Joab diplomatically 
called this fact to his lord's attention by wishing for him Yahweh's 


blessing in a great increase of people. He also assured the King 
of the loyalty of his subjects. — Why will he be a cause of giiill unto 
Israel?^ i.e., the community guilt which results from the sins of 
one or a part of its members, cf. Lv. 43 Ezr. lo'"- ''. — 5. And all 
Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand that drew 
sword]. This number falls short of those given in 2 S. 24' (800,000 
+ 500,000 = 1,300,000) by 200,000. This decrease was probably 
intentional on the part of the Chronicler, since he had excepted 
Levi and Benjamin (v. ^) from the census, an explanation which is 
favoured by the round number of the decrease, 100,000 for each 
tribe, or 200,000 in all. V. "'> is a gloss (v. i.). The numbers in 
both lists (2 S. and here) are at variance with those in Nu. i. 2. and 
26. 6. This verse, wanting in 2 S., is from the Chronicler. Its 
historicity was maintained by Be., Ke., Zoe. The Chronicler 
excepted Levi because the law required that this tribe should not 
be numbered among the children of Israel (Nu. !■", cf. 2''), i.e., 
for military service. They might be numbered by themselves, 
however, for religious purposes (Nu. 3" 26"). Some commenta- 
tors have held that Benjamin was not numbered because the census 
was interrupted (27") by a countermand from David (Be., Ke., 
Zoe., Oe.). We., followed by Bn., makes the ground of the 
omission of Benjamin the fact that the holy city lay within its 
borders. But Jerusalem was sanctified by the Temple and this was 
before even the site of the Temple had been consecrated through 
the sacrifices of David. The Chronicler would scarcely overlook 
this fact when in v. '" he explains why David sacrificed in Jerusa- 
lem. It is more probable that he was influenced by the fact that 
the tabernacle of Yahweh, which the Chronicler considered the 
centre of worship in David's time, was set up at Gibeon within the 
borders of Benjamin (Jos. 18"). — 7. Therefore he (God) smote 
Israel] anticipates the account of the plague. According to 2 S. 
24'° it is David's heart which smites him for his sin, and leads to 
his repentant cry to Yahweh, while here God first shows his dis- 
pleasure. It is not necessary to suppose that the Chronicler 
wished to represent that David's confession was wrung from him 
by the appearance of the pestilence (Ba.). He simply emphasised 
the divine leading in establishing the site for the Temple. 



1. icyi] rise up, a late usage for earlier Dip, cf. 2 Ch. 20" Dn. 8" 
10" II" (BDB. -icj? Qal. 6 c; 1. 88). Zoe. following (§ Utti, rendered 
stood, but (&^ and other variations of (& have<7Tr], B consurrexit, 
& >CLD • — ® Sn-i^-^ Sj? mjdd " D>pN is an attempt to harmonise with 2 S. 
24'. — pdm] the same form in 2 S. 24', but there + 3 against, while 
here + inf., cf. 2 Ch. 32" (=2 K. 18^2= Is. 3618) where only in 
Ch. the inf. follows. Also so used in 2 Ch. 18^, which is certainly from 
the Chronicler, cf. 2 Ch. 32'^ 18" (without doubt from the Chronicler) |. 
— 2. ■^-^1] 2 S. 242 ■|'?cn. Same change in vv. '■ "• 21=2 S. 24'- 20. 20. 
The Chronicler seems to prefer iin, cf. 17' = 2 S. 7', 17'= 2 S. 7^ 172 = 
2 S. 7', 11^=2 S. 5^. — Dj?n na' 'jxi ^nv Sn] 2 S. 24^ -\b'n '7''nn lir aN'r Sn 
iDN. Be. read doubtfully ins< ncN Sinn >itt' Sni aNP Sn. Ki. follows 
(6 Kal vp6i Toiis dpxovTas ttjs Svvd/xeus. — nsD idS for the unusual Dir 
and np3 fin sense of muster) in 2 S. 24^. eitt* appears also in 2 Ch. 
16' (intensive stem) J. — p nyi yaa* in^c]. This order elsewhere only 
in 2 Ch. 30'. 2 S. 242 has y^ir -in3 ij?i pn, so also Ju. 20' i S. 3"' 
2 S. 3'" 17" 242- '5 I K. 55 Am. 8". — n;j-iNi] cohortative, c/. Ges. 
§ 48c for form, § io8d for use. — 3. ic;'] 2 S. 24' Djjn. The suffix makes 
Yahweh the real ruler. This is the Chronicler's stand-point, cf. especially 
29". — anj] 2 S. 24' onai on^. The repetition is customary in S. (cf. 2 S. 
12*). The Chronicler's use corresponds to that in Dt. i". — 'J^N xSn 
onaj;'? >:ii<h dSo nSon] is at variance with 2 S. 24* niKi ^'?D^ ^jin ^j^yi, 
which is a more attractive reading. Be. thought the text in Ch. was the 
result of reconstructing a corrupt text by conjecture. Oe. preferred the 
reading in 2 S., because the increase of one hundred times is not yet a 
fact. Although Bn. thinks (&, Kal oi dcpOaX/xol Kvplov imv pX^irovres, may 
have been corrected from 2 S., he regards it as probable that the text of 2 S. 
was also original in Ch. The continuation of (S wavres tc^ Kvplifi p.ov 
iraidei makes it altogether probable that ($ is corrected from 2 S., hence 
has no independent value. Origen's text (Field) contained only this 
last clause. iSen •■jin n'^h may better be taken as a nominal sentence, 
with ijiN as the subject and iSnn as the predicate, which should be 
translated "Is not my lord the king" (cf. U^Sd mri' Is. t,^'^, nin^ dn 
oinSsn I K. 18"; and on the rather unusual use of nS with a nominal 
clause Ges. § 1524^). A i may have fallen out before oSo, but is not 
indispensable. nS.i must be understood before the second clause as in 
Ju. 9" I S. 920- 2' and probably also in Gn. 20^. This gives a smooth 
reading and explains the double question which follows: why does my 
lord require this thing, for is he not the king (over these or a hundred 
times as many), and why will he be a cause of guilt unto Israel, for are 
they not his servants.— nsa-N] cf. Ezr. lo'"- ", also 2 Ch. 24" 28"'- "■ 
u. 13 3225 Ezr. 90- '■ >3. 15; elsewhere Ps. 69* Lv. 4' 5"- ^s 22I6 Am. 8"; 
Torrey says of it "used chiefly by the Chronicler " (CHV. p. 19, on 
Ezr. 9«) (1. 7).— 4. Abridged from 2 S. 24«- «. ioa'''i of 2 S. 248 is replaced 


by the more common iSnn^i. Both are used parallel in Jb. 1' 2', v. s. 
V. ». — 5. ^>n] 2 S. 24' I'jsn i/. j. v. "^ (text. n.). — d^s'?n nSx Sxnir^ S3 ^mi 
3-\n T\h'i? tfiN r|'?s nxDi] '?STi'> Va is certainly used for the whole kingdom 
in V. *. It will also be noticed that in v. ^ the Chronicler used Sni:^'' in the 
general sense to include the min> pni Snib" n« of 2 S. 241. The writer's 
intention seems to have been to ignore the separation implied in the term 
"Israel and Judah." David's kingdom was one kingdom, hence Ssna'"' S3 
seems to be used in the same sense here. V. ^^^ then is a gloss and 
the internal evidence given for this is supported by its absence from (&. 
(The phrase could have been lost from the text of (g (or its underlying 
Heb.) by homceoteleuton, but the other exadence is strong against its origi- 
nality.) The Chronicler certainly would not reduce the number of 2 S. 
243 from 500,000 to 470,000 (Bn.). The glossator was influenced by 2 S. 
24». — 6. 3>".-iJ |]. — 7. 'n S;] cf. same construction in Gn. 21'' and more 
usually without S37 2 S. 11" Gn. 38"'.— 8. D'nSxn] 2 S. 24"> nin\ A 
frequent though not consistent change of the Chronicler, cf. v. ''= 2 S. 
24", also I Ch. ii'" i4>"- "• ><• 15 172 3= respectively 2 S. 23" s^'- "■ "■ " 
7'- ♦. See also for further instances Dr. LOT.^^, p. 21 n. 

9-13. Gad's commission. — 9. And Yahweh spake unto Gad 
David's seer]. Gad is mentioned twice elsewhere in Ch., 29^' 
2 Ch. 29"; cf. also 255 where Heman is said to be the King's seer. 
Gad figures as a prophetic counsellor of David whilst a fugitive 
from Saul, i S. 22^ f-— 12. For triads of divine judgments cf. 
Lv. 26" '• I K. 8" 2 Ch. 20' Je. 14'' ''■ 21'-' 24'° 27«- '' 29" «■ 
22»-« 3417 38= 42"- « 44'' Ez. 51= 6" ' ; also y* i2'6; for the angel 
of Yahweh as an expression for pestilence, 2 K. 195'. The 
Chronicler brings out the contrast between "the sword of man" 
and "the sword of Yahweh" which serves to make David's 
answer (v. '^) clearer than in 2 S. 24'*. 

10. n-jj] 2 S. 24'' Sau. <j| SLpu in both places. We., Bu., et al., 
adopt the reading of Ch. in both places.— 11. S^p] not in 2 S.; an 
Aram, loan-word, late (BDB.), cf. 12^9 2 Ch. 29"'- « Ezr. 8^0 (1. 103).— 
12. wyif ir-^ii'] 2 S. 24" a^jiy J73a' but (6 rpla erri. The reading of 
Ch. is original (Be., Zoe., et a/.).— hddj] an error for nsDj; 2 S. 24" 
rip:, <S (petiyeiv <Te, ^ tefugere (Be., Oe., Ki., Bn.).— =ni pjs'cS 1>3>in 3-\m] 
2 S. 24" .-^rn ONI I3n Nini. Zoe. prefers the reading of Ch., and Oe. the 
text of 2 S. We. (on 2 S. 24''), followed by Ki. and accepted 
in BDB, holds that nja'C arose from a misreading of nrn dni, which 
was original in Ch. This is an attractive possibility owing to the 
general resemblance of the letters, but the Chronicler introduces the first 
two alternatives with '•>:'-bn, hence we should naturally expect the text as 


given. Moreover, the second clause in 2 S., iD-n Nin, shows that some- 
thing more than the flight (iDj) of David was necessary to make this 
punishment equivalent to the others. TaMN anm adds nothing not 
already expressed in ins. It is far simpler to suppose a i to have fallen 
out after *?, as the sense demands, so ($^, (5, hence the clause read origi- 
nally PJirn iS I'D^ix a-\ni a7td the sword of thine enemies overtaking thee. 
Cp. for an exact parallel Je. 42^'. The same use of the participle occurs 
in the last clause of the third alternative (rr'na'n). — 13. hSsn] 2 S. 24^* 
nSoJ, but there <S ifj.Tr€( 

14-17. God's judgment and David's repentance. — 14. And 

there fell (^3"'*) from Israel] because they became the victims of 
the sword of Yahweh; 2 S. 24'^ "And there died (niS**!) from the 
people " in consequence of the pestilence. The Chronicler em- 
phasises the divine side {v. s. v. '). — 15. A}td he (God) repented 
him of the evil]. For repentance of God cf. Gn. 6« Ex. 32K i S. 
15" Je. 18'" 42'" Jon. 3'". — And the angel of Yahweh was standing 
by the threshing-floor of Oman the Jebusite]. The threshing-floor 
of Oman lay on the top of Mt. Zion, where later the Temple 
was built {cf. 22'). 2 S. does not connect the incident with the site 
of the Temple. On Jebusite, cf. 1* 1 1^ Oman is the only Jebusite 
mentioned by name. — Verse 16, not found in the parallel text of 
2 S., is an embellishment by the Chronicler based upon the phrase 
"when he saw the angel that smote the people" (2 S. 24") (Be.). 
In the older narratives the angels of Yahweh have a human form 
{cf. Gn. 18 Ju. 6" ^- ly °), but here the angel hovers between 
earth and heaven. 

15. inVd o^nSKn n-'B'ii] 2 S. 24" ixScn it" rhv^\ The difl&culty 
with the text of Ch. lies in the indefinite ix*^!:, since the angel has 
already been mentioned (v. i") and has accomplished his work outside of 
Jerusalem (v. '<). Moreover, God gives this command only to counter- 
mand it at once. Be., followed later by Oe. and Bn., pointed out that the 
■ reading in Ch. arose in the following manner : 'n it' (2 S. 24"), in a text 
which did not separate words, was mistakenly read nini and this the 
Chronicler changed to D^n^sn, according to his custom (v. s. v. s). How- 
ever, the text of Ch. should not be changed, for it is the original of the 
Chronicler. — i-fn^nD] other MSS. and editions '2, (^ ws,^ f^^ but S '2. — 
nini nxi n^ns'nai] a clause not found in 2 S. but necessary here to explain 
why God sent an angel against Jerusalem and immediately repented 
(Be., Bn.).— J-i] enough, cf. 1 K. 19^ Gn. 45".— jjin] 2 S. 24'« Kt. 


njiiNH, Qr. njinxri. 2 S. 24^^ Kt. n;:-\s or njns Qr. as above. 
Elsewhere in 2 S. 24 always as Qr. (S 'Opva in all cases both 2 S. 


and Ch. g> always ^], — 16. a^cii'n ^^ai ins-n pa] so also (B, QI; 
other Heb. MSS. V">x^ T^i D^crn pa, so 1, #.—17. nijjrrS nS isjai] 
Be. and more recently Ki. regard these words, which are not found in 
2 S., as a gloss, but such an accumulation of clauses is characteristic of 
the Chronicler. 

18-27. The purchase of Oman's floor and the expiatory 
sacrifice. — 18. And the angel of Yahweh commanded Gad]. The 
appearance of the angel of Yahweh consecrated this spot, cf. Gn. 
28'8 Ju. 6='"- 13I6 i9f. In 2 S. Yahweh gives the command, but in the 
narratives in Judges the angel commanded sacrifices to be made. 
These may have influenced the representation of the Chronicler. 
— 20. And Oman turned about and saw the angel; and his four 
sons with him hid themselves] since to see the angel of Yahweh was 
the same as seeing Yahweh himself, which portended death (cf. 
Ju. 6" 13" Tob. i2'« '■ also Gn. 323° Ex. 20" ^T)^" Is. 6^).— Now 
Oman was threshing wheat] is wanting in 2 S. 24, but might easily 
be inferred from v. ^o (cf. the similar addition in (g of 2 S. 24'' 
Kal rjfiepai Oepia/xov irvpwv) and appears to have been intro- 
duced by the Chronicler in view of the following statement of 
V. 2' and Oman went out from the threshing-floor. V. ="'* ends 
abruptly with Oman and his sons in hiding, but in a similar 
fashion in v. '^ David and the elders are left fallen upon their 
faces because of the presence of the angel. — 21. And as David 
came unto Oman] is wanting in 2 S. but is made necessary by the 
insertion of v. =". — 22. The Chronicler fittingly makes the King 
speak first. — Place] more than the actual area of the threshing- 
floor (Ba.), which would have been sufficient for an altar (2 S. 
242' « ) but not for the site of the Temple. This change goes 
with the increase in the purchase price (v."). — 23. And wheat 
for the meal offering] is not found in 2 S. In later times the 
meal-ofifering {cf. Lv. 2' -'6) was united with the bumt-ofifering 
{cf. Nu. 15' ^ ). The sacrifice recorded in Ju. 13" may have 
influenced the Chronicler. — 25. And David gave Oman for the 
place six hundred shekels of gold by weight]. According to 2 S. 
24=' David paid ffty shekels of silver for the threshing-floor and 


the oxen. It is not likely that we have here two variant tradi- 
tions, nor that one is a corruption of the other. If fifty shekels of 
silver is too small a price, by comparison with Gn. 2y\ six hundred 
shekels of gold is certainly too high. We have here a characteristic 
exaggeration of the Chronicler (Th.) not only for the sake of exalt- 
ing David (We.) but also to emphasise the value of the Temple 
site (v. s. V. 22), which should not be paid for in silver but in gold. 
(Note the later descriptions of Solomon's Temple, in which nearly 
everything is described as covered with gold.) While no im- 
portance can be attached to the ancient harmonising effort whereby 
each of the twelve tribes was made to pay fifty shekels, and thereby 
the six hundred in Chronicles was accounted for (Raschi), this sug- 
gests what may have been the Chronicler's reasoning in reaching 
six hundred shekels as the price of the Temple site. The Chron- 
icler makes David pay fifty shekels of gold for each tribe since the 
Temple should be the place of worship for all. — 26. And he called 
upon Yahweh and he answered him with fire from heaven upon 
the altar of burnt-offering]. God showed his acceptance of David's 
sacrifices with fire from heaven as at the consecration of Aaron 
(Lv. Q'S cf. also I K. i8=< '^ 2 Ch. y 2 Mac. 2"' »•). This altar is 
thus put on a par with the former one (Ki.). 

19. im3] better ioid 2 S. 24", Be., Oe., Gin.— mn^ os-a nan iii'n] 
2 S. 24" nin> nix la'.SD. This change was necessitated by the altera- 
tion in V. 18. Gad spoke " in the name of Yahweh " but not at his 
direct command {v. s. v. '»). — 20. Be. corrected this verse from 2 S. 
2420. Ke. correctly asserted that v. ^o is not parallel to 2 S. 2420, but 
the latter is reproduced in v. ". The result of Be.'s correction is a 
doublet in w. 20 and 21. — ^xSon is rendered by (&^ rbv ^affCKia ( = 
iSdh), and n^xanPD being incomprehensible after I'^cn is transliter- 
ated fiedaxa^eLv, but translated by ^ (which has tov /SatriXea like ^) 
Kpv^oixevoi. (gL also has rbv ^aaiXia, but Tropevo/xivovs for D'NanPD. 
H, QI, follow M. Ki. regards iScn as the original reading, and the 
mistake by which it was read iNSan led to the insertion of cxannc, 
which he supposes to have been originally O'dShpc (SBOT.), thus 
finding three steps (Kom.) in the development of the verse, (i) As 
Oman turned about, he saw the king going about, etc. (2) As Oman 
turned about he saw the angel going about, etc. (3) ^5 Oman 
turned about and he saw the angel, his four sons hid themselves with 
him, etc. Furthermore, he regards the verse as a gloss in its original 


form, since it conflicts with v. 2'. The theory falls from its own 
weight. No reason is apparent why a glossator should insert this 
verse in Ki.'s original form, since it adds nothing and explains nothing. 
(8 has the supposed original form l'^"^, and also the reading a^xannn, 
which is regarded as the result of misreading ^^!SDn for nScn. (See Tor. 
Ezra Studies, p. 112.) The Chronicler desired to add more witnesses 
to the presence of the angel at this spot, since this fact consecrated 
the Temple site, and for this purpose the narrative is recorded. The 
introduction of the four sons of Oman is thus accounted for. Other- 
wise the angel plays a much more important part in this narrative 
than in the account in 2 S. {cf. vv. '2. le. is. 27= respectively 2 S. 24"- "■ 
18. 25)_ — 22. ^S in:n nSd 1°^^] </. Gn. 23'. — 23. D''j-\i!:n] threshing 
sledges. For a description of them, see Bn. Arch. pp. 209/., Now. 
Arch. i. pp. 232/., DB. I. p. 50. — 24. niSyni] Bn. and Ki. correct to 
ni'7]jn'7 on basis of (&, but ni'?>'n may be an inf. abs. in ni as other n'V 
verbs, of. 2 Ch. 7' nnini. — 27. pj f] is a Persian loan-word (see 

28-XXII. 1. The site for the Temple determined.—^/ 

that time, when David saw that Yahweh had answered him in 
the threshing-floor of Oman the Jebusite when he sacrificed there 
. . . then David said, This is the house of Yahweh God and this 
is the altar of burnt- offering for Israel.] V. ^^ has usually been 
understood at that time when David saw, etc., then he was wont to 
sacrifice there (Luther, Be., Ke., Oe.). Ba. rightly points out that 
V. =' is a protasis to which 22' forms the apodosis, w. '"• '" being 
parenthetical. The translation he was wont to sacrifice there is 
doubtful, since the fear of the angel of Yahweh (v. '") did not 
prevent David from going to Gibeon to sacrifice after this event. 
Before the Temple was built Solomon sacrificed at Gibeon (2 Ch. 
i^). — It follows that V. 2« and 22', as protasis and apodosis, cannot 
come from different sources (as Bn. and Ki. maintain). The unity 
of this section is also shown by the fact that this is the house of 
Yahweh God (cf. Gn. 281') and this is the altar of burnt-offering 
for Israel (22') are brought out in contrast to the tabernacle of 
Yahweh which Moses made in the wilderness and the altar of burnt- 
offering respectively, which were at that time in the high place at 
Gibeon (v. =''). The purpose of these verses is to show how, as a 
consequence of the census and plague, the threshing-place of 
Oman became the consecrated site for the Temple. 


29. tii'3J3] other mss. '2 irx, so QI. — 30. r;3: J] elsewhere in Niph. 
Dn. 8" Est. 76; in Pi. Jb. 3^+7 times, i S. i6'< '= jg. 2i< Ps. iS' 
= 2 S. 225. — XXII. 1. D^n'?Nn nin^] c/. 291. The Chronicler seems 
to be fond of this designation for the Deity, i Ch. ]7'«- " has nini 
DinSx for mni 1J^K in 2 S. 7''- "; cf. also 'nh '■> 22", 'a '1 2820 2 Ch. 
i9 ()ii. 41. 42 26'8 (all probably from the Chronicler); also 32" (which 
Bn. and Ki. ascribe to a Midrashic source). Possibly a^^SJ<^ was 
inserted by a late editor (see BDB. n-'n^ II. i. h), but then it is strange 
that this editor should have chosen almost exclusively those passages 
which seem on other grounds to belong to the Chronicler. Of course 
the possibility remains that the Chronicler himself inserted a^^'?^<^ in 
an older source, though this is not likely. 

XXII. 2-19. David's preparation for the Temple.— This 

chapter is a free composition by the Chronicler, full of general 
and exaggerated statements, with a number of short quotations 
from earlier canonical books woven together. No careful, definite 
statement suggests a trustworthy historian or even the use of an 
earlier source. That David contemplated building a temple is 
likely (2 S. 7), and he may have made some preparation for it, 
but the Chronicler's description must have been drawn by infer- 
ence from the older canonical books, assisted by a vivid imagi- 

2-5. General preparation. — Not a studied account of material 
prepared for the Temple, but rather a careless list of such things 
as happened to occur to the writer. Cedar (ni<) is the only 
timber mentioned, though fir (tt'inn) (i K. 5" "«> 6^'- '') and 
olive-wood (jOU^ ''^y) (i K. 6"- "• ^^- ^^ were also used. — 2. David 
is here represented as anticipating the action of Solomon in set- 
ting non-Israelites at forced labour, for he commanded to gather 
together the sojourners that were in the land of Israel; and he set 
masons, etc. The historical fact seems to have been that Solomon 
made a levy upon pure Israelites to carry out his building opera- 
tions (cf. I K. 5" '• ('3 '•) ii^s 12^). A later writer taking exception 
to the reduction of Israelites to practical slavery made the le\7 
consist of non-Israelites (i K. 9^' '•). The Chronicler following 
this later view represents the levy as consisting of sojourners, but 
makes David responsible for calling them together just as he 
anticipates every other need in connection with the building of the 


Temple. With characteristic inconsistency the Chronicler later 
represents Solomon as making the levy (2 Ch. 2' (2). le t. m f.)). 
The sojourners (gerini) were foreigners who for one reason or 
another left their native clans and attached themselves to the 
Hebrews. Like the jdr among the Arabs, the ger was personally 
free, but without political rights. By the performance of certain 
duties he rendered a return for his protection. His lot was often 
hard, as is evidenced by the repeated exhortations to deal justly 
with him Dt. i'« 24'' 27", to show him kindness Dt. iC 26'^to 
refrain from oppressing him Ex. 222' 23' (both JE) Lv. 19== (H) 
Dt. 24'^ Je. 7« Zc. 7'». He was entitled to the Sabbath rest Ex. 
20'" 23'2 (both JE) Dt. 5'^. In P the ger represents the prose- 
lyte of the post-exilic community, cf. Ex. 12^^ Lv. 24" Nu. 9'* 
1^16. 16. 29_ — 3^ j^Qfi ifi abundance] exclusive of the 100,000 talents 
given by the princes (29'). — Binders] obscure. Here they are 
represented as made of iron, but in the only other place where the 
word is found (2 Ch. 34") they are of wood. Possibly they were 
merely iron or wooden pins used to make the joints fast (BDB. 
"clamps or the like "). — The bronze was for use in making the two 
pillars which stood in front of the Temple, the sea with its support- 
ing oxen, and various sacred utensils. — 4. Cedar-trees]oi Lebanon, 
the much-prized building-material of the Assyrian and Babylonian 
kings as well as among the Syrians, were then abundant on the 
Lebanon range east of the Phoenician coast and probably also on 
Hermon and the Antilebanons, also on the Amanus Mountains 
further to the north, and elsewhere. — Sidonians and Tyrians] the 
inhabitants of the two well-known Phoenician cities, on which cf. 
I '3. — 5. For David said to himself] is better than and David said, 
etc., since v. ^^ states the reason for David's preparation as narrated 
in w. ^-*. — Solomon my son is young and tender, etc.] {cf. 29') 
agrees with the Chronicler's representation that the father and 
not the son was the moving spirit of the great undertaking. 

2. dudS]. The use in the Qal is late (BDB.), cf. Est. 4'« Ps. 2>2>'' 
Ec. 2'- ^ 3*. The only place where this root is found in any form else- 
where in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. is Ne. 12", which is agreed to be from the 
Chronicler. There also it appears as the inf. cstr. with S (1. 55). — 
onjn] CS) wivTas ro^s irpoffrfKirovs, so 19; § j^O.^.^. .ool^a^. Sm. 



takes offence at the word in this connection and corrects to antjn or 
D>-\-ijn, "masons" or "stone-cutters," comparing 2 K. i2'3 22' {JBL. 
vol. XXIV, 1895, p. 29), but the Chronicler's motive for introducing 
anjn is evident, cf. 2 Ch. 2". — inpM] 1. 89. — o^nSxn no] 1. 15. — 3. 
3nS] also in 22^ *. s 292, etc., 1. 105. — nnannS] appears also in 2 Ch. 
34'i t. where the construction is the same, a verse agreed to be the 
work of the Chronicler, 1. 34. — ]^:>^'\ 1. 54. — 4. . . . pN*^] cf. Tor. 
CHV. p. 20; 1. 132. — ^-h"] 1. 105. — 5. idnm] EVs. said. Ki. renders 
dachte, cf. Gn. 20" 26' Nu. 24" i S. 20^6 2 S. 5« 12" 2 K. 5" (BDB. 
1CN Qal 2). EVs. render these passages thought. 13*7 Sn {cf. Gn. 
821) may be ^mderstood as well as uSa, hence. For David said to 
himself. — '?njn':'] on S see 1. 129. — nSycS] 1. 87. — nixns] 1. 6. — hj^dn] 
cohortative used to express self-encouragement, see Ges. § 1086 {a). 
On Chronicler's use of word cf. v. ', also for idm (1. 54). — aiS] 1. 
105. — This verse is cited by Driver (LOT.^^, p. 539) as one of the 
Chronicler's strangely worded sentences. 

6-13. David's charge to Solomon. — 7. As for me, it was 

my purpose to build a house unto the name of Yahweh my God] 
is dep)endent upon i K. 8", wliich is followed almost verbatim 
except in the change of person. The Chronicler represents 
David as telling Solomon his son what the latter says of David 
in his prayer of dedication (i K. 8"= «•). — 8. The word of Yah- 
weh came to David through the prophet Nathan, commanding 
him not to build a Temple (2 S. 7 = i Ch. 17), but no rea- 
son is given. Elsewhere David's wars are given as the reason 
why he could not build the house of Yahweh (i K. 5" "'), but 
only because they did not leave him time for other undertakings 
(Ki.). The Chronicler was the first to state that David could 
not build the Temple because he had shed much blood (cf. 283), 
which may be nothing more than a religious interpretation of 
I K. 5'^ "'. — 9. And I will give him rest from all his enemies round 
about]. Cf. I K. 5"'- '^ (4^*'' 5^). — For his name shall be Solomon] 
(Dl^ty peace, nD^J peaceful), but he is also called Jedidiah 
(IT'T'T' beloved of Yah, 2 S. 122^ '■). — 10. With only slight varia- 
tions, this verse is a repetition of 2 S. 7''- '^* = i Ch. i7'2- i3»^ but 
the order of the last three clauses is reversed. With the first 
clause cf. also i K. s'^^^ '"'^'- — 13. Be strong (cf 1 K. 2=) and of 
good courage; fear not neither be dismayed]. Cf. 28^" 2 Ch. 32' 
Jos. 10^5^ also Jos. I' (where pj?" takes the place of SITl). 


7. ij:] Qr. ^:2; other mss. ij3 Kt. and Qr., also ■'J3 Kt. and Qr. 
d t4kvov, U Fill mi. AV., Ke., Zoe., Oe. follow Qr., but the emphatic 
'JN (f/. 282) favours the Kt. (RV., Be., Ki.).— 03S d>-] cf. 28^ i K. 
817. 18. 18 (=2 Ch. 6'- 8- 8) I K. io2 (=2 Ch. 91) 2 Ch. i» 24* 29"'.— 
8. 3i'^] 1. 105. — a>Di] c/. 283 I K. 23' Ps. 79'; also Ges. § i24«. 
— 9. nsVr] d SaXwyuwv, rarely SaXoyotwj', (^^ and NT. mostly SoXo/twi'. 
— •^2pv t]. — 10. imjon] 1. 54. — Sniii''' S;] not found in 2 S. 7" = i 
Ch. 17'=. — ipidSc] 1. 67. — 11. irj; nin^ i.t]. Same expression is used 
by the Chronicler in v. '^, cf. also v. " and 28=°, both agreed to be from 
the Chronicler. — 12. nrai Sar] c/. 2 Ch. 2" (which Bn. and Ki. 
ascribe to the same source as this passage). ^2V is used alone by 
the Chronicler in 26'^ 2 Ch. 30^2, also Ezr. 8>8 Ne. SS see Tor. CliTF. 
p. 24. 

14^16. Transfer of material. — 14. Now behold hy my hard 
labor I have prepared for the house of Yahweh a hundred thousand 
talents of gold and a thousand thousand talents of silver\ The 
amounts are impossible, and out of all proportion to the actual cost 
of the Temple. The intrinsic value of this gold and silver is very 
nearly equal to five billion dollars in our money and its purchasing 
value was still more. Even if the light talent was intended (Ke., 
Zoe., et al.), reducing the value one-half, the amount remains 
incredible. According to i K. io'% Solomon's yearly income 
amounted to only 666 talents of gold, cf. also i K. 9"- ^^ 10'°. — 
15. 16. Moreover, there are with thee in abundance workmen, 
hewers and workers of stone and timber; and all who are skilful 
in every work of gold, of silver, and of bronze, and of iron, without 
number^ These two verses were certainly intended to be read 
together and their separation causes trouble {v. i.). Withojit 
number refers to the skilful workers of gold, etc. The metals 
were weighed, not numbered. This construction preserves the 
balance for the whole section (w. ■<•'«). In v. '< the Chronicler 
records the material, which David prepared, in two groups: (i) 
the metals, (2) the timber and stone. In w. '^ '• he tells of two 
groups of workmen whom David gathered together: (i) those who 
did the rougher work in stone and timber, (2) the skilful artisans 
who worked in metals. The order of these two groups is reversed 
the second time in accord with the Chronicler's habit. (Notice 
also timber and stone v. '\ and stone and timber v. '^) The ma- 


terials were without weight . . . in abundance (v. '^), and the 
workmen were in abundance . . . without number (w. '* '•). 

14. "jya] d Kara rrju ■jrTO}xelai' fiov, B in paupertate mea, AV. in 
my trouble, AVm. in my poverty, so BDB., RV. in my affliction. Bn. 
renders my hard-pressed situation {bedrdngten lage), explaining that 
David was poor compared with the rich Solomon. But the whole 
account is an effort to exalt David even above Solomon, who has little 
to do except carry out the plans of his father. HWB.^^ gives Miilie 
for this passage, which is followed by Ki. In Ps. 107" poverty is re- 
garded as an affliction {^r;), but, possibly in Gn. 313* and certainly in 
Dt. 26', •'J>' means oppressive toil. Be., followed by Ke., rendered 
durch meine viuhevolle Arbeit. The parallel 'no Soj in 29^ favours 
by my hard (or painful) labor. In any case the 3 is instrumental (so 
in the translations of Be., Ke., Ki.), cf. Ps. iS'o Is. lo^^ Mi. 4'^ Ho. 12" 
and see Ges. § 1190. — 15. oon] skilful, used of artisans of tabernacle 
and Temple, cf. Ex. 28' 31' 35'<' 36'- 2- «■ s 2 Ch. 2^- ^^- ^^- ".—16. 
-iBDD pN h^-\2h'i n»'njSi t^azh 3nt'^] RV. of tlie gold, tJie silver, and the 
brass, and the iron, there is no number, so Ke., Zoe., et al. Ki. Kovt. 
translates Gold, Silber, Erz und Eisen ist unermesslich viel vorJianden. 
These renderings are dependent upon the Massoretic punctuation, which 
creates two difficulties, (i) We should expect the Chronicler to use 
SpifD ]••}< as in vv. '• ", instead of ncDO j\s, when speaking of metals 
which were reckoned by weight and not by number. (2) No good rea- 
son can be assigned for the repetition of this list which has been given 
with more detail in v. ". It does not appear from the text that the 
metals are the main thing and must be grouped together again to add 
force to the exhortation, as Ke. suggested. Without emending the 
consonant text, both difficulties are removed by connecting '\0±"\ anr"? 
Sna*^! na-mSi with the preceding verse, iddo pK referring to the aon b2^ 
'1 of V. '5. So (S seems to have understood '^b Kal was ffocphs iv iravrl 
epy(fj, '^ iv XP^'^'-V, ^^ apyvpicf}, iv x*^'^'? "^'^^ ^^ "''■^VPV, °^i^ eariv 
dpidfjubs. (It is not necessary to suppose that <& did not read the arti- 
cle; see Ges. § 126W..) & brings out this meaning clearly by repeat- 
ing ■' i'^^ "workers" before each metal and by translating iddd px, 
\t .^l^/^ .001^ t^] )]9 , they (masc.) were not to be numbered. 

17-19. David's charge to the princes.— 18. For he hath de- 
livered the inhabitants of the land into my hand]. Not the Israelites 
but the original Canaanitish peoples are intended, cf. iV Jos. 2" 
i8> Nu. 32"- ". — 19. The ark of the covenant of Yahweh] was at 
this time on Mount Zion in a tent which David had prepared for 
it, cf. 15'- '» ff- I K. 8' = 2 Ch. s\—And the holy vessels of God]. 


The Chronicler drew upon what was done in the reign of Solomon 
(i K. 8< = 2 Ch. 5^) for what he represents as commands of 

XXIII-XXIX. The last acts of David.— This passage is best 
understood as a unit from the hand of the Chronicler, whose title 
is contained in 23'- ^, When David was old and full of dnys, then (i) 
he tnade Solomon his son king over Israel, and (2) gathered together 
all the princes of Israel, (3) uith the priests, (4) and the Levites. 
These last acts of David, which concern his son, the princes, the 
priests, and the Levites, the Chronicler recounts in reverse order, 
as is his habit elsewhere. 

According to 2 Ch. 29% Hezekiah brings in "the priests and the 
Levites," then in w. ' ^- he addresses the Levites and assigns them their 
task and in vv. " ^- he commands the priests to do their work. In 2 Ch. 
29'* cp. "And the Le\'ites stood with the instruments of David, and the 
priests with the trumpets," with "and the trumpets together with the 
instruments of David," v. *'. For further instances cf. 22'" 22'^- '^ 25' 


Beginning with the Le\ates (c. 23), the Chronicler narrates 
how David divided them into courses in preparation for the new 
service in the Temple. The increase in their duties which would 
result from the building of the Temple, and the lighter nature of 
them (v. "), led David to reduce the age at which they should begin 
service to twenty years (v. i.). Then David, with the assistance of 
Zadok and Ahimelech, divided the priests into courses (24' -i'). 
(2420-31 J5 g^ \2ittx insertion, see in loco.) The account of the 
organisation of the singers (c. 25) and that of the gate-keepers 
(c. 26) follow. The third act of David's old age, to gather to- 
gether the princes of Israel (232), is doubtless introduced to give 
an opportunity to describe the military forces and the civil serv- 
ice as well organised (c. 27), so that Solomon could devote all 
his activity to carrying out the plans of his father concerning 
the Temple. This chapter (27) differs from the preceding, since 
the organisation or reorganisation of the religious functionaries 
is represented as taking place at this time, while the military 
and civil oflScers are simply exhibited as already organised. This 
was to be expected, since the former were being prepared for new 


duties which should come with the completion of the Temple, 
while the latter had their duties throughout the reign of David. 
The last act of David, "He made Solomon king" (23"'), is nar- 
rated in cc. 28/. 

XXIII. The Levites.— With this chapter the Chronicler begins 
to record the last acts of David. Afcer the superscription (w. '• ^), 
he briefly states what provisions David made for the Levitical 
oversight of the building of the Temple (w. 3-'), followed by a list 
of the heads of Levitical houses who were divided into courses 
(w. «-=3), the introduction of a new legal age for service (w. ^^-"), 
and the duties of the Levites (w. 26.32)_ 

Ki. assigns 2^^-^ and Bn. 232''-32 to a hand later than the Chronicler. 
The list of Levites, however, should properly be placed first,fsince the 
priests were a subdivision of the tribe of Levi, 23" naturally preceding 
c. 24. Benzinger adduces the following reasons against the Chronicler's 
authorship of 2^'^-^: (i) the description of the Levitical service is 
general and out of place here; (2) w. 24-2' contain a correction of v. ^•, 
(3) the Chronicler in his preference for the singers would not have 
placed this service last. But the general description (i) is rather a 
mark of the Chronicler; no actual contradiction (2) exists between vv. 
24-27 and V. ', since the former deals with the legal age of the Levites after 
the Temple should be completed and the latter with the more ancient 
legal age (see below on 232^, also 23*- ^); and (3) the sequence of duties 
accounts sufficiently for the order (cf. c. 25). An account of this Levitical 
service is not out of place here, since it follows the appointment of the 
younger Levites to public duties and leads up to the description of the 
priestly organisation. 

1. 2. The superscription to cc. 23-29. — 1. When David was 
old and full of days] a statement defining the time of the acts 
which follow. — Then he made Solomon his son king] not a nomi- 
nation to the kingship, the actual anointing and elevation to the 
throne taking place later (29-) (Ke., Oe.), but a sub-title which 
introduces c. 28 (Bn.). Verse 2 gives the remaining sub-titles, 
which the Chronicler has taken up in reverse order {v. s.). 

1. ipr] not the adj. but 3pers. sg. pf. of the verb. — D''D> yar] so 
also in 2 Ch. 24'5; usually as an adj., cf. Gn. 35^' Jb. 42'^. 

3-5. The oversight of the service of the Temple.— 3. Now, 

the Levites were numbered from thirty years old and upward]. Since 


\"v. ' '• are a title {v. s.), this statement begins a new section, so the 
copulative is better rendered now. The Levites were numbered ac- 
cording to the old custom (Nu. 43- ". 30. 35. 39. 43), xhe Law also 
knows of a numbering from twenty-five years old and upward (Nu. 
823-26) (fy_ y_ uy — ^;^j //jg^> numheT in men hy their polls, was 
thirty-eight thousand]. This number is found only here. Accord- 
ing to Nu. 3" the males from one month old and upward num- 
bered 22,000 in Moses' time, or 23,000 according to Nu. 26". 
Those between the ages of thirty and fifty were 2,750 -t- 2,630 + 
3,200 = 8,580 (Nu. 43«- ■">■ «) {cf. \.^*). — 4. 5. Of these twenty-four 
thousand were to oversee the work {i.e., of building, v. i.) of the 
house of Yahweh]. The Temple was built, according to the 
Chronicler, under the direct oversight of the Levites. These 
24,000 were to have general oversight of the work. Associated 
with them m some way in this oversight were 6,000 officers and 
judges, 4,000 gate-keepers, and 4,000 singers. Just why these 
should have a part in building the house is obscure, unless the 
Chronicler thought of them as having the oversight of the build- 
ing of their respective quarters. The fact is supported by 2 Ch. 
34'2 '■, where the singers, scribes, officers, and gate-keepers had 
a part in the oversight of the builders. It is hardly satisfac- 
tory to regard these words as glosses in 2 Ch. 34'' ' (Bn., Ki.), 
since one of these passages supports the other. Thirty-eight 
thousand overseers would be unnecessary, but such an exaggera- 
tion is natural from the Chronicler (cf. 22^^ ^- 2()- ^■). These over- 
seers were chosen from the existing body of official Levites, namely 
those over thirty (v. ^), and not from those whose service was to 
begin at the age of twenty at the completion of the Temple {cf. 
w. " ^•). — Which I made]. The use of the first person indicates 
that w. * '• contain the words of David. The Chronicler refers 
to the musical instruments of David elsewhere, 2 Ch. 29^6 Ne. 
1236, (-J Am. 6^. 

3. naDii]. This Niph. is used positively only here. — Dn?j'?jS] pi. 
with sf., from r^j'^j; here and in v. 24 ]ieai, poll, in which sense only P 
and late, cf. Ex. 1616 3826 Nu. i"- 's- =« 22 347. — 3>-i3jS] is a nearer defini- 
tion of onSj'^j'^, excluding women. — 3''C''^::'] Ke. corrects to Dnt^'p to 
agree with v. ", but see n. there. — 4. nsj*^] act as overseer, is used in 


2 Ch. 2' ", Ezr. 38 9 2 Ch. 34i'- " of overseeing the workmen in building 
or repairing the Temple. The Levites acted as overseers during the 
repairing of the Temple under Josiah (2 Ch. 3412. n)^ and also at the 
rebuilding when Zerubbabel was governor (Ezr. 3' ', where the same 
phrase nini n^j hdnSd by nxjS is used), hence it is likely that the 
function of these Levites had to do with the oversight of the building of 
the house. The Levites did not oversee the work of ministry, but per- 
formed it (w. "• 28 ff.). — 5, i,-i"iB'y IB'n] <& oh iwoirjirev and 13 quce 
fecerat are an effort to make a smoother reading. 

&-23. Heads of Levitical houses. — Twenty-two heads of 
fathers' houses are usually found here, and various attempts have 
been made to increase this number to twenty-four, since there were 
twenty-four courses of priests {24''-^^), of singers (25'-"), and of 
gate-keepers (26^ >'»), but all have been more or less arbitrary. 
The statement of Josephus {Ant. vii. 14. 7) that David divided 
the Levites into twenty-four classes may have been derived from 
24=". Bertheau restored the number twenty-four by inserting 
Jaaziah with his three sons Shoham, Zaccur, and Ibri (24") into 
v. *', omitting Mahli of v. " as a repetition. Berlin, more recently, 
departs from Bertheau only in making this Jaaziah either the son 
of Mahli of v. " or of Jerahmeel the son of Kish {JQR. XII. pp. 
295 /.). These emendations are based upon the supposition that 
our text has only twenty-two heads of fathers' houses, while accord- 
ing to the true interpretation of v. " {q, v.) twenty-three should 
be counted. Very likely one name has been lost from the text 
through corruption, but just where and how remains dubious. — 
6. On names Gershon, Kehath, Merari, cf. 5" (6').— 7. La'dan 
and Shitnei] La dan also in 26^', elsewhere Libni and Shimei, cf. 
62 <") Ex. 6" Nu. 3". Zockler escapes the difficulty by considering 
La'dan a descendant of Lihni. More recently this view has been 
put forward with confidence by Berlin {I. c. p. 292 B). The varia- 
tion may be the result of different traditions. La'dan also occurs 
as the name of an Ephraimite ^^' f-— ^H- Ladan had three sons 
(v. 8) and Shimei four (v. ">), two of which united to make one 
fathers' house, since they had few sons (v. ")• A second Shimei 
with three sons is found between these two (v. '»). Although 
V. »•> connects this Shimei with the family of La'dan, his relation- 
ship is not indicated. J. H. Michaelis, following Kimchi, con- 


sidered this Shimc i a son of La dan (Hie Schimhi, inquit, non est 
Gersonis filius v. ' sed iinus ex Lahdanitis v. ^). Berlin {I. c.) 
holds that he is a brother of La' dan, both being the sons of Libni 
(v. i. text. n.). Still another solution has been suggested by Ben- 
zinger, who considers v. '" a gloss which has crept into the wrong 
place and properly belonged with v. '", adducing as proof that 
V. "> belongs with v. «. But v. ^=' as a gloss to v. "• is more inex- 
plicable than where it now stands, and v. ^t is unnecessary after v. «. 
V. ^^ itself is best explained as a gloss inserted to escape the diffi- 
culty caused by the two-fold appearance of Shimei. After striking 
out V. '*•, the first Shimei (v. '") is to be identified with the second 
son of Gershon (v.'), and Shimei ("'yDtl*) of v. >" is probably a 
textual error for Shelomoih (P^'obu)- In 24" a Jahath is chief 
of the sons of Shelomoth, but there the latter is represented as a 
son of Izhar. Then v. " is a glossator's attempt to restore the nine 
fathers' houses which had been increased to ten by this error 
(Bn. regards this verse as a correction). The family of Gershon 
formed nine fathers' houses in the original text, viz. : 


Lad an Shimei 

1. \ ! 1 I I 

V. ^ Jehiel Zetham Joel v.* Shelomoth Haziel Haran 


I \ \ I 

V. '" Jahath Ziza Jeush Beriah 

• — 8. Jehi'el the chief] i.e., chief of those over the treasuries of the 
house of God 2621 '■ 298. — Zetham] and Jo'el] appear as sons of 
Jehiel in 26^2 q. v. Jo'el is possibly the same as Joel in 15'- ". — 9. 
Shelomoth] v. i. — Hazi'el f ]. — Haran] appears elsewhere only as 
the name of Abram's brother, the father of Lot Gn. ii"-3» -j-, cf. also 
the place-name \'\n JT'i Nu. 323«= D"!" '2 Jos. 13". — 10. Jahath] 
possibly the same as in 6^- ^^ ^''o. 43), — Ziza*] is probably the correct 
reading, cf. v. " and text. n. Ziza is also the name of a Simeonite 
4", and a son of Rehoboam 2 Ch. ii^o -j-. — Je'nsh]. Cf v. ", also 
the name of a son of Rehoboam 2 Ch. ii'^ — Ben ah]. Cf. v. ", 
a common name. — 12. The sons of Kehath are given elsewhere in 


the same order, cf. 5=8 (6=) 6' <'»> 26" Ex. 6" Nu. 3". — 13. To 
sanctify him as a most holy one] {v. i.). — To burn hicense]. Cf. 
Ex. 30' ^ . — 14. The sons of Moses were reckoned among the tribe 
of Levi] and did not share the advantage of the sons of Aaron. 
For an ancient tradition of them cf. Ju. 18". — 15. The sons of 
Moses]. Cf. Ex. iS^ '■ and for the birth of Gershom Ex. 2". — 
EUezer]. Cf. also v. ", a common Levitical name. — 16. Shuba'el*] 
{v. i.) became ruler over the treasuries (262^) and is mentioned also 
in 242''- =». — 17. Rehabiah]. Cf. 24^' 26^6 f. — Like that of Gershon, 
the family of Kehath is divided into nine heads of fathers' houses. 
— 18. Shelomith]. See text. n. on v. \ — 19. Jeriah]. Cf. 24=' 
26^' f. — Amariah]. Cf. 24", also 5^3 (6'). — JahazVel]. Cf. 24". 
Also the name of a Benjaminite 12^ ^i^\ of a priest of David i6«, 
of a Levite 2 Ch. 20'% of an ancestor of one of the families of the 
restoration Ezr. 8*. — Jekame'am]. Cf. 24" f. — 20. Micah]. Cf. 
24-*- 2«; a name not uncommon, cf. 5^ — Isshiah] Cf. 2425- ^^, and 
as the name of another Levite 2421; elsewhere the name of one 
of David's helpers 12', a man of Issachar 7', one of those with 
foreign wives Ezr. lo^' -j-. — 21-23. Possibly six heads of fathers' 
houses were derived from Merari in the original text, but all 
restorations must rest on conjecture alone {v. s.). — 21. 22. With 
the possible exception of 24^6 '• {q. v.) tradition agrees that 
Merari had two sons Mahli and Mushi, cf. 6^"'' Ex. 6" Nu. 
3". — Eleazar and Kish]. Cf. 24^8 f-. Benzinger regards v. " 
as a gloss by the same hand as v. i'. This is not probable, 
but Ele'azar may be counted as a fathers' house without con- 
sidering V. 22 a gloss. According to the later law, where there 
were no sons, daughters inherited, and with the express pur- 
pose of preventing a man's name from being lost to his family 
(Nu. 27^), but such daughters must marry only into the family of 
the tribe of their father (Nu. 36^). In v." it is stated that these 
conditions were fulfilled in the case of Eleazar and doubtless the 
verse was added to show why Eleazar was also counted among 
the fathers' houses though he was known to have had no sons. — 
23. Mahli] the grandson of Merari is mentioned only in 243" 
and 6'2 <<'>, but as the name of a son of Merari v. «' 24"- " g^- '* 
(19. 29) E2r. 8'8 Ex. 6'5 Nu. y° f. — 'Eder] is also mentioned in 


24^° f; cj. also place-name 'Eder in extreme south of Judah 
Jos. 15" |. — Jeremoth] in 243" written Jerimoth {v. i.), cf. 7'. 
This list of the sons of Mushi is only found here and 24'". 

6. dsShm] Baer, Gin.; some MSS. DpSn«.i, Probably should be Pi. 
Oil'?"''., BDB., Bn., cf. 24'. — 7. Berlin (v. s.) supposes the original to 
have read: 'jjnci pyV ['jaS •'ja ■'jjctfi ^jaS] ■'ja'jS. — 9. niDSB-] Qr. 
n^pSr, (&^ 'AXudeifi, a corruption of * SaXw/Liet&= nil? — ,cf. v. ''24"- 
22 2625 '• 28. Qr. is followed by Zoe., Oe., Ki., Bn., but there is no 
necessity for reducing all these names to the same form. — Sxth] v. i. 
V. ". — 10. Njn] in v. " n;n, (5 Zif'o, H Ziza and one MS. cited by 
Kennic. ntv, which is probably original, so BDB. — 11. rnN n-jppS] 
for one class of officers, see BDB. mpa 2 c, or possibly for one appoint- 
ment, which suits 24'- ". — 13. cs'ip en;? la'npnS] H ut minislraret in 
sancto sanctorum, so &, Zoe., Oe., but the holy of holies elsewhere •i'^P 
'pr\. Without the art. the phrase is used of holy things connected with 
worship, cf. Ex. 30" Lv. 2', accordingly EVs. read that he should sanctify 
the most holy things. Then the suffix must be a subjective genitive. 
The most natural rendering "to sanctify him, a most holy one" was 
accepted by Be., Ke. Ki. mentions it as a possibility, but leaves the 
question doubtful, since the expression is not used of persons else- 
where.— mra] cf. 162 Dt. 108 21= 2 S. 6>8 Ps. 1298 also Nu. 6=3 s._ 
— 14. Sy IX V] c/. Ezr. 2" = Ne. 7". — 16. ija] pi. when only one son 
follows, cf. 2". — '?!<i3y'] 262* ^H2t', 2420 Sxair, CS here "Lov^ariX, which 
should be read with Oe., Bn., Ki., cf. Sab. proper noun Vn^i.^. — 18. 
ni:;S;r] 2422 mcS^', v. s. v. ' text. n. — 19. S^nm] (&^ 'O^irfK, a 
laftTjX, U Jahaziel. Ki. supposes ' to be the result of a dittogra- 
phy from the preceding ^yi' and then resolves this Sn'TH into '^'Nnj,* on 
the basis of <&^. This change introduces a second Snv;? into this 
list and also in 2420 ^■, which though not impossible is not likely. 
Such forms as SNnn (v. ') and Sxirm exist side by side, cf. ^ii^t'V. 
(4«) and Skib'J^ (h" 2721). The evidence of 05 is vitiated by the fact 
that in 16^ and 2 Ch. 20" Ssnn^ is rendered 'Of(e)i7;X. Ki. ques- 
tions the latter but passes over the former without comment. — 23. 
mc"^.^] 24^" mcn\ (S^ in both places 'Apeifidd, ^ lapi/xwd and lepifjuud, 
"U Jerimoth. 

24-27. Legal age for Temple service. — 24. From twenty years 
old and upward]. Various attempts have been made to reconcile 
this statement with that in v. ^, according to which the Levites 
were numbered from thirty years old and upward. The older 
commentators explained the apparent discrepancy on the groimd 


that David first numbered the Levites from thirty years old accord- 
ing to the Law (Nu. 4') and then later from twenty years old 
since there was no further need of transporting the sanctuary 
(so J. H. Mich., also Kimhi). That the Chronicler had two 
variant traditions contained in different sources has also been 
suggested (Be.). After describing all attempts to get rid of the 
discrepancy as makeshifts, Ke. arbitrarily emends v. ', reading 
twenty for thirty. Recent commentators ascribe w. " a. to a 
later hand. In later times, apparently, the Levites were eligible 
to service from twenty years old and upward. The scarcity of 
numbers was the probable cause for the change (r/. Ezr. 2*" 8'^ « ). 
The Chronicler, however, makes this practice the rule for the 
whole post-exilic period (Ezr. 3^) and also carries it back as far 
as the reign of Hezekiah (2 Ch. 31"). He would hardly leave the 
matter there. The proper time for the institution of the new 
custom was at the building of the Temple. As the Chronicler 
ascribed the organisation of the Temple service to David {cf. 2 Ch. 
8'* 8), so he made him responsible also for this change. In v.' 
he necessarily gave the enumeration from thirty years old and 
upward, since this enumeration was made that David could 
provide for overseeing the building of the Temple and only 
experienced Levites would be chosen for this task (see w. '-=). 
When David divided the Levites into courses (v. ^) to do the work 
for the service of the house of Yahweh (v. ^'), after it should be 
completed, the younger men from twenty years old and upward 
were included among those eligible for service. — 27. For by the 
last words of David, the number of sons of Levi was from twenty 
years old and upward]. No new census is supposed, as EVs. 
imply. David decreed that the younger men should also serv^e 
but did not provide for a recount. 

24. onmps] cf. Nu. i" «• Ex. 30". — nice iddsj] cf. Nu. i'« 
3« — dhSjSj'?] v. s. v. ' text. n. — n-j^] other mss. "u';, cf Ne. 11" 
and Ezr. 3' nvy with Ne. 13"' ^^V both pi. Only another way of writing 
the same form. — 27. a-iinnNn imt 113-12] Be. following Kimhi ren- 
dered "In the later histories of David" and so also Oe., Ba.; but 
Be. was influenced by the theory that the Chronicler used two sources. 
Better render by the last words (or commands) of David, as "& juxta pra- 


cepta, so J. H. Mich., Ke., Zoe., Bn., Ki., cf. 2 S. 23'. — r\r:7\'] Ke. took 
as neuter sg. (Ew. § 318 b), since nnn is nowhere found with the signifi- 
cation stmt, and rendered "'This,' i.e., this was done, viz., the number- 
ing of the Levites," but cf. an n'?K Nu. 3", and Ges. § 141^. h. Here 
nnn agrees with and strengthens "iiS ^J3 as the most important part of 
the compound subject mS ija nsDD, Ges. § 146a. 

28-32. Duties of the Levites.— 29. For the showbread] lit. 
bread of rows, cf. g^-, — and for the fine flour for the meal-offering] 
cf. Lv. 21- ^- '% — whether for the unleavened wafer] cf. Lv. 2*, — 
or of that which is baked in a pan] cf. Lv. 2^ 6'-' <2'), — or that 
which is mi.xed] cf. Lv. 6'^ ^^^\ — and for the measures of capacity 
and the measures of length] cf. Ex. 29^° 30^^ The Levites may 
have been the keepers of standard measures, cf. Lv. ig'*. — 30. 
On the morning and evening burnt-offerings cf. Ex. 29'8- ^9 Nu. 
28' -8. — 31. And (to stand, etc.) at every offering of a burnt-offer- 
ing]. EVs. and to offer all, etc., is a mistranslation {v. i.). 
Besides the Sabbaths {cf. Nu. 28' ' ) and new moons {cf. Nu. 
28"-i5), there were three annual historical feasts (Ex. 23'<-i'), 
Passover and Mazzoth (Nu. 28i«-"), Pentecost (Nu. 28^^-"), and 
Tabernacles (Nu. 2912-38). — 32. According to the Law, the Levites 
shoidd keep the charge of the tent of meeting (Nu. 183- ■*) and the 
charge of the sons of Aaron their brethren (Nu. 3^ 182- ') but they 
were expressly forbidden to approach the vessels of the holy place 
(Nu. 183, cf. however i Ch. 9") and the priests were given the 
charge of the holy place (Nu. 18^). Buchler (/. c.) has used this 
as evidence of a priestly source which has become confused by 
the Chronicler's introduction of the Levites, but a variant tradi- 
tion ascribes this duty to Levites (Nu. 3=^ 32). The Chronicler 
could have secured all his facts from Nu. 3 without consulting 
Nu. 18. 

28. SdS mna] cstr. before S, cf. Ges. § 130a. — CS ividently read 
'?>'1 {iirl) before r\v;-a and "B ^2 hy^ {et in universis). (& also omits the 
copulative at the beginning of v. ^^. As the text stands the repetition of 
(mri"') D^•1'^^•^ no mcDay adds nothing. Hence ^sb should be emended 
to agree with (i and connected with the following verse, '•"• on'?S (omit 
1 with (S) defining r\z'-;'c more closely, cf. Ges. § 13 1<. Accordingly 
read 'n cn'^S dviSkh n>3 maj? na'ya Syi and in the work of the service of 
the house of God for (in respect to) the showbread. — 31. niS;? mS;"n Ss'r'i] 


EVs. render incorrectly and to offer all burnt-offerings. This verse is 
a part of v. 2" and can only be translated and at every offering of burnt- 
offerings (Kau.). The priest had the exclusive duty of offering the burnt- 
offering but the Levite had to stand . . . to thank and to praise (v. '") 
while the offering was being made. Some commentators have held that 
the verse refers to the duty of the Levites to procure and prepare the 
animals for sacrifice (Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ba.), an attempt to account for 
the apparent anomaly of Levites offering the burnt-offering. By the 
same misunderstanding of the text, Biichler (/. c. p. 131 f. n.) has been 
led to the conclusion that v. " belonged to a source which concerned 
itself only with the priests. — 32,' CS omits iripn mcrD nxi, which may be 
an intentional correction from Nu. iS^, where this duty is given to the 
sons of Aaron, or more probably the omission is due to homoeoteleuton. 

XXIV. 1-19. The courses of the priests. — The account of 
the duties of the Levites in serving the priests (2328-32) is followed 
immediately by the description of David's organisation of the 
priests (24'-'5). These were divided into twenty-four courses 
which cast lots for places. The order, Levites (c. 23), priests 
(c. 24), was likely determined by the fact that the priests were a 
subdivision of the tribe of Levi; 23'= could not follow 24'". 

Schiirer (Gesch.^ II. p. 237) has questioned the genuineness of 24^-", 
suspicioning that this list was not framed until the Hasmonean period, 
since the class of Jehoiarib, from which the Hasmoneans sprang (i Mac. 
2'), is placed first contrary to Ne. V2'-''- "2-21, but this evidence is not con- 
clusive and can only be used to question the relative position of the 
class of Jehoiarib. That may have been altered through later influence. 

1-19. The twenty-four courses of priests. — 1. The sons of 
Aaron are given in the same order in 529 (6') Ex, 62'. — 2. An 
abridgment of Nu. y. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire 
before Yahweh and were devoured by fire (Lv. 10'-' Nu. y). 
— 3. Zadok and Ahimelech, the leading representatives of the 
two families of Aaron, were associated with David in dividing the 
priests into their courses. Earlier writers would probably have 
assigned this task to David alone, but not so the Chronicler {cf. 
2 S. 8>8 with I Ch. 18'^; also 25'), Ahimelech is associated with 
Zadok in v. ^i and in i8'« (where Ahimelech should be read 
Ahimelech with Vrss.). According to v. ^ and i8'« (= 2 S. 8") 
Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar, but in i S. 222° an Ahimelech 


is the father of Ahiathar. That grandfather and grandson should 
bear the same name is in accord with common Semitic practice {cf. 
535 t. (6' '•) and Phoenician Eshmunezar Inscription hnes 13 /.), 
but the only known son of Abiathar was named Jonathan (2 S. 
i5'« I K. I") and elsewhere Zadok and Abiathar (instead of 
Ahimelech) are associated as the priests, both in the time of David 
(2 S. 15" i7'5 I Ch. 15") and in the time of Solomon (i K. 4*, cf. 
also I K. i^ with i"), hence the probability that the two names 
were transposed through corruption in 2 S. 8'^ before the Chron- 
icler wrote (see EBi. art. Abiathar). — 4. Chief men]. Possibly 
the heads of individual households which constituted the sub- 
divisions of a fathers' house (cf Jos. yis-is) (Ke., Zoe., Oe.), 
though more probably the heads of fathers' houses are intended 
(Be.). The last clause of v. ■'• should be taken with what follows 
— and they, i.e., David, Zadok, and Ahimelech, assigned them, of 
the sons of Ele'azar si.vteen heads of fathers' houses and of the sons 
of Ithamar eight fathers' houses. Some Levites who were not of 
the family of Zadok ministered in the second Temple although 
they were not eligible to the high priesthood. At least, a 
certain Daniel of the sons of Ithamar returned with Ezra (Ezr. 
8^). The Chronicler assumed this later superiority of the 
Zadokites also for the time of David and assigned sixteen classes 
to the sons of Eleazar — i.e., to the Zadokites — and eight to 
the sons of Ithamar. These numbers sixteen and eight are 
clearly artificial, since they are related to each other as the 
rights of a first-bom to a single younger brother (cf. Dt. 21'"). 
Upon the deaths of Nadab and Abihu without sons, the right of 
the first-bom fell to Eleazar. The high priesthood also fell to the 
Zadokites as the right of the first-bom. — 5. So they divided them 
by lot one like the other (lit. these with those)]. Apart from having 
a double share of classes and the high priesthood, the descendants 
of Eleazar-Zadok had no advantage over their fellow-priests, for 
in both families were found princes of the sanctuary and princes of 
God. These two terms are probably synjnymous, being differ- 
ent designations also for the "chiefs of the priests" of 2 Ch. 36'* 
(Ba., Bn.). — 6. Shema'iah the son of Nathaniel, the scribe] is 
only known from this passage. — One fathers' house being taken 


for Eleazar and one* taken for Ithamar] (v. i.). — 7-18. The same 
courses were maintained in the time of Josephus {Ant. vii. 14. 7, 
Vita 1). Individual courses are mentioned elsewhere, Jehoiarib 
(Joarib), i Mac. 2' Bab. Taanith 29 a; Joiarib and Jeda'iah, 
Baba kamnia ix. 12; Abijah, Lu. i^; Bilgah, Sukka v. 8 (see Schiir. 
Gesch.' II. pp. 2T,2 ff.). Jehoiarib, Jeda'iah, Harirn, Malchijah, 
Mijamin, Abijah, Shecaniah, Bilgah, Ma'aziah occur in either 
one or both Hsts of priests in Ne. lo^ »• (» «■' and i2> «■. Seorim, 
Huppah, Jeshebe'ah, Happizzez, and Gamut do not occur elsewhere. 
On Jehoiarib, Jeda'iah, Jachin, cf. 9'". The descendants of 
Jeda'iah, of Harim, and of Immer returned from the exile under 
Zerubbabel (Ezr. 2^^ '• '' = Ne. 7" '• "), but Pashur (Ezr. 2^^ = 
Ne. 7^') is wantmg here. The children of Hakkoz were debarred 
from the priesthood after the return since they could not find 
their record in the genealogies (Ezr. 2«' = Ne. 7"). Jeshua may 
be the head of the "house of Jeshua" of Ezr. 2^^ = Ne. 7". No 
connection between Eliashib and the post-exilic high priest of 
that name (Ne. 3') is probable, since the name was a common 
one. Jakim and Pethahiah occur only here as the names of 
priests. Jehezkel is also the name of the well-known priest and 
prophet, son of Buzi, Ez. i' 242* -j-. 

1. <S^ omits the second p.iN ija, so also Origen's text (Field), but M 
is probably original. — nihi^n] (S 'A^iovd here and in v. ^ 5^' (6') Ex. 
6" Lv. 10' Nu. 3*. — 3. (S adds Kar otKovs irarpiuv airuv. — 5. '*j33i] 
read with other Mss. •'J3:;i, so U, 51, ^, Ki. — 6. rnx inxi . . . rnvS inx]. 
Some late mss. read iriN inxi instead of inN tnNi; (g eh eh . . . eh eh; 

d iJi-xl |-*»o i-M V-A^fi^.. Most commentators correct 

the second rns to ■'nx (Grotius, Ges., Zoe., Kau., Ba., Bn.). Be. retained 
m, finding a relation in the proportion eight to sixteen and ma to 
?nt< rnxi, i.e., two lots were drawn for Eleazar to each one for Ith- 
amar. Ke. pointed out that the text would then imply that the two 
lots were drawn for Ithamar, not for Eleazar (cf. also Oe.). Ki. has 
sought to overcome this objection by transposing Eleazar and Ithamar, 
but Eleazar is elsewhere mentioned first (w. ^- '■ *• *■ ^). A comparison 
of 252-^ with 25'-" shows that there the houses were taken alternately 
until the two smaller families were exhausted; then the remaining 
names of the large family of Heman were divided into two groups. 
These were taken alternately (cf. 25^-31) until all had been assigned. 
According to this analogy, the older and simpler emendation — the 


second ;n,s to ""ns — gives the true original. The lot alternated between 
the descendants of Elcazar and the descendants of Ithamar until the 
number of the latter was exhausted, when the remaining eight houses 
of Eleazar were assigned places by lot. Then Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 
14, 16, in vv. ^''8 were members of the family of Ithamar, the rest 
belonging to the family of Eleazar. — 13. 2N3a'i] (!» omits but ^ 
I(r/3aaX, H* Isbaal. Ki. conjectures that the original form was '^>3::"', 
which was omitted in the copy of Greek and intentionally altered 
in M. because of the offence caused by the form '^•;2. Gray {HPN. 
p. 24) follows Ki. — 19. Bn-i|ifl] Ki. points amps because of the preced- 
ing n'TN. 

20-31. A supplementary list of Levites. — This second 
list of the sons of Levi has many names in common with 23'-" 
but also adds several new ones. The family of Gershon is 
omitted and a new subdivision is added to the family of Merari. 
Six new heads or chiefs, Jehdeiah, Isshiah, Jahalh, Shamir, 
Zechariah, and JeraJpne'el, supplant six of the older heads of fathers' 
houses and are represented as the chiefs of their descendants, but 
are not necessarily their sons. Bertheau held that these verses 
were written in order to add the chiefs of the classes enumerated in 
237.23 but in some cases the writer did not have the information 
which he needed and so simply repeated what he had already 
given in 23' »•; and the family of Gershon was omitted, since the 
writer had nothing to add, hence to include this family would 
make an unnecessary repetition. The fact that only six such 
chiefs are given out of a possible twenty-three or twenty-four is 
against this view. The account of the Levites, given in c. 23, is 
connected so closely with the priests (24'-'^) that the natural place 
for a supplementary list of Levites would be after the latter rather 
than between the two. The Chronicler would be as likely to 
place such an additional catalogue here as a later glossator. The 
fact that some of the names here are repeated from 23'* u does not 
in itself militate against the proposition that the Chronicler was 
the author of both passages. Nevertheless, there are good reasons 
for suspecting the Chronicler's authorship of this second list of 
Levites, and for ascribing it to a later hand (so Ki. SBOT., Bn.). 
Shiiha^el (Shebii^el) is called the chief of the sons of Gershom in 
23'« but here his place is taken by JehdeLih. In 23", Rehahiah 


is called the chief of the sons of Eliezer but here (v. ^i) he is sup- 
planted by Issliaiah. The same is true of Shelomith (Shelomolh) 
(cf. V. 22 with 23"); Micah and Isshiah {cf. w. "■ " with 23'"'); and 
Kish {cf. V. " with 23"). All of these names could have been in- 
cluded in 23 '5 ff-, since they do not add to or subtract from the 
number of fathers' houses. As they stand we have two chiefs for 
the same house in six cases. Either new families had gained the 
chief positions formerly held by the chiefs of c. 23 or the Chronicler 
gave preference to his friends which a later writer contradicted. 
"The rest" at the head of this list suggests a supplementary 
catalogue not only to c. 23 but also to cc. 25. 26, since the sing- 
ers, gate-keepers, and other officers were also Levites. The quota- 
tion of a part only of 23=^-, "and he had no sons," in v. ^^ un- 
wittingly gives the opposite meaning to this passage. According 
to 23" Eleazar must be counted as a father's house {cf. 23" «■), 
but here he is excluded. "These were the sons of the Levites 
after their fathers' houses" (v. 3»'>) is a strange subscription to 
what purports to be only a partial list of the Levites {cf. "the rest" 
V. '"I), but is easily understood as a quotation of the first part of 
2324 {v. i. V. 3 0). "These likewise" (D" DJ) (v. '0 occurs only 
here, though the phrase would be in place in 25 » or 26''. Properly, 
this lot should be cast for all the Levites, not for the part of them 
in this list to whom "these " must refer. The lots might have been 
cast in the presence of Zadok and Ahimelech (v. ^i) very fittingly, 
but we should expect "chiefs of the Levites" in the light of i5'»- 'S 
or only David after 23^. However, v. ^"-^ is simply repeated from 
V. «. — 20. And of the rest of the sons of Levi] not those who re- 
mained after the priests had been subtracted (Be.) nor those who 
assisted the priests in the service of the house (Ke., Zoe., Oe.), but 
a glossator's title to a Hst containing additional names. That this 
hst contains many names set forth in 2^--^ cannot be urged agamst 
this conclusion (as Be.), since those names are given in order to 
place the new ones in relationship to them. — Shuba'el]. Cf. 2^^. 
■ — Jehdeiah] is also the name of an officer of David 2730 -j-. — 21. 
Rehabiah]. Cf. 23". — Isshiah] occurs again in v. ", cf. 23-°. — 
22. Shelomoth]. C/. Shelomith 231^-/0/^//^]. C/. 4^.-23. C/. 
23''. — 24. Micah]. Cf. 23=°. — Shamir] here only as a personal 



name, but as a place-name Ju. lo'- = Jos. 15^' f. — Isshiah]. Cf. 
232°. — Zechariah] a very common name, especially in the writ- 
ings of the Chronicler. — 26.27. The sojis of Merari: Mahli and 
Mushi and^ the sons of'Uzziah. The sons of Merari: of 'Uzziah'*- 
Batii* ( ?) and Shoham and Zaccur and 'Ibri]. The writer inserted 
among the sons of Merari as he found them in 23=' «• the family 
of 'Uzziah, who had three or four sons. This 'Uzziah was not a 
son of Merari but the head of a family claiming descent from him, 
otherwise he would have been added directly to Mahli and Mushi 
without the intervening the sons of. The addition of his son after 
'Uzziah in v. " (H Benno, EVs. Beno) contradicts this fact directly 
by making 'Uzziah a son of Merari, wherefore it is necessary to 
consider the sons 0/ before, or his son after, 'Uzziah a gloss. Kittel 
does the former {i.e., he resolves '»J2 into UjX) but it is neither 
likely that Merari had another son besides Mahli and Mushi {cf. 
54 (19) 2321 Ex. 6'5 Nu. 3'° ") nor that the original writer would 
have had the boldness to add another son to the two so well knovm. 
The second alternative, i.e., to regard his son after 'Uzziah as a 
gloss, is more likely and has the support of (^. Beno (EVs.) in 
v. " must either be struck out with the following copulative or it 
is a corruption for Bayii, a common late name, which text is sup- 
ported by d {viol avTOv = V^2 = "I ''12) {v. i.). — The origin of 
this family of Uzziah cannot be determined. Shoham occurs 
nowhere else as a proper name and 'Ihri only as the gentilic of 
Hebrew. Zaccur occurs only once outside of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., Nu. 
i3< (P). — 28. And he had no sons'] is repeated from 23" evidently 
as an abridgment of that verse {v. s.). — Kish\ Cf. 23". — 
Jerahme^el] also the name of the well-known family in southern 
Judah, cf. 2', and of the son of King Jehoiakim Je. 36=^. — 30. 
After copying 23" ( = v. "») the writer continued with the first 
clause of 232^ (= v. '<">)^ — 31. No difficulty need be foimd in the 
fact that twenty-four heads of families are not given in this list. 
The glossator based this statement upon what was done in the 
case of the priests (vv. ' « ) and did not trouble himself to make his 
catalogue correspond to the right number. 

20. ''Niir] cf. 23>6 text. n. — 21. Bn. omits mom •'js'^ -with (H 
but compare the style in w. '"■ ". — 23. ft and Vrss. are defective. Add 


after 'J^i) CNin jnan, Ki., Bn. Earlier commentators added only 
jnan Luther, Be. — 24. iidb'] so Kt., but Qr. tsb*, (& Sa/xiJ/J, V Samir, 
and so ®. — 26. 27. The present Hebrew text of these verses cannot 
possibly be the original, since v. ^eb jg self-contradictory {v. s.) and 
the copulative 1, lacking before ■'ja, must be inserted (Bn.) and 1:3 
crept in possibly from v. ". \r\^iy\ found only here, is probably an 
error for ihmj;, so Ki., cf. also BPB., Gray, HPN. p. 291. 1J2 of 
V. " may have read 'ja originally {v. s.). Accordingly the original text 
read 'yi 'n bhb'i ip innyV mn '•aa iinvy ij2i itfrn I'rnD mn >J3. (On 
attempts to find here the original of 232' ff-, cf. 23«-".) 

XXV. The courses of the singers. — The singers formed a 
distinct and important class in the Temple worship when the Chron- 
icler wrote. Their special duties and privileges were the result of 
historical development just as in the case of the Levites proper and 
the Aaronites, but the Chronicler believed that the system of his 
own time originated with David. Probably three distinct classes, 
the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun ( = Ethan) respectively, 
were already prominent in the time of the Chronicler. Accord- 
ing to this chapter they were divided into twenty-four courses 
corresponding to those of the priests (24' « ) and probably also 
of the Levites originally (23^ « ). Doubtless the Chronicler 
thought that corresponding courses of each of these orders served 
at the same time, the Levites to prepare the sacrifices, the priests 
to make the offering, while the singers stood by and sang praises 
to Yahweh (23" ' ). The Chronicler's order, Levites (c. 23), 
priests (c. 24), and singers (c. 25), was not unlikely influenced by 
this sequence of duties. We cannot be certain from this chapter 
that there were twenty-four courses of singers even in the Chron- 
icler's time, since the number may simply represent an ideal of 
the writer. The peculiarity of the last nine names {v. i.) rather 
supports the latter possibility. 

This chapter is certainly a unity and from the Chronicler. Recently 
proposed analyses have created more difficulties than they have ex- 
plained. Asaph is the only one of the three families of singers mentioned 
in vv. » «-, but it does not follow, as Kittel thinks, that this chapter in 
its original form only dealt with Asaphites. The presence of IDnS in 
V. » really proves that all three families were enumerated in the following 
verses, since the name — unless it is a gloss resulting from a dittography 


(so Bn. and Ki. on another page) — must have been inserted to call atten- 
tion to the advantage the Asaphites received in having the tirst lot fall 
to them (c/. what Josephus says of the first of the twenty-four courses 
of priests, Vita, I. : iroWr) 5i k&v roi^ry dtacpopd). The artificial 
character of the last nine names of v. * (v. i.) indicates nothing 
concerning their source. They are as difficult to understand from a 
glossator as from the Chronicler, and the number twenty-four points to 
the latter. It cannot be shown that the Chronicler was not interested 
in this number without doing violence to the text. 

1-8. The singers according to their families. — 1. David and 
the chiefs of the serving host^'\ i.e., the chiefs of the Levites {cf. 15'^) 
who were in active service — those between the ages of thirty and 
fifty years {v. i.). — Asaph, Henian, and JediUhwi ( = Ethan) were 
descended from Gershom (read Gershon), Kehath, and Merari 
respectively according to 6»*-32 (33-4?)^ thus representing the three 
chief famihes of the Levites {cf. i5'7- ^^ 1537 b. 2 Ch. 5'^ 291' '• 
35'5). — Who should prophesy^ The Chronicler gives to the 
service of song the same dignity as to the service of exhortation, 
i.e., he ranks the singers with the prophets of Israel, thus placing 
them above the ordinary serving Levites. Elsewhere he calls 
them seers, a term to him synonymous with prophets {cf. v. ^ and 
references there cited) and in 2 Ch. 20'^ «• he makes a singer actu- 
ally figure in a prophetic capacity. A close connection, however, 
always existed between the musical function and the prophetic 
office {cf. I S. 10' '■ '" ff ). — With lyres, with lutes and with cymbals^ 
(see Bn. Arch. pp. 272^/., also art. Music in DB. and EBi., cf. 15'=). 
— And the number of them']. The number is not the one recorded 
in v. ' but refers to the numbers in the succeeding verses, i.e., four 
sons of Asaph (although the number is not expressly stated in v. =), 
six sons of Jeduthun (v. ^), and fourteen sons of Heman (v. ^). 
The total number of these together with their brethren is given in 
v. ^ (An exact parallel is found in Ezr. 2'"' = Ne. 7^'^ where also 
some families are mentioned in the succeeding verses although 
their number is omitted, the total sum being given at the end, 
Ezr. 2" = Ne. 7««.) Hence w. ^-^ cannot be considered an inser- 
tion on the ground that v. ' •> demands that a number should follow 
which is not found until v. ' (Bn., Ki.). — 2. This list of the sons 
of Asaph is otherwise unknown, Zaccur, also v. '", being the only 


one mentioned elsewhere as a son of Asaph (Ne. 1235 cf. also Zichri 

1 Ch. 9'6 = Ne. iv where n^T should be read for iinT). On 
the name cf. 4=6 and 24". — Joseph'] also v. ', besides the frequently- 
mentioned son of Jacob, is the name of a man of Issachar Nu. 
13', of one who took strange wives Ezr. 10", of a priest Ne. i2'<. 
— Neihaniah] also v. ^^, is found only once elsewhere as a Levite 
name 2 Ch. lys |. — Asar'elah]. Cf. Jesar'elah v. '^ f. — The sons 
of Asaph were under the guidance of their father and he in turn 
prophesied at the direction of the King. — 3. Only five sons of 
Jeduthun are given although he is said to have had six. Shimei 
("'VDtl') of V. '^ must be the missing name, since it is not found 
in vv. ■■* as are all the others enumerated in w. ^ ^i^ hence it 
should be inserted after Jeshaiah (thus ($). — Of these six sons 
of Jeduthun only Mattithiah is mentioned in another place, cf. 
i5'8- 2' 16^, but there he is not called a son of Jeduthun. On the 
name cf. 9^'. — GedaliaJt] also v. ', not elsewhere the name of a Levite, 
but the name of a priest Ezr. 10' s, and otherwise not infrequent. — 
/zrz**] so read with v. " instead of Zeri f (v. i.). — Jeshaiah] also 
v. '=, besides the well-known prophet Isa'iah, is a Levitical name 
2625 Ezr. 8'', a grandson of Zerubbabel 3", a chief of the sons of 
Elam Ezr. 8', a Benjaminite Ne. 11'. — Shime'i*] also v. ", 
eleven times elsewhere in the writings of the Chronicler as a Le- 
vitical name, and otherwise frequent. — Hashabiah] also v. ", is 
a name found only in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. (15 times in all), mostly of 
Levites. — 4. A MaUaniah appears as an Asaphite in 9'^ = Ne. 
II" Ne. ii« i2«- « 2 Ch. 20" 29'^ With the possible exception of 

2 Ch. 2o'« a son of Asaph is not intended, since the name is used 
of a later individual. The name appears fifteen times in Ch.- 
Ezr.-Ne., and elsewhere only 2 K. 24' ^ — Bukkiah] also v. "f. 
— 'Uzzi'el] in v." 'Azar'el. The former is a frequent Levitical 
name and the latter appears as the name of priests in Ne. 11" 12^^ 
(y. i.). — Shiiba'el*]. So read with (^ and v. ^o instead of Shebu'el 
(Ki.). Also the name of a son of Gershom 23 '« 24'"'- i"" 26^^ f. 
— Jerimoth] v. =* Jeremoth, is found fourteen times in Ch.-Ezr.- 
Ne., but not elsewhere. — Hananiah] also v. ", is a frequent name, 
but not elsewhere Levitical. — Hanani] also v. ^\ was the name 
of a chief musician in the time of Nehemiah Ne. 1236, and is 


not infrequent. — EWathah] also v. " f. — Giddalti] also v. " f . — 
Romamli-ezer] also v. 3' f . — Joshbekashah] also v. =< f . — Mallothi] 
also V. " •]■. — Hothir] also v. ^s -f-. — Mahazi'oth] also v. 'o •]-. — It has 
long been recognised that the last eight or nine words, although 
intended here for proper names, are almost impossible as the 
names of real individuals. With only slight changes in the vocal- 
isation and in the separation of the consonants, they form a prayer, 
which may be translated as follows : 

Be gracious unto me, Oh Yah, be gracious unto me, 
Thou art my God whom I magnify and exalt. 

Oh my help (or Thou art my help) when in trouble, I say. 
He giveth (or Give) an abundance of visions. 

{V. i.) Why what was possibly an ancient prayer should thus 
be resolved into proper names cannot be determined. The diffi- 
ciilty is not removed by assigning it to a later hand. See Ew. 
Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr. p. 680; W^e. Prol. p. 219; WRS. OTJC.* 
p. 143; Koberle, Tempelsdnger, pp. 116/. — 5. Heman, the king's 
seer]. Gad is called "David's seer" (21^), Asaph simply "the 
seer" (2 Ch. 29=°) and Jeduthun "the king's seer" (2 Ch. 35"), or 
if d there is correct Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun were the King's 
seers (ol 7rpo(f)rJTaL tov ^aai\€(i)<;); see further on v. '. — In the 
words of God] may mean either in divine affairs (cf 26"), or by 
the commands of Yahweh (cf 2 Ch. 29'^). — To lift up his * horn 
God gave, etc.]. To lift up the horn would stand alone here in 
the sense of blow the horn (Be., Ba., BDB.). Better ignore the 
Massoretic pointing (Athnach under pp) and connect with the 
following (v. i.). Elsewhere the phrase means to heighten the 
power of any one {cf. 1 S. 2'° Ps. 89'^ 92'' 148'* La. 2'^). God 
exalted the power of Heman by giving him many children (Ke., 
Zoe., Oe., Bn., Ki.). — 6. All these] may refer to all the sons of 
Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman (Ke., Zoe., Oe.), but better only to 
the fourteen sons of Heman (Be.). Not only the singular their 
father but also the similar statements after the sons of Asaph 
(v. ') and of Jeduthun (v. ') support this conclusion. — In his 
characteristic fashion the Chronicler reverses the order of the 


instruments in repeating them from v. >. — 7. The total number 
finds its natural place here after the enumeration of the heads of 
houses {cf. V. ■). With each of the above twenty-four were asso- 
ciated eleven of their brethren, i.e., members of the singers' guild, 
so that the total number was two hundred and eighty-eight 
(24 X 12). These were the accomplished musicians, skilful ones 
{W^y^l'C)), who were distinguished from the mass of the singers, 
the scholars (D''T'D'?n), as is shown by v. «. Presumably the lat- 
ter are included among the 4,000 singers who were assigned some 
work in overseeing the building of the Temple {cf. 23^ ' ). 

1. Nasn mri]. The usual rendering the captains of the hosts (EVs., 
Ki., et al.) may be understood as referring either to the commanders of the 
army or as synonymous with princes of Israel considered as the host of 
Yahweh {cf. Ex. 12"- ")• ^.eil preferred the latter and identified these 
princes with those mentioned in 23' 24^ (so also Zoe., Oe., Bn.). But 
there is no reason why David should be assisted either by the com- 
manders of the army or by the princes of Israel. When David divided 
the priests he was assisted by the two leading priests, Zadok and Ahime- 
lech (24'), so by analogy he should be assisted by the princes of the 
Levites here. Previously David commanded the princes of tJie Levites 
(a''iSn ns') to appoint singers from their brethren (15''). Although 
N3S ns* is not used of the Levites elsewhere, as Keil pointed out, 
the phrase may refer to them in this case, since N3S is used of the 
Levites in Nu. 4'- 23. so. 35. 39. 43 324. 25_ in all of these passages n3S 
is used in connection with the age at which the Levites were qual- 
ified for service in the tent of meeting. In Nu. 4'^- "■ " the phrase 
reads n>iD SnN3 mji'S NasS usually rendered "service for the work 
in the tent of meeting," and in Nu. 8" m^yn m3X2 " from the service 
of the work." In the latter case, the sense is certainly "active serv- 
ice." Now it is to be noted that in our passage this same ^^ay'7 
follows N3Xn. If mayS were intended to describe the service rendered 
by the singers, it should have appeared in connection with its qualifying 
clause '03 D''N''3jn. Immediately following s<2xn i-\-£>, mjj'S is most 
naturally taken as a genitive modifying N3xn in the same sense as in 
Nu. 8", and is better rendered the chiefs of the serving host. — '^oa ijaS 
pnnM icni] on co-ordinate genitives depending upon the same no- 
men regens, cf. Ges. § 128a. — a^N'3:n] Qr. 0''N3jn. (S dirocpdeyyofMivovs. 
N3jn in vv. 2 '■ favours Qr., and so Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., et al. — ''a'J^e disdd 
'd] "'B'jk in apposition with oisdd, cf. Ges. § 13 iw. — 2. h'^n-i.b'n] so 
Baer, Gin., Ki.; also written n'jNiE'N, cf. v. " hSnt;:';. — 3. nx] v. " 
'IX''; (S here Iiovpei = ■'lis = nsi = ns\ hence read ^-^y\ so Ki. 


Kom., BH. — 4. Sn^tj;] v. " Sxnip, <S here ' A^aparfK. Either spelling 
may be original, but since Sxnj; as a common Levitical name might 
easily take the place of the less usual Ss'iry, the latter may be 
preferred with d, although the writer may have used both forms, see 
on 2 Ch. 26'. — '?Nur] V. 20 Sn^iu'^ (& Soi;/3oijX, cf. 23'«. — mcni] (& 
'lepeixihd, v. 22 niD").'', <& 'Epeifidd. — hdniSn] v." np>S><. — Kau. {ZAW. 
1886, p. 260) departed from Ew. and others in the renditions of the 
last nine names (•:;. s.) by reading second person instead of first, re- 
pointing the text as follows : 2^1 it); nnn^i nSiJ nns iSn ij:n n; ^nn 
'ui ni'7D nc*!"^. Furthermore, he held that if the Massoretic point- 
ing be accepted for Thii, etc., it was necessary to suppose that the por- 
tion of the verse from ^nSiJ on was taken from a context different 
from that of the first five words. Oe. rightly pointed out that this 
change from first to second person in three verbs is very doubtful. He 
rendered the last two lines, Ich preise und erhebe Hilfe, im Ungliick 
sitzend rede ich uberaus viele Gesichte or im Ungliick sitzend verwelke ich 
er gab reichlich Gesichte. The text of Kau., followed recently by Bn. 
and Ki., and the rendering of Oe. are alike difficult, since irj? gives poor 
sense as the object of the two preceding verbs. From Ps. 34^ we should 
expect "God " as the object. Such is the case, if the relative is under- 
stood before ^rh-M. (The omission of the relative is not unknown in 
poetry and is common in the Chronicler's writings, see 1. 120.) Hence 
it is neither necessary to change the pointings of the verbs nor to suppose 
different contexts. Accordingly the first part of the verse is better 
rendered Be gracious unto me, Oh Jah, be gracious unto me. Thou 
art my God, whom I magnify and exalt. In what follows, instead of 
nu'p 3S'> "vy read nrp^tt' n;;;. The verb of the last line may also be 
rendered as an imperative, like ''jjn at the beginning of the verse. In 
that case read nnin instead of i^^in. The full text is as follows: 

With na'P + a 4- 'i' comp. o^cnj + n + 3 -}- if in 27". tiSc] may be 
also connected with the fourth line 'ni mSc thus balancing the second, 
and taken as a Pi. inf. abs. from nSn (= kSc), Ges. § 75«, and the 
couplet rendered Thou art my help when in trouble. Fulfilling 
abundantly visions. — 5. Instead of '1 Pi"; read mp with Ki. — 6. no'] 
for ni33. — 8. nDpS] is apparently the cstr. before a sentence (Be., Ke., 
et al., cf. BDB. npj; d). — T'dSp f] an Aramaic word. 

9-31. The singers according to their courses. — The order of 
succession was determined as follows : the sons of Asaph received 


courses numbered i, 3, 5, 7; the sons of Jeduthun 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 
14; the sons of Heman 6, 9, 11, 13, 15-24. From this Bertheau 
judged that two lists of seven were first arranged, the one includ- 
ing the sons of Asaph (v. *) and the second, third, and fourth 
of the sons of Heman (v. *), and the other the six sons of Jedu- 
thun (v. ') and the first of the sons of Heman (v. *); then from 
each list lots were drawn alternately. The last ten sons of He- 
man finally drew for the remaining positions 15-24. Since three 
separate urns could not have been used, Keil proposed that 
all must have been placed in one urn. But this does not ex- 
plain why the sons of Asaph received courses with odd numbers 
and of Jeduthun with even. If two such lists were formed (Be.), 
they could have been composed of twelve names each as well 
as seven, since it is no more difficult to see why all the last 
places should have fallen to the Heman ites, than to believe that 
the lot would fall to the four sons of Asaph before taking one of 
the three sons of Heman included in the first series. No doubt 
we have here not a record of an actual lot but a simple rearrange- 
ment of the names in vv. ^-* by the Chronicler himself. His 
scheme is apparent. He began with a son of Asaph and then 
alternated with the sons of Jeduthun, taking the sons of both 
families in the order given in vv. ^ '■, with the single exception that 
Zacctir and Joseph (v. ^) were transposed. For the sixth place, he 
skipped the family of Jeduthun and took the first son of Heman 
instead. After exhausting the list of Asaph's sons, he took up 
those of Heman in their stead, in the same order as v. *, alternating 
these with the remaining sons of Jeduthun. With the fourteenth 
course he had also exhausted the list of Jeduthun's sons, to which he 
naturally added the next succeeding name from his list of Heman 's 
sons. The last nine names of Heman 's sons remained and these 
he divided into two groups, putting the first five in one list, and 
the last four in another. Within these lists the names are again 
taken in the same order as in v. f. The whole arrangement is 
manifestly artificial. No break in the scheme justifies the con- 
clusion that a part of this list was added later, as Kittel sup- 
poses. The division into twenty-four courses of twelve each 
would certainly be natural from the Chronicler. 


9. (B adds vluiv avToO Kal ddeXtpwv avroC before IDX - The number 
288 (v. ') and the analogy of the following verses demand that vnNi vja 
-\^j; Qiyj; should be added after r|DiiS (Oe., Bn., Ki.)- There seems to 
be some confusion also in the last part of the verse. — l'^^'^]- According 
to Bn., this is a dittography from iDrS. Ki. strikes it out as a gloss. 
(6 certainly read it. — On nxi (v. "), n'l'Nitt"' (v. 1^), SNity (v. '»), haiw 
(v. 20), nimi (v. 22), hh^Sn (v."), cf. vv.^-* textual notes. 

XXVI. The gate-keepers and other Levitical officers. — 

Chapter 26 concludes the account of David's organisation of the 
Levites. The genealogical connections of the gate-keepers are de- 
scribed in w. '■", and their appointments in w. '^-'^ In the former 
division are twenty-four heads of houses distributed among three 
families. The appointments (vv. '2-' 3) were distributed to the fami- 
lies according to the points of the compass, so it became necessary 
to divide one of these families in order to make four divisions — 
Zechariah, the first-bom of Meshelemiah (Shelemiah), receiving a 
special commission (v. '^). The administrators of the treasuries 
(vv. 20-28) follow the gate-keepers naturally. Similarly the keepers 
of the treasuries follow the account of the gate-keepers in 9'' »■, 
where the former are also classed as gate-keepers (g-^). The 
chapter closes with an account of the Levitical officers for the 
outward business of Israel (vv. 29-32)_ 

1-11. The genealogies of the gate-keepers. — 1. Of the 
Korahites]. Korah was the name of an Edomite (Gn. 36=- ^*- »«), 
of a son, i.e., a descendant, of Hebron (2")^ and of the head of a 
Levite family (Ex. 621- ^* Nu. 16' ^•). The genealogy of Heman, 
the singer, is traced through Korah to Kehath (6'8 ^- <" a.)); the 
"sons of Korah" are mentioned in the titles of a number of psalms 
(42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 84, 85, 87, 88); and "the sons of the 
Korahites" appear as singers in 2 Ch. 20'^ Here Meshelemiah, a 
member of the fourth generation after Korah (cf. 9''), is the head of 
a family of gate-keepers. Benzinger (Kom. p. 74) argues from these 
data that the tribe of Korah rose from a non-Levitical, even non- 
Israelitish origin, to become gate-keepers and later singers, but 
identity of name is hardly sufficient support for this connection of 
families which may have acquired the same name quite inde- 
pendently. The Chronicler certainly knew the Korahites as sing- 


ers (2 Ch. 20'') as well as gate-keepers. According to 6'^ ^- '" «■' 
the singers of the family of Heman claimed Levitical descent 
through Korah and Kehath, but other branches of this line of de- 
scent must have been employed in other service, and so a family of 
gate-keepers may have traced their descent from Levi through 
Kore, Abiasaph, Korah. The general effort of the late classes of 
Temple servants to show Levitical descent {cf. Ezr. 2") doubtless 
resulted ofttimes in conflicting claims, and at any rate the oldest 
patriarchs of the tribe would likely be appropriated by widely differ- 
ent families. Hence these genealogical connections are of little or no 
value for determining the true standing and relationship of the late 
families. — MeshelemiaJi]. Cf. 9^'. — Kore]. Cf. g^K — Ebiasaph*] 
(v. i.). — 2. 3. Zechariah] of the sons of Meshelemiah, is men- 
tioned again in v. '^and occurs also in 9",r/. also 24''5. — Jedta'el] is 
also the name of a Zebulunite 7«- 1°- " (q. v.), and of one of David's 
heroes 11", cf. 12-1 '2°' f. — Zebadiah] a frequent name but only in 
the writings of the Chronicler. — Jathni'el f ]. — 'Elam] besides the 
name of the country east of Assy., a frequent post-exilic name, 
but only in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., cf. 8^«. — Jehohanan] a frequent name, 
especially with the Chronicler. — Eliehoenai] also the name of a re- 
turning exile Ezr. 8< f.— 4. 5. The Chronicler identified 'Obed-edom 
with the Gittite by the same name (13" '=2 S. 6'" '■), as is indi- 
cated by the clause for God blessed him (Bn.). Obed-edom is 
known elsewhere as a gate-keeper (15' «• " 16=8), and by a later 
glossator is classed as a singer (15" 16= q. v.). In the present 
context Obed-edom may be taken as belonging, through Korah, to 
the family of Kehath, since the Merarites are not taken up until 
v. '", and V. '' limits the gate-keepers to these two families (Be., 
Ke., Zoe., Oe.). Since he is also called a son of Jeduthun (i6'«) 
Kittel places him in the family of Merari, but that phrase is prob- 
ably a gloss (v. in loco). — None of these eight sons of Obed-edom 
are otherwise known to us. The names Shemaiah, Jehozahad, 
Jo'ah, and Nethan'el occur very frequently in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. as 
the names of priests and Levites and are more or less common else- 
where. 'A7nmi'el is also an east-Jordanic name 2 S. g' ' 17", a 
Danite Nu. 13 '= (P), and the name of David's father-in-law i Ch. 
3' f . Sacar only occurs elsewhere as the father of one of David's 


heroes ii's, while Issachar is only found as the name of the son of 
Jacob and the tribe bearing his name. The name Peullethai is 
otherwise unknown. — 7. The sons of Sheniaiah: 'Oihni f, and 
Repha'el f, and 'Obed, and^ Elzabad, and^ his hrethreyi mighty 
men of valor (lit. sons of strength) Elihu, and Semachiah f]. These 
six men are otherwise unknown. The name 'Ohed is found only 
in Ru. 4'^- 21- 22 and in Ch., and Elzabad is the name of a Gadite in 
i2'2 -j". £/i/m is not an uncommon name. With. Semachiah ma-y 
be compared the Levitical name Ismachiah 2 Ch. 3113 -j-. — Verse 
9 belongs logically after v. ^ but it is doubtless in its original place. 
The Chronicler evidently overlooked this statement and so added 
it later. — 10. Hosah] appears also in w. "• '« and in 16=8^ where he 
is also associated with 'Obed-edotn as a gale-keeper f. — Shimri] is 
the name of another Levite 2 Ch. 29>«, also of a Simeonite 4", and 
of the father of a hero of David ii<= f. — For there was not a first- 
born]. ^ adds the statement that the first-bom had died, which is 
doubtless an inference from the present reading. Possibly the 
article has fallen out before first-born ("nSiln) nTi), which 
would permit the rendering for he was not the first-born. — 11. 
Hilkiah] is a very common name. — Tebaliah f]. — Zechariah]. 
On name cf. v. 2. — Not one of these appears as a son of Hosah 
elsewhere. — The total number of gate-keepers was ninety-three 
(62 -t- 18 + 13), cf. 9" i6'«. Since the Chronicler knows of four 
thousand gate-keepers in David's time (23*), he probably intended 
these ninety-three as the chief men. 

1. idn] in 9I' ip^<3!<, (6^ here AjStd 2,a<pip. tiDN was a Gershonite 
(62« f ) but 1DON was descended from Kehath through Korah (cf. 9" 
67 f. (22 f.) Ex. 6'5- 18- 2'), hence read either IpON or Ipx'-aN (Be., Ke., 
Zoe., Oe., Gin., Ba., Bn.), the latter being preferable. — in^cSs'D] so 
vv. '• '; V. " inioSi:'; 921 n^oScn; 9"- " DiSt:\ — 6. D^'Su'ccn] elsewhere 
only in Dn. ii'- ', where the sg. is used. Here abstr. for concr. do- 
minions = rulers; possibly we should read D'Scnn. — 7. I3iyi] SI adds 

DnN. § reads '^'s^ljo.aJkO . — vnn lat^N]. After other MSB. cited by 

Kennicott, also fl5, prefix 1 to both words (Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ki., Bn.). 

12-19. The appointments of the gate-keepers. — The Chron- 
icler described the Temple as if it were already in existence. The 


royal palace was attached to the south of the Temple area, hence 
no watchers were necessary there. The Chronicler clearly had the 
post-exilic Temple of Zerubbabel in mind, thus he was describing 
conditions of his own time or idealising them. — 12. Even of the 
chief men] i.e., the ninety-three chiefs who are enumerated above. 
— 13. The small like the great] not as well the small as the great 
(EVs.), since the literal meaning of the phrase is the like of the 
small is the like of the great. The house of Hosah with only 
thirteen chief men (v. ") fared the same as the house of Obed- 
edom with sixty-two (v. «). — 14. Shelemiah] the same as Meshel- 
emiah v. K — Zechariah] is mentioned above in v. '. — Counselor 
with prudence] is probably no more than an effort to explain 
why the subordinate Zechariah should have been ranked equally 
with the three chief houses of gate-keepers (w. '-"). — 15. The 
guarding of the southern gate and the store-house {cf Ne. 12") 
fell to Obed-edom and his sons cf. w. *-K The Chronicler prob- 
ably thought of this store-house as identical with the treasury 
building, hence his addition "with Obed-edom" in 2 Ch. 25^^, 
cp. with 2 K. 14'^. — 16. The western side fell to the lot of Hosah, 
cf. vv. '" ' . Strike out to Shuppim (y. i.). — At the gate of the 
chamber^ (v. f.). — At the ascending highway], a street which led 
up to the western side of the Temple from the Tyropeon Valley, 
the principal approach from the lower city and from the Western 
Hill. — 17. 18. The number of gate-keepers serving at one time 
was as follows : six on the east, four on the north, eight on the 
south — i.e., four for the gate and apparently two at each of two 
doors of the store-house — and six on the west — i.e., four at the 
highway and two at Parbar — a total of twenty-four. No relation 
between this number twenty-four and the twenty-four courses of 
priests (24' «•) and of singers (259 «•) is apparent, nor does there 
seem to be any connection with the twenty-four heads of families 
named in vv. ^-n. The Chronicler's preference for the number 
twelve, also twenty-four as a multiple of twelve, is a sufficient 
explanation. — Parbar] a Persian word meaning possessing light, 
was apparently a colonnade or some kind of structure on the 
western side of the Temple area identical with the Parvarim (Rv. 
the precincts) in 2 K. 23" (see Dr. art. Parbar, DB.). 


13. -i;"n '\-;}i>h]for every gate, an idiom common in Ch. and late Heb, 
(1. 124). — 14, i.T'cSs'] cf. V. ' text. n. — in^njii] should read innorS- 
with Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Gin., et al., but the versions probably read our 
text. (§ Kal Zaxapla, viol Scodf- t^ MeXx^? certainly had our text. 
H Zacharia is likely a correction also. (H "I^Sd yyi' suggests that 
C$ MeXxi'i? originated in an Aramaic gloss to yyv. — 16. □"■CB'S' 
should be struck out. Hosah alone is in place {cf. v. '") and D^ijtt'S 
clearly arose by dittography from the preceding D''DDX, Be., Ke., 
Zoe., et al. — noSu'] only here as a proper noun, and once as a common 
noun Is. 6^'=felling (of trees). The usual meaning casting forth Ki. 
questions, since this was the main gate toward the city. H renders 
qucB ducit, i.e., -t' {cf. Ju. 5' Ct. i') + pd'^ "the gate which goeth into 
the ascending highway." (&^^^ have iraarocpoplov, so also Origen's 
text. TO ira(XTo4)opiov is used to translate hdcS in 9'^ 23^8 28'' 2 Ch. 
31" Je. 35* Ez. 40"- !'• ", hence (S must have read nairS or PStt'':'. Ac- 
cording to 2 K. 23" there was a chamber on this side of the Temple in 
the Dnnfl = la-iD {cf. v. '»). By itself CS has no more weight than ^, 
since either may represent a transposition of two letters of the original, 
but the absence of the name elsewhere, the difficult meaning if taken as a 
proper name, and the fact that a chamber (.idcS) is spoken of as in the 
Dnns (2 K. 23") favour the reading of (6», noti'S or r^'zvS. On cstr. 
followed by see Ges. § 130(7. — 19. ''n-\prt\ (Si^ read Kaad = nnp, but 
If is probably original, cf. v. •. 

20-28. Administrators of the treasuries of the sanctuary. 

— Two classes of treasuries are differentiated, those of the house of 
God, and those of the dedicated things (v. "). The former were 
under the hands of Gershonites (w. ''• ") and the latter under 
Kehathites(w."-"). — 20. And the Levites, their brethren, etc.] (v.i.) 
is a superscription to the following section. — Over the treasuries 
of the house of God] i.e., for the fine flour, wine, oil, etc., cf 9", — 
and over the treasuries of the dedicated things] cf. v. ^K The same 
two divisions seem to be made in 9^' '• (Bn.). — 21. 22. The 
sons of La a dan, the descendants of the Gershonites through 
Laadan]. The second clause is in apposition with the first. 
On Laadan cf 23'. — The heads of the fathers' (houses) of La adan 
the Gershonite, Jehi'el and his brethren^ Zetham and Jo'el were 
over, etc.] Cf 238. The sons of Jehi'eli is a gloss (v. i.). Jehi'eli-f 
is an incorrect reading. Jehi'el* is the same individual men- 
tioned in 238 298. The name is common in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., but 
not found elsewhere. — His brethren*] read as plural (v. i.), is 


added to show the inferior position of Zetham and Joel, cj. 23'* 
29 ^ — 23. Kehath rather than the four famihes which sprang 
from him, should be expected here, since only Amramites are 
mentioned as over the treasuries. Possibly the others are added 
because special offices of the Izharites and Hebronites follow 
(w. " «•), but there is no further mention of the Uzzielites. — 24. 
And\ omitted in translation. Render with v. '^'^, of the Amramites 
. . . was Shuba'el'^ {cj. 23'^) . . . ruler over the treasuries. — 25. 
And his (Shubael's) brethren of Eli'ezer]. His brethren is used 
because all are descended from two brothers, Gershom and 
Eliezer, sons of Moses, cf. 23" '■ (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.). Benzinger 
prefers the reading of (I his brother. — Eli'ezer] and Rehabiah]. 
Cf. 23'*- ". — Jesha'iah] and the three following individuals are 
only known from this passage. On name cf. 25^ — Joram] is a 
common name. — Zichri] is also the name of an Asaphite 9'* (cf. 
Ne. II"). The name occurs twelve times in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. of 
eleven individuals, elsewhere only Ex. 6^' (P). — Shelomoth]. Also 
V, 26 and in v. ^^ Shelojnith. The spelling of the name fluctuates 
between these two elsewhere and is doubtful. Two other Levites, 
an Izharite 23" 24^2- 22 and a Gershonite 23', bore this name, also 
a son of Rehoboam 2 Ch. ii^" and the head of a post-exilic family 
Ezr. 8'". — 26. Which David, the king . . . had dedicated]. Cf. 
18" = 28. 8", 2 Ch. 5'. — 27. To repair the house]. Apparently the 
Chronicler thought David also provided for future needs. — 28. 
Said the son of Kish]. Cf. S^^ = 939. — Abner the son of Ner]. Saul's 
cousin, cf. I S. 14'"- ^', etc. — Jo^ab the son of Zeruiah]. Cf. 2'«. 
The Chronicler presumes that every one who led forth the army 
of the Israelites into battle consecrated of the booty to Yahweh. 

20. n^nx]. Read an>ns with (S a5t\(pol avrdv, so J. D. Mich., and 
most commentators after him. — 21 . 22 . The text is certainly corrupt 
if these verses come from the Chronicler, since Zetham and Joel are here 
sons of Jehieli, but in 23 * they are his brothers. (H^ adds to the con- 
fusion and gives no aid. (8'-, which usually has the fullest reading, 
here follows 1^ in v. 21, but omits '''?N''n> >ja from v. " and inserts the 
copulative before anr. (gL may have been corrected from 23 s, but also 
internal grounds point to •'Ssin'' '■ja as a gloss. The gentilic form is out 
of place in v. ", also in v. ", where it is simply repeated, and vnx pointed 
as singular, as in M, is useless, but as plural contradicts •'Sn^H' ^J3. 


The final ' of ■'Sn^'Ri (v. ") is a remnant of the lost i before onr. — 25 
rriNi] eg Koi T<? aSe'htpQ avroO = vnx'^i adopted by Bn. — nioW] Qr. 
rr-oSc, V. 28 n^cSi!', ^ SaXw/uw^ in both (c/. 23' text. n.). — 26. i-\tt''?] 
Ke. corrects to ntt'i with B, so also Oe., Ki., but cf. 28" text. n. — "■-in 
niNoni d^dSmh]. Co-ordinate genitives depending on the same nomen 
regens are unusual, Ges. § 128a. — 27. i5TnS] is used elsewhere to 
repair an old building 2 K. 12*- '• '' 22' 2 Ch. 24^- 12^ etc., c/'. BDB. 
prn Pi. 1 . c. Here it must have the same or a more general sense, 
V. s. — 28. trn|inn] on art. for the rel. pron. see Ges. § 1381, also 
1. 119. — t^'li^nn] Bn. corrects to t'^iTO^:. — n^s*^;;'] cf. v. ^ text. n. 

29-32. Officers for the outward business. — 29. Chenaniah] 
appears elsewhere as the name of a master of the carrying (15"- " 
q. v.). — For the outward business over Israel]. Cf. "Levites who 
had the oversight of the outward business of the house of God" 
(Ne. II"). — Officers] i.e., some minor officials, possibly scribes 
(cf. (B 'ypa/xfiareveLv). As early as Deuteronomy (17' «• 19" 
2 1 5) priests and Levites are assigned duties as judges. In later 
times the priests and Levites seem to have exercised a certain 
amount of authority in outward things throughout the land {cf. 
I Mac. 2", Jos. Ant. iv. 8. 14), which was probably the case in the 
time of the Chronicler, who ascribed to David the inauguration 
of the customs of his own time. — 30-32. One thousand and seven 
hundred Hebronites were appointed to have oversight over the 
business (D^t^'^D) of Yahweh and for the service (m^y) of the King 
in western Palestine (v. ^o). Their work seems to have been the 
same as that which their brethren performed in eastern Palestine, 
i.e., for every affair ("121) of God, and [every] affair ("121) of the 
King (v. "). Just how this service was related to that of the sons of 
Chenaniah, the officers and judges (v. "), is not clear, nor can their 
duties be determined with certainty. If we suppose them to have 
been collectors of taxes, both for the Temple and for the King, 
the account follows naturally the appointment of the treasurers 
(vv. 20-28). That there should be only one thousand seven hundred 
overseers for western Palestine with ten and one-half tribes, when 
there were two thousand seven hundred for the two and one-half 
tribes of Eastern Palestine, seems strange. Possibly these numbers 
contain a hint of the importance of the district of Gilead in the 


Chronicler's own time. Judas Maccabeus found many Jews in 
Gilead (i Mac. 5"). — Jazer] (cf. 6" (8'>) also seems to have been 
an important trans-Jordanic Jewish centre (i Mac. 5' '•). — 
Hashabiah] is not found elsewhere as a Hebronite. On name 
cf. 25=. — Jerijah]. Cf. 23 '^ 24". 

30. naipn j-n^S ^:]>c] means literally /row beyond Jordan westward. 
Western Palestine is meant, cf. Jos. 5* 22'. 

XXVII. The organisation of the army and the officers of 
David. — The preceding chapter closes with an account of the 
Levites who were assigned semi-secular duties. The organisation 
of the army (vv. '-'5), the list of tribal princes (vv. "-"), the royal 
treasurers and overseers (v^^ «-="), and the King's counsellors 
(vv. "-3<) naturally follow. 

Although the Chronicler has given the list of David's mighty men in 
cc. 1 1 /., such a doublet does not necessarily point to different authors 
(cf. Bn. Kom. p. 79, Ki. Kom. p. 99). While the Temple is the centre 
of interest in cc. 2l ff., it is also apparent that the writer wishes to 
magnify David in every possible way. Solomon built the Temple but 
David here receives the greater credit, since he collected the material, 
money, and skilled workmen (c. 22). He, too, prepared for the service 
in the Temple by organising Levites, priests, singers, and gate-keepers (cc. 
23^.). According to 2 S. 23' ^- (i Ch. 11'" *•) David had many mighty 
men, but they were not organised. The Chronicler would scarcely 
attribute the preparation of the plans of the Temple (c. 28) and the 
organisation of the personnel of the cult (cc. 23 /.) to David because 
" Solomon. . . is young and tender " (22^ 29'), and then overlook the 
military and official bodies. David was pre-eminently a military leader 
and Solomon a man of peace. Hence the Chronicler represents that 
David had a large body-guard organised into twelve courses of 24,000 
each. This account forms an essential part also of the history of David's 
preparation for the Temple. A well-organised army and trained offi- 
cials would aid materially in the successful completion of this great 
undertaking. The Chronicler does not ignore this fact, for according 
to his account, David appeals to these classes for aid (22" 282"" 29' ^ ), 
and depends upon them to furnish the necessary political support 
(28' *■). Rather than being a later bungling piece of work inserted in 
an unsuitable place (Bn.), c. 27 seems to fit into the scheme of the 
Chronicler perfectly. The number 24,000 also suggests the Chronicler 
(cf. 24' 'f- 25' ff ), and a body-guard of 288,000 men is about the kind 
of an exaggeration (cf. 2 S. 15") to expect from the writer of 22'*. 


1-15. The organisation of the army. — Solomon organised a 
force of officers, one for each month, to provide victuals for the 
King and his household (i K. 4' '•). For this account the Chron- 
icler substituted a large body-guard who served the King "in every 
matter by courses," but ascribed their organisation to David. 
The names of the twelve officers are taken from ii'" «•. — 1. After 
this superscription a fuller account might be expected, but the 
catalogue which follows (vv. 2-15) contains only the twelve classes, 
the number belonging to each, and the name of the command- 
ing officer, hence Bertheau thought only a partial account was 
here given. — 2. Ishba a/* {y. i.) the son of Zabdi'el] does not 
contradict "the son of a Hachmonite" (11")) since the latter 
is the name of a family (Oe.). He belonged 3, to the family of 
Perez (cf. 2* ■' ) from whom David also was descended (2^- ' « ). 
— 4. Eleazar the son of Dodai^] is restored from ii'^ (y. i.). — 
And his course (and) Mikloth the ruler, is obscure. A IMikloth 
occurs in 8" 9" -•, but there is no ground for connecting him with 
the one mentioned here f. — 5. Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada]. 
Cf. ii"-24 iS'' 27«, also V. '<. — The priest] is considered a proba- 
ble gloss by Oe., since Benaiah was a military leader, and Bn. 
strikes it out because Jehoiada' is nowhere else called a priest, nor 
even a Levite. But a Jehoiada occurs as a military leader for 
Aaron (12^' <"') and Levites figure in a military capacity (12" 
(26)). — 6. Cf. ii'2-26 = 2 S. 23^°-". — 'A)mnizabad-\]. — 7. Cf. ii" = 
2 S. 23=*. — 'Asah^el] was slain by Abner in the early part of David's 
reign (2 S. 2'^-''), to which the clause and Zebadiah his son after 
him clearly refers. The name Zebadiah occurs only in the writings 
of the Chronicler (nine times in all). — 8. Shamhuth the Zerahite*]. 
Cf. II". — 9-15. The order of the names from v. ^ onward varies 
slightly from that in 11" «■. Helez and */ra' (11" ' ) are trans- 
posed, as are also Abi'ezer and Sibbecai (ii^s '■). 'Ilai (ii^') is 
omitted, so also Ithai (11'') between Heled and Benaiah (ii=° '•), 
the last two also being transposed. — Sibbecai, the Hushathite]. Cf. 
20*. Abi'ezer] was a citizen of 'Anathoth, a Benjamite town (cf. 
545 (60))_ — Maharai] of the family of Zerah (cf. 2*). Cf. 11'°. — 
'Othni'el] by his relation to Caleb (Jos. 15" Ju. i'^-'^ 3') was 
incorporated into the tribe of Judah. 


1. niNoni D^D^NH na'] cf. 262« text. n. — nxsini nxan] used of enter- 
ing and leaving service, 2 Ch. 23^- » 2 K. ii'- '• '. — nnxn] each^ cf. 
Ju. 8i« Nu. 17". — 2. Dj?as'i] so also iii', but 2 S. 238 n2!:'2 :i^\ <& 
here 2o/3dX (= SjjaB'i), nn 'leae/SaSd (= leje^aaX = hy2t'>), 2 S. 
238 'le^6<70€, hence We., e< a/., are doubtless right in reading Piioc^ 
as original in 2 S. and Vpaifi for both passages in Ch. — 4, nn] ii'» 
nn J3 nty^N (but read there with (^ Audal, nn), so also 2 S. 23', 
hence supply p it^Sn, Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ki., Bn. — niSpm inpSnoi] 
Be., on the basis of the addition to v. ', struck out the copulative, 
1, before mSpD (also Ke., Zoe.). Oe. suggested that this clause, 
which is wanting in C&, arose through dittography. Kittel corrects v. « 
to inpSnD S;?! according to OH, /cai ^7r2, and reads the same here. — 8. 
mj^n ninp;:'] (6^ SaXoci^ 6 'Eo-pae, ^ Sa/xaw^ lefpoeX, i- lef/sa. ii*' 
nnnn niDt^, CS^ Sa/aaw^ 6 'A5/, 2 S. 23" iTinn ddk'. Oe. corrects to 
^mivn, so also Ki. The form m;^ is found only here, cf. ^mi w. "■ ". 
— 10. ^JiSfln] (B 6 iK *aXXoi)s. 2 S. 23^6 >aSDn. — 12. ■'rp^^jaV] Qr. ]2^ 
,j,p\ — 15. ''i^in] (S XoXScta, ii'o iSn d X^ooS, 2 S. 23" aSn. 

16-24. The tribal princes. — The two verses concerning the 
census (w. "• «<) indicate the probable purpose of this section, 
viz., to show that David followed the legal method in making an 
enumeration of the people (c. 21). When, according to P, Yahweh 
commanded Moses to take the sum of the people in the Wilder- 
ness of Sinai (Nu. i' '•), Aaron and a prince from each of the 
twelve tribes (Nu. i'^) were associated with him in the work and 
only the males from twenty years old and upward were counted 
(Nu. I" «■). David likewise here had twelve princes of tribes 
besides Zadok, the representative of the house of Aaron (v. "), 
and only those from twenty years old and upward (v.") were 
numbered. No previous order is followed in this catalogue 
of the tribes (cf. 2> '• Gn. 35" »• 46^ ^- 49^ '•). Gad and Asher 
are wanting. The six sons of Leah come first, in the order of 
their birth {cf. Gn. 29" -^^^ -^qu-^o and 35"), then follow six tribes 
(or divisions of tribes) of whom Rachel was the legal mother, 
Bilhah's son Naphtali {cf. Gn. 30^ 35"), the grandsons and son of 
Rachel {cf. Gn. 3o"-2< 462° 35'*-'0 ^^^ Bilhah's remaining son 
Dan {cf. Gn. 30=). Gad and Asher have neither fallen from the 
text (Zoe.) nor is it likely that they have been omitted accidentally 
(Ba.). The number twelve was full without them, and coming last 
in several lists (2* Gn. 35") they were the ones to be omitted. It 


is significant that we have six princes from Leah and six from 
Rachel, if Zadok, the priest, who represented the whole people 
rather than a part of a tribe {cf. 29"), is excluded. Of the twenty- 
five individuals whose names appear in this list of the princes only 
five are otherwise known. Zadok, David and his brother Elijah* 
and Abner the cousin of Saul, cf. 26^', are well known. Hashahiah 
is possibly identical with the person mentioned in 263°. Most of 
the other twenty names are common. — 16. Eltezer the son of 
Zichri]. Cf. 23" and 26". — Shepliatiah]. Cf. 12^. — Ma'acah] 
as masc. personal name 11" Gn. 22" (J) i K. 2'^ f- — 17. Hasha- 
biali]. Cf. 253. — Kemu^el] is the name of a son of Nahor Gn. 22^' 
and of an Ephraimite Nu. 34" f. — For Aaron, Zadok] is expected 
rather at the beginning of the list (cf. Nu. i'), but is also in place 
after Levi. — 18. 'Omri] is also a Zebulunite name 7^ (g. v.), and a 
Judean 9^ — Micha'el]. Cf. 5'K — 19. Ishma'lah]. Cf. i2< f. — 
Jerimoth]. Cf 25^— £znV/*]. Cf. 5" Je. 36^^ f-— 20. 'Aza- 
ziah] as a Levite name 1521 2 Ch. 31'^ f. — Hoshea'], Jo'el], and 
Pedaiah] are frequent. — 21. Gilead]. Cf. 5'. The term miglit 
designate all eastern Palestine. (See GAS. HGHL. pp. 548 /.) 
—Iddo]. Cf Ezr. 10" (Kt.) ■\.—Zechariah]. Cf. 24'K—Jaasi'el]. 
Cf. IV f.— 22. 'Azar'el]. Cf. 2S'.—Jeroha)n] is frequent.— 23. 
Because Yahweh had said, etc.]. David refrained from counting 
all, since such an act would imply a doubt of God's promise in 
Gn. 22". — 24. But finished not}. Cf. 2i« '•. — Neither was the number 
put in the book* of the acts of days of king David] because natu- 
rally to the Chronicler no record would be made in the royal 
annals of such an impious and disastrous census. 

18. in'«'7N] Qr. nih^Sn. Read with (S 'EXia/3 = ^n^Sn, which is 
the name of David's eldest brother elsewhere, 2" 2 Ch. 11'' i S. 16* 
1713. 28. 28^ cf. 2'3-i', so Zoe., Gin., Ki.— 19. hm^y/i] as in 52* Je. 362s, but 
the Hebrew pronunciation should be Ssnrjj, so 05 in every instance, 
adopted by Ki.- — 22. ami] (S^a iw^o/x, l lepoafi. — 24. ii3DC3 iDDcn] 
(g iv /St^X/v, cf. a^c^n nai idd in 2 K. 122" 138- '^ 14I6. is. 28^ etc. The 
second iddd probably arose through the influence of the first, hence 
read ncD3 with Ki. 

25-31. The officers over the King's possessions. — Twelve 
oflacers are here enumerated, another instance of the Chronicler's 


preference for this number. — 25. And over the king's treasures] 
i.e., those in Jerusalem in contrast to those in the field, etc. — 
'Aztnaveth] also the name of one of David's heroes (ii'' 2 S. 23"), of 
the father of two of David's mighty men (12'), and a Benjamlnite 
name (8==« = 9") f.— 26. 'Ezri ^].—Chelub]. Cf. 4" f — 27. Shimei 
the Ramathite]. Whether he was from the Ramah in Benjamin 
(Jos. 18") (Be., Ke., Zoe.) or Ramah (Ramoth) of the Negeb (Jos. 
19' I S. 30") cannot be determined. On name cf. 253. — For the 
stores of the wine]. Cf. 2 Ch. 11". — Zahdi {cf. Jos. 7'- »'• '^ S^' 
Ne. II" (?) 1) the Shiphmite] may have been an inhabitant of 
Shepham (Nu. 341" '•) (Be., SS. who vocalise '•QSty) or of Siph- 
moth in the Negeb of Judah (i S. 3028) (Ke., Ri. HWB., Ba., 
Bn.), with site unknown. — 28. The sycomore-trees] were pro- 
verbial for their abundance in the Shephelah, cf. i K. 10" = 2 Ch. 
I'* = 9". The Shephelah properly means lowland. George Adam 
Smith {HGHL. pp. 201 ff.) would limit the technical designation 
to the low hills west and south-west from the hill-country of Judah, 
but Buhl {GAP. p. 104, n. 164) has shown that several passages 
(Dt. I' Jos. 9' 2 Ch. 26'") favour the broader significance given in 
the usual rendering of (^ plain {to ttcSlov or rj irehLvrf). (See also 
EBi. IV. col. 4455 and Dr. in DB. III. pp. 893 /.) — Baal-hanan 
the Gederite] from Gederah or Gedor, cf. 12^ Ba al-hanan was 
also the name of a king of Edom i^'- ^° Gn. 36'8- 39 -j-^ — Stores 
of oil]. Cf. 2 Ch. II". — Jo ash] also a Zebul unite 7' {q. v.) f. 
— 29. Sharon] the name of the coast-plain from Joppa north- 
ward to Carmel, noted for its fertility. — Shitrai f]. — Shaphat] 
also name of a grandson of Zerubbabel 3", a Gaddite chief 5'% 
a prince of Simeon Nu. 13', and the father of Elisha i K. 19'*- " 
2 K. 3" 6" f . — 'Adlai f ]. — 30. Obil] a form of the Arabic word 

abil ( Jjf ) able to manage camels. — The Ishma elite]. That an 

Ishmaelite and also a Hagrite (v. ^^ Heb.) appear in this list does 
not indicate an earlier source for the names as Benzinger sup- 
poses. The name Obil, which occurs only here, with its ap- 
propriate meaning points rather to an artificial origin. — Jehdeiah]. 
Cf. 2420 •]-. — Meronothite]. Meronoth ((8»^ Mepadcov) seems to 
have been near Gibeon and Mizpah, cf. Ne. 3 '. — 31. Jaziz f , the 
Hagrite]. Cf 5'° '» Ps. 83' <«\ 


27. a''pn:3K'] = o^ipy + -n + 3 + -r. On -r for i::'n see Ges. § 36. 
— 29. iTiOf] Qr. ■'t?";B', (& ^ 'Aa-apraU, '^ Sarpot, so also 15, & ■ - l\ *■■ 
and so QI. Kt. preferable, BDB. — 31. tt'ioin] 1. 107. 

32-34. The King's counsellors.— This catalogue has Jo'ab, the 
captain of the host, and Ahiathar, in common with previous similar 
lists, also Jehoiadd the son ofBenaiah instead of Benaiah the son of 
Jehoiada {v. i.), cf. i8'5-»' = 2 S. S'^-is and 2 S. ao^^-Js. — 32. David's 
lover]. EVs. render uncle, which is a common meaning of the 
Hebrew word (IH), but no uncle of David by the name of 
Jonathan is known elsewhere, while Jonathan, a son of Shimea 
(Shitnei), David's brother, is mentioned in 20^ = 2 S. 21 2', hence 
Be., Zoe., Oe., Ba., Bn. take the word (111) in the general sense 
of kinsman, here nephew. Zoe. cites Je. 32'' as parallel, but there 
son (j3) has certainly fallen from the text (cf. vv. «• 9^ other Heb. 
Mss., and (^). The uncles of David are nowhere given; Jonathan 
is one of the most common Hebrew names; (^, H, certainly took 
the common meaning uncle. A nephew would not likely be 
chosen as a counsellor, nor is there any reason why either tradition 
or the Chronicler arbitrarily should make this nephew David's 
leading counsellor. On the other hand, the only Jonathan who 
was an adviser of David was the son of Saul {cf. 1 S. 19. 20). The 
Chronicler certainly selected Ahithophel and Ilushai from parts 
of 2 S. (v. i.), which he did not quote, so he may also have wished 
to refer briefly here to the romantic story of David and Jonathan. 
The word IM is used most often as loved one (lover), Ct. 11^ + 
30 times in Ct., also in Is. 5', where it is equivalent to friend (BDB). 
Lover is not too strong a word to describe the friend of i S. 
i8'- » 20<' '• 2 S. I", A man of skill, a fair rendering of the next 
clause (j^2I2 B'''i<) (cf. 2 Ch. 26= 34"), is certainly an apt descrip- 
tion of Jonathan, the son of Saul (cf. 2 S. i-^- "). And he was 
scribe (iiln "iS'iDl) could not describe him, but the form suggests 
that these words are a gloss, which is made more probable by their 
absence from (^^ and from Origen's Septuagint text (Field). A 
glossator found a scribe mentioned in 18" 2 S. 8" and 2 S. 20", and 
missing the oflSce here, added this phrase to the first oflacer, ignor- 
ing the fact that he was already described as a counsellor ("yV). 
Although Jonathan had long been dead (i S. 31^), Ahithophel had 


also been dead for some time (2 S. 17"), and the list does not purport 
to give the officers living in David's old age. The proper place for 
Jonathan is at the head of this catalogue, since he was David's 
first counsellor. — Jehi'el, the son of a Hachmonite]. A son of a 
Hachmonite is mentioned once elsewhere (i i ")• The word mean- 
ing "wise" is particularly appropriate here, of the tutor of the 
King's sons. — 33. Ahithophel] a most trusted counsellor of David, 
whose word was as "the oracle of God" (2 S. 16"), joined himself 
to Absalom durmg the revolt of the latter (2 S. 15")? then killed 
himself when his counsel was not followed (2 S. 17"). — Hiishai, 
the Archite] befriended David during the same rebellion, cf. 2 S. 
1^32-37 1616-19 175-16. The "border of the Archites" was not far 
from Beth-el Jos. i6^ — The king's friend]. Cf. 2 S. 15" 16" 
also I K. 4«. "The friend" and "the well beloved friend" were 
titles of honour in Egypt (see Erman, Ancient Egypt, p. 72). (Cf. 
also I Mac. 2^^ y^ 6'° tmv (f)i\Q)v; 10" u" 2 Mac. 8' tmv 
TrpoiTcov (ptXcov.) — 34. Jehoiada , the son of Benaiah] is elsewhere 
"Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada" (see references above v. '). 
Bertheau would simply transpose, but against this change are Ke., 
Zoe., Oe., et al. A priest is expected before Abiathar {cf. i8'8 = 
2 S. 20") and since Jehoiada is designated "the priest" in v. ' 
{v. s.) the text is probably correct as it stands. (On the same name 
for grandfather and grandson, cf. 24'.) — Abiathar]. Cf. 24'. — 
Jo^ah] David's sister's son, 2'^ 

XXVIII-XXIX. David's last assembly and his death.— 
David is represented as calling a general assembly to ratify the 
choice of Solomon as his successor, but according to the historical 
record in i K. i, Solomon owed his succession to the machinations 
of his mother, Bath-sheba, and the prophet Nathan. According to 
the Chronicler, Solomon was the appointee of God himself (28* cf. 
22 » '•). The principal purpose of the assembly was to acquaint 
the public with the project of building a temple and so secure the 
popular support (28' -s), hence Solomon was publicly advised of his 
responsibility (28s-"'); the plans were transferred to him (28"-''); 
he was given encouraging assurances of support {2S^''-'^^); and the 
princes were called upon to aid the project by personal contribu- 
tions (29'-'). As Solomon signalised the completion of the Temple 


by a prayer of dedication (i K. 8"-"), blessings (i K. S^**'), dedi- 
catory sacrifices (i K. 8«-"), and a sacred feast (i K. 8"), so 
David, according to this account, marked the completion of his 
preparations for the building of the Temple by a prayer (29»''-"), 
blessings (292"), sacrifices (2921), and a sacred feast (29""). The 
history of David closes with the anointing of Solomon as King 
(29"''), the account of his death and a summary of his reign 

XXVIII. 1-10. Solomon presented to the assembly as the 
divinely chosen successor to the throne. — 1. N'oiv David as- 
sembled all the princes of Israel] a general term including all the 
princes designated in the following list, i.e., the princes of the tribes] 
mentioned by name in 27>«-", the princes of those who served the 
king by courses] mentioned by name in 2']--^^, the princes (or 
captains) of thousands and the princes (or captains) of hundreds] 
repeated from 27', the princes over all the property and the cattle of 
the king] those mentioned by name in 27" -s'. — And his sons with 
the eunuchs]. J. H. Michaelis {recte Syr. regis et filiorum eius, 
c. 2'j^*- ''. Male Vulg.fUlosqiie suos) and moderns (Be., Ke., Zoe., 
Oe., Ki., EVs.) connect a7id his sons with the preceding — the pos- 
sessions of the King belonging also to his sons — but the mention of 
the King's sons is to be expected here and they are certainly in 
place in such an assembly, cf i K. i'- "• " (v. i.). — 2. My 
brethren]. The King was regarded as the brother of his subjects, cf. 
Dt. 17"- »" also I S. 30=' 2 S. 19'= <'". — As for me, etc.]. Cf. 22'. — 
A house of rest for the ark] i.e., a permanent abode. It had been 
carried about from place to place previous to this time. — The foot- 
stool of our God] refers to the "mercy-seat" (ri"lS3) {cf. v. ") upon 
the ark (cf. Ex. 25") (Be., Ke., Oe., Bn.). — / had prepared] does not 
refer to the preparations of 22^ «• n ff-, since those were made to aid 
Solomon (22^). The Chronicler here represents that David made 
ready to build before God had commanded him not to do so (c. 17 
= 2 S. 7). — 3. Cf. 22*. — 4. 5. As Yahweh chose Judah from all the 
tribes (cf. 52), the house of Jesse from Judah (cf. i S. 16'), and 
David from among all his brethren (cf. 1 S. i6«-") to be the reigning 
prince (cf. 11= 17^ = 2 S. 7« i K. 8'6), so he selected Solomon from 
among the many sons of David to sit upon the throne of the kingdom 


of Yahweh {cf. 29" i7'0- Solomon is thus clothed with divine 
authority. — 6. 7. V.' is repeated from 22'° {q. v.). With v. '" cf. 
17", and with v."" cf. i K. 3»* 8" g*. — 8-10. David closes this 
portion of his address with a personal admonition first to the 
congregation of Israel (v. «) and then to his son Solomon (vv. '• '"). 
With v. « cf. Dt. 421 '• « 30" '• Lv. 25^8. — With a perfect heart]. 
Cf. 29'- " I K. 8". — Yahweh hath chosen thee, etc.] v. s. vv. * «• 
The address is interrupted by the transfer of the plans of the 
Temple to Solomon. David resumes his admonition to Solomon 
in v. 2 0, beginning as he leaves off here. 

1. Shi-^i] elsewhere in Hiph. in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., i Ch. 13^ 15' (both 
from the Chronicler) 2 Ch. 5= (= i K. 8') ii» (= i K. 12"). 15' is 
ascribed to an extra-canonical source by Biichler, Bn., Ki., but v. in 
loco. — mpSnnn] 1. 42. A very common word of the Chronicler. — 
OTincDn] for royal officers is late (BDB. mB- i b), cf. 27' 2 Ch. 17'* 
22^ Est. i'" Pr. 29'2. — !i'i3-i] used elsewhere in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. as a general 
term for movable possessions, 27" 2 Ch, 31' 32^9 Ezr. 8" lo^ all of which 
are probably from the Chronicler, 1. 107. — d^d^idh dj? VJ3S1] wanting 
in (8^^, (&^ Kal tG)v vlQiv airov ffiiv rots eiivoiixoi-s, B filiosque sues 
cum eunuchis. Bertheau stated the following reasons for taking vjaSi 
with the preceding iSd*? : (i) Sis the sign of the gen. before iSa 
and would hardly be the sign of the ace. before the next word; 
(2) if the sons of David had been intended, they would not be given 
in this position. The first is no valid objection in the Chronicler's 
writings. As regards the order, if we turn to c. 27, we shall ob- 
serve that up to this point the Chronicler has included in this 
verse all the officers to the end of v. " {v. s.). Jonathan, the next 
in order (27"), had long been dead (v. s. 2^^^), and following him 
is the tutor of the King's sons (2722). It is a well-known fact that 
eunuchs frequently had charge of the education of young princes 
(see DB. I. pp. 793 /., art. Eunuch), hence the King's sons with the 
eunuchs are not out of order here, as Be. contended, but exactly where 
they should be expected. By construing VJ2S1 with the following, with 
H, we also have a satisfactory explanation of ay, which is otherwise 
peculiar in this list of accusatives.— 2 . •■JVD'i'] 1. 115.— mn f] occurs 
only in poetry and late writings (BDB.).— ^mj^on] 1. 54.-4. i^Sdh"^] 05 
ToO yevia-Oai /le fiacriXia, U ut me eligeret regem, hence Oe. thinks 
<g, H, read ^Js^SnnS.— 5. nioSr] 1. 67.-7. ■•mran] 1. 54.— im3':'D] 1. 67. 
— nrn dv3] especially Dt., Je., and subsequent writings (BDB. av 
7 h). Used elsewhere in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. only in 2 Ch. 6^^ (= i K. 8"), 
cf. also ntn arriD only in Dt. 6^' Je. 442^; also Ezr. 9'- '^ Ne. 9>°, which 
are from the Chronicler (see Torrey, CHV. pp. 14/.).— 8. Israel is the 


n^7^^ Vnp also in Ne. 13', cf. Dt. 23'- '• s- <■ 4. 9 La. 1'° Mi. 2= Nu. 16' 
20*. — anSnjn J]. — 9. rn'>:'nD nxi Vd]. Cf. 29" jaS nnirnn ix"''? (from 
the Chronicler) J; elsewhere in OT. Gn. 6^ (J) 13S nncna is'' S3. 
IX' is not found alone in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., and m^BTiD only occurs in 
these passages with this meaning, see BDB. naBTi;; i a. — ija'mn] 1. 23. 
— in>jr'>] in the Hiph. late (= earlier Qal), only three times in OT. 
(Is. 19' is from another root, see BDB.), 2 Ch. ii'< 29''. Ki. {Kom. 
p. 126) says the former could come from the Chronicler. Bn. a'scribes 
both to Midrashic sources, 1. 30. — ij;S J] Driver gives among the 
words or constructions of the Chronicler which are used elsewhere 
only in poetry (LOT".", p. 539). — 10. nir'Vi pin]. The same phrase 
occurs as the final admonition in a speech in Ezr. 10*, which is cer- 
tainly from the Chronicler (see Tor. CHV. p. 21). 

11-19. The transfer of the plans.— 11. The pattern (rT'ian), 
literally "construction," was probably a description in words of 
the dimensions, material, etc., similar to what is found in Ex. 251" « , 
and not a drawing. David delivered to Solomon the pattern of 
the porch, cf. 2 Ch. 3^ i K. 6'; and of the houses thereof (y. i.), i.e., 
the rooms of the Temple building, the hekdl or holy place, the 
debtr or holy of holies, and the side-chambers (i K. 6^ ' ); and of 
the treasuries, probably the side-chambers; and of the upper 
chambers, cf. 2 Ch. 3'; and of the inner chambers, the porch and 
holy place according to Be., Ke., Zoe.; and of the house of the 
mercy-seat, i.e., the holy of holies. — 12. David, as here repre- 
sented, also worked out all the details for the courts and for the 
surroimding buildings, and delivered to his son the pattern of 
everything which he had in his mind (lit. spirit). This use of 
spirit (rrn) as the seat or organ of mental acts is late, cf. Ez. 11' 
20" (BDB., nil. 6). — For the treasuries of the house of God and 
for the treasuries of the dedicated things] (cf. 26=°) describes more 
closely one use to which all the chambers round about were put. 
— Verse 13. is ambiguous. And for the courses, etc., may be 
taken as a continuation of for the courts and for all the cham- 
bers (v. '2)^ ix., that David delivered also a description of the 
courses of the priests, etc., to Solomon; or the verse may con- 
tinue the description of the uses of all the chambers round about 
(v. '2)_ Benzinger points out that the word pattern (rT'iSri) 
could hardly be used for a description ot the courses, and 


(g {koX roiv /caTaXvfidrcov) certainly connected this verse with 
V. '2b. Bertheau (followed by Ke., Zoe., Oe.) held that all of 
this verse is a further description of the uses of the chambers, 
while V. '< is a continuation of the things described by pattern, 
hence he understood he gave him the pattern before v. ". — 14. 
The Chronicler was probably influenced by the account of the 
tabernacle in Ex. 25, where Yahweh gives Moses the pattern of 
"the tabernacle" and the pattern of "all its vessels" (Ex. 25'). 
— For all vessels of every kind of service^. The pleonastic style is 
characteristic of the Chronicler. — 15. And a weight for the golden 
candlesticks and their lamps'] i.e., David appointed (jr,''1) (v. ") a 
certain weight for the candlesticks {cf. 2 Ch. 4'). — Candlesticks 
of silver] not mentioned elsewhere; thought of as used in the 
priests' chambers (Ke., Oe.); in reality a mere fancy of the 
Chronicler. The same applies to the tables of silver mentioned 
in the following verse. — 16. Elsewhere only one table of show- 
bread is mentioned {cf. Ex. 25"«-37"' 40" i K. 7^8 2 Ch. 13" 
29"), except 2 Ch. 4'', q. v. — 17. As in the foregoing verses, he 
gave the pattern must be understood. — The flesh-hooks (i.e., forks 
for lifting meat) are mentioned elsewhere only in Ex. 27' 38' Nu. 
4'< 2 Ch. 4"; cf. also I S. 2"- '*. — ^The basins were used for sprinkling 
the blood of the victim against the altar, cf 2 Ch. 29", and the ctips 
were those with which the drink-offering was poured out, Ex. 25'' 
37" Nu. 4'' f. — The bowls were possibly a covered dish (Be., 
Ke., et al.); mentioned elsewhere only in Ezr. i'"- ■" 8". — 18. 
Altar of incense]. Cf. Ex. 30" -1° 2 Ch. 26'^ — And the pattern 
of the chariot, the cherubim]. The cherubim are thought of as 
constituting God's chariot as in Ps. 18" *"". The Chronicler 
probably had the vision of Ez. i^ «• '> «■ {cf. BS. 49') in mind. — 
19. All this in writing is from the hand of Yahweh upon me, 
causing me to understand, even all the works of the pattern]. As 
Moses received the pattern of the tabernacle and its vessels by 
divine inspiration (Ex. 25'- •"' 27*), so the Chronicler, while giving 
David the credit for preparing the plans for the Temple, declares 
that Yahweh was the source of David's knowledge. "The hand 
of Yahweh upon . . . " is a frequent expression for divine inspira- 
tion {cf. 2 K. 3'= Ez. 1= 3'% etc.). 


11. iTijan] a pattern according to which anything is constructed, 
P and late (BDB.), cf. w. '' 's. is, — ^na nxi] (& Kal rwv oIkuv avrov. 
This, omitting pn, which is unreadable unless P-i2n is supplied, is 
the correct rendering, generally adopted, with the suf5x referring to 
the Temple. Bn. corrects vnj to non. — r^rjj] also in restored text 
of V. 2" t ^ loan-word from or through Persian (BDB.) 1. 19. — 
nn] only here by the Chronicler in the sense of seat or organ of 
mental acts. This use is occasional and late (BDB.). — 12. 0>nS.xn n^a] 
1. 15. — 13b-14. (^^^ here and in the following verse abridged. — 15. 
an? Dn>mji jnin nnjsS Sirsi]. Be. construed ^irs as ace. of the obj. 
dependent upon |n>i of v. " (also Zoe., Oe.) and an; as in free subordina- 
tion to Bmmji (Zoe.). The text is obscure. — mi3>3] other MSS. miay^. 
— 18. n^janSi] h the sign of the ace. Be., Ke., et al. — D^^2D^ a''e'-\DS] Be. 
corrected to a''33Dni ccnon with (§, 13, but see Ke. — 19. >Sy mn> iid 2033 
S'D8>n] mn^ must be the subject of S^'^a'n, as it is implied in the phrase 
nini n-in (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.). "'Sy has been construed in three different 
ways. Bertheau connected it with 3P33 as in Ps. 40* ^^y 3ir3 "pre- 
scribed to me," hence he rendered the passage das allcs hat durch eine 
mir zur Norm gegebene Schrift von Jahve's Hand Jahve gelehrt, and un- 
derstood the law of Moses to be meant, since Ex. 25 ff. was the basis for 
this passage. Keil connected ''7^ with the preceding nini tid " writing 
from the hand of Jahve came upon me," i.e., a writing which was divinely 
inspired, but not necessarily received immediately from Yahweh as in 
the case of Moses (so also Zoe.). Oettli construed the words as Ke., but 
since a WTiting composed by David could not be said to teach him, he 
corrected S'3!:'n to n'?'3i:'!!)S Benzinger takes '•^V with Sijiyn, which is 
not an impossible construction in Ch. — 3rt3] 1. 60. — Si3B>n]. The Hiph. 
is so used by the Chronicler in 2 Ch. 30" and Ne. 9'", cf. also Ne. 8*- ■' 
(see Tor. CHV. p. 24). — V. "» is quoted by Dr. among "the heavy 
combined sentences, such as would be avoided in the earlier language 
by the use of two clauses connected by "iifN" {LOT.^^, p. 539). 

20. 21. Encouraging assurances to Solomon.— 20. Be strong, 
etc.], (/. V. 'o 22"'', for Yahweh tvill not fail thee nor forsake thee] a 
Deuteronomic phrase, cf. Dt. ^V- ' Jos. i^ — All the work for the 
service of the house of Yahweh] i.e., all the work of building the 
house. — Now behold the patter?i of the porch (of the Temple) and of 
the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper 
rooms thereof, and of the inner chambers thereof, and of the house of 
the mercy-seat, even the pattern of the house of Yahweh*] restored 
from ^, is doubtless original and dropped out by homoeoteleuton, 
see Tor, ATC. p. 67, Ezra Studies, p. 73. — 21. And behold the 


courses, etc.] described in cc. 23-26. The presence of the priests 
and Levites, who are not mentioned in 28', is not impHed. — 
Every willing man that hath skill\ This combination (i*"1i 
riD^nn), not found elsewhere, may have been suggested by 
" whosoever is of a willing heart " (13^ 2''1J h'2) (Ex. 356) 
plus "every wise-hearted man" (2^ D2n b'2) (Ex. 35'"). The 
idea that skilful men should offer their services for the building 
of the sanctuary was certainly suggested to the Chronicler by Ex. 

20, At the end of the verse restore from <& aSwn n-ijan ns njni 
nini no r'jani mijon n^ai a-cjon imm virSyi v^tjji rnai {v. s.). — 
21 . 'ij SsS]. Be. struck out *? but similar uses of S elsewhere by the 
Chronicler are against this. Ke. thought it was used to emphasise the 
following phrase. Dr. calls it the S of " introduction," LOT.", p. 539, 
No. 45 (1. 130). As in 52 26'^ 29«, S is apparently used to introduce a 
nominative similarly to a late use of n.s (see Ges. § 117 i) and probably 
should be explained in the same way. 

XXIX. 1-9. David's appeal for free-will offerings and the 
response. — Here again the account of the Chronicler is modelled 
after the history of the tabernacle (v. s. 282'). As Moses appealed 
to the people for free-will offerings (Ex. 35'-', cf. 25'-8) and the 
latter responded to that appeal (Ex. 35'°-"), so David is rep- 
resented as appealing to the princes of Israel, and receiving 
their gifts. — 1. Solomon whom alone God hath chosen], cf. 
28^, is yet young and tender] and therefore cannot carry out 
his father's plans without assistance, cf. 22^. — The palace] 
(""1"'^") a word used ordinarily for a Persian palace or for- 
tress, cf Ne. I' Est. i2- 6 2'- '■ 8 3>^ etc., Dn. 8^ also of 
the fortified courts of the Temple, Ne. 2^, but here, in v." and 
possibly in Ne. 72, of the Temple itself, a term descriptive of its 
grandeur. So used also in the Talmud (see Tor. CHV. p. 36; 
1. 12).— 2. With all my might]. Cf "by my painful toil" 22>« 
(q. v.). — David had prepared gold, silver, and bronze] the materials 
which the people gave for the tabernacle (Ex. 35= cf 25^), also 
stones of onyx] (Un'^) a precious stone, possibly onyx or beryl, 
but identifications are dub. and Vrss. vary; found in Havilah, 
according to Gn. 2'^ The phrase stones of onyx is also used 


combined with and stones for setting in Ex. 25' 35'- "^ where 
these stones are described as " for the ephod and for the breast- 
plate," whence the Chronicler probably derived the phrase. — 
Variegated stuff and fine linen^] to be used for the priestly 
vestments {v. i.). — 3. / give unto the house of my God] not 
necessarily his whole private fortune, according to the text, but 
cf. V. K The object of the verb follows in v. ". — Above all that 
I have prepared] i.e., above all prepared in his official capacity, 
cf. 22". — 4. David's gift would amount to over one hundred 
millions of dollars of our money if weighed by the heavy 
standard, or one-half that amount by the light standard. This 
amount is a pure fiction, as the similar exaggeration in 22'''. 
Solomon was the first to secure the gold of Ophir (2 Ch. 8" 
9»'' = i K. 9" iQi'), but such an anachronism is not strange from 
the Chronicler. — The King set aside his private gift to overlay 
the walls of the houses] i.e., the various rooms of the Temple 
proper, cf. 28", also 2 Ch. 3^-', and also 5 to supply gold for the 
things of gold and silver for the things of silver even for every 
work by the hands of artificers, thus furnishing the precious 
metals for the most sacred things. — To consecrate himself] lit. 
" to fill his hand," is a phrase used regularly of induction into 
a priestly office, cf. Ex. 28^' 32-' 2 Ch. 13' 29", but here figura- 
tively, "who will offer willingly like one consecrating himself to 
the priesthood?" — 6. The princes over the king's work] are 
those recorded in 27" -3'. — 7. Gold, five thoiisand talents] or about 
one hundred and fifty millions of dollars, or one-half this amount 
by light standard (cf. v. •• and 22'^). — Ten thousand darics] slightly 
less than fifty-six thousand dollars. The use of daric, a Persian 
coin, is clearly an anachronism. Why this small amount in darics 
should have been added to the large amount in talents does not 
appear. The older explanation was that the sum in darics rep- 
resents the amount contributed in coin (Ke., Zoe., Oe.). — 8. 
Jehi'el]. Cf. 26=' ' . — 9. These gave with a perfect heart] i.e., 
without grudging, cf. 28'. 

1 . 'n 12 in3 nnx]. On the omission of the relative by the Chronicler 
see I. 120. Possibly inx is a copyist error for nc'S. — n-i-ian] is used of 
the Temple only here, v. ", and Ne. 7^, and of "the fortified court or 


enclosure of the temple " Ne. 2', all passages from the Chronicler (v. s.). 
— 2. ■'331] other MSS. Soai. — inij>Dn] 1. 54. — -jifi] in 2 K. g^o Je. 430 
means stibium in the form of a black mineral powder used for 
darkening the edges of the eyelids; in Is. 54" possibly a dark cement, 
setting off precious stones, but We. and TKC. correct to loj. Here iia 
is usually taken as a stone of dark colour. Ki. corrects to loj here also, 
but this is doubtful. — B'ib' ■'J3N1 ni|-)"i px Sai ncp-ii] v^v meaning marble, 
occurs only here and as uiff only Est. i* Ct. 5^^ Elsewhere vu is a 
common word for "fine linen." nnpi is usually understood as a 
variegated stone here, Be., Ke., et al., but the word is used no- 
where else for a stone, and elsewhere means exclusively " variegated 
woven stuff." In Ex. 2636 27I6 3535 36" 38'8- 23 3929 the weaver of 
"blue and purple and scarlet" is called a "variegator" {a^]^). 
Now, it is exactly this " blue and purple and scarlet " and also 
fine linen {w) which we should expect here from Ex. 25^ 35' after 
which the Chronicler's account is modelled {v. s.). nC|-n includes the 
coloured material as the product of the " variegator " (0|7^). These 
materials were necessary for the Temple as well as for the taber- 
nacle, since they were used for making priestly vestments (Ex. 28=- 
39. 39 293- 27- 28. 28), Hcnce it is probable that n-ipi pN Vdi is a mar- 
ginal gloss intended originally to explain the difficult nic, but which 
crept into the text after nnp-M instead of before it. This gloss caused 
the addition of the following 'j^ni, which (^ probably did not read 
(c/. (&^'^ Kal irdpiov with (&^ Kal Xidovs Trapiovs). Accordingly the 
original read ifS'i ncpni. — aiS] 1. 105. — 3. A strangely worded sentence, 
see Dr. LOT.^\ p. 539-— ^"^JD] a very late word (BDB.), cf. Ec. 
28 -)-. — nSi'DS] 1. 87. — '•niran] 1. 54. — 4. pprn] used in the Pu. of pre- 
cious metals also in 28" (from the Chronicler), and in Ps. 12' <6); and 
of settled wines in Is. 25^, 1. 32.— nrj J].— 5. hdnSd] in sense of 
workmanship only 221^ 2821 (both from the Chronicler) in Ch.-Ezr.- 
Ne.; and elsewhere i K. 7", and a phrase of P Ex. 313- ^ 35^^- 3i- 33. 36. 
— o>tt'^^] cf. 141 (= 2 S. 5") 22'= 2 Ch. 2412 3411 (= 2 K. 22^) Ezr. 
3', also I Ch. 4" and Ne. ii'^. — anjnc] Hith. in the sense of offering 
a free-will-offering (for the first Temple), also vv. «• '• "■ m. n. iv; (for 
the second Temple) Ezr. 1* 2«8 36 (BDB.). These verses are certainly 
from the Chronicler (1. 70).— 6. ni3Nn niyS] usually 'nh itrx-i, cf. 27' 
2 Ch. i2, but 'nh nil' in Ezr. 829. On h cf. 2821 text, n.— 7. a>n'-Nn n>3] 
1. i5._a^:3-nvs] (1. 22) so also in Ezr. 8^' f; ^ XP^<^o^^, "H solidos; 
probably = SapeiKos, cf. pom Ezr. 2^^ Ne. 7^^- '»• " f. which repre- 
sents Spaxp.'fi, so Tor. CHV. pp. 17 /., on Ezr. 82'. For other views 
see DB. III. p. 421 b, and pD-^i in BDB. with authorities there cited. 
—^2•^] cf. Ezr. 2" = Ne. 7" (siai) Ne. 7"- '» (nm) and Ezr. 2«9 
(niX3n); and elsewhere Ho. Si^ Jon. 4^^ Ps. 6818 Dn. ii'2 f (1. 
106).— 8. Nscjn] = Nxcj ns'N, cf. v. i^.— 9. amjnn] 1. 70.— nSnj nncr] 


" a standing expression in the Chronicler's account of such occasions," 
Tor. CHV. p. 24, on Ne. S'^. 

The source of 221-13 28i-i2- ''^- i^ 22^ K Are these thirty-five and 
one-half verses from an earlier source (so Biichler, Bn., Ki.), or a free 
composition by the Chronicler? The following words or phrases 
found elsewhere in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. only in verses which may safely be 
ascribed to the Chronicler occur here as follows (see textual notes for ref- 
erences) : DuaV 22^, nnancS 22', ron (as a general term for movable pos- 
sessions) 28', nin Dvna 28^, nnrnn nxi ^3 28', vjuj 281', m>3n 291, pprc 
29*, hsnSc (meaning workmanship) 29^, 2^J (as Hiph. meaning offer- 
ing a free-will offering) zg^' «■ ^- ', dijoiin 29', i2n 29', a total of 
twelve expressions recurring fifteen times in twelve out of the thirty- 
five and one-half verses. Some of these words are rare, occurring in 
only two or three places, but others, like tt'ioi, are rather common 
in this group of writings. In addition, nearly every late or unusual 
expression found here is met with elsewhere in passages which are 
certainly from the Chronicler's hand, and those occurring often 
here he uses frequently elsewhere. These are as follows : D'lnSxn mni 
22', iDpi (meaning appoint) 22^, D''n7Nn no 22^ 281' 29', aiS 22'- *• ^- ^ 
29', r^n 223- 5' 6. 10 282- ' 29'- 3, SnjnS (S vdth inf. to express necessity) 
22^, nSjJD*? 22' 29', mxnN 22^ hidSd 221" 285- ', id;? nin'> ^n> 2211, Sor 
22'^ hrip''^ 28', mpSnon 28', D-'mB'en (meaning royal officers) 28', 
Israel the nin'' hr\p 288, lomn 28', nci'i ptn 281", n^jjn 2S1', 2dd 28", 
S'srn 28", -iSTN omitted 29^ ccnn 29^, nc*? (S introducing a nomi- 
native) 29', nSnj nnnc 29', a total of twenty-four expressions recur- 
ring forty times in twenty-six out of thirty-five and one-half verses, 
certainly establishing a strong probability that this is a composition 
by the Chronicler if there is any force at all in the philological argument. 

Furthermore, many expressions show the Chronicler's point of view 
distinctly, and it can be shown that the writer was dependent upon 
material collected or composed by the Chronicler, indicating that our 
passage is at least no older than the latter. — According to 221' and 28' 
a man prospers as he keeps the commandments of Yahweh. The 
same thought is expressed by the Chronicler in 2 Ch. 24^° 26* 3121. — 
281 includes almost all the officers mentioned in c. 27, suggesting that 
the latter, which is from the Chronicler, was before the writer. — With 
mni moSa ndd Sy 28^ cf. oSiy nj? inio'7Dai Tiaa inimDj?ni 17K (which 
the Chronicler has rewritten from ohyy -\}} -ipoSddi nni3 pxji 2 S. 71^ 
thus representing Israelitish royalty as belonging to Yahweh). He 
shows the same point of view in David's prayer naScnn nin> -i"^ 29", 
cf. also r\^n•> nd3 Sj? 29". — a^a'npn nnxxSi a^nSxH n>3 nnsNV 2812, shows 
acquaintance with 26'", which is from the Chronicler. — •'jtrnjn Sn^h' 
29^ also suggests a knowledge of 26'" '• from the same hand. 

The Chronicler's style is apparent throughout the passage. The 

XXIX. 10-25.] DAVID'S PRAYER 305 

redundant expression hpvD ps 2-h DZ'n: 22' is duplicated by pb'Hj'? 
H'ln 3iS 13 SpcD i''X VnaSi v. ". — On the style of 29^-8 see Tor. CHV. 
p. 26. — With Dn33 d^dSx njinn ui nirnji . . . didSk na'an onaj an; 
29', cf. the construction onDD caSs iSn 1031 jiSn hxd ansj anr 22", 
see also Tor. CHV. p. 22, on Ne. i'". — With NXDjm 29*, cf. ixsDjn 
V. ". The article instead of the relative TiTN is a mark of the Chronicler, 
see 1. 119. — The numbers in 29^ and 29' are artificial, the amount being 
increased with the inferior value of the metal (cf. Ezr. 6"). Throughout, 
cc. 22. 28/. bear the marks of a free composition. The statements 
are general and exaggerated. David prepares things " in abundance," 
" without weight," and " without number." The various materials are 
enumerated (222-") as they seem to have occurred to the writer. There is 
none of the careful detail which characterises i K. 6. There the writer 
intends to describe the Temple, here to exalt David and the Temple. 
The Deuteronomic colouring (22^ ^- 28' ^■) does not point to an older 
source {contra Bn.), since this readily follows from the Chronicler's use of 
Deuteronomic phrases {cf. 2820, 2 Ch. 33' compared with 2 K. 21'). 
Nothing indicates that this passage has been worked over by the Chron- 
icler. He either wrote it or incorporated the source without material 
change. In the latter case it is a free composition of a predecessor who 
must have moved in the same circle of ideas. 

Considered as a unity from the hand of the Chronicler, the sequence 
of subjects is not unnatural. After the determination of the site of the 
Temple (21I-22') follows: the collection of workmen and material 
(222-5); Solomon himself is prepared for the undertaking by a parental 
charge (22^-"); the material is transferred and the workmen are placed 
at Solomon's command (22'*-'^); the princes are admonished to support 
Solomon by aiding in building the Temple. (The courses of priests and 
Levites are prepared cc. 23-26.) In cc. 28/., Solomon is presented to 
the general assembly as divinely chosen to build the Temple and to sit 
upon his father's throne (28'-"'); the patterns of the buildings (28"-") 
and of the sacred vessels (28'^-'*) are presented to him, followed by the 
declaration that they came by divine inspiration (28''); Solomon is ad- 
monished and encouraged (28'"' '•); the appeal to the princes is made 
and they give generously (291-'); the assembly ends with a prayer 
(2910-19)^ blessings (292"), sacrifices {2g'^^), a sacred feast (29=2^), and the 
anointing of Solomon king (2922^). The somewhat parallel passages, 
22« f- and 282 ff-, serve distinct purposes in the Chronicler's scheme. 
The former leads up to the transfer of the material, and the latter to 
the transfer of the pattern. Thus taken as a whole these chapters seem 
to come from one hand, and that, with little doubt, the Chronicler's. 

10-19. David's closing prayer. — 10. The God of Israel, our 
father]. Cf. the fuller expression, "the God of Abraham, of 


Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers" (v.' «). — 13. We thank . . . and 
praise] i.e., we are continually thanking and praising. — 14. David 
humbly confesses that by their free-will offerings (w. '-8) he and 
his people are only returning to God what he had first given. 
Verse 15 continues the same thought. Yahweh is the real pos- 
sessor of the land and Israel's rights are only those of the stranger 
(^■^) (cf- 22^^) and sojourner (iti'iri), i.e., they are entirely de- 
pendent upon Yahweh's good will, cf. Ps. 39'^ "2) iig'', also Gn. 
23*. Their days on the earth are as a shadow] in their transitori- 
ness, cf. Jb, 8', — and there is no hope] EVs. abiding after Ci> 
{yrroybovri). The word is used elsewhere only in Ezr. lo^ Je. 
i4« 17" 50'. The thought is, there is no hope or salvation {cf. 
the parallel clause in Je. 14') in man apart from Yahweh, an 
answer to the question "who am I and who are my people?" 
(v. '<). — 18. O Yahweh, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of 
Israel, our fathers {cf. v. ">) keep this forever as (for) the imagination 
of the thoughts of the heart] i.e., keep thy people in this same gener- 
ous spirit which has shown itself in their free-will offerings, — and 
establish their hearts unto thee], cf. i S. 7'. — 19. A perfect heart]. 
Cf. V. ^ — The palace]. Cf. v. '. 

11. Be. inserted qS after n and so also Kau., Bn. Ki. inserts it 
before the second i^. An emendation of the text does not seem neces- 
sary, since '3 may have merely an intensive force (see BDB. '>3 i e), 
in which case render yea, everything in the Jieavens a7td in the earth. — 
14. na -\t;:] occurs also in 2 Ch. 2' 132" 22' and without no with the 
same meaning 2 Ch. 14'" 20"; elsewhere only in Dn. lo'- '^ 11'. — 16. 
prjnn] with the meaning abundance is late, cf. Ec. 5', where it is parallel 
to IP? (1. 28). — N^n] must be taken as neuter, it is from thy hand, but 
Qr. Nin as masc. referring back to ]M2r\ri is better. — 17. Bn. describes 
'JN as an explanatory gloss on the basis of (^, but it is not certain that 
(^ did not read ''JN. — ixxcjn] n = irx seel. 119. 

20-25. The close of the assembly and Solomon's accession 
to the throne. — 20. At David's command to bless Yahweh, all the 
assembly blessed Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and bowed 
down and prostrated themselves before Yahweh and before the 
king]. Both verbs are used of divine worship and of homage 
to a royal person, r/. Ex. 4" i K. i^i. — 21. As was customary on 


such occasions, sacrifices in abundance], represent the peace- 
ofiferings of which the people partook (Oe.)- — 22. The Chron- 
icler omitted the account of Adonijah's attempt to seize the 
throne (i K. i) and the consequent exaltation of Zadok to be 
chief priest alone (i K. 2"). Instead, Solomon is represented 
as regularly appointed and anointed, apparently without opposi- 
tion, and Zadok was anointed to be priest at the same time, while 
David was still living. According to i K. i^', it was Zadok who 
anointed Solomon. — 23. In i K. 2'"^- the statement "Solomon 
sat upon the throne of David" follows the account of David's 
death. — On the throne of Yahweh]. Cf. 28^. — 24. Also all the 
sons of king David] refers to Adonijah's submission to Solomon 
(i K. I"), after his attempt to become David's successor (i K. 
16 "■). — 25. Royal majesty which had not been on any king before 
him] can only refer to David and Saul, since the Chronicler ignores 
Ish-bosheth. Barnes renders "royal majesty which was not on 
any king more than on him," as the Hebrew word for before is 
used in Jb. 34", thus bringing Solomon's reign into comparison 
with those of all the kings of Israel, cf 2 Ch. i'^ i K. y^. 

22. n^jtr] is wanting in (6^, j& and is doubtless a gloss intended to har- 
monise this verse with 23', where David is said to have made Solo- 
mon king over Israel (Bn., Ki.). — inii'Ci] 05 Kal exptcrav aiirbv, so also 
31, 21.— 24. nnn n^ unj] cf. 2 Ch. 30^ 'S n^ un. 

26-30. Closing notices of David's reign. — 27. This chron- 
ological summary is repeated from i K. 2". More exactly, David 
reigned seven years and six months at Hebron (cf. 2 S. 5'). — 29. 
Now the acts of David the king, first and last] is the Chronicler's 
usual closing formula, cf 2 Ch. 9" 12'^ 16", etc.— Doubtless the 
Chronicler was influenced by the books of Kings in appending to 
the account of each reign a reference to sources for further informa- 
tion, but I K. has no such closing citation for the reign of David. 
The Chronicler was not satisfied to omit it for David and cites the 
acts of Samuel the seer, and the acts of Nathan the prophet, and the 
acts of Gad the seer. There can be little doubt that these are 
nothing more than references to the narratives in which Samuel, 
Nathan, and Gad are mentioned in our books of Samuel. The 


order is the same as that in which they appear in the earlier 
historical books. If the Chronicler knew anything about these 
men with which we are not familiar from the books of Samuel, 
he kept that information to himself. Where he does mention 
Nathan (c. 17) and Gad (c. 21), he simply uses material found in 
2 S. (cc. 7. 24). He probably quoted the acts of these three men, 
instead of simply referring to the one book which contained all of 
them, since such an enumeration of works would emphasise the 
importance of David's reign. — Samuel, the seer {Ts'i^'yr^) and 
Nathan, the prophet (N''2n) and Gad, the seer (ninn)]. These 
three seem to have had distinct functions as suggested by 
the different titles, or at least there were three distinct prophetic 
offices in the early times. In the earlier books the first two titles 
cling to Samuel (i S. 9' "• '«• ") and Nathan (i K. i^- ">• 22- 2'- 52- ^*- 
38. 44. 45) but the text varies in regard to Gad (in i S. 22' he is called 
the prophet and in 2 S. 24'' the prophet, David's seer). Ro^eh, the 
title of Samuel, seems to have signified in the ancient times a "di- 
vining priest," like the Babylonian bdril "seer," taking its origin 
from the custom of "inspecting" the liver of the sacrificial animal 
for omens; hozeh, the title of Gad, which may also be translated 
seer or gazer (GAS. The Book of the Twelve Prophets, I. p. 17), 
probably originated in the custom of reading the signs of the 
heavens, etc. ; nahV, the title of Nathan, doubtless signified one who 
laid claim to direct revelation through an ecstatic condition brought 
on by music and singing like the howling dervishes ( Jastrow, JBL. 
XXVIII, 1909, pp. A^ff-)- But that these distinctions were ever 
clearly maintained in Israel is open to question. Certain it is 
that the term nabV under the influence of Elijah and his successors 
threw off the earlier and cruder significance and came to be the 
special title of the true prophets of Yahweh of the later day. At 
the same time it is likely that the terms hozeh and ro^eh were later 
used as mere synonyms of naht' without any evil meaning being 
attached to them as has been alleged (Jastrow, op. cit.). This 
was certainly the case in the time of the Chronicler, whose retention 
of the distinguishing titles of the earlier books does not imply a 
careful differentiation of their meaning on his part. — 30. With all 
his reign and his anight] i.e., with the whole account of his reign, 


including all the times tJiat passed over him (cf. Ps. 31" "5'), the 
vicissitudes of his life, and over Israel, the events of the nation, 
and over all the kingdoms of the lands, those countries with which 
David came into contact, as Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, 
etc. With the phrase kingdoms of the lands, cf. 2 Ch. 12^ 171" 

26-27, 05 omits iSd -vi^n ccini : Ssitr^ Sd S;'. — i K. 2", the parallel 
tov. 27, has D>JB' after ts-iSiri d^cSb', and so ($, "B, &, ul. — 30. <6 adds 
the first verse of 2 Ch. i. 




In relating the history of Solomon {c. 977-937 B.C.), the Chron- 
icler has omitted as foreign to his purpose, or conveying a too un- 
favourable impression of Solomon, the following particulars given 
in I K. i-ii: the circumstances attending Solomon's accession to 
the throne (i K. 1-2); his marriage with Pharaoh's daughter and 
the sacrifices at the high places (i K. 3'-^); the story of his judg- 
ment between the harlots (i K. 3'^-"); the hst of his officers and 
the provision for his court, and the account of his wisdom (i K. 
4-51^ (4)); the mention of his palace and the adjoining buildings 
(i K. 7'-'^); and likewise his worship of foreign deities, and the 
trouble of his latter days (i K. 11). And also in the account of 
the Temple the Chronicler has omitted the promise inserted in the 
midst of its description (i K. 6"-"); the statement of the length 
of the period of its construction (i K. 6"-38), and portions of the 
description of its ornamental work (i K. 6"-36) and of its lavers 
(i K. 727-39) And he has otherwise abridged, also, the account of 
the building and its furniture; its general dimensions (i K. 6'-'" 
compared with 3'-0; the most holy place (i K. 6'<-" compared 
with 38-') ; the two cherubim (i K. 6"-28 compared with 3'°'^) ; the 
two pillars (i K. 7'5-" compared with 3"^-")- Characteristic inser- 
tions also have been made in the narrative : the explanation of the 
high place at Gibeon (i'-^; the choir of Levites with the priests 
(5"-"); a quotation from a Levitical psalm (6«' '■); fire and cloud 
from Yahweh (7'-^); the appointment of priests and Levites 
(8'<->6), and minor annotations and changes. Much of the narra- 
tive also, while clearly dependent upon Kings, has been practically 
rewritten, especially the negotiations with Hiram (i K. 5"^-" "-'2' 
compared with 2«-"^ "'s)). 







Solomon's Accession and Marriage 


Preparations for Worship at Gibeon 

I '-5 wanting in K. 


Yahweh's Revelation at Gibeon 

16-13 abridged. 

Solomon's Wealth and Horse-trade 

ii<-'7 taken from i K. 



The Judgment between the Harlots 

10'° -'. 


4-5" (4) 

Solomon's Officers, Provision, and 



rl5-26 (1-lJ) 

The Negotiations with Hiram 

23-16 rewritten. 

r27-32 (13-18) 

Solomon's Workmen 

2i (2). 16 (. (17 f.) repeated 
and abridged. 


Building and Structure of Temple 

3'-' abridged with slight 
new matter. 





The Most Holy Place 

3»'- abridged. 


The Cherubim 

310-14 rewritten. 


Ornamental Work 



Time Occupiec^in Building the Temple 



Solomon's Palace 



The Pillars before the Temple 

^15-17 greatly condensed. 

The Brazen Altar 

4' wanting in K. 


The Great Basin 

4^-5 reproduced. 


The Bases of the Lavers 



The Lavers 

48 abridged and anno- 

The Candlesticks 

47-10 wanting in K. 


Summary of the Works of Hiram 

411-18 rewritten. 


Vessels that Solomon Made 

4'"-" slight changes. 


Completion of the Work 

51 no change. 


The Ark Brought In 

52-'* musical service 


Solomon's Address and Prayer 

6'-<2 almost no varia- 


Solomon's Blessing of the People 

7'-' condensed, new 


Sacrificial Ceremonies 

7<-' annotated. 

865 f. 

The Feasting 

►,8-10 annotated. 


Yahweh's Covenant with Solomon 

7" -22 enlarged. 


Cities Given to Hiram 

8' -2 reconstructed. 


Solomon's Cities and Levy 

8'-'" considerable 






Residence of Pharaoh's Daughter 

8" reconstructed. 


Solomon's Ofifering 

812-16 greatly enlarged. 


Solomon's Marine Trade 

8" '• rewritten. 


Visit of Queen of Sheba 

gi-12 very slight varia- 


Solomon's Wealth 

pi 3 -28 very slight varia- 


Solomon's Apostasy and Adversaries 


II« «• 

Sources of Solomon's History 

929-31 enlarged. 

Sources: The following is the source analysis given by Ki. after 
Bn. in which B. = Biblical source, i.e., 1 K.: i'-«Chr.; '-" B.; "-a'' ('6) 
Chr.'s Forerunner; '^-'^ c'-'" Chr.; 3i-5Chr.'s F.; «post-Chr.; '-I'Chr.'s 
F.; 41 Chr.; 2-6 B.; s-' Chr.'s F.; "1-51 B. but post-Chr.; s^-n* B.; "b-is. 
B. but post-Chr.; i3b_642 b. with 65b. u. 32b 40-12 from Chr.; 7'-5 Chr.'s 
F.; « Chr.; '-gn Chr.'s F.; "-'^ Chr.; '^-i' Chr.'s F.; g^-^* B.; »-" B. 
but post-Chr.; " Chr.; so B. The basis of this analysis as far as it re- 
veals a Forerunner of the Chronicler has already been given (v. pp. 
25/-)> a^nd the conclusion rejected. The only source apparent is K. 

I. 1-13. The promise to Solomon at Gibeon. — Vv. • ^ are from 
the Chronicler, while vv. "'^ depend upon i K. 3<-"- ^^^ 4'. — 1. For 
Solomon's accession to the throne cf. 1 Ch. 23' 29". — Strengthened 
himself] (pTnn"") a common expression in Chronicles to denote 
one's firm establishment in rule or in the maintenance of power (cf. 
12" 13'- '• 2' 158 16' 17' 21* 23' 25" 27" 32* I Ch. 11'" 19", see also 
Dn. 10" "; use of verb in earlier books both rarer and more dis- 
tinctive, 1. 38). — And magnified him exceedingly]. Cf. i Ch. 29". — 
2, And Solomon gave commandment to all Israel, etc.] a character- 
istic touch of the Chronicler {cf. i Ch. 13' «•, where David consults 
with all Israel respecting the removal of the ark). The narra- 
tive of Kings knows nothing, in connection with Solomon's visit 
to Gibeon, of such pomp as is implied in this and the following 
verse. — 3. The high place]. The Chronicler adopts this expres- 
sion from I K. 3<, where Gibeon is called the great high place. The 
sanctuary at Gibeon was undoubtedly an ancient one of Canaan- 
itish origin. Gibeon is the mod. ed Dschib, five or six miles north- 
west of Jerusalem (cf. Buhl, GAP. pp. 168/.). — Because there was 
the tent, etc. ]. Cf.i Ch. 2 1 ". This is the Chronicler's explanation 
of Solomon's sacrifice at Gibeon. The remark has no historical 


foundation, but otherwise the act of Solomon would have been a 
violation of the law of P (Lv. 17 » '■). Whatever "tent of meet- 
ing" ancient Israel may have had, it had been replaced by the 
temple at Shiloh (i S. 3' Je. 7'"- •* 26').— 4. Cf. i Ch. 15, 16.— 
5. The brazen altar . . . was there] a further vindication 
of the legitimacy of Solomon's sacrifice at Gibeon. On the 
brazen altar and Bezalel cf. Ex. 31'-' 38'-'. — And Solomon and 
the assembly sought him] i.e., Yahweh (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Kau., 
Bn., Ki.). //, with reference to the altar, is the rendering of (|, 
AV., RV. The former is preferable. 

1. iitanM] characteristic expression of the Chronicler (v. s.). — - 
in-iaSc] kingdom late word cf. 1 Ch. n'" 1. 67. — ic>? . . . ^1^^^] cf. i 
Ch. II'. — n'ry^S] cf. i Ch. 14^, 1. 87. — 2. icn] late force of give com- 
mand, cf. I Ch. 14'^ 1. 4. — a''afl!y'ri] possibly a corruption for D''03'*:'n 
before which n^'Si has fallen out, cf. If et ducibus et judicihus, and 
D't32!J'n ni* in the lists of i Ch. 28' 29^. These words are confused 
elsewhere, cf. (8^ rdv KpirQv where i Ch. 28' has □•'iDas'n, also "'aac' for 
•'tsfl!:' in 2 S. 7' cp. i Ch. 17^ — Snis'i Sd'^^] eithei a repetition of Sn-is'i Ss*^' 
(Be., Ke., Zoe.) or better modifies N^tfJ Vj"?, every worthy of all Israel 
(Oe., Kau., Ki.). — ni2N irsn] cf. 5« (1. 104), either in apposition with 
V> hjh (Be., Ke., Zoe.) or better in apposition with n-''^:': (Bn.). — 
4. "^Jn] decided adversative in late Heb., cf. 19' ^^^'i Ezr. 10" Dn. 
lo^- 21, 1. I. — r^na] equivalent to 'n -is'N3, Ges. § 138/, cf. i Ch. 15'^. 
— ^h naj o n^i] (cf. 2 S. 6") are wanting in (&^ but the words probably 
fell out by homoeoteleuton. — 5. D'^:'] so ($, U, generally adopted; Bom- 
berg ed. au\ — irr^i-i^i] (g, K, AV., RV., render the suffix with reference 
to the altar. 

7-13. Taken from i K. 35-i3i5b 41. The passage in Chronicles is 
just two-thirds as long as that in Kings, and has been condensed 
with much skill, gaining in force. The somewhat verbose mention 
of the favour shown to David (i K. 3^) has been appropriately 
shortened. The allusion to the son on the throne appears in the 
form of the Messianic promise, a clear suggestion of 2 S. 7, which 
(according to SBOT.) is later than this narrative in Kings. The 
idea of Solomon's weakness is omitted and the phrase " go out and 
in" (i K. 3') is happily used to express the object of the request for 
knowledge and wisdom that he might go in and out royally before 
his people. The dream also of Kings (vv. ^- '5) has disappeared. 

I. 14-17.] SOLOMON'S WEALTH 317 

The revelation is thus a more direct one, given in that night (v. ') 
instead of merely " by night " (i K. y). Elohim (v. ') has been sub- 
stituted for Yahweh (i K. 3^, cf. i Ch. i3«). V. '^ in Kings with its 
Deuteronomic promise of "length of days" on the condition of obe- 
dience has been entirely omitted, possibly because it was recognised 
that Solomon did not attain extreme old age. — 9. Let thy promise 
(word), etc.], the promise that Solomon, his son, should succeed 
to the throne, build the house of Yahweh, and that his throne should 
be established forever (i Ch. 22"). This promise had already 
been partially established, /or thou hast made me king, hence with 
firm faith Solomon prays for its complete fulfilment. 10. Wis- 
dom (riDSn) and knowledge (J?1D)] since these are necessary to one 
who would judge righteously, cf. i K. 3 ^ — That I may go out and 
come in before this people]. The Chronicler represents Solomon as a 
man of peace, hence these words probably do not refer to Solomon 
as the head of the host (cf. i Ch. 11= i S. iS'^- '«) (Bn.) but rather 
include any transaction of business (Ba.). — 11. Because this was 
in thy heart]. Cf. i Ch. 22' 28% — 12. Such as none of the kings 
have had that have been before thee]. Cf. 1 Ch. 29". 

10. >'-i::] late Heb., also in vv. i'- 1= Dn. i<- " Ec. lo^" f-— H- ^'02i] 
common in Aram. Cf. Ec. 5" where with iii'y and Ec. 6^ where with 
Ti'jJ and 1123 as here; elsewhere Jos. 22' f- — 12. pnj] sg. with com- 
pound subj., cf. Est 3". — 13. nca*^] read after (B, TJ ncann, or omit 
pi'^ja . . . ncjS as a misplaced gloss (Ba.). 

14-17. Solomon's wealth. — Taken from i K. lo^"-" and re- 
peated in part in g^-^s. The Chronicler has omitted the story of the 
harlots (i K. 3'«=') and the account of Solomon's civil government 
and the prosperity and greatness of his kingdom given in i K. 4-5'^ 
(c. 4). These in i K. illustrate the fulfilment of the divine promise 
which came in answer to Solomon's prayer at Gibeon. The 
Chronicler passed over the story of the harlots probably because it 
contained so little of the religious element, and he probably chose 
as an illustration of material glory these few verses instead of 
the longer passage for the sake of abridgment, and because he 
was not interested in any form of government that was not ec- 


This passage appears twice, more or less fully, in both 2 Ch. and i K., 
before and after the account of the building of the Temple in each, as 

2 Ch. i»-i' taken from i K. lo^^-zs. 

2 Ch. 9=5-28 taken from i K. 5^ lo^eb 51 lo"- 28. 

It will be seen that the first account in Ch. is taken from the second 
in K., and the second in Ch. from the first in K. (being supplemented 
by parts from the second in K.). Jn K. the two accounts are variant, 
difJering in the number of chariots, the first ascribing 40,000 "stalls 
of horses for the chariots " to Solomon and the second giving him 
only 1,400 chariots at the end of his reign. The Chronicler regarded 
these as two separate summaries of the chariots of Solomon, one at 
the beginning and the other at the close of his reign, and reversed the 
order, since it was more appropriate that Solomon should begin his 
reign with 1,400 chariots and later have 40,000 (so read in 2 Ch. g'^ 
V. in loco) than that the reverse should be true. The introductory word 
in the second account in K., fjOSM he gathered together, i.e., organised, 
supported the Chronicler in placing that account first. 

14. Chariots and horsemen]. These were not used by Israel in 
their early warfare, since they at first occupied the mountainous 
parts of Palestine, but when under David they became an ag- 
gressive state and extended their borders, chariots and horsemen 
were gradually introduced (r/. for chariots i Ch. i8< =28. 8<), and 
under Solomon, as here e.xpressed, the purchase of chariots and 
horses became a regular trade. — A thousand and Jour hundred]. 
In I K. 5' (42«) 40,000 stalls of horses for chariots are mentioned, 
in 9" 4,000 {q. v.). — Chariot cities]. CJ. 8« i K. 9".— 15. Silver 
and gold]. Their abimdance came through Solomon's commerce. 
Cedars], the most durable, and so valuable, timber, which came 
from the forests of Lebanon, and thus was an import. — Sycamores], 
not the tree known by that name in England and America, but a 
tree of the genus of the fig {cf. i Ch. 27^8) whose wood, since it grew 
close at hand, was very plentiful for Jerusalem. — 16, Horses]. 
The horse mentioned in the OT. was the war-horse. — Egypt]. 
Horses were introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos (during the 
period of the thirteenth to the seventeenth dynasties, 1 788-1 580 
B.C., Breasted, History of the Ancient Egyptians, p. 425), and in 
later dynasties the " stables of Pharaoh contained thousands of the 
best horses to be had in Asia" (lb. p. 195), hence the importation 

I. 14-17.] SOLOMON'S WEALTH ^ig 

of horses and chariots, which were widely used in Egypt, into Pal- 
estine would have been most natural (v. "). The securing of horses 
from Egypt is also strongly favoured by Dt. 17"^ Is. 31'. But it is 
possible that instead of Egypt (□''"i^D Mizraim) we should read 
Muzri ("'"l^D) and think of a land in Asia Minor (y. i.). — 17. Six 
hundred of silver] i.e., shekels, in value about $380. — And so for all 
the kings of the Hittites and of Syria they used to bring them out by 
their means, or they (chariots and horses) used to be exported (v. i.) 
by their means]. Horses and chariots were brought also out of 
Egypt by the king's traders for the Hittite and Syrian kings at the 
same price as for Solomon. — The Hittites], a people mentioned 
frequently among the inhabitants of Canaan (Gn. 152° Ex. y- >' 13^ 
et al.) , but their proper home was in the north — even in the high 
lands of Asia Minor, Cilicia, and Cappadocia. They dwelt in 
power between the Euphrates and the Orontes, centred at Kadesh 
and Carchemish, but were finally subdued in the eighth century by 
the Assyrians. — Syria] (Aram), Mesopotamia, but often applied 
to the kingdom of Damascus and the adjoining petty kingdoms, 
Maacah, Geshur, Rehob, and Zobah (EBi.). A trade with the kings 
of these people and districts would be less natural from Egypt than 
from the nearer Muzri of Asia Minor. 

14. anij'i] I K. 10=5 onjM; Ch. has the true reading supported by all 
the Vrss. in K. — 15. 3nrn nsi] wanting in ^ of i K. 10", but (S (both 
here and K.) rb xp^'^^o" k°-^ '''^ dpyOpiov. Probably originally from Ch. 
— 16. Nipn] I K. io28 nipD. Instead of M drove of horses (still preferred 
by Kau.), Be. already discerned here in and the name of a place (so 
(6^^ in K., 13 here), which is the view of most modern scholars, either 
Kueor Koa, a district of Cilicia (Winckler, Alt. Unter. 168^. Altoriental. 
Forschuugen, i. 28, Bn., Ki., Bur., Sk.), or, better, a place in the direc- 
tion of Egypt (Stade and Schwally, SBOT.). In the former case a''^XD is 
Muzri, a N. Syrian land S. of the Taurus, which often figures in Assyrian 
inscriptions. With this agrees Ez. 27", since Togarmah, the source of 
horses, war-horses, and mules, lies in that direction. But Dt. 17's 
Is. 31! decidedly favour the reference to a place near Egypt. Cf. also 
Jerome's Onomasticon, 273. 86, in. 8 Coa qua est juxta Mgyptum. 
Hence we render and Solomon's import of horses was from Egypt (or 
from Muzri) and from Koa : the traders of the king used to bring them 
from Koa at a price (so Ki. BH., Bn.). Kau. retains M but omits Nipn' 
and renders "And the royal merchants were accustomed to bring a 


drove for payment." This is preferred by Whitehouse, EBi. I. col. 
726. The question of the true reading must remain sub lite. — 17. 
iN-'xri yhp^] i K. 10=' Nxm n'7j;pi. — din •<2br:^] 1 K. 'a ''o'^cSi. — in-'Sv] 
(gBAjTj Qf J ^ ifjx;.^ which is preferred by Ki. 

I. 18- VII. The Building and Dedication of the Temple. 

I. 18-11. 1. Solomon's purpose and the levy of workmen. 
— 18 (1). This verse is entirely from the Chronicler. — A house for 
the name of Yahweh]. Cf i K. 51^ ") i Ch. 22''- '"• " 28^ 29'«. — And 
a house for his kingdom] i.e., the royal palace and group of build- 
ings described in i K. 7'-'= but only mentioned incidentally by the 
Chronicler in 2" (»2> 7" 8'. — 1 (2). Derived from i K. 5" '■ "^f); 
here out of place; repeated in \'v. '^f- ("t.)^ which see. The 
reason for this repetition is not clear. The doublet occurs also 
in Cii of I K., where cp. 2"d.h -^yith 515 f. iHeb. 29f.j_ Sometimes the 
Chronicler may have written from memory and later repeated 
in full, having noticed that his first mention was incomplete (Be.). 

I. 18. nsN'1] with force of command or purpose followed by inf. (1. 4). 
— II. 1. ns':'^' iddm] I K. 5" nc'^'ti'S inM. — riSx] sing, after /e;75, a usage 
of Ez. and P, Ges. § 134 e. — s^'n] sing, after iSn, another usage of P. 
Ges. § 134^. Wanting in i K., where STj appears before S2D. 

2-9 (3-10). Solomon's message to Hiram. — This is based 
upon I K. 515-20 (1-6) ijut quite rewritten by the Chronicler, or taken 
from another source (Bn., Ki.). The following particulars given in 
I K. are wanting in Ch. : (i) The embassy from Hiram to Solomon 
(i K. 5"<")- (2) David's hindrance in building the Temple (i K. 
5"")). (3) The rest given to Solomon (i K. s'^")). (4) The 
promise of Yahweh to David (i K. 5"!5))_ xhe last three, however, 
are embodied in i Ch. 22»-"'. And the following are added in Ch.: 
(i) The dealings of Hiram with David (v. ^(s)). (2) A description 
of the Temple as a place of offerings and as being very great (w.'f- 
^*'')- (3) Words of self-depreciation (v.5(«)). (4) A petition for a 
skilled worker in metals and cloth who also is an engraver (v. « ">). 
(5) An enumeration of the kinds of wood desired (v. ''*<«^>). (6) 
The contribution to Hiram's servants (v. '<'">). — 2 (3). Huram], 
I K. 5 '5(1) Hiram, see i Ch. 14'. — As thou didst do, etc.]. The sen- 
tence is incomplete. Supply, "So do with me." On the trans- 
action cf. 2 S. 5" I Ch. 14'. According to i Ch. 22^ David had 


already procured an abundance of timber for the Temple. — 3 (4). 
The Chronicler thinks of the Temple chiefly as the place of the 
ministration of the priests and the Levites, cf. i Ch. 23" «-, and 
avoids the thought of the building being the dwelling-place of God. 
He enumerates the incense of sweet spices burned every morning 
and evening (Ex. 30'«), the perpetual shew-bread (Ex. 25'°), the 
daily morning and evening sacrifices (Nu. 28'-*), and the extra 
offerings of the Sabbaths (Nu. 289'), of the beginning of months 
(Nu. 28" -'5), and of the set feasts (Nu. 28'«-293'). — Forever this 
{i.e., such service) is (binding) upon Israel]. Cf. Nu. 19'" i Ch. 23". 
— 4 (5). Cf. I Ch. 29' Ex. 18". — 5 (6). The heaven of heavens], the 
highest sphere of the heavens, cf. 6^^ i K. 8". — But to offer incense 
before thee]. The purpose isnot toerect a dwelling-place for Yahweh, 
which would be presumptuous, but merely a place of sacrifice, i.e., 
worship. — 6 (7). Kings knows of no such request for a workman, but 
states that Solomon sent and brought such a skilled metal-worker 
from Tyre (i K. y). The skill in weaving and engraving is an 
addition of the Chronicler. His need of such a workman is shown 
in I Ch. 29= (see corrected text). — With the wise men, etc.]. Cf. 
I Ch. 22'5. — 7 (8). Cypress ajidalgum trees]. Only cedar trees are 
mentioned in i K. 5^0 (6> but cypress also in i K. 52* "o). Since the 
alguni trees are clearly the same as the almug trees of i K. 10", 
i.e., sandalwood or ebony (Bn.), the Chronicler is here apparently 
involved in an inaccuracy in deriving them a product of Ophir, 
from Lebanon (Be., Ke., Zoe., Ba., Bn., Ki.). — Ajid my servants, 
etc.], taken from i K. 5" (6'. — 9 (10). In the message of 
I K. no compensation is specified (i K. 5"''')) but later it is re- 
corded that Solomon, presumably for the timber received, gave 
Hiram yearly for his house 20,000 cors of wheat and 20 cors of 
oil (i K. 524f- (lof)). Here the gift is for the support of the labourers, 
whether yearly or simply a gross amount is not stated, and 20,000 
cors of barley and 20,000 baths of wine are added, and the amount 
of oil is increased from twenty cors to 20,000 baths; or, since 10 
baths = one cor, a hundredfold {(^ in i K. has the same amount); 
a cor represents about eight bushels. 

10-15 (11-16). The answer of Hiram.— This is based upon 
I K. 5='-" ('-'>, and as in the case of Solomon's message is either 


rewritten or taken by the Chronicler from another source (Bn., Ki.). 
The main variation is the reference to the skilled workman sent 
agreeable to Solomon's request (w."' '•<" f>). — 10 (11). Chronicles 
emphasises the fact of a written reply from Hiram, which is not 
directly stated in Kings.— 11 (12). This verse comes in so awk- 
wardly with the allusion to Solomon in the third person instead of 
the second as in the previous verse, that possibly it should be trans- 
posed with V. '" "1' (Kau., Bn., Ki.) giving the reflection of Hiram 
on receiving the request from Solomon and thus introductory to the 
written reply and parallel with i K. 5=' <^'. The avowal of Yahweh 
as the maker of heaven and earth by Hiram is a noticeable touch 
by the Chronicler, who has no difficulty in seeing in the heathen 
king a reverer of Yahweh. — 12 (13). Hnram-ahi\ the name 
of the skilled workman in i K. 7'' ■"> *^ called Hiram. The latter 
half of the name {ahi) should be rendered as a title of respect my 
father (Be., Zoe., Oe., Ba.), or better, my trusted counsellor, cf. Gn. 
45«; Sevrepov 7raTp6<i (^ add. to Est. 3'' (v.« of add.); rw iraTpi i 
Mac. 11'^ (Tor. AJSL. Jan. '09, p. 172, n. 17).— 13 (14). In 
I K. 7'* the mother of this workman is a widow of the tribe of 
Naphtali. The reading of the Chronicler may have come from 
the influence of Ex. 31% where Oholiab, one of the artificers of 
the tabernacle, is of the tribe of Dan. Cf. further on this verse 
V.6 (7)_ — 14 (15). Cf. V.' <"". The expression my lord puts Hiram 
relatively on the footing of a vassal. There is nothing like this 
in Kings. — 15 (16), Yapho, mod. Yaffa, the port of Jerusalem, 
is not mentioned in Kings. 

16-17 (17-18). Solomon's workmen. — These are represented 
as taken after a census from the aliens in Israel. This is the Chron- 
icler's adaptation or abridgment of i K. 5"-32 03-is)^ where two 
levies of workmen are mentioned, evidently a combination of two 
sources (Kau. ? Ki., Bur., SBOT.). The first levy (vv. ''^- ("f'), 
30,000 out of all Israel, sent 10,000 a month in turn to Leba- 
non, is entirely passed over by the Chronicler. The second levy, 
the burden bearers and hewers and overseers (\^. " f- c^')), the 
Chronicler gives, but prefaces the list with the statement of a census 
taken by Solomon of all the aliens in Israel, whose number exactly 
equals that of the workmen, i.e., 153,600 (v. " <">), and whom 


Solomon divides and sets to work according to the arrangement 
given in Kings (y. " c^)). The Chronicler's motive of reconstruc- 
tion is clearly to free native Israehtes from the stigma of hard, 
serf-like labour. This burden is imposed upon foreigners. — 16 (17). 
With which David his father numbered them]. Cf. i Ch. 22^. — 
17 (18). Three thousand and six hundred overseers]. This proba- 
bly was the original reading in Kings and not the present text, 
three thousand and three hundred. 

2, -iij'nd] introduces a comparative sentence of two clauses of which 
the second member is wanting. — 3. ■'Jn] (g -|- 1J3. — didd] spices, used in 
incense; only used in pi. abs., cf. 13", elsewhere only in P. — nonyc] 
tech. term used only of the shew-bread, cf. Lv. 246 '• 1 Ch. 9^2 23" 28" 
2 Ch. 13" 29'8 Ne. io3<. PL Lv. 246 f. See also 13". Here along with 
ni'?y governed by "caiinS through zeugma. — i^cn] adv. in gen. relation 
Koe. iii. § 3i8d. The idea of perpetuity and the word i^cn are derived 
from Lv. 248. — 5. no ix;?i >oi] cf. i Ch. 29". — 6. Dm] 05 + Kal eidora, cf. 
V. 12. — pJ^N] late form of jCJix deep red purple. — S^mo] crimson only 
here and v. '^ 3" prob. a Pers. loan-word (BDB.) for the more usual 
Utt' n;7Si.-i (Bn.). — nS;n] deep blue purple. — 'ui oy] modifies nwyS and 
r\T\th. — 7. D^pu'?N] so also g""-, the latter || to i K. io"f- d^jdSx f, 
form dub.— 8. p^n*?!] 1 explicative. Behold thy servants shall be with 
my servants even to prepare, etc. (Ke., RV.), but Oe., Kau., Ki., begin a 
new sentence (or continuation of rhz') (Be.) And timber in abundance 
must be prepared for me. Ges. § 114/. — s'Sfln] inf. abs. as an adv. with 
adj. force Ges. § 113^. — 9. '>nnj] Ges. § 106m. — nuc] i K. 5^^ ,-iSac=nSD«D 
the true reading, so Vrss. — 11. njji -is-vs] Heb. tense has force of 
subj. Dr. TH. 38 (/3).— 12. ^ryrhz'] Ges. § io6;fe, Dr. TH. 10.— 
>aj< D-iin'^] V with the force of namely BDB. S 5 e (d). The artisan's 
name Huram is given in i K. 7'^ as Hiram. — 13. p nij3 JD n^-x p] i 
K. 7" "iSoDj nacD Nin njnSs 7\z<n p, v. s. — D^'syoi] Q5 4- Kal v(paiv€iv=:: 
^^^k) may go back only to a dittography, but notice the following infini- 
tives. — 15. 13"»s] T>s ctTT. Aram. cf. Ecclus. 8' + often. — nnoci] rafts, 
iir. etym. doubtful, i K. 5-3 nnai also d7r. — 17. Sao] i K. 5" 
Saa az'i. 

III. 1-2. The place and date of the building of the Tem- 
ple. — 1. Entirely independent of Kings. — In the mountain of 
Moriah], The Temple mount in Jerusalem is identified with the 
mountain in the land of Moriah where Abraham offered Isaac 
(Gn. 22^). The name occurs only here and there and in the latter 
passage it may represent a textual corruption, earlier, however, 


than the time of Chronicles. — Where Yahweh appeared tinto David 
his father in the place which David had prepared in the threshing- 
floor of Oman the Jebiisite^]. Cf. i Ch. 21'= «. After the reve- 
lation of Yahweh at the threshing-floor, David began at once to 
prepare to build there the Temple (i Ch. 22' -5). — 2. The date 
of this verse is taken from i K. 6' with the omission of ''the four 
hundred and eightieth year of the Exodus," and likewise the name 
of the second month, "Ziv," given in Kings. Solomon came to 
the throne about 977. — In the second month]. Any reference to 
the day of the month is wrongly in the text (v. i.). The second 
month was approximately from the middle of April to the middle 
of jSIay. 

3-7. The general dimensions of the porch and the holy place. 
— Abridged from i K. 6^- '• is-'*- 23. 30 omitting entirely the matter of 
vv. <Mn Kings, i.e., the mention of the windows, the side chambers 
of the Temple, its method of construction, and the side door and 
the stairs. — 3. And these are the foundations ivhich Solomon laid 
in building the house of God] i.e., this is the ground plan of the 
house. The reference is to the dimensions immediately given. — 
The length after the former measure]. Before the exile the Hebrews 
used a cubit longer by a handbreadth than the one in use after the 
exile (Bn. Arch. pp. 179/.) and the dimensions of the Temple, says 
the Chronicler, were according to this earlier measure. The two 
cubits of Egyptian origin were in the ratio of 7 to 6; the earlier one 
was 527 mm. (20.74 inches), the latter 450 mm. (17.72 inches) (Now. 
Arch. p. 201). The height of the Temple, thirty cubits, given in 
Kings, is omitted, being out of place in the ground plan, cf. \.K 
—4. And the porch which was in front of the house: its length was 
twenty cubits before {i.e., according to) the breadth of the house and 
the height twenty cubits*]. (Oe., Ki.) Since the Temple was only 
thirty cubits in height, the reading of ^, one hundred and twenty 
cubits for the height of the porch, is universally regarded as a tex- 
tual corruption. The numeral hundredwas probably inserted in the 
text by some one who was thinking of Herod's Temple, the porch 
of which was 100 cubits in height. For height, thirty cubits have 
been preferred to twenty (Be.). For another rendering see below. 
The overlaying of the porch with gold is not mentioned in Kings, 




although perhaps imphed i K. 6^°-'^ Such overlaying with gold 
as is mentioned here and in w. ^«- probably never took place, since 
such gold-plating is not mentioned in connection with the plunder- 
ing of the Temple by foes (i K. 142^ 2 K. 141^) nor when stript by 
King Ahaz in financial straits. The metal covering by Hezekiah 
mentioned in 2 K. i8'« was probably not gold (Bn., EBi. iv. col. 
4932). — 5. And the greater room (Heb. house)] i.e., the holy 
place. — With cypress Ti'ood]. In Kings only cedar is mentioned 
except for the floor (i K. 6'5- is). — Palms and garlands], bas- 
"relief work (cf. 1 K. 6'«- =3. 32. 35). — g, j^^j^ j^g garnished (Heb. 
overlaid) the house], the whole Temple (Be. and so evidently 
most comm.); the holy place (Kau.), which is more agreeable to 
the context. — With costly stones]. The idea evidently is of 
precious stones set in the walls, although it has been suggested 
that they were costly flagstones for the floor (Kau.). — Parwaim], 
apparently the name of a gold-producing place conjectured in 
Arabia (BDB.), yet really dubious. Sprenger (Die alte Geogr. 
Arabiens, pp. 54/.) identifies with fa rwa in SW. Arabia, citing 
the Arabian historian Hamdani (r. 940 A.D.), while Glaser (Skiz. 
pp. 347^-) finds Parwaim in el-farwain mentioned by the same 
historian as a gold-mine in NE. Arabia (see Guthe, PRE.' 14, 
p. 705).— This verse has no paraflel in i K. — 7. A continuation of 
the description of the holy place. — And he carved cherubim on the 
wall], an inference from i K. ()-\ which appears to conflict with 
I K. 6". Cherubim were on the walls of the Temple described by 
Ezekiel (4i'«). 

1, (S has ni,T> as subject of nxij. and (5, ^, U, the order fan itt-x aipca. 
This gives the true text (Kau., Bn., Ki.). To adhere to ^ gives a 
very harsh reading, viz. Then Solomon began to build the house of 
Yahweh on Mount Moriah where he [Yahweh] appeared unto David 
his father which [house] he [Solomon] prepared in the place of David 
[i.e., that D. had appointed] in the threshing-floor of Oman the Jebusite. 
See RV. — 2. M^2] wanting in three MSS., (&, H, and to be omitted as a 
dittography (Be., Ke., Oe., Zoe., Kau., Bn., Ki.). "In the second [day]" 
RV., would naturally be expressed by ;^'^^S a^js'j. Ges. § 134/'. — 3. hSni] 
looks toward several following subjects, Koe. iii. § 349n. — noin] inf. 
used as a subst. Koe. iii. § 233a. This Hoph. inf. also used by the 
Chronicler of the founding of the Temple in Ezr. 3" f. — 4. ll^ is mean- 


ingless. The following readings have been proposed: "»i;'N d'^inhi 
D''-\i'j? ncN najni n^an am ^jd Vj; onry mnx lonx n^an -ija Sy (Oe., Ki.) 
after (B (which has n'3n after '•JiJ Vj;' and 0§»* twenty cubits for the height) 
and I K. 6^^ am ^jb Sy ioin ncN Di-irj; non ^sm ■>jfl by d'^inhi. The 
clause a''TJ'>i nxa najm is entirely lacking in K. hnd (■y. j.) is plainly a 
corruption, since a porch of the height of 120 feet would be a Snjc tower. 
Since the height of the Temple was thirty cubits, some prefer to read 
Ditt''?^' niCN najni (Be.). Also ^^ is read "(-7 n^2n ^Tn ^:s Sj? nrs dSinhi 
a-'^-Zfy nicN n^^n am ^:o '?>• i-ixni nm nsxa (Be., Kau.), and the porch 
which was in front 0/ the main room of the building was ten cubits broad 
and tlie length according to [Heb. before] the breadth of the building 
twenty cubits. Since a statement of the height is out of place in a de- 
scription which purports to give the ground-plan (cf. vv. = * where the 
Chronicler omits the height given in i K.), and the breadth is expected, 
this reading is preferable. More likely, however, the Chronicler placed 
these dimensions in the order in which they appear in his source (i K. 
63), hence we prefer ncs non am •'js hy -\-\sn v^n ijcj Sy nrs o'^ixni 
nry ri::N amni D''T-'> a;(J the porch which was before the house: the length 
according to the breadth of the house was twenty cubits and the breadth 
ten cubits. This requires the least number of changes and the last three 
words could easily be corrupted into D'i!:*;Ji nxs najm. — 5. nan] late 
word used especially in Piel. — aiu] many Mss., (& "(ino. — v'^y ^•;>)] cf. 
BDB. •"I'^y Hiph. 4, used of ornamentation howsoever made cf. v. '^. — 
D'lcp] in 1 K. 6"- 32- M 736 nn^n. — mn^'] i K. 7'", in description of 
tabernacle (Ex. 28'<- =2 3915), chains, in i K. 6" an'X mao garlands 
of flowers, open flowers, RV. See tjd BDB. 

8-9. The most holy place. — Greatly condensed from i K. 
516-20 — 8. Cf. I K. b"". The third equal dimension of the most 
holy place has been omitted by the Chronicler.— O/ six hundred 
talent s\ a particular not given in Kings. According to the 
lightest calculation for a talent {i.e., the latest Jewish weight 
system 45 lbs.) the weight would be 27,000 lbs. {DB. iv. 906 a). 
The more usual light weight given for a talent is 108.29 1'^^- 
(BDB.); that w^ould give 64,974 lbs. Both amounts seem 
incredible. The amount is doubtless a free invention of the 
Chronicler. Possibly he thought of fifty talents for each tribe, 
V. I Ch. 21". — 9, The nails'\ were intended to fasten the sheets 
of gold on the wainscoting (Ke., Zoe., Bn.). — And the weight of 
the nails was one shekel for fifty shekels of gold*]. Thus read after 
a slight correction of the Heb. text underlying (S (v. i.). — Upper 


chambers], not mentioned elsewhere in the description of the 
Temple in 2 Ch., but in i Ch. 28" (q. v.). 

8. o-'iy-^prt cip no pn]. In i K. the term is ^o^, the hindmost cham- 
ber, I K. 65- '6- ''«'•, also in 2 Ch. 31= 420 from i K. 7" and 2 Ch. 5'- • 
from I K. 86- ». D'B'-ipn Dip also appears in i K 6^^ 8^ (as glosses SBOT.) 
f> (a late Dtic. passage). — 9. anr a^'i^vn DiSpsfS nncDn'? Sp-^ci] and 
tlie weight of the nails fifty shekels of gold, i.e., a little less than two 
pounds (avoirdupois) of nails served to hold over thirty-two tons {v. s.) 
of gold in place. This is clearly impossible, and it is doubtful whether 
even the Chronicler would make such a careless statement. CH adds oKktj 
Tov ivds after 'Do'?, thus making each nail weigh nearly two pounds; so 
also H. This equally difficult reading (two-pound nailsl) no doubt goes 
back to a Heb. original, inx Sp::'D, which is probably a corruption of 
inN Sps* (note Sp^'3 a corruption for Spc in 2 S. 2i'«, v. BDB.). Hence 
we render, a)id the weight of the nails was one shekel for fifty shekels of 
gold {i.e., for one mina), which gives a proper proportion and one which 
any writer might propose. 

10-14. The cherubim. — Abridged from i K. 6"-". — 10. And 
he made in the most holy room two cherubim, woodwork,'^ and he^ 
covered them with gold], a combination of i K. 6"» and '". In 
I K. 6" the wood is olive.— 11. And the wings of the cherubim in 
their length were twenty cubits]. Each wing extended five cubits, 
and since they stood across the holy place with wing tips against 
the wall and with tips touching one another, their combined length 
was twenty cubits, the breadth of the room. The remainder of 
the verse carries out this description. — 12. This verse describing 
the position of the other cherub shows that the position of the two 
cherubim side by side was identical. The Chronicler has omitted 
from I K. 6-8 the height of the cherubim, ten cubits, and their iden- 
tity of form (i K. 6"). — 13. And their faces toward the house] i.e., 
toward the holy place. They had clearly only single faces and 
not the composite ones of Ezekiel's cherubim. — 14. The veil be- 
tween the holy place and the most holy is not mentioned in i K., 
nor is such a veil described in Ezekiel's Temple. However, 
Zerubbabel's Temple probably had it, though this is not certain. 
The Chronicler derived the description either from the Temple 
of his day or from the veil of the tabernacle Ex. 263' (see DB. iv. 
p. 847). On the colours cf. 2'. 


10. D''J,'S>X] o-TT. images BDB. with nc^'c image work, "3 opere 
statuario sculpture work (Ke.), some special form of sculpture (Be., 
Kau.). Since i K. 6^3 has JCtt' isj" (preferred here by Oe.), it is better to 
follow (S t^^v\Q)v and read Li^y;r: (Bn.) of wood. — isjm] read after i K. 62« 
and (S the sing. — 11. After inxn (g^ ^^3 ^n^, which Bn. would supply 
according to the parallel in v. 12. The nyjo and yJD should change 
places, the masc. form, as in v. '^^ appearing by the attraction of the 
nearer noun anon. — 12. This verse is wanting in (&^ and may be a 
dittography of the preceding, but more likely the verse was lost from the 
Vatican text by homoeoteleuton, a common error in this MS. — 13. 
Since v^a is used transitively (i Ch. 28' « 2 Ch. 5^ i K. 8^) either •'d:d is 
to be struck out (Be.) or D^uns is to be read (Bn.); Ki. BH. retains the 
text. V. '3» reads like a gloss. Compared with i K., especially if we 
omit V. " and v. "», we have a beautifully compact and intelligible 
description, showing skilful abridgment. 

15-17. The two pillars before the Temple. — Abridged from 
I K. 7'^-", cf. Je. 52='. The Chronicler has omitted in his descrip- 
tion their metal, brass; their circumference, twelve cubits (i K. 
7'5); the checkerwork of the capitals (i K. 7"), and the lilywork 
surmounting the capitals (i K. 7''- "). — 15. Two pillars]. Cf. v. ". 
— Thirty-five cubits in height]. In i K. 7'^ 2 K. 25" Je. 52=' the 
height of the pillars is given as eighteen cubits; thirty-five are only 
mentioned here and in (8 of Je. 52^^'. This latter dimension has 
been explained as representing the double length of the two pillars, 
assuming that each was about seventeen and a half cubits long 
(Mov. p. 253), or as a reckoning including the five cubits of the 
capital and other additions in their construction (Ew. Hist. III. p. 
237), or as a misreading of the numerical sign "'' (eighteen) for nh 
(thirty-five) (Ke., Zee., Oe.) (to be rejected because we have no evi- 
dence of the use of such signs in ancient Hebrew and thus OT. writ- 
ing), or, which is the most probable, as a corruption arising from the 
text of Kings (Hlw^y HiDti' TiDnJ) becoming illegible in some way 
and thus read "pS w^I^rTl Cw'^w'* (Be.) or something similar (Bn.). 
Possibly the Chronicler read a text of i K. 7'* in which ^D"*, com- 
passed about, had become illegible (or corrupted to ClD'', added), in 
which case he would have interpreted the twelve cubits of circum- 
ference as an addition to the height; hence his 35 = i8-l-i2-f-5 
(capital). From the description given in i K. 7'5-2' (with v. '* 


corrected from Je. 522') and omitted by the Chronicler (ahhough 
a partial description appears in 4'^*^), they were hollow bronze 
pillars four finger-breadths in thickness, eighteen cubits (about 30 
ft.) in height, and twelve cubits (about 20 ft.) in circumference. 
Each was surmounted (i) by a molten chapiter or capital five 
cubits in height, which (2) was covered with a bronze network, 
and (3) over the network hung two chains in four loops (Je. 52") 
of 100 pomegranates eacii (v. '«). Each capital either curved 
outward at the top in a lily shape or was surmounted by a lily- 
shaped ornament (Bn., Sk.; Bur. rejects the lily shape alto- 
gether). — 16. And he made chains like a necklace'*]. The read- 
ing in the oracle {^, RV., etc.) in this description of the pillars is 
clearly wrong. The slightest change in Hebrew letters of similar form 
(T'^ID instead of "1''312) gives the reading above (Bn.; T'i"!!} in- 
stead of "T'^l^ on a ring, on the edge Be., Ki.). Around the ball- 
shaped or rounded cup-shaped capitals of the pillars were strung 
chains upon which the metallic pomegranates were hung, according 
to I K. 720 apparently two rows of 100 pomegranates each. — 17. Cf. 
I K. 72'. These two pillars were either a part of the porch support- 
ing a lintel (a view based largely on Ez. 40", Now. Arch. II. p. ;^;^), 
or, better, free on either side before the porch (as is suggested by 
v. '* and this verse). These pillars were in Solomon's Temple be- 
cause they were a usual feature of Semitic temples, symbols of the 
deity, a survival in this form of the ancient stone pillars the Maz- 
zehoth {cf. 14=) (Bn. EBi. IV. col. 493; WRS. Rel. Sem. p. 208). 
(The bowls, fitting receptacles for sacrificial fat, on the tops 
also suggested to WRS. that they might have served as altars 
or candlesticks, op. cit. pp. 488/.). — Jachin means "he will es- 
tablish," "the Stablisher," an appropriate name for Yahweh. 
The meaning of Boaz is not so clear. It is usually rendered 
" In him is strength," which would be a suitable appellation of 

15. Pflsm] and the plated capital air, see BDB. Its use is guar- 
anteed by the Aram, i^r^s^i. I K. 716 has mnD.— 16. 1^313] in the 
oracle, possibly a gloss from i K. 6" (Ba.), but more likely a corruption 
of •\>2-\ (with prep.) necklace Gn. 41" Ez. 16". S>, A, construed the chains 
as fifty cubits in length, extending thus from the most holy place through 


the holy place (forty cubits) and the porch (ten cubits). — 17. v;2] per- 
haps originally T>—Sj."3 " Baal of strength, " and then since Baal had 
become opprobrious as a name of Yahweh, the author of i K. made 
this contraction (Klo.). 

IV-V. 1. The Furniture of the Temple. 

1. The altar. — This altar of bronze is not given among the fur- 
nitvire of the Temple described in i K., although mentioned in 
I K. 8" 2 K. i6'^f-; and an altar which Solomon built is also men- 
tioned I K. 9". 

According to We. {Prol. p. 44, n. i) and Bn. {Kom. on i and 2 K. p. 
47, EBi. IV. col. 4937) a description of the altar stood in the original 
text of I K. and thus supplied the Chronicler with his information, but 
later was struck out of i K. by an editor (R'') on the theory that the 
brazen altar of the Tabernacle had been preserv-ed and was set up in 
the court of the Temple. But in that case some trace of the missing 
passage would be expected in the (&^ text of i K., but there is none 
(Bur. p. 102). The failure of the altar to appear among the furniture 
has been also explained on the ground that the two pillars as receptacles 
for the sacrificial fat served for altars (v. s. 3" WRS.). But this is very 
improbable. More likely Solomon used the bare rock for his sacrifice — 
the great rock es Sakhra now under the dome of the Mosque of Omar, 
which is believed to have stood in front of the Temple and has every 
indication of having been an altar (DB. IV. p. 696) (Sk. i K. 8"). The 
reference then to the brazen altar in i K. 8^^ may be a late addition, and 
the earliest reliable mention would be in the story of Ahaz, 2 K. 16'* 
(GAS. J. pp. 64 /.). The question remains, however, how came the 
brazen altar of Ahaz if not built by Solomon. 

In form, accepting the measurements of the Chronicler, the altar 
was probably like that of Ezekiel's Temple (43''-'0> ^'■^•j ^ series of 
terraces culminating in a broad plateau or table. The base then 
would have been twenty by twenty cubits. If the dimensions given 
by Hecataeus (in Jos. Apion, I. 22) are correct, the Chronicler 
doubtless took his figures from the altar of Zerubbabel's Temple, 
i.e., the Temple of his day. The latter was made of unhewn 

2-6. The brazen sea and the lavers. — The description of the 
sea is taken directly from i K. 7"-26_ This was a huge cylindrical or 
hemispherical tank resting on the backs of twelve oxen facing out- 
ward, three each toward the four cardinal points of the compass. 


The tank stood in the southeast angle of the court. — 2, Molten sea\ 
The casting of such an immense article of metalwork in one piece 
has been questioned; and it has even been suggested that the tank 
was wooden and, since the ancients preferred hammered work, 
plated with bronze (Bn. EBi. IV. col. 4340). The name sea, ac- 
cording to Josephus, was given from its size {Ant. viii. 3, 5), 
but it may also be connected with the symbolical character of 
the basin. — Ten cubits from brim to brim] i.e., in diameter. The 
numbers of this verse are only approximate, since 10 cubits (17.22 
ft.) in diameter would give a circumference of 31.4159 cubits 
instead of 30 cubits (51.66 ft.). — 3. And under its brim were 
gourd-like knops encompassing it round about (ten in a cubit?) 
encircling the sea round about. In two rows were the gourd-like 
knops, cast when it was cast*]. Whether this encircling garland- 
like ornamentation was of the fruit or the flowers of the gourd 
is uncertain. — 5. This verse in (B>^^ of i K., lacking, however, 
the statement of the capacity of the tank, precedes v. ■•. This 
is the natural order. — Three thousand baths], 1 K. 7^^ "two thou- 
sand baths." Both estimates appear too large, since at the 
smaller figure, reckoning a bath at 65 pints (DB. IV. p. 912) or 
at 64.04 pints (EBi. IV. col. 5997), the capacity would have been 
16,250 or 16,010 gallons, but the dimensions 10 cubits in diam- 
eter, 30 in circumference, and 5 in depth in a cylinder give only 
10,798 gallons (figuring with the long cubit, 20.67 in., we obtain 
about 15,000 cubits), and if a hemisphere 6,376 gallons (EBi. IV. 
col. 4340). The true capacity was probably somewhere between 
these figures. — 6. The full description of the bases of the ten lavers 
and also their size, given in i K. j^^-^^, is omitted by the Chronicler. 
— To wash in them]. This is the Chronicler's interpretation of the 
use both of the sea and the lavers. But they were ill adapted for 
the purpose of cleansing, especially the sea, unless it was a recep- 
tacle from which water was drawn, although it received this mean- 
ing in the furniture of the tabernacle (Ex. ;^o'«-"). Both the sea 
and the lavers probably had a symbolical meaning (an interpreta- 
tion now generally adopted). The sea represented the waters or the 
flood upon which Yahweh as the God of rain was enthroned (Ps. 
29'°), or the primeval flood or deep over which his creative power 



was manifested (r/. Gn. i^ « 9 Ps. 24^ 933). The lavers with their 
wheels and decorations of cherubim (i K. 7293.) not inappropri- 
ately might then symbolise the clouds {cf. the cherubim of Ezekiel 
and cherub of the storm upon which Yahweh rode (Ps. 18" "»'))• 
The bulls probably also were symbols of deity; cf. the calf of the 
wilderness (Ex. 321^) and those set up at Bethel and Dan (i K. 

1228 f-). 

2, S«] 2 K. 723 -[';. — 3. mm] wanting in i K. 721. — anpa] oocen; i K. 
D^ypDi, knops {gourds), the true reading although (S and B have that of l§. 
The change to oxen was made by some ignorant copyist who thought the 
oxen were here mentioned. — iS] i K. inarS, needed for clearness of 
meaning. — 3^302] wanting in K. and (&. — n:;Na ">::'>], tefi in a cubit (Be., 
RVm.), is grammatically inadmissible. The phrase means for ten 
cubits (B, §, ®), which is meaningless, since the gourds ran around the 
tank for thirty cubits, hence probably a gloss in i K. by some one who 
mistook the diameter for the circumference (St. SBOT., so essentially 
Bur.). — a''3D DVT PN Qifl^T] is wanting in CS^ of i K., and may be re- 
garded there as a gloss (Bn.). — d-'JB'] i K. "'Jir. — ipan] i K. a^'vpon. — 
To fit the oxen misread for knops {gourds) in this verse with the following 
verse (S° has Svo "yiv-q ix^ivevcrav roiis fxSffxovs iv ry x'^"^*''" airrQv (<) 
^ iwol-qaav avrovs ddiScKa yu6(rxoi;s. (B^ agrees with il^. — 5. D\">3 pvn'D 
h>3-' D^sha rtt'"^^'] i K. 728 S'oi na cdSn. ^131 in Ch., superfluous after 
p^inc, is due to a glossator familiar with i K. (Be., Oe., Ki.), or simple 
pleonasm (Ke., Zoe.). Bn. would strike out either p^nc or Sov C5 has 
Kal i^er^Xecrev^ i.e., ^D^^. 

7 f. The candlesticks, tables, and basins. — The candlesticks 
(lampstands) are not mentioned in i K. among the regular furni- 
ture of the Temple, but only incidentally in the summary of golden 
articles (i K. 7"), a passage recognised as of late origin (St. SBOT., 
Bur.). They do not appear also among the spoil of 2 K. 25 '-^'^ 
and thus their appearance in the parallel Je. 52 "is a gloss. Hence, 
ten candlesticks, though regarded as historic by Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., 
Ba., et al., are probably an imaginar}'^ product. Some light, doubt- 
less, was in the Temple (cf. i S. y), very likely one lampstand, pos- 
sibly not unlike that of the second Temple and the tabernacle 
(cf. the vision of Zechariah c. 4, Ex. 2^^^^), but if elaborate its 
omission from the earliest list of Temple furniture is singular. 

On the other hand it is urged: "There must have been some ground 
for the tradition of ten lampstands. Probably these did exist — but 


brazen, not golden ones, in Solomon's Temple, or they were added soon 
after, for there must have been some way of lighting the interior of the 
house. They would be kept burning day and night, as house lamps in 
the East are at the present day. They might have been put on pedestals 
— the Eastern fashion — but most likely they were set on the ten tables 
about which we read in 2 Ch. 4^ " (W. T. Davies, DB. IV. p. 701). 

7. Cf. V. ^^ I K. 7'''. — According to the prescription concerning 
them] i.e., the prescription in reference to their structure (cf. Ex. 
25='-" 37" ^■). — In the temple] (^^Tl), the holy place; according to 
I K. 7^5 they were before the most holy place. Their exact position 
in the room, if there, cannot be determined; probably they extended 
down its sides. — 8. Ten tables]. Since elsewhere only one table is 
mentioned for the shew-bread in the Temple (13" 29'* i K. 6^" 
7<»), likewise alsoinEzekiel's Temple (41^^ '• altar=table), and since 
the position of these tables was the same as that of the ten candle- 
sticks (v. '), these ten tables have been held to have been for the 
support of the ten candlesticks (Be., Zoe.,Bn., EBi.). In the mind 
of the writer, however, they were doubtless for the shew-bread and 
in reahty an exaggeration like the ten lampstands {cf. v. " i Ch. 
28'^). (Ke. held for the shew-bread; Oe. uncertain, perhaps 
for both; Ba. not for the shew-bread.). — A hundred basins of gold], 
not mentioned in i K. e.xcept generally (i K. 7^°); their use is un- 
certain, probably for receiving and sprinkling the sacrificial 
blood (Be., Ba.) or for pouring libations {cf Am. 6«) (Ke., Zoe., Oe.). 

9. The courts of the Temple. — These are described according 
to the arrangement at the time of the Chronicler, when, under the 
influence of Ezekiel, there was an inner court restricted for the use 
of the priests and an outer one for the people. The inner court men- 
tioned in I K. 6^« 7 '2 is the court of the Temple, while the great 
outer court (i K. 7 '2) was the court extending around all of Solo- 
mon's buildings {cf GAS. /. ii. p. 256). The term here used for 
the great outer court (mty) occurs only in i and 2 Ch. and Ez. 
The doors are not mentioned in i K. 

10-18. The position of the brazen sea and the works of 
Hiram.— Taken directly from i K. j^^^-a^ which explains the awk- 
ward introduction here of the statement respecting the place of 
the sea.— 11. The pots], for boiUng flesh, an ancient way of 


preparing sacrificial food {cf. i S. 2"'). — Shovels!^ utensils for 
cleaning the altar (Ex. 27=). — Basins\ used for catching the 
blood and throwing it against the altar {cf. v. «). — 12. The two 
pillars]. Cf. 3''". — The two bowls of the capitals which were 
on the pillars*]. The tops of the pillars were either open and 
cup-like, or ball-like and closed. The absence of the mention 
here of any additional lilywork favours its rejection (cf. view of 
Bur. 3"). — 13. And the four hundred pomegranates, etc.]. Cf. 
notes on 3'='.— 14. Cf. v.«.— 15. Cf. v.^— 16. Cf. w.^K— The flesh 
hooks] (RV.) i.e., sacrificial forks (v. i.). — 17. In the plain of the 
Jordan], lit. in the oval (valley) of the Jordan. — Succoth and 
Zeredah]. The latter of these names is the Chronicler's equiva- 
lent of "Zarethan" of the text of i K. (7'*), also mentioned as 
near the city Adam (Jos. 3'^). This is probably the mod. ed 
Damieh on the west bank of the Jordan, twenty-four miles from 
its mouth. Succoth on the east bank is usually identified with Tell 
Deir 'Alia, about one mile north of the Jabbok (GAS. HGHL. 
p. 585). — Instead of in the clay ground, etc., the passage probably 
in I K. originally read, at the ford of Adamah, etc. (v. i.). 

10. 7 MSB., (S, I K. 739 after n'"'3n have n^27\, which may be supplied 
here (Bn.). Retaining the present text of Ch. n^jD^n is an example of an 
adj. used nominally (Dav. Syn. § 32, R. 5). — najj] i K. 3jj. — 11. 
Diin' and 2]. Since this same man is mentioned in v. " and 2'^ Ki. reads 
^3N min {SBOT.), yet probably the Chronicler followed the text of 
I K. — nn^Di] I K. 7" nn^^n. Text of Ch. is the original (so 
Th., St., Klo., Kamp., Bn., Ki., Bur., on i K. 7<»).— dmSsh n>3D] 
I K. nin> n>2. — 12. nnnsm mSjni] i K. 7" mnDn n'^'ji without doubt the 
true reading (adopted by Be., Kau., Bn., Ki. Kom., BH.). 05° Kal 
iir'aiTuv yuKkd t^ x^^^'P^^- <8'' follows 1^. — 13. 'ui niDoS] in i K. 
7", but to be omitted there as a dittography from previous verse {SBOT. 
of K., Ki. BH. of K.); the Chronicler reproduced the error of K. — 
''JO Sy] in I K. should be ^iv Sy, (&,^, or onici'n vh-\ V^j, as in v. '= 
(Bn., Ki., Bur.), but the Chronicler probably found the error already 
in I K. — 14. Tivy i and 2] 1 K. 7" -yz'-; and mry the true reading, and the 
ten bases and the ten lavers upon the bases (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Kau., 
Ba., Bn., Ki.). — 15. nns] art. to be supplied as in i K. 7". — rnnn] 
I K. D'H nnn. — 16. nuSron] sacrificial forks, cf. Ex. 27' 38' Nu. 4'< 
I Ch. 28" t. I K. 7« nipiTD " bowls." The reading of K. is preferred by 
Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ki., while Bn. rightly considers that of Ch. (retained by 
Kau.) the more original, since basins have already been mentioned in 


I K. 7".— dh^Vd b PNi] I K. -iirx Snsn o^Ssn So nm, Qr. nSsn instead 
of Shnh, which latter gives the true reading (see Bur.). Be., Ke., Oe., 
prefer r^'rart d^Sdh '73 pni as the true reading in Ch. Kau., Bn., Ki., ad- 
here to the present text as the Chronicler's reconstruction of the corrupt 
text of I K. This latter is quite likely. — hdS'J' "|'?dS rnx onin] Huram, 
the trusted counsellor of King Solomon; v. s. on 2'^, and on construction 
cf. Koe. iii. pp. 256/. — ^^'i'^':^] a word appearing in NH.; i K. d-^dd. — 17. 
0^2] I K. 7" n^ynj. (g in each iv tQ 7rdx«, B in terra argillosa, hence 
RV. in the clay ground. Be. thought of the hardened earth prepared to 
receive the molten metal, the clay moulds, a rendering followed by Oe., 
Kau., Ki., but Moore on Ju. 7", followed by BDB., Bn., emends to 
nn-i« majDa at the crossing of Adamah, regarding Adamah as identical 
with DIN Jos. 3'«, which is there said to be near jms. — nrmx] i K. tmx. — • 
18. cyi] (the original according to Bn.) i K. 7" njii. — 3nS] i K. 31D. — 
^^<c] repeated in i K. — ''3] wanting in i K. Its introduction gives a 
slightly different force to the sentence. In K. the meaning is that the 
vessels were too numerous to be weighed, in Ch. that the number was 
very great because no regard was had to the amount (weight) of brass 
used. The present text of i K. is harsh and probably not the original. 

19-22. The golden furniture of the Temple. — Taken from 

I K. 7<8-60, 

This passage in i K. has been regarded as a late addition to the origi- 
nal account of the Temple furniture, for the following reasons: (i) the 
improbability of such lavish expenditure on articles like hinges, etc.; 
(2) the mention of a golden altar of which there is no historical evidence 
in pre-exilic times; (3) a discrepancy between the reference to the cedar 
altar for the shew-bread in i K. 6^" and the reference in i K. 7^8 to the 
table of gold; and also all the articles mentioned should naturally have 
been given along with the cherubim and table (altar) of cedar, in c. 6; 
(4) the mere enumeration of the articles, when the brazen furniture 
is so elaborately described, points in the same direction (Bn., Sk.). 

The Chronicler has tables (v. >') instead of sing, to conform with 
I Ch. 28" and probably with v.^, and the doors of the two rooms 
are of gold (v.") instead of the hinges (i K. y^") (but v. i.). For 
brevity, also, the Chronicler has omitted the position of the golden 
candlesticks (v. '« compared with i K. 7^'). — 19. The golden aliar]. 
This appears later in the altar of incense of the tabernacle (Ex. 
30' a), but it is lacking in the Temple of Ezekiel, and probably 
had no place in Solomon's Temple (DB. II. p. 467). — The tables], 


in I K. 7^8 "ti^e table." The Chronicler has pluralised to conform 
with V. 8 q. V. — 20. And the candlesticks] the lampstands {cf. v. '). 
— According to the prescription]. Cf. v. ^ The reference here is not 
to their form, but their use. 21. And the flowers] the flower-like 
ornaments of the stands on which the lamps rested {cf. Ex. 2<,^^^-). 
22. The snuffers, etc.] the utensils for the care of the lamps and 
of the golden altar of incense. — And the hinges of the temple of the 
inner doors of the most holy place and of the doors of the temple, that 
is the temple roo^n (the holy place), were of gold*]. This is the true 
reading (v. i.). The corrupt text makes the entire doors plated 
with gold. According to i K. 6^' ' the doors were of olive wood, 
overlaid with gold. 

19. The original of i K. 7" may have been and Solomon placed (nn) 
all the vessels which he had made {^'^y) in the house of Yahweh (Bn.). 
SBOT. has still a different text; but our present text of i K. was before 
the Chronicler.— avn'?x.-i] i K. nin>.— a.-fSj,-! pun^'-j-n tni] i K. ib-n jn'^U'n pni 
y'hy. — At the end of the verse i K. has ant. — 20. After nnjan pni i K. -j*^ 
ha.?, five on the right hand and five on the left and lacks asa'DD mya? onimji. 
— a-^yaS] in order that they should burn. — 21. anr T\^^:>•o Nin] probably a 
gloss, since wanting in i K. 7" and also 05. niSsD air. — 22. i K. 7*" has 
mi3Dm, " the cups," before nnsrsni. — nv3'>jsn vni.-T?T non nnai] i K. 
iD-ijan non mr'^iS ni.ncni. Hence read /IJI >n'?i'^i oji '':'^'7 r\^2r\ ninai as 
the most probable original of Ch. (Be., Zoe., Oe., Ki., Bn.). Ke. de- 
fends nno ayid as regards the opening {door) of the house its door leaves, 
etc., followed essentially by Kau., RV. Accepting this, the Chronicler 
thought of the entire doors as plated with gold. 

V. 1. The completion of the furnishing of the Temple. — A 

copy of I K. 7=^'. — 1. The things that David his father had dedicated]. 
Although this statement is in i K. 7^', the books of i and 2 S. and 
I and 2 K. contain no record of such dedication by David before- 
hand of utensils directly made with the Temple in view. It has, 
therefore, been thought that the word vessels (utensils) might, after 
its common meaning, include weapons and thus the spoil of war 
which David did dedicate to Yahweh (cf. i Ch. 18" 2 S. 8'ff) 

V. 1. na-j:] eleven mss., i K. 7" + i^r:^. — n^aS] i K. no. — pni] read 
after i K., (S^a^ ^_ n^ p^. The waw has been drawn from ion. — So] 
wanting in eighteen MSS., ^^^, ^, i K. (Ki. BH.\. 


V. 2-VII. 10. The Dedication of the Temple. 

V. 2-14. The bringing of the ark. — A copy of i K. 8'-" with 
the addition of a notice of the priests and the Levites and their 
musical service (vv. nb-is^'). In i K. this section represents an old 
narrative revised especially by a priestly editor. — 2. Then] i.e., 
after the completion of the Temple and all its furniture. — Even all 
the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers^ houses] a true 
description of //te e/ig/-^. — Zion]. Cf. i Ch. 15'. — 3. At the Feast] 
the Feast of Tabernacles, the harvest festival at the close of the 
ingathering of fruit crops. — In the seventh month]. Nothing in 
the narrative of the Chronicler is at variance with this. In i K. 
it must be reconciled with the statement that the Temple was 
finished in the eighth month (i K. 6'8). The building may have 
been finished earUer than the utensils; hence the dedication may 
have been in the next year (Sk.). — 4. And the Levites took up 
the ark]. According to 2 K. 8«, the Chronicler's source, the 
priests took up the ark. This reflects the older usage {cf. Jos. 
23.6 56.12 833 (JE.). The Chronicler changed priests into Levites 
to bring the action into conformity with the regulation of P 
which assigned the duty of bearing the ark to the Levites (Nu. 
3" 4"); yet in V. 5 he aUowed the double expression, the priests 
the Levites, to stand, possibly because certain utensils might well 
have been borne by the priests, and in v.' the word priests 
was properly retained (from 2 K. 8«), since when the Temple 
was reached only the priests could lawfully place the ark in 
the holy of holies {cf. Nu. 4^ «•). — 5. The tent of meeting and 
all the holy utensils that were in the tent], the Mosaic taber- 
nacle and all its furniture, which, according to the Chronicler, 
was at Gibeon (2 Ch. i^ f ); or the tent David erected for the ark 
(2 S. 6'' I Ch. 15') (Be.). The former was without question 
in the mind of the priestly editor of i K. who inserted this ref- 
erence, and also this was the view of the Chronicler. The term 
tent of meeting is only used of the tabernacle. — 6. Sacrificing 
before the ark]. Cf. the numerous sacrifices by stages when 
David brought up the ark (2 S. 61').— 7. Cf. v.^— 8. The exact 
position of the ark under the cherubim is carefully defined. — 
9. And the staves were long so that the ends of the staves were seen 


from the holy place* before the oracle]. One standing in the holy 
place could see in the darkness of the most holy place the pro- 
jecting ends of the staves by which the ark was carried. — But they 
were not seen without]. But one outside of the holy place could not 
see them. So generally ;v.i. This is better than the interpretation : 
"But did not extend beyond the door" (Sk.). — And thete they are* 
unto this day]. The retention of this clause from i K. 8* is an ex- 
ample of the Chronicler's unconcern at times to harmonise his text 
with actual conditions, since the ark and its staves had been long 
since destroyed. — 10. Now there was nothing in the ark except 
the two tables]. The form of expression implies that other things 
besides the two tables might have been e.xpected in the ark. A late 
Jewish tradition placed within the ark a golden pot of manna and 
Aaron's rod (Heb. 9^). A modern view is that the ark contained 
one or two sacred stones (St. Gesch. I. pp. 4S7 f-'j Now. Arch. II. 
pp. 5/.; TKC. EBi. I. col. 307), "a fetish" in which Yahweh dwelt 
(Sm. Hist. p. 71). But if Moses gave laws to Israel and brought 
the people into covenant relation to Yahweh, then two stone tablets 
containing the ten words are reasonably the historic contents of the 
ark (DB. I. p. 151). — Horeb] the mount of Yahweh's revelation 
in the wilderness, in E followed by D, while Sinai in J followed by 
P. — 11. And it came to pass when the priests had come out of the holy 
place]. This statement from i K. (S'"*) and continued in the words 
of V."'', that then the house was filled with a cloudy even the house of 
Yahweh (i K. S"""), is interrupted by the Chronicler with the inter- 
vening vv. "b-uj xhe Chronicler expands the allusion to the 
priests (i) by mentioning how all the priests took part in the ser- 
vice and not simply those to whom in course the service might 
have fallen (v. "t); (2) by describing the musical service at the con- 
clusion of which the house was filled with the cloud of Yahweh 
(vv. '2-"^). — Now all the priests who were at hand had sanctified 
themselves without keeping (their) courses]. Ordinarily the priests 
served in turn in twenty-four divisions (i Ch. 24''), but on this oc- 
casion all officiated without reference to their turn. This was the 
custom at the three great annual festivals (Schiir. Gesch. pp. 279 
/".). — 12. And the Levites, who were singers all of them]. In a similar 
manner with the priests, all the Levitical singers, who ordinarily 


served in turn in twenty-four courses (i Ch. 25'-"), took part in the 
dedication. — Asaph, Heman, and Judutlmn] the leaders or the 
representatives of the three Levitical choirs (cf. i Ch. 6^^°- <"» ) 
15" 25»-«). — With cymbals, psalteries, and harps]. Cf. i Ch. 15". — 
A hundred and twenty priests sounding with the trumpets]. The 
blowing of the trumpets was a duty of the priests. The hazozerah 
was the priestly instrument par excellence (DB. iv. p. 816). The 
one hundred and twenty represent five taken from each of the 
twenty-four divisions. — 13 f. And it came to pass when, as one 
person, even the trumpeters and the singers were causing one sound to 
he heard to praise and to give thanks unto Yahweh, and when they 
raised a sound with trumpets and with cymbals and with the instru- 
ments of song and when they praised Yahweh, saying. For he is 
good ; for his loving kindness endureth forever : then the house was 
full of the cloud, the house of Yahweh]. The Chronicler introduces 
the appearance of the cloud coincident with a great burst of 
music and praise, while the simpler narrative of i K. presents 
more clearly the thought that, when the ark had been placed in 
the holy of holies, the cloud filled the holy place, as visible token 
that Yahweh had taken up his abode in the new Temple. 

2. '^■'■?i?:] I K. 8' '^■?i7-. — After Sn and before D'''?a'ni i K. has 
nnVa' "I'^on wanting in (5 of i K. and hence a gloss. — 3. i K. 8= has ncStt' 
(a gloss) after l^sn; and D'jnsn mo before Jna omitted by the Chron- 
icler because in his day the old Canaanite names of the months had long 
since been dropped and numbers were used in their place. That is the 
seventh month is an addition to the original text of K. (SBOT., Bur.). 
Kau. holds the text of K. the true one for Ch. Certainly the retention of 
that is the seventh month is awkward without the retention of Ethanim, 
but such awkwardness of the Chronicler is not unknown elsewhere 
(cf. I Ch. 14* "in Jerusalem ").— 4. dmSh] i K. 8= a^jnsn.— 5. jn^n] 
I K. 8< + nin^.— iSyn] i K. iS]7m.— omSh] i K. a>^'^r:^ also (S, Iff, B. The 
omission of the 1 is perhaps due to a copyist (Ke., Zoe., Bn.., Ki.). 
Since iSjjn is in Ch., it is probable that v. ^b^ recognised as a gloss in i 
K. 8< (St. SBOT., from R.^, Bur., since wanting in (S^'-), was introduced 
into I K. from Ch. (Bn., Ki.). Yet dmSh o^jnon appears also in 23^* 
30"; and it is doubtful whether the Chronicler and his readers 
through their familiarity with Deuteronomy laid any stress upon pre- 
cision of statement in the use of the phrase the priests the Levites; the 
two classes were perfectly distinct in their own mind, as much so as if 
the conjunction and had been used between them. — 6. v^>'] i K. S^ -f- 


IHN. — 7. D'jnon] cf. v. ■". Here the Chronicler retains t]ie priests. 
— 8. 'on v.-im] I K. 8' 'jn ^3. — iddm] i K. iddm. Be., Ke., preferred 
the latter as the original after i Ch. 2Si« Ex. 2520 379, but Bn. regards the 
former as the original in i K. on the basis of 05 irepieKdXvirrov. This 
is uncertain, since irepiKaXvirTu is not used elsewhere to render either 
verb (Trom. Concord.). — 9. jn.xn p] copyist error; yet possibly an 
intentional, though clumsy, change of the Chronicler, who did not wish to 
think of the ark as visible from the holy place, cf. 3'^. It is generally 
read after i K. 8*, (S^ and some Heb. MSS. znpn jo (Be., Ke., Zoe., Ki., 
Bn.). Other emendations: Dipn Klo., aipan Kamp. (&^ combines 
both readings. — ''r\>^] copyist error for vdm, the text of i K. and (^ 
(Be., Ki.).^10. mnSn] i K. 8' a^jaxn mnS. — jnj] i K. njn + aa-. — 
After 2-\n both here and in i K., Bn. and Ki., following (6 in K., supply 
nnan mnS; but while without them the construction is awkward, it 
does not seem necessary to supply them (Bur.). SBOT. on K. regards 
'ui ma -w«, owing to the lack of connection, as a gloss. — anxcn] i K. 
onso yisn. — 11. 's] here introduces an explanatory clause descriptive 
of the priests. — ims'S px] Ges. § 1146; Dav. Syn. §§ 94, 95 (b). — 
12. an^nxVi . . . dSd*^] S of specification, even. — nnj3i] governed by 
preposition with previous word, cf. Ges. § iighh; Dav. Syn. §101. — 
D''ir;>'] to be taken as the predicate. — 13 . \ti] properly a resumption of 
'HM in V. ". — anxxncS] S, and with following word, of specification 
to wit or even. — ;j'C'i'nS] Ges. § 114/. — S'^n'^] S of purpose. — anna and 
SSna] appear correlative with p'^airnS. — nSd nom] then the house was 
filled, cf. Dr. TH. § 128, i K. 810 with same construction, nSo jjyni 
mni nn pn. Ki. after (5^ reads nirr" niaa ]y; n'^o non. Be., Kau., re- 
gard nini 0^3 as a gloss, explanatory of P'^^ri and introduced from K. 
Bn., on the other hand, regards the text of Ch. as a correction from K. 
of one who held n'^s to be intransitive. — 14. a^n'^sn] i K. 8" mn\ 

VI. 1-42. Solomon's address to the people and dedica- 
tory prayer. — Taken (save vv. '3- ^' ' ) with almost no variation 
from I K. 8'2-5o\ In the addition in v. '^ is given an interpretation of 
the statement that Solomon stood before the altar (v. '2) (before which 
properly it was lawful only for the priests to stand). The interpre- 
tation shows that he did not really stand before the altar, but upon 
some sort of a brazen improvised pulpit not mentioned elsewhere. 
In ^^^ ^i f a new and by far more beautiful conclusion is given to the 
prayer, taking the place of i K. 8" (v. ^i and portions of vv. =»■ ^^ 
are also omitted). 

1-3. Introduction. — 1. Yahweh hath promised to dwell in thick 
darkness (cloud)] either a reference to the cloud which had filled 



the Temple indicating that Yahweh had taken up his abode in the 
newly built Temple (Be.); or to be understood through the missing 
line (v. i.) The sun hath Yahweh set in the heavens. The passage 
then means that Yahweh, instead of confining himself to the realms 
of light, or in contrast to the realms of light, which are subordinate 
to him, dwells in the thick darkness or cloud, and hence says 
Solomon, I have built him a Temple whose dark inner shrine may 
fitly serve as his dwelling-place. — 2. But\ This antithesis arises 
from the Chronicler's change of the te.xt {v. i.). The change is un- 
fortunate. It emphasises Solomon's building of the Temple in- 
stead of the fact that the Temple had been built agreeably to the 
nature of God, which seems to be the meaning of i K. 8'^, which 
reads / have surely built thee a lofty mansion. — And'\ wanting in 
I K. {y. i.). — 3. And the king turned his face about\ The writer 
thought of the previous words uttered by Solomon, with his face 
toward the Temple and his back to the assembled people, whom 
he now blessed and addressed. In i K. these words mark the be- 
ginning of the Deuteronomic section, embracing the speech and 
prayer of Solomon. 

1. These vv. " appear in ^ of i K. after 8'*-" with the following 
additional words D''DB'3 pon ccc, which furnish the additional line 
{v. s.) which is incorporated into the text of i K. as original by We., Ki., 
Bn., Bur., Sk., et al, but M is adhered to as the original by St. SBOT. 
except ncNH instead of idn. jM was the text of the Chronicler. — 2. 
■'jNi] I K. 8'3 nj3. — pD?3i] I K. p3n. 

4-11. Solomon's address to the people. — A statement of the 
reasons which led to the building of the Temple, based largely 
upon 2 S. 75 "f-. — 4. And hath with his hands fulfilled it]. Yahweh 
had promised the building of the Temple and had through Solo- 
mon fulfilled this promise. — Saying]. The promise is now intro- 
duced. — 5. Cf for the first part 2 S. 7^ i Ch. 17=. The turn, how- 
ever, is different here. There the thought is that Yahweh had 
only dwelt in tents and did not, therefore, care for a "house of 
cedar "; here, that hitherto no place had been chosen nor yet 
person to carry out his design. — That my name might be there]. 
Where Yahweh dwelt there was his name, a term expressive of the 
divine nature and almost if not quite equivalent to person, if. Dt. 


125- 11 14" 162- «• 1' 26^ — 6. Under David both the place and the 
dynasty were chosen. — 7. David cherished the design of building 
the Temple, but it was overruled (2 S. 7' '• i Ch. 17' ^O- — 9. Cj. 2 
S. 7" I Ch. I7l^ — 11. Wherein is the covenant] i.e., the tables of 
the covenant (cf. 5'"). 

4. riiji] I K. 815 iTiai. — 5. ,cy] i K. iSi^ + ha-^iv^ ph. — anxn tinc] 
I K. anxcD, cf. 5'". — 'ji \-nn3 nSi] wanting in i K. — 6. oa' . . . inaNi] 
wanting in i K. and 05^ q{ qj^^ b^t given in (6^ of K., which is fol- 
lowed by Kau., Ki., Bn., but not by St. SBOT.—9. •<d] i K. 8" dn >3. 
— 11. pnNH Dn] I K. 8-' jiinS Dipa. — Snis''' 'J3 oy] i K. iNixinj ut^n ov 


12-42. Solomon's prayer of dedication. 

12-13. The position of Solomon. — 12. Before the altar] the 
great altar which was in the court (cf. 4'). — And he stretched forth 
his hands] the universal attitude of prayer (E.x. g""), — 13^ 
This verse is from the Chronicler. The narrative of i K. does not 
mention any structure upon which Solomon knelt, nor yet his 
kneeling posture. The notion of the structure may have arisen 
from the desire to remove Solomon from before the altar as a place 
sacred for the priests (We. Prol. p. 186, Bn.). This view is re- 
jected by Oe. 

14-17. Prayer for keeping the promise to David. — Ac- 
knowledged as relatively fulfilled in Solomon and the Temple 
(v. 15), but a larger fulfilment is desired (v. •'). — 14. The incom- 
parableness of Yahweh as a covenant God is described, cf. Dt. 3" 
7'. — That walk before thee with all their heart]. With such the cov- 
enant is kept. — 15. As it is this day]. Solomon, David's promised 
son, was reigning and the Temple, the promised house, had been 
built (2 S. 7'2f- I Ch. 1711 ' ). — 16. There shall not be cut off, etc.]. 
Cf. 71* I K, 2* Je. 3321. The conditional character of this promise 
is worthy of notice. 

18-21. Prayer for answers at this house. — Expressing in 
general terms the burden of all the following seven specific petitions 
which are that Yahweh will hear (i) the oath of ordeal (vv. 22 '•), (2) 
prayer under defeat (vv. " ' ), (3) prayer for rain (w.-^ '■), (4) prayer 
under various calamities (w. ^s-si), (5) the prayer of the stranger 
(w. '*'•), (6) the prayer of the army (w. ^^ '■), (7) prayer in cap- 



tivity (vv. 36-39) — 18. With men] an addition of the Chronicler; 
a possible softening of the cruder conception of mere dwelling 
on earth with the thought of spiritual communion. — 20. Yahweh 
is conceived as being away from the Temple to which he is 
asked to look day and night, and yet his name dwells in the Tem- 
ple. He is both present and absent. — 21. When thou hearest, for- 
give]. Every answer to prayer includes the forgiveness of sin (Sk.). 

22 f. The oath of ordeal. — When one is charged with crime 
and made to aflSirm his innocence by taking an oath of curse, or 
having one invoked upon him by the priest, Yahweh is asked to 
decide, by fulfilling the curse if he is guilty, or leaving him un- 
harmed if innocent (cf. Ex. 22^-12 Nu. 5"-"). 

24 f . Prayer in defeat. — If the people are defeated in war Yah- 
weh is asked in view of their supplication to forgive them and estab- 
lish them in their land. The phrase and bring them again into the 
land has been thought inconsistent with prayer in this house, and 
hence the text by slight emendation has been made to read and 
cause them to remain in the land (Klo., Bn.). But this is not nec- 
essary. Such a slight inconsistency does not affect the clear mean- 
ing of the petition. — And if thy people Israel be smitten down 
before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee]. That de- 
feat in battle was evidence of Yahweh's displeasure caused by 
previous sin against him is frequently taught in the OT. {cf. Jos. 
7'ff- I Ch. 2112). Begirming with the belief that God caused the 
righteous to prosper and brought misfortune upon the wicked 
{cf. Ex. 2320 ff- Lv. 26, Dt. 28), the ancient Hebrew also inverted 
the doctrine, believing that prosperity proved previous righteous- 
ness and adversity antecedent sin. Thus a natural catastrophe not 
only resulted in the destruction of a man's property, but ruined his 
reputation as well. 

26 f. Prayer in drought. — Cf. Dt. i ii'->' 2824. Drought was in- 
terpreted as a divine punishment for sin, v. s. vv. " '■, cf. i K. 17/. — 
Which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance]. Cf. v. " 
which thou gavest to them and to their fathers, and v. " which 
thou gavest unto our fathers. The land was considered a sacred 
gift to Abraham, and a holy inheritance of his seed after him, 
cf. Gn. 12' e/ al. 


28-31. Prayer in various calamities. — This covers every case 
of misfortune (r/. v. "). — 28. Caterpillar] "consumer" (EVs.), 
properly a kind of locust (cf. Jo. i""). — In the land of their gates] i.e., 
cities. The gates were considered sacred, which perhaps accounts 
for the use of "gates" for "cities" (cf. Dt. i2'2 g/ al., v. EBi. II. col. 
1645). — 29. Who shall know every man his own plague and his own 
sorrow] i.e., let Yahweh hearken unto every suppliant who has rec- 
ognised that his misfortunes are a just divine punishment. — 30. 
According to all his ways] does not mean that God should recom- 
pense him according to his acts, for he has just suffered punish- 
ment on their account; rather, may Yahweh render according as 
he perceives the sincerity of the sinner's repentance. — For thou, 
even thou only, knowest the hearts of the children of men]. Yahweh's 
recompense is just even if it may not appear so, for he only is able 
to perceive man's true condition. 

32 f. Prayer of the foreigner. — No condition is placed upon 
the foreigner. Thus the teaching here is broader than that of 
the promise of Is. 56^ '-, which requires of the foreigner the keep- 
ing of the Sabbath day as a condition of being heard by Yah- 
weh. — 33. For thy name is called upon this house]. The name 
of Yahweh was pronounced upon the house, i.e., the house was 
called by his name and he became its owner. This involved 
responsibility for its welfare on the part of Yahweh (cf. EBi. III. 
col. 3266). 

34 f. Prayer in war. — This petition is parallel to vv. " '■, but 
there the prayer is for aid against an enemy which has been vic- 
torious because of Israel's sin, while here the writer is thinking of 
a petition for aid when Yahweh shall send Israel forth in a right- 
eous war. With the following petition it is usually regarded 
as an exilic addition in i K. (i.e., D^) (so Kau., St. SBOT., 

36-39. Prayer in captivity.— C/. Dt. 3o> f Lv. 26"". This 
petition in i K. 8 is considerably longer (vv. 'o » ^m), The Chron- 
icler substituted a more beautiful ending to the prayer in vv. ^'"•. 

40-42. The conclusion of the prayer. — Written by the Chron- 
icler. This differs widely from the conclusion given in i K. S^'-", 
where the plea for a hearing of prayer, after Dt. g^* ", is based 



upon Yahweh's possession of Israel through their redemption from 
Egypt. Here, on the other hand, with customary post-exihc forms 
of invocation, the plea rings with greater exultation in the thought 
of the Temple being the resting-place of Yahweh, the abode of 
his ark and of his priests, and in remembrance of the good deeds 
of David or (better) the divine covenant with him. — 40. Let thine 
eyes he opened]. Cf. v. 2" 7'5 1 K. S^'- 52 Ne. i« Dn. 9'*. — And thine 
ears attentive]. Cf. 7'* Ne. 1'=" Ps. 130'. — The prayer of this 
place] i.e., the prayer directed toward this place, cf. v.'"' (Be.), 
rather than in this place (Ke., RV.). — 41. Parallel with Ps. 132^, 
from which it was probably taken. — Arise Yahweh] the first 
words of the ancient song of the ark, Nu. lo'^. — For thy resting, 
etc.]. Yahweh and his ark had hitherto had no permanent 
dwelling-place in Israel. — Be clothed with salvation]. Attributes 
are represented in the OT. as clothing put on {cf. Jb. 29" Ps. 
93' 104' Is. 11^. Salvation is equivalent to righteousness. — A^id 
let thy pious ones (those devoted to the service of Yahweh) re- 
joice in prosperity. — 42. Turn not away the face of thine anointed] 
i.e., hear his prayer. The anointed, then, is Solomon. The 
words are from Ps. 132'". — Loving kindnesses of David] either 
shown to David, especially the promises made to him {cf. Is. 
553) (so RV., Be., Kau., Zoe., Oe., Ki.), or, less good, after 32^^ 
the good deeds of David (RVm., Ke.). 

12. nn^JM] I K. 8=2 -f- nnSa'. — VQ-:i\ i K. -f- D^?2!:'n, with which this 
final clause of v. '^ is repeated at the end of v. 's. — 13 . S»sia'> . . . r\vy 13 
wanting in i K. — nvD] elsewhere a pot or basin, hence the platform may 
have been round-like in structure (BDB.), but it is better to read ji'i! from 
po (formation like iioS from idS, etc.) {cf. Am. 526 ?) platform, cf. (& ^dais 
(Klo., Oe.).— 'iJi tyifl^i] repeated from end of v. 12.— 14. yiNai o^Ctt-j] i K. 
823 nnnn y\i<n Syi S>'dd didco. — 16. •'mina] (an interpretation of) i K. S^^ 
iieh. — 17 . n1^^] wanting in i K., but given in some MSS. and in (B, B, H, of 
I K., hence, as usage in this chapter shows, is to be received into the text of 
I K. (Ki. BH., St. SBOT.).—]m>] 4 mss., i K. 826 4- nj.— imiS] i 
K. 13s in. — 18. D-iNH dn] wanting in i K. 82', though given in (S of K., 
and thus accepted by Klo., Bn., Bur., but not by St. SBOT. — 19. At 
the end of the verse after yish i K. 82* 4- orn given also in (&. — 20. 
Th>^^ Dor] I K. 829 dvi Th-h, (&, », in i K. agree with Ch.— or hdb' dwS] 
I K. 829 oiy 1DB' nin\ — 21. ■'junn] i K. 83» njnn. — oiatt'n p inatr oipDc] 
a direct change by the Chronicler from QiDrn S.s inair DipD Sx of i K, 



8'", making an easier construction (Sn denoting in or at is not common). 
— 22. dn] I K. 83> Ti'N PX, a change by the Chronicler for an easier con 
struction. — nSx kji] (B here and in K. has n^xi N31 and he comes and 
swears, which is preferred by Kau., Ki., Bn., and Bur. on K., but 
SBOT. and Ki. on K. have nSxa N31 after Ne. lo^". — 23. a^aii-n p] i K. 
832 a-iDBTi simply ace. of place. The Chronicler has similarly inserted 
ID before D-'ca'n in w. =5. 30, — ^-^-^^ jtrnS] read after i K. 8^2 and 05 
i'!:'i ywnn"? demanded by the parallelism of the following clause (Ki., 
Bn.). — 24. iJj'' DNi] I K. 8" r]nn2. — •'d] i K. i^'k. — laa'i] i K. + y^a 
although wanting in (6, which is followed by SBOT., but since the 
phrase to turn unto Yahiveh is very frequent Bur. prefers to retain it. 
The pronoun is certainly understood. — yish] i K. TiSx. — 25. jc] cf. 
V. 22.— ion?] wanting in i K. 83^.-26. Supply, after i K. &^\ 1 before 
ons'tanD. — ojjjn] to be vocalised sy;r after C& in i K. 8^5 05 (Oe., Kau., 
Bn., Ki., also AV., RV.). Ba. prefers (with RVm. and ^) M because 
thou answerest them.— 21 . Note o^Diyn without the JD, cf. vv. ^s- m 30. 
Ki. inserts, after (&, B. — 28 . nini ^o 3;?^] an order of words — subject, con- 
junction, and verb — not infrequent in P (Lv. i^ 2^ 4^ 5' <,, also 
Is. 2S'8 Mi. s* Ps. 62") (see Bur. i K. 8")- — The I's before rpn^ and 
SiDn are wanting in i K. 8". — v2>x] (S, i K. 13^N. — y^a^] read nnxa after 
05 of K. (Kau., Bn., Ki.). Oe. reads, after B, mvrni isixa. C5 has 
KaTivavTi twv irdXeuv. Ba. suggests V"i£33 by making a breach in his 
gates. This verse breaks off abruptly without final verb — aposiopesis 
(Ges. § 167). — 29. 13N3C1 lyjj] I K. 8^8123^ y». — 30. oiDcn p] cf. v. 23. — 
After nnSoi i K. 8=9 has niB>;'i. — aaS] manyMSS., i K. + Ss. — 31. naSV 
T'D-na] wanting in i K. 8". — 32. ■'-\^in ha dji] (S^l ,-,3jn Sd without Sn, a 
reading followed by Klo. in i K. 8-". — After •\7:z' i K. 8^= has ppca*' la 
■]?:;r nx, which seems to have been omitted through an oversight by the 
Chronicler or by a copyist by homceoteleuton. — 33. nriNi] 1 wanting in 
I K. 8*\ but there in (B. — a''3::'n p] cf. v. "; similarly i K. 8" has p3D 
instead of p^DD. — 34. va^x] i K. 8^' ia>!<. — -[■'Sn] i K. mni Sx. The 
former, required by the person of the verbs, may be the original (St. 
SBOT., Bur.).— PNTH i^pn] i K. i^'n. The Chronicler has added the 
pronoun for the sake of clearness. — 35. D''C'i'n jd] cf v. ^3. — 36. After 
y-iN I K. 8''« has a^isn, but 05 of i K. also omits it, and the lack of the 
article with nmpn and nanp shows that the word is an insertion (St. 
SBOT.).— 37. D^2Z'] I K. 8" on^ar. The reading of Ch. is probably 
correct (Bur.), but St. SBOT. retains ^. — 1JJ?:y^1 ^:''v;n] 1 K. irij?ni 
iJJJfl. 1 should go with both verbs {SBOT., 0) or be rejected before 
both (Bur. after 05, U, S of i K. and (B of Ch.).— 38. D^atf]. Connection 
requires after ® on>att' (Ki., Bn.). i K. 8" has Dn>aiN. — una lac* itt'N] 
wanting in ^s*, but not in ^^. — After iSSonni i K. has yhit. — ■cj.'ni] 1 is 
wanting in i K. — n^aSi] i K. noni which Bn. reads. — 39. paDD O'^DttTi p] 
cf. v. ". — oninjnn] i K. 8" anjnn. 


VII. 1-22. The closing events following the prayer of dedica- 
tion. — In I K. 8"-9' the first of these events is Solomon's blessing 
of the people (vv. "-si)^ which is entirely omitted by the Chronicler, 
perhaps because he had already removed Solomon in a sense from 
his position before the altar, placing him upon a brazen pulpit (6"), 
and perhaps because he regarded such a blessing as the especial 
function of a priest, or perhaps simply because he thought tradi- 
tion had supplied a better conclusion in the story of fire descending 
from heaven which he narrates. This story certainly enhanced the 
importance of the occasion and testified that the divine approbation 
was given as clearly at the completion of the Temple as at the time 
of the original selection of its site (i Ch. 2126). The statement that 
with the descent of the fire the glory of Yahweh filled the house 
and that the priests could not enter (v. =), is most natural in this 
connection. Yet since the cloud had also manifested itself before 
Solomon's prayer, according to the narrative given in i K. S'" '• and 
reproduced in 5'% it has been assumed that here another written 
source was used by the Chronicler (Bn., Ki.), yet the Chronicler 
could have invented this narrative even as he added the miraculous 
fire in i Ch. 2126. 

1. Now when Solomon had made an end of praying\ Thesewords 
are from i K. 8^". — The fire, etc.]. Cf. i Ch. 2i2« i K. i8''<" and 
especially for this and the following verse Lv. 9" '•. That offerings 
were at hand on the altar for sacrifice after the prayer of dedication 
is most natural ; hence the omission of any reference to their prepa- 
ration is not striking {cf. also 5^). — 2. Cf. 5'* Ex. 40^^' — 3. The 
pavement] clearly a marked feature of the court of the Temple 
{cf. Ez. 40" f). These verses show how the narrative of P con- 
cerning the appearances of Yahweh in connection with the taber- 
nacle, influenced at the time of the Chronicler the story of Solo- 
mon's Temple. 

4-7. The sacrifices of the King and people. — Taken from i K. 
86!-64^ with the addition of the musical service of the priests and the 
Levites mentioned in v. ^ — 5. Twenty-two thousand oxen and a 
hundred and twenty thousand sheep]. The correctness of these 
figures cannot be tested because the number of persons present at 
the dedication is difficult to estimate. The number 120,000 



(10,000 for each tribe) appears to be artificial. In Roman times 
256,500 paschal lambs are said to have been slaughtered in a few 
hours (Jos. BJ. vi. 9, 3). — 6. According to their offices] i.e., in their 
appointed positions (auf ihren Posten, Kau.). The Levites also 
stood in similar stations with the musical instruments designed 
for sacred service which David had made {cf. i Ch. 23= Am. 6^) to 
give thanks unto Yahweh {for his loving kindness end\xre\h forever) 
when David praised through their ministry (lit. their hands). The 
emphasis is on the fact of the Levites using instruments " which 
David had introduced when he praised God by the playing of the 
Levites " (Ke.). — And the priests sounded, etc.]. Cf. s"- — 7. More- 
over, Solomon hallowed the middle of the court that was before the 
house of Yahweh]. This statement, taken substantially from i K. 
8^% purports to be the description of a temporary altar, but prob- 
ably preserves the memory of the real and only altar of Solomon's 
day, viz., the top of the rock in front of the house, cf. note on 4'. 
— Because the brazen altar which Solomon had made was not able to 
receive, etc. ]. The glossator who introduced the brazen altar into 
I K. 8«< probably thought of a smaller structure than that which the 
Chronicler describes (4'), hence this remark is less appropriate 
here than in i K. 

8-10. The feast. — Taken from i K. 8" f , with the following 
notable modifications. In the original text of Kings the feast, pre- 
sumably that of the Tabernacles, lasted seven days, and on the 
eighth day the people were dismissed to their homes. This duration 
of the feast is in accordance with the Deuteronomic law (Dt. i6'2). 
In Chronicles we have not one festival, but two; first that of the 
Dedication of the Altar, seven days, and secondly that of the Feast of 
Tabernacles, seven days. This first appears in i K. 8^* in the and 
seven days even fourteen days, but those words are wanting in (S^^, 
and the way in which the next verse commences with reference to 
the eighth day shows that they formed no part of the original text, 
but have crept in, probably through the influence of Chronicles 
or the tradition which Chronicles represents (Ki., Bn., B\xt.,SBOT., 
et at.). The Chronicler seems to have taken exception to the use of 
the Feast of Tabernacles, which served for a special purpose, for 
the dedication of the Temple, and makes the King therefore cele- 



brate a double feast : the dedication of the Temple from the eighth 
to the fourteenth day of the seventh month, and the Feast of Taber- 
nacles from the fifteenth to the twenty-second day, the people being 
dismissed on the twenty-third (v. '») (SBOT. on K.). He also in- 
troduces on the eighth day of the second festival a holy assembly 
(v. «) after the law of P, which added this to the Feast of Taber- 
nacles (Lv. 23'«), and thus his day of dismissal is the ninth day, the 
twenty-third day of the seventh month (v. '»). (The Feast of Tab- 
ernacles commenced on the fifteenth day of the month and its last 
day was the twenty-first day; the following day of holy convocation 
was the twenty-second, and the day after that the twenty-third.) 
— 8. So Solomon held the feast at that time seven days] i.e., the Feast 
of Tabernacles from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh 
month (v. s.). — From the entrance of Hamath unto the brook of 
Egypt] the extreme northern and southern boundaries respec- 
tively, cf. I Ch. 135. The brook of Egypt is usually identified with 
mod. Wddy el Artsh, south-west of Palestine in the wilderness of 
Paran (cf. EBi. II. col. 1249; DB. I. p. 667). — 9. On the eighth 
day] the twenty-second of the seventh month. — The dedication of 
the altar seven days] from the eighth to the fourteenth (v. s.). 
— 10. Unto their tents] not unusual for homes, cf. Ps. 91 "' Ju. 19' 
et al. 

11-22. The vision in answer to Solomon's prayer. — Based 
upon I K. 9'-% yet containing ihe independent vv. '^b^-'s. 

This new matter, from the common expression my ears shall he at- 
tentive (niaa'p '•jim), seems akin to the new ending to the dedicatory 
prayer, and hence the entire paragraph, since the text of i K. also in 
other points is not always closely followed, is held by Bn. and Ki. to 
have come from another source than i K.; but there is really no reason 
why the Chronicler need not have written it. 

12. For a house of sacrifice]. This phrase, while in full accord 
with the Deuteronomic idea of the choice of the sanctuary as a 
dwelling-place of the divine name (given in i K. 9= and v. '«), yet ex- 
presses more distinctly the priestly idea of the Temple as the place 
of sacrifice. — 13. This and the two following verses in their con- 
dition and promise are parallel with the form of Solomon's prayer 
in the previous chapter {cf. 62«-"- "-''). — 14. My people upon 



whom my name is called]. This idiom means that they belong to 
Yahweh, hence Yahweh owes them protection, cf. 6". — 15. Cf. 
6*". — 20. And I will make it a proverb and a by-word among all 
peoples] the Deuteronomic punishment for disobedience, cf. Dt. 
28", also Je. 24^ 

1, ncSs' mSopi] I K. 8^ 'ui 'Hm.— tii f xni] Dr. TH. § 128, p. 89 f.n.; 
Ges. § iiib. — 3. rnim] Ges. § 1132; Ew. § 351 c. Such a form of the 
inf. abs. is not entirely unknown elsewhere, c/". Ges. §§ 7$n.ff., iit,x. 
— 4. s-;n S^i] I K. 8" i?;r '7.s-c^> S31. — 5. lS"n] wanting in i K. 8", 
though there m (S. — i K. after nar has r\-\n^h nai t;*n d^c'^jth and npa in- 
stead of ~^PJ^ in Ch. Kau. prefers ">i">3 as the necessary correlative form 
with JNX. — a^nSx] i K. nin\ — ayn] i K. hn-^v> ij3. — 6. onncs'D H'] S ^""i 
rdi 4>v\aKas. TS in suis officiis, Be. vor ihren Geschdften, Oe. uher ihren 
Obliegenheiten, Ki. hei ihren Dienstverrichtmigen . — tmi nc>y -\c'n] (S^a 
ToO AaueiS. — aio "iMT S^"i3](S iv Hfjivois Aaveld 5id x^'/'^s auriDj', U hymnos 
David cauentes per manus suas, approved by Be., Zoe., and Oe., who 
translates mit dem Hallel Davids von ihnen vorgetragen, and Kau. 
indent sie so den Lobpreis Davids vortriigen, and Ki. mit dem von ihnen 
angestimmten Lobgesang, yet the view of Ke., given above, is to be pre- 
ferred. — snsxns] cf. I Ch. i5«. — 7. Instead of n-'^ty ir'-ipM i K. 8" has 
^'?c^ i:>-i|-) xinn ova. — .-^iSyn] i K. has sing, followed by nn:2n nxi. — 
DiaSnn nxi nnjon hni nS>*n ns S^dhS Si3> nS n^Sa; ns'y ■>;:'«] i K. has T>f« 
ccSa'n >jSn pni nn:cn pni nSiyn rt< S^ann pp nin> ^jfj"?. The Chronicler 
introduces the altar as Solomon's, in view of its size, i K. mentions no 
such great altar {cf. 4'). — 8. In i K. 8" «inn nya precede jnn and nyas' 
a^c^ followed by the gloss (v. s.) Dv •\Z"; n>-2iK a^;:'' pyas'i close the verse, 
but between B'-ix-: and a'C nyas' i K. has the words u^hSn r^^r^•< >jdS. — 9. 
This verse, save in the words ''j''S'i'n ava, is entirely independent of i 
K. 8^6. — 10. In I K. 866 the dismissal is on tlie 8th day (of the feast) in- 
stead of the 2yd of the month of the seventh month. And instead of sim- 
ply aniSHN*? Q-;n rs nSs*, i K. has an^Sn^S uSm ^S^^ pn ijiaM oyn pn nSa*. — 
naian hy] some mss., i K. 'n Sa Sy. — f^ii^] i K. -f- najj. — naSa''?!] an 
addition of the Chronicler. — 11. p^a pn nsSa' SaM] i K. 9' PiSaa >nM 
pua"? nrS'^. — PIC7S ncSs' aS Sj; Nan Sa pni] i K. ysn is'n ncSs' pen Sa pni 
pitt'j;'?. The remainder of the verse is wanting in i K. — 12 . nSiVa] want- 
ing in I K. 92 or represented in P^y^, which is followed by i'''?x nvS-ij T^'xa 
pyaja, entirely omitted in Ch. After n=N''i i K. 9' has r)tn> and also v'^n 
instead of iS. The new matter in Ch. follows ipSdp, commencing, 
however, with a parallel to I have sanctified this house in the statement 
I have chosen this place for myself, etc. — 16. The text of i K. 93^' /3 b is 
now resumed and introduced with innna npy of v. '^b^ and 1 is placed 
before Vifipn and n.->:a ir>s is omitted after nin, and prnS js read in- 
stead of DVi'S. — 17. After i^x i K. 9^ has -\':?^2^ aaS ana. — PiCi'Si] 1 is 


wanting in i K., and should be struck out (Be., Oe., Kau., Ki.), yet may 
be retained and inf. construed as a continuation of l^n, cf. dib>Si i S. 
8'2 3W1 2 Ch. 3o9, Dr. TH. § 206, Ges. § 114/).— ^pm] i K. ^■5^, but 
<g, H, &, have ^ini. — 18. nniaSc] cf. i'; i K. qs ^n^ScD followed by 
dSj;'? h^-\v Vj?. — TnS >i-n3] i K. nn Sj; ■'mai. With Tnoone would ex- 
pect nna (yet c/. 51°), but probably 'nis in Ch. has come into the text 
by copyist glancing forward to m3^ K? (Be.). — Ssna^D Win] i K. nD3 Sj;d 
Sn-\b". Be. thought the change in Ch. due directly to the remembrance 
of Mi. 5'. ^ in I K. has this reading of Ch. — 19. The introductory 
1 is lacking in i K. 9^ and before ^l2Vi'.^ i K. has JK' inf. absoL, and after 
D.-iN has o^'-jai and nc-^-.-i n':'i instead of onaryi, and the next two 
words are transposed. — 20. \-i2nx Sya D''nt:'.-'ji] i K. 9' Sntj"! pn imDni 
ncnsn >J3 Sjjd. In i K. nrn after r\^ir\ is wanting, and instead of -yh^v. 
cast out, it has nS^N sefid out, and Snt^'' n«m instead of ijjhni. — 21. 
]vhy n\T niyN] i K. 9* jvSy n\n\ The text of Ch. is an endeavour to con- 
strue the predicate of nin iT'an as a relative and thus make sense with 
the adj. iv*^;'. The true reading in i K. was D"y ruins instead of 
]V^J} (after wfj.^ desolate of &, Ki., Bur., SBOT., et al.) and this house 
shall be ruins: every one who passes by, etc. — ^i^} on the subj. intro- 
duced by S cf. Ges. § 143c. i K. has '^3. — After 0^''' i K. has iTuri. — 
nc3 lONi] I K. has na Sjj ncNi. — 22 . an\n3N inSx] i K. 9^ aninSx. — OK^xinJ 
I K. a.-ox rs N^xin. — After s^'an i K. has nin\ 

VIII. 1-18. Various Doings of Solomon. — Taken with 
some changes from i K. 9'°=^ 

1-2. The exchange of cities with Hiram. — I K. q'^-'^ This 
transaction has been given an entirely different appearance by the 
Chronicler. According to the narrative of Kings, Solomon gave the 
King of Tyre twenty cities (towns or villages) in payment for timber 
and gold, and Hiram was displeased with them, although he seems 
to have annexed them under the name Cahul to his kingdom. But 
according to the narrative of Chronicles, Solomon received the 
cities from Hiram and rebuilt or embellished or fortified and colo- 
nised them with Israelites. The two statements have been har- 
monised (i) by the assumption that Solomon first ceded the twenty 
cities to Hiram, who, because they were in bad condition or of little 
worth {cf. I K. 9'2), restored them to him, whereupon Solomon built 
them up (Jos. Ant. viii. 5, 3, Seb. Schmidt, Starke, Dahler, Ke.); 
(2) by the assumption that Solomon gave Hiram twenty Israelitish 
cities for which the latter gave him twenty Phoenician cities, and 
that Kings refers to the former gift and Chronicles to the latter 



(Kimchi and other Jewish commentators). In reaUty, however, the 
Chronicler has remodelled the statement of Kings (Be., Oe.), the 
thought being probably offensive to him that Solomon should part 
with any of his territory to Hiram, or incredible that the rich and 
glorious Solomon should have been so pressed for money that he 
would sell a portion of his territory, hence the passage was changed 
to convey the opposite meaning. That the passage in Chronicles 
is directly dependent upon that of Kings and not a free composi- 
tion is seen in the parallelism between the introductory verses. — 1. 
Twenty years\ Seven years were spent in building the Temple (i 
K. 6") and thirteen in building the palace (i K. y)- — 2. Built'] 
with the force of rebuild or enlarge (BDB. riJ2 1 i-) or fortify 
(Bn., Ki.); so also built in the following verses. 

3-6. The store and military cities which Solomon built.— 
Taken with considerable variation from i K. 9"'^ The Chronicler 
has entirely omitted the contents of i K. 9'= ' which speak of Solomon's 
levy caused by a number of building operations, and of his acquisi- 
tion of Gezer through Pharaoh his father-in-law; and omitting the 
reference to Gezer in v. ", he has rearranged the contents of the 
verse and given also a new introduction to the paragraph in the 
statement of a campaign not mentioned elsewhere against Ha- 
7nath-zobah, probably with reference to Tadmor, which the Chron- 
icler has constructed out of Tamar (v. i.). — 3. Hamath-zobah]. Cf. 
I Ch. i8^ This campaign, since it is not mentioned in i K., is 
generally entirely ignored in histories of Israel or Solomon. Neither 
Bn. nor Ki. discusses its historicity. Certainly it is very doubtful; 
yet Winckler thinks it not at all incredible {Gesch. Is. II. p. 266, 
KAT.^ p. 239). — 4. Tadmor] in the text of i K. 9"* is Tamar ("iDH), 
but the Qr. or margin has Tadmor ("ii2in). This is followed by all 
versions (B Palmyram) and was formerly accepted as the true read- 
ing of I K. Tadmor was the later Palmyra situated north-east of 
Damascus; but the other towns mentioned in i K. 9" ' are all in S. 
Palestine, and in Ez. 47'' 48^8 a Tamar ("lisn) is placed in the ex- 
treme south; hence the text of i K. seems to be the true reading and 
the reference is to Tamar in S. Judah (Bn., Ki., Bur., et ah), but the 
Chronicler has glorified this obscure southern city into the Tadmor 
of the north, and, as mentioned above, composed v.= as an introduc- 


tion. — And all the store cities which he built in Hamath]. This 
statement has no parallel in i K., but is simply the Chronicler's 
completion of the reference to Tadmor as one of a line of fortified 
posts on the northern frontier of Solomon's kingdom. — 5. In i K. 
91 ' only the lower Beth-horon is mentioned. Upper Beth-horon and 
fortified cities with walls, doors, and bars are an addition of the 
Chronicler. On the location of the Beth-horons cf. 1 Ch. 6" <=»>. — 
6. Ba'alath] Jos. i9<< i R. g'^ f, not clearly identified. 

7-10. Solomon's bond-servants. — Taken from i K. 920 22 — 3^ 
Whom the children of Israel consumed not]. The reading of i K. 
921 "whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy" 
was an unpleasant admission to the Chronicler, hence this change. 
— Of them did Solomon raise a levy]. According to the clear im- 
phcation of i K. 527-30 (13-16)^ at least the levy of 30,000 men for work 
in the Lebanons was composed of Israelites, and probably also the 
levy of 150,000 men. The revolt under Rehoboam (i R. 12) was 
based upon this oppressive measure. This passage (from a late 
addition to i R.) is merely an attempt to rescue the reputation of 
Solomon. (Cf. Sm. Hist. pp. i57/-)' — 10* Even two hundred and 
fifty] is at variance with the number in i R. 9" "five hundred and 
fifty" {v. i.). 

11. The house of Pharaoh's daughter.— Rewritten from i R. 
92^ According to i R. 3 ' Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter on her 
marriage into the city of David until the completion of his palace, 
when he made also a house for her (i R. 7«), and according to i R. 
924 she moved from the city of David into this house. The Chron- 
icler passes over entirely the first statement and interprets the re- 
moval as caused by Solomon from a religious motive. The city of 
David the Chronicler interprets as the holy precincts where the ark 
had been brought and where, after the notion of Ezekiel (44'), the 
presence of Solomon's foreign wife might be regarded as a sacrilege. 
In I R. 92^ it is also stated that Solomon then built Millo. This is 
entirely omitted in Chronicles (an evidence according to Bn. of the 
use here of another written source than R., but such omission is en- 
tirely agreeable to the Chronicler's handling of the text). 

12 f. Solomon's ministrations at the altar of the Temple. — 
Rewritten from i R. 925. According to this verse in Rings, Solomon 


offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings three times in a year, 
clearly on the three annual feasts commanded by the legislation of 
JE (Ex. 23"-"') and of D (Dt. i6i-")- This ministration the Chron- 
icler retains, mentioning also the feasts by name (v.'"'), but in addi- 
tion to these annual services the weekly Sabbatical and monthly 
ones are added (v.'^'') and thus the ministrations of the King are 
made to conform more with the fully developed ritual of P (Lv. 
23'-"). All trace, also, of any service at the altar of incense (men- 
tioned in I K. 9"), which would be an unlawful act {cf. 26'^), has 
been removed by the clear definition of the altar as the one which 
he [Solomon ]/w(/ built before the porch, f.e.,the great brazen altar of 
burnt-offering (4')- — 12. Then] after the dedication of the Tem- 
ple when this service of Solomon commenced. — 13. The commund- 
meni of Moses] a comprehensive expression for the legislation 
given in the Pentateuch. Sabbaths, months, and seasons or set 
feasts cover the fixed times when extra ceremonies in the ritual 
of offerings were required. These were the weekly Sabbaths and 
the beginnings of each month, including the Feast of Trumpets, 
and the three great festivals with their associated days of wave- 
sheaf (with the Passover) and atonement (in the same month 
with the Feast of Tabernacles) {cj. Lv. 23'-" Nu. 285-29''). On 
these days it is implied that the King himself took part in some 
direct way in the sacrificial services. 

14-16. Solomon's appointments for service in the Temple 
and its completion. — A continuation of the elaboration of i K. 9^% 
parallel only in v. i^*" with i K. 9"b. — 14. For David's order 
for the divisions of the priests and the Levites and the gate-keepers 
cf. I Ch. 23-26. — 15. The king] David. — The treasures] i.e., the 
furniture of the Temple and the stuff contributed for its services 
and support, the' provision for its ministers {cf. i Ch. 26="-='). — 
16. The final summary: And all the work of Solomon was accom- 
plished from the day of the foundation of the house of Yahweh unto 
the completion of the house of Yahweh through Solomon"^ (Bn., Ki.). 

17 f. Solomon's trade at Ophir. — Taken with some changes 
from I K. 926-28. According to i K., Solomon builds ships at Ezion- 
geber and Hiram, King of Tyre, provides him with sailors that go 
with the servants of Solomon to Ophir. According to Chronicles, 


Solomon went to Ezion-geber, where Hiram sent him both ships and 
sailors. This discrepancy has been reconciled on the supposition 
that the sending of ships was only the sending of material for their 
construction (Ke., Zoe.); or an identity of meaning has been found 
by following (^, ^, in striking out to him (^h), i-c, Hiram sent like- 
wise to Ophir ships from a harbour on the Red Sea or Persian Gulf 
where the Phoenicians might have had a trading-post (Oe.). But 
the discrepancy is real and probably arose through the Chronicler's 
careless reading of the text of i K., unless one may assume such a 
lack of geographical knowledge that he really thought ships, as well 
as sailors, could be sent from Tyre to Ezion-geber. According to 
Chronicles 450 talents of gold were brought back, while according 
to Kings only 420. — Ezion-geber and Eloth]. These two places were 
near together at the northern extremity of the Gulf of Akabah. 
The exact site of the former is unknown ; on the supposition that the 
gulf extended formerly further inland, Robinson identified it with 
' Ain-el-Ghudyan, fifteen miles north of the present head of the gulf. 
Elath or Eloth is the mod. 'Akabah at the head of the gulf.— 
Ophir]. The exact locality is unkno\\Ti. It has been placed on 
the eastern coast of Africa, in India, and in south-eastern Arabia. 
The latter is the most likely (cf. i Ch. i"). 

1. u-<-\y;] Kau., Ki. SBOT., Kom., both here and in i K. q'" prefix 
the article, 'yn, after Klo.— Afttr n:;Si' i K. has 0\-i3n -yy rx.— ip>3 nxi] 
I K. I'^cn n''3 PNi. — 6. After p'?;^ TvSI this verse corresponds with i K. 
9>9, with variation only of '^J inserted before the second ''■>>' and before 
ptt'n. — 7 . The Chronicler has departed from i K. 9=° only in transposing 
'>-\-Oi<T\ and v-inn and in the use of the copulative ( ^), which i K. has only 
with 'Di3'n, and in the omission of ^J3 before Sxia'\ — 8. |c] wanting in 
& and I K. 9^1, appears contrary to all the people iy^ 0. hence is to be 
struck out (Be., Ki.; retained with partitive force by Ke., Zoe., Oe.).— 
SniS'i ■>J3 Li-hz N^] is a neat abbreviation of the text of i K. 'ja i'?3' n*? 
Donnn'? SxTi". — After 0-zH i K. has lay which was struck out evidently be- 
cause regarded as superfluous. — 9. Iw'n] wanting in i K. q", some MSS., 
and (&, H, ^, is defended by Be. as an Aramaism, but is rightly struck out 
by Zoe., Oe., Kau., Ki.— i.-ijnScS D'-i3>-S] i K. ""a;. The Chronicler's 
additions are for clearness.— nnnSc] in i K. followed by viayi.— vti-^'^S' n-.j'i] 
to be read after i K. and (g va-^Si-i inn.— 10. I'-a'-] i K. 9^ no^'^nn Sj?. 
The reason of this change is not clear unless for brevity. — avnsai Q^van] 
I K. mxa If DPI a^a'on. The smaller number of Ch. is due probably to a 


copyist's oversight. Bn., Ki., find, however, in this evidence for another 
copy than i K. before the Chronicler. — i K. has nDsSna a"i'j?n at close 
of verse after 0^3. — 11. ncn] pi., perhaps after the analogy of the plurals 
of place or spatial extension. — 13. BV2 Dv nmai]. The same phrase 
v?anting the 2 with "i3t occurs in Lv. 23'^. To omit 2 gives an easier 
reading, but all mss. have it (Be.); a esseiiticB (Ke., Zoe.); Ci apparently 
1313 (Oe.). — niSj.'n'^] instead of inf. abs., Ew. § 280 d (Ke., Zoe., Oe.). 
Cf. I Ch. 925 i3< 152 Ges. § 114k (?) (1. 129).— 'ui jna] cf. Dt. i6'«.— 
14. nci'M] cf. I Ch. 6i« (su (1. 89).— Bca-CD] cf. i Ch. 1513.— .mp'-n?:] cf. r 
Ch. 23" (1. 42).— annos'!:] cf. i Ch. 9". — nys-i -\yz>h] at every gate (1. 
124). — 15. mxc] retained by Ke., Zoe., cf. Ew. § 282 a; read with 
p (P1XDD) Be., Kau., Ki. Kom.; pi. (n''SO) (6, H, Oe., Ki., 5BOr.— 16. 
Dvn ny] Mwto /Ac (</rJ5) <iay, i.e., the day on which after the consecration 
of the completed Temple the regular public worship was commenced in 
it (Be., Ke., Zoe.). Now all the work of Solomon was prepared until tliis 
day, the foundation of the house until its completion : the house of Yahweh 
was finished (Ke.). Pox'^a is taken as explained by iDic. Dr. TH. 
§ 190 Obs. suggests that arn is a case of apposition. But this rendering of 
Ke. and that of AY. are harsh; better after ^, B, ^, read Dvzfrom the day 
of the foundation (Oe., Ki.). <g read also nini no noSi:' niSs t;. This 
(given above) is preferred by Bn., Ki. Kom. (5^ has this and also 
mSo ^>•. Bn. regards the conclusion as from the uncanonical source. 
Much, however, is in favour of mn^ no a'?^' coming from 1 K. g^, and 
in no way being a corruption. — 17. niS^x "^ni -oj ]vs-;^ ddS-^' -jSn in] i 
K. 9^^ ni'^iN nN nrx i3J |vx]?3 nc'^a' I'^cn nry 'jni. — a\T] i K. liD o\ — 18. 
i'^] wanting in i K. 92'.^ana;'i nvjis rijy no] i K. •'ii'jx viay ns ■'jxa 
nvjN. — a^] I K. a-<n. — The Chronicler has transposed nsSr njj? Z';, and 
iwi of I K. 9"-2'. — a^tr'sni] i K. 9=^ a^-is-yi. — 1 K. has anr before >"3-\x. 

IX. 1-12. The visit of the Queen of Sheba.— Taken with 
almost no variations from i K. 10 '-'-^ — ^1. Shcba] the land of the 
Sabeans, often mentioned in the OT., cf. i Ch. i'-^^. Since Sheba 
was famous for its trade (Ez. 27"- 23) and costly wares (Ez. 38'^), its 
Queen could well have heard of Solomon and his luxurious court. 
In Is. 6o« its inhabitants are represented as about to bring gold and 
frankincense as tribute to Israel and to pay homage to Yahweh.^ 
Hard questions] (mTTl). This word is used in the sense of dark, 
obscure sayings, or riddles to be guessed (as in the Samson stories, 
Ju. 14), or simply perplexing questions, the probable meaning here 
(BDB.). The Queen of Sheba with costly gifts came to test the 
report of Solomon's wisdom and glory, of which she had heard in 
distant Arabia.— 2. After she had tested the King's wisdom and, 3, 



had observed the house thai he had built — i.e., either the Temple 
or, what is more Ukely, the palace {cf. v. *), or all his buildings con- 
sidered as one structure — and, 4, the luxurious appointments of his 
servants, there was no more spirit (breath) in her, she being quite 
overcome by astonishment. Cf. Jos. 2" 5', where the phrase is 
used for the loss of breath through fear. — And his ascent by which 
he went up unto the house of Yahweh] AV., RV., but read rather 
with RVm. of i K. 10* and his burnt-offering which he offered in 
the house of Yahweh (v. i.). — 6. The Chronicler emphasises that 
Solomon's wisdom rather than his wealth causes the great aston- 
ishment of the foreign queen by adding to the account in i K. the 
words the greatness of thy wisdom. — 8. The words his (Yahweh's) 
throfre (i K. 10' on the throne of Israel) to be king for Yahweh thy 
God (an addition of the Chronicler) show in a striking way the 
theocratic stand-point of the Chronicler, cf. i Ch. 28* 29". — 9. A 
hundred and twenty talents of gold] a sum equivalent to more than 
three and one-half millions of dollars. — 10. Algiwi-trees]. Cf. 
27(8). — 12. Besides that which she had brought unto the king]. 
This text of Chronicles implies that Solomon gave the Queen 
of Sheba all her desire besides the equivalent of that which she 
had brought to him (Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ba.). This notion may have 
arisen from the thought that Solomon should in no way be indebted 
to the Queen. 3I renders et multo plura quam attiderat ad eum. Ber- 
theau would read besides that which the king (of his free will) gave 
to her (ib^n n^ S''in). The text of i K. ic, besides that which 
he gave her according to the hand of King Solomon, means that 
Solomon gave to the Queen of Sheba gifts commensurate with his 
own wealth and power (SBOT.). 

1. nj;c-^] I K. lo' nyna'. — After nnSa' i K. has nin^ oa^h, a phrase of 
much difficulty.— nnSa' n.x niDj';'] i K. ipdjV. The Chronicler's text is more 
definite, cf. v. 2. — aSa'no] i K. 10= nnS'i'ni h2D\ — 3-\S] i K. nxD 3-1. — 
my] I K. vSn. — 2. nnStrD nai oSyj nSi] i K 10' -\hcn p dSj?j -\2-\ 7\'>r\ nh. 
— 3. neon pn] i K. io< nnsn So hn.— 4, anvi-nSsi^] wanting in i K. lo^, 
though given in &. — iniSyi] i K. inSyi. The former with the meaning 
and his ascent with which he used to ascend to the house of Yahweh is pre- 
ferred by Ke., and the rendering of AV., RV., both here and in i K., but 
since T\'hy means upper chamber, and since <&, Tl, & have vmVy his offer- 
ings, this is preferable (Be., Oe., Kau., Bn., Ki.) {cf. RVm. in K.). 



The last clause in (5 here and in i K. is /cat e^ iavr^s iy^pero. S^ 
here has this and also Kal ovk ^v iv avry en -n-veOpLa. — 5. After pcn i K. 
io« has r\>r]. — 6. cnnanS] i K. lo' onai^. — in::3n n-'^nc] wanting in i 
K., an addition of the Chronicler for clearness, taking the place of 
3iai nnan, which in i K. follows t^od\ written PsDin. Instead of *?>' i K. 
has Sx. — 7. T'IT'jn] <B, H, § of i K. io' have ^cj, preferred there by 
Klo., Kamp., Bn., Ki. SBOT., Bur., and here by Kau., Ki., Bn. (g^ h^s 
this, but 05^ follows i®. — 8. indo] i K. io^ Sxia" nD3. — ■i\-iSn nin^s -^s^V] 
wanting in i K.— i^nSs] i K. 7\^r\>. — nisj.'n'?] wanting in i K.; a more 
directly Messianic thought, keeping in view the future of Israel. — IJnM] 
I K. iD'ia'M. — D.T'Sy] wanting in i K.; must refer to Israel. — 9. anS] i 
K. lo'o r\2-\7\. — T\^7\'\ 1 K. NJ. — After Nin i K. has 3iS niy. — 10. aji 
iN"3n li'vs n^'^r n3>M an^n naj?] i K. lo'i Na'j ic'N D-\"'n ■'JN dji. The Chron- 
icler puts the activity here of Solomon or his servants on a par with that 
of Hiram or his servants. — D'DuSx] i K. 0''JsS«, so also v. '', cf. 2^. Here 
I K. adds INC 7\2-\r\. — 11. aicuSs'n] see v. ". — ni'^o::] i K. lo'^ n;'Dc, 
aw., a word whose precise meaning is dubious (BDB.), interpreted as 
raised walk, floor, or pavement of some sort with which mSoa would 
agree (Raschi, Be., Zoe.), or more generally as a support, a railing or 
buttress, <& vTroaTTjpiynaTa, B fulcra (Bur.), then n^DO is an error 
(BDB.) or a misinterpretation. Yet both may represent supports, eleva- 
tions in the shape of some sort of a platform or estrade designed for the 
dishes or utensils of the Temple and palace (Paul Haupt in SBOT. on 
K.). (Kau. [Kamp.] and Ki. both represent the word with a lacuna in 
their translations of K. and Ch.). — 7}-^yT\-> T'-ixa d''JdS dhd in-\j nSi] i K. 
ntn orn ly nsij nSi D'JdSn >sj; ]3 n3 nS. The phrase in the land of Jtidah, 
instead of in the land of Israel, shows that the Chronicler writes as 
one of his own age (Ba.). — 12. lanoi iSsn Sn hnoh] i K. io" 
loni nDSB* iSdh no nS jnj; -|3n in Ch. is simply a synonym for njc in K. 

13-28. The wealth of Solomon.— Taken fromIK.Io>^=8^ The 

variations are very slight. — 13. Six hundred and sixty -six talents 
of gold'] i.e., about twenty millions of dollars, constituted the regular 
annual income. — 15. Each of the two hundred bucklers contained 
nearly 22 poimds (avoirdupois) of gold, w^orth nearly 6,000 dollars, 
and, 16, each of the three hundred shields contained half this 
amount. The reading, three maneh, in i K. 10" is incorrect (v. i.). 
— 17. Ivory'] was secured by Solomon's navy, cf. v. ". — 21. Ac- 
cording to Chronicles the fleet of Solomon went to Tarshish. 
That this view was incorrect is seen from the products of the East 
brought back by the vessels and by the reference in i K. 22^' to 
Jehoshaphat's ships of Tarshish which were stationed at Ezion- 



geber on the Gulf of Elah to go to Ophir. The Chronicler mis- 
understood in both of these instances the phrase ships of Tarshish, 
which described a class of vessels such as were used by the Phoeni- 
cians in their voyages to Tartessus in Spain, and not their destina- 
tion as he supposed. The accuracy of his statement, however, has 
been absurdly defended on the supposition that the vessels made a 
circuit of Africa to Spain (see Eng. Trans, of Zoe. Corn, in Lange 
Series, pp. 28 /.).— 25-28. Cf. i'^-". 

13. D''ca'i] 1 is wanting in i K. io». — noj] i K. lOD. — 14. naS 
onnn ii^-jnc]. Since these words appear in i K. lo'^, they represent 
the original text of Ch. {cf. (g rdv dvdpQv also). In their source, i K., 
they are usually regarded as a corruption, and the emendations suggested 
are numerous. Since ($ has X'^P^^ ''''^^ 4>6po}v tQv vvoTeTay/xipuv, and 
vy; = <t>opov in (H^ 2 K. 23", Boe. read 'ui ■'K'jjra laS, Thenius the same 
with aMinn "the subject people " for D-'inn, and SBOT. (on K.) with 
anjnn for onnn. Ki. Kom. reads there and here on>'n iB'xa naS after 
&, which has "cities" for ann. Kau. following Kamp. . . . !<3 n^rsn la'? 
AbgescJien von dem was einkam von . . . Bn. suggests (a''ij;?)n -orxa 
'd Sn annom ungerechnet die Abgaben der (Stadte ?) und der Hdjidler 
und der Konige, etc. — 3n>'] Arabia i K. 2-\vr\. The former is read in 
I K. by Bn., Ki., SBOT. (notes), et al. — aiN''3D onnoni] i K. aiS3-\n -inODi, 
— 'iJi am a-ixoD] an addition of the Chronicler. — 15. omr^] wanting 
in I K. lo'^ — 16. mxa tt-Sii'] i K. lo'' a'-ja rir'Sa'. The text of Ch. is 
correct, as the foregoing nivso ^v shows. Gold was reckoned in 
shekels (Bn.). — 17. iino] substituted as more familiar for tciD in i K. 
ID'S. — 18. DvnN'D NDj"? 27\t2 !:'a3ij I K. iQi' vnnND noaS Suj? u-xii. The 
original text of K. as seen in CS> was probably innND NOaS B''Sjj? itt'sn 
(SBOT.) and the throne had at its back the heads of bulls {calves). 
So essentially Ki., Bn., et al., after Geiger, Urschrift, p. 343. The 
change in K. to round top was made because calves were offensive as 
symbols of Yahweh. In Ch. "lambs" (ii"33) was substituted, which 
later was read footstool (E^aa) (BDB.) and innND was read annso 
(Hoph. part.). <&^^ omits the clause, though retained in C6^, Kal 
vtroTr68i.ov inr^drjKev ev xP^^V '^V GpivV- — 19. i^a'^CD] i K. lo^" maScD. 
— 20. fiDa] I K. io2i + N'*?. — 21. aiin najj ay tt'i^nn niaSn iSaS nvjN 13] 
I K. 10^2 aTin ■«:x ay ao nSnS c ■'S'-in ijk ia. — nrjx njxian] i K. ''Jn Nian. 
— nisB'j] I K. nxa'j. — 22. naani] i K. 10^3 nnanSi. — 23. laSa] wanting in 
1^ of I K. 10^*, but given in 01, and hence to be read (Bn., Bur., but not 
Ki. and SBOT.).— 25. On vv. 25-28 cf. ih-i7. Before >nn i K. 1026 has 
a''tt'-\Di aan nnSty tiDN>i, which the Chronicler omits here, but uses else- 
where, cf. I". — maaiDi . . . >r^•'^] i K. aai niNc yaixi iSn iS ^nn. The 
text of Ch., attd Solomon had four thousand stalls of horses, is that of 


(B in K., and according to Bur. was probably the original there, but 
maaiDi was naicV, yet OS of K. may be suspected of having come under 
the influence of Ch. Moreover, close verbal agreement shows that the 
Chronicler here followed i K. 5^, usidS QiDiD nns t^Vs D"i;?a-\N nnSo'S idm, 
as his source {v. notes on i"''). This reading, except in the final pron. 
suf. (laonnS), has the support of ^^^ (certainly original (5), the under- 
lying Heb. of which was doubtless the original of Ch., and should be 
rendered, and Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for the chariots. — 
on^j-'i] I K. io26 anjii. The former has the support of all Vrss. — 26. 
wanting in Heb. of i K., but present there in (S. The verse is taken 
either from a different text of i K. 10, or from i K. 5'* (4^'*) with the 
subject omitted (i K. n-m nnStyi for ■'n>i) and o^aSDn the kings sub- 
stituted for niDS?:Dn tlte kingdoms. — 28. hdSb'S ansDD QiDiD D''N'^xici] i K. 
io28 anxDD ncSifS ib-n a^oiDn nxidi. The final phrase, mxiNn Sddi, is 
the Chronicler's happy generalisation of the somewhat obscure passage 
in K. (see i'^''). 

29-31. The final summary of the reign of Solomon. — Taken 

with variations from i K. ii^'-". The variations are as follows: 
The acts are called the first and the last, which qualifying phrase is 
added frequently by the Chronicler to the summaries taken from 
Kings (cf. i2'5 16" 20'^ 25'« 26" 28'« 35")- Their written source is 
not "the book of the acts of Solomon," the one given in i K. ii^', 
but the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the 
Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the 
son of Nehat. These sources were not independent works, but were 
either sections of the canonical books or of the Book of Kings 
mentioned elsewhere (see Intro, p. 2 2) . Nathan the prophet appears 
at the beginning of Solomon's reign (i K. i), Ahijah near its close 
(i K. ii"ff), hence in the acts or history of Nathan and in the 
prophecy of Ahijah we probably have references to i K. Whether 
this is so in the vision of Iddo the seer is more doubtful. This may 
refer to the Chronicler's other source {cf. 12'^ 13"); yet the un- 
known prophet of i K. 13 is called by Josephus Jadon, a name 
equivalent to Iddo {Ant. viii. 8, 5), and he may thus have been 
known at the time of the Chronicler. — 31. Slept with his fathers] 
part of the regular formula with which the compiler of i and 2 K. 
closes his account of the reign of each king, denoting either nothing 
more than that one had died as his fathers had, or more likely im- 
plying association with his fathers in the realm of the dead and 


thus some condition of future life. — And was buried in the city of 
David]. Cf. 1 Ch. 1529, This phrase is also a part of the formula 
just mentioned. 

29. ny^] Kt. nj?.''., Qr. nj;.v — 30. noSc iSdii] for the longer text of 
I K. II" nnVtt' -pD -wn WDTit. — 31. imjin] Pi. instead of Niph. ■i2-)>i in 
I K. ii«. 


In contrast with the author of i and 2 Kings, the Chronicler 
ignores the N. kingdom and confines his narrative to the fortunes 
of Judah. His most noteworthy additions to the earHer history 
are the introduction of prophets and Levites. The former utter 
discourses of warning and admonition, and the latter are promi- 
nent in events concerning the Temple. 

X-XII. The Reign of Rehoboam (c. 937-920 b.c). — The 
Chronicler has incorporated into his narrative the entire account of 
this reign given in i K. 12'-'' 21-24 1421-29^ ^yith the exception of 
142'--% omitted owing to its unfavourable view of the religious con- 
dition of Judah under Rehoboam. Chapter 10 is almost a verbatim 
duplicate of i K. I2'■l^ The Chronicler's additions to his material 
from I K. in c. 11 are accounts (a) of Rehoboam's fortifications 
(ii'-»2), (b) of the immigration from the N. tribes (ii'^-'"), and (c) 
of the royal family (ii's-"); (b) appears to be based upon i K. 123', 
but (a) and (c) are independent of i K. and may represent other 
sources. In c. 12 the Chronicler gives much fuller detail re- 
specting the invasion of Shishak — first, in reference to its cause, the 
religious defection of Rehoboam and his people (12' ' ); and sec- 
ondly, in giving an account of the invading host (123); and thirdly, 
in introducing a prophetic admonition whereby through the humilia- 
tion of Rehoboam and the people the wrath of Yahweh is averted 
(i25-s- '2). The picture thus given of the reign of Rehoboam is 
strikingly different from that of i K. There the people are repre- 
sented as exceedingly apostate (i K. 1422-24) and nothing good is 
said of Rehoboam. The Chronicler, on the other hand, magnifies 
Rehoboam as a builder of cities and as a ruler of ardent worshippers 
of Yahweh, only forsaking the law of Yahweh when he was strong, 



a supposition necessary to explain the invasion of Shishak, from 
whom the land was correspondingly delivered upon the humiliation 
of the King and his princes. 

X. Rehoboam's rejection by Israel at Shechem. — An almost 
verbatim duplicate of i K. i2i-'9.— 1. Shechem] mod. Nablus, 
lying under the north-east base of Mt. Gerizim (Baed.'' pp. 215 ff.), 
mentioned frequently in the early narratives of Israel (Gn. 12^ 
^y^ 35'' 37'^ '■ ^^ ^^•)- The assembly of tribes here shows that in spite 
of the intervening reign of Solomon the N. tribes held still to their 
ancient right of choosing their sovereign, exercised in the case of 
Saul and David (i S. 11^ 2 S. 5^ i Ch. 11'). — 2. This verse, already 
dislocated in Kings, properly precedes v.' (v. i.). The Chronicler 
mentions Jeroboam without introduction, assuming his readers 
acquainted with the particulars of i K. ii^* "•, which he has omitted 
(v. V. '«). The report which Jeroboam heard was of the death of 
Solomon. — 3. And they sent and called him] (wanting in (§ of i K. 
12') a necessary connecting gloss for the present arrangement of 
the verses in i K. 12'-'. — 4. The service and the yoke were the re- 
quired revenue (i K. 5' (4")) and the forced labour (i K. 5"«f- 
('3« >), neither of which is mentioned in Chronicles. — 10. My little 
finger, etc.]. This proverb-like expression and that of the following 
verse mean: I have the will and the power to oppress you more 
severely than my father did. — 11. Whips]. The whip was in Egypt 
an emblem of royalty {EBi. IV. col. 5300). — Scorpions] probably 
the name given to a whip whose lash was furnished with sharp 
pieces of metal. — 13. And the king answered them roughly]. Such 
folly shows how thoroughly Rehoboam was permeated with the 
feehngs of an Oriental despot, and how, little he understood the 
weakness of the hold of the house of David upon the N. tribes. — 

15. His word which he spake by Ahijah]. Cf. 1 K. 1 1-^ « , a narra- 
tive not given in Chronicles, and yet thus assumed to be known. — 

16. We have no share in David, and no part in Jesse's son: each to 
thy tents, O Israel, now see to thy house, David]. This same cry, 
with the exception of the last line, was raised by Sheba in his short- 
lived rebellion against David (2 S. 20')- — To their tents] not to 
their homes, but to their places of encampment at Shechem. — 

17. A verse anticipating subsequent action and thus clearly out 


of place (wanting in CS of i K. 12), either a gloss in Kings or to 
be placed after v. ". — 18 f . Adonimm*]. Cf. i K. 4^ 528 oi\ This 
oflScer of Solomon's reign probably had quelled dissatisfaction 
before, but this time he failed. — Unto this day'\ in the narrative 
of the Chronicler an anachronism {cf. 5'). The Chronicler at 
this point, because he is narrating only the history of the S. king- 
dom, omits verse 20 of i K. 12, which contains the statement 
that Jeroboam was made king by the N. tribes. 

1. nDDty] I K. 12' zyi'. — ixa] i K. N3. — 2. In d^i' of K. this verse is 
found in I K. II between v. "» and v. *"•, with the addition in (§i^, "he 
returned (?) and went to his city Sareira which is in Mt. Ephraim." 
Hence as it now stands it should precede v. • (Bur.), and is so printed in 
St. SBOT. After Nin i K. 12= has uniy.— onxDD . . . ar;}] i K. 
DnsD2 . . . 2t::\ The former is the true reading (Ki. BH.). — 3. 
SfsiB-i Sj] I K. 12' Snis'i Snp hz. — 4. Before nny i K. i2< has hpn. — 
5. Before "w; i K. 12' has laS, which after (& should be inserted (Ki. 
BH.). Instead of iij?. ^S the Vrss. in both K. and Ch. read i>l. — 6. 
nrn opS] i K. i2« nrn oyn HvS. — 7. Before hmh (& and i K. 12^ have arn, 
which should be inserted (Ki. BH.). — 31bS] i K. naj?. — D;?nS] retention 
of n of article {cf. Ges. § 35«)> other examples 25'° 29I'. — Dn"ix-\i] i K. 
on-'jyi amajn. — 8. i K. 12' has wrongly iit't* before annpn {cf. St. 
SBOT., Bur.).— 10. ipn'] i K. 12"' v'j.s.— ayS] t K. + nrn.— inNn^] 
I K. ■l^^p. — •'japt] ■'??i7, Ki. BH., Ges. § 939. {cf. Bur. i K. 12"'). — 
n^p] I K. 12I" Dt. 3215 f. — 11. D^oyn] in BDB. corrigenda, p. 1126 
(770b). — On the art. in o^aira and a^aipya cf. Dav. Syn. § 21 {d). — 
••aNi^] I K. i2i' + DSPN noiN. — 12. xa-ii] i K. i2'2 erroneously i3'i. — 
13. 'n ajyi] I K. 12" ayn ns i^cn ijjm. — nrp] harsh response, cf. Gn. 
42- 30 (pi.) I s. 201°. — ayan-i I'^rrn] wanting in i K. — After Bijpin i K. 
has mxjj'' t^'n. — 14. noon ■■aN] thus Ki. BH. after the Bomberg Bible, 
a reading confirmed by (^^^^, H. Ginsburg and Baer and Delitzsch have 
T23N after many mss. The sense, the parallel, and v. ■" require the 
former. — pSp] i K. 12" asSp S>\ — After "'JN i K. has aDPN -tO'N. — 15. 
n3D3 ■{•] I K. 12I6 nap f. In late Rabbinic Hebrew nap = cause 
(Bur.). — BinSsn] i K. nin\ — mn> in i K. is wanting after aipn, but 
appears after lai. — 16. In i K. 12'^ the verse commences with Sa nim 
instead of "^ai, and has an'^.s instead of an*^. After iSsn^ i K. has "\ai. 
— tys] wanting in i K., perhaps a dittography from the preceding 'U". — 
732] wanting in i K. — 17. SNn!:'> >jai] casus pendens before waw consec. 
{cf I K. Q^of) (Dr. TH. 127 (a), Dav. Syn. § 49 {b), Ges. §§ iiih, 
i43(i). — 18. onnn] i K. i2'8 amx, but (&^^, &, have btjin, given also in 
I K. 4« 5", hence without doubt correct (Ki. HB.). — 'i:-' ^ja] i K. Sa 



'!£,> — The Chronicler omits i K. 122", since he does not write of the 
fortunes of the N. kingdom. 

XL 1-4. Rehoboam dissuaded from attacking Israel. — 

With very slight variations from i K. 12"-=^ which belongs to the 
latest strata of the book. — 1. A hundred and eighty thousand] a 
small number compared with those elsewhere in 2 Ch. reckoned to 
the S. kingdom: under Abijah 400,000 (13'), under Asa 580,000 
(i4'<"), under Jehoshaphat 1,160,000 (i7'<«). — 2. Shemaiah] 
mentioned also in 12* % giving a reproof and a promise of deliver- 
ance in connection with the invasion of Shishak; and his words 
in 12" as a source of the history of Rehoboam. 

1. n^2 hn] I K. 12-1 n-ia Sa hn. — pnijai] 1 K. pcija \22& hni. — 
S^nir^] I K. SN-\:yi no. — noVDon] i K. n^i'^nn. — oyjmS] followed in 
1 K. by hdS^' p. — The Chronicler has thus, without impairing the narra- 
tive, shortened this verse by the omission of five words. — 2. mni] i K. 
12" DTiSxH, but some MSS. and the Vrss. have nin> in 1 K., preferred by 
Ki. BH., St. SBOT.—Z. 'a Sn-\\e> Sa] i K. 12" min> n>D S3. The 
Chronicler frequently uses the term Israel in reference to the S. kingdom, 
cf. 121-6 1^17 2I2'' 2819". — pD''jai] I K. + D;'n nn^. — 4. ddirn] i K. 
1224 4. SxT^:.> >ja. — oyani Sx njSc] i K. nini 1313 naSS. 

5-23. Rehoboam's prosperity. — This section, independent of 
I K., falls into three well-defined paragraphs all of which are either 
from the pen of the Chronicler (H-J.) or from three sources 
(Bn., Ki.). 

Vv.6-12 may be regarded as either from the Chronicler (Kau., H-J.) 
or from an uncanonical source (Bn.), the Chronicler's pre-midrashic fore- 
runner annotated in V. •» by the insertion of in Judah and Benjamin 
(Ki.). These words, since all the cities enumerated are in Judah (cf. in 
Judah in v.^), if the material is older than the Chronicler, are a gloss. 
Benjamin did not historically belong to the S. kingdom, but through the 
incorporation of its territory into the S. kingdom after the fall of Samaria 
the tribe was later reckoned as having originally sided with Judah, and 
this view appears in i K. 11" (not ^2) 1221 23. Linguistically these verses 
belong to the Chronicler and he may well be regarded as their author. 
This likewise is true of the remainder of the chapter, although vv. '8-23 
are assigned by Ki. to another source representing material of historical 
worth. For marks of the Chronicler cf. i^yin^j; S31 (1. 124) n3inS (1. 
134) v. 12; lynjD (1. 20), mi Hiph. (1. 30) v. ";-idj? Hiph. (1. 89) w. 
16. 22 J 2h jnj (1. 78) v. IS; n'ifi? (1. 76) vv. 21. 23 j construction of sen- 
tence (11. 117, 129) v. 22; 3-1':' (1. 105) v. 23. 



5-12. Rehoboam's fortification of cities. — These cities were 
on the roads to Egypt,, or on the western hills of the Judsean 
Shephelah, and hence were fortified as a protection against Egypt, 
and in view of the invasion of Shishak the record of their fortifica- 
tion may well have historical foundation. Compared wnth the 
frontier cities fortified by Solomon (i K.^ t^gy illustrate 
the shrunken condition of Rehoboam's kingdom (GAS. /. II, p. 
89). Winckler {KAT.^ p. 241) holds that their building, i.e., 
rebuilding, was occasioned through their destruction in insur- 
rections at the time of Rehoboam's accession. 6. Beth-Iehem]. 
Cf. I Ch. 2^>.— £tow]. Cf. I Ch. 4K—Tekoa]. Cf. i Ch. 4^— 
7. Beth-zur]. Cf. i Ch. 2'K—Soco]. Cf. 28'^ Jos. is'' i S. 17'. 
A town in the Shephelah, mod. es-Suweke, south-southeast from 
Beth-shemesh (Rob. BR.^ I. p. 494, n. 7; Buhl, GAP. p. 194; 
BDB.), to be distinguished from the Soco of i Ch. 418. — Adt{lla?n] 
the fortress mentioned in the history of David (i S. 22'), clearly 
in the Shephelah (Ne. ii'" Mi. i'*), conjectured the hill 'Aid- 
el-ma off the Wady es Sur (GAS. HGHL. p. 229), otherwise 
not identified. — 8. Oath]. Cf. i Ch. 18'. Gath can scarcely 
have belonged to Judah at the time of Rehoboam, since at the 
time of Solomon it had its own king (i K. 2''), and it probably 
remained Philistine until its destruction, c. 750 (Am. 6^), occasioned 
not unlikely by Uzziah (26^), but whoever wrote 9^6 had placed 
Philistia under Solomon. — Alareshah]. Cf. i Ch. 2". — Ziph]. 
Cf. I Ch. 2". 9. Adoraim-f] mod. DUm west of Hebron. — 
Lachish] a notable frontier town frequently mentioned {cf. Jos. 
10 Mi. i'^ 2 K. i8'<), mod. Tell-el-Hesy, recently excavated, 
thirty-three miles south-west from Jerusalem, and east from Gaza 
(Baed.^ p. 118). — 'Azekah] Jos. 10'° '■ 15'= i S. 17' Je. 34' Ne. 
11'° f, not identified. — 10. Zore'ah] Jos. 1533 1941 Ju. 132- " 16" 
ig2. 8. 11 ]\je. iV^if, mod. Sara, fifteen miles west of Jerusalem 
(B'D'B.).—Aijalon]. Cf i Ch. 6^^ ^''>.— Hebron]. Cf i Ch. y 
640 (65) 12 (57) iii_ — jfi Judah and in Benjamin]. All of the above- 
mentioned cities are in Judah, except Zorah and Aijalon, which 
were in the territory of Dan (Jos. 19^''); hence it has been 
assumed that these later came into the possession of Benjamin 
(Ke., Zoe., Oe.), but the words are a comprehensive term for 


the S. kingdom. They are held by some to be a gloss (i>. s.). — 
11 f . This picture of fortresses victualled and garrisoned through- 
out the land seems to imply that they were intended to keep Judah 
in subjection {v. s. Winckler) and to justify the rendering of the 
last clause and so Judah and Benjamin became his (Ba..), but we 
prefer the view that they were fortified as a protection against 

6. pn] in the meaning of rebuilt, fortified {cf. i Ch. ii^). — 10. 
nmsD ny] cities of ramparts, walls, in v. " i2< 21', sg. 14^, without "iv 
11" and Is. 293 Na. 2' '■-> ? f- — H* i^i^x>*i] a construct governing the 
three following nouns. For example of two nouns cf. 1 Ch. 13'. — 12. 
-iiyi iiy S^ai] idiomatic with the Chronicler. Cf. i Ch. 2612 Qes. § 123c 
(1. 124). — -iND nann*?] Ges. § 113^. 

13-17. The immigration to Judah. — 13. And the priests and 
Levites that were in all Israel coming out of all their territory took 
their stand with him]. Faithful servants of Yahweh, from the 
Chronicler's point of view, would necessarily side with Rehoboam. 
— 14. Their open lands] the land round the Levitical cities in 
which the community had common rights and which according to 
P was never to be sold (Lv. 25" Nu. 352-5, cf. i Ch. 6^" '"')• — ^4wJ 
their possessions] i.e., their other landed property in cities, includ- 
ing houses, which also w^ere an inalienable possession of the Le- 
vites, although not of other Israelites (Lv. 25"-'')- The priests and 
Levites thus appear making full sacrifice in leaving their former 
homes. — For Jeroboam, etc.]. This fact is stated negatively in i K. 
12^', a passage which may have suggested this entire paragraph. 
The emphasis appears to be on unto Yahweh, which is entirely 
wrong from the historical point of view, since Jeroboam did not 
repudiate the worship of Yahweh. — His sons] i.e., his successors 
(Be., Zoe., Oe.).— 15. The Chronicler regarded the schism of Jer- 
oboam in the worship of Yahweh as an entirely idolatrous move- 
ment. A polemic against the Samaritans and the newly founded 
temple at Gerizim has been seen in this passage (Tor. AJSL. 
XXV. 1909, p. 201).— The high places] (mcn). The word primarily 
meant " heights," any conspicuous elevation of the country or land- 
scape {cf. Dt. 32>3 Is. 58'^ Am. 4'^ Mi. i=), then (both sing, and pi.) 
a place of worship, of Yahweh as well as other gods (i S. 9'^-^^ 


ioB.13 I j^^ ^4 22^* 2 K. 15'^); after the Deuteronomic reform high 
places came to mean not only an unlawful place of worship, 
but one entirely dedicated to the service of other gods. The 
Chronicler probably thus used the word here and elsewhere (cf. 
142(3). 4(5) 1^17 iy6 20" 21" 28*" 311 32'2 33^- ""34^). — And for 
the he-goats] (D''1''yty) a term applied to the demons (Arabic 
jimi) popularly believed to inhabit desert and waste places, not as 
pure spirits, but in corporeal form, ordinarily represented as hairy 
(hence goat-like) (WRS. Religion of the Semites,'^ p. 120) {cf. Is. 
132' 34'^ Lv. 17'). The epithet applied by the Chronicler in re- 
proach to Jeroboam's innovations has the stigma of our term devils. 
A connection with an Egyptian god Pan and a borrowing from 
Egypt (Ke., Zoe., H-J.) are not probable. — And the calves] the two 
golden calves set up by Jeroboam at Bethel and Dan as symbols of 
Yahweh (i K. 1228- 32). This symbolism probably was derived 
from the Canaanites, among whom the bull was the symbol of Baal 
(Bn. EBi. I. col. 632). — 16. All who were loyal to Yahweh in the 
N. kingdom are represented as having followed the example of the 
priests and Levites in going to Jerusalem, not simply to sacrifice, 
but, as the strengthening of the kingdom shows, to remain perma- 
nently. — 17. Three years]. The reason of this limitation is due to 
the invasion of Shishak in the fifth year of King Rehoboam {cf. 
12^ I K. 14"). This invasion, from the Chronicler's point of view, 
must have been caused by some religious delinquency of Reho- 
boam and his people {cf. 12'), and this delinquency, introducing at 
once a weakening of the kingdom, naturally falls in the fourth year 
of Rehoboam immediately preceding the invasion, and thus only 
three years are left for obedience and increase in strength. — In the 
way of David and of Solomon]. The Chronicler ignores completely 
the apostasies of Solomon. In i K. ii<-« Solomon is placed in con- 
trast to David. 

14. on'jtn] in Hiph. only in Ch. with meaning to reject, 1 Ch. 28' 2 Ch. 
29'' (1. 30). m^jTiSn with meaning to give a stench (Is. 19^) is probably 
from another root, though of same radicals (BDB.). — 17. idSh] (g sg. 

18-23. The royal family. 

This section is entirely independent of i K. and its source and histor- 
ical value are necessarily entirely conjectural. Bn. assigns it aus der 



andern Vorlage von Chronisten, and Ki. to the ancient material " for the 
most part of good historical value." It is extremely probable that 
Rehoboam was of luxurious habits and that he followed his father in the 
possession of a considerable harem. The memory of this, with the names 
of some of his wives and children, may have long continued and been 
recorded, or the names may have been invented by the Chronicler. 

18 f. And Rehohoam took to himself a wife, Mahalath the 
daughter of Jerimoth the son of David, and^ of Abihail the daughter 
of Eliab the son of Jesse] {v. i.). — Jerimoth] not mentioned among 
the sons of David's wives (r/. 2 S. 3^-' s'^-'^ i Ch. 3'-' 14^ 'Oj hence 
either the son of a concubine or possibly Jerimoth (n"I(2'''T') is a 
corruption of Ithre am (DJ?"!]!''), who was one of the sons of David 
(i Ch. 3'). — Abihail] not mentioned elsewhere; for other occur- 
rences of the name cf. i Ch. 2". — Eliab] David's eldest brother 
(i S. i6« 17'^. — 19. These three sons are not mentioned again. — 
Jeiish]. Cf. I Ch. 7'". — Shemariah]. Cf i Ch. 12^. — Zaham-f], — 
20. Maacah the daughter of Absalom] probably granddaughter, 
since Tamar is mentioned as his only daughter (2 S. 14-'). Cf. 
13'', where, according to the true text, Maacah is called the 
daughter of Uriel. — Of the three sons, except in the case of Abijah 
{cf. i2'«) and the daughter, nothing further is known. The name 
Attai appears among the descendants of the Judahite Sheshan 
(i Ch. 2") and a Gadite (i Ch. 12"). — Ziza] the name also 
of a Simeonite (i Ch. 4"t), probably a childish reduplicated 
abbreviation or a term of endearment (Noeldeke, EBi. III. col. 
3294). — Shelomith] apparently also a son, since the name oc- 
curs of men, Levites (i Ch. 23«Q''-'8 26"'2'-=«); head of a post- 
exilic family (Ezr. 8'°); of women, the mother of a blasphemer 
(Lv. 24"), a daughter of Zerubbabel (i Ch. 3''). — 21. Sixty con- 
cubines] thirty, according to (^ and Josephus, Ant. viii. 10, i. 
This is preferred as original by Bn. — 23. And he dealt wisely] in 
the policy which he pursued of scattering his sons and giving them 
an abundant maintenance and also a considerable number of 
wives. This would be conducive to their contentment and a 
preventive of rebellion against their brother (but the text may 
not be sound, v. i.). 

18. p] read na with Qr., (g, IS.— Sti^^x] read S^noNi after 05* (so 
Be., Ke., et al. generally), since only one wife of Rehoboam is meant, as is 


shown by the sing, nirs and t'.'^i of v. ". — 21. xrj] late usage, c/. 1321 
243 Ezr. 92- >2 10" Ne. 13=5 Ru. i« (BDB.)-— 22. iJ-'VcnS >o] either an 
example of a peculiar sentence without verb (1. 117), or more probably 
the verb given in C5 dievoeiro (3S'n) has been omitted from the text, and 
should be restored (Kau., Bn., Ki. HB., et al. generally). — 23. ]3m] 
wanting in (&. — V^dm] from \~\b with the doubtful meaning of to distrib- 
ute (BDB.), ^'^^, Kal Tiv^-^drj, as though ]"\0 had here the meaning to 
spread abroad, increase {cf. 1 Ch. 4^^). (&^ conflates two renderings and 
introduces a subject kclI Tjv^rjdr] A/3ta Kal diiKo\p€. B renders 'ui ja^ 
quia sapientior fait et potentior super o»ines Jilios ejus connecting with 
the preceding verse. — np So*^] (g >-^-; '^d'^i, so Ki. SBOT., Kom., BH. 
— a^B'j inr^ Sn^'ii] F. Perles, Analekten Textkritik des ATs. p. 47, 
DiiPj onS Ni'M. This emendation is accepted by Ki. BH. — The text of these 
verses "2 23) jg certainly doubtful. Winckler reconstructs them {KAT.^ 
pp. 241 /.), v. " VJ3 ^2-0 i3''ScnS nayn p nijx vn-h ncyi, And he ap- 
pointed Abia the son of Ma'acah chief in order to make him king from 
among all his sons. As ii'NT head of the family (BDB. cni 3. f), 
Abijah is appointed during the life of his father his successor on the 
throne. (It is not necessary to look to the Assyrian "w'xt reStu as Winck- 
ler does to draw this conclusion.) The words vPvSO n-ijo^ are a gloss. 
The meaning of v. 23, according to Winckler, has been distorted through 
the insertion from v. 22 of I'ja So:;. It properly belongs with vv. ^-12. 
Winckler renders Uftd er baute und zerstorte in alien Gebieten Judas 
und Benjamins (alle) die festen Stddte und er tat hinein Vorrdte in 
Menge. The last clause of v. 23^ o^cj ]^'cr\ Sn-^^i, speaks of the King's 
own wives and goes with v. 21. On the whole, however, it is better to 
accept the emendation of Perles. 

XII. 1-12. The invasion of Shishak. — An enlargement of the 
narrative of i K. 14"-='. The additions are \t.i ^b-s.n (^. s.). 
(These additions are marked by Ki. as from a IVIidrash, yet it is 
allowed that they may have been written by the Chronicler.). — 
1. When the kingdom of Rehoboam was established and he was 
strong] i.e., during the first three years of Rehoboam's reign (cf. 
II"), he forsook the law of Yahweh]. This, from the Chronicler's 
point of view, was a necessary antecedent to the invasion of Shishak. 
— And all Israel]. Cf. 11 '. — 2. Shishak] Shoshenk, the first 
Pharaoh of the twenty-second d}Tiasty. The results of this invasion 
are inscribed on the temple at Karnak, where a list of some one 
himdred and eighty towns captured by Shishak is given. These 
belong to northern Israel as well as Judah, showing that he 
exacted tribute there even if he only used violence in the king- 

Xn. 1-16.] INVASION OF SHISHAK 37 1 

dom of Rehoboam (Max Muller, EBi. IV. col. 4486). The 
occasion of this invasion was probably the weakened condition 
of Israel through the disruption of the kingdom; and Jero- 
boam, since he had sought refuge in Egypt (i K. ii^"), may 
have directly sohcited such an interference against Judah. — For 
they had transgressed against Yahweh] an addition to i K. 14^^% 
and a characteristic touch of the Chronicler, who thus accounts 
for the invasion. Cf. i Ch. jo'^. — 3. With twelve hundred chariots 
and sixty thousand horsemen; and the people were without number]. 
These statements are of the magnifying character of the Jewish 
Midrash. Kings gives no such detail. For similar exaggerations 
cf. 13' 14' 17" ^•. — Lubim] the Libyans of northern Africa, 
west of Egypt. They repeatedly invaded Egypt and mingled 
with the people and supplied the Pharaohs with a militia. Shishak 
was of this race. They are also mentioned in i6« Na. 3' Dn. 11" 
and (CZn^) Gn. 10" i Ch. i". — Sukkiyim-\] not yet satis- 
factorily explained. (B, TJ, have Troglodytes, cave-dwellers, hence 
probably the cave-dwellers of the mountains on the west coast of the 
Red Sea (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ba.?); from derivation from booth, 
"dwellers in booths" (Ki.). Spiegelberg {Mgyptolog. Rand- 
glossen z. AT.) identifies them with the Tktin, who were used as 
police troops in the nineteenth dynasty. — And Cushites] the 
Ethiopians, the inhabitants of Cush, a general name for the dis- 
trict lying south of Egypt proper, cf. Am. gL The Libyans and 
Cushites are mentioned among the allies of Egypt in Na. 3 ». — 4. 
The fortified cities]. Cf. ii^^-.— 5. Shemaiah the prophet]. Cf. 
1 12 B-. This episode is not mentioned in Kings.— Fozt have forsaken 
me and I indeed have forsaken you in the hand of Shishak]. Cf. 15^ 
—6. Humbled themselves] i.e., they fasted and put on sackcloth; 
cf. I K. 21"- " — Princes of Israel] in v. = princes of Judah. — 
Righteous is Yahweh]. Cf. Ex. 9" Dn. 9'^— 7. In a short time]. 
Thus t2yi23 is to be rendered (RVm., Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ba., Ki.), 
and not sotne or small deliverance (RV., Kau.). — And my wrath 
shall not be poured out upon Jerusalem] i.e., the city shall not be de- 
stroyed, cf. 34".— 8. But they will be his servants] in contrast to 
the destruction which they will escape. This service will be of 
short duration {v.').— That they may know, etc.] i.e., that they may 


distinguish between the two services and recognise that the service 
of Yahweh is not so oppressive as that of foreign kings (Be., Ke., 
Zoe., Oe., Ba.). The lands here refers to foreign countries. — 
9-11. The narrative from i K. 14" s. commenced in v. ^ is now 
resumed. — 9. Shields of gold]. Cf. 9'^ '■. — 10. Guard] Hterally 
runners ; a term apphed to a body-guard {cf. i S. 22'' i K. i*) and 
hence to the royal guard connected with the palace and the 
Temple. — 11. The purpose of the shields made by Solomon is here 
explained. — 12. This verse is from the Chronicler, an echo of v. '. 
The good things which were found in Judah are piety and fidelity 
to Yahweh, on account of which Judah was not destroyed (cf. 19'). 

1. 3i>'] simple perf. after a clause or expression of time, cf. vv. "■ >' 
158a 2o' 21" 24^- -5 Ne. 1* Zc. 7' Ez. ii 20' 26' 29" ;^o-'> et al. Koe. iii, 
§ 370b. — 2. nSp] cf. V. >. — pz'-v] so also Qr. in i K. 142*, but Kt. ptfiB', 
also (& HiovaaKeifi. This latter is without doubt correct after the 
Egyptian Sosenq. — 5. "ina!];] prophetic pf., Dr. TH. 13.— 7. . . . nixnai 
n>n] >nM might be expected in one clause or the other, cf. v.'; see 
Dr. TH. p. 157 f.n., Ges. § ixib. — no'SoS] ace. with V, Ges. § 117W. 
— 9. Syi] a modification of nSj? in v. ' i K. 14^5 agreeable to the con- 
text. — •'Jja pn] I K. 1428 'a ?3 TN. — 10, 11. The rendering of lo^ and 
ii'> in C6 is singular and without ready explanation, /caJ Kariffrtjffev iir'' 
airbv 'SovcraKel/i dpxovTas, etc., (ii'') elffeiropeiovro ol (pv\dffff<n>Tes Kai 
ol irapaTp^xovres Kal ol iTriffTp4(f)0PT€i eh aTrdvTrjffiv tQv TraparpexivTUP. 
(&^ follows ^ in 10'' and has both (& and the addition 'ui dinu'ji in 11''. 
— 11, DiN^ji □''X-in 1N3] I K. 1428 B^xin DiNt:"i. — 12. Cf. for constr. v. '. 
— ninrn''] inf. continuing finite verb, Ges. § 114P, Ew. § 351 c at end. 

13-16. The chronology and sources of the reign of Reho- 
boam. — 13. And King Rehoboam strengthened himself in Jerusalem 
and reigned]. These words from the Chronicler indicate Reho- 
boam's recovery of authority after the invasion of Shishak. — 14. 
Because he did not set his heart to seek Yahweh]. This phrase from 
the Chronicler occurs, in the positive form, of Jehoshaphat 19^ and 
of Hezekiah 30", and of Ezra with the law as the object Ezr. 7'°. 
— 15. A modification of i K. 14^9 after the usual manner of 
Chronicles, cf. 9" i Ch. 29^^ — The words of Shemaiah the prophet 
and Iddo the seer]. Cf. 9"; not independent works by these two 
men (Ke.) but the reference is to the sections of the main source of 
the Chronicler (see Intro. § 6). — In reckoning genealogies] an 

Xm. 1-23.] REIGN OF ABIJAH 373 

obscure phrase either defining in some way the character or contents 
of the source just mentioned (Ke., Zoe.) as containing a genealogi- 
cal register (Oe.), or the title of the work of Iddo (Ba.), or a copy- 
ist's blunder, really belonging with the meaning in order to be 
enrolled in the genealogies at the close of ii'« (Be. after Hitz.), or 
a meaningless phrase arising from some textual corruption (Bn.), 
or in the wrong place from a copyist's error, and to be struck out 
(Ki. Kom.). — And the wars of Rehoboam and Jeroboam were con- 
stant^ (lit. all the days) condensed from i K. 143°. — 16. Taken 
with abridgment {v. i.) from i K. 143'. — Abijah] the true 
name of the son of Rehoboam, called in Kings Abijam, possibly to 
avoid confusion with Abijah the son of Jeroboam mentioned in i 
K. i4» (Bur.), or to avoid connecting name of Yahweh (H"' jah) 
with so godless a king (Bn. ?), or a euphonic change of the ending 
ah (Ki.) : the real reason remains obscure. 

13. 13] introduces the quotation from i K. 1421b, but is superfluous 
and not according to usage elsewhere. — 14. j>in b'j;m] from i K. 14^2 
opening words, but with rnrni as subj. (S of K. has Rehoboam as subj. 
— 15. irninn'?] either inf. of purpose defining the words of Iddo, or with 
S of inscription giving their title (Ba.), or text error or corruption. (^^, 
/cat TTpd^eis aiiTov, v^'yci, perhaps favors this last. ^^ has in addition 
rod y€vea\oyr](Tai, H ei deligenter exposita, with reference to the acts of Re- 
hoboam.— Dl!2-\^y Di'am niDnSm] i K. i4=<' Dj,'ai^ ]>3i Djiam pa nn>n ncnSci. 
— niDnSD, 1-1312] each followed by two genitives, cf 11' i Ch. 13' Ges. 
§ 128a. — O^Din So] pred. of copula understood, Koe. iii. § 426k. — 16. In 
I K. 143' after n3|-»i i^ has vn2N Dj? and after imt it has n^jcyn ncyj ids db-i; 
but the latter is wanting in (B^^, which furnishes the probably true text 
of Kings. 

XIII. 1-23. The reign of Abijah {c. 920-917 b.c.).— This King 
reigned, according to i K. 15% only three years, and in the brief 
narrative of i K. (15' -^ Abijah (Abijam) is known only as a ruler 
"walking in all the sins of his father " and spared only for David's 
sake. The Chronicler gives no inkling of this evil character, but 
on the basis of the statement that there was war between Abijah 
and Jeroboam (i K. 15') depicts him as a great victor over the N. 
kingdom "because his people relied upon Yahweh" (v. '»), and 
his short reign is made one of great glory. 


Ki. after Bn. assigns vv. '--'^ to M, v. 2' to ancient material of historical 
value, and only vv. -'- ^sb to the Chronicler. The whole chapter, however, 
may well be regarded as coming from the^Chronicler with use of canonical 
material in w. i-^- 23a, xhe Chronicler's style appears throughout, cf. 
inf. with S v. =; pinrn (1. 38) v. '; S with inf. after icn (1. 4) v. »; nsiNn >c-j 
(1. 97) V. 9; the detailed ritual v. '• (cf. 2^ 8" i Ch. 2321); pn-ixna c^Tii-no 
(1. 44) V. " {cf. I Ch. 152^; no isy (1. 92) V. -°; aaS T^i nyj v. 7 (c/. i Ch. 
225 29') (Graf, GB. p. 137). 

1-2. Introduction.— From i K. 15' '• "=. — 1. /« the eighteenth 
year of King Jeroboam] the only example where the Chronicler has 
given a synchronism from Kings. — 2. Ma acah*]. Cf. 11" i K. 15^ 
Micaiah of the Heb. Text, elsewhere a man's name, is clearly an 
error. — The daughter of Uriel]. In ii^" i K. 15= Maacah is the 
daughter of Absalom (Abishalom i K. 15-), hence either Uriel was 
the husband of Tamar, the daughter of Absalom, and thus Maacah 
was his granddaughter (Ke., Be., Zoe., Oe., Ba.), or a confusion has 
arisen between Maacah the mother of Asa (i K. 15'° ^^), who really 
was the daughter of Uriel, and Maacah the daughter of Absalom, 
the mother of Abijah (Bn. after Thenius, also Ki., who thinks of 
two IMaacahs, but holds that the wife of Rehoboam was the 
daughter of Uriel, and that this statement of the text is "a good 
ancient piece of information ")• In all probability there was only 
one Maacah {cf. 11 "-22 and i5'«). — Uriel]. Be. thought possibly the 
same as the Levite mentioned in i Ch. 15^ ", but all is obscure in 
regard to him; neither can it be determined whether Gibeah near 
Hebron (Jos. 15", cf. i Ch. 2^') or the one of Benjamin is meant. — 
And ivar was between Abijah and Jeroboam]. This clause taken 
from I K. 15"'' introduces the fine specimen of Midrash which 

3. The assembled armies. — The great numbers 400,000 and 
800,000 are characteristic of the jMidrash, (/. v.'" 14' ly'^-'*. The 
number, however, of Jeroboam's warriors is the same as that cred- 
ited to Israel in the census taken by Joab, while that of Abijah's 
army is 100,000 less than that credited to Judah (2 S. 24'). (In i 
Ch. 21' Israel has 1,100,000, and Judah 470,000.) How utterly 
unhistorical these numbers are, appears at once when one reflects 
upon the small size of the territory of northern Israel and Judah. 
The entire population of the country at its maximum can hardly 

Xm. 1-23.] REIGN OF ABIJAH ^75 

ever have been more than four times its present strength of 650,000 
souls {EBi. III. col. 3550). 

4-12. The address of Abijah.— The appearance of Abijah, who 
according to i K. 15^ "walked in all the sins of his father " and was 
spared only for David's sake (i K. 15*), as a preacher and ardent 
upholder of the Levitical worship of Yahweh is an interesting 
touch of the Chronicler, who in this speech especially magnifies 
the importance of the Aaronic priesthood and the ceremonial service 
according to the priestly law as the source of divine favour and 
victory. — 4. Zemaraim'\ appears in Jos. 18" among the cities of 
Benjamin, mentioned between Beth-arabah and Bethel. This 
would not exclude its connection with a hill of the same name in 
Ephraim, i.e., on its southern boundary. The place is generally 
identified with es-Sumra to the north of Jericho {SWP. III. 
pp. 174, 212/., Buhl, GAP. p. 180 et al., see DB.). But (according 
to Be.) the narrative is not favourable to a location so far east. 
This exhortation from the mountain-top resembles, so far, Jotham's 
from Mt. Gerizim (Ju. 9'^ ). — 5. Covenant ofsali] i.e., an indissol- 
uble covenant. C/". Nu. 18". The figure is derived from the sacred- 
ness of the bond created between parties who have partaken food 
together, who say of one another, "There is salt between us" (cf. 
Dill, on Lv. 2", Gray on Nu. 18", WRS. Rel. Semites^ p. 270, 
Bn. Arch. p. 91). — 6. The servant of Solomon]. Jeroboam is so re- 
ferred to in I K. II". — 7. Worthless men]. Cf. Ju. g* ii'. — Base 
fellows] (^y^n "'J2), ERV. sons of Belial, a frequent expression 
(Dt. 13" <■') Ju. 19" 2o'3 1 S. 2'2 10" I K. 21^"- ") but only here in 
Chronicles. — Young] ("1^3) scarcely applicable to Rehoboam at 
the age of forty-one (12"), though this is defended from the use of 
the term in i Ch. 22* 29' i K. y as equivalent to "an inex- 
perienced young man " (Ke., Ba.). Others read in 12", twenty-one 
instead oi forty-one (Zoe., Oe.). — Tender-hearted] either timid (cf 
Dt. 208) or weak in understanding. The whole picture of the revolt 
in this verse is very different from that taken from Kings given in 
ID' «■, where Rehoboam appears hard and defiant and brings about 
the rupture by his domineering manner. Here the fault is laid en- 
tirely on the representatives of Israel, who are characterised as 
worthless and base fellows. This view is due to the intensity with 


which the Chronicler or his source (Bn.) regards the northern king- 
dom as apostate, and the southern with its King as the true people 
of Yahweh. In this the Chronicler may have reflected the feeling 
of his Jewish contemporaries toward the Samaritans. — 8. In the 
hand of the sons of David] therefore the only legitimate kingdom. — 
Since ye are a great multitude, etc.]. Abijah thus states the ground 
of their confidence, which is baseless because they have not a 
proper priesthood (v. '). — 9. The priests of Yahweh the sons of 
Aaron]. According to P, the priesthood was restricted to the sons of 
Aaron (Ex. 2&*''^- 29^^ ^o^^«- etc.). — And the Levites]. These sub- 
ordinate officers are naturally mentioned in connection with the 
priests, because their position was equally fixed in the sacred law 
(Nu. 35 «■ 8^ ff 18= etc.). — After the manner of the peoples of other 
lands] who have no chosen or restricted holy priesthood like that of 
the tribe of Levi and the house of Aaron. A better contrast, how- 
ever, is given in the Greek rendering (preferred by Bn.) from the 
people of the land, i.e., from any one, as the remainder of the verse 
shows. This also is more agreeable to the statements in i K. 12" 
13". — To consecrate himself] (lit. to fill his hand), a frequent expres- 
sion (Ex. 28<' 299- "■ 33. 36 Lv. 8" 16=2 Ju. 175- >2 I K. 13" et al.). — 
With a young bullock and seven rams] agreeable to the law of Ex. 
291 except that there only two rams are prescribed. While the 
personnel of this northern priesthood is illegitimate (cf. also i K. 
1333), its ritual is described in the main as according to the law. — 
No gods]. Cf. Je. 2" 5'. The reference here is to the golden calves 
(cf. Ho. 8«). — 10. In contrast to the no gods Yahweh is empha- 
sised as the God of Abijah's host, and the sons of Aaron as his min- 
istering priests, with the Levites. — In their work]. The term 
(ri3i<^D) is used frequently of Levitical and priestly duties. — 11. 
The daily services appointed for the worship in the tabernacle are 
here enumerated: the morning and evening sacrifices (Ex. 29 sss.)^ 
the morning and evening incense of sweet spices (Ex. 30^ '•), the 
perpetual offering of show-bread (Ex. 25"), and the lighting each 
evening of the lamps of the golden "candlestick" which burned 
until the morning (Ex. 253iff- 30"- 40=^ '• Lv. 24^).* — 12, The 

* Contrary to the notion of these passages that the lamps were lighted to bum over night, 
it has been held that some at least of them were kept burning also during the day, Josephus 

Xm. 1-23.] REIGN OF ABIJAH 377 

contest is pictured as a holy war. — The trumpets of alarm]. These 
are made prominent because by their use, according to Nu. 10', 
the people are remembered before Yahweh and delivered from 
their enemies. Cf. also Nu. 31^ 

13-20, The success of Abijah's army. — 13, Jeroboam not only 
has an army double the size of Abijah's (v.^), but by his strategy 
places Judah in additional peril, and thus the divine deliverance 
is enhanced. On the form of strategy cf. Jos. 8^ Ju. 20" f-. — 14. 
On the blowing of the trumpets cf. v. '^ — 15. Gave a shout] i.e., 
uttered a religious war-cry; cf. Jos. 6"'i^ where the same Heb. 
word is used. — God smote]. Some supernatural help is in the mind 
of the writer; r/. 14""'". — 17. 500,000]. Cf.v.K — 18, They relied, 
etc.]. Cf. 14'" "■>. — 19. Bethel] mod. Beitin, about ten miles north 
of Jerusalem; the seat of worship for one of the golden calves (i K. 
12^3)^ If this narrative were historical a mention or hint of this 
capture and some fate of the golden calf would probably appear 
elsewhere in OT. history and prophecy, but Bethel always seems to 
have been a sanctuary of the N. kingdom, and to have retained the 
calf (2 K. 10" Am. 7'^ Ho. lo^ Beth-aven=Bethel). — Jeshana-\] 
Cheyne also finds in i S. 7'^ where Heb. text has Shen {Grit. Bib.). 
Josephus mentions a village of the same name in Samaria near the 
border of Judah {Ant. xiv. 15, 12), probably the mod. Ain Sinja, 
3I miles north of Bethel (SWP. H. pp. 291, 302). — 'Ephron-f] 
Qr. 'Ephrain, probably the same as Ephraim (Jn. ii^'') and 
Ophrah (i S. 13", Jos. 18") and Ephraim mentioned by Josephus 
{BJ. IV. 9, 9) with Bethel, identified with mod. et-Taiyibeh, four 
miles north-east of Bethel {DB. I. p. 728). — And Yahweh smote 
him and he died]. The same language describes the fate of Nabal 
(i S. 2538) and implies some sudden and untimely end. This is 
scarcely consistent, in view of the contrasted gathering of strength 
of Abijah v. ", with the chronology of Kings, which makes Jero- 
boam the survivor of Abijah at least a year. (C/. i K. 14^" 15' '■ '). 

Beyond the statement of the war between Abijah and Reho- 

said three of the seven (,Anl. iii. 8, 3). Cf. also c. Apion. (i. 22), where in a passage from 
HecatEEus it is said that the Temple light is never extinguished either by day or by night. 
The Mishna says that one of the seven burned by day (Tamid III. 9, VI. i). Philo, however, 
speaks of their burning only at night and implies that they were extinguished by day (£><; Vic- 
timisOfjerentibus, 7, init.). Cj. DB. IV. p. 664; Schurer, Gesch.^ II. p. 286 [HJP. II. i. p. 281]. 


boam (v. ^b)^ and possibly the location of the battle (Bn.), there ap- 
pears nothing historical in this narrative. The real result of the 
war is difficult to determine. The unfavourable judgment of 
Abijah in i K., and the hard pressure there recorded of Baasha 
upon Asa, as though Asa had inherited an evil situation from his 
father, certainly cast doubt upon any victory (r/. 5. v. "), yet Graf 
accepted a success of Abijah as historical {GB. p. 137), so likewise 
Pa. {EHSP. pp. 194/.) and McC. {HPM. I. p. 255). 

21-23. Conclusion of Abijah's reign. — 21. This statement of 
Abijah's might and the number of his wives and children is ac- 
cepted as from an ancient tradition by Bn. and marked of historical 
value by Ki. and thus quoted by Pa. {EHSP. p. 195). But this is 
improbable. It is better to regard it as a fitting climax to his great 
victory, penned by the Chronicler. Equally with Abijah's ap- 
pearance as a preacher and the narrative of his success, it is at vari- 
ance with the account in Kings where, after the short reign of three 
years, having apparently no son, he is succeeded in all likelihood 
by his brother, since the statement that Maacah was the mother of 
both Abijah and Asa, and that the latter removed her from court 
(i K. 152- 1"- 13), overrides the assertion that the successor of Abijah 
was his son (i K. 158) (We. Prol. p. 210). — 22. Commentary] lit. 
Midrash, see Intro., p. 23. — The prophet Iddo]. Cf. 12". — 23 
(XIV. 1). Taken in its first half from i K. 158. — His brother should 
probably {v. s.) be substituted for his son. — In his days the land had 
rest ten years]. These words are by the Chronicler. This rest is 
clearly considered the result of Asa's removal of the high places, 
pillars, poles, and "sun-images" mentioned in 142- * ('■ s). Asa's 
piety required such a reward. The basis of the calculation of ten 
years is not clear. Perhaps the period was reckoned in the 
mind of the writer as beginning with the great victory of Abijah 
over Jeroboam (Be., Ke., Zoe.). In reality the statement is con- 
tradicted by the statement of i K. 15^2 t^^t there was war between 
Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days since Baasha began 
to reign in the third year of Asa (i K. i^-^-^^). 

1. D';2-\>] I K. 151 sq. t33j p.— l^CM] Dr. TH. § 127 (P), Ges. § 111&, 
1 K. iSs. — n''3N] I K. a''3N, cf. 12'^ — 2. ih^d^c] elsewhere a man's 
name, prob. text. err. i K. 15^ i^3>'c, also 11-" q. v., so here ^^. — 

Xm. 1-23.] REIGN OF ABIJAH 379 

nyjj p S^niK na] i K. and Ci>L oi^an^n pa. — 3. idnm] cf. i K. 20". — 
ncnSn mjj S'na] a case of apposition, Dr. TH? § 190. — 5. PinS dd*^] 
Koe. iii. § ,397d, on inf. Ges. § 114/1 and k. — nSn n^'iJ] a second ace. 
after tnj, so Koe. iii. § 327t, perh. better ace. of manner, Ges. § ii8m 
and q; the phrase occurs elsewhere only in P, Nu. 18" {cf. also Lv. 
2").— 7. rVy] instead of more usual r'?}* with V3p, BDB. — S;^S:3] cf. 
Moore on Ju. 19'^ for renderings in Vrss. and etymologies. The deriva- 
tion fwm ■'S3 and Sy, "without profit," BDB., he regards as dubious. Cf. 
Smith on i S. i'* for references to later discussions. — nji opami] a cir- 
cumstantial clause expressing time. — prnnn] also in v. ^ and v. 2', favour- 
ite w»rd of the Chronicler, cf. i' (1. 38). — 8. oncN] with force of purpose, 
followed by inf. a usage of the Chronicler. Cf. i Ch. 21'' (1. 4) . — '1J1 o,~ni] 
causal circumstantial clause since, etc. — pen] with the meaning of crowd, 
multitude 141° ao^- 12. is. 34 _^2', frequent in Ez. and Dn. (see BDB.), 
only used exceptionally in early prose (1. 28). — 9. D''iSm]. Since in 
w. 5-'2 Abijah chides Jeroboam with having driven out the sons of 
Aaron, the priests, and the Levites (v. '»), and with having appointed 
priests from the people whoever were ready with offerings (v. ">), but no 
mention is made of an appointment of persons to take the place of the 
expelled Le\'ites, and since the activities of the priests with Judah are 
mentioned in detail (v. "), and since priests only are mentioned in con- 
nection with the army and sounding the trumpets (vv. '2- '^), it has been 
held (by Biichler, ZAW. 1899, p. 99) that the Levites did not originally 
stand in v. ' and that the present i and 2 Ch. are a revision, in the interest 
of the Levites, of an earUer form of the book. But there is really nothing 
in this supposition. The Chronicler wTote sometimes influenced by the 
phraseology of Dt. and sometimes by that of P. Precision in the use of 
language was not one of his iraits {v. Intro, p. 19). — mx^xn id]?d] 
an expression of the Chronicler (1. 91); (B iK tov XooO ttjs Y'^s (and 
wrongly) irdcrrjs. ^^ follows If. — 1T> nSoS]. The origin of this phrase, 
equivalent to ccmsecrate, is uncertain. Since it has a parallel in the 
Assj-rian umalli kati " he filled the hand of one," i.e. " he gave, appointed, 
enfeoffed, or presented " (Now. Arch. II. p. 121, after Halevy), it is 
probably the adaptation to the induction into the priests' ofBce of a 
term used in general with such force. Thus Wellhausen's derivation, 
then, is practically right when he derives it from the custom in early 
times of filling the hand with money or the equivalent {Prol. p. 152). 
DiUman (on Lv. 7") and Baudissin {DB. IV. p. 71) derive "consecra- 
tion " from the notion of filling the priest's hand with his portion of the 
sacrifice; and SelHn (Beitrage, II. pp. 118/.) from the custom of filling 
the hand of the priest vnth arrows, used in primitive times in giving 
oracular responses ; and von Hoonacker (Le Sacerdota Levilique, pp. 
134/.) from filling the priest's hand with something to place upon the 
altar. — n>ni . . . n3~. Sj] an example of a subject separated from its 


verb by 1, Koe. iii. § 41211, Dr. TH. § 123(a). — D^nSs nSS] Koe. iii. 
§ 38of, Ges. § 152a, foot-note. — 10. unjNi] Ges. § 143a, Koe. iii. 
§ 34ig. — nin>S] dat. after DTniyo, cf. 22^ 23^, Koe. iii. § 327c. — nDN^na] 
(6 suggestively iv rats i<p7]/xeplais aiirQv, possibly read vnp'jnDa. — 
11 . onapm] Hiph. of verb used in P over thirty times of burning (lit. 
making smoke) the sacrifices on the altar. — aij'a . . . •\p22] cf. for 
these phrases Ex. 1621 30? Lv. 6= (12) j ch. 92? 235"' Is. 28'9 50^ Ez. 46" «-. 
Only in this verse does the repetition of 3ij; occur. — nDij'c] only of the 
rows of the show-bread, and only here in construct before anS, but before 
n^DH 2', elsewhere with art. preceded by on'? i Ch. 9^2 23=9 Ne. lo**, by 
jHSty 2 Ch. 29I8, and nunSty i Ch. 28>6, pi. abs. Lv. 24' f- — iinton jnSfn S;]- 
This phrase also occurs in Lv. 24^. — mijc] used only of the lamp- 
stands of the tabernacle Ex. 25'' et al. and of the Temple i K. 7" et al. 
in I and 2 Ch. Je. 52'9, and of that of the vision of Zc. 42- " and of that 
provided for Elisha by the Shunemite 2 K. 41". — mcc'c] used very fre- 
quently in P and also Ch. of priestly and Levitical duties. — 12. nnsxni] 
cf. I Ch. i5« (1. 44). 

XIV-XVI. The reign of Asa {c 917-876).— The Chronicler's 
treatment of Asa is based upon the account given in i K. 15'". 
There in w. "-'^ Asa is commended for his piety. This is greatly 
enlarged upon by the Chronicler, and Asa's prosperity is corre- 
spondingly magnified (14' -^ "-" 15 '■'«). A magnificent victory 
over an invading force of Cushites not mentioned in Kings is also 
recorded (148-" o-'s)). The remainder of the account in i K. 
(v\'. "-"), apart from the summary of the reign, concerns the rela- 
tions of Asa to the N. kingdom. This material is incorporated 
by the Chronicler into his narrative with the addition of a prophetic 
rebuke of Asa for his alliance with Syria (16''-"'). His last days, 
also, are pictured in darker colours than in Kings, where a disease 
in his feet is mentioned. This in Chronicles is made very great, 
and the King is said also not to have sought Yahweh, but phy- 
sicians (i6'2). 

According to Ki. after Bn., c. 14 and 16'-'^ are from M, while 15'-'^ is 
from M2. This double origin is assigned from the double accounts of 
reform, cf. 142 s with 158. C. 15, however, is linked with c. 14 {cf. v. ", 
where the sacrifices are from the spoil of victory). Historical incohe- 
rence in reforms both before and after a victory would not trouble a 
writer like the Chronicler, and thus prove compilation from two sources. 
The tale of the victory, however, was not unlikely derived by the 
Chronicler from his Midrashic source, and the grouping there of events 


may have influenced him in his narrative, but the chapters throughout 
bear marks of his peculiar style and may well be regarded as his own 
composition. The following are marks of the Chronicler's style: In 
143'? -\DN with following inf. (1. 4); in 142 1512 nin^ hn cm {cf. i Ch. 15" 21'° 
2 Ch. i5 18') (1. 23); in 146 miSsM {cf. 7" 1312 et al.); in 1410 16'* 
uj?cj yhy {cf. 13I8); in 141" isj; (1. 92); in 1412 n>nD onV pnS {cf. i Ch. 
22^); in 14I'' nta a late word 251^ 28'* Ezr. 9'- i»- is. le Ng. 336 Dn. 
ii24.33-|- (1. lot; the similar phraseology in 152 end of verse and la^b; in 
156 ms-iNH {cf. I Ch. 1311) (1. 6); in 1513 S with obj.; in i5>4 nnsxn (1. 44); 
in i6'8 the repeated use of S; in i6'9 the relative sentence without icn 
subordinated to the preposition {cf. i Ch. i5'0(l- 120); in i6'2 nSynS iy 
(c/. I Ch. 14=) (1. 127) (Graf, GB. p. 142). 

XIV. 1-7 (2-8). Asa's piety and might. — This whole section 
is an expansion or illustration of v. ' «', which is from i K. 15". In 

1 K. 15'Mt is recorded that Asa put away the sacred prostitutes 
out of the land and removed all the idols which his fathers had 
made. The Chronicler, however, entirely omits this statement so 
utterly at variance with the piety and religious zeal already ascribed 
to Rehoboam and Abijah; but he expands the reform of Asa into 
one similar to those mentioned in Kings as wrought by Hezekiah 
and Josiah — i.e., the removal of the high places (2 K. 18^ ■ ^ 2y). — 

2 (3.) Foreign altars] i.e., the altars of foreign gods, cf. Gn. 352" 
Jos. 24''<>- 23 Ju. io'« I S. 7' Je. 5'^. — The high places]. In i K. 15'^ 
it is stated that Asa did not destroy the high places. — The pillars] 
the massehoth, the sacred stones set up at a place of worship, 
originally a primitive expression of the later altar, temple, or idol, 
and naturally retained as the proper accessories of a sanctuary {cf. 
Gn. 281* 2"). The Deuteronomic law forbade their use (Dt. 162=) 
and commanded their destruction (Dt. 7^ 123). — The asherim] fre- 
quently mentioned with the foregoing and likewise forbidden (Dt. 
i6'') andcommandedtobedestroyed(Dt. 7^12'). They were wooden 
poles set up like the stone pillars at sanctuaries. Their meaning is 
obscure, scarcely a phallic emblem, possibly a substitute for a tree 
as a residence of deity, or possibly originally boundary posts, re- 
garded later as sacred. It has also been thought that there was a 
Canaanite goddess Asherah, equivalent to the great Semitic god- 
dess Astarte, whose symbol or idol was the Asherah post. (Cf. 
15'^) But on this scholars are not agreed (Asherah, EBi. I. colL 



332/. ; Dr. Dt. pp. 201/. ; Lagrange, Etudes sur les Religions Semi- 
tiques, pp. i igff-, argues for goddess). Asheroth (pi. of Asherah) are 
mentioned in 19' 33^, elsewhere as here Asherim 17^ 24" 31' t,t,^^ 
34'- ^- '. — 4. (5). Sun pillars] (only pi., 34^- ' Lv. 26" Is. 17' 27'!) 
probably a form of masseboih {cf. v. ') (GFM. £5j. III. col. 2976), 
regarded generally as pillars dedicated to the sun god (ni^n) (Bn.). 
— And the kingdom had rest under him (lit. before him)] re- 
peated with emphasis in following verse, cf. i3"b(i4i). — 5 (6). This 
story of the building of cities has probably some historical basis, 
cf. I K. 152'; also Je. 41% where a pit built by Asa as a means of 
defence is mentioned. — 7 (8). Shield and spear]. Cf. i Ch. 12" <"'. 
— Bucklers . . . and bows]. Cf. i Ch. 8^". The shield (jjD) of 
these bowmen was smaller than that of the spearmen. — The total 
strength of Asa's army is 580,000, while Abijah, his father, led 
forth an army of only 400,000 (13', cf. also 11' 17'*). 

1. 1 3113.-1] wanting in i K. 15" and so also rnSx. i K. adds V3N nns. 
— 3. "iCN''i] with the force of command (1. 4), or an example, in the fol- 
lowing words, of the indirect discourse, cf. i Ch. 13^. — 6. ynsn ijnip 
1J''JdS] ($^ ivuiTTLOv TTJs 7^J Kvpievcrofj.€t> 05'^ €v w (B'- iv (f Kvpieijcrofiev 
rrjs yijs. — iJ"'U'] suffix masc. because it precedes. — U^JflS] at our dis- 
posal, cf. Gn. 139 BDB. nja II. 4. a (/).— Instead of ^yi'ri"-, (&^^^ 
read iJ'f*"^"'. when we sought Yahweh our God lie sought us. (S'^^ also 
omit UJM and read uS niSsM. Hence Winckler {Alt. Unter. p. 187) 
proposes to read after Dt. 12'° ijS n'SxM ij''3''Na ai^Da uS njM And he has 
given us rest from our enemies round about and prospered us. 

8-14 (9-15). Asa's victory over Zerah. — Not mentioned in 
Kings, a good example of Midrash (see the numbers in v. « o). 
The story is either without historical foundation (so Kuenen, Einl. 
pp. 139/.; St. Gesch. I. p. 355; We. Prol. pp. 257/.), or with greater 
probability has a historical basis in an Egyptian or Arabian inroad 
(Graf, GB. p. 138; Erbt, Die Hebrder, p. 106; v. also i.). 
— 8 (9). Zerah the Cushite] (i) identified frequently with an 
Egyptian king, either Osorkon. I or II., of the twenty-second (Bu- 
basite) dynasty, and hence contemporary with Asa. In favour of 
Osorkon II. is an alleged inscription which reads that all countries 
of the upper and lower Retennu {i.e., Syria and Palestine) have been 
thrown under his feet (NsLville^s Bubastis p. 51). Cushite or Ethiopian 


applied to Osorkon or Zerah must then have arisen from llie 
writer's confused knowledge of Egyptian affairs; he may have been 
misled by 2 K 19' where Tirhakah is called King of Ethiopia 
(Sayce, HCM. p. 363). The place of battle, Mareshah (v. i.), 
favours an Egyptian inroad. (2) Ciishite may be connected with 
the Cush of Arabia (i Ch. i'), and thus the inroad may have been 
from Arabia (so Winckler, Alt. Untersiich. pp. 161-166, KATj p. 
144; Hommel, Actes 10th Cong. Inierl. des Orientalistes , p. 112; 
Paton, EHSP. pp. 196/.). Agreeable to this are the tents and the 
spoil of sheep and camels mentioned in v. '^ "^ '. Zerah may also rep- 
resent the Sabean name Dhirrih, a title, meaning the magnificent, 
of several of the oldest princes of Saba (Ba.) (v. s. Hommel). — A 
thousand and three hundred chariots] a gross exaggeration from 
every point of view. — Mareshah]. Cf. ii^ i Ch. 2". — 9 (10), In 
the valley] probably the valley at whose head stands Beit-Jibrin 
(GAS. HGHL. pp. 230-233). — Zephathah^], compared doubt- 
fully by Robinson to Tell-es-Sdfiyeh (BR.' II. p. 31). 0^^^ 
reads northward (Kara ^oppdv), and it is questionable whether 
that was not the original reading, in the valley to the north of 
Mareshah (n^Stf instead of nnS^i) (Bn.).— 11 (12). Cf. 13"- '«. 
The non-reliance of Asa upon his large army (v. '(s)) is noticeable. 
The narrative is entirely artificial. — 12 (13). Gerar] south of 
Gaza, usually identified with Umm Jerar (Baed.< p. 121). — And so 
many of the Cushites fell that there was no recovery (Zoe., Oe., Ba., 
ARV.), or so that no life was left (Be., Ke., Kau., Ki., ARVm.). 
The latter is better since the following clauses suggest annihilation. 
— His host] i.e., heavenly beings (the older commentators); better, 
from the statement of v.'», Asa's army (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.). — 13 
(14). And they smote all the cities in the neighbourhood of Gerar]. 
This implies that the inhabitants of this district had been abettors 
of the Cushites. (Instead of W^^"^ cities, Bn. reads Q^niy Ara- 
bians.) — A terror from Yahweh]. A panic seized the cities through 
a supernatural terror caused by Yahweh (cf. 17'° 20").— 14 (15). 
Tents of cattle] a strange expression, possibly having arisen from 
textual corruption. (^ has, in addition, a proper name represent- 
ing some unknown tribe or place (rov<i 'Afia^ovel<;) (cf 22' 
text-note). The booty suggests an Arabian incursion. 


10. n3 . isy |ix]. On force of 0;? beside or like, cf. 20'' Ps. 732s 

BDB. Dj; 3 d. On jo with S following r/. Gn. i«. (S reads ouk 
dSwaret irapa crol crw^eiv iv iroWoh Kcd iv oXiyois • following the text 
of I S. 14S tD>::3 1N JiJ yc'ins -nxjiD mniS px. (gL adds here from || 
ots ou/c ea-Tiv Iffx^s. H ^zow C5/ apud te ulla distantia utnun in paucis 
auxilieris, an in pluribus. Kamp. preferred to read ixjjS instead of 
"i?yS, but that is not necessary. — Jicnn] cf. 138. — ix]?i] no is understood 
(cj. I Ch. 29'^ V. 1. 92). — 12. -\-\h ij'] (6 has TeSw/j, c/. i Ch. 439, 13? used 
with*?, cf. Koe. iii. § 319c. — n>n?D onS i>xS] a clause denoting the com- 
pleteness of the overthrow. In the earlier stage of the language S would 
have been omitted with pN (Ew. § 315 e). This construction px is pecu- 
liar to the Chronicler, cf. 20-» 21I8 3616 i Ch. 22^ Ezr. 9^ (1. 132). 

XV. 1-19. The exhortation of Azariah, and Asa's religious 

1. Azariah the son of Oded] not mentioned elsewhere. Cf. 
V. 8. — The spirit of God] frequently mentioned as the cause 
of prophetic action and speech (rf. i Ch. i2'8 2 Ch. 20'^ 242"). 
— 2. Yahweh was with you because you were with him]. The 
prophet refers to the victory and makes it an occasion for advo- 
cating the continuance of Asa's reforms (Ke.). Others render 
Yahweh is with you if (when, while) you are with him (Zoe., Oe., 
Kau., Ki., ARV.). This rendering is not so good, although a state- 
ment of the general lesson to be drawn. — 3-6. Variously inter- 
preted: a description of the N. kingdom ((H); a prophecy of the 
future {cf. Ho. 3^ '•) ((g, U, as the tenses show, Zoe.); a description 
of the nature of a general truth with reference either to the past or 
future (Ke.); a reflection on the whole previous course of Israel's 
history, parenthetical in Azariah's speech and from the Chronicler 
(Ba.); a description with general reference (Bn.) yet strongly re- 
minding one of the period of the judges (Be., Oe., Ki.). This last 
view is as definite as any which can be given. V.= reflects the law- 
less times of the judges; v. ^ the repeated distress, and deliverance 
on calling on Yahweh; v. ^ the violence and oppression so often de- 
scribed {cf. Ju. 5« 6="); V. « the intertribal and interurban conten- 
tions (Ju. 8^-' M->' 9>-" i2'-6). This whole speech of Azariah fits 
in badly with the occasion of the victory and is an unskilful intro- 
duction to the reform of Asa, an ecclesiastical renovation so dear to 
the heart of the Chronicler. — 3. Without a teaching priest and 

XV. 1-19.1 REFORMS OF ASA 385 

without law]. The two expressions are synonymous. The giving 
of legal instruction was a function of the priest (Dt. ^y Je. i8'« Ho. 
46 f) — 5. Lands] i.e., districts of the territory of Israel (r/. 11" 
I Ch. 132). — 6. Nation against nation] i.e., one part or tribe of 
Israel against another. 

8. 'Oded the prophet] either a gloss (Be., Ki.), or rep