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

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


The International Critical Commentary 














First Printed .... 1910 
Second Impression . . . 1952 












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

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

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


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 ("») 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. 
Medial Aleph (H) and initial, medial, and final 'Ayin (y) in italicised 
names on their first appearance, but not necessarily on their 
immediate repetition or in juxtaposition with the Hebrew letters, 
have been represented by the smooth and rough breathings ("). 
The hard letters Heth (n), Teth (13), Sadhe C^), 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 
eflScient 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, 1910. 






§ I. Name and Order i 

§ 2. The Relation of Chronicles to Ezra and Nehemiah 2 

§ 3- Date 5 

§ 4. Plan, Purpose, and Historical Value 6 

§ 5. The Religious Value 16 

§ 6. Sources ~ . . . . 17 

" § 7. Peculiarities of Diction 27 

§ 8. Hebrew Text and the Versions 36 

§ 9. 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 

w h ere leading 


MSS. (uncials) 


= American Revised 

are corrupt. 

Version, marginal 


= Sinaitic codex. 



= Alexandrian 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. 



= Deuteronomic. 


= Basilian - Vatican 
codex (=XI 


= Elohistic (Ephra- 

Holmes and Par- 

imitic) portions 


of the Hexateuch, 


or their author. 
= English Revised 


= Hebrew consonant- 
al text. 


= English Versions. 


= Holiness Code of 
the Hexateuch. 


= Received Greek 


= Hexateuch. 

« (of I Esd.) 

= The Greek text of 


= Yahwistic (Judaic) 

I Esdras (prob- 

portions of the 

ably original Sep- 

Hexateuch, or 

tuagint and avail- 

their author. 

able for 2 Ch. 35. 


= The narrative of J 


and E combined. 








Knhib, the He- 


= Q«re, the Hebrew 

brew text as writ- 

text as read. 


Old Latin Version. 



= Redactor, or editor. 
= Revised Version. 

The Massoretic 


= Revised \'ersion. 

pointed text. 

marginal r e a d - 

Kittel's primary 
Midrashic source 


of the Chronicler. 

Kittel's secondary' 

Midrashic source 

of the Chronicler. 

= Syriac P e s h i 1 1 o 

= Ambrosian codex. 

New Testament. 


= Targum or Aramaic 

Old Testament. 


Priestly portions of 
the Hexateuch, or 

= Vulgate Version 
= Amiatine codex. 

their author. 


= Versions, ancient. 



= Amos. 


= Ezekiel. 


= Ezra. 


= The Wisdom of 

Jesus Ben Sira, 


= Galatians. 

or Ecclesiasticus. 


= Genesis. 

I, 2 Ch. 


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, 2 S. 

= r, 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 Hom. 


= id., Genesis in Sa- 


= American Journal 

cred Books of the 

of Semitic Lan- 


guages and 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 

Chronicles in The 

Bilcher der Chro- 

Cambridge Bible. 

fiik- in Hand- 


= Karl Baedeker, 

buch zum A. T. 

Palestine and 


= W. H. Bennett. 

Syria (cited in 


= id., Joshua in 5a- 

second and fourth 

cred Books of tite 







= J. Bcnzinger, Die 


= Franz Delitzsch 

B ilcher der 

(alw. when not 

Konige and Die 

followed by Par., 

B ilcher der Chro- 

V. i.). 

nik in Kurzer 


= Friedrich Delitzsch. 

Hand - Conimen- 


= id., Wo lag das 




= id., Hebraische 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 ziim 

Westmitister Com- 

A. T. 



= id., Samuel in 5a- 


= id., An Introduction 

cred Books of the 

to the Literature of 


the OT. 


= A. Biichler. 


= id., A Treatise ontJie 


= F. Buhl. 

Use of the Tenses 


= id., Geographic des 

in Hebrews. 

Alien Palastina. 


= id., Notes on the 


= C. F. Burney, Notes 

Hebrew Text of 

on the Hebrew 

the Books of Sam- 

Text of Kings. 



= Composition and 


= Eticyclopcedia Bib- 


Historical Value 
of Ezra-Nehe- 
miah, see Tor. 

= C. H. Cornill. 

= The Cuneiform In- 


Ew. § 

= Early Hist, of Syria 

and Pal., see Pa. 
= H. Ewald. 
= id., Hebrew Gram- 

scriptions and 
the OT, (Eng. 
trans, of if^r.^), 
see Sch. 


= id., History of Is- 
rael (Eng. trans. 
of his Geschichte 
d. V. Israel). 


Syn. § 

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

Expos. T. 

= The Expositor. 
= The Expository 


= Dictionary of the 


= Geographic des Al- 


Bible, usually 

len Palastina, by 
F. Buhl. 




= George Adam 


= W. R. Harvey- 




= id.. The Historical 


= History of the Jew- 

Geography of the 

ish People, see 

Holy Land. 



= id., Jerusalem from 


= H. Holzinger. 

the 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 the Monu- 


= George Foot 

ments, see McC. 



= Paul Haupt. 


= C. D. Ginsburg. 


= Gesenius' Hebrii- 


= E. Glaser. 

isches und Ara- 


= id., Skizze der 

mdisches Hand- 

Gcschichte und 

wbrterbuch iiber 

Geographic Ara- 

das A. T., ed. 

biens, vol. II. 



= K. H. Graf. 



= id., Gescli. 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, 

Uberiores Adnot. 

in Chron. 
= Fl. Josephus. 
= Antiquities. 


= Bell. Jud. 


= Kurzer Hand- 
Commentar zum 
A. T. 

c. Ap. 

= contra Apionem. 
= JahrbilcherfUr prot- 
estantische The- 


= Higher Criticism 
and the Monu- 
ments, see Sayce. 


= Jewish Quarterly 


= Herodotus. 


= F. Hitzig. 


= A. Kamphausen. 





= Die Keilinschrijten 


= id., History, Proph- 

u. d. A. T., see 

ecy and ttie Mon- 




= E. Kautzsch, Die 


= F. C. Movers. 

Iieilige Schrift d. 


= Mittheilungen und 

A. T. 

Nachrichten des 


= Keilinschriftliche 

Deutsche n Pal- 




= C. F. Keil, Chroni- 


= Mittheil u n gen 

cles in Biblical 

der vorderasiati- 

Commentary on 

schen Gesellschaft. 

tJie OT. 


= B. Kennicott. 


= New Century Bible. 


= R. Kittel. 


= W. Nowack. 


= id., Biblia Hebra- 


= id., Lehrbuch d. 


Hebrdischen Ar- 


= id., Geschichte der 



= id.. Die Bilcher der 


= S. Oettli, Die 

Chronik in Hand- 

Biicher der Chro- 

kommentar sum 

nik in Kurzge- 

A. T. 

fasster Komnien- 


= id., Chronicles in 


Sacred Books of 


= Orientalische Lit- 

the OT. 



= August Kloster- 


= Onomastica Sacra 


(ed. Lagarde). 

Koe. § 

= Fr. E. Konig, 


= Old Testament in 

Lehrgebdude der 

the Jewish 


Church, see 




= A. Kuenen. 


= id., Historisch- 


= L. B. Paton. 

krilische Einlei- 

tung in dieBUcher 
d. A. T. 


= id.. The Early His- 
tory of Syria and 



= Herzog's Real-En- 


= An Introduction to 

cyclopddie fiir 

the Literature of 


the OT., see 

Theologie und 




= Claudius Ptolemy. 


= J. Marquart. 


= J. F. McCurdy. 


= E. Riehm. 




= id., Handworter- 


=id., Die Listen der 

buch d. bibl. Al- 

Biicher Ezra iind 




= Edward Robinson. 


= C. Siegfried and B. 

BR. or Res. 

= id., Biblical Re- 

Stade, Hebrdisch- 

seardies in Pal- 

es Worterbuch. 

estine, etc., also 


= B. Stade. 

Later Biblical Re- 


= id., Geschichte des 

searches, i.e., Vol. 

Volkes Israel. 

Ill of second ed. 


= id., with Sw., Tlie 
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., Cmieiform In- 

icism of Chroni- 

scriptions and the 

cle s-E z r a-Nehe- 

Old Testament. 

miah in OT. Se- 


= E. Schiirer. 

mitic Studies, 


= id., Geschichte des 

Harper Memo- 

jUdischen 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 fiir 


die altest. Wis- 

of the second ed. 

senschaft, Bei- 

of the above). 

hefte 2. 


= J. Skinner, Kings 


= A. Trommius. 

in New Century 


= id., ConcordanticB 


GrcEcce in Septiia- 


= H. P. Smith, The 
Books of Samuel 

ginta Interpretes. 

in International 


= JuHus Wellhausen. 

Critical Commen- 


= id.. Die Composi- 


tion des Hexa- 


= R. Smend. 






= id., De Gentihus ct 
Familiis Judais 


= Zeitschrift fiir As- 

qua in i Chr. 2. 4 


= Zeitschrift fiir die 

nwnerantur Dis- 





= id., Prolegomena to 
tJie History of 


= Zeitschrift der 
Deutsclien Mor- 


= id., Der Text der 


Bilcher Samuelis. 


= Zeitschrift des 


= Hugo Winckler. 

Deutschen- Pal- 

Gesch. Isr. 

= id., Geschichte Is- 




= Otto Z5ckler, The 


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

= W. Robertson 

Books of Chroni- 
cles in Eng. trans. 
of Lange's Com- 


Numerals raised above the line im- 


= id.. Old Testament 


following the abbreviation 

in the Jewish 



edition of the work 





= absolute. 


= article. 


= abstract. 


= Assyria, Assyrian, 


= accusative. 

ace. cog. 

= cognate ace. 


= Babylonian. 

ace. pers. 

= ace. of person. 

B. Aram. 

= Biblical Aramaic. 

ace. rei. 

= ace. of thing. 

ace. to 

= according to. 

c, cc. 

= chapter, chapters. 


= active. 


= circa, about. 


= adjective. 


= causative. 


= adverb. 


= confer, compare. 


= ttira^ XeyS/jievov, 

cod., codd. 

= codex, codices. 

word or phr. used 


= cognate. 


col., coll. 

= column, columns. 


= always. 


= commentary. 


= apodosis. 


= compare. 


= Arabic. 


= concrete. 


= Aramaic, Aramean. 


= conjunction. 




= consecutive. 


= list of the peculi- 


= construction. 

arities of Ch. in 


= construct. 

Introduction, pp. 

d. f. 


= daghesh forte. 

= defective. 

= dele, strike out. 


= loco citato, in the 
place before cited. 
= literal, literally. 


= dittography. 

= dubious, doubtful. 


= masculine. 
= modern. 


= edition. 
= elsewhere. 



= note. 

= New Hebrew. 


= especially. 

= et aliter, and else- 


= Niphal of verb. 

where, and others. 


= object. 


= often. 


= and following. 


f. n. 

= feminine. 
= figurative. 
= foot-note. 
= frequentative. 

p., pp. 

= page, pages. 
= person. 
= passive. 
= perfect. 


= Piel of verb. 


= gentilic. 
= genitive. 




= plural. 
= predicate. 
= pregnant. 


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






= preposition. 
= probable. 
= pronoun. 
= participle. 
= Pual of verb. 


= idem, the .same. 

q. V. 

= quod vide, which 


= imperfect. 



= imperative. 


= indefinite. 


= reflexive. 

i. e. 

= id est, that is. 


= relative. 


= infinitive. 


= inscription, inscrip- 


= Sabean. 



= suffix. 


= intransitive. 


= singular. 


= Introduction. 


= followed by. 


= substantive. 


= jussive. 


= Syriac. 






= times (following a 

V. i. 

= vide infra, see be- 


low (usually tex- 


= transitive. 

tual note on same 

text. n. 

= textual note. 



= videlicet, namely, 
to wit. 

V. s. 

= vide supra, see 

v., w. 

= verse, verses. 

above (usually 


= vide, see. 

general remark 


= verb. 

on same verse). 







indicates all passages cited. 

indicates all passages in Ch.- 
Ezr.-Ne. cited. 

parallel, of words or clauses 
chiefly synonymous. 

equivalent, equals. 

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

= the root, or stem. 

= sign of abbreviation in He- 
brew words. 

= icui, 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 ('^"l^T 
D^i^Tl), The events of days or times, Daily events. This expression 
preceded by the word book is of frequent occurrence in i and 2 K. 
((/. I K. 14' 9- " 15^ "■ " and oft.), also in Est. 2-^ 6' lo^ 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 0/ King 
David (i Ch. 27-^), or of the days of the Kings of Israel (i K. 14"). 
Thus also the Targum further defmes the days of this title as 
"from the days of antiquity" (SO^V ^^^^ j'^l) (PRE.^ iv. p. 85). 
It is not altogether unHkely that originally of the Kings of Judah 
belonged to this Hebrew title ((/. the title in ($^ immediately 

The Greek title was originally The things omitted concerning 
the kings of Jiidah in a twofold division (TrapaXenrofjLevcov 
BacnXecov lovSa a, ditto rcov ^aaiXeicov lovSa /3 (^^ Swete). 
The other uncials omit "BacnXecov lovSa and rcov 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 


toHus divincB historic possumus appellare) {Prol. galeat.). Thus 
arose the name adopted in our English 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 Kagiog- 
rapha. A Massoretic treatise, Adahalh Dehharim (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 some 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 libro 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'-^'); ^^e mighty men in David's armies (ii^^"); David's 
recruits at Ziglag (12^-'- '-"• ^o); the Levites, priests, and musicians that 
assisted in the removal of the ark. (is^-"- i'-2j^; the families of the Levites 
(236-23)1 the twenty-four courses of priests (24'-"); heads of families, 
Kohathites and Merarites (242°-3i); the twenty-four courses of singers, 
their names twice repeated (2^'-^'); the courses of gate-keepers (26'-"); 
overseers of the Temple treasury {26''°-"^); Levitical officers outside the 
Temple (2623-32); the twelve commanders of the twelve courses of the 
army (27'-'=); the princes of the tribes of Israel (ly^^--^); the twelve officers 
over David's substance (27=^-31); 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 Kezekiah's reign (29'2-" 31'^-'*); 
Levites mentioned in connection with the repair of the Temple and the 
distribution of offerings at the passover festival in the reign of Josiah 
(34' "^ 35')- 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. 
^7-63)- jjy the lists of those who returned with Ezra (Ezr. S--"); of those 
both priests, Levites, singers, gate-keepers, and laity who had foreign 
wives (Ezr. 10"-"); 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. 
J 232-36. 41.42); q{ the residcnts of Jerusalem (corresponding to the list of 
I Ch. 9) (Ne. ii^-'s). We also have pedigrees corresponding to those 
in Chronicles, those of Ezra (Ezr. 71 -s) and of Jaddua (Ne. i2"'-'i). 

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 Zerubbabcl (Ezr. 3), of the dedication of the 
Temple (Ezr. o'^"), of the celebration of the passover (Ezr. 613-22)^ of 
the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles in connection with the read- 
ing of the law (Ne. S^-'s), 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. 6'6i- (sm ) 9331^16-21. 27 f. 164-42 
235 c. 25 2 Ch. 5'2s. 76 gu 1. 2o"- =' 23"- '8 2g^-"^- 30 30=' '■ 3412 3515 and in 
Ezr. 3'° '• Ne. 11'' 128- -*■ "--^- "-■" 135- '". The gate-keepers are men- 
tioned (often with the singers) in i Ch. 917-29 15I8. 23. 24 16" 23^ 26' 12-" 
2 Ch. 8'< 23<- 19 3in 3413 3^15 and in Ezr. 2«- 'O f 10" Ne. 7'- « lo^' "s) 
„i9 1225. 45. 47 135 (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. 2^ ff. 

§ 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 do^^^^ to the 
sixth generation after Zerubbabel (who flourished 537 -H) (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"-" 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. 
Kamphauscn reckoning on the descent of the Hebrew kings fixes 
the length at twenty-three years {Chronologic derhebr.Komge, 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 H 
probably have simply interpreted the difficult ^ text, 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 Litteratiir 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 Hst of the high priests given in Ne. 12'° '• " '• 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., or30o, 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. i2'-25 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. i98«). Levites take a 
prominent part in the coronation of Joash and the death of Atha- 
Hah (2 Ch. 23' ^•). Priests withstand Uzziah when he would burn 
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. 
2Qi3b. 14. 25-28. 30 302'), and at similar events under Josiah (2 Ch. 34" 
35"). Their descent is also elaborately given (i Ch. 6"" *"-r>). 


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 offered at re- 
ligious festivals (i Ch. 29=' 2 Ch. 29"'- 3024 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, iS,ooo, 50,000, 
37,000, 28,600, 40,000, and 120,000 (i Ch. I2"-'* (=3.37)^; 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. i3^'0; o^ 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. t7'*-'«); of Amaziah 
300,000 and 100,000 more who were hired (2 Ch. 25^ '■); of Uzziah 
307,500 under 2,600 chiefs (2 Ch. 26'-); 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 fists 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' <■); 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. 29'2-'<); 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' 
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 
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 
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 
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 
;:nd 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 earHer narrative knows nothing (2 Ch. 14'-'=). 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 own 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- 
served 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"«). 

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 PhiHstines also invade his land and the 
King of Assyria distresses him (2 Ch. 285^). 

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 
after an imprisonment, of which the older narrative knows 
nothing, 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 '^^ <"« ' i6'« 26^^) as required of the servants of 
the tabernacle and the ark in P. 

Goliath the Gittite slain by Elhanan the Bethlehemite (2 S. 21") 
becomes Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite (i Ch. 20'). 
This removes the discrepancy with the story of David's conquest 
(i S. 17). David's sons are changed from "priests" (2 S. 8") into 
"the first at the hand of the king" (i Ch. i8'0. 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. 21'); and agreeably to the later angelology the de- 
stroying angel is placed between the earth and the heaven (i Ch. 
21") instead of remaining simply by the threshing-floor of Oman 
the Jebusite (2 S. 24'^). The price paid by David for the threshing- 
floor is changed from fifty shekels of silver (2 S. 24") into six hun- 
dred shekels of gold (i Ch. 21"), since, forsooth, the former sum 
was too paltry to be given by such a monarch as David for the 
future site of the Temple. Fire also is said to have fallen from 
heaven and kindled David's sacrifice, and also Solomon's, at the 
dedication of the Temple (i Ch. 2i=« 2 Ch. 7'). This is a mark 
of the later wonder-seeking theology. The high place at Gibeon 
where Solomon sacrificed is explained as the seat of the brazen 
altar and the tabernacle (2 Ch. i'-^), particulars une.xpressed in the 
parallel narrative in i K. (3^). Thus the act of Solomon is kept 
within the priestly law. The gift of cities by Solomon to Hiram, 
King of Tyre (i K. 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 preser\'ed 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 
oi the imagination, and must be sifted like kernels of wheat from a 
mass of chaff {cf. 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"''-!?); (2) the family of Rehoboam 
(2 Ch. ii'8-"); (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"); (s) 
the teaching delegation sent by Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. i7'-0; (6) details of 
the military might and building operations of Uzziah (2 Ch. 26»-'» 
«-i2. 14 (.); (7) the same of Jotham (2 Ch. 27^^.^.^ y. « 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. 323°='); (10) the place 
of Hezekiah's grave (2 Ch. 32"b); (n) the enlargement of the wall 
of Jerusalem by Manasseh (2 Ch. t,^,^^). 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" (s-it)); 
(3) Jehoshaphat's victory (2 Ch. 20' -3°); (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. 13^^ i^saotr > 20'^), gained by 
Judah (Ba. pp. xxx-xxxiii). This is a plausible but a specious argument. 
The kingdom of Judah was too poor a country to be very attractive to its 
neighbours or to entice distant hordes to make such invasions. Raids 
may have been made into Judah and some reminiscences of these may 
be behind these stories (see commentary), but nothing further can be 
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. VVinckler, 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' 05), the Arabians (2 Ch. 17" 21" i4><), and 
the Hagrites (i Ch. s'" " 20). The basis for this inference is the claim 
that the chronology of the appearance of these people in Ch. is correct. 
They are mentioned just when historically they might be expected 
(Musri, Meluhha, Ma'in, MVAG. 1898, pp. 42/.; KAT.^ pp. 142/, 


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


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

Through these writings the past also was idealised and glorified 
as a norm for present activity and future development. Nothing 
better than the authority of the past could have served in those days 
to intensify the loyalty and devotion of the ancient Jew. The divine 
law of retribution and special providence, which the Chronicler 
taught, was a most powerful factor also for preserving the Jewish 
Church. It must also never be forgotten that it was under the 
tutelage of men like the Chroracler 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 o*" 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.) 

:h. I'-^ 


53-32 IQl. 

" 1^^-23, 


IQi-*- 6-8. 13-18a. 22-29^ 

" 1=^-", 


II10-26, cf. 175. . 

" 1=8-34, 


2[-12-16a. 1-4. 13-26 ff iQli 212'-. 

" 135-51, 


•3g4. 5a. 10-14. 20-28. 3l-43_ 

" 2' -2. 

3522b-26 Ex. I'-" and elsewhere 


382-v. 29f. 4612--' Nu. 26'3 '.. 

" 25, 


46'2'' Nu. 26" Ru. 4'8. 

" 2''-\ 


7- I K. 5" (4'')- 

« 29-•^ 


4l'J-22 I S. 166-9 2 S. 2'8 1726. 



I Ch. 3'-», 

4 I 

" <28-33 

" 5'. 

" r25. 56 

" 51-4. 7 (16-19. 22) 

" 67-13 (22-28") 

«< 6"-^' (M-sn 

" 9'->7% 

" 101-12, 

" iii-^ 

" jjlO-47 

" 13'-". 

" 141-7- 8-17^ 

" 17. 

" 18, 

" 19. 

" 20'-», 

" 20<-', 

" 21, 

2 Ch. i6->3, 

" T14-17 
■*■ » 

" II&-2I7 (2), 

" -l_rl 

J i> > 

" 5^7'°. 

" 711-22 


122- 3. 9-lG, 
13.. 2. 22. 23 (i^,), 
I4I. 2 (2. 3>, 15' = -'% 
16I.6. 11-14, 

2i5-10. 20 

221-6. 7-9, 
24I-U. 23-27^ 
2^1-4. 11. 17-28, 

2 s. 32-5 s'- "■", cf. i3t. 

I and 2 K. 

Gn. 461" Ex. 615 Nu. 261-^ '•. 

Jos. 192-8. 

Gn. 46' Nu. 265 '•. 

cf. 2 K. 1513 '■ 29 i7« 18". 

Ex. 6l«- 18- 20. 23 Nu. 317- 19. 

" 6"-**. 

" 62< I S. I' 82. 

Jos. 2I"'-"- S-9 20-39. 

Ne. iii-i9^ 

1 S. 31. 

2 S. 5'-3- s-io. 


-11-16. 17-25 





Ill 1226-51. 



el6-30 (1-15), 

6, 713-5'. 

101-13. U-JS. 

I 141-43. 
151 2. 7. 8. 



2241-ei (SO). 
2 K. 8i'-2«. 

82i-29 Q16-28 10I2-4 

II (II1-20). 

I2I-I7. (ll21-I2"'^ T2l8-!»(W-21). 
J .1-14. 17-20. 




261-4. 21-23, 

1421. 22 152-7. 


271-3. 7-9, 

JC33-36. 38_ 

281-4- 26. 27^ 

l62-l. 19. 20. 

29' =, 

i82- ». 





331-10. 20-25, 

2jl-9. 18-21_ 

34' '■ '■'', 

22, 23I-3. 

35.. 18-24. 26. 

" 36 

1-4 ** 

2^21-23. 28. 29-34_ 

355. 6. 8-12, 

2736. 37 24'. 6. 6. S-19 

3622. 23, 




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. 
Vp.-i 10'°, mv^ ii'6, 2Dn 1414, 'n'^1 1710, -inx 1721, iri^as p -["^c^nN ('on) 
18", ny ? 1913, DoScn 20'; in 2 Ch., 'ui hiddS and 'js S;r 4", o;'3 41', 

The canonical text is also sometimes so closely followed as to introduce 
irrelevant expressions. Cf. i Ch. 6'"° (") 555b (70b) (but present form 
possibly due to transcriber, v. in loco) 14^ ("ii>') 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. i Ch. i^- " 2" S^s- 34 jqi- 3. 4. 7 

Ilia. 29 136. 8. 9 f. J47 jniS;?3, 12. 16 J7I2 f. 21 i8'-ll- 17 199. 18 206 2 Ch. 2" "8) 

41''). An antiquated term is often replaced by a later one (cf. i Ch. lo'^ 
138 1529 ? 19! 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 
(c/. I Ch. I'-"- 24-"- 34-42 23-4 3 Ch. i^"" ^^-y^- 16-17 71-3361-11), and occasion- 
ally introduces words to emphasise an idea or to give clearness, and also 
pious phrases (cf. i Ch. ii^ 1526 iS^. 13 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 WTiter 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'=-'- '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 extracts 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 
dowTi 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. i5=3 are grouped as they appear in Gn. lo-"- 
^■-', 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. 5' ~^ 23'^ (Budde, SBOT.) are reproduced in i Ch. ii* 's. The 
parallels with 2 S., however, are not favourable for presenting combina- 
tions because underlying 2 S. is almost entirely a single source. In i 
and 2 K. it is different, and here, following the analysis of Stade and 
Schwally {SBOT.), a number of sources appear combined in nearly 
every parallel in 2 Ch. In i^-'^ || i K. 3'-'5 three; in in-'? || i K. 
I026-39 three; in c. 2 || i K. s's-'o "-•6) two; in 31-5' || i K. 6, 7'3-5' 
three; in 5^7'" Ij i K. 8 three; in g'-^s || i K. lo'-^s two; in io'-ii< || 
I K. 1 2" -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 
canonical books, but of this there is not the slightest evidence and 
in form all new material (excluding genealogical matter and the 
list of David's additional heroes, i Ch. n^ib-^?) jg of the compo- 
sition or style of the Chronicler. 

B. Sources ALLEGED BY THE Chronicler. After the manner 
of the author of i and 2 K., the Chronicler refers to written sources. 
These are of two classes; first, those with general titles: (a) A Book 
of the Kings of Israel and Judah, for the reigns of Jotham, Josiah, 
and Jehoiakim (2 Ch. 27' 35" 368). (b) A Book of the Kings of 
Judah and Israel, for the reigns of Asa, Amaziah, Ahaz, and Heze- 
kiah {v. i. (o)) (2 Ch. 16" 25^6 28^6 ^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. ^s'')- (d) A Mid- 
rash of the Book of the Kings, for the reign of Joash (2 Ch. 24"). 

Secondly, those with specific prophetic titles: (e) The history (lit. 
words or acts, so also below) of Samuel the seer, (f) The history 
of Nathan the prophet, (g) The history of Gad the seer. These 
three are given for the reign of David (i Ch. 29"). (h) The 
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite. (i) The visions of Iddo the seer. 
These two and also (f.) are given for the reign of Solomon (2 Ch. 
9"). (j) The history of Shemaiah the prophet, (k) The history 
of Iddo Ihe seer. These two are given for the reign of Rehoboam 
(2 Ch. i2'5). (1) The Midrash of the prophet Iddo for the reign 
of Abijah (2 Ch. 13"). (m) A history of the prophet Jehu which 


is inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel, for the reign of Jc- 
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. ;i:i^^). 

Authorities thus are given for the history of all the kings of 
Judah except Jehoram, Ahaziah, Amon, Jehoiachin, and Zede- 
kiah. (Naturally none are given for Athaliah and Jehoahaz.) 
Also the following works are referred to : (q) A genealogical regis- 
ter compiled in the day of Jotham and Jeroboam II (i Ch. 5"). 
(r) The later history of David? (i Ch. 23"). (s) The chronicles 
(lit. words) of David in which the census taken by Joab was not 
entered (i Ch. 27-^). (t) A collection of lamentations (2 Ch. 35"). 
The first three of these works (a) (b) (c) are generally allowed 
to represent a single work whose full title was. The Book of the 
Kings of Israel and Judah, or Judah and Israel, and the title 
of which in (c) is abbreviated — Israel representing the entire 
people and not specifically the N. kingdom, since under (c) 
the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Manasseh are treated. This work, 
which is cited as an authority for reigns as early as that of Asa and 
as late as that of Jehoiakim, was clearly a comprehensive one, but 
not the canonical Books of Kings, because it is cited for matters 
not in those books — i.e., genealogies (i Ch. 9'), the wars of 
Jotham (2 Ch. 27') and the prayer of Manasseh (2 Ch. t,;^^') and 
the abominations of Jehoiakim (2 Ch. 36'). Neither was it the 
sources mentioned in i and 2 K. for the political history of Israel 
and Judah, since they were two distinct works. It may, however, 
have been a work dependent upon those sources (Be. p. xl.; Graf, 
GB. p. 192; Dr. EBi. I. col. 768, LOT.^^ p. 532), or since the real 
historical material derived from this book apart from that in the 
canonical books is extremely meagre it may have been dependent 
upon those books, a Midrash or commentary on them (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. Altheh. 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. 


Canonical Book of 


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 
Brown, DB. I. P..395; Dr. (the probability) EBi. I. col. 768). 

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

The prophetic writings (e) to (p) are not in all probability distinct 
works, but are illustrations of the usual Jewish manner of citing 
sections of comprehensive works. As in the NT. we read, "Have 
ye not read in the Book of Moses in the place concerning the 
Bush" (Mk. 1226), or more aptly, "Know ye not what the scripture 
saith in Elijah" (Rom. ii^). The "histories" of Nathan, Gad, and 
the others are then the sections of which Nathan, Gad, etc., were 
the catchwords in the Book of Kings, i.e., the Midrash with the 
possible exception of (n) where the reference is probably to the 
Book of Isaiah (cc. 36-39), and also (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i), not 
unlikely refer to sections of our canonical books {v. commentary). 
This is proved 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.). Whether the Midrashic history contained 
all his extra-canonical genealogical material, or whether he gath- 
ered some from elsewhere through written or oral sources, it is im- 
possible to determine. 

It is also possible that the Chronicler has cited sources simply to 
produce the impression that he is writing with authority, and that their 
titles are mere literary adornments suggested by those in the Book of 
Kings. This is essentially the view of Torrey, who, speaking of the 
comprehensive work so generally held to have been used by the Chron- 
icler, says, " It is time that scholars were done with this phantom 
' source,' of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the 
external evidence is limited to the Chronicler's transparent parading 
of 'authorities'; while the evidence against it is overwhelming" 
(AJSL. XXV. p. 195). The uniformity of the Chronicler's non-canon- 
ical material certainly supports this view, yet at the same time it is 
also phusiblc that the Chronicler 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 
written sources. 

Eliminating the canonical quotations, the remainder of Chroni- 
cles is so marked and homogeneous in style that it has been 
usually (and properly) treated as the work of a single author, 
i.e., the Chronicler. (Thus 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.) Bvichler, 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 writer. This result was reached 
through a study of the parallels with i and 2 S. and i and 2 K. Some 
of these parallels agree essentially verbally with their source, others 
show a considerable departure from the canonical text. These latter 
are held to come not from the hand of the Chronicler but from a fore- 
runner whose work he copied; and as the Chronicler was only in the 
main a mere copyist in his treatment of the canonical writings, so like- 
wise, it was inferred, must he have been in his treatment of his other 
source or sources. Hence his work contains almost no original composi- 
tion beyond inserted notices respecting Levites and musicians. (Movers 
had presented in 1833 essentially this view, Untersuchungen,-pp. 163^.) 
Thus in i Ch. 10-29 only cc. 23-27 are from the Chronicler. Of the re- 
mainder, cc. ID, II, 13, 14, 17-19 are from S. Chapter 12 reveals no 
special interest in anything Levitical; and c. 15 records six Levitical 
families instead of the usual three and modest numbers, hence, except 
a paragraph concerning Levitical singers (vv. """), both of these chap- 
ters are not from the Chronicler; c. 12 coming from uncertain sources 
and c. 15 from the work of a forerunner. Chapter 21 contains, with the 
absence of a sufficient theological motive, too great departures from 
2 S. to have been written by the Chronicler: hence it is from another 
work, which appears continued in cc. 22, 28, 29. This work is ad- 
mitted to be of the same vein and spirit of the Chronicler, showing an 
interest in the religious cultus alleged to have been developed by David, 
but is held to differ from the Chronicler's work: (i) in its more modest 
presentation of contributions for the Temple, 29' -^ (to be compared with 
22" 15, 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. 115-2'' (2i-'8)) 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(>'" (see commentary), i K. 7'''), with his mother a Danite instead 
of a widow from Naphtali (2 Ch. 2'3(i4) 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. 
5'9 »')■ 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 writer, a forerunner of 
the Chronicler, who wrote between 500 and 400 B.C.; (4) Midrash 
material of two sorts (M and M=), taken in all likelihood from the cited 
sources of the Chronicler; and finally (5) material of a period later than 
the Chronicler, added by another Levite. 

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



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

The following list contains the more marked peculiarities of the 
Chronicler's writings, including new words and phrases, old ones 
with a new or unusual sense, and 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 l)e 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. ''3X howbeit, hut, 2 Ch. i' 19' t,t,^' Ezr. 10", also Dn. 10" -' f- i^^ 

older Heb. with an asseverative force, verily, of a truth Gn. 42^' 
2 S. 14' I K. I" 2 Iv- 4'^ and with slight adversative force, nay, 
but Gn. 17" (P) to 

2. niJ.N letter, 2 Ch. 30'- « Ne. 2'- «■ » 6*- i'- ■«, also Est. 9^6 "-^ f. 

3. 7\'m^ possession, i Ch. 7-* 92 2 Ch. 11" 31' Ne. 11' and often in Ez. 

and P. 

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

2921. 27. 30 ^li. u 3521 Ne. 915, also 2 S. 24" 2 K. 8"' Dn. Est. and 
5' IJ^")?< * purple, 2 Ch. 2« t (a late form of i:p^3"!>f), cf. Aram. M^^unx 
Dn. 5"- >« 29. 

6. niS"jx lands, designating districts of Israel's territory i Ch. 13- 

2 Ch. it^ 155 cf. Gn. 26'- ■•, including Israel's territory Ezr. 3' 
(text dub.) 9'- ^ " Ne. io-»; in any sense pi. is almost wholly 
late I Ch. 14" 22' 292° 2 Ch. g-^ 12* 13' 155 1710 20-" 32'3- •'• i' 
34'' Ezr. 9^ Ne. g'^ 10", v. No. 91. 

7. n:;u'N wrong-doing, guiltiness, i Ch. 21' 2 Ch. 24" 28"'- "■ "• " 

TfT,"^ Ezr. 9*- '• "■ '^ 10'" '9 t, infreq. elsewhere. 

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

lo"- '« Ne. 9= 10", also Nu. 16=' (P) t; be separated * i Ch. 
2313 Ezr. 10" t- 

9. V''3. V? byssus, I Ch. 4^' 152' 2 Ch. 2'^ 3" 51=, also Est. i^ S'^ and Ez. 

27'6 (where Cor. strikes out with (S) f- 

10. nn 5/)oj7, ftooiy, 2 Ch. i4'3 25" 28'^ Ezr. 9" Ne. 3'*, also Dn. ii^' m 

Est. 9'»- 15- 16 f. 

11. (3) r^? * 5*z7/e£f, 5j!r77/€(f (in), i Ch. 15" 25'- « 2732 2 Ch. 26* 34121 

(kindred meanings mostly late). 

12. n^'3 (-a5//e, palace; of Temple, i Ch. 29' " t; of fortress near 

Temple, Ne. 2* 72 f; Shushan iA« palace, Ne. i' Est. 1= s 33 5 3 
315 8" 96- "• '2 Dn. 82 f. 

13. ni'j-i"? * fortresses, 2 Ch. i7'2 27* f- 

14. nVTN ri'3 fathers' houses, families, clans, i Ch. 4'* + 21 f. Ch. 

Ezr. 2*3 lo's Ne. 7" lo^^, also often in P. 
I.",. a^nSvsn n^a house of God i Ch. 6^^ 9"- '3- !« + 51 1. in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., 

also of sanctuary at Shiloh Ju. i83'. 
16. anna, ni — , * chosen, t Ch. 7" 922 i6^' Ne. 5>8 f- 


17. inj troop, of divisions of the army i Ch. 7' 2 Ch. 25'- '" i' 26", also 

Jb. 2925 Mi. 4'''. 

18. 7\BM * body, corpse, i Ch. 10'= f (late, cf. NH. and Aram.). 

19. -wp * treasury, i Ch. 28" also 2820 (restored text) t {cf. NH.; a 

loan-word from or through Persian). 

20. cnjn common-land, suburbs, i Ch. 5"= 6" + 40 t. i Ch. 6, 13- 2 Ch. 

ii» 31", also in Ez. and often in P. 

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

Est. 3'5 8'^ t (NH. fJ.). 

22. a'ro^ii * drachma, Ezr. 269 = Ne. 7" Ne. 769- vi f; D^jb-i-'_!<,* i 

Ch. 297, Ezr. 82' t- 

23. nini uni ^ee^' Yahweh in prayer and worship, r Ch. 16" r=Ps. 

105^) 283 2 Ch. i2» 143-6 1512 1612 229 26^; a^n'^N(n) 'i, 2 Ch. 
193 265 3o"9; nin^S 'i i Ch. 22" 2 Ch. i5'3 20^ Ezr. 62'; D'hSnS 't 
2 Ch. i7« 3121 343 Ezr. 42. 

24. 5r">in * commentary, exposition, 2 Ch. 1322 242' f. 

25- ^"!:P i^'?"!^ ^Jy/y adornment, only 2 Ch. 202" in prose, elsewhere in 
poetry i Ch. 1629 = Ps. 96' Ps. 292 f. 

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

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

i64. 36 235. 30 253 2 Ch. 515 13 2o'9 2930 3021 Ezr. 3"i- " 1' Ne. s'3, 
cf. I Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 2021 t; SSn * abs. i Ch. 23= 2 Ch. 76 S'^ 
2313 2930 312 Ne. 1224 -j-^ .j^, No. 47. 

28. \'^t::^ great number, 1 Ch. 29'6 2 Ch. 1123 3110^ also Je. 4932 f; 

multitude, 2 Ch. 1123 (corrupt v. in loco) 13' 1419 202 '2. is. 24 
32', also Dn. iii"- "• "• 12. 13 and freq. in Ez., but only excep- 
tionally in early prose. 

29. n kind, 2 Ch. i6», also Ps. i44'3. 13 f (also in B. Aram. Dn. 35- ?• 

10. 15 +■)_ 

30. mr * Hiph. rejects (= earlier Qal), i Ch. 28' 2 Ch. ii'< 2919 f. 

31. 1_>7 ^^ enraged 2 Ch. 26'9- 19 -|- (weaker in earlier usage). 

32. |->;5TD refined, i Ch. 28' « 29^ also Is. 25^ Ps. 12' f- 
33- nnj * come out, appear, of leprosy, 2 Ch. 26'9 f. 
34. nnanp * binders, joints, i Ch. 223 2 Ch. 34" t- 

35- ^r\} * Py' I Ch. i627 Ne. 8'°, Ezr. 6"! (Aram.) t (an Aram. word). 

36. c'-^p month numbered not named, i Ch. i2'5 272- 3 .4. 5. 7. s. 9. 10. u. 
12. 13 14. 15 2 Ch. 23 + 12 t. 2 Ch., Ezr. 3' + 10 t. Ezr., Ne. 7" 
82 "4, also I K. 1232. 33 Je. i3 Ez. and oft. in P. 

37' ^JP seer, i Ch. 2i9 (= 2 S. 24") 2929 2 Ch. 929 1215 ig2 2925 o^is. 19^ 
also 2 K. 1713 Is. 29"' 3010 (2S15 cf BDB.) Mi. 3? Am. 712, and 
applied to singers * i Ch. 25^ 2 Ch. 293" 3515 -j-. 

38. prnrn strengthen oneself, 2 Ch. i' i2'3 1321 158 (= take courage) 
17' 2i4 23' 25" 276 Ezr. 728 (= gain strength, also t S. 30" 2 S. 


3« I K. 20" Dn. lo's (= gain strength) f; sg. v.??' withstand, 2 
Ch. 137- ' t; 3i' 5g. hold strongly with, i Ch. ii'» 2 Ch. le^* 
also Dn. io=> f- (Use in earlier books, put forth strength, use 
one's strength.) 
39- ^P^]^ strength, of royal power, 2 Ch. i2t 26'8, also Dn. ii^ f. 

40. nSh * te sick, 2 Ch. i6'2 f (usually n'^n). 

41. D".'^nD * sickness, sufferings, 2 Ch. 242* f. 

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

and Levites, i Ch. 23^ 24' 26'- 12. 19 271- '• =• 2. 4. 4. 4. s. e. 7. s. 

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. U. 15 28'- 13. 21 2 Ch. 5" 8"- l< 23S 3l2- 2 16. 1«. 17 

35<- '" Ezr. 618 (Aram.) Ne. ii^e f. 
43« '!^'?n * ^oo£i works, pious acts, 2 Ch. 6" 32'' 3526 Ne. 13" f. 
44* ^^7^^^ trumpet, as sacred instrument for use by priests only, i Ch. 

138 1524. 28 166. 42 2 Ch. 512- 13 13I2. 14 2028 2926- 27. 28 Ezr. 310 

Ne. 1255. 41 also 2 K. 12" Ps. 98^ and Nu. lo^- «■ 9. lo ^^e (^11 
P) t; general use 2 K. iin n = 2 Ch. 2313 13 Ho. 5^ f; "'Xxn 
* Pi. and Hiph. sound a trumpet, i Ch. 15=^ 2 Ch. 512 u 76 
1314 2928 f. 

45. '''y? n3''t3n iriSx-i'-p according to the good hand of my God upon me, 

Ne. 28 Ezr. 79 Si' c/. Ne. 2I8; + nin^ Ezr. 728; om. njian, 
Ezr. 76. 

46. nn; Hiph. praise, of ritual worship, i Ch. 16^ '■ « 3<- 35. 41 2330 

253 2913 2 Ch. 513 73- 6 2022 312 Ezr. 311 Ne. iii' 1221 "^ also 
freq. in Ps. and rare in earlier writings v. No. 47; Hithp. 
give thanks, in ritual worship, 2 Ch. 3022 f ; confess 'Ezr. iqi 
Ne. 16 92- 3, also in P, H, and Dn. 
47» ^h'^} nmn thank and praise, i Ch. i6^ 2330 253 2 Ch. 513 312 
Ezr. 311 Ne. 122^ cf. i Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 76, v. Nos. 46, 27. 

48. D113 01"' * day by day (= earlier 01'' ai'), i Ch. 1222 2 Ch. 813 24" 3021 

Ezr. 3<- "• 69 (Aram.) Ne. 81s f. 

49. rmnn * be enrolled by genealogy, i Ch. 433 51. ?■ 17 75. 7. 9. 4o g\. 22 

2 Ch. 1215 31I6. 17. 18. 19 Ezr. 2" = Ne. 7" Ezr. 8i- ' Ne. 7* f. 
t'n- genealogy, Ne. 7^ f. 

50. nnSin generations, 1 Ch. 129 5? 72- 4. 9 828 qs 34 2631, also Ru. 4I8 

and freq. in P. 

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

52. B-r; * aged, decrepit, 2 Ch. 361' f (</• K"^';, «^-. Jb. 1212 1510 298 

32* t). 
53- ^'7.^. * footstool, 2 Ch. 918 1 {cf. NH., id., step, stair; Aram., a rude 

54. p?n 5e; up, prepare, i Ch. 932 1239 142 151 28? 2 Ch. 121 175 + 33 t. 

Ch., and Ezr. 33; esp. with 2":^ set the heart, i Ch. 29I8 2 Ch. 

1214 19- 2o33 3019 Ezr. 71". 


55. Dj: gatJier, Qal i Ch. 22= Ne. i2<< Ps. 33' Est. 4'^ Ec. 2^- 2^ 35 f. 

56. ;'JJ Niph. be humbled, humble oneself, i Ch. 20' 2 Ch. 7'^ i2« '■ '• 

12 1313 30" 32^6 3312- 19- 23. 23 2427. 27 3612 j^ also Lv. 26" (H) I S. 
7'3 etc.; Hiph. humble, subdue, i Ch. ly'" iS' (= 2 S. 80 2 Ch. 
28'9, also Ju. 423 Dt. 93 Is. 255 Jb. 40'= Ps. Si'^ lo;'^ f. 

57. n^sD * bowl, I Ch. 28"- ''■ "■ " i'- " Ezr. i'»- 1° 8^' f- 

58. VnipD * bemantled, i Ch. 15" f (</• B. Aram. N'j'an? Dn. 321)- 

59. S'D-\? * crimson, carmine, 2 Ch. 2^ '^ ^h^ possibly also Ct. 7" for 

Ssi3, f (a Persian loan-word). 

60. 3.7? vn-iling, i Ch. 2819 2 Ch. 2'" 35^ Ezr. 2«2 = Ne. 7" Ezr. 4', 

also Ez. 13S Dn. 10=1 Est. i" 312. u 4s gs. 9. 9. n 927 -j-. 

61. na^lDT onS of row5 of shew-bread only, i Ch. 9^2 23-=* Ne. lo^^ f; 

'rn jn'-c* i Ch. 2816 2 Ch. 29I8 f; '"• "^^lyo 2 Ch. 13" f; 
T>pn'D 2 Ch. 2' t; '2 Lv. 24«- ' (P) f- (Earlier form was 
D''J3n an':.) 

62. y;'-; * Hiph. /e^^, 2 Ch. 3616 -j- (c/. nH. Hiph. f(f., ©and ^ Ethpa. /J.). 

63. J>:^ Hiph. woc^, deride, always in bad sense, 2 Ch. 3o'<' Ne. 2'9 3^3, 

also Jb. 2i3 Ps. 228 Pr. iS' (for M, V^iT^\ cf. BDB.) f {cf. 
NH. id.). 

64. -i^cS.T * 5c/w/ar, I Ch. 258 t (late and NH.). 

65. nse;'? chamber, cell, of the rooms of the Temple, i Ch. g"^^- " 2328 

2812 2 Ch. 31" Ezr. 829 io'5 Ne. iqss- 39. 4o 134. 6. s. 9 |^ also oft. 
in Ez.; of room at high place i S. 9^2 and I's <S (accepted as 
original We., Dr., Klo., Bu.) f- The word is used in the sense 
of store-room only in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. Cf. ^p^h No. 77. 

66. T nSd consecrate, i Ch. 29= 2 Ch. 139 i633 2931, also Ez. 4326 Ex. 

28" 299- 29. 33. 35 3229 Lv. 833 1533 211 Nu. 33 (all P), and Ju. 
175 12 I K. 1333. 

67. maSa kingdom, sovereign power, i Ch. iii" + 27 t. Ch., Ezr. i« 

45. 6. 6 71 81 Ne. 935 1222, also 26 t. Est., 16 t. Dn., Ex. 4'S 5 t. Ps., 
3 t. Je., and elsewhere. (In earlier writings usually ^^'^pn or 

68. Sjp commit a trespass, 1 Ch. 2^ 525 iqis 2 Ch. 122 2616 ^ 28'9 22 

299 30' 36" Ezr. io2- '» Ne. i^ 13=7, also freq. in Ez. and P; 
•j^a trespass, i Ch. 9' io'3 2 Ch. 28'9 2919 3310 36^ Ezr. 92- * 
io«, also Dn. 9' Jb. 2i3^ and freq. in Ez. and P. 

69. NSD Niph. be present, i Ch. 29" 2 Ch. 5" 2929 3021 311 3432, 33 357. 

"• 13 Ezr. 825, also Est. i^ 4'6 and On. 1915 (J) i S. 1315- is 21^ f. 

70. aijnr, offer free-will-offerings,* i Ch. 295- e. 9. 9. n. n. n y^-^t. i« 

268 35 -j-; offer oneself, volunteer, 2 Ch. 171" Ne. 112, also Ju. ' 
52. 9 ■)-. {Cf. same in B. Aram. Ezr. 713- is. k- is •)-.) 

71. fjj sheath, i Ch. 212?, also Dn. 7'=- (Aram.) f (NH. id.; a Persian 



72. -ipn nipn hath extended loving-kinduess, Ezr. 728 9'. 

73. D>p3: riches, 2 Ch. i"- '=, also Jos. 228 (P), Ec. 5'8 6= t (prob. an 

Assy, or Aram, loan-word). 
74- r}'^h ri??^ oversee, overseer, i Ch. 152' 23^ 2 Ch. 2'- '' 34'= " 
Ezr. 3' ' I; also in the titles of 55 Pss. and in the title Hb. 3". 

75. 2p_i Niph. te expressed by name, i Ch. 1222 16" 2 Ch. 28'5 3119 Ezr. 

82", also Nu. I" (P) t- 

76. .srj take as wife (usually with S), i Ch. 23" 2 Ch. ii='- -^ (.v.in/oca) 

13=' 243 Ezr. g-- '2 10" Ne. 13", also Ru. i^. A late usage. 

77. nrtt'j * chamber (a rare parallel of ^"v'7 5. i'. No. 65), Ne. 3=° 

12-'* 13" t- 

78. *;• i; jp: * submit, yield to, 2 Ch. 30^ f; rnn t\ p3 id., i Ch. 292*; 

N'Xin'7 oy^ ]^]give their pledge to send away, Ezr. 10"; h 3^7 j.-^j 
5^/ ;/;e /icar/ to do a thing, i Ch. 22" 2 Ch. ii'^, also Dn. lo'^ 
Ec. i'3- n 721 8'- •« f. 

79. r:-yr: * Nethiiiim, i Ch. 92 Ezr. 2^3. ss. 70 = Ne. 7". eo. -2 g^^. 

7V. 21 (Aram.) S"- 20. 20 JSfg. 326. 31 ^Qii jjS. 21 -[-_ 

80. Top * enumeration, census, 2 Ch. 2'6 -j-. 

81. nnoj." service of God, i Ch. 6i' ^^ gu. is. 28 2321. 26. 2s. 23. 32 243- is 

251- '• 6 268 2813- 13. 14. 14. 16. 20. 21. 21 29? 2 Ch. 8^ 128 24I2 29^5 

31-- '^- -' 35-- '"• '^- '* Ne. io33 f, also oft. in Ez. and P. 

82. Sip i';vn7 proclaim, 2 Ch. 30^ 3622 = Ezr. i', Ezr. lo^ Ne. 8'% 

also Ex. 366 (P) f. 
83- "*■!> * help, I Ch. 12^^- 2' t (text dub., r/. textual notes; if correct 
Aram, loan-word). 

84. -\}V help of divine assistance, i Ch. i2'8 1526 2 Ch. i4>'' '» iS^' 258 

26' 328, also freq. in Ps., less freq. in earlier books; Niph. i Ch. 
520 2 Ch. 2615. 

85. TSy next to (in a series), 2 Ch. 1715- le- 18 3115 Ne. 32- 2 -}- 13 t. 

Ne. 3, 1313, esp. late. 

86. T^-S^, ^y-^V_ according to the guidance of, i Ch. 252 = s. e. e 2 Ch. 

2318 2613 2927 Ezr. 3'°, also Je. s^' 3313. 
87- ^'7"?'? * exceedingly, i Ch. 142 22^ 23" 293- 25 2 Ch. i' 1612 1712 20" 
268 f. 

88. i?y rise (for earlier Dip), i Ch. 20< 211 2 Ch. 2023 Ezr. 2" = Ne. 

7« Ne. 85, also Est. 4" and freq. in Dn. 

89. I'^VT" appoint, institute, establish (in earlier books station), i Ch. 

616 1516. 17 16" (= Ps. 105")) 17" 222 2 Ch. 814 98 „i5. 22 195. 8 
2o2i 2413 (f/. Ezr. 2«8) 255- n 305 312 338 352 Ezr. 38 Ne. 4' f 73 
io33 1231 I ^11. 30^ also Dn. ii"- '3- '4; make a stand (in a covenant), 
2 Ch. 3432. 

90. ■^'^y Sy ipy stand on standing-place, 2 Ch. 30I6 3431 3510 Ne. 131", 

Dn. 8'8 iQii -f-; with cip for t?V Ne. 93 f ; no verb Ne. 8- f. 


91. nii^.ifn 'Di' * peoples of the latids, 2 Ch. 13" 321- »' ('^"^ 'rO 

Ezr 3' 91 2. u N,^ ^30 ;o2d, r -NTo ''' 

92. n3 -\x;- possess power, be able, i Ch. 29'^ 2 Ch 2^ i^"" 22', also Dn. 

108. 16 116 -j-; om. nr 2 Ch. 1411 20" t- 

93. 3;ii:n u-ei^, i Ch. 7" i2>« 2616- 's. so 2 Ch. 323" 1,1,^^ also Is. 47= 45' 

59's Dn. S^ Ps. 75' 103'- 107' and /u. 20" (corrected text, cf. 
Moore, Ju.) f. 

94. TiaDi ir; r/t7;e5 a«t/ hoiwur, i Ch. 29'= ^s 2 Ch. i'- >2 17* 18' 32=', 

also I K. 3'3, Pr. 3I6 S's Ec. 6^ f- 

95. p'.-iy * ancient, i Ch. 422 f (an Aramaism, cf. Dn. 79- '3- =2). 

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

197 20-9 (2^^'?x ins) f (elsewhere 'Ui '733). 

97. ^3■) * set free from duty, i Ch. 9" 2 Ch. 23^ f. 

98. 13"'? * some sort of open portico, i Ch. 26"= '" j (probably Persian 

loan-word; cf. D^-inp 2 K. 23"). 

99. r\-;t-Q-z * hip or buttock, i Ch. 19^ (2 S. 10^ oninirr) f. 

lOO. D:n'?X3 * cymbals, 1 Ch. 138 is'"- 's- =» i65- 42 251- ^ 2 Ch. s'2- '^ 

2925 Ezr. 31" Ne. 122' f- 
ioi. 1>DS he-goat, 2 Ch. 2921 Ezr. 61' (Aram.) 8'=, also Dn. 8^ s. s. 21 -j-. 

102. l"ii * need, 2 Ch. 2'^ f (Aram. word). 

103. '^5P receive, take, accept, i Ch. 12'^ 21" 2 Ch. 29'6- 22 Ezr. 8", also 

Pr. 192° Jb. 2'° 1" Est. 4^ 923 27 f (a common Aram, word, cf. 
Dn. 26 6> 7's t). 

104. nus 'rs-j /2eaJ5 of fathers' (houses), i Ch. 711 S^- lo- i3. 28 qq. 33. 34 

1512 239- 21 245- 31 2621- 26. 32 27I 2 Ch. l2 198 232 2612 Ezr. l5 2" 

312 42. 3 gi ioi= Ne. 7"- 70 8'3 II" i2'2 22. 23^ also Ex. 625 Nu. 3126 
3228 36'- ' Jos. 14' 19^1 21' ' (all P) t; the phrase wita ro 
expressed i Ch. s'^- 24. 21 72. 7. 9. 4o g,i3 241, also Ex. 6'< Nu. i* 
72 i7'8 25"" Jos. 22'^; tr'NT (alone in same sense) i Ch. 57- '2 
7' 828 _|_ and (appar. combined with the idea oi first in a series) 

278. 11. 19. 20_ 

105. ai'^ abundantly, 1 Ch. 4^8 12" 223- s- <■ s. 8. h. is 292. 21 2 Ch. i'^ = 

927 (= I K. 1027) 28 418 91. 9 ii23 14I4 159 168 lyS ig'- 2 2025 241'- 24 

273 293s 3o5- 13- 24 316 325- 29 Ne. 92^, also Zc. 14". 

106. 131., NUT tew thousand, myriad, 1 Ch. 297 7 Ezr. 2" = JNe. 7^6 

Ezr. 2" Ne. 770 71^ also Ps. 68'8 Dn. ii" Ho. 8'2 Jon. 4" f- 

107. tt'i3i property, goods, i Ch. 2731 28' 2 Ch. 202^ 21''' >7 353 3229 35' 

Ezr. i^- « 821 iqs, also Dn. 11 '3 24. 28^ and Gn. 126 i3« 3i'8 36? 
46« Nu. i632 353 (all P), and Gn. 14" 12. 16 le. 21 igi4 -j-. 

108. 'J'^") 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.) ■\. 

109. n'i'vij nnnt' great joy, i Ch. 29' 2 Ch. 3025 Ezr. 3''- " 622 Ne. 8" 

I2'3, a common expression of the Ciiiunicler. 



no. It;" * prince, chkj, tuler, ui religious office, i5-'- -• "■'' 2^^- ^ 2 
Ch. 35' cf. I Ch. 155 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 (Is. 4328 corrupt), aud esp. 
OVr*-^ 'T-^* * chiefs of the priests, 2 Ch. 36H Ezr. S^^- " iqs f. 

111. i?;r-: * 5/«^er, i Ch. 6" 9" + 11 t. Ch., Ezr. 2"- «. 70 = Ng. 

744. 67. 72 E2r. 7' io2< Ne. 7' + 12 t. Ne. f- 

112. na^nr * act of slaying, 2 Ch. 30'" f- 

113. n^r * Niph. 6c negligent, 2 Ch. 29" f- 

114. rhz! weapon, 2 Ch. 23'" 32* Ne. 4'i- '?, also Jb. 33i« 36'^ Jo. 2' t; 

sprout Ct. 4'^. 

115. ^JV~^' /i^a'' ?«e (beginning a speech), t Ch. 282 2 Ch. 13' 15' 

20-0 28" 29* t; <■/• Gn. 236 (hear us), w.'- "■ " '^ (all P). 

116. a^^;"''"^;' * gate-keepers, of Temple, etc., a sacred function, i Ch. 

9'" + 19 t. Ch., Ezr. 2"- '0 = Ne. 7"- " Ezr. ^^ id^* Ne. 7' + 7 t. 
Ne. (also 2 S. 18=^ but corrupt for '^"J'^} and 2 K. 7"°- " but of 
secular function). 

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

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

an awkward reading; a the subject omitted (where earlier 
writers would not venture to do so), i Ch. 9^^'' 2 Ch. iS^ ^'"' 
(i K. 22^ otherwise) 19^'' 35-'; b expressed without a verb, 
I Ch. 1513* 2 Ch. ii^^b (?) 15' i6i=- 'S''- b 2ii5 26i8'> 28"'' 29' 
3c' '"b. Cf. Ew. Syn. § 303 b. 

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

g^ 233' 2 Ch. 33 24'4 {cf. Ezr. 31') ^t,^^ Ezr. i" Ne. 12'^. Cf. 
Ew. Lehrb. § 236 a. 

IIQ. The art. n for the relative (derived from its demonstrative use), 
I Ch. 2628 298- " 2 Ch. i« (r?.\i?) 293* Ezr. 8=5 lo'* '". This 
use is very doubtful in early writings, viz. in Jos. 10=' i S. 9^' 
{cf. Dr. Notes on Sam.). Cf. Ew. Sy7i. § 331 b, 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. 9-'' 12=' i5>='' 29' (but v. in loco) 3i> 2 Ch. 13^ 
(</• Je- 50 14'° {cf. Is. 40") 15" i69 20" 2411 289 29=' 3o'8'>-i9a 
3i>"> Ezr. i5- 6 Ne. S'" 13=3. Cf. Ew. Syn. § 333 b, Ges. § 

l?i. np in two strange idioms is almost equivalent to the relative 
what, I Ch. i5'3 (nrrNiac'?) 2 Ch. 30^ (nc'?) f. See textual 
note= on these pf'^sagjes. 

i22. The relative r combined with the prep. 3, i en. 25' (v. i« /<)«) 


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

I Ch. 75- 7- "■ " etc., also No. 91 above. Cf. Zunz, Gottesd. 
Vortrdge, p. 23. 

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

all considered distributively, i.e. every, as "ijjb'i i;^;', ^^ny1 ^^^^J?, 
-i^yi -iv, 01^1 D^S I Ch. 26" 28'<- '^ 2 Ch. 8'^ ii>= 19^ 28^5 
3i'9 322s 3413 3515 Ezr. 10" Ne. 13=', also Est. i^- 22- 22 g"- 12 3^- 

12. 12. 12. 12. 14 43 89- 9- 11. 13. 17. 17 q21 . 27. 28 Pg. 45I8 87^ IJ^^^^. 

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, "'nM was prefixed), i Ch. 21^' 2 Ch. 

rl3 ^I J 2?. 12 I [-8 202"- 22. 23 22'' 24'''- 22b. 25 261^- 1''' 202'- 29 oil. 5 

33'2 34H Ezr. 91- 3- 5 iqi, also Est. 91- 2 Dn. S^t. is lost. nb. 15. i9b 
ii2. 4 ij^b. 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* C7'i.?:'V) 255 2 Ch. 5" 223b 2519 (2 K. 141° otherwise) 
3619 e»'i Ezr. 3 12. 

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

127. ^ ly a strengthened form of "ly (in earlier writings either alone 

would serve); before a subst. i Ch. 4^9 12^'- "' 232^ 28? 2 Ch. 
1412 i6i2- 11 1712 268- 15 289 293" 3ii» 361s Ezr. 313 g*- « loi-i f; 
before an inf. i Ch. 59 13^ 2820 2 Ch. 241° 268- 's 2928 311 
3224 (2 K. 20' h alone) Ezr. lo", also Jos. 13^ Ju. 3' i K. 

l829 f. 

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

verbs (contrary to earlier usage), lyn-; frequently, hbn only in 
Ch.-Ezr., Pin i Ch. 262' 2912, 1^2 i Ch. 2920 Ne. 112, Tin 2 Ch. 
32I', also I Ch. 16" 186 251 2922- 22 2 Ch. 5" 6" 177 245 3413 
Ezr. 8i'5; b at the end of an enumeration, i Ch. 28^^ 2 Ch. 
2412b 2614'' 2823; c marking the definite object after an indefinite 
I Ch. 2918 2 Ch. 212 23'; d after the sufifix of a verb (as in 
Syriac) r Ch. 52^ 236 2 Ch. 255- 'o 2815, cf. Ne. 932; e defining 
the suffix of a noun i Ch. f 2 Ch. 3116- is Ezr. 91 iqI'. Cf. 
Ges. § 117H. 

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

frcq. in earlier writings), i Ch. 63^ 925 ioi3 22^ 2 Ch. 2^ 8'3 1122 
192 265 3121 3619 Ne. 8i3b; esp. after t'!* or nS it is not possible 
{permitted) to, there is no need to, '^ |vv' i Ch. 2326 2 Ch. 5" 
20« 229 3515 Ezr. gi5^ S N^ I Ch. 5' 152 2 Ch. i2'2Ezr. 6^ (Aram.) 
Cf. Dav. Syn. § 95 b Ges. § 114/, Dr. TH. §§ 202-206. 


130. ^3*7 as regards all, thai is all (in adding a summary or a further 

specification), i Ch. 13' 2 Ch. 5'= 25' 28'^ 3i'« ^7," (so also 2 K. 
21') Ezr. i'', also freq. in P. Cf. Ew. Syn. § 310 a. Also '^ of 
"introduction," i Ch. 5= 7' 28'"''- =' 29«i> 2 Ch. 7-' (7 wanting in 
I K. 9') Ezr. 728. 

131. iDi'3 01''— >3i.7 (ii omitted in earlier language, cf. Ex. 5'-'), i Ch. 

16" 2 Ch. 8'< 31'= t- 

132. px*^ * without or so that not, i Ch. 22^ 2 Ch. 14'= 20^5 21'* 36'« 

Ezr. 9" t- 

133. ^"^"^ * without, 2 Ch. 15'- 3 3 -j-. 
134- ^.?T> * 2 Ch. ii'2 168 Ne. s'8 1- 

135. Si^.T a5 concerning, 2 Ch. 32'^, also Ps. 119" (used differently in 

Is. 59'8 63O t- 

136, 3 of accompaniment (without a verb), i Ch. 15" =" 21. 22 j^s 

256* 2 Ch. 5'2» 76 1310 35" Ezr. 



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 of 
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 '», 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 {v. p. 19). These older books, however, must be 
used with extreme caution for the purpose of emending the text of 
Chronicles, since many changes are due to the intention of the 
Chronicler. The text of the older books was already in a corrupt 
state when the Chronicler used them as sources. Frequently he 
made changes in the interest of better sense, doing the best he could 
with a difScult or corrupt reading, and often he simply incorpo- 
rated from his source an early corruption. The task of the textual 
critic of Chronicles is not to restore the original source reading of 
a given passage, but only to rewrite the text as nearly as possible as 
it came from the hand of the Chronicler. The failure to observe 
this principle has often caused confusion. 

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

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


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, 1901-2), 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 ff.). He maintains that i Esd. represents 
the only extant remains of the real Septuagint of Ch.-Ezr.-Nc., 
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 {ATC. 
pp. 60 ff.). (i) Theodotion's habit of transliterating words of 
difhcult 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. (Ani. 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 aiitlwritative Septuagint version. In Ant. xi. i, i. KOpo? 6 
^acn\ev<i Xeyec 'Eirec fie 6 6eo<; 6 fie'ryiaro'i rr)? otKOv/xevri^ 
airehei^e jBacrikea^ . . . top vaov avrov otKoSofirjaco iv 
l€po(To\v/xoL<i iv TTj 'lovBuia X^P^ follows closely the text of 
I Esd. 22'- but cf. 2 Esd. i=, which we should e.xpect Josephus 
to prefer. .So also Aut. xi. 2, 2 ^aaiXevf; Ka/x^vcrr]'? 'Va6vfi(p 
TM <ypd<^ovTi ra irpooTrLirrovra koX BeeX^e/x&> Kai "EefxeXio) 
ypa/xfxarel kuI roi? \oi7rol<; rot? avPTaaao/xevoa Kal 
oUovaiv iv "Lafxapeia Kal ^olvlkt] rdSe Xeyei 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 
€u\oyriT6<; 6 ^eo? 0? rov ovpavov Kal rrjv yr^v eKTiaev, 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 (r. 125 a.d.) i Ch. 15" 25'^ 29", and a larger number from 
that of Symmachus (c. 200 a.d.) i Ch. 5" 9' ii^ 1527 21'" 25'-3 26== 
2 Ch. 12' 15' 19" 23" 26^ 30= 31" 32^ ;^T,^ 34", but these are not ex- 
tensive enough to be of much value. For the criticism of 2 Ch. 
35-36 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. Schiir. GescJiJ III. pp. 351 /.). 

Both the old Septuagint (i Esd.) and Theodotion are availabb 
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 Lihrorum 
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. 
^rC. 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 cj. 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, dittographics 
are only too common, and omissions by homoeoteleuton arc 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 (S and the Septuagint (in 2 Ch. 35-36) as (8 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 ((§*). 

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- 
orum sacrorum Latince versiones antiquce, vol. L 1741) collected 
from these and ms. sources the ancient Latin version of the fol- 
lowing passages: i Ch. i" 2"- "■ "i^ n^ i2'8- ^S" lyn.u 218- nb. 12. 

13. 17 22''"'' 28' 2 Ch 5'"''''^^ II^''' ^''- 12b-16a jr2 jg7b-9. 12 j-^S-Ta. 
eb-12a jQ2b-ll 20'^'^' ^^ ' 36-37 2l'^- " " • 24*°'' 2'^"'' *' '^-l^. 20. 27 26'^''"" 


29= 32=^" =«" ^;^'\ These excerpts, however, must be compared 
v.ith more recent editions of the Latin fathers before thcv 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 ^ladrid 
iMS. 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 modem influenced by ]Massoretic 

The Syriac Versions. — The first Syriac translation of Chron- 
icles is now a part of the Peshito, but originally Chronicles was not 
received into the Syriac Canon. Indeed, when the book was sub- 
sequently translated it did not meet with general acceptance. This 
Syriac version seems to have been the work of Jews of Edessa. 
While in most Old Testament books the Peshito follows the He- 
brew text faithfully and even literally, with here and there extensive 
influence from the Septuagint, Chronicles stands alone as the trans- 
lation of a mere Jewish Targum and exhibits all the faults which 
might be expected from such origin. One of its most striking 
characteristics is found in the fact that the text has very frequently 
been conformed to the text of Samuel and Kings. This is even 
true of extended passages, as where i K. 12"-^" followed by i K. 
14'-' are substituted for 2 Ch. 1 1^-12 '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 hi 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. iS'jg, pp. s^^ff- 

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 Nationalc. Recently 
W. E. Barnes has published the variant readings of the Mss. avail- 
able to-day, and of the printed editions {An Apparatus Criticus to 
Chronicles in the Peshitta Version, 1897). Walton's edition cor- 
rected by this apparatus furnishes a good Peshito text. 

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

The Arabic Version. — The Arabic version of Chronicles is 
available in printed form in the Paris and London Polyglots {v. s.), 
but is of little or no critical value. It is far removed from the orig- 
inal Hebrew, and as a translation of the Peshito text (r/. 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 Egyptian 
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 te.xt and possesses little critical 
value. The text was first published by ^Matthias Friedrich Beck 
from an Erfurt ms. in 1680 and 1683. Later (1715) David Wilkins 
published the Aramaic text from a ms. in the Cambridge Library 
* with a parallel Latin translation (Paraphrasis Chaldaica in Libriim 
priorem et posteriorem Chronicorum). It was also published by 
Lagarde in his Hagiographa Chaldaice, Leipzig, 1873. For a full 
discussion see Kohler and Rosenberg, Das Targum der Chronik, 
in Jud. Zeitschrift, 1870, pp. 72/., 135/., 263/. 


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 (/£. IV. p. 60; 
R. Simon, Hist. Crit. dii V. Test. I. IV.). Jerome, on the other 
hand, was extravagant in their valuation, declaring, "He who 
thinks himself acquainted with the sacred writings and does not 
know these books only deceives himself" (Epist. ad Paulinum de 
Studio Scripturarum). And again, "All knowledge of the Scrip- 
ture is contained in these books" {Praf. in libr. Paralip., Epist. 
ad 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. Tlieol. 
Politki, cc. ix. and x.) 

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


20^0, 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. 2^-^ 27' 28" 35-' 36') and the Book of the 
Kings of Israel (2 Ch. 20=^) were secondary works; the last two 
being one and the same work and identical with the Book of the 
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah cited in i and 2 K. (Einl.^ ii. 595). 
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 Einleilung, 1S06). 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 commion 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 Clironicler 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 Eichhorn in regara to 
sources and defended the trustworthiness of i and 2 Ch. through- 
out. Even upon those of a freer tendency, De Wette's work made 
less of an impression than might have been expected. Bertholet, 
who was willing to accept De Wette's low estimate of the historical 
worth of Chronicles {Einl. III. p. 983), argued in behalf of the use 
of common sources by the writers of Kings and Chronicles. 
Ewald also, who had a clear conception of the general character of 
the books, still in his history used them as a source of information 
very nearly upon a par with the other Old Testament books. The 
view in general was that the Chronicler, while often introducing the 
notions of his own age, yet carefully followed his sources, which, 
though more free and homiletic than the older canonical books in 
their treatment of history, yet were scarcely inferior as records of 
history — though when the two could not be reconciled the former 
were to be received as of greater authority. (C/. Bertheau's treat- 
ment throughout his commentary, 1854, 1873; Dillmann, PRE. 
II. p. 694, 1854, PRE.' p. 224, 1878.) 

De Wette's work was answered twelve years later in a small treatise 
by J. G. Dahler {De Librorum Paralipomenon Auctoritate atque Fide 
Hislorica Argentorati, 18 19). Each alleged discrepancy, taken up in 
order from the beginning of i Ch. and through the two books, was 
examined by itself and explained away or harmonised; and the author 
concluded concerning the Chronicler: "Absolvendum eum esse ah islis in- 
just is criminatioiiibus, et fidemejushisloricam, puram esse atque inte gram." 
Dahler, as most of the apologists who followed him, overlooked the fact 
that the judgment of a work must be determined by the impression made 
by its phenomena grouped as a whole and that phenomena taken singly 
can ordinarily be explained away. It had been the great merit of De 
Wette's treatise that he "shaped the superabundant material to convey 
the right impression." 

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

In 1833, C. F. Keil published his apology for Chronicles — Apologetischer 
Versuch iiber die Bucher der Chronik und iiber die Integretdt 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 1S34 appeared Kritische Untersuchiing 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. (1S66). Graf examined the 
narratives of Chronicles in the light of those of the canonical books, and 
his conclusions were similar to De Welte's respecting the work as a tend- 
ency writing largely unhistorical in character. He differed from Movers, 
holding that the Chronicler was not a mere copyist and that to him as 
an independent writer belonged the characteristics of his work and not 
to a Midrashic source. On the other hand, he rejected the notion that 
he had no other sources than the canonical books and allowed historical 
reminiscences in his new material. The next most fruitful discussion 
of our problem is Wellhausen's brilliant chapter on Chronicles in his 
Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels {iS,-?>, 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 W2 
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, aiDinji ovn^dj min (1894), pp. 1676- 
1808 (text based upon the Boniberg Bible of 1524-5, with variant read- 
ings in the foot-notes); R. Kittel, The Books of Chronicles in Hebrew 
(1895) (in Haupt's Sacred Books of the OT.) (the unpointed text, with 
critical notes trans, by B. W. Bacon); R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, II. 
(1906) pp. 1222-1320 (text with foot-notes citing variants in MSS., Vrss., 
and Bibl. sources). 

Translations and Commentaries. — Hieronymus (d. 420), Quaes- 
tiones Hebraicce in Paralipomeua in appendix to vol. III. of his works 
(pub. in Migne's Palrologia Latino, vol. 23, coll. 1365-1402); Theodoret, 
Bishop of Cyrus (ist half of 5th cent.), Quaestiones in Paralipomena 
(pub. in Migne's Patrologia Graca, vol. 80, coll. 801-5S); Procopius 
Gazasus (ist half of 6th cent.), Commentarii in Paralipomena (pub. in 
Migne's Palrologia Grceca, vol. 87, part I. coll. 1201-20); Rabanus 
Maurus (c. 776-856), Commentaria in libros duos Paralipomenon (pub. 
in Migne's Patrologia Latiiia, vol. 109, coll. 279-540); David Kimhi 
(1160-1235) (Kimhi's commentary on Ch. was pub. in the Rabbinic 
Bible of 1547 and elsewhere); Levi ben Gerson (i 288-1344) wrote com. 
on Ch. (Rich. Simon, Hist. Crit. p. 28); Alphonsus Tostatus (Tostado), 
Comment, (on hist, books of the Bible, 1507); R. Joseph fil. David 
Aben Jechija {Comment, in Hagiogr. 1538) (Carpzov); R. Isaac bar R. 
Salomo Jabez {Hagiogr. Constantinople) (Carpzov); Basil. Zanchius, 
In omnes divinos libros notationes (1553); Erasmus Sarcerius (1560) 
(Carpzov); Vict. Strigel, Libb. Sam., Reg., et Paralipom. (1591); Lud. 
Lavater, Comm. in Paralip. (1599); Sebastian. Leonhardus (1613) 
(Carpzov); Nic. 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- i7S~89); Arthur Jackson, Help for the Under sta7iding 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. histories sacrcs V. T. vol. II. (1662); D. Brenius, 
Annot. Parol, (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, .4 Commentary upon the Historical Books 
of the OT. (1694; Ch. in new edition, vol. II. (1842) pp. 464-618); Jo. 



Clericus, Commentarius in Vetus Test. vol. II. (1708) pp. 519-640; 
Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Historical Books of tlie O. T. (Ch. 
in vol. II. 1708); H. B. Slarck, Notce sel. critt. philoU. exegg. in loca 
dubia ac difficiliora Pent., . . . Chron., . . . (1714); J- H. Michaelis 
and Rambach, Anttott. in Paral. (1720) (in Uberiores Adnotationes in 
Libros Hagiographos V. T., J. H. Mich, wrote on i Ch. and Rambach 
on 2 Ch.); S. J. Mauschberger. Comm. in LL. Paralip. . . . (1758); 
J. D. Michaelis, Uebersetzung des AT. mil Anmerkk.fur Ungelehrte, vol. 
XII. (1785) pp. 151-310 (the trans.) and pp. 171-304 of app. (notes); 
A. Calmet, Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libros Testamenti, vol. IV. 
(1791) pp. 512-S27; Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible (Ch. in vol. II. 
1821); F. J, V. Maurer, Commentarius Grammaticus Criticus in 
Vetus Testamentum, vol. I. (1835) pp. 232-44; J. Benson, The Holy 
Bible with Critical, Explanatory and Practical Notes (Ch. in vol. II. 
1850, pp. 233-38S); Chr. Wordsworth, Kings, Chronicles, etc.^ (1868) 
(vol. III. of The Holy Bible with Notes and Introductions); C. F. Kail, 
BUcher der Chronik (1870) (in Biblischer Kommentar iiber d. .AT. Eng. 
trans, by Andrew Harper, 1872); B. Neteler, Die Biicher der biblischen 
Chronik (1872); E. Bertheau, Bucher der Chronik"- (1873) (in Kurzgef. 
Exeget. Handbuch zum AT.); George Ravk'linson, 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. Micller); C. J. 
Ball, in Bishop Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (1883); P. C. 
Baker, /. and II. Chronicles (in The Pulpit Commentary of Spence and 
Exell), 2 vols. (1884); S. Oettli, Bucher der Chronik (1889) {in Kurzgef 
Exeget. Kommentar z. AT.); M. J. Tedeschi and S. D. Luzzatto, Com- 
mentar zu den BB. Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah und Chronik (1S90); J. 
Robertson, in Book by Book (1892), pp. 111-19; W. H. Bennett, The 
Books of Chronicles (1894) (in The Expositor's Bible); E. Kautzsch, 
Die Heilige Schrift des Alien Testaments (1894), translation, pp. 936- 
1012, critical notes in supplement, pp. 91-9S; R. G. ISIoulton, Chroni- 
cles (1897) (The Modern Reader's Bible); W. E. Barnes, The Book 
of Chronicles (1900) (Cambridge Bible); I. Benzinger, Die Biicher der 
Chronik (1901) (in Kiirzer Hand-Commentar z. AT.); A. Hughes- 
Games, The Books of Chronicles (1902) (Temple Bible); R. Kittel, 
Die Biicher der Chronik (1902) (in Handkommentar z. AT.); R. de 
Hummelauer, Comment, in Librum I Paralipom. (1905); W. R. Harvey- 
Jellie, Chronicles (1906) (The Century Bible). 

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


Part I. pp. 279-303; J. G. Eichhorn, Einl.^ II. (1803) pp. 579-601; 
W. M. L. de Wette, Kritischcr Versuch ilber die Glaubenswiirdigichkeit 
dcr Biicher der Chronik (1806) {BeUrdge ziir Einl. in d. AT. vol. I.); 
L. Bertholdt, Einl, Part 3 (1813), pp. 963-91; J- G. Dahlcr, De 
librorum Paralipom. auctoritate atque fide historica (1819); C. P. W. 
Gramberg, Die CJironik nach ihrem geschiclUlichen Charakter tind ihrer 
Glaubwiirdigkeit neii gepriift (1823); C. P. W. Gramberg, de geloofwaar- 
digheid en het belang van de Chron. voor de Bijb. Gescli. (1830); Die 
Biicher der Chronik. Ihr Verhdltniss zii den Biichern Samuels und der 
Konige; Hire Glaubwiirdigkeit, und die Zeii ihrer Ab/assung, in Thcolo- 
gische Quartalschrift (Tubingen, 183 1), pp. 201-82; C. F. Keil, Apolo- 
getischer Versuch ilber die Chronik (1833); F. C. Movers, Kritische 
Untersuchungen ilber die biblische Chronik (1834); W. M. L. de Wette, 
Einleitung in d. AT.'' I. (1S52) pp. 237-259; T. H. Home, Introduction 
to tlie Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures^o (1856), vol. II. pp. 673-688; 
K. H. Graf, Die Gefangenschaft und Bekehrung Manasse's, 2 Chr. 33, 
in Theologische Studien und Kriliken (1859), pp. 467-94; J. Bleek, 
Einl. (i860) pp. 371-401 (4th ed. 1S78, Eng. trans, from 2nd ed. 1869); 
Gerlach, Die Gefangenschaft und Bekehrung Manasse's, in Theol. 
Studien u. Kritiken (1861), pp. 503-24; W. H. Green, Date of Books of 
Chronicles, in Princeton Review, XXXV. (1863) p. 499; K. H. Graf, 
Die GeschiclUlichen Biicher d. AT. (1866) pp. 114-247; Abr. Rahmer, 
Ein Lateinischer Commentar aus deni 9. Jahrhund. z. d. Biichern d. 
Chronik kritisch verglichen mil d. Judischen Quellen (1866); De Wette- 
Schr. Einl. (1869) §§ 224-33; H. Ewald, History of Israel,'^ I. (1869) 
pp. i6g ff.; Kohler and Rosenberg, Das Targum der Chronik, in Jiid. 
Zeitschrift (1870), pp. 72/., 135/., 263/.; J. Wellhausen, De Gentibus 
et Familiis Judceis qucB 1 Chr. 2. 4. enumerantur (1870); C. F. Keil, 
£/«/.' (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 and the Corresponding Parts of Chronicles 
(18S1); Frz. Delitzsch, The Book of the Chronicles, in Sunday School 
Times (1S83), Nov. 24, pp. 739/.; G. T. Ladd, The Doctrine of Sacred 
Scripture (1883), I. pp. 108/., 373 f., 546 f., 686/.; E. Schrader, COT. 
[1883] (1888) II. pp. 52-59; J, Wellhausen, Prolegomena (1883), pp. 
176-237, Eng. trans. (1885) pp. 171-227; J. L. Bigger, The Battle 
Address of Abijah, 2 Chr. 13: 4-12, in OT. Student, vol. 3 (1883-4), 
pp. 6-16; F. Brown, The Books of Chronicles with Reference to the 
Books of Samuel, in Andover Review, I. (1884) pp. 405-26; Miihling, 
Neue Untersuchungen ilber die Genealogien der Chronik r, 1-9, und 
deren Verhdltniss zum Zweck dieses Buches, in Thenlog. Quartalschrift 
(1884), pp. 403-50; W. H. BTOwn, The OT. Explained, Giving the Key 
to the Harmony of the OT. Writings, and espec. the Books of K., Ch., etc. 
(1885); Cornely, Hist, et crit. Introductio in V. T. libros sacros Compen- 



dium, II. I (1887), pp. 311/; A. Kuenen, Onderzoek^ I. (1887) pp. 
433-520, German trans., Einl. part I, div. 2 (1890), pp. 103-89; 
M. S. Terry, Chronicles and tlie Mosaic Legislation (1888), in Essays on 
Penlateuchal Criticism (edited by T. W. Chambers, and republished 
under title Moses and his Recent Critics, 1889), pp. 213-45; E. Alker, 
Die Chronologic der Bilcher Konige und Paralipomenon . . . (1889); 
B. Stade, Geschr- (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 Baches 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, OTJCr- (1892) pp. 
14/., 182/.; H. Winckler, Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (1892), 
pp. 157-67 {Bemerkungen z. chronik als geschichtsquelle); A. C. Hervey, 
The Book of Chronicles in Relation to the Pentateuch (1S93); H. H. 
Hovvorth, The True Septuagint Version of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, in 
The Academy (1893), vol. 44, pp. 73/.; E. Konig, Einl. (1893) § 54; 
W. Sanday, Inspiraiion (1893) (Bampton Lectures), pp. 102, 244, 253/., 
39S, 443, 455 ; H. Varley, The Infallible Word . . . the Historical 
Accuracy of the Books of Kings and Chronicles (1893); R. B. Girdlestone, 
Deuterographs, Duplicate Passages in the OT., their bearing on the Text 
and Compilation, etc. (1894); T. F. Wright, Chronicles, in New Church 
Review, I. (1894) pp. 455-6; W. Bacher, Der Name der Bilcher der 
Chronik in der Septuaginta in Z.A.W. vol. 15 (1S95), 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. i479/-; 
S. Krauss, Bibl. Volkertafel in Talmud. Midrasch und Targum, in 
Monatsschrift fur Geschichte u. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, vol. 39 
(1895) pp. i-ii, 49-63; G. Wildeboer, Lit. d. AT. (1895), pp. 404-420; 
W. E. Barnes, The Midrashic Element in Chronicles, in Exp. 5th series, 
vol. 4 (1896), pp. 426-39; G. B. Gray, HPN. (1896) pp. 170-242; 
W. E. Barnes, Tlie Religious Standpoint of tJie 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 



Versiofi (1897); W. D. Crockett, A Harmony of the Books of Samtiel, 
Kings and Chronicles, in the Text of the Version of 1884 (1897); W. E. 
Barnes, Errors in Chronicles, in Expos. T. IX. (1897-8) p. 521; John F. 
Stenning, Chronicles in the Pesliitta, in Expos. T. IX. (1897-8) pp. 45-7; 
W. Bacher, Zii I. Chron. 7 : 12, in ZAW. vol. 18 (1898), pp. 236-8; 
F. Brown, Chronicles I. and II., in DB. I. (1898) pp. 389-397; A. 
Klostermann, Die Chronik, in PRE.^ III. (1898) pp. 85-98; Schurer, 
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 atid 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 Biicher 
Paralipom. nach der dltesten. Armen. Uebers., etc. (1899); Hope W. 
Hogg, The Genealogy of Benjatnin; a Criticism of I. Chron. VIII., in 
JQR. XI. (1899) pp. 102-14; A. van Hoonacker, Le Sacerdoce Levitique 
dans la Loi et dans I'Histoire (1S99), pp. 21-116 {Les pretres et les 
levites dans le livre des Chroniques) ; E. Kautzsch, The Literature of the 
OT. (1899) pp. 121-8 (trans., with revision, from supplements to Z)ze 
Heil. Schr. d. AT."^); J. Koberle, Die Tempelsanger 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, Chrojiicles, 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 the date of Chronicles, in Presby- 
terian and Reformed Review, XI. (1900) pp. 507-11; Hope W. Hogg, 
The Ephraimite Genealogy (i Ch. 7 : 20/.), in JQR. XIII. (1900-01) pp. 
147-54; G. O. Little, The Royal Houses of Israel and Judah (1901); 
J. Marquart, The Genealogies of Benjamin, in JQR. XIV. (1902) pp. 
343-51; J- W. Rothstein, D. Genealogie d. Kgs. Jojachin U7id 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 2. AT. D. Verdnderlichkeit d. Namen in d. 
Stammlisten d. BUclier d. Chronik (1903); C. C. Torrey, The Greek 
Versions 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. 423, in Expos. T. XVI. (1905) pp. 379/.; 
R. St. A. Macalister, Tlie Craftsmen's Guild of the Tribe of Judah, in 


Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1905), pp. 243-253, 
32S-342; P. Asmusscn, Priesterkod. u. Chr. in ihrent Verh. zii einand., 
in Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken (1906), pp. 165-179; G. Tandy, / a. II 
Chron., an Elementary Study in Criticism (Interpr., Oct.) (mentioned in 
Theolog. Jahresbe., 1906); S. A. Cook, Critical Notes on OT. Hist. 
(1907), pp. 67 n. I, 98 n. 3, 104 n. i, 114/., 118 n. i; H. H. Howorth, 
Some Unconventional Views on the Text of the Bible. VII Daniel and 
Chronicles, in Proceedings of tlie Society of Biblical Archcsology, XXIX. 
(1907) pp. 31-38, 61-69; S. K. Mosiman, Zusammenstelltmg u. Ver- 
glcichuiig d. Paralleltexte d. Chr. u. d. dlteren BiicJier d. AT. (1907); 
S. R. Driver, LOT.^^ (1908) pp. 516-540; C. C. Torrey, Tlie Ap- 
paratus for the Textual Criticism of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, in 
Harper Memorial II. (1908) pp. 55-11 1; W. E. Barnes, The David of 
the Book of Samuel and the 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 
AJ.SL. XXV. (1909) pp. 157-73, 1SS-217. 





I. Primeval genealogies with a list of kings and phylarchs 
of Edom. — This chapter serves to introduce the genealogies of 
the tribes of Israel by showing Israel's place among the nations 
and thus corresponds to the ethnic discussions with which mod- 
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-"). The author's method of abridgment, in giving 
lists of names (vv. '-^ et al.) without stating their relation to one 
another, shows that he assumed his readers to have been thor- 
oughly familiar with the narratives of Genesis. 

While the source is clear, the question has recently been raised whether 
the chapter is substantially in the form in which it was left by the 
Chronicler or whether an original nucleus by him received numerous 
additions until the genealogical material of Gn. was exhausted. Ben- 
zinger maintains that the original text comprised only vv. i-"" *'''' 24-28. 
3">. The Vatican text of <& lacks vv. "-2', which are in the Hexapla under 
the asterisk (Field), and a sort of doublet exists in vv. '^'^ and vv. 24. ^, 
These facts have furnished the ground for assuming the secondary 
character of vv. ""'. But the significant words vlbs "L-fifi. AiXa/x Kal 
'Affffoiip, 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 (B contained the whole passage. (This omission by 
Origen is only one of many illustrations which might be cited of the 
poor quality of the text which he had; see Tor. ATC. pp. 94/.) The 
parallels, vv. "'^ and vv. ^4 25, 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 Abraliam. The transpositicici 



of vv. "-" (= Gn. 25"-'") and vv. "" (= Gn. 25'*) has no significance, 
since it is easily explained, the descendants of Ishmael, the first-born, 
being placed first and those of Isaac, by the compiler's habit, come last. 
Equally trivial is the repetition of the substance of v. ^sa jn v. 3^". The 
descendants of Esau (vv. ^ ^ ) are as much in place here as the descend- 
ants of Ishmael and of Abraham by Keturah. Hence there is little 
cause to doubt that the first chapter of the Chronicler's history has 
come down to us in essentially the same form in which it left his hand. 

1-4. The ten antediluvian patriarchs and the three sons 
of Noah. — This list of names is a condensation of Gn. 5 by the 
omission of the chronological statements and those of descent from 
father to son; and the list in Gn. is apparently modelled after the 
Babylonian one of ten ancient kings which has been preserved by 
Berossus (Dr. Gn. p. 80, K AT J pp. 531/., Gordon, Early Trad, of 
Gn. pp. 4Sff-)- The names appear in some instances to have been 
derived from the Babylonian list and are also directly connected 
in a large measure with the names found in the genealogies of 
Gn. 4 (J). — 1. Adam] i.e., man or mankind, an appropriate 
name for the first man, the father of the human race; hence a 
proper name (Gn. 4" 51-5, RV. wrongly in Gn. 3"- =', v. DTS, 
3. B'DB.).—Seth] (Gn. 4" ' 5' " f) derived in Gn. 4^, proba- 
bly from mere assonance, from ri"'tr "to appoint," hence, "sub- 
stitute"; the meaning or derivation is otherwise entirely 
obscure. — Enosh] (tl-'l^S) (Gn. 4-^ 5^ ^ |) poetical word for 
man and probablv 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] (p"*^) (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, whicli 
is equivalent to "artificer." — MahalaVel] (Gn. 5'^ " , also a Judah- 
ite, Ne. 11* f). The meaning is "praise of God." It is possibly 
a Hebraised form of the fifth Babylonian name Megalarus, a cor- 
ruption of Melalarus. — Jared] (Gn. 5'* « , also a Calebite 4" 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- 
born of Cain, Gn. 4" ' , also a son of Reuben, i Ch. 53). He, from 
hiA," 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. — Methushelah] (Gn. 5=' « f), "man of missile." The 
corresponding name in Gn. 4' Ms Methushael = Babylonian miitu- 
sha-ili, "man of God." The corresponding name in the Babylo- 
nian Ust Amempsm\is= a mel-Sin, "man of the god Sin"; hence 
"missile," shelah, is probably another title of Sin, i.e., of the moon- 
god. — Lamech] (Gn. 4^^^ 5"ff ■}•). The important position of the 
Larnech 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. 549 Ez. i4i«- 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-napishiim, the 
name of the Babylonian hero of the deluge. — Shem] (w. "• ^^ Gn. 
^32 510 yi3 gi8. 23. 26 f. jqi. 21 f. 31 nio f. |) mcans rcnowu, i.e., glory, 

and apparently was a name of Israel (r/. Gn. 9^^ Blessed be Yah- 
weh the God of Shem, i.e., of Israel). — Ham] (v. ^ Gn. 5" 6'° 7'' 
gis iQi. 6. 20) superseding possibly the name Canaan in an earlier 
list of Noah's three sons (r/. Gn. 9" J) is possibly derived from 
Kemet the Egyptians' name of their country (DB., art. Ham; 
EBi. II. col. 1204 absolutely denies this connection). Ham 
stands for Egypt in Ps. 78^' 105"- " 106". Thus Ham appro- 
priately represented the peoples southward from Palestine. — 


Japheth] (v. * Gn. 5" 6'° 7'' 9'' " " 10' = ^i -}-)_ According to Gn. 
9" the word is from the root (nnS), 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 (vv. 5-7). Japheth may 
have represented originally the Phoenicians, since the expression 
dwelling in the tents of Shem (Gn. 9") points to c land ad- 
jacent to Palestine {DB. Extra vol. p. 80). 

2. jrp] so too Gn. 5' ^-^■, but C5 ^aivdv, B Cainaii, 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 ^. 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 must all be sought to 
the north and west of Palestine. — 5. Gomer] (v. « Gn. 10- ' Ez. 
38^, name of a person Ho. i' f) 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= 396 f ) 
from collocation in Ezekicl and from assonance is closely related 
to Gog, which apparently is the Gagaia of the Amarna tablets, a 
designation of northern barbarians. The traditional identification 
with the Scythians is plausible (EBi. II. coll. 1747/.). — Madai] i.e., 
the Medes mentioned frequently in the OT. — Javan] (v. ' Gn> 
10- ' Is. 66'^ Ez. 27'3 '3 Dn. 8'-' io-° 11" Zc. 9'^ pi. Jo. 4« (3'') f) the 
Greeks, or more properly the lonians. — Tubal and Mesliech] 
(mentioned always together Gn. 10= Ez. 27" 32^5 38^ '• 39', except 
Is. 66'% where Tubal occurs alone and Ps. 120% where Meshech, 
alone). They arc the Tibdli and Mushku of the Assyrian inscrip- 


tions and the Moschoi and Tibarenoi of Herodotus (iii. 94, vii. 
78). In the Assyrian period their home was north-ea:t of Cilicia 
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 Tyrseui (TvpaTjvoi), a pi- 
ratical people of the northern shores and islands of the ^Egean Sea 
(Hdt. i. 57, Thuc. iv. 109). Tims has also been regarded as the 
same as Tarshish v. ' (W. Max Miiller, Orient Lit. Zeitnng, 15 Aug. 
1900, col. 290). — 6. Ashkenaz] (Gn. 10' Je. 51" -j-). Their home, 
according to Jeremiah, was in the region of Ararat, and they are 
undoubtedly the Ashkuza, Ishkiiza of the Assyrians; an ally of the 
Assyrians from the reign of Asarhaddon onward, and possibly 
identical with the Scythians {KA T.^ p. loi) ; the Hebrew name has 
arisen apparently through a confusion of letters (TJ^D'S instead of 
Tirii'S). — Riphath^] not yet clearly identified or located; ac- 
cording to Josephus (Ant. i. 6. i), the 'Paphlagon'mns.—Togannah] 
(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 (HXi?) (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). — Kitlim] (Gn. 10^ Nu. 24^^ Is. 23' '* Je. 2i» 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. nfl^-11] about thirty mss. (Kennic, Gin.), 05, B, and Gn. 10' nom, 
which is to be restored as the original (Kau., Ki.). — 7. ni'^a'im] Gn. 
io< tr'ijnpi. The final n probably arose through the influence of the 


preceding naf>hi< and is to be removed (Kau., Ki.). — a'jnm] Gn. d^jtii. 
The former is the true reading, supported in Gn. by some Heb. MSS. 
(Gin.) and (6 and accepted by Ball {SBOT.), Dill., Holz., et al. 

8-16. The Hamites. — This passage is also without change 
from Gn. los*- '3-'»'*; vv. »-' (P), «• '^-'^^ (J). The intervening 
verses, Gn. lo^ the summary Gn. 10^-"= descriptive of the kingdom 
and cities of Nirarod, are omitted as irrelevant in a brief outline. 
Geographically the Hamites w^ere south and south-w^est of Palestine 
and included also the so-called Canaanite peoples of Palestine. — 
8. Cush} (Gn. 10* and frequent elsewhere) (see vv. ^ ') 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 Egvpt, though also regarded simply as a loca- 
tive form {EBi. HI. col. 3161). — Put'\ (Gn. io« Je. 46' Ez. 27'° 30^ 
38^ Na. 3' f), usually reckoned as the Libyans (so rendered by (^ 
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 Miiller 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^ f), 
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" lo'- " 25'' I S. 15^ I Ch. I" 1). 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. Gti.), 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). — Sabtah] 
(Gn. 10' f) probably to be connected with the old Arabian town 
Sabata, an ancient trading emporium, the capital of Hadramaut. — 


Ranm] (Gn. 10' Ez. 27" •[) in Ez. associated with Sheba and 
thus without doubt a district of Arabia (the 'Va^ixavnai of 
Strabo). — Sahtecd'\ unknown but to be sought in Vabia. — 
Sheba'\ (Gn. 10" mentioned frequently) the weahhy 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 modern writers, how- 
ever, think of a Cush representing the Kasshii of the Assyrian 
inscriptions, the ^oaaaloL 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, Pal. 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. — Ludiin] (Gn. 10" 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. 
— Anamim] (Gn. lo'^ ■\) not yet identified. — LeJiabiiu] (Gn. 
10" f) equivalent to Lubim, the Libyans (Na. 3" 2 Ch. 12' 16* 
Dn. 11^3 f), who dwelt on the western border of Egypt. — Naph- 
tuhim] (Gn. 10" f) not yet definitely explained or identified 
(for conjectures see EBi. II. col. 1697). — 12. Pathrusim] (Gn. 
iC* f) the people of Pathros (Is. 11" Je. 44'- "> 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 Caphlorim, 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 Philistines 
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. 39 Jos. 13M K. ii^ 16''). — 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. '^ ' , giving various Canaanitic peoples, is a supplementary 
addition to J in Gn. (SBOT. Oxf. Hex., Gu., Dr., et al). For 
similar enumerations cj. Gn. 1519-21 Ex. 3* i' 13= 2325 " 0^2 ^^u 
Dt. 7' 20'^ Jos. 3'" 9' ii^ 128 2411. — The Jebusite] the tribe 
anciently inhabiting Jerusalem (Jos. 15^ ^a 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 '3, 
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^:) 
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. io'« 15=1 Dt. 71 Jos. 3'° 24" Ne. 9' f)- 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 Arkile] 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 tw^elvc miles 
north of Tripolis {EBi. I. col. 310). — The Siiiiie] of a place not 
positively located but appearing in the Assy. ins. SLinmc grouped 
with Arka (EBi. IV. col. 4644). — 16. The Arvadite] of Arvad 
(Ez. 27* "), mentioned in the Amarna letters and frequently in 
Assy, ins., the mod. Riud, twenty-five miles north of Arka (Baed.* 
p. 354). — The Zeinarites] (Gn. 10" f) of a city or fortress Simirra, 
mentioned frequently in Amarna letters as Siimiir and Assy, ins., 
known to the Greeks, the mod. Summ (Baed." p. 351), six miles 
south of Arvad. — The Hamathite] of the wdl-known and fre- 
quently mentioned Hamath on the Orontes, fifty miles east-north- 
east of Arvad, mod. Hama (Baed.'' pp. 36S/.). 

9. N-DD ] Gn. 10' n-aoi. — N->n-] Gn. nr:>-ii. — 10. in-] (6 -1- 
Ki;cTj76s = T-s is probably a gloss from Gn. lo'. — 11-23. These vv. 
are wanting in <§^ (v. s.). — 11. D^^ii^] Qr. 0'~^'-', Kt. a-.-yr. Ki. 
prefers the latter on the basis of <$''^, but D^ . is transliterated in the 
same manner else>vhere. — 12. u^r'^^D ayv) iNi'i i-'X a^ir^D^ rx ]. This 
transposition seems required by Am. 9' Dt. 2^3 Je. 47^ and, in spite of 
all the Vrss. giving the present order, is regarded as the original in 
Gn. io» by Dill, and Ball (SBOT.), not, however, by Holz. Ki. 
assumes it to have been the original order in our text, but it is more 
probable that the Chronicler had our present Gn. text before him. 

17-23. — The Semites. — These verses, wanting in (^^ and 
placed by Ki. as a subsequent addition (but v. s.), were taken orig- 
inally without change from Gn. lo--", vv. " f (Ch. v.") P, vv. 
"•" (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. Elam] mentioned frequently in Assy. ins. Elama, Elamma, 
Elamtu, and in the OT. (Gn. lo" 14'- ' Is. 11" 21^ 22« Je. 25" 
4Q31.39 (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 b}'^ 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 Alesopotamian 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] (w. '«• " Gn. lo- " jjio.is -j-) obscure, formerly 
identified with 'Appa7ra)(tTL'i (Ptol. vi. i. 2), the hill country of 
the upper Zab, in Assy. ins. Arrapha (Del. Par. pp. 124 /.), 
Arbaha (Sch. COT. I. p. 97), but this does not explain the final 

syllable; hence a compound of C]"lS=Arabic Si. I "boundary" 

and Keshed = Chaldeans, hence boundary or land of the Chalde- 
ans (Sch. COT. I. p. 98); or after the Assyrian Arba-kisddi, 
" land of the four sides or directions " (Del. Par. p. 256) ; or of four 
banks, i.e., of Tigris and Euphrates (Jen. ZA. xv, p. 256); or a 
contraction of Ar = Ur, the ancient home of x\braham and pa 
the Egyptian article and Keshed, i.e., Arpachshad, Ur of the 
Chaldeans (Horn. AHT. p. 292); or a contraction through 
copyist's error of ■]S"iS representing Arrapha, etc. (see above) 
and Keshed, the passage having originally read Elam and Asshur 
and Arpach and Keshed (Cheyne, EBi. I. col. 318). This last 
would be the most plausible were it not for the appearance of 
Arpachshad in Gn. ii'"-". — Lud] (Gn. lo^^ 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 found at 
Zenjirli in the extreme north of Syria, and inscriptions at Tema, 
north of Medina, show them to have been in north-western Arabia 
about 500 B.C. Other inscriptions show them to have been on the 
lower Tigris and Euphrates. Indeed, in Babylonia and Assyria a 
large portion of the population, if not the larger, was probably 
Aramean at a very early date. But their especial land was 
Mesopotamia, yet while the Assy. ins. never place them west of 
the Euphrates, that was their home par excellence in the OT. 
They are distinguished by special names as " Aram of the two 
rivers" (Gn. 24"> Dt. 233 <<> Ju. 38) (rivers uncertain, naturally 
the Euphrates and Tigris, but according to some the Euphrates 
and Chabor), "Aram of Damascus" (2 S. S^), "Aram of Zobah" 
(: S. io«- s). 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/.).— The 
four following peoples or districts are in Gn. the sons of Aram, 
which statement was probably originally here {v. i.). — 'Uz] 
(v. ^2 Gn. 2221 36=8 Jb. I' Je. 25-" La. 4=' f). The connection 
here and in Gn. 22=', where Uz is a son of Nahor, suggests a 
people or district to the north-east of Palestine, while its appearance 
in the list of the Horites (Gn. 36") 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). — Hiil] (Gn. 10" •]•) unidentified although 
possibly to be seen in HalVa (Del. Par. p. 259), a district near Mt. 
Masius. — Gether] (Gn. lo" 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. 24 Gn. 10=^ ii>2- "■ »• 15 f). Cf. V. K Since Shelah is the second 
element of Methuselah {cf. v. '), it is probably the name of a god. 
{Cf. Mez, Gesch. d. Stadt Harran, p. 23, v. Gu. on Gn. 11 '2.) — 


Eber] an eponym simply derived from Hebrews ("'"'iSy) 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 " (jTiTt "I2J?) Gn. so'"- " Jos. 17^ Dt. 
I'' et al. (some thirty times), BDB. — 19. Peleg] (v. " Gn. io« 
11I6. 17. 18. 19 -j-) 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'^ 11'. — Joklan]. This ap- 
pears in the primitive tribe Kuhhu of Arabian genealogists, but 
this fact is usually assumed to be derived from the OT. and thus of 
no historical value. The name then in its Biblical origin is still 
entirely obscure, but the thirteen sons, vv. ="=3, are clearly Arabian 
tribes or localities, only a few of whom can now be definitely 
identified. — 20. Almodjd] unidentified, a compound possibly of 
hi> "God" and "nii2 fr. 1~T 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. 10" f) not clearly identified (but see Gl. ib.). — 21. 
Hadoram] (Gn. 10", in i Ch. iS'" 2 Ch. lo'^ names of persons). 
Possibly Dauram in the neighbourhood of San a. — Uzal'\ (Gn. 10" 
Ez. 27'8 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. — Abima'el] (Gn. lo'^ f) unidentified. 
— Sheba]. See v. '. Perhaps here a colony of the main people 
is meant. — 23. Ophir] (Gn. lo^s). 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. \ This must be a Havilah con- 
nected with the district in Arabia. — Jobab] (Gn. 10", elsewhere 
name of a person, cf. 1^^) 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. DiNi] (&^ (= <&) and Gn. 10=' + D"»>< ''J31, 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.). S 1^t1'i•D^N1 for fiyi is doubtless a corruption of ^Ni'V oiNi before 
which ^J3 must have fallen out. — "l^^'ri] six mss., ^, and Gn. t'r.r A 
district Mash appears well attested by the cuneiform inscriptions, 
nrn appears in v. ^ Gn. lo^ Ps. 120% and from greater familiarity 
was probably inadvertently substituted by a copyist (Bn.), yet 
perhaps already in the Chronicler's text of Ga since (& there 
has Mocrox- — 18. "i'^^'] (^'^^ + tov Yiaivav koll 'Kaiva.v eyevvriaev as 
(B of Gn. lo^i. This plus is certainly not original here. Note the 
addition of Kaivav in (&^ of v. =■•. — 20. nia-isn] (^^ Apafxwd, ^ 
Acrepjxud, H Asarmoth. Ptolemy (vi. 7. 25) and Strabo (xvi. 4. 2) 
speak of XarpafiuiTiTai and Xarpa/xCoTai., and Sabean inscriptions write 
rciJn alongside of niDiin {ZDMG. xix. pp. 239^^., xxxi. 74 ff.), hence Ki. 
{SBOT.) points piD — or nin — cf. ni.n^x and mc'i'S. Since mmsn is a 
foreign word and as such might have been changed by the Hebrews in 
order to provide it with a meaning, and since riri might well have 
been transliterated p-uO by Greeks, Ki. now (Kom.) retains pointing 
of JH.— 22. 73';:.] Gn. lo^s Sav- 

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. CJ. also the occurrence of 
seventy in Nu. ii'« Lk. lo' ^ . 

24-27. The descent of Abram from Shem. — Abridged from 
Gn. ii'»-" (P) by retention of the names of the patriarchs only, f/. 
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, 
Reu, and Terah), and also some are found in the older list of J 
(Gn. io='- " and see above, vv. '^ ' ). — Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, 
'Eber, Peleg] (see w. "• "• 's. 19). — Reu] (Gn. ii'^- is- :o. n -j-) 
probably the name of a god {EBi. IV. col. 4087, cf. Mez above, 
v. '8). — Seriig] (Gn. ii^" 21- « 23 -j-) a district and city, Sarugi in 
Assy, ins., near Haran, well kno-\Mi 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 w-hose city was Haran. — Tera}i\ 
(Gn. II"- =5. 26. 27. 28. 31. 32 Jog, 34= f) identified with an ancient 
deity (Tarhu, Tnirgu) whose worship was widespread in north- 
em 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 knowm as Abram (11 26-1 7 5) until (17°) his name 
is changed to Abraham, and henceforward he is knowTi by the 
latter name. The name Abram is equivalent to Abiram, "the 
(divine) father is lofty," and Abraham is only another way of 
spelling the name, although it is possible that two persons, of the 
two different names, may have been fused into one, "Abram a 
local hero of the region of Hebron" and "Abraham the collective 
name of a group of Aramean people, including not only the He- 
braic clans but also the Ishmaelites and a number of other desert 
tribes" (Pa. EHSP. p. 41). The historical character of Abraham 
is maintained by Ewald {Hist. i. pp. 300 ff.), Kittel {Gesch. 
i. § 16), Cornill {Hist. People 0/ Is. p. 34), Hommel {AHT. 
pp. 146/.), McCurdy {HPM. §§ 444-448), Ryle (in DB.), 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 (Dl) lofty {cf. " Ely on " 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 ac- {v. s.). — 27. 
Nin D-I3S] v.-anting in <&^ and so omitted by Bn., but original (S 
probably supported ^ {cf. (S*i^'). 

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. "-3' are con- 
densed from Gn. 25'2-i«^ (P) and vv. ^2-33 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 
(^S'pni"') 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 
both a common father, and he might well be seen in an ancient 
tribe which had been absorbed into both. A deity has been found 
also in Isaac through the expression "Fear [of] Isaac" (Gn. 
31" ") (Luther, ZAW. xxi. p. 73). — Ishmael] (Gn. i6"- '5- '«e/ al.) 
ihe 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. 25'3 28' 36' Is. 60' t), and Kedar] (Gn. 25'^ Is. 21'^ 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. 2,^'^ f) also 
in Assy. ins. with home south-west of the Dead Sea toward the 
Egyptian frontier (Del. Par. p. 301). — Mibsam] (Gn. 25", also in 
the genealogy of Simeon i Ch. 4" ■\) not mentioned elsewhere. — 
30. Mishma ] (Gn. 25'^, likewise in the genealogy of Simeon 
I Ch. 4=5 26 1) 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. 25" Is. 21". perhaps there 
Edom, Jos. 15" in Judah, where we should probably read Rumah 
f) the oasis Duma now usually called dl-Jof, 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. 
25'5) not identified. — Tema] (Gn. 25'* Jb. 6" Is. 2i'< Je. 25" -j-) 
mod. Teima, south-east from the northern end of the Elamitic 
Gulf.— 31. Jdur and Naphish] (Gn. 25'^ i Ch. s'^ q. v. f).— 
Kedmah]{Gn. 25'^ f) not identified.— 32. Ketiirah] (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 likely the same people appear in the "Zimri" (Je. 
2S''^).—Jokshan] (Gn. 25=- ^ -j-) unkno^vn. — Medmt] (Gn. 25^ |). 
Comparisons of doubtful worth have been made with a Wady 


Medan near Dedan and with a Yemenite god Madan (EBl. III. col. 
3002). This probably is not a real name but has arisen by a 
copyist's error from the following word. — Midian] (Gn. 252 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 MoBiava 
on or near the Gulf of 'Akaba (Ptol. vi. 7. 2), mod. Madyan 
(EBl. III. col. 3081). — Jisbak] (Gn. 25^ -j-) unidentified unless 
with Yasbak, a district in northern Syria mentioned in Assy. ins. 
{KB. I. p. i5g).—Sln{ah] (Gn. 252 f) the tribe of Job's friend 
Bildad (Jb. 2"). This has been identified with Suhu of the 
Assy, ins., a district on the Euphrates near Haran, but this is 
doubtful. — Sheba and Dedan]. Cf. v. ^ Different sources give 
different genealogical relationships. The Chronicler has here 
omitted from his source the sons of Dedan, given in Gn. 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. ^oSi). — EpJier] (Gn. 25% name 
in genealogy of Judah i Ch. 4'^ Manasseh 5=* f) 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- i^'^ only the first 
two words nn"?in n"?wS, the suffix o— also being added, opn'^in. Vv. 
29b-3i follow the text of Gn. 25'3b-i6a to n^.si almost exactly. — 29. "'NDini] 
so too Gn. 25", but (S ^a^e{ai)T]\ in both places.— 30. T.Z'r.] Gn. 25'^ 't\ 
— syz] Gn. 'Ci. — -nn] some Mss. i^n. Gn. 25'= the same as Ch., but 
there many mss. Tin.— «d>-'] (§ Qaifxav.— 31. nsip] s'^ anj.- 32-33, 
m'?' Dn-\3K B'.j'?'i3] have no direct verbal parallel in Gn. The remainder 
of w. M-33 follow the text of Gn. 25"', beginning with pci pn, except that 
PiT" ^J3i is substituted for i'?'' P'P''1 and after j-ni are omitted vn p-i ^J3i 
D"'Cn'^i D''B'rJ'?i mirvS. H adds these words, so also <J5a plus TayovtjX 
Ktti Na/JSatrjX after Kai vloi AaiSav, following (g of Gn. 25'. The 
Chronicler probably omitted the clause since icx 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. 361'- ^^% where Timna' is 
described as the concubine of Eliphaz and mother of Amalek; v. " 
is taken verbatim from Gn. 36'"'; vv. =8-" are taken verbatim, 
with slight omissions, from Gn. 3620-28 (P). — 34, 'Esau] (Gn. 
25" ' "«''•, frequent in Gn.) identified with Edom (Gn. 36'- « 's); 
ancestor of the Edomites, Gn. 36^ " (r/". v. ^5); "probably orig- 
inally a god whom the Edomites regarded as their ancestor" 
(Noeldeke, EBi. II. col. 1182). — Israel]. 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. 
2 228 351'^). 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 Re'u'el and Oholibamah of Jeush, 
Ja'lam, and Korah. — Eliphaz] (Gn. 36^ « , one of Job's friends 
Jb. 2" et al.) from Teman v. ^\ — Re'u^el] (Gn. 36* » , Moses' 
father-in-law Ex. 2^^ Nu. lo^", a Gadite Nu. 2", a Benjaminite 
I Ch. 98). For the first half of the name cf. v."K — Jeush] (Gn. 
365", a personal name i Ch. y'" 8" 23"'- " 2 Ch. 11"). — Ja'lam] 
(Gn. 365- " >8 I). — Korah] both personal and clan or guild 
name in Israel doubtless historically showing a connection with 
Edom {cf. 2" 9'3). — 36. (Cf Gn. 36".) — Teman] is elsewhere 
in OT. the name of a district in northern Edom (Am. 112 Je. 49'- 20 
Ez. 25" Hb. 3', the home of Job's friend Jb. 2'i cf. i Ch. I's).— 
Omar] (Gn. 36"- "^ ]).~Zcphi] (Zapho Gn. 36" -^ -)-).— Ga'/aw] 
(Gn. 36" '6 ■)■). — Kenaz]. Cf. v. ", elsewhere connected with Caleb 
(Jos. 15'^ Ju. I" y- ") showing that the Calebites were closely 
allied with the Edomites. — Timna'] in Gn. 3612 the concubine of 
Eliphaz and the mother of Amalek. In Gn. 3622 i Ch. i^s 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. 36'2'' 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 (r/. I Ch. 4").— 37. These clans from Gn. 36" are otherwise 
unknown. But as the names of other clans or individuals cf. 
Nahath 6"<26) 2 Ch. 31", Zerah 2* 4^* 6« 9' 2 Ch. 148 (»', Shammah 
I S. 16^ 2 S. 23'- =S probably i Ch. 27' (BDB.). All of these 
sons of Eliphaz and Reu'el are given in Gn. 36'^ »• as chiefs 
of Edom; and also in Gn. t,6^^ Jensh, Ja'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 Saaira of the Egyptian inscriptions 
{EBi. II. coll. 1182/.).— Lotow] (Gn. 362»- " f) possibly to be con- 
nected with Lot (Gn. 11=' i2< et al.), derived from the ancient 
name of the country east of the Jordan; in Egyptian inscriptions 
Ruten, Liitcn (Pa. EHSP. pp. 38, 59, 123).— 5// 06a/] (v. ^° Gn. 
36"- " ", in Caleb 2^°- ", in Judah 4'- ^ f ). On meaning of name 
as young lion cf. Gray, HPN. p. 109. — Zibeon] (v. ■"> Gn. 362- 
14. 20. 24. 29 -j-)_ The name means hyena (Gray, HPN. p. 95). — 
'Anah] (v. ^^ Gn. 362- »■ '»• 2°- ^i- 25- 29 ■)•). The present text of Gn. 
gives Anah (36^) a daughter of Zibeon and (36-0 a son of 
Zibeon. — Dishon] (Gn. 36'-', son of Anah 36"- " i Ch. i"- '\ 
chief Gn. 363° ■\). The name means pygarg, a kind of antelope 
or gazelle {cf. Dt. 14^).— £zcr] (v. ^^ Gn. 362'- 27. ^<^ ^).—Dishan] 
(v."' Gn. 36==' '■'8. so I) clearly a mere variant of Dishon. — 39. 
Lotan]. Cf. v. ". — Hori] (Gn. 36", a Simeonite Nu. it,^ f). As 
a clan name this is striking. Perhaps originally in Gn. it was 
the Gentilic adjective. (On meaning cf. Dr. Dt. 2'\). — Homam] 
(Hemam Gn. 36^2 -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. ^K—Aljan] ('Alwan 
Gn. 36" ■\) 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. — Ebal] 
(Gn. 36^' f). Cf. with possible identification in name (not 


locality) with 'Ebal of i".—Shephi] (Shcpho Gn. 36" f)- Q"- 
for meaning "'Sw' bareness, bare height. — Onam] (Gn. 36", a 
chief of Judah i Ch. 2^^- "f). Probably the name is identical 
with Onan, Gn. 38^ i Ch. 2\—Zibeon]. Cf. v. ^\—Aijah] (Gn. 
36", father of Rizpah 2 S. 3' 21"- '"■ " f) meaning hawk, cf. Lv. 
II'* Dt. 14". — 'Anah]. Cf. v.". Gn. 362* adds: "This is Anah 
who found the hot springs ( ?) in the wilderness, as he fed the 
asses of Zibeon his father."— 41. 'Aitah]. Cf. v. '^.— 
Dishon]. Cf. v. ^\—Hamran] (Hemdan Gn. 3628 f). The form 
in Chronicles suggestive of m!2n he-ass, Hamor the father of 
Shechem, considering the other animal names in this section, is not 
improbably the true ont.—Eshban] (Gn. 36" '\).—Jithran] (Gn. 
36", also man or clan of Asher i Ch. 7" f)- Q"- Jether, a common 
noime.— Cher an] (Gn. 36" ^).—42. Ezer]. Cf v. ^\—Bilhan] 
(Gn. 36", a Zebulunite i Ch. 7'" f). Some connect with Bilhali 
the concubine of Jacob (Stade, Gesch. i. p. 146, A. j).—Zawan] 
(Gn. 36" ■\).—Jaakan] ('Akan Gn. 36" f) perhaps arisen from 
and Akan (jpVl) or possibly to be connected with "the sons of 
Jaakan" Nu. ^3^' '■ Dt. io<^. —Dishan]. Cf v. '\--Uz]. Cf. 
V. ". — Aran] (Gn. 36=8 -j-). 

34. Snt:"'! YZ-;] (^^ 'IaKw/3 K. 'Hcrai/, ^ /foi Bcrav k. la/cwjS. The intro- 
ductory /cat of the latter points to ^ as original (g. This is adopted by Ki. 
and Bn. since the son of the promise, though the youngtr, |-,recedes in 
V. 2s._36. ••sj] about thirty MSS. and Gn. 3611 las. (& here and in Gn. 
Sw0ap = ifli. This may represent an ancient scribal error (n for i), 
wherefore the reading of Gn. is probably original. — rjp] 05, g», S, Gn. 
^6>> 'p^.— p'^::•;^ j!:r:-i] Gn. ^6^"- ^D•<'^i<h iSni yyy p id'SnS ifj'?^£) ."i.tti pcni 
p'^:;y rx. ^" Kal rys Qafxva 'A^aXijK and ^ Qafiva 5e t; vaWaKT} 
EXi0a^ ereKey avTt] (other MSS. ai^r^J) to;' Afia\i]K are doubtless 
harmonising glosses, probably originating in (^. The te.xt of Ch. is not 
likely a persistent variant as Bn. maintains. The Chronicler may have 
misread Gn., taking ];:^:■^^ with the preceding as a niasc. name (cf. v. " 
= Gn. 36'"') and reading the following, tltere was a concubine to 
Eliphaz the son of Esau, and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek. — 37. m?] 
Gn. 36'3 'Ti.— 38. ii:-"-!] (g and Gn. 36=' n instead of i, so Ki. SBOT., 
Ball, SBOT., on Gn. 3621. Ki. Kom. retains '^i.— 39. ncini] Gn. 
3622 Kt. DCini, Qr. OD^rn. (5 in both places Al/xhv, hence Bn., Ki. BH. 
OCO1.— 40. r>] many mss., (SS and Gn. 36" p'-y, adopted by Ki. and 
Bn. — >pr] Gn. lor. (6^ Soj^ap, of which ^ Sw^ is probably a mu- 

I, 43-54.] RULERS OF EDOM 77 

tilation, = iDt:' = lor, v. s. v. '«. — 41. pu"i>] ^^^ + /cat EX(/3a/ia 
Ovyar-np Ava, cf. Gn. 3626. — p-n] ^b 'Ejuepwc, aid Afjia5a(fjL). Many 
MSS. and Gn. 3626 p^n, favoured by Ki. holding the root icn better 
suited for a proper name. — 42 . ]p-;'] twenty-two MSS. and Gn. 362' jpyi 
but read with (&'^^\ H, », ]n"\ cf. Nu. S3'"- Dt. lo^ 

A correspondence between the three lines of descent from Noah 
through Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and the three Hnes 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, si.xteen (five sons and eleven grandsons); Seir, 
twenty-seven (including Timna v.") (Be.). Another reckoning 
omits Timna (v. ") but includes Ishmael (Oe.). Others reject the 
idea of seventy tribes having been designed by the Chronicler 
(Ke., Zoe.). This latter appears quite probable. 

43-51a. The kings of Edom.— Taken from Gn. 36"-" (J 
generally but Dr. P). Since no king is the son of his predecessor 
and their residences change, it is probable that these kings were 
rulers and comparable to the judges in Israel or represented dif- 
ferent dynasties frequently changed as in northern Israel. The 
phrase before there reigned a king of the children of Israel (v. ") 
may either mean before a king reigned in Israel, i.e., before Saul, 
or before a king of Israel reigned over Edom, i.e., before the con- 
quest of Edom by David (2 S. 8'^). This latter interpretation is 
to be preferred (Buhl, Edomiler, 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) th^t some have regarded the two per- 
sons as identical {EBi. I. col. 524, Gray, Nu. p. 324). Bela also 
son of Benjamin, 8', Reubenite 58. — Dinhabah] (Gn. 36^= f) 
location unknown. — 44. Jobab] (Gn. 36-^', cf. v. ") otherwise 
unknown.— Zera/z] Cf. v. ^■'.—Bozrah] (Gn. 36" Is. 34^ 63' Je. 
4g'3- " Am. i'= f) mod. Busaireh, twenty miles south-east of 
the Dead Sea and thirty-five miles north of Petra (Dr. Gn.). — 
45. Husham] (Gn. 36^^ '• f cf. Hashum Ezr. 2" Ne. 7-).— 
Teman]. Cf. v.^'.— 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" |) possibly to be connected with a 
range of hills called el-Ghoweithe, on the eastern side of the 
upper Amon (Dr. Gn., Gu. Gji.). — 47. Samlah] (Gn. 36'« '■ f). 
— Masrekah] (Gn. 36=« f ). The name may mean " place of choice 
vines," cf. Nahal Sorek "wady of choice vines" (Ju. i6^). — 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" (">). — Rehoboth] 
(Gn. 36", name of a well Gn. 26", and Assyrian city Gn. 
10" f). — The River] is certainly not the Euphrates and the place 
Rahaba a little south of the mouth of the Habor (Dr. Gn.), 
but the river of Egypt, i.e., the Wady el-Ansh (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. Gw.). (Still "Baal" is more a generic title 
than that of a specific deity.). — ' Achbor'] (Gn. 36^8 ' , also a cour- 
tier of Josiah 2 K. 22'2- '< and perhaps Je. 26" 36'' f, BDB.). 
The name means "mouse." — 50. Hadad] (Hadar Gn. 36", but 
some forty mss. and Samaritan Mss. read Hadad). Cf. v. ■««. — 
Pai] (Pa u Gn. 36" f). Perhaps we should follow (^ of Gn. 
and read Pe or ("ilJJS), a mountain and city north-east of the 
Dead Sea not definitely located (cf. Nu. 23=8 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- 

51''-54. Tribal chiefs of Edom. — Taken from Gn. 36^1-" 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-''- "-30^ 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''. lite chief of Timna] and 
similarly in the names following. — Timna ]. Cf. v. =«. — Aljah] 
('Alwah Gn. 36*° f) perhaps identical with Alwan v. 40. — ■ 
Jdheth] (Gn. 36" t)-~52. Oholibamah] (in Gn. 362- ^- '4- 's. n the 
wife of Esau, ^6^^ as here f). — Elah] probably the seaport usually 
called Elath. — Pinon] (Gn. 36^') probably Pimon of Nu. t,^'^ '■, 
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 b., mentioned in Assy. ins. 
(Ball, Gn. p. 94). 

43. Snic" . . . d^dSdh] (B^ ol (3a(rtXe?s avrQv = an^oScn adopted 
by Bn., Ki. SBOT. The latter inserts a^^-'on with the succeeding 
relative clause as a footnote. Ki. Kom. follows i|, which is better, since 
(B^^ make the originality of the Vatican text doubtful. — Before ySa Gn. 
36'2 has aiN3 I'^ci. — y^2] (i BdXa/c, ® o-;^2 were influenced by the simi- 
larity to the names in Nu. 22 {cf. Sayce, art. Edom in DB.). — 46. T(3] 
(& here and in Gn. 36'^ BapaS = nna. — rwj'] Qr., some MSS., B and Gn. 
36^5 niTi?. (6 Tedda.{L)ix here and in Gn. = a name like D(^)n>% hence Ki. 
has a lacuna in the text. — 47. Vv. "t-^ga jn (gB follow v. ^la. — 50. Sj:3 
pn] many MSB., CS, Gn. 3639 _|_ ^^^zy; p. — -nn] Gn. ii.-i, but there some 
MSS. of ^ and of the Samaritan Pentateuch inn which, .as the dynastic 
name of Edom, Ball, SBOT. adopts. Ki. influenced by vtos BapaS of 
(6^ corrects to Tin. — i;^d] many mss., B, Gn. IJD. ® in both places 
<i>o7wp = nya and so Bn. More likely ij'd - i>'0. — V. ^°'^ is wanting in 
(&^, and so considered a later addition from Gn. by Bn., but the con- 
fusion of the Vatican text at this point discredits its value. — 51. pdm 
Tin] wanting in Gn. — The text of Gn. 36<o^ ^z'y ifliS' nicif nSsi 
DPDiJ'a DPDiId'? onnflcnS allows the phylarchs to have been contempora- 
neous with the kings previously recorded, while its substitute ^si'?n vn^i 
ons suggests that they followed the kings (Be.). This is given directly 
in Tl, Adad autem mortuo duces pro regibus in Edom esse coeperunt ; so also 
in QI. Probably, however, the Chronicler's change was simply that of 
condensation without introducing an exact order of succession. — rv'Syj 
Qr., many MSS., B, S, Gn. 36^" niSp. (g TuXa = nSi;' 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 (2'-4") 
as the proper starting-point, the Chronicler passes through Simeon 
(4" -"3) 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" ' ) 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'^ corrected text), Naphtali 
(7"), Manasseh (7''"), Ephraim {■/-"■-'), and Asher (7="-'°), com- 
pleting the circle with Benjamin (cc. 8, 9"") and the list of the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem (9'") unless this list came from another 
and later hand. Asher should appear earlier in the list, but see 
comment on i Ch. yso-si, (Jn 27'^ °- Asher is wanting.) More 
space is given to the descendants of Judah than to those of any 
other tribe, one hundred verses in all, while the tables of the 
house of Levi occupy eighty-one, Benjamin fifty, and a scant 
eighty-six suffice for the other ten tribes combined. Before 
inquiring further into the question of authorship — or, more 
properly, editorship — it may be observed that this is exactly what 
should be expected from the Chronicler. Chronicles-Ezra- 
Nehemiah is primarily a Levitical history of the Judean people. 
In the body of the work events of the N. kingdom are ignored, 
except as they touch Judean affairs. Hence it is not strange 
that the Chronicler should have collected the most genealogical 
notices for Judah and Levi. Benjamin also would receive special 
attention, since according to the post-exilic conception that tribe 
remained loyal to the house of David and was part of the S. 
kingdom (v. EBi. art. Benjamin, § 7). 

The analysis of these chapters depends upon the idea of the Chron- 
icler's character and purpose. With the premise that he intended these 
chapters only to serve as an introduction to his history of the Davidic 
kings, the task of striking out those parts of the genealogies carried down 
beyond the time of David becomes merely mechanical. But this premise 
cannot 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 appendix first to learn the dates of his reign which 
suggest the general setting, so the reader of Chronicles could learn the 
chronological position by consulting the table of the kings (3'" s), 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 eve'-ything 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 famiUes of Israel. They 
are given as follows, Reiihen, Simeon, Levi, Jitdah, 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, cj. Gn. 46*" 49= " Nu. i"-" ".42 1^4.15 26'-" 
Dt. 2)2>^-^^ et al. (For a full exhibition of the orders of arrangement, 
of which there are some seventeen diflferent ones in the Bible, and 
for a discussion of the subject, see EBi. art. Tribes by G. B. 
Gray, also art. in Exp. Mar. 1902.) 

II. 3-IV. 23. The genealogies of Judah.— This passage con- 
tains: (i) the descendants of Judah to Hezron's sons Jerahmeel, 
Ram, and Caleb (2^-5); (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's-2<); (4) the 
descendants of Jerahmeel (2"-"); (5) a supplementary table of 
Jerahmeelites (2^'-''); (6) supplementary tables of Calebites 
(2^2.55). (y) 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*- s- 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. 25-41. Similarly we should expect c. 3, if secondary, 
to be placed after 2i«-". 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 (r/. i< ^- ^s ff. et al.). (2^ gives 
the sons of Hezron as Jerahmeel, Ram, and Chelubai ('3iSd). 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. 9 by haplography, since the first word of v. '" is also Ram, 
being reinserted later in its present place. In that case final ' of 
oiSs represents the initial 1 of ai hni. One is tempted to find support 
for this suggestion in (S^^ where kuI ^Apafi actually follows 6 XaX^;3, 
but since 6 "Pt/jL 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'^ 9 ) is regarded as secondary, 
by Benzinger, who finds the original list of Calebites in vv. 4:-50a_ This 
is possible, especially if only one table of Calebites is ascribed to the 
Chronicler, but against it may be urged that as Jerahmeel of the sons 
of Hezron comes first in v. », the Chronicler would be likely to place the 

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

list of his descendants last. Since the position of Ram's descendants 
seems to be firmly fixed {2^" ^■), the proper place for the table of the 
Calebites is between these two, that is, just where it is found. Benzinger 
has also unnecessarily considered the passage concerning the family of 
Segub (22'-23) to be out of place, but this passage forms a necessary intro- 
duction to V. 2* (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 difi'erentiated Hur 
and Ashur elsewhere (4^^ ) 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 died, and 
Caleb took, etc. On this principle vv. '^-^ constitute a perfect unity. 

234-41 is doubtless an appendix to the descendants of Jerahmeel, since 
V. "i", 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 (23^-"), Caleb (2^^-55^^ 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. 3< and v. ^i) or because he differentiated the two Sheshans, hence 
vv. ^^ ff- 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^ ^- 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. *"'■ '^- ^'-^^ 
It is doubtful, however, if v. ' ever was intended as a superscription to 
vv. 2-23. This verse is directly connected with v. 2, with which it shows 
the Judean descent of the Zorathites, cf. 2". The Chronicler apparently 
used the device of putting the first five descendants in juxtaposition as a 
convenient abridgment {cf. i' ^- 2* ff), since their relationship was well 
known or could be learned from c. 2. Where he passes beyond well- 
known names (v. 2) the relationship is indicated. The following 
genealogies seem to be nothing more than short tables of Judean families 
which the compiler considered worth preserving. There is no good 
reason why they could not have come from the Chronicler, nor is there 
much ground upon which to argue for their authenticity. On the age 
of the material, see c. 4. 


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

II. 3-8. Sons of Judah. — These verses, 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, cf. Gn. 46'i '■. — 
Aitd 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 
datighter-in-law bore to him Perez and Zerah] derived from Gn. 
2813-30 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 (G£'5r/j. I. p. 158). — 5. The sons of Perez: Hezron and 
Hafmd], also a direct quotation from Gn. 46'^ cf. Nu. 2621. On 
Hezron see vv. ^ ^ . Beyond the family of the Hamulites, Nu. 26=', 
no descendants of Hamul are given elsewhere in the Old Testa- 
ment. (On the name see textual notes.) — 6. The sons of Zerah: 
Zimri and Ethan and Heman and Calcol and Darda *]. Zimri 's 
Zabdi of Jos. y- '» (for change of spelling see text. note). Ethan 
the Ezrahite, Heman, Calcol, and Darda sons of Mahol, are men- 
tioned in I K. 5" (431) as distinguished wise men whom Solomon 
surpassed. Hence since Ezrahite CHITS) 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 Zee.). Ethan and Heman occur also in 
I Ch. as the names of two Levitical singers of the time of David, 
Ethan=Juduthun, 6=« "'> 15"- ", and an Ethan is also given among 
the ancestors of Asaph, i Ch. 6" '■^'^\ and Heman i Ch. 6'8 <"> 
16" ■IS 25'- ■'-^ 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, svTionyms 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 Rabha (ed. Meyer, p. 52), they prophesied 
in Egypt. (For a fanciful interpretation of their names connecting 
them with Job and his three friends see Klo. on i K. 5".) — 7. And 
the sons of Carmi]. The plural ("•Jl) sons of is sometimes used 
in genealogical lists when only one son or descendant follows, cf. 
vv. 8. 30. 31, 42 Qn. 26" 46" Nu. 26*. — ' Achar the tronhler of Israel, 
etc.] 'Achan Jos. 7' '« "> " =^ 22" (see text. note). The brevity 
of this notice of Achar and the omission of Zabdi the connecting 
link between Achar and Carmi is another assumption of familiarity 
with the narratives of the Hexateuch. — 8. ' Azariah]. Nothing 
further is known of this Azariah. Whether the Chronicler meant 
an immediate or remote descendant of Ethan cannot be deter- 
mined. The name is very common. No other Zerahites are given 
elsewhere in the Old Testament except Sibbecai the Hushathite, 
and Maharai the Netophathite, two of David's captains, 27"- ". 


3. P.1B'] (8 Sai^aj = yrc'. — 5. Sicni] the root Son with the meaning 
spared BDB. is favoured by the name n^'^cn^ on a seal (EBi., art. 
Hamul). C$ EfiovijX (" Ie/xou7jX by dittography of the preceding I) = 
Spm = Ssicm fromicn + *?« brother-in-law of God. This seems a more 
likely derivation, cf. 4^, but the meaning is dub., seeKi. SBOT., Kom., 
SS., We. DGJ., p. 22. — 6 . ncr] Jos. 7' nji, (6 Zo/x)3p(e)i in both passages. 
The confusion of a and D is phonetic, of t and 1 graphic. — J?"ni] many 
MSS., <$^ + MSS., &, 51, I K. 5" j.n-ni, adopted by Ki. — 7. According to 
Jos. 7' Carmi was the son of Zabdi = Zimri {v. s.), hence ^ma ^ici M31 
may have fallen from the te.xt 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. (5^ in Jos. Axap. 

9-55. The Hezronites. — Whatever may have been the relative 
p)osition 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 
claris of Jerahmeel and Caleb. The accounts given of them are 
evidently from various sources. V. ' (excepting the word Ram, 
see below) is derived from some old source other than the Old 
Testament. Vv. '"'^ appear to be taken directly from Ruth. 
Vv. "■" in contents are drawn from i and 2 S. Vv. ^^■•*, regarded 
by Ki. as an insertion (but see above), are derived partially from 
the Hexateuch, although considerable matter is new. Vv. ^^-ss ^j-e 
entirely independent of anything elsewhere in the Old Testament. 
Of these, w.^^-'\ according to Ki., who follows We., represent 
early material, v\'. "-" late, vx. *'^-*^ early, v. " late, v. *'' early, v. <« 
late, w. ^' '■ early, w. "" late. 

9. The sons of Hezron. — Hezron] w. '• " "■ «< -^ 4', appears 
also as a son of Reuben On. 46' Ex. 6'* Nu. 26^' i Ch. 5', and 
as the name of a place indicating the southern boundary of Judah 
Jos. 153 (cf. also Kerioth-hezron Jos. 15"). j1"li'n is to be con- 
nected with ni"n enclosure (HWB.'\ BDB.). A Hezronite then 
is a villager or dweller in a permanent settlement, a kraal, in con- 
trast to movable encampments, "n^'n appears in the names of 
several localities of southern Judah and Simeon besides the two 
mentioned; Hazar-addar Nu. 34% Hazar-gaddah Jos. 15", Hazar- 
susah in Simeon Jos. ig^ cf. i Ch. 4'', Hazar-shual 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. 
266- 21 were evolved, and which occasioned this son of Perez and 
likewise the son of Reuben. — Jerahmeel], vv. ^* «• "■ *\ represents a 
clan dwelling in the days of David in southern Judah, i S. 27'"> 
30". — Ram] as a second son of Hezron is suspicious because (i) 
the Old Testament elsewhere knows of no Judean clan Ram co- 
ordinate with Caleb and Jerahmeel, (2) the descendants of 
Ram, which follow w. '"-'^ are given not in families and cities 
as in the case of those of Jerahmeel and Caleb, vv. "-33 .12-44. 
<«-•% 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 Chelubai, and this was the intro- 
duction to vv. "-33. 42-44. 46. 48^ whcrc the descendants of Jerah- 
meel and Caleb are given. — Chelubai], equivalent to Caleb vv. 
18-24 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. 4i8b-22a_ jt 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. vv. "• 6^. 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 
born Eli\ib, etc.\ According to i S. 16'° ' 17'^ Jesse had eight 
sons, Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah, and four others whose 
names are not mentioned, and David the youngest. ^ gives eight 
here, adding Elihu from 27 's, which i^ there has probably by cor- 
ruption (rS'i^S becoming T\*h^, (^ EXta^). 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, N'ethan^el, Raddai, and Ozem, which are not given elsewhere. 
The genuineness of the name Nethan^el is doubtful, since (accord- 
ing to Gray, HPN. p. 233) it is of post-Davidic formation. 
Raddai and Ozem (see v. ") could well be genuine as far as their 
forms go. — 16.- And their sisters Zeriiiah and Abigail}. These are 
recorded for the sake of their distinguished sons. According to 
2 S. 17" i| 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 1| of 2 S. 17=' is corrupt 
and Jesse should be substituted for Nahash ((|, B, We. TS., Klo., 
Bu. SBOT.). — And the sons of Zeriiiah Abishai,* Jo'ab and 
Asah'el]. These heroes are repeatedly named as sons of their 
mother I S. 26528.218, etc. The name of their father is nowhere men- 
tioned. Of the three brothers, Asahel according to the narrative 
of 2 S. 2' 8-32 was clearly the youngest, but which of the other two 
was the older is uncertain. The order here suggests Abishai; that 
of 2 S. 2'% Joab. — 17. And Abigail bore 'Amasa and the father, 
etc.] derived from 2 S. 17". — The Ishmaelite] the true reading 
{v. L). 

9. "'3i'-r](gA Xa\e)3 = 3^3, b Xa/SeX.— 10. >:2] (^ rod otKOV = n>3.— 
11. ndSb' bis] (B and Ru. 4=' jic':';' but Ru. 420 r\r.'^:.', cf. We. DGJ. p. 37. 
— 13. •'^\v] manyMSS. (Kennic.) "'C which may be simply a correction 
from the preceding •>•»:•% v. ^■. Since the author would be likely to use the 
same spelling, 'r>N has been taken for an original ';"% SS., Ki. SBOT. 
— anj'jNi]. (S AfjL. is a phonetic error common in (&. — 16. '>B'3n] ii'i' 18'* 
ipu. 15 2 S. io'°, but elsewhere in i and 2 S. ■'tt'iax, and so Ki. in Ch.; 


($ 'A^eicrd., 'A/Sicro-d. — 17. ■'SNyctS'"'n] 2 S. ly^s ^SNTJ'''n. 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 
He.xateuch, Caleb the cotemporary of Joshua, the reputed founder 
of the clan, was a Kenizzite (Nu. 32'2 Jos. 14= '^), and since Kenaz 
appears among the grandsons and dukes of Edom (Gn. 36"- '^ *' 
I Ch. i'«- "), the clan Caleb was originally of Edomiiic origin, 
kindred with the Amalekites. They claimed the conquest of 
Hebron and Debir (Jos. 1515-17 Ju. i ■'-!'). Carmel was also 
one of their tovms. 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. '^-^'i- "-49 4u-i5a_ 
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-jcarim, Bethlehem, Eshtaol, Zorah, etc., 
vv. '"-5^ 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. Jud. 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 w. " " 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 (nilTJ?, forsaken) is probably a refer- 
ence to the abandoned home of the Calebites in southern Judah 
(v. s.), and the daughter of Jerioth HiyT, tents) probably 
looks back to the early nomadic life of the Calebites (We. DGJ, 
p. 26). — And these were her sons Jesher f, Sliobab, and Ardon f]. 
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. 5° 
4*, a name of Bethlehem Mi. 52 Ru. 4", and possibly the name of a 
district in northern Judah (cf. Ps. 132^, Del.), this new marriage 
clearly expresses the movement of the Calebites northward and 
their settlement in northern Judah (v. s., cf. v. s"). — Hur] 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, cf. Ahaz = Jehoahaz COT. I. p. 255.).— 
20. And Hur begat Uri, etc.]. This genealogy of Bezalel, the 
reputed skilled workman of the Tabernacle, is taken verbatim 
from P, Ex. 31^ 355'', 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 ofGilead] a son of Manasseh 
mentioned as the father or conqueror of Gilead in Nu. 26" 32" 
Jos. i7> Dt. 3'°. In Ju. 5 Machir stands for the tribe of Manasseh. 
He was clearly the most important clan of the tribe. — Segub] not 
mentioned elsewhere, possibly an error of transcription for Argob, 
the district inhabited by Jair (Dt. 3'^ Jos. 13''), who in v. ^^ appears 
as his son. — 22. Jair] given as a son of Manasseh (Nu. 32^' Dt. 
3i< Jos. 13"), also one of the minor Judges (Ju. lo'). — Aiid 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. 13'° i K. 4'^ The number given for these tovras 
evidently fluctuated. They represent the northern portion of 
Gilead. — 23. Geshiir and Aram] Geshur, an Aramean tribe 
dwelling in the region of Argob and at the time of David an inde- 
pendent kingdom 3^ 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 w. ''-". 
The introduction in the midst of a list of Hezronites from the three 
sons, Jerahmeel, Ram, and Caleb, of those through another son 
by a later marriage renders the contents of w. 2>-" surprising, and 
especially are they strange in connecting in any way the Hezron 
of Judah with members of the tribe of Manasseh. Whether the 
historical fact of the incorporation of Judaites with Manassites 
lies back of this or whether the whole notice arises from a misunder- 
standing of genealogical material is uncertain. In the latter case 
Hezron may represent a Reubenite clan of that name {cf. 5') which 
coalesced with Gileadites (Meyer, Entst. Jnd. p. 160, Steuemagel, 
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. ig'* 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 w. "•• 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 ajier 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. 
"• 5". The taking of a father's wife was asserting claim to the 
father's possessions {cf. 2 S. 16" i K. 2^^--^), and well expressed the 
legitimacy of Caleb's residence in northern Judah. — And she bore 
Ashhiir] 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. r\y;>-\'< rxi hd's navjj ns T^in |nxn p 3*^31] (6^ reproduces M. 
* has for T'Sin eXa/3ev; § for 'nN> p ; ^r^x^, pn. B combines (6*, 
M, and ^ accepit iixorem nomine Azubali de qua genuit Jerioth. This 
Ki. (SBOT.) follows, nvTi nx niSn nrx r\2vy nx np*?, but in Kom., 
BH. he follows & ns i.tj'x 'y js. We. (DGJ. p. ^t,) reads na 
nv'T' instead of '"< nxi. 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, i^b. i9»_ j_ h. Mich, met this difficulty by regarding Jerioth as 
another name for Azubah, the waw in PNi being explicative. Ke. and 
Zoe. follow ^ regarding Jerioth the daughter of Caleb and mother of the 
sons of V. "I'. On the whole, we prefer the reading of We., preferred by 
Bn. It still leaves the harsh construction of njirj? nx after T'Sin denot- 
ing the mother and not the child (nir's is probably a gloss to render this 
obvious). A parallel construction, however, may be found in Is. 65', 
where i*?' Hiph. has the force to cause to bear, or nx may be taken as 
equivalent to nxD, cf. ja iSim 8'. — 24. n^jx |nxn ntrxi n.-nsx 2^22] M 
adhered to by Ke., AV., RV. is clearly corrupt. (B has ^\dev XaX^/3 


els 'EcppdBa Kal i) yvv^ "E<T€pi)v 'A/3td, so 21. The true text, rendered 
above, undoubtedly was n>3N inxn p-^-n r\r.-yQH j'^j S3, We. DGJ., pp. 
14/., Ki. — iin-f.x]= -iin-rN, We. DGJ. p. 15, SS., cf. 'ry^rx = Sy^-^r^s 
8" 9", iina^N 7I8. In vv. 's. so 44 he is called mn, r/. S;3 -':';3;'n S^". 

25-33. The families of the Jerahmeelites. — Jcmfimecl in the 
time of David was an independent clan like that of Caleb, in- 
habiting the Negeb of Judah (i S. 27'° 30"). It is not mentioned 
in subsequent history. Whether it played any part in the post- 
exilic Jewish community, or whether this genealogy having been 
preserved with that of Caleb was therefore recorded by the Chroni- 
cler, we do not know (v. s. on vv. '^-■'). All the names given are 
comparatively early ones and favour the antiquity and historicity 
of the list. — 25. Ram] v.", cf. vv. ' '" Jb. 32^. A possible con- 
nection has been seen between this family and Abram. The name 
by some is supposed to represent an ancient deity {v. s. i-'). — Bii- 
nah and Oren j]. — Ozem] v. '^ f. — His brother *]. So we must 
probably read in place of the proper name Ahijah. — 26. ' Atarah\ 
This name of the mother of the most widely extended family of 
the Jerahmeelites is to be compared for its original meaning and 
derivation with Hezron, v. ', and probably arose from the Jerah- 
meelites inhabiting Ataroth (n'ltDJ?), protected places (We. DGJ. 
p. 15). Ataroth alone appears as a local name, Nu. 32=- =4 Jos. 16% 
and also in combination Jos. 16* 18'^ Nu. 32^5 i Ch. 2'^ That 
Alarah was a second wife probably shows that the earlier sons of 
Jerahmeel represented nomad families, while her descendants 
those of a more settled life. — Onam] v. "^ also the name of a family 
of Edom i^° Gn. 36" f, perhaps connected with Onan the son of 
Judah, v.'. — 27. Maaz and Janiin and 'Eker]. Maaz and Eker 
are mentioned only here. Janiin is among the sons of Simeon, 
Gn. 46"'.— 28. Shammai]. Cf. 2-'- ''■ "• "^ 4'\~Jada'] v. ", 
for compounds of root from which it comes (pi"), see i'^. — 
Nadab] v. " a frequent name. — Abishur] v. " f. — 29. Ahihail * ] 
name of the wife also of Rehoboam 2 Ch. ii'^ and a man's name, 
a Levite Nu. y\ a Gadite i Ch. 5", and the father of Esther Est. 
2'5 929 \.—Ahban and Molid f]. — 30. Sded f]. — Appaim] v. '' f. — 
31. Jisk'i] 2=' 4^"- "2 554 -j-, a name thus of frequent occurrence. — 
Sheshan] vv. ^'- "■ " f. — Ahlai] ii<' 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. 
II". — Zaza]\. — These were the sons of J erahme el\ the conclusion 
of this list of Jerahmeelites. None of these families or persons 
are mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament (except Sheshan 
below), and hence nothing more can be said concerning them. 
The fact that Onam is also the name of a family of Edom and Ja- 
min of one of Simeon suggests a close relationship with those 

25. n>n.y] the name of a 6fth son, Ahijah, AV., RV., Kau., Iff, 51; 
the name of the mother of the preceding four sons, a c following nxx 
having fallen out, the text having stood 'N-; dxn Ozem of Ahijah, 
Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe. (6 dSeX^ds avrov = n^ns has been followed, 
so Ki. ^ ^coilu.. = vns, We. DGJ., p. 15. — 29. S\n'2N] read with 
many mss., CS", '^'n-ax. — 30. n^cs] also v. ". Ki. emends to D'-«dn 
after (&^ 'Ecppdt/j., § Jdj^iia, since a name D'sn is suspicious, We. 
DGJ., but ^B niay be a corruption of A(p4>aifjL 0&*. — ='J3 n*^] also v. ", 

see Ges. § 152M.— 31. v-'] <S^ 'la-e/iLi^X, g> }-»liw4,), both of which 

Ki. (SBOT.) thinks point to a divine appellative at the end, hence 
following the indication of C6^ lefftrovei he reads ve's - ^ic'> - Sj-^arx 
cf. We. TS., on I S. 14^3. 

34-41. The pedigree of Elishama a descendant of the Je- 
rahmeelite Sheshan. — 34. And Sheshan had no sons but daugh- 
ters]. To reconcile this statement with v. ="> it has been assumed 
that A Mai was a daughter of Sheshan, "sons" there indicating 
only descendants (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.) This is possible, but for 
w. "-23 the Chronicler probably had an entirely different source 
from that of vv. ^^-^i. (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 Eg}-ptian 
nothing further is known, and also nothing further of the four- 
teen descendants recorded in xx. "-^■. 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. ■"), w-hose 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 Elishama about 600 b. c, there is nothing in the charac- 
ter of the names given against the genealogy being genuine. They 
stand in sharp contrast with others which appear to be made up 
from names current in the Chronicler's own time (Gray, HPN. 

P- 235)- 
42-55. Families of Caleb. — Cf. w. ^^-\ Vv. "-^5. n. 49. 50a 

belong together and come apparently from the same source as vv. 
26-33. Vv. " ■'s- i-o^/^-ss appear also of common origin, and belong 
to the late material of i Ch. (We., Ki.).— 42. The brother oj 
Jerafimeel] 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. (g 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. 2^* ^ 26^, the modern Tell 
Ziph one and three-quarters hours south-east of Hebron (Baed." 
p. 170). This latter is here referred to. — Maresha'^] the name 
of a well-known town of the Shephelah, Jos. 15^^ 2 Ch. 11 ^ 149 '■ 
20" Mi. I '5 -j-, the modern Merash (Baed.« p. 116). It is difhcult, 
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 fatlier 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 tov^Ti 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. Taffiih west of 
Hebron {SWP. HI. pp. 310, 379; Baed.^ p. 1^2).— 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='. — Shatna] 
perhaps the same as Eshtemoa (Hithp. of same stem) Jos. 155" 
21'*, cf. the mod. Semiia identified with Eshtemoa (Rob. Res. II. 
p. 194). The location of Eshtemoa in the immediate neighbour- 
hood of Hebron favours this identification. — 44. Raham\ The 
root (nni) appears in Jerahmeel. — Jorkeam] probably Jokdean 
Jos. 155% 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. -K — 45. Ma on] Jos. 15" 
I S. 25', mod. Main south of Hebron {SWP. III. pp. 404, 415; 
Baed.2 p. 144). — Beth-znr] Jos. 15^8 2 Ch. 11' Ne. 3"=, mod. 
Beit Sur, four miles north of Hebron {SWP. III. p. 311 ; Baed.* p. 
112). — 46. And Ephah the concubine of Caleb, '^ etc.]. This verse 
is entirely obscure. Neither 'Ephah, Haran, Moza, nor Gazaz 
can be identified with any places, families, or persons mentioned 
elsewhere. Ki. joins with v. ^^ and marks as a later addition to i 
Ch. — 47. Jahdai]. The connection with the foregoing is not given 
and the name has been taken as that of another wife or concubine 
of Caleb; more probably Jahdai is a descendant of Caleb whose 
name in the original connection has fallen from the text. Of the 
following sons none are otherwise known unless Pelet is identical 
with Beth-pelet a town of southern Judah Jos. 15". The verse 
according to We. and Ki. is to be connected with v. *^. — 48. 
Maacah] entirely unknown, since this cannot be connected with 
the Aramean Maacah or with various persons mentioned else- 
where in the Old Testament of the same name (3=^ 7'^ 8=' 11", etc.). 
— Sheber f] and Tirhanah •\] are equally unknown. — 49. And 
Shaaph begat^], a continuation of v."'. — Madmannah] from Jos. 
15" a well-known town of southern Judah, possibly Unim Deinneh, 
twelve miles north-east of Beersheba {SWP. HI. pp. 392, 399). — 
5// ez'a f] except Qr. 2 S. 20=^ entirely unknown. — Machbena] 
perhaps the same as Cabbon, a city of southern Judah Jos. i^*" 
(BDB.). — Gibe a] possibly the same as Gibeah Jos. 15", mod. 
Jeba, eight miles west of Bethlehem {SWP. III. 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 ivere the sons of Caleb]. This summary 
looks backward, not forward, cf. v. "b^ a^^ 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] 
0!f.3 Jos. i2'3), Gedor, see 4^ — 52. And the sons of Shobal . . . 
were Re'ajah^, half of the Manahtitcs'^]. This passage is utterly 
obscure. The emendations are derived from v. " 42. — 53. The 
Ithrites and the Piithites and the Shiimathites and the Mishra'ites]. 
Nothing further is known of these families of Kirjath-jearim. Two 
of David's heroes were Ithrites 2 S. 2338 1 Ch. 11"; their connection, 
however, may have been with Yattir i S. 30" (Klo., Sm.). — And 
from these went forth the Zor athites and the Eshta'olites]. From 
these families or the Mishraites alone came the inhabitants of 
Zor ah (mod. Surah, SWP. III. p. 158) Jos. 19^' Ju. 13^ 25^ etc., 
and of Eshta'ol (mod. Eshua near Surah, SWP. II. p. 25) Jos. 
15" 19^' Ju. 13", etc. — 54f. The sons of Salma] the heading of the 
following places and families. On Salma cf. vv. " ^i. — Netopha- 
thites] Ne. 12", cf. 2 S. 23" 2 K. 25", the inhabitants of Netophah, 


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 Beit Nettif (Rob. Res. II. pp. 16/., but see Baed." p. 124). — 
Aiaroth-betli-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, Shim'a- 
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, U canentes atqite 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, ynn =Heb. "lj?y). We. (DGJ. pp. 30/.) finds underlying 
the three names nj^iri a technical term for sacred music, nyt^ty 
the Halacha or sacred tradition, and n^lw' which he connects, 
following Be. and H, with n31D 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. 1 15 4" I S. 155) 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. 3". 

42. jnan on nri:; ij3i iv 10s Nin n:3 r-"S '?x?:m' 'nx 3*^3 'J3i]. 
This text is probably corrupt. 05 has nris instead of >".:"2 which Ki. 
follows and strikes out "^n before ]^-\2n as a gloss {Kom., BH.). yr^s 
following SiScmi may have arisen from the preceding i'Si^Sx v. ■" 
(a similar confusion from the present text appears in d, where in place of 


yy^o, the text has j;r;!r''SN), and nr-in may be a transmuted dittography 
of ya'''D with >jji added. Under this conjecture the original text as far 
as can be restored was ]^-\2n >3ni fiv "'2S Nin noa . . . Sxrimi ^ns 3*^3 ^jj. 
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^ ^- 15''. It is 
also possible that yir^a has fallen out before n^'iD through the simi- 
larity of names. — 44. a;'!"!"!^] cf. D>"'p'' Jos. 1556. The two names are 
without doubt identical. — 47. yy^>] (B^ TrjpffojfjL, cf. ^ ^ojyap, which, even 
if corrupt, supports p in the ^ text, hence Ki. ff^^?.. — 48. i'?^]. The 
subject HDyo requires n^'^^^, Ges. § 145M. — 49. e]-;y •i'?ni] to be read 
(]•;•>:? iS-'i, since ^';~> has already been mentioned in v. ", and v. " most 
probably is its continuation. We. DG/. p. 19, Ki. — 50. p] some mss., 
<B, U 'j3, required since several sons of Hur are enumerated. — 51 . n::Sj'] 
C5^^ SaXwiUcbj/. — 52. nxin] read nixi. This correction is made ac- 
cording to 4=, since the former is meaningless, so Ki. — nnjcn] \-'.njDn 
according to v. ". — 55. -i^u'^] Qr. ''3V'i\ 

III. 1-24. The descendants of David. 

1-9. David's children.^ — The sources of this list are 2 S. 3^-5 
^n-16 joi. With the exception of Amnon, Adonijah, Absalom, 
Solomon J 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 born in Hebron 
present no variations. Of those bom in Jerusalem the Chronicler 
gives Shun a (SyuJw') v. ^ for Shammua {'^^^2'^) 2 S. 5'% Elish- 
ama (yD'w"'^S) v. « for Elishud (yi:r''^S) 14' 2 S. S'^ which 
should be read here (Bn., Ki.). The textual corruption in this 
latter case is very evident, since Elishama appears as the name of a 
son in V. ' 2 S. 5'=. The two names EUphelet (l^'/D'^^S) v. % and 
Nogah (n^i) V. ^, which are wanting in 2 S., have clearly been 
developed in transcription and should be struck from the text (Ki.). 
Instead of Eljadd (JJT''?^) (v. « 2 S. 5"), the original true name 
probably was Baaljadd (y"i'''?J<'2), given in 14', the change 
having been made to avoid the use of Baal (Ki., Dr. TS.). Bath- 
shiia (yiD"n3) V. ^ instead of Bath-sheba {']^2U riD) 2 S., i K., 
is a phonetic variation arising from the similar sound of 2 bh 
and 1 w. The length of David's reign in Hebron and of that in 
Jerusalem are taken from 2 S. 5^ 


1. jnana hSni] 2 S. 32 jnana d>j3 in'? n^vv — nSij] on con- 
struction, see Dav. Syn. § 81 R. 3. — nisan] 2 S. niD3 ^7\^y. — ■■jr] 
read with 01 ''JK'l?, c/. other ordinals with an. 2 S. 3' has inji»Di.— Vn'-ji] 
a corruption of ^nSd of 2 S. where (6 has AaXoi^ta = nsSi, so also 
(gAL here, but " Aa/xviriX. These variations point to a corruption of stthz 
into nx'^T into '?n'j-i, so Ki. In favour of this are the errors of trans- 
mission in vv. ^'- {v. s.). The name of the second son of David still 
remains doubtful, however, since the name 3nSd occurs nowhere except 
in 2 S. 33 and ax*? looks like a dittography, see Stenning, DB., art. 
Chileab. — S^j'^s^] 2 S. + ''^^i nii'x, but <S there agrees with Ch. — 2. 
Di'?B'3xS] twenty mss. and 2 S. omit '^ — 3. '^a''3N^] 2 S. 3* Sa'3N p, but (^ 
there read 'wsS. & has been corrected from i^ of 2 S. — ina-x] 2 S. 3' nti^a 
in. # corrected from 2 S. — 4. iS I'^ij n^*;*] 2 S. inS nS'' hSn. & 
conflates. — 5. njinSsi] cf. 14* =28. $^*. — i-i'7ij] point with many 
MSS. ■n';'ij, Ges. § 6gL — NjjD-i'] 14^ 2 S. 5'* iirou', c/. i S. i63. — i'liy ra''] 
one MS., B, 2 S. II and i K. i ;»?c' nj, (& Bripa-dpec {v. s.). — 6. jrctriSNi] 
two MSS., 145, 2 S. 5'5 yitt* — (11. 5.). — 6. 7. njji t3'?fl'''?si] wanting in 2 S. 
(f. 5.). — 8. jj-i^Sn] 147 jniS>'3i {v. s.). — n-;'yn] must be read n3;att> after 
striking out njji bSd^Sni (i;. s.). 

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. 233'; 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. 233' 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. 2224- ^s 371^ 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 (r/. 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 "iDK) having lost the art. was taken in (5, 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. 3- et al. as his son, i.e., grandson. 
But the copula before Malchiram suggests the usual interpretation, 
i. e., that all of them were sons of Jeconiah. ^ introduces his 
son (122) 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, 
Enist. Jiid. pp. 75^-, 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- 
stellung 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 52 Ne. 12' Hg. i'- ''■ '^ 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 (S^^, Salathiel taking the place of Pedaiah. 
d^ 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 sons* of Zerubbabel : Meshullani (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 


Hashubah f and Ohel | and Berechiah and Hasadiah f , Jnshab- 
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 
Zerubbabcl's children have been thought to express the hopes 
of Israel at that time, McshuUam meaning "Recompensed," 
cf. Is. 42"; Hananiah, "Yahweh is gracious"; Shelomith, 
"Peace"; Hashubah, "Consideration"; Ohel, "Tent," i. e., 
"Dwelling place of Yahweh"; Berechiah, "Yahw-eh 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\ — tJie so7is of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the 
sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shecaniah]. 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 (^, V, ^ have 1j2 "his son" and the verse 
reads And the son of Hananiah ivas Pelatiah and Jeshiah his son, 
and Arnan Jiis 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. -■-"*, 
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'° lo^ 12'-). 

17-24. Rothstein in his somewhat fanciful monograph on these verses 
{op. cit. s.) presents the following: In vv. '^ '• read n^oxn and omit iJ3 
at end of v. ''. Shealtiel 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 Shealtiel, " 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. i ». Sheshbazzar and 
Pedaiah are the same person. The correctness of Pedaiah's fatherhood 
of Zeriihhabel (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. ^o read a'?tt'D '•J3 {v. also 
5.) and revise the names reading noc'n "Yahweh considers," instead of 
n2-2fn (v. s.), and Ss^n^ ('^vSin^) "Yahweh causes to live," instead of "^nN 
(v. 5.) and n^i^p "Yahweh brings quietness," instead of non 2t'v 
{v. s.). V. -' should read nijr^i . . . niflni n^yii'M nvjSij n'jjn ^>:2^, the 
verse mentioning only the sons of Hananiah, 'J3 being repeated through 
copyist error. Instead of jnx read n^nx. In v. " eliminate n^yiiZ' •<i2^ 
as copyist error and read fiam. hav is an equivalent for Snji^ and in 
place of the unexampled nnj read nnrj; and instead of r\-'-\^': read 
n\-<"j. In v. " read 'J3i instead of pi. The remaining names of the 
section, in vv. "f.^ are correctly transmitted and full of meaning. In 
T/I.^St* "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 iDxn, the preceding word ending in n has caused the 
loss of the art. — 18. -isnj'.:'!] has been identified with -\^tz<Z' of Ezr. i^ 
(v. s.). A comparison of the Greek MSS. of i Esd. 2" and 2 Esd. i' 
shows that 'Lava^aa-ffapos was the original form in (& of Ezr., hence 
•\-i2Z'-y probably read -\-i2yy originally. — jj^cin] is either abbreviated 
from MHi, or a textual error (BDB.). — 19. r^-'^s] 05"^ + iomss. '^x\-i'^Na' 
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 nno.-jai] read with some mss., <S, &, "jai, so Kau., Ki., Bn. 
— 20. Since seven sons and one daughter are inconsistent with the clos- 
ing word ccn, Bn. regards this verse as a later interpolation. Ki. 
suggests the insertion of aV^'s -j^i at the beginning {BH., so also Roth- 
stein, op. cit.). — 21. pi] some mss., ®, &, ®, 'jav — j2] ®, B, (&) four 
times 1J3 -t- 1J3 at the end {v. s.). — 22. n^jjs' 'J3i] may be an error for 
IV ]2\ so ®, B, ^ (but z*. 5.). — 23. pi] read with some mss., (S, 3, 
^J3i. — 24. inv-jin] Qr. in^T^, ^-^ J25outa (so ^ in 5-' 9'), B 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 22«-" <2-^5. 47. 49_ 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 (Enlste- 
hung p. 164). Bn. finds also post-exilic conditions {Kom. p. 13). Ki. 
in Kom. adopts this view. 

1. Introduction. — The sons of Judah; Perez, Hezron, Caleb*, 
Hur, Shobal]. ^ and all Vrss. have Carmi (^12*13), but clearly 
from 2^- 5- '• =° we should read Caleb (We., Ki., Zoe., Bn.) (per- 
haps originally *'2'?3 easily transmuted into ''ISI^, cf. 2' ''2"i'?3). 
According to 2^- '• '^ '■ 5° these sons of Judah are not co-ordinate, 
but after the analog)' of i', a line of descent. The treatment, how- 
ever, in the following ^'^'. suggests co-ordinate sons of whom the 
youngest, Shobal, is considered first, v. ', then the next older, Hur, 
v\. '-'"j and then the next, Caleb, w. "•". Next should follow sons 


of Hezron and of Perez. The sons of Shelah w, 2'-" may then 
be regarded as an appendi.x. 

Bn. finds in v. " either a fragment of tlie line of Hezron and in vv. 
I'-'-o the Une 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-' », he regards these 
verses (2-* + 4'-"') as the original Hezron list of c. 4, which originally 
stood after the Caleb list, vv. "-'\ and he holds also The sons of Perez 
were Jehallelel and Ezrah to have fallen out before vv. '^-2", and thus he 
would bring everything into order. Ki. adopts essentially this second 
alternative. Both Bn. and Ki. regard the sons of Shelah, vv. ^i 23, as a 
later addition. 

2-10. Sons of Shobal and Hur. — 2. And Reaiah the son of 
Shobal]. Cf. 2". ReaiaJi is a family name among those who 
returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr. 2^' Ne. y'". — Jahath] is a fre- 
quent Levite name (6^' -'^ <". 43) 23'" '• 24" 2 Ch. 3412 |). — 
Ahumai f and Lahad f] entirely obscure. Instead of Ahiimai 
we should probably read after (g Ahimai (Gray, HPN. p. 279), 
especially if a compound of riH, since all other proper names 
which are compounds are spelled thus (see list under nS, BDB.). 
— These are families of the Zorathites]. Cf. 2", where Zoralh- 
ites are connected with families of Kiriath-jearim whose father 
was Shobal. Zorah, mentioned in Ne. 11", 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.^\ — 3. And 
these are the sons of II iir* 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 Aitam (Bn.) (Etam, DB.). 
But lezreel 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. '^ No de- 
cision can be reached. — Ishma |] and Idbash f] are entirely 
obscure, also their sister Hazzelelponi or the Zelelponite f or Zelel 
shade {cf. Zillah Gn. 4") {v. i.). — 4. Penu'el and 'Ezer] persons, 


families, or localities otherwise unknown. The former cannot be 
connected with Penuel east of the Jordan (Bn. mentions Peniiel a 
clan of Benjamin 8=^); 'Ezer may be identified with 'Ezrah v. ''.— 
The location of Hiishah is unknown. Two heroes of David's 
guard were Hushites, 2 S. 2i'8 23" i Ch. 11" 20^ 27". — Gedor]. 
Cf. V. '8 12', mentioned with Halhul and Beth-zur, Jos. 15^8^ and 
generally identified with mod. Jedur (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 Hiir the first horn of Ephrathah the 
father of Bethlehem]. Cf. 2^'> ' . The words after Hiir are ace. to 
Ki. (SBOT.) a gloss.— 5. Ashfiur]. Cf 2'-*.— Father of Tekoa'] a 
gloss ace. to Ki. (SBOT.) cf 2-^ — The reference under the wives 
HeVah and Na arah is obscure. No such places or districts have 
been identified in Judah. (A town Na'arah was on the borders 
of Ephraim, Jos. 16'.) Possibly Naarah (n"iyj), "maiden," is 
enigmatic, denoting earlier settlements or conditions, and Helah 
{r\^hr\)y "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=^ — Heplier] 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 (•'il^Tl) means a Southerner, i. e., of southern Judah, cf. 
Teman (patronymic •'JDTl) the name of Edom, Gn. ^6", etc. — 
A?id the Ahashtarites f] (nnu'nS'n) 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 Ashhurites (EBi. II. col. 
192 1 ) (v. i.).—7. Zereth f and Zohar *]. The latter is the family 
name of Ephron of Hebron, Gn. 238 25', and of a son of Simeon, 
Gn. 46'°. — Ethnan] (i^ns) 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. 2=' Ne. 7") and 
the writer desired that the Judean Calebite or non-Levitical origin 
of this family might not appear. The identity of names, however, 
mav be purely accidental (r/. 24'°). — ' Aniib f ] probably to be con- 
nected with 'Anab (23^), Jos. 15^°, a town near Debir, mod. 
'Anab {SWP. III. pp. 392 /.). The names Koz {^'^'p) thorn, and 
'Anuh (3*Ji?) grape, suggest an allegory, a thorn here bringing forth 
a grape, cf. Mt. 7'* (Zoe.). — Of Zobebah f and the families of 
Aharhel f son of H arum f nothing further is kno\^^l. Instead of 
Zobebah probably Ja'bez should be read {v. i.). — 9. And Ja'bcz 
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. ^t. 10. His mother had given 
bJm 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 Jabez (j^^y) saying I have borne him with 
pain (3i'J?)] 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 2'^^ to |>2V is noticeable. The 
name is equivalent to 3'i'y'', meaning He caiiseth pain. — 10. And 
Ja'bez called on the God of Israel saying, Oh that thou woiildest 
surely bless me and enlarge my border and that thy hand woidd be 
with me and thou wouldest keep back evil so that no sorrow 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. C'J'y 13N n'^.xi] some MSS. ■'J3 instead of ^3n and others "aN-^ja; 
(6 Kal oDtol viol Airdu; & v-SfXtl^l) ^oialO ,-t\oiO, And these 
arc the sons of Aminadab; H Ista quoque stirps Elam. Something 


seems to have fallen from 1|. Kau. follows <8. Ki. on nin 'J3 nSsi 
c:;^>' {And these are the sous of Hur the father of ' Etam) (also Bn.). — 
'Jid':'''Si] may be read the Zelelponite or taken as a personal name 
Zelelponi, meaning, Give shade thou that tiirnest to me (BDB.)- It 
is better to see in "jid a dittography from the following Snud. The 
name then is S'^sn or perhaps '^'^x. One is tempted to write SnSx 
shade of Cod. — 6. Bins] some MSS., 01 crnx, B Oozam. — •'-irs'nNr] 
perhaps a corruption of '-(in-^'Nn the Ashhurites {v. s.). — 7. inxi] read 
with Qr. -\rri\ (& Kal Zaap. — ]iT■ti^] S + Tip'', adopted by Klo. PRE.^ 
iv. 94, followed by Ki., Bn. — 8. Ki. following Klo. inserts 1*3]?' 
among the sons of W, also suggesting as possible that n32in = yap 
— 9. V3">] in popular etymology derived from 3XJ' {v. s.). It is not 
necessary to suppose with Klo. that the name read 3X>"'', cf. y^. — 10. 
bn] a particle of wishing, BDB. bn ib (3), Ges. § 1515, or of con- 
dition with conclusion suppressed, Oe., Kau., Ges. § 167a. — nj-np n'»c>i] 
is difficult to translate. <& yvuffiv = njn';. The readings nyi*: and 
nsij? have been suggested. Ki. thinks an error lies in the verb and 
reads '3 niim. Better retain M. — oxy \nSaS] noun-suffix as object of 

T T • ; T -* -■ 

inf., Ges. § 115c; penult syllable closed, Ges. § 61a. 

11-15. The sons of Caleb, — 11. And CaJitb] i.e., Caleb 
(cf. 2 9 and above on v. •). — Of Shuhah f nothing is kno\\-n. <g 
has in place of the brother of Shuhah, " the father of Achsah " Jos. 
i5»6, 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-rapJia] a place or family 
otherwise unkno\\-n. A Benjaminite Rapha is mentioned 8=, and 
Kapha collective sing., or plural Raphaim (mss. vary), 2o< refer to 
the giant aboriginal race of Palestine. A vale (.tCy) of Rephaim 
near Jerusalem is also mentioned, Jos. 15 « i8'« 2 S. 5>'- ". — 
Paseah'\ a post-exilic family name of Nethinim, Ezr. 2^' Ne. 7^1, 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 ]. (g^^ (probably original ^, see text, n.) have 
Recab, and this probably furnishes the true reading and explana- 
tion of the families given in \^'. " '■. They were Recabites, cf. 2". 
— 13. And the sons of Kenaz 'OthnVel and Seraiah]. Cf. Ju. i^' 
where Othniel is called the son of Kenaz, and is either the nephew 
or brother of Caleb (Moore in loco favours the latter). Othniel 
probably represeiits 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 Othni'el Hathath f] entirely obscure. — 14. And 
Meonothai f] (TiJlyd) 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 Meonothai 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. iS^^ i S. 13'", and also as that of one of Manasseh 
Ju. 6'". — And Seraiah begat Joah the father of the Ge-harashim] 
i.e., Valley of Craftsmen, for they were craftsmen]. Ge-harashim 
is mentioned with Lod and Ono Ne. ii^s and it mav 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 Jephunneh] Nu. 32'2 Jos. i4«- ". The link con- 
necting Caleb with Kenaz is apparently omitted as well known. 
The enumeration of descendants of Othniel before those of Caleb 
son of Jephunneh is in accordance with the method in this chapter 
of mentioning the younger members of a family first, cf. Shobal 
v. 2 before Hur, and Hur before Caleb or Kenaz. — Caleb the son of 
Jephunneh] a Kenizzite, Jos. i4«- '% 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. i^^K — Ir f * and 
Elah f and Na am f] entirely obscure. One is tempted to join Ir 
(T^J?) city, with Elah and find a reference to the city Elath (H^S = 
riTS), Dill., Gn. 36^'. At all events Elah is an Edomxitic name 
which may be seen in El-paran (pS ^''^^) 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 sotis 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. nniB' 'ns 21^31] (5 Kal XaX^jS iraxTjp A^xaCs) is a correction from 
2". — 12. trnj] (6^^ + ddeXcpoO 'E<re\ojfj.{i') roO Xev€^{e)[, L a. AOdofj. r. 
Kevi^aiov, adopted by Bn., Ki., since it supplies a connecting link 
with V. '3. Ki. recognises the difficulty raised by this unknown EcreXw/* 
being represented as a son of Tehinnah and of Kenaz at the same time, 
which he e.xplains as a mixture of families. But Eo-eXw/x is merely a 
corruption of Effe^wv (cf. (&^ Addofi.) = ii.-i::'n, hence (^ read iins'S >ns 
v:pn which in turn originally was "JP 'N 'N, the brother of Eshton was 
Kenaz, an early gloss to connect with v. ".— n^i] ^^l 'Ptj-x^d^ of which 
A Trida is a corruption, hence (S = 3^^, cf. 2^^. — 13. nrin] (^^ + Kal 
'Maojvade'., B et Maonathi = \7iji37ni, adopted by Bn. and Ki. — 15a;3. 
^ .T?s n^>- (gB 'Hp 'Mai, a 'Hpa' 'AXA, 3 Hir et Ela = n'r-Ni ■^-•, so 
Ki. This we have adopted. We. [DGJ. p. 39) retaining ll| sees in 
n>y an equivalent of Di>;', a duke of Edom 1". — 15b, ij^i upi n'^.s] 
some MSS., (B, 1, QI ijp n'^s ijai. Possibly a transposition should be 
made and we should read tjp ^ja hSn, these are the sons of Kenaz 
referring to the contents of vv. "-". The clause then would be 
a gloss, since vv. 's--" without doubt continue the list of Calebites. 
Ki. Kom. supposes something to have fallen from the text before rjpi. 

16-20. Sons of Perez? — 16. Jehallerel] 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. 2346).— Z7>/a]. Cf. 2*\—Zipha f] fem. of Ziph, 
possibly a dittography. — Tiria f ] and Asar'el f] entirely obscure. 
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, cj. 2^'^. — Mered f]. — Epher] name of son of 
Mldian i" On. 25^, and of member of tribe of Manasseh ^~\ — 
Jalon f]. — 17^ f. ^, repeated in H, AV., RV., gives incomplete 
meaning. Usually the clauses arc rearranged as follows: ('»'') 
And these are tlie sons of Bilhiah f the daughter of Pharaoh, 
whom Mered took, i.e., to wife, ('"'■) and she conceived [and bore] 
Miriam and Shammai and Jishhah f the father of Eshtemoa (i^^) 
and his Jewess wife bore Jcrcd the father of Gedor and Tfcber 
the father of Soco and JckuthVel f the father of Zanoah (Be., 
Ke., Zoe., Oe., Kau.). (^ adopted by Ki., requiring only a slight 
change in the text, gives the following : And J ether begot Miriam 
and Shammai and Jishbah the father of Eshtemoa and his Jewish 
wife bore Jered the father of Gedor and Tlcber the father of Soco and 
J ekuthiel father of Zenoah; and these are the sons of Bithiah the 
daughter of Phara oh whom Mered took . . . The names of the 
sons of ISIered 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=8. — Eshtemoa] 6" <"' Jos. 155° 21'^ i S. 30-' the 
present village es Semii'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 Kcnite husband of Jael Ju. 4"- "■ =' 5=^ In this 
last is an association with southern Judah. Cf. also Hebron 
containing the same root. — Gedor]. Cf. v.". — Soco]. Two places 
bore this name, one near the valley of Elah Jos. i^'^^ i S. 17' i K. 
4>'> 2 Ch. II' 28'8 modern Kh. Shuweikeh {SWP. III. p. 53; Rob. 
BR.^ II. pp. 20/.), and the other south-west of Hebron near Eshte- 
moa, Jos. 15^8, also identified, modern 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. III. 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^ 9^ 10" <"" 14' 3. — 
Naham f]. — Keilah] place of Judah frequently mentioned, Jos. 
15^*, Ne. 3 ' ' (especially in connection with David i S. 2;^^ ^■), 
identiiied in mod. Kila east of Eleuthcropolis and north-west of 
Hebron. — Garmite f]. — Before Eshiemoa the word father has 
probably fallen out. — Ma acathite 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 | Amnon 
and Rinnah f Ben-hanan and Tilon f and the sons of Jish i 
Zoheth ■\ 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. — Amnon] elsewhere name of David's eldest son 
slain by Absalom, 3' 2 S. 3^ 13' «■. — Jish'i]. Cf. 2". 

16. SN-jtrNi] (6 IcrepaTjX = SxTy'.s. 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. ^^ Affepij Kal 
Iwaxei/J.. — 17. pi] Heb. MSB. (see Gin.), (5, B ''J^i, so Kau., Ki., 
adopted. — 17b. The transposition given above requires n^n after inm. 
see BDB. under mn. (B Kal iy4vvr](r€y''l^9€p,hence'K.\.a^'\rD pn T'^in nnM. 
— 19. Dnj] 05 + Kal Aava (or AaXetXa) iraT7}p KeetXd, Kal 'Eui/xeiuv 
(Se/xeyuv) iraTjjp 'Iwyitdj', Kal vioi 'Narip.. 2e(a;)^e(w;' probably represents 
|vcu' or pniC', thus establishing a connection with v. "". Natjp. is 
doubtless a corruption from Nax^M = onj, hence the phrase, if orig- 
inal, fell out by homoeoteleuton. Ki. BH. restores as follows: 
Dnj 1J31 ]■c^^)^< >3S (iDpynan nS'';;|-i "i2N nfS)-'Si(i). The double rela- 
tionship of the father of Keilah, however, introduces a new difficulty. 
— 20. jiSini] Qr. and ^A pL„pi. 

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 | and men of 
Chozeha f 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 Chozcba 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 iU Jashubilehem, a proper 
name parallel with Saraph, but the rendering given (Ki.) having 
the support of (^, U, 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. 1535. 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 vv. '' -" probably preserve 
the family traditions and relationships of certain weavers and 
potters of the post-exilic times. The reference to Moab and a 
return points to some story similar to that of Ruth. A connection 
between Joash and Saraph, especially from their ruling in Moab, 
and the post -exilic clan Pahath-moab "Governor of Moab," Ezr. 
26 8< io3o Ne. 3" 7" io'6 <!<>, has been seen (cf. however, Pahath- 
moab, DB.). Bn. holds v." entirely unintelligible. 

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

21. In 12VH a corruption of hy2vn has been found, see EBi. Names 
§ 42. — 22. anS >3C*;i] Be., adopted by Ki., on'? n''? •i3B';i. (&^ kolI 
diri(TTp€\l/ev aiirov ajedtipelv adovKieiv. H renders the entire verse after 
the style of an old midrash: Et qui stare fecit Solem 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, cj. 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. ^^-s' his sons and the geneal- 
ogy of Shimei; vv. 28-33 their dwelling-nlaces; vv. 34-38 their princes; 
w. =9-" historical notices. Of thes*^, vv. 24- 28-33 are derived from 
canonical sources {y. 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. 26'2-i^ For 
variations see textual note. Nothing is known of the clans which 
they represent. — 25 f . A line of descent from Sha'ul, whose mother 
was a Canaanitess, Gn. 46'° Ex. 6'^ i.e., the clan contained Canaan- 
itish elements. — Mibsam] and Mishtna] 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 compounded 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 slight changes (v. i.) of Jos. iq^-^. — 28. Be'er- 
sheba] the well-known outpost of southern Judah present ruin 
Bir es Seba (SWP. III. p. ^g4).— M 61 adah] Ne. ii«, perhaps the 
Malath of Jos. (Ant. XVIII. 6. 2) identified by Robinson (BR.^ II.' 
p. 201) with Tell el Milh, east of Be'ersheba'. This is questioned 
by Buhl {GAP. p. 183) and Conder {SWP. III. pp. 403, 415) — 
Hazar-sJw al] 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. 213 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. 30'°, and is 
frequently mentioned Nu. 14" Dt. i^« Jos. 12'' is*" 19^ — Ziklag] 
the city given to David for a residence by Achish King of Gath, 
I S. 275, 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 -exilic residence, Ne. ii^*. — 31. Beth-7narka- 
botli] house of chariots, not identified. — Hazar-susim] enclosure of 
horses, identified in the ruin Susim ten miles south of Gaza (DB.). 
— Beih-biri] probably corruption of Beth-lebaoth ]os. 19^ A 
possible reminiscence of the Lebaiyoth mentioned in the Tell el 
Amama tablets; not identified. — Shaaraim] Sharuhen Jos. i9«. 
This latter preserves the true and ancient name of the place, since 
it appears in the list of the towns conquered by Thotmes III. 
(Muller, Asien iind Eitropa, 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 to\Mis of Judah 
in Jos. 15=^-32, cf. also i S. 30"'. Moladah, Hazar-shual, Beersheba, 
and Ziklag appear in Ne. 1126-28 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 substitutibn for 'Ether, cf. Jos. 15** 19^ i S. 
30" (where iJJ Ethak), not yet clearly located, although placed at 
the ruin 'Aitun near Eleutheropolis {SWP. III. p. 261). — 'Ain- 


rimmon] Jos. 15" 19' Ne. 11" Zc. i4>°, a proposed identification is 
Kh. Umm er Rtimanim north-east of Beersheba {SWP. III. p. 
261, Buhl, GAP. p. 183). — Token f ] not yet identified. — 'Ashan] 
6** »" 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 h3,s Jive. — 33. Baal] a curtailment of 
Ba'alalh-be'er ra'ntafh-negeb. "Mistress of the well, the high place 
of the South" Jos. 19^, clearly some old place of worship whose 
locahty is unknown. — And they had a genealogical enrollment] 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 \'v. ^*-^', an explanation of the persons mentioned 
V. 3«, their conquest or raid in the direction of Philistia w. "-^' 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 (r;''^!:^'^') we 
read Shimei ("^^l^ty) cf. w. " ' . 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 Clironicler (Ki. SBOT.). — 39. And they came to 
the entrance of Gerar,^ etc.]. iH has Gedor cf. \.\ but a slight 
emendation gives Gerar (d, Ki., Graf, Buhl, die Ed. p. 41), which, 
considering the locahty of Simeon, is probably the true reading. 
The expedition then was toward Philistia. — 40. For t!ie inhabitants 
there formerly ivere 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 Eg}'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 Jiidah]. Whether 


the record (Be.) or the raid (Ke., Zoe., 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. ^^-". — And they smote their tents and the 
Meunim 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 (^ /xivatov; 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 D"in 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 from 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 
Amalckites] 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 {cf. Graf, Der Stamni 
Simeon, p. 30 ff.). This historicity is doubted by Stade (Gesch. 
I. p. 155) and Wellhausen {Prol. pp. 212 /.). The late origin 
of the names in y\.^^-^^ (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" Na 
2612-13. The variations are as follows: Sniej, Gn. and Ex. ^ttm\ 
has in all cases initial \ otherwise the Vrss. support ^ in the several 
passages. Epigraphically ' is a more probable corruption from i than 
the converse. Either form is etymologically obscure (Gray, HPN. 
p. 307). Following ps'' Gn. and Ex. have ins, and & has here joil. 
an^ ^B 'lapdv is in the parallels r^, preferred by Ki. and Bn. (but 
05^ 'lapelv is probably influenced by the preceding la/xew, original ^ 
being that of '^'lapet/S; § ^^>'>^l is doubtless corrected from the parallels 
as in many other places, hence is worthless as evidence), mr, Gn. and 
Nu. ins. — 27. vz'] (&^^ rpeis. — 28-31. Jos. ig^-^ iNa onSma DnS in^i 
noi j'^psi n:;-ini Sinai i':'i.-'"'xi dx;'i n'^31 S'lir isni mSini I'^m jatt' 
onnsni r\•^•yy u'Sii' any }nn:;'i nisa*? noi noiD -\xni naannn. The 

changes are the omission of 373a' and the insertion of 3 before the names 
except Syia* nsni m'^12, as the use of ^y■y^<^ required, and t^:^''^^ for nSa* Snips 
for Si.-i2> i'?in for n^i.-'?N> d^did for hdid, i^na iria for rnxaS nu, 
and anys' for ]nnc The insertion of the clause Tin iSd iy onnj? nSx 
has separated onnsn from the previously enumerated cities so that it 
is in apposition with the cities of vJ-, thus all the Vrss. and Kau. — 32. 
|ici yj is one place and we should read yaix instead of ''i'::n after 
Jos. 19^, where pn has fallen from the text (Bennett, SBOT.). In 
Jos. D3>j; does not appear. Probably it is a corruption of ir", Jos. 19' 
15" I S. 30^1' (where ^ has T^;). — 35. NnM] (^^ + s mss. k^I oCros read- 
ing Nini. — 37. rr;"::"'] Ki. SBOT. corrects to ^';r:v, to agree with v. k, 
so also Stade, ZAW. V. p. 167. (^^ Zufxedv = pysr, cf. v.^*.—AO. 
on' nam I'isn] tlie land is -wide of (on) both hands, cf. Ju. iS"^ Is. 22" 
(BDB. -\'> 3(f).— r-] <S + rQv vlSiv = •'ja. "M + stirpe.—^l. 
aT>'cn] Qr. D^JV?lI- 

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

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

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


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; w. '-' 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. 
i3'« and Nu. 32'- '^ The incident in v.'" is introduced to show 
how the Reubenites came to possess new dwelling-places east 
of Gilead. 

1-3. And the sons of Reuben the first born of Israel]. These 
words are separated from their predicate by the following paren- 
thetical statements vvJ^^-\ and hence are repeated again in v.'. 
— For he was the first born hit 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. 48\ The adoption by Jacob of 
Ephraim and Manasseh was equivalent to giving Joseph a double 
portion or the inheritance of a first-born Dt. 21 '^-i'. — 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 mighty 
among his brethren and a prince was from him]. In reality, 
however, the pre-eminence of the first-born seemed to belong to 
Judah, of w^hom 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).— 5e/a'] 
represents a wide-spread clan whose descent, like that of Be'erah, is 
also from Jo'el, but by a different and shorter Wne.—Shema] is 
not unlikely Shimei or Shemaiah (v. *).—'Aroer] well-known 
city on the north bank of the Amon Dt. 2'« 3" 4'' Jos. 12= 13', 
mentioned as southern boundary of Reuben Jos. 17,'K—Ncbo] 
east of Jericho, Nu. 32'- '' ^y' Is. 15^ Je. 48'- ", the name also of a 
mountain Dt. 32*9 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 
ivilderness] i.e., the eastern boundary of their territory was the 
wilderness which extends east of Moab and Gilead to the Eu- 
phrates.— /w Gile'ad]. Gilead while usually designating territory 
north of Moab extending from Heshbon to the Yarmuk, is also 
applied to the country as far south as the Amon (Dr. Dt. 3«-'0- 
—10. An independent notice of the activity of the Reubenites.— 
Hagrites]. In the Assyrian inscriptions the Hagrites [Hagarami] 
are mentioned along with the Nabateans [Nabatu] among the 
conquests of Sennacherib and located in north-eastern Arabia 
(COT. II. pp. 31 /.). In the same locality they are placed by 
Strabo and Pliny. Later in the Syriac, the name was used as a 
general designation of the Arabians, and at the time of the Chron- 
icler either this had taken place or a portion of them had migrated 
westward and were pressing on the eastern frontier of Palestine 
(Gl. Skiz. 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. 25'^). That fighting was carried on with 
Arabian tribes in the days of Saul is most likely and a reminiscence 
of this may be here found. The lack of orderly connection between 
the sons of Reuben and the notices following, and the lack of such 

V. 11-17.] GENEALOGY OF GAD 121 

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

1. '';;is''] pi. of extension Ges. § 124a, Koe. iii. § 26oh; so used 
elsewhere Ps. 63" 132' Jb. 17" except Gn. 49^ M, but l| allows pi. and 
parallelism suggests it; Ball, SBOT. so emends. — im^j] <& euXoylav 
i.e. iroij, also v.- 17 evXoyta rod 'Iwcr^i^, but the context indicates that 
the birthright and not the blessing is concerned (Bn.). — rninnS nSi] 
1 adversative Koe. iii. § 375f. On inf. cf. Ges. § 114. 2. R. 2, Dr. TH. 202 
(2), Dav. Syn. § 95 (b). — 2. T'Jj'?!] rare use of S to introduce a new 
emphatic subject, cf. BDB. 5 e (e). — 4. Snt •«j3] (6^ IwtjX vlbs ai/rod 
is evidently an effort to establish a connection with the preceding verse. 
— n''>TS'] (5 + Kal Bavaia seems to have grown out of a dittography of 
1J3.— 5. Sy3] ^B it^^X^ so also (S"^ + BaXa (== BaaX).— 6. ip«i'?s njS.n] 
an incorrect way of spelling iDs';'3 nSjn 2 K. 15^' le'", npl^'p nSjn 2 K. 
17'^, arising probably from a natural mispronunciation repeated in v. ^ 
and 2 Ch. 28-". — 9. maia NnS ny]. This inf. phrase is found elsewhere 
with the proper name Hamath, cf. Am 6" Ju. 3^ Jos. 13^, etc., except Ez. 
47'5, where Cornill reads Hamath. — ms "^^^J^i] instead of the more usual 
rno in: Dr. TH. 190. — 10. an'SnN3 12tyi] 05 KaToiKovvres iv crKijvais = 
D'''?nN3 c^;u'' adopted by Bn. (who reads 'X ''3U'''), because it gives better 
sense than % — ^■;] (S twj = i;?. 

11-17. Gad. — The sons of Gad are introduced by the state- 
ment that they lived "over against" the Reubenites (v. i'). 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 '5-''. The enumeration of the chiefs of Gad with their 
brethren (vv. i^-is)^ and the notice concerning their territory and 
date (vv. '«"), are followed by the account of a war which resulted 
in the extension of their territory (vv. 's-^^). 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 diflferent 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. >2- '« " 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. 17'' "' Jos. 22"; (2) generally, of the division next after 
the tribe, the clan, Nu. 3^*; (3) of the division after the clan, the 
family Ex. 12' i Ch. 7'- ^ Cf Dill. Ex. &\—Micha'el] ^83^:: 
"Who is like God." A name only occurring in the post-exilic 
Hterature 6" ("' 7^ 8'« 122" 271^ 2 Ch. 21^ Ezr. 8».—Meshullam] 
C^t^D " Kept safe," i.e., by God, also another name especially fre- 
quent in the post-exilic lists 3'' 8" 9^- '■ » '• 2 Ch. 34'= Ezr. S'* 
io'= " Ne. y- «• =") 6'8 8* iqs- t^> =' <"" ii'- " 12"- '«• "• 33. — Shcba'] 
y2w perhaps an abbreviation for Elisheha '^2''C!^h'S^ "God 
swears "(?) EBi. II. col. 3291. — And Jorai-\ and Jacan-\ 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 ("'J'!)!), which may be a 
corruption of Shuni ("'iVw') a son of Gad (Gn. 46'« Nu. 26'=-"), or 
the converse, since Guni is a clan name of Naphtali. — 14-15. 
These are the sons of AM hail] i.e., those persons or families men- 
tioned in V. '^ Abihail elsewhere name of a Levite Nu. 3'*, and 
the father of Esther (Est. 2'" 9^3). — The son of Hurl f tJie son of 
Jaroah f the son of Gile ad the son ofMicha'el the son of Jeshishai f 
the S071 of Jahdo f the son of Buz . . . the son of Abdi'el the son 
of Guni]. There is a break in the pedigree at Buz according 
to M (so Bn., Ki., Kau.), but Ahi (TIS) appears as a fragment 
and it is better after (^^^ to make the line of descent con- 


tinuous. On Gimi see v. ".—16. In Gilead] since Gad's terri- 
tory elsewhere is placed in Gilead (Nu. 32'- =«• ^' Dt. 3'' Jos. 22' 
12=5). — Jn 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 (r/. 6'° ^''^). —Sharon] (jTl'yT) not mentioned elsewhere 
as a district east of the Jordan. Better after (|^ read Sirion 
jV-itJ^ (Ki., Bn.), which would bring the territory of Gad as far 
north as Hermon and explain their dwelling in Bashan; per- 
haps I'll'^' is a corruption of mt^D (Dt. 3'", see Driver, Com. 
4" Jos. 13'- ''• =')> ^^^^ ^'^^^^ land, between the Amon 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 (|, Ki., Bn.), to their limits. — 17. All of them] i.e., the 
families of the Gadites mentioned in vv. "-'^ — In the days of 
JotJiam king of Judah and in the days of Jerobo am 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. •" vv. "-'% or since vv. " '• 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. 12^- 2'. On the number 44,760 
cf. Jos. 4'^ 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^- "• ^' Reuben 
has 43,730, Gad 40,500, and all Manasseh 52,700. — 19. Hagrites] 



see V. '°. — Jettir and Naphish and Nodah f] Arab tribes. The 
names of the first two are among the sons of Ishmael Gn. 25'* 
I Ch. I". 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. Andtheywere helped against them] i.e., by God 
(for a similar use of the Niph. of -|TJ? cf. 2 Ch. 26 '^ Ps. 28').— 
And all that were with them] i.e., the three tribes associated aDove 
with the Hagrites. The pragmatism of the Chronicler comes out 
strongly in this verse. — 21. For a similar enumeration of booty, 
cf. Nu. 3i32-^5_ — 22. Unto the captivity] i.e., the Assyrian captivity 
under Tiglath-pileser cf. v. "s. The period of this war is not men- 
tioned. The account, according to Bn., is an amplification of 
that of V. '", and from another hand than that of the Chronicler, 
although entirely in his spirit {cf. v. -»). A historical basis for 
the narrative lies in the struggles between the children of Israel 
east of the Jordan and their Bedouin neighbours. 

12. Dflifi] (B^, IS t— . — aDri]<S 6 7pa/ii|uaTei5s.— 13. Dn>m3N n^a'^] Ges. 
§ i24r cf. Ex. 6'* Nu. i^- " et al. — layi] nine MSS. 13;1, (g /c. 0^3175. — 14. 
nn''] dub. one MS. (Kennic.) yn'' which was probably read by ($, "B. — 
1-in'] Baer nn:, (^^'lovpel, a leddai, hence Ki. n_n\ — ns : na] (I* trans- 
poses and renders as one proper name Ax'/3oyf, while ^ also has one 
proper name Za/Soi'xciM, which is certainly corrupt; ^ omits Titi. — 18. 
H2S ^^•i••'] going out to the host, i.e., those able to go to war, cf. 7" 12"- ^ 
Nu. i3- 20. net al. On construction Ges. § ii6h. — 19. 3iiJi] Gn. 25" 
nnnpii. — 20. oncpr] prep. d;j with the suf. of the third pers. pi. + the 
relative .u {zj before a guttural), -r is used instead of t-'n in the later 
books, Ec, La., Jon., Ct., Ch. (3 times, 25s see note, 27") and once 
in Ezr. (8-"), and late Pss. c/. Ges. § 36.— iinvJi] And he stiff ered him- 
self to be entreated by them, inf. abs. with change of subj. after a perf. 
Ges. § 1 13Z. For a similar use of nny in Niph. tolerativum, cf. Gn. 25^* 
2 S. 2i>^ 24'-5 2 Ch. 2,^^^- '5 Ezr. S^' Is. 1922.— 21. D^s-cn] one MS. (Kennic.) 
ryv-an, so also (B^'^. 

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

genealogy of Manasseh 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. "-^^ — 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. 11" 12^ 13^ (which probably should be the 
reading in Ju. y, 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 
Homs (see Dr. on Dt. 3' and Haupt Ct. 4^). — And ML Her- 
7non'\ 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^ 
hvuses] 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 Jishi look like old clan names; the 
others, Eli'el, 'Azri'el, Jeremiah (Jirmejah), Hodaviah, and Jah- 
di'el, look late (Gray, HPN. p. 238). Nothing further is known 
of these famihes or their heads. The names show no connection 
with the sons of Manasseh given in Nu. 26^8 «■ Jos. 17- ^- unless 
'Epher ("l2y) and Hepher (I2n in Nu. 28==) are identical. 

25-26. A summary of the fate of the two and a half tribes. 
— 25. And they transgressed] (h]^^'''\). The word '7j;iD 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. 28. — And they 
went a whoring after, etc.] (i"irii< llfl). Cf. Ex. 34'5- 1= Dt. 31'= 
Lv. 17' 205 Nu. 15=3 Ju. 2" 8"- =3. 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] (mi . . . lyi). Spirit here denotes an unaccountable and 
uncontrollable impulse. Cf. for parallel usage 2 Ch. 2i'6 36" Ezr. 
I' 5 Je. 51" Hg. i'^ — Ptil] 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-pilescr 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 ((/. COT. I. p. 
219, DB. Tiglath-pileser). — Halah and Habor {and Ilara and) the 
river of Gozan]. These names are derived from 2 K. 17^ 18" 
with the exception of liara (SIH), 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-known 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. town 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. (^ 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. nn "ij3i] (S K. ol ijfxiaeis. — p::-in ini] ^ + k. iv rq. Ai^dvg, 
is doubtless a gloss. — 24. 1371] Gin. quotes two Targums to support 
the omission of 1. which is wanting also in 05, H, ^, and so Ki. — nmim] 
on pronunciation cf. ^-K — 26. mn avn n;j pu inji Nini -\nni n'^n^] 
are probably derived from no ''-i;i jiu inj inn^i vhm of 2 K. 178 
18", and the deviations seem to have arisen either from careless transcrip- 
tion or because the Chronicler quoted from memory (Be.). Nin may 
be a reminiscence of the reading no nn, which appears in C5 of 2 K. 
I7^ 18", so Be., Ki., Bn. That n-n orn -\y has arisen from na nyi 
appears probable from the fact (&^ gives both in 2 K. 17' (not iS"). Klo. 
gives this as the original reading. Ke. thought of the Chronicler's 
statement resting on another authority. 

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


table showing Aaron's relationship to Levi, 5"-" (6'-"); (2) lines 
of descent of singers from Levi through his three sons, Gershon, 
Kehath, and Merari, 6'->5 (I6.30). (^) the genealogical tables of 
the three singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, 6's-« "i-^"; (4) 
notices concerning the services of Levites and sons of Aaron, 6^^-^* 
(48-49)- (^) a list of the high priests to Ahimaaz (i.e., to the time 
of David), 6^^-^^ (so-ssjj (5) the cities assigned to the sons of Aaron, 
539-45 (54-60)j (y) the tribal territory in which the cities of the 
Levites lay, 6'^-^° (^i-es); (8) the cities of the Kehathites (exclusive 
of sons of Aaron), 6^^-^^ (66.70). (g) the cities of the Gershonites, 
556-61 (7i-76)j (10) the cities of the Merarites, 6"-66 (77-8i)_ These 
records of the tribe of Levi present a number of diflficulties 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 (23^ s- 24' «• " «• 25' «•). 

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 (50-53) and is 
regarded by Bn., and Ki. SBOT., Kom., as a later addition, since a list 
of priests naturally would follow the genealogical introduction in 6' ^• 
(16 s.)_ As the matter now stands, this introduction is given in 527-29» 
(51 -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, 635-38 (50-53). Although s"-^' 
(61-3) and 6^-* c^-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, 63* <") describes the duties of all the 
priests, the sons of Aaron, and 63^ ff- (54 »•) is 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, and Merari]. These three sons of 
Levi appear in Gn. 46" Ex. 6" Nu. 3" 26", and represent three 
great famihes of Levites which clearly existed at the time of the 
composition of P {cf. 6' <'«> 238). — Gershoji] (I'tyii) as in P, else- 
where in Ch. Gershom (D1trn:i, Dw'n:), cf. 6' '■ <'«'•> et al.— 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 
6' <•«' 23 '^ 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 AaroTi are Ex. 6=''- " (except Miriam) Nu. 26^' '■. 
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. 2028. Abishua, 
Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah (vv. 30-33 (s-?)) are en- 
tirely unknown, not mentioned elsewhere except below 6"-37 (50-52) 
Ezr. 7' -5. Ahitub v. 3« (»> is given as the father of Zadok 2 S. 8" 
I Ch. i8'6. 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. 143 22*0^ 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. iS'o). Zadok 
V. " ("was priest under David with Abiathar 2 S. 8'' 152^ «• and put 
by Solomon in the place of Abiathar (see above). Ahimaaz v. '^ ''> 
was a son of Zadok, cf. 2 S. 15"- ^e et al. 'Azariah v. '^ <«> is men- 
tioned as a son of Zadok i K. 4K The notice of v. ^s do) he it is 
that executed, etc., out of place in v. ^^ no)^ belongs to him, the first 


mentioned, Azariah (Be., Bn., Ki., Ba., Zoe., Oe.). Of Jehonan, 
'Azariah, Aniariah, Ahilub, Zadok, Shallum, and Azariah, vv. 
35-4 (9-14)^ ^ve have no further record than in the Chronicler's 
genealogies, cf. 9" Ezr. y'-^ Ne. 11", except in the case of Ama- 
riah, who may be identified with Amariah the high priest during 
the reign of Jehoshaphat mentioned in 2 Ch. 19". Hilkiah 
V. 39 "3) 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. 25'8-='), while Jehozadak went into captivity 
V. *i "^', and appears as the father of Jeshua the high priest of the 
return, Ezr, y S' ^o" Ne. 12=6 (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 + 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. ^^ oj) ministers in Solomon's Temple. 

As an apparent list of high priests from the entrance into 
Canaan until the captivity, this genealogy presents some note- 
worthy features. Members of the house Eli : Eli, Phineas, Ahitub, 
Ahimelech, and Abiathar (i S. 14' 22^°), naturally do not appear, 
since this house was set aside for that of Zadok (i K. 2"- ^^), 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. 262") 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. ' ' "« '«' cf. 

^27. 28 (^(y\. 2)_ — Libui ttud Shimei]. Cf. as a source for these names, 

Ex. 6'^ Nu. 3 '8, and their repetition 23', and also 23 « «• 2621 where 

instead of Libni we have La dan (jny?). Libni without doubt is to 




be connected with the priestly city Libnah (Jos. 21"). — Mahli and 
Mushi]. Cf. as source Ex. 6" Nu. 32° and repetition 232' 24". 
Mushi C^UV^) 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. w.^^-' "»">. 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_ 24-28 (39-43) (_B). 



















The variations between Jo'ah (nSI^) and Ethan (jn'»S), 'Iddo 
(ny) and 'Adaiah (H^nj;), Je'atherai (^HS^) and Ethni (""inS), 
might easily have arisen in transcription. Shime i 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.'" <"', where without connection 
with the foregoing Sha'ul of v. ' «^> we have The sons of Elkanah 
'Amasai and Ahimoth, and in v. " <=«' we have Elkanah repeated. 
The second should be omitted (after (|, ^) and reading his son 
instead of sons of (133 for t^n) the verse should read Elkanah his 
son (i.e., the son of Ahimoth), Zophai his son. In v. •' ("' at the 
close should be added Satmi'd his son (Ki. after (B^). Also in v. " 
Joel should be supplied and the verse read And the sons of Samu^el; 

VI. 1-38.] 



the first-horn Joel and the second Abijah (n"'3S TwTn h^y^) 
(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''" """-'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 E.x. 6'8 2i_ 

In respect to the variations: 'Amminadab appears in Ex. 6^3 
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). Uri'el and Zephaniah are difficult to 
explain as equivalents. The names ' Uzziah and 'Azariah are inter- 
changeable (as in the case of the well-known King of Judah). The 
differences between the other corresponding names have probably 
arisen through transcription. Cf. the letters in the Hebrew text. 



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. '-'^ "=-=8) should present a 
line of descent of Ethan (w. "-'- (44.47' j^ but a close similarity of 
names is here wanting. Still they have been held sufficiently 
alike to warrant this inference (Be.). 'Asaiah may be the one 
mentioned in 15^ as chief of the sons of Merari. It is noticeable in 
this pedigree that both Libni and Shimei here are Merarites, while 
above v. = "" they are Gershonites. 

1. D'inj] so also v. ^^ 15', nv^nj vv. =■ ^- "■ ^^ elsewhere p'i'-ix ©" in 
this c. Te{e)b(Td}v, in 15' TTjpffdfi, (B'^^ in all — cwv, § ^n a, ^, U Gerson 

in V. -. Since the source (Ex. 6'6) has Gershon and the Chronicler differ- 
entiates Gershom and GershoJi in c. 23, it is likely that |Vi'-\j was original 
here also. — 7. airr:>'] v. "^ Ex. 6i«- 21 et al. i^s^, which seems original 
here. aij^Dj? may have arisen in consequence of a dittography of the 3 
from the following mi, 3 ins' resembling D-irr^y very closely in ancient 
writing. — 7. 8. 1J3 i^DNi 1J3 fiD>3Ni Ml njpSs ua i^DS 1J3 nip]. Accord- 
ing to Ex. 6« the sons of Korah were tiDNOXi njp'^'si tdn. Either 
the compiler had a variant tradition or the text is corrupt. The latter 
seems probable. 1 before ^don and 1 before n^DN are out of place in the 
text as it stands. (&^ reads 'Apecrel vlbs avrov, 'EXKam Kal ' A^iadap w6s 
auToO, 'Aaepel v. a. Since the tendency would be strong to insert 
i;t6s avToO after 'E\Kava (cf. (S^ of v. •" k. viol EXkow A/xacra vibs 
aiiToO KfxiioO vlbs avrov) this omission is striking. The same tendency 
would be potent in the Heb. text. Consequently we conjecture that the 
original read m T'Dn, m r|D^3Ni njp'^x tds i:a 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. - and with Ex. 6-', 
account for the 1 before tiD>3N and for that before I'Dx {v:2 having 
been misread 1 1J3), also explain the omission of in after njpSs in the 
Heb. underlying (6". This and the ij3 after the first ton were added by 


some copyist who overlooked Ex. 6=^. — 10. mo^nN] v. -" and 2 Ch. 29'2 
nns, adopted by Bn.— 11. njp'-N ijj njpSN] Kt. '^ja, so (S, (H, ^, is to be 
preferred to Qr. \jp {v. s.). The second nj|-)'?N, omitted in some iiss., 
(&, S*, should be dropped, so Bn., Ki. {v. s.). — ■'Dix] v. =" Kt. l^x, Qr. Iix. 
I S. I' D''Dis = 1DIS (We. et al.) and nix'p. Probably the original 
name was lis. — .in:] v. " n^n, i S. 1' inn. Ki. {SBOT., Kom.) adopts 
inh as the best authenticated. The other forms could have originated 
in scribal errors. — 12. 3n^'?n] v. '» '^t<''^.?<, i S. i' nihiSn. The versions 
give no aid. The last two (meaning " My God is God " and " He is my 
God") may have been interchanged. '?.s^'?s< appears ten times in the 
OT., all in Ch., cf. ^n^'^vS (the brother of David) 2'= i S. le^, and i.t'-n 
(Qr. Nin — ) I Ch. 27'8. — ij3 ':'Nic;;> is added by Ki., on the basis of 05"-, 
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. g-'). — 
After the resting of the ark] i.e., after the bringing up of the ark 
from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem (2 S. 6= 1^). — 17 (32). 
The tabernacle of the tent of meeting] (lyiD 'PnS i3C'D)- A com- 
bination of two terms employed in P for the tabernacle and applied 
to the tent erected by David for the ark (cf. 16' ^■). Technically 
Mishkan (tabernacle, dwelling-place) denoted the wooden portion 
of the tabernacle, while 'Ohel (tent) the curtains or hanging 
(Ex. 26' « ' 35>i 3613 '■ 39" 4019 Nu. 3" cf. also Ex. 39^2 402- "= ■% 
where the combination given above is used to indicate the wooden 
structure). — According to their right] (DD£tyi22 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. ^^ (39) 29 un t^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'Dyn] appointed, a peculiar force cf. i5'«f- 16'^ 22^ 2 Ch. 8'< 
q8 J115 22 jq5. 8 2i2i 24'3 255- n et al. (1. 89). — n; hy] over the service, cf. 
BDB. -", 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. Pnesteri}mms,pp. 142 jf., 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., 
Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezr. and Ne. pp. 22 /.) Gradually, 
however, singers were evolved into Levites and the three guilds. 
Remains of steps of this evolution and fluctuating traditions appear 
in the Levitical genealogies. In Ex. 62' 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. =^--8 <"-'" he is not. Also we find i\ssir and 
Elkanah placed not co-ordinate but following each other {\'\. '-' 
(22-24) 22 (37)) (yet 566 lu loco). Different 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 6'-'5 "S") to those of the 
singers in 61^-32 (33-47), Xhe latter genealogies are probably depend- 
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, 6'8-23 (33-38)^ jg the same as the line of descent 
through Kehath, 6'-'3 (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/. 6'" *"' 
where they are brothers, but see also 2 Ch. 29'2. The genealogy of Ger- 
shon, 6* '• '2° '•', is not sufficiently long (only eight generations) to bring 
the last, Jeatherai, down to the generation of Saul, hence Malchijah, 
A'laaseiah,* Michael, Shimea, and Berechiah were added by the writer 
of 6-*-=* (39-43)^ thus making it possible to regard Asaph as the contempo- 
rary of David. Similarly, the genealogy of Merari, 6'< '■ '■■^ '■', consist- 
ing of only eight generations, is too short to reach from Merari to the 
singer Ethan, the contemporary of David, hence a number of generations 
were added by the writer of Ethan's genealogy, 629-32 (44.47 )_ Moreover, 
he seems to have departed from the genealogy of Merari after Shimei, 
and to have added eight generations, Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, Amaziah, 
Hashabiah, Malluch, Abdi, and Kishi, before Ethan. 

The source of the genealogies of the singers. Of the additional 
names inserted before Asaph, Berechiah occurs elsewhere in 32" 9'' 
15"- « 2 Ch. 2812 Ne. 34. 30 6'8 Zc. i'- ', = Jeberechiah Is. 8^ f; Shimea 
(xi'tr) in 6'5 (30) as a Levite (but spelling ''i,'j2V 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. io'3- 21 J 2'; Maaseiah* nineteen times elsewhere in Ch.-Ezr.- 
Ne. and in Je. 21' 292'- " 35* 37'; 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); IMalluch, 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, 6'6-i8a oi-asa)^ where the ear-marks of the Chron- 
icler are evident (notice Tioyn, 1. 89; omiay hy Dao^i-c^ ncjjii and onoyn, 
cf. D--\T:y 2 Ch. 7', DnDi'n Ne. 12"), is a part of this same piece. 
Hence it is most probable that the Chronicler himself gave the 
singers these pedigrees descending from the three sons of Levi. No 
doubt the latter had already claimed Levitical descent. The Chron- 
icler may have utilised some current genealogies of the singers to sup- 
plement the Levitical tables of 6' f- '^o £f.). The identity of one 
name would be sufficient to make the connection, which may ac- 
count for the omission of the last four names of the table of Merari 
{v. s.). The fact that Ethan is used here and in 15" ^- while elsewhere 
we fmd JediUhun (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/. 16'-' Ne. 11") and he is 
always mentioned first. But it is by no means certain that the writer 
of these genealogies intended to exalt Heman's guild of singers above 
the 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. 4S'4 Ps. no'. 

18. "Tinpn] (g, U, g>, yl nnp. — 19-21. On Sn^'^x. mnj f\--i, pto, see 
above ^^. ^i:. According to v. "" •''■vz'} was the father of rnc, v. '" makes 
him out the brother of .'ii'i^nx = nns. Possibly v. 2" is dependent on 
some text which had 1J3 after pirr^nx = nns {cf. (S^- quoted above on 
v\'. '■ ^), or V. 20 is due to the carelessness of the compiler. (5^ of v. '" 
may be corrected from this verse. — 22. 1D'3S p I'Dx] v. s. v^^ '■ ^. — 
25. n':;';-^] read with some mss., (S", S> n^a-j;-:, so Bn., Ki. — 28. Dirn^] 
V. s. v. '. — 29. ■'w",-'] many mss., Kt. (Oriental text), CSS IS '1?'V, 15" 
in'cii"), f/. 2 Ch. 29'2 1-iaj? p v'p. — 30. 31. -scn p n^p'i'n p] has fallen 
from the text of CS" by homoeoteleuton. (B'' vlos XeXx'oi;* viov A/xaaai 
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. 27'-8), 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 tnake an atonement for Israel]. The priests made an atonement 
through sacrifices for individuals (Lv. 4=° ^i g^^ 10" et al.) and for 
the entire people on the day of atonement (Lv. i6'<), and also on 
other occasions of stress and fast (2 Ch. zg-"). The term to make 
an atonement is used here to indicate the priestly ministry in general. 

34. iddSi] inf. cstr. with ivaw, a continuation of Dnvjiic, Ges. § 
ii4/>, Dr. TH. 206, Dav. Syn. § 92 R. 4. 


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

Cf. s'o-^* (6^-8). — Tills 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. 2I5-". In that passage a general statement of the number and 
locahty 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. "-^= ''^-"> Jos. 2i'»-") and then is given the 
general summary (w. "^-5° *"■"' Jos. 2i5-») and then follows the 
enumeration of the separate cities of the Levites (vv. "-'='= (66-si))_ 
In this order v. ^^ ^^^'' forms no proper introduction to the following 
verses. It can only introduce according to its place in Jos. 
v^^_ 59 ff. (54 ff.). Hence this, with the preceding verse, is held to 
have come from a marginal annotation made by some reader 
familiar with the narrative of Jos. and later to have been inserted in 
the text (Be., Ki.), or the entire list of Levitical cities (vv. "-66 
("-81)) is a later supplement (Bn.), or a copyist through error re- 
arranged the original material of the Chronicler. But it is more 
likely that the Chronicler himself was guilty of this unskilful 
arrangement. Wishing to separate the account of the priestly 
cities from that of the Levites, he transposed the verses. That he 
should have transcribed and left Jos. 21' (v. s" '^s)) where it did not 
harmonise with the text is not strange. He is guilty elsewhere of 
similar infelicities (see Intro, p. 19). 

39-45 (54r-60). The cities of the priests. — Taken from Jos. 
2iio-i9_ — 39, j^yid these {i.e., the following) are their dwelling places 
according to their settlements within their boundary] from the 
Chronicler, since these words are not in his source. The proper 
introduction (Jos. 21 «) is given in v. s" <"> (v. s.). — To the sons of 
Aaron, etc.]. With these words commences abruptly the quota- 
tion from the book of Joshua. — Of the family of the Kehathites]. 
Cf. 5" (6'). — The fir st^ lot]. The viord first, supplied from Jos. 
21"', is necessary for clearness of meaning. — 40 (55). Hebron] 
Kirjath-arba Jos. 20% which, according to Jos. i^'\ was the 
more ancient name, mod. El-KhalU, 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. 13"); the burial-place of Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob (Gn. 23" 25' 35" <"■ 50'^); David's residence when 
king over Judah (2 S. 5'); the place of the death of Abner (2 
S. 3"), a.nd headquarters of the rebellious 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 
(^, ly — 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.— /a//zV] in the hill country of Judah (Jos. 15^' 
21'^ I S. 30" t), raod.' Attir thirteen miles south by west from 
^chron.—Eshtemoa]. Cf. 4".— 43 (58). Hilen] Holon Jos. 
2i>S in the hill country of Judah mentioned in Jos. 15=' between 
Goshen and Gilo; not identified.— 7:>c&/';-] also called Kirjath- 
sepher (Jos. 15'= Ju. i" '•), a place of importance in the Negeb 
or southern Judah, identified with Dahariyeh, some ten or twelve 
miles south-west of Hebron (cf Moore, Ju. pp. 25 /.)•— 44 (59). 
'Ashan] written 'Ain Jos. 21"' (v. i.), mentioned among towns of 
Judah Jos. i5'2, and of Simeon Jos. 19' f : clearly then in southern 
Judah: not idcnt'Aed.—Beth-shemesh] on the borders of Judah 
Jos. IS'", but assigned to Dan Jos. 19^', the mod. 'Ain Shenis 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. 25" 28»«).— 
45 (60). Geba] a town frequently mentioned (8^ i S. 13' 2 S. 5" 
I K. 15-2 2 K. 238 2 Ch. 16" Ne. ii3> 1229 Is. 10" Zc. 14'"), mod. 
Jeba south of the pass of Michmash. It is about four miles 
north by east from Jerusalem.— yl/ewe//i] (Almon Jos. 2i'8) 
mentioned in the genealogies 8^6 ^42^ identified with mod. Almit, 
three and a half miles north-east of Jerusalem, beyond '^wa//io/^, 


which is distinguished as the home of Jeremiah (Je. i' 11" " 29" 
32" " , also mentioned in 2 S. 23" i K. 2^^ Ezr. 2" Ne. 7" 11" Is. 
10" -j-), mod. 'Anala 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. "' '• ii'. i.). 

39b-45 compared with Jos. 2i"'-'3 show the following variations, some 
of which appear abridgments of the Chronicler and others seem to have 
arisen in the transmission of his text, and should be restored from Joe. 
We give as the former: v. ^'t* the omission of 'n>i before ''ja'?, and ''J3D 
mS after \-inpn (nns!:':;'? instead of 'D?: in Jos. represents the true text, 
since the formula /row the families of the tribes is not used, see SBOT. 
on Jos. 2i<); V. " ]'MT\ Nin py;r\ >on jj^is n-iip hn cut down to ]'^2r\ ns 
and in^'^ read for "ina; v. ^' irinxa omitted after njo''; v. ■•" pjn omitted 
after ]-in}< and nsin after oSpr:. The latter omission appears also in 
V. 5=, cf. Jos. 21^^. In vv. " '■ the sums of the cities as given in Jos. 21'^ " 
are omitted. Variations through careless transmission appear: v. "*> 
)pn-\ omitted after Smjn; v. ■'^ ny instead of n^jJi ni^njc nKi omitted 
after p^n and after nn\ which phrase also with no'' and with pj?3J have 
fallen out of vv. "<'•; v. " □n\ninD:;'C2 instead of piir-UDi. The ]Z'y 
of V. " is the true reading instead of IV of Jos. 21 '6, cf. on Jos. in loco 
(&, SBOT., Dill., and also Jos. i5'2 ig?. Probably also with variations 
due to copyists should be classed: v. *^ iS^n instead of I'^n, cf Jos. 15^'; 
V. ■'^ ncVj; instead of p::Sy with Auathoth after instead of before. 

46-50 (61-65). A summary of the Levitical cities. — Taken 
directly from Jos. 215-9 (^^_ 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 Manasseh ten cit- 
ies^\ The present M, is corrupt and meaningless and must be thus 
restored according to Jos. 21^ Be. suggested that the confusion 
may have arisen from the deliberate omission of the reference to 
the tribe of Dan {cf. 7 '2). 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 
IManasseh ten cities enumerated in part in w. "■" (^e-jo). — 47 (62). 
The sons of Gershom representing the second main division of the 
Levites had thirteen cities, enumerated in vv. "-«' (71 -7e)^ in the 
territory of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and the east-Jordanic tribe 
of Manasseh. — 48 (63). The sons of IMerari, the third and final 


main division of the Levites, had as their possession twelve cities 
enumerated in part in vv. «" ("-so.— 49 (64). This verse gives a 
summary of the preceding. — These^ cities]. The word these 
supphed 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. "^^-^^ «*"-«" 
(v. s.). 

46. nnsrcr] Jos. 21' rnstrcD to be preferred (Bn.), but amnocD? 
with HBDD as in vv. "'• is preferred by Ki., and also Bennett, as the true 
reading in Jos. 2i^t., 550r.— noa ^sn-i ]-i naaai d^bx nas is to be sup- 
phed after nnDtt-cn from Jos. in place of ^sn nan n-'xncD nacn as is 
required by the ten cUies.—47 . Dicnj] Jos. 216 piinj, v. s. v. ■.— omnott'c'^] 
according to their families, i.e., of Gershonites, Jos. 'ui rnDi;':;^ from 
families of the tribe, etc. (but -y. 5.).— Instead of ncjD nam Jos. has 'snci 
'C nan and after lii-aa, S-nJ2. — 48. Snu::] is wanting in Jos. 21' (but cf. 
(g), — 49. V. s. In Jos. 218 the verse closes with io nin> nix i-.;'}<:) 
b-\M2 ncs. — 50. V. s. — P'J3 ^J3 n-jcci] wanting in Jos. (but cf. (& 
and Jos. 21-'). 

51-66 (66-81). The cities of the Levites (in distinction from 
the priests).— Taken directly from Jos. 2i'»-'5 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 Shechem was a city 
of rtinge.—Shecheyn] a little over thirty miles north of Jerusalem, 
figures frequently in the early history of Israel {cf. Gn. 128 2>Z'^ 
35< Jos. 24>- " Ju. 9 I K. 12). It is the mod. Ndbulus, a city of 
24,800 inhabitants (Baed.^ p. 217).— Geser] an ancient Canaan- 
itish city not occupied by the Israelites (Jos. i6'» Ju. i" contra 
Jos. 10") until conquered by "Pharaoh king of Egypt" and pre- 
sented to Solomon i K. 9'« : the mod. Tell Jezer, some twenty 
miles west by north from Jerusalem, and the site of recent excava- 
tions {cf. R. A. Stewart Macalister, Bible Side Lights from the 
Mound of Gezer, Lon. 1906).— 53 (68). Instead of Jokmeam 
Jos. (21") has Kibzaim, which, according to Be., Bn., Ki., 
is to be preferred. No site corresponding to either name has 


been found. — Belh-horon]. There were an upper and a lower 
Bcth-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 Beit 
'Ur et tahta." The towns are a little over two miles apart and 
some ten or twelve miles north-west of Jerusalem. For refer- 
ences to these to\\Tis and their ascent cf. Jos. lo'" '• 165- ^ 18'^ '■ 
21" I S. i3'« 2 K. 8^ 2 Ch. 8=' 25'3. Between v." <^8' and v." 
(69), intentionally (Be.) or carelessly (Bn.), has been omitted Jos. 
21" "And from the tribe of Dan Elteke and its suburbs and 
Gibbethon and its suburbs."— 54 (69). Aijalon] a city of Dan; 
mod. village of Ydlo, a little to the north of the Jaffa road, 
about thirteen miles from Jerusalem. Cf. for references 8'^ 2 Ch. 
9'» 28' 8 Jos. 19" 21=^ Ju. 1^5 I s. 14". The valley of Aijalon 
was a famous battle-field (cf. GAS. HGHL. pp. 210-13).— 
Gath-rimmon] (Jos. 19^^ 2i-< f) ^^^ identified; probably a little 
to the east of Joppa.— 55 (70). Instead of 'Aner ("Uy) read 
after Jos. 21" Taanach ("[^Vri), the frequently mentioned city 
of the plain of Esdraelon (cf. 7" Jos. 12=' 17" 19'^ «■ 21^5 Ju. 
I" 5' 9 I K. 4'2), mod. Tcianmik some four and a half miles 
south-southwest from Lejjiin (Megiddo) (BDB.). — Read also 
instead of 5//e aw (^^"72) Ible'am (CV^2''). Cf. Jos. 17" Ju. 
I". Jos. 2V-^ has by dittography Gath-rimmon, but (S^ le/3a6a, 
hence Dill., Bennett, SBOT., ct ciL, as above. Ihleam was also 
in the plain of Esdraelon and its name appears preserved in 
the Wady Befameli in which the village Jemn lies (Baed.'' p. 
223). — The words for the rest of the families* of the sons of Kehath 
are a fragment of Jos. 2V-^, 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. ■/.). — 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. Jaulan 


east of the Jordan and Sea of Galilee (EBi. II. col. 1748) (Dt. 4" 
a city of refuge, Jos. 20^ 21" f). — 'AsJilaroth] mentioned with 
Edrei as one of the royal cities of Og King of Bashan (Dt. i< Jos. 
9'" i2< 13'^). The name indicates that it was a seat of the worship 
of Ashtoreth. Its location has not been clearly fi.\ed. 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. 21=' Kishion (|1''w'?:!) (cf. Jos. 192°) instead 
of Kedesh (tyip) (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. ig'^ 2i=« f. 
the present Debiirige at the foot of Mt. Tabor (BDB.).— 58 (73). 
Ramoth] same as Remeth Jos. 192' (Bn.), rood. Er Rameh in 
southern part of plain of Esdraelon (Baed.'' p. 222). Ki. prefers 
Yarmuth of Jos. 21" (BH.). — 'Anem] (Ciy) a scribal error, is 
'Ain-gannim ("""ji ]■•*?) Jos. 21" 19=1, mod. Jeuhi 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). 
lUashal] (t'w'!2) better after Jos. 22^0 Alish'al (^Su!2), site un- 
kno^^'n. — 'Abdon] (Jos. 2130 -f-) mod. ' Abdeh ten or more miles 
north by east of Acco and some five east of Achzib. — 60 (75). 
Hiikok] (p'ipn). Read after Jos. 21 3' Helkath (r,pbn), cf. Jos. 
19" I, the site is uncertain. — Rehob]. This to^\^l 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. 10^ • «), and also the one men- 
tioned in Jos. 19'". — 61 (76). Kedesh in Galilee] (Jos. 213=), 
Kedesh-naphtali (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 Kcdes, west 
of Lake Huleh. — H amnion] Hammoth-dor (Jos. 21") Hammath 
(Jos. 19"). Probably Hammoth is the true reading (cf. Xo/aw^ 
(^^) and the town is the mod. Hanimdm a short distance south of 
Tiberias (DB. II. p. 290). — Kiriathaim] (~\"',''"',p) a variation of 
Kartan (jmp) Jos. 21 ^2, not identified. — 62 (77). Levites as in 
Jos. 21" must be supplied after the rest (C*"""), otherwise the 
expression is meaningless. — Two cities of Zebulun, Jokne am and 


KartaJi, mentioned in Jos. 2i'% have fallen from the text (</. (B^). 
— Instead of Rimmono (13112^) read Rimmon, since the last syllable 
has arisen from a union with a following waw (*) (cf. Jos. 19"), or 
perhaps Rimmonah. Jos. 2135 has Dimnah (nJDl). Rimmon 
has been identified with Rummaneh north of Nazareth (DB.) 
— Instead of Tabor ('^\^2D), which is nowhere mentioned as a 
city of Zebulun, but on the border of Issachar Jos. 21", Jos. 
2i» has Nahalal {bhT\l), mentioned also in Jos. 1915 Ju. i", 
not clearly identified (Moore, Ju. p. 49, but see DB. III. p. 472). 
Ki. Kom. 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 (inn"" i"n^^ l^yai) 
appear in ^^^ Jos. 2i36. On the expression tlie Jordan at 
Jericho cf. Nu. 22' 26^ Jos. 208. The cities mentioned in 
vv. 63(7S)-66(8n correspond exactly with those given in Jos. 21^^-^'^. 
—Bezer] a city of refuge (Dt. 4" Jos. 2o») mentioned on the 
Moabite stone; not identified. The phrase in the wilderness, 
wanting in || in Jos. (cf Jos. 20 s) but appearing in ^^^, and fol- 
lowed by "plain" (■lir''a) in Dt. 4^^ Jqs. 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 Arnon, not identified 
(BDB.). — Mepha'ath] mentioned as in Moab Je. 48-', not identi- 
fied. — 65 (80). Ramoth in Gile'ad] one of the cities of refuge (Dt. 
4'3 Jos. 20»), mentioned in wars between Syria and Israel i K. 
22' «•, At the battle of Ramoth-gilead Ahab was slain (i K. 
22"-"). The location is uncertain: sites suggested Reimiin, 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.). — Mahanaim] 
a place of note east of Jordan {cf. Gn. 32= 2 S. 2* f- 17=' " 19^= 
I K. 28 4''), identification not certain. — 66 (81). Heshbon] 
the former capital of Sihon, King of the Amorites (Nu. 21=5), 
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'- 35 Jos. 13" 21" 2 S. 
24' I Ch. 26", and assigned to Moab Is. 168 '■ Je. 48'^). 
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 Khiirbet 
Sar (DB. II. p. 553). 

51. ninDrr)-:i] rendered in RV. as a partitive, is better read after 
Jos. 21=" and (S^, B, 'C^^ (Be., Ke., Zoe., Bn., Ki.). — a^i^j] is a copyist's 
error for D^-wi in their lot, but this error may have been taken over from 
Jos. by the Chronicler, since (&^^ of Jos. have tCov Upiuv ai^rwc, doubtless 
a corruption of 05'^ t. opiuv a. = dSuj. — 52 . See text. n. on v. *-. — 
53. Here and in the following verses the numbers found in Jos. are 
wanting. — 55. ay':'3] 05^ omits, ^I/SXaa/i, ^le^Xaafi = aj'Sa' (v. s.). — 
rnau-::''] should be pointed as pi. after Jos. — 56. The text of Jos. 21" 
is 'v^ nj3 ixna a>iSn nnsrsa punj ^:2'^^. — The words the city of refuge 
of the manslayer appear in Jos. before Golan. — 58. riiCN"^] Jos. 21=' 
mc-)'_, but Jos. 19=' nc-i. 

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 {cf. v. *''). — 1. And the sons 
of Issachar Tola' and Pu'ah and Jashuh and Shimron]. Cf. for 
source Gn. 46'^ Nu. 26" '-. In Ju. 10' we read of one of the minor 
judges. Tola' the son of Pti'ah, the son of Dodo a man of Issachar 
and he was dwelling in Shamir. This shows that traditions 
varied in respect to the relationship of the clans of Tola' and 
Ptiah; but the former if not the more ancient was clearly the more 
pre-eminent. It is possible that the four sons of Issachar are sim.ply 
reflections of the statement given above in the form, Tola the son 
of Pii'ah dwelling in Shamir; Jashub derived from dwelling 
(iwl"') {(f. the variation Job ^T* in Gn. 46 '3) and Shimron from 
Shamir ('T'fiw); ^^^ "'^^^^ 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 (Nocldeke, EBi. III. col. 3275).— 2. And the sons oj 
Told were 'Uzzi and Rephaiah and Jeri'el f and Jahmai f and 
Jibsam f and Shemu'el heads of their fathers^ houses mighty men 
of valor]. The first, third, and fourth of these names look 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. Ajid with them]. The reference is to the 
five clans or families of v. ' which numbered 36,000 warriors. — 
5. And the reckoning * of all the families of Issachar, the 
mighty men of valor, was altogether 87,000]. In v. ^ the sons of 
Tola, six clans, are numbered at 22,600; in v. ^ the sons of 
Uzzi, five clans, 36,000. These two together make 58,600, leaving 
28,400 to be furnished by the remainder of the tribe, i.e., the 
clans Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, and also Tola reckoning 
him as a clan distinct from his sons {v. Bn. in loco). In Nu. i" 
the warriors of Issachar were 54,400, in Nu. 26^5 64,300. 

1. ^JiSi] for the construction see Ges. § 143^. Ke., Zoe., Oe., Kau., 
Bn., prefer to emend to ^J3i. (St^ /cat ovtol vlol = •'J3 n':'[<i, cf. 2' 3'. — 
nxiD] Gn. 4613, Nu. 26^3 ma. -a^u-;] Qr. {cf. (g, H) 3ir;. Gn. ar 
is a text, error, SBOT. (see above for an original ycv). — 2. ySin'^] an 
addition defining annx rria, appears a corruption (Zoe.) and should be 
struck out. — a.nn^.nS] is better connected with the last half of the 
verse (Be., Ke., Ki.). — 5. Dn>nNi] Bn. after Klo. reads aiymnni, as in vv. 
7b 9. 40b and removes the following D'li'nTini. Possibly an original c has 
fallen out before an^nNi, the preceding word ending in a. Then i is a 
corruption for \ and we should read 'N JD and connect with the preceding 
verse, translating /or they had more wives and sons than their brethren. 
Ctt'n\-im should be transposed to a position after an^nN, and final So*? 
should be struck out. — a-'V^n i-(nj] v. Ges. § 124^. 

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 {cf. 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. 12"- ■"^ i Ch. 5'' '■ (6^ «■) 6^6 «•) Ezr. 7^ Ne. ii^^, appears 
among the descendants of Issachar (7^ ^) and once as a Benja- 
minite (9') ; Uzzi'el, though a very comm'm name, is not Benjamin- 
ite; Jerimoth (mQ"'"!'') is a Benjaminite name in 8'« (mO"!''), but 
there we should probably read Jerohajn (cni'') with 8", cf. 9' 
(Jerimoth of i2« (*) 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 85«); 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 Jeremoih (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. 
1020 (19)^ 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 83« 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 ush (Kt. tl'^y) is met with 
in 8^9 (tyiy), and a Benjaminite Ehud (nnS), the son of Gera, 
is familiar from Ju. 3''- '= +. 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 {y. 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 '^ «■ {cf. also 12^2 f. 12^0 2 Ch. 30"*), but not 
546 ff. (61 ff.) 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'^ h^hn^\ j'^sT mD xh2^ •'jm 

I Ch. r ntr^tr ^syn^i n^m '^hi ]^^^2. 

If the former was the original reading in i Ch. 7« plus the 
Chronicler's addition of r'^'h^, it is easy to see how the present 
reading arose in copying. T "'Ja was read as |12''i2; 'hi as y^2; 
TlD I as nsm {cf. ""13, v. =", = "iSn Nu. 26^5). 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 jl^S {cf. Ju. 
12" ') had to be cancelled, as the final "tl'^u required only 
three names. ^SVT' is then a corruption of b^bu"' (for y as 
a corruption of h, cf. v. '% n^VQ for TiD^u)"), a corruption 
which may have been in the Chronicler's text of Genesis. 

This hypothesis explains: the absence of initial ""ii; the other- 
wise unknowTi ^SyT" as a son of Benjamin; the final "w^tl' 
when Gn. 46^1 (|^) knows ten sons of Benjamin (but corrected 
text nine, see on 8' -5), Nu. 2658 '■ five, and i Ch. 8' f- 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 necessity. ^ has carried the matter 


Still farther by substituting '^ ^'■j (doubtless an error for Va.4,] = 
^SU-'K) for ^SyT* in vv. '■ '"■ ". Anathoth and Alemeth were 
added to the list of v. », none of the others being geographical, and 
Ehud was inserted into v. '" from Ju. 3'^ It is tempting to suppose 
that the anomalous Benjamin had the same origin. Then the 
first scribe simply placed '»i''D''n~jD HlnS 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 Shuppim also and Huppim 
(v. i^") from Gn. 46^', which is out of place even as the list stands 

{cf. n'^^ty V. ^). 

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'^ pn^S (v. ') suggests ]:fn« (Ju. 12^-10), 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 EcreySeoy =]"!:}^i<, making it still more 
probable that we have the same name in both passages, the Chron- 
icler having found it with the second and third consonants trans- 
posed. This judge is introduced here just as Elon, the other 
Zebulunite judge, is in Gn. 46", and as Tola, the judge of Issachar 
(Ju. 10'), in Gn. 46'3 and i Ch. 7'- 2. 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 (D'^JS)." 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" 24 = 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 p35!N - li'3N and that Tarshish is more appropriate as a Zebulunite name 
were suggested by Professor C. C. Torrey after reading the preceding. 

vn. 6-13.] GENEALOGY OF ZEBULUN 149 

Aside from this passage Zebulunite names are few in the OT. 
Among the princes of the tribes during the Wilderness Period 
was an EUab the son of Helon as prince of Zebulun (Nu. i' 2' 
y2i. 29 io'«), and a Gadiel son of Zodi represented the tribe as one 
of the spies (Nu. 13'"). At the division of the land Elizaphan the 
son of Pamach was the prince who acted for this tribe (Nu. 34"). 
Among the judges we find the Zebulunites Ibzan and Elon (Ju. 
12" ') {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 Jedia'el), 
three. 7. And the sons of Sered*: Ezhon, and 'Uzzi, and 'Uzzi'el, 
and Jerimoth, and 'Iri,\ five; ... 8. And the sons of Elon*: 
Zemirah-\, and Jo ash, and Eltezer, and Elidenai, and 'Omri, and 
Jeremoth, and Abijah. All these were the sons of Elon*. 9. . . . 
10. And the sons of Jahle'el* (or Jedufel): Bilhan. And the 
sons of Bilhan: Je'iish, and Chena'anah, and Zethan^, and 
Tarshish, and Ahishahar-\. 11. All these were the sons of 
Jahle'el * (or Jedia'el) . . . 

The total enrolment of the warriors of Zebulun is here 22,034 
(v. ') + 20,200 (v. 9) + 17,200 (v. ") = 59,434 against 50,000 
(12" ("'), 57,400 (Nu. !«')> 60,500 (Nu. 26"). 

While Zebulun's genealogy appears clearly, as stated above, in 
behalf of the view generally held that the genealogy is that of Ben- 
jamin, Jediael may be regarded as the equivalent of Ashbel men- 
tioned in the list of Benjamin's sons in 8' Gn. 46" Nu. 26^8 — ■{. e., 
" Known of God " has been substituted through religious scruples 
for "Man of Baal" (<-/. for similar changes of names 3^ 8'<f); then 
may be emphasised the presence of the Benjaminite names Jerimoth 
(vv. ' f), Anathoth and Alemeth (v. ^), Benjamin and Ehud (v. »»), 
and Shuppim and Huppim (v. " v. i.). 

6 . SsynM 1331 ^^1 pD'J3] read instead (or ^Nvnii) '^sSmi p^Ni "iiD pS3r <J2 
restored from Gn. 461* {v. s.). — 7. ySa] read T\D {v. s.). — 8. -\33 bis] 
read ii^n {v. s.). — nnSj?! ninjyi] as a later gloss should be struck out 
(■y. 5.). — 10. Snj,'''T'] read possibly Ss'?n\ so also in v. ", and strike out 

JD1J31 niHNI {v. s.). 


12. The genealogy of Dan. — The first two names in this 
verse, Shuppim and Huppim, are a late addition to the preceding 
section derived from Gn. 46=' (restored text) Nu. 26", and are a 
part of the process by which that genealogy was made over from 
being Zebulunite to Benjaminite {v. s. on vv. «■")• The endings 
should be am as in Nu. and not im as though plural, since the 
adjectives are Huphamite (••ttSin) and Shuphamite OlSSIir)-— 
The sons of Dan, Hjishim his son, one*] {v. i.) The name 7r 
doubtless arose from a corrupt text through the influence of 'hi, 
V. '. Hnshim appears as the one son of Dan in Gn. 46", and in Nu. 
26" as Shtiham. 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 {v. s.). Aher 
("ins), M, seems very probably a corruption of the numeral one 
(ins), since to add the number was a favourite practice of the 
Chronicler, cf. vv. '■ «• ' et al, and lack of genealogical material 
was a special reason for the addition here. 

12. Dam DBCilarea later addition, cf. Gn. 46« Nu. 26" {v. s.).— 
-\nH ^J3 aa-n -i'>' 'J3] read with Kb. PRE. -"riN ua Dtt-n p 'J3, The sons of 
Dan Hnshim his son one on the basis of Gn. 46" and (6 which read iJ3. 
This seems preferable to finding ]■^ hidden in inx (Be.). Bacher thinks 
i^y ^J3, " sons of the city," euphemistic for JT ^J3, to which the Chron- 
icler objected because of the idolatry practised by the Danites (Ju. iS^o 
I K. 12=9), and compares the Talmudic use of i^y for 'cn (Rome); 
nn« >J3 has a similar import and is a gloss to n>>' >J3 {ZAW. xviii. 
(1898), pp. 236-8). 

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

13. '-N'xn'] 23 Mss., Gn. 46" Nu. 26^8 without the second >. — DiSri] 
seven mss., Gn. and Nu. 26" oWi. 

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 (w. "-"), (3) 

Vn. 14-19.] GENEALOGY OF M.^NASSEH 151 

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. 26^9 a , is presented in 
quite an independent form. Kittel (SBOT. Korn.) ascribes it to 
an older source. To the same source he gives w. 2' <f'-°'" ""«' f«'-)-2* 
of the genealogy of Ephraim. There is no reason to doubt that 
vv. *«-" belong to the original compilation of the Chronicler, 
since it can hardly be contended (with Bn.) that the Chronicler 
does not describe the dwelling-places elsewhere (r/. 4"^- 5*"' », 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 Aramaic concubine bore: she bore Machir the 
father of Gile'ad]. This statement is identical with On. 46='"' 
(^. Machir appears as the eldest son of Manasseh and as the father 
of Gilead in Jos. 17'- ' and Nu. 36'. In Gn. 50" the birth of 
Machir and also of his sons is placed in Egypt. The descent here 
given from an Aramaic concubine points to a different story and 
arose probably from the close association and admixture of the 
Manassites east of the Jordan with 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 Maacah 
and the name of his sister was Hammolecheth f and the name of his 
brother Zelophhad *]. Ma'acah represents the small Aramean 
kingdom, district, or people situated east of the Sea of Galilee near 
Mt. Hermon, hence either adjoining the territory of Manasseh 
Dt. 3'* Jos. 125 or included in it Jos. 13". Cf. 2 S. io« where 
the King of Ma'acah is hired against David, and Gn. 222* 
where Ma'acah the tribal father appears as a son of Nahor. 
Ma'acah the wife of Gilead reflects the same histoiical circum- 


stances as the Aramean concubine, v. ". Hammolecheth (she who 
reigns) (riD^Qn) is to be compared with Milcah (queen) (nD^i2) 
the wife of Nahor (Gn. 11"), and reflects probably, with Ma'acah, 
a close connection with the Arameans. While the name here may 
be tribal (Gray, HPN. p. 116), it undoubtedly was originally a 
divine title. In Nu. 26-^-^^ (P) Zelophhad is given as the fourth 
in descent from Manasseh through Machir, Gilead, and Hepher. 
— 16. 17. And Ma'acah the wife of Gilead"^ bore a son and called 
his name Peresh f and the name of his brother icas 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. Ishlwd f ]. 
— Abiezer] in Jos. ij- a son of Manasseh and in Ju. 6"- '='• ^*- '< the 
family of Gideon. — Mahlah] in Nu. 2635 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 f]. — Shechem] a son of Manasseh 
Jos. 172, a son of Gilead Nu. 263'. — Lekhi f] ("Tip^) possibly cor- 
responds to Helek (p^fl) Nu. 263° Jos. 17=, and Antam •)• (DJ^^iS) 
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. IH.). 

14. The name Ashriel (Sn'>i:j'n), while suggested by Jos. 17- Nu. 26'', 
where Asriel appears among the sons of Manasseh or Gilead, is proba- 
bly a dittograph}- arising from the following rn*?> la's* and is to be struck 
out of the text (Mov., Be., Zoe., Oe., Kau., Bn., Ki.). — -15. The present 
text nnfl'^x ■'jL-n ai'i noyn iPnN Dw'i di3-'Si O'snS r\z'H ni-iS T'dsi yields the 
following: And Machir took a wife of Huppim and Shuppim (i.e., 
of these Benjaminite families, cf. v. '2) and the name of his sister was 
Ma'acah 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 nriN and read and the name of the first was 
Ma'acah and the name of the second Zelophhad. But Zelophhad in Nu. 
2633 27'-^ 36=-'2 Jos. 173 is a man. The connection of Machir or his wife 
with Huppim and Shuppim looks strange also. Hence these words 

Vn. 20-29.] GENE.\LOGY 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: nca-i n::'N npS Tjhi 
nno'^x vns os:'i n3'?Dn inns d-'i hdvo with translation above (Bn., Ki.). 
Gilead is read instead of Machir as the husband of Maacah because the 
sons given in v. " are called the sons of Gilead, hence in v. '" Gilead is to 
be read instead of Machir. 

20-29. The genealogy of Ephraim.— (C/. Ephraim Gene- 
alogy, Hogg, JQR. XIII. [Oct. 1900] p. 147.) Viewing this section 
as a whole, it exhibits little dependence upon OT. sources and 
shows considerable complication of material or is very corrupt. — 
20. 2V. 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. ^^^--*. '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. ad'^ ' . These 
may originally have completed the statement. And the sons of 
Ephraim. These sons were Shuthelah (n^mtT), Becher (1:33), 
here Bered (TlS), Tahan (jnn), here Tahath (nnn), and also 
'Eran (pj?) son of Shuthelah (r/. Laadan p^b v.=«). The 
two names 'Ezer and Ele'ad, v. ^i (the latter occasioning Eleadah 
V. "), seem on the other hand to have belonged to the narrative 
2ib-i4^ which is entirely independent of the material of Nu. Zabad 
(13T) v.=' may be derived from and Bered (T131). (On whether 
Becher or Bered belonged to the earliest list of Ephraim's sons, 
V. Hogg art. s., also EBi. col. 1320). — 2l''-24. A story explain- 
ing the name of Beri'ah, 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" (1"!''). This was the explanation of the 
earlier commentators, who regarded Ephraim and his children as 
historical persons. But the use of T\% "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 
Elead, 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'l^ as though derived from nj?i;i "in 
evil"). (On this narrative cf. Ew\ Hist. I. p. 380; Sayce, Pat. 
Pal. p. 202; We. Prol. p. 214; EBi. Beri'ah.) — Bert ah] a Le- 
vitical name 23'°, also that of a son of Asher w. '" '■ Gn. 46'' 
Nu. 26^% and in the list of the descendants of Benjamin 8"- '«. 
See further on vv. ^° ' . — 24. And his daughter was She'erah f 
and she built Beth-horon the lower and the upper, and Uzzen- 
she'erah |]. 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 f his son 
and Resheph f ]. The present text of v. " suggests her son instead 
of Jiis son. Perhaps after Resheph, "his son" should also be 
supplied {Yi\.).—And Telah-\] (nSl) an abbreviation probably 
of Shuthelah (n'?ntr) v. ^K—Tahan]. Cf. Tahath v. =».— 26. 
La dan] (]Tyb probably from py with '7 prefixed see \-v. "• '■), 
elsewhere a Levite name 23^ ' 26^'. — 'Ammihud] and Elishamd] 
are taken from Nu. i'", 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] (jlj) elsewhere 
in OT. Nun (jli). — 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 
Naaran (Jos. 16' Na'arah) placed by Jerome and Eusebius 
within five miles of Jericho, not identified (Bn., but see EBi.), 
the western Gezer, and evidently the northern Shechem unto the 
unknown 'Ayyah or 'Azzah. — 29. Four principal and well-knowTi 
towns of Manasseh are here enumerated, beginning with Beth- 

Vn. 30-40.] GENE.\LOGY 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. Tantura on the coast. CJ. Jos. 17" Ju. i". 
— These two verses in contents are agreeable to Jos. 16* ^- 17" ^ 
but not in form, and hence are either a composition of the Chron- 
icler or from the source of the genealogies given above. 

24. 25*. Hogg {op. cit.) restores as follows: no rn nja -\z'n Nin 
-lani D-im-'j; hni ivS^-n nxi pnnnn |mn, He it was that built Beth-horon 
the lower and the upper and 'Irheres {cf. Tininath-heres Ju. 2^) and 
Hepher (Jos. 12''). — 25. T^'ii] ten mss. + 1J3. — 28. n;j;] many mss. 
and editions (including the Bomberg Bible) ni^. — 29. 01 IJJ/n] <B + 
Kal BaXaaS Kal ai Kw/xai avr^s, cf. Jos. 17" n>mj3i D;;SoM. 


30-40. The genealogy of Asher. — 30. 31. And the sons of 
Asher, Jininah and Jishvah and Jishvi and Benah and Serah, 
their sister, and the sons of Bert ah, Heber and Malchi^el]. This 
statement is identical with Gn. 46". In Nu. 26^! '• Jishvah 
(nVw'^) is wanting; and hence Jishvah (nlw''') and Jishvi (''ID'') 
represent the same clan, the dittography already appearing in 
Gn. In Jimnah (nJD'') one may see a form of Jamin (j"'12'') 
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, Eimvand. Is. Stdmme, p. 31). 
Possibly then a connection might be found between Jimnah and 
Benjamin. Heber and Malchi'el are of especial interest because 
they seem identical with the Habiri and Malchiel mentioned in the 
Amama tablets {JBL. XI. [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*'n3 prob. =n"'nS'3 "olive-well"). 
— 32-34. And Heber begat Japhlet f and Shomer ( ?) 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 Shemer his 


brolher* Rohgah f and Hiibbah f and Aram]. Shemer and 
Shomer, v. ", are identical, with preference for the former (Bn., 
Ki.). A connection between Hubbah (n^in) and Hobab (iiPI) 
Ju. 4" {cf. Heber v. ") has been seen. — 35. And the sons* of Helem 
his brother Zophah f and Jimna f and Shelesh f and 'Amal f ]. 
Heletn 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 Siiah f and Harnepher f and Shual and 
Beri-\ and Jimrah-\, Bczer and Hod f and Shammah and Shilshah 
•j- and Jithran and Be'era ]. — 38. And the sons of J ether, Jephnnneh 
and Pispa f and Ara f ]. Jelher 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. 3' '•, 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 town Dt. 4", Shu al v. ^^, and Sliilsha v. " = Shalisha, 
the names of districts i S. 13' 9*). Jithran v. " is the name of 
a Horite clan, Gn. 362% and Arah v. " of a family of the return Ezr. 
2K 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 >n« with following 1 read rnN his brother, cf. v. '* 
(Bn., Ki.). — njni-ii] Qr. njn-11. — nari^] Qr. nam. — 35. Instead of pi 
read ''J21, as the context demands. — 37. pnn] two mss. ir?^], <&^ If^fp, 
cf. V. '*. — 40. anna] part, of "na only in the writings of the Chronicler, 
cf. 922 16" Ne. 5' 8 (1. 16). 

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.^), cf. Ezr. 2^^; Lod and Ono 
(v. '=), cf. Ezr. 233; Gibeon (v."), cf. Ne. 7". (b) Many of the 
names belong also to that period, viz. : Meshidlam, Hanan, Elam, 
Hananiah, ' Anthothiah (Anathoth), cf. Ne. lo'"- '<■ '«■ ^o- 23. 25. (c) 
The coincidence between the residence in or connection with Moab 
(v. «) and the name Pahath-moab representing an important family 
among the post-exiHc 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 born, Ashbel the second and Aharah f the third and Nohah I 
the fourth and Kapha the fifth. And the sons of Bela' were Addar 
and Gera and Abihiid and Abishim and Na'aman 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. 
46^' where the sons of Benjamin, in the restored text (Ball. 
SBOT), appear as three sets of triplets: Bela', Becher, Ashbel; Gera, 
Na'aman, Ahiram; Shupham, Hupham, and Ard. These appear 
also in Nu. 2638-", 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. 
2635), and that Na'aman and Ard are subordinated as sons of 
Belci. (In Gn. 4621 (g not only is Na'aman the son of Bela' but 
also Gera, Ahiram, Shupham, and Hupham; 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 
Abihud and Ahishua (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 ("1D3), which seems to be entirely lacking, lies hidden in 
first-born (133); Aharah (mnS) and Ahoah (nnS) are tran- 
scribers' variations of Ahiram (DITIN); Nohah (nmJ) and 


Kapha (S5"l) are likewise probably variations of Na'aman 
(|Oj;:)and Gera (Sn:); Addar (ms*) of Ard (TiN) and Hiiram 
(Dlin) of Hupham (DS*in) (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 Abihiid and Abishiia , which 
follow Gera in vv. ' ", these proper names seem to have arisen 
from the qualifying phrases /a//zer of Ehud (according to Ju. 3'=^) 
and father of Shiia {Shua (yity) appears as a Judahite or Ca- 
naanite personal name in Gn. 38=, but most likely here is a cor- 
ruption of Shu'al ('?J?Vw'*) a district of Benjamin, i S. 13'')- C)f 
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=5 
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. Ashbel 
is equivalent to Ishba al ('73w'N = ^JJ^w'NS), man of Baal, the 
name of Saul's son (r/. v. 33). 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, '-^s, 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. " '• '8), Bert ah (w. '3. is)^ Shejna {Shimei) (vv. '2- ^i), 
Shashak (w. '^- ^^), Jeroham (Jeremoth) (w. '<■ -'), with their 
sons, i.e., households or sub-families (v\'. i5-=s), residing in Jerusalem 
V. 2s (?) (v. i.). Vv. 5-'^, 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 Geba' , unless at the 
end of v. ' (Be., Ke., Zoe.) or hidden in the utterly obscure sentence 


And they carried them captive to Mahanath (rinJS ^S Dl'?i''T)- 
This latter is the view of Hogg {op. cit.), who finds therein the 
proper names Iglaam (after the (g^ rendering of ub'yn i'y\aafi in 
V. ') and 'Alemeth (cf. '• «). (That ni^^p |1J2^j; should have been 
corrupted into riniD bi^ arose from the reading of D^IT as a verb 
and thus seeking an expression to correspond to the verbal idea.) 
— 7. And Naanian and Ahijah and Gera]. These three names 
are clearly a dittography from vv. ■• ' , where they appear in the 
same order. Ahijah (nTlH) is a variation of an original 
Ahiram (D^TIS). — He carried them away captive: and he 
begat 'Uzza and Ahihtid]. One is tempted to see in these ob- 
scure words a continuation of the dittography. Cf. the texts 

Hogg renders them: And Iglaam begat 'Uzza and Ahishahar]. 
Ahishahar ("l^D''^^^), a Benjaminite name in 7'" and suggested 
by S ha haraitn in v. '% is substituted for Ahihiid (inTlS). (The 

text Tb^n Dnntr nn-'n^ n«i becomes n^^i^i nniy^n^ nsi.) 

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 N daman, 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 the?n away Hitshim 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 Abitiih and Elpa'ul. 

«nV3 n«i u^u^n ens* inbu jo nsir: m'lrn '&- D^nn*^! 
^•^sn ^^:2 nbi< . . . 22^^ n« inir'S D'-n p .ibv) i^t:*: 

^VS^K nSl i1t3^:!S* nS n^^in D^*^n::i m^S. 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 (7'-). 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 
Lad and 0}io v. " (Bn.). The rendering of Hogg (see above for 
the beginning of v. ^) is: A^id he (Iglaam) begat in the field of 
Moab Mesha their sister and Htishim (and his wife was Ba'ara). 
And A his ha har begat Jobab, etc. These were his sons heads of their 
fathers' houses (DHN IH^wT ]!2 =DmnS t<t:'^D; t^^n ]D =nnD^niS; 
M^Ui< is a dittography from following 22V)- Possibly, for an- 
other rendering of v. «, a fem. proper name is concealed in 
inlPw' (r/. t^'in ja V. '). Then DnK is a corruption for in'^'K, and 
Vu'2 (which (g read intl'S) is to be struck out, and we have and 
Shaharaim begat in the field of Moab of Shilho (?) his wife, 
Htishim and Bdara. — 11. According to the text, the sons of Sha- 
haraim by his wife Hushim are here enumerated. If, however, 
we connect the D of CDTII^l with the last word of v. '", reading 
Cm^t< their fathers, Hushim becomes the subject of begat (T'^IH). 
(The text originally may have been D'^tiTI H^l"''!.) And hence 
he is the father of Abiiub and Elpaal and (omitting the misplaced 
clause and the parenthetical clauses) of Beriah, Shetna v. '', 
Shashak, and Jeremoth v. »^. These five names, repeated in 
Y'v. 16- 18- 21- 25. 27^ clcarly go together as sons of a common ancestor. 
Ahio v. '* (ITiK) is not a proper name, but after (^ TTIS or VnS 
his brother or his brothers (Be., Oe.), or reading Dn^nS 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 ElpaaVs sons are given below in vv. '^ '•, and the 
names of three there are sufficiently similar to these to establish 
their identity (("iDtT) "^^^ D^tTD li^ v- ""> "'"ICD'"' C^IT'D l^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 Jaffa 
and five miles north of Lod (in later literature Lydda), mod. Liidd, 
which is eleven and three-quarters miles south-east from Jafifa on 
the railway to Jerusalem {SWP. H. pp. 251. 267, Baed.< p. 11, cf. 
Schiir. Gesch.^ H. p. 183, n. 7,;^). 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=' 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 MiAller, Lod also (v. Lydda EBi.). 
Their possession by the post-exilic Jews, which is clearly referred 
to in this bull ding, 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. II", Meyer, Entst. Jiid. p. 107, Schiir. Gesch.^ 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. A^id Beriah and 
Shema ] sons of Hiishim; a continuation of the enumeration 
of V. " {v. s.). Bert ah, cf. 7" 3o_ Shema (Shim'i v. =') probably 
the name of a place 2" '•, a Reubenite 5^ a priest Ne. 8< f. — 
These] i.e., Beriah and Shema. — Aijalon] Jos. 19^2 2124 Ju. i^s 
et al., the present village of Ydlo, a little to the north of the Jafifa 
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", 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 7^1 
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. 178 19" Ezr. 8^ 102°. 'Arad f 


(name of city Nu. 21' ;iy Jos. 12'^). 'Eder, cf. 23" 24=" (also 
name of a city Jos. 15'')- Michael, see 5"^ (Steuernagcl, Ein- 
icandening Is. Stdmme, p. 30, reads '7S''3'7iD and connects with 
tile clan of Asher of that name, cf. 7^'). Ishpah f. Joha also 
II". — 17. 18. The seven (?) sons of Elpa'al. Zebadiah, see v. '\ 
Meshullam, see 5'', probably Mish'am in v. '2. Hizki-\. Heher 
mentioned among the sons of Beri'ah of the tribe of Asher 7", 
probably the same as 'Eber v. '2. Ishmerai f probably Shemed 
in V. 12, Izli'ah f. Jobab, cf. v. \ otherwise name of Arabic 
people Gn. 10", King of Edom Gn. 36'' '-, Canaanitish King 
of Madon Jos. ii'. — 19-21. The nine sons of Shime'i ('•yCw', in 
V. '3 y:2w'). Jakim also 24'=. Zickri common, vv. "• 2- g>5 26" 
2716 2 Ch. i7'6 23' 28' Ne. 11^ 12". Zabdi, three other persons 
are mentioned of this name: (i) 27^, (2) Ne. 11'", (3) Jos. 7'. 
Eli enai f, but probably the same as the name Elio'enai, occur- 
ring as the name of five distinct persons in (i) 3-^ * , (2) 43*, 
(3) 7S (4) Ezr. 10" with Ne. 12^', (5) Ezr. 10". ZiUethai, cf. for 
another occurrence of the name 12=". £/z'c/, name of eight ad- 
ditional persons or families: (i) v. '^-, (2) ^-^, (3) 6" "«), (4, 5) 
ii^s- ", (6) 12", (7) 153 with ", (8) 2 Ch. 3i'3. '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. lo^', (6) 
Ne. 11^ (7) 2 K. 22'. Beraiah f. Shimrath j.— 22-25. The 
eleven sons of Shashak. Ishpan f. 'Eber, cf. v. ^^, a common 
name: (i) the son of Shelah I's +, (2) a Gadite chief 5'3, (3) a 
priest Ne. 12". The tradition of the name is uncertain; Baer 
adopts Ebed (1^^), so (g. Eliel, see v. ^o. ' Abdon, also as name 
of distinct persons or families: (i) v. 5° 9^^, (2) 2 Ch. 342°, (3) Ju. 
j2i3. is^ Zichri, see v. ''. Hanan, common name v. '^ g** ii^^ 
Ezr. 2<« Ne. 7^^ 8^ lo''- "■ 2? 1313. 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' 10'' Ne. 7'= lo'^ and Ezr. 2" Ne. 73* Je. 12^=. The 
post -exilic occurrence of the name suggests a connection with 
Elam, Persia. This Che}Tie regards as highly improbable and 
suggests its origin from an abbreviation 'Alemeth (r\^h]!) or 


'Almon (pj2^JJ), a Bcnjaminite name {cf. 7' and v. s. v.«) (EBi. 
II. col. 1254). ' Anthothijah f, to be associated with the Levit- 
ical Benjaminite town Anathoth, Jos. 2i'8 Is. io'« Je. i' et al.; a 
personal name 7^ and Ne. 10". Iphdeiah f. Pemi'el (Peni'el Qr.) 
cf. 4<. — 26. 27. The six sons of Jeroham (Jeremoih v."). This 
name appears in the pedigree of the prophet Samuel i S. i' i Ch. 
512. 19 (27. 34) J also as that of five other persons or families: (i) 
98- i=, (2) 12', (3) 27", (4) 2 Ch. 23', (5) Ne. 1 1 12. 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. lo^', and an Israelite a son of Elam Ezr. 10^% 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 9" with the omission of 
the words of the Levites (W^^bb) and seems to have come into its 
present place along with v. "==9", from c. 9. The subscription 
stating that these families dwelt in Jerusalem is contrary to the 
tenor of this chapter, which has already placed Elpa al as the 
builder of Ono and Lod, and Beri'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 vv. ^s-ss 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' -33 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 «• = 9" «• twice (Bn.) (on 

164 1 Chronicles 

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 
QS6.44 (see V. "). — 29. 31. In Gibe on dwelt the father of Gibeon 
Jeuel* and the name of his wife was Mdacah 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-exilic 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. Jc'uel, derived from 9" (^S'V\ Qr. ^S'^y). 
Ma'acah, name of frequent occurrence cf. 2*^ 3% 'Abdon, cf. v. ". 
Zur ("lIV), name of a prince of Midian Nu. 25'= 318 Jos. 13='; 
here undoubtedly to be connected with Zeror (Tn^') in Saul's 
pedigree, i S. 9". Kish, father of Saul i S. 9' et al. Ba al, perhaps 
the original was Abiba'al ('ry^^iS) (cf. Marquart, Fiindamente, 
p. 15). It has also been compounded with the following Nadcb 
(31J), but the intervening Ner, given in 9^^, also here in (^^, is 
against this; yet, at any rate, Baal is probably an abbreviation 
(Noeldeke, EBi. Names § 57) . Ner and also Mikloth f (v. 3°), from 
their mention in vv. '^ '■, 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. 145" et al.). Gcdor, 
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). (S^ has his brother here. Zecher f, in 9" Zecha- 
riah. — 32. Shimeah ■\] 9'' 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 list which has been lost." Bn. 
brings to a close here a paragraph of Benjaminite families in 
Gibeon of the period of the Chronicler. Vv. "-'s 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 vv. ^"-^^ the descendants of Becher, "the only 
other Benjaminite clan known to history." He reads "»i;Di ""J^l 
"And the sons of Bichri were Abdon, etc." V. " he connects with 
v. " 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. ") Ner and Kish are 
apparently brothers, and in i S. 9' Kish is the son of Abiel, and in 
I S. 14^' 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-shna are given among Saul's sons in i S. 
14^', where also Eshbaal (^yatr« = ^V3ty''S) is to be found in 
Ishvi ("'ID"' = 1"'wi>*, T* = ^!"l^^ having been substituted for h]!2) 
(see Sm. Com. in loco). Elsewhere Eshbaal or Ishbaal appears 
in I and 2 S. as Ishbosheth (nDnt:'"'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. (r/. Ashbel v. '). 
Abinadab probably belongs also to the original text of i S. 14^', 
since Jonathan, Alalchi-shua, and Abinadab are mentioned as slain 
with their father on Mt. Gilboa (i S. 31' i Ch. io=). — 34. Alerib- 
ba'al f ] 9<»^ (^yn T^t2), in g*'>^ Meri-baal (^j;^ """ID). The former 
gives the meaning "Baal contends," and is preferred by Nestle 
{Eigennamen, p. 121) and Noeldeke (EBi. Names, § 42), the latter 
supported by (^ in 8" Mepi^aaX, "Hero of Baal," by Bn., Ki. 


(SBOT.), Gray (HPN. p. 201), and Kerber {Hebrdischen Ei- 
gennamen, pp. 45/.)- In 2 S. 4' 9^ d al., this son of Jonathan is 
called Mephibosheth (nw3'^3?2)- Boshcth is a substitution for 
Baal (v. s.), while Mephi (""BD) is probably a corruption of 
Meri (''"ID). This latter already appears in (^^, here and 9^", in 
M€fi(f)L/3aaX. — Alicah] frequent personal name, cf. 5^—35. 
Filho>i-\]. — Melech-\] "king" probably with reference to deity, 
and like Baal an abbreviation. (^® has M.e\')(^Tj\, L MaX^j^fT^X 
ibi<*''2b^).—Tarea'] (yiSn) f Tahrca f ^'\—Ahaz] besides the 
King of Judah, as a personal name only here. — 36. Jehdaddah] 
{rn]^^n^) ti J^'rah (nnV) 9'' ■\.—'Alemeth]. Cf. JK—Azma- 
veth] (niDTV, Ki. SBOT. niOTj;) "Death is strong," occurs 
also as the name of one of David's heroes ii^s 2 S. 23'', and of 
one of his officers 27^^, and as either a family or place name in 
12', and that of a place, mod. HizmeJi, four miles north-east of 
Jerusalem, hence of Benjamin, Ezr. 2-^ Ne. 12^9 with Beth Ne. 
7=«. — Zimri] name of King of Israel i K. 16' ei al., of the prince of 
Simeon Nu. 25", cf. also 2^. — Moza], the name elsewhere only 
2^\ — 37. Bin a |]. — Raphah]. Cf. for occurrence of name else- 
where 20'' 2 S. 21'^ Raphiah 9", cf. for occurrence of name 3=' 
4" 7= Ne. 3'. — £/'a5a/i] name not infrequent, (i) 2^9, (2) Je. 29', (3) 
Ezr. 10". — Azel or Azal f (unless Zee. 14^)]. — 38. Azrikam his 
first horii^\ (|, ^, have 1"l23 his first bom instead of iJI *1"132 
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 1133 shows also that the 
word originally was first bom. Some mss. of (g {cf. Holmes) supply 
a son Ao-a at the close (but not (§^^^). # divides the name 'Azri- 
kam into >A9}i» and >q-»-3. — Ishma'el] occurs frequently as a proper 
name in the late Hebrew and Jewish period, (i) Je. 40' ^■, (2) 2 Ch. 
19", (3) 23', (4) Ezr. 10--. — Sheariah |]. — ^'O&a^/ia/z] frequent name. 
— Hanan] see v. =2. — 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. 5'" "• (6^ ^■) 6' ^- '-^ ^■'>), 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. g.— Eshek-\ his brother] i.e., the brother 
of Azel (Be., Ke.), if the verse has its right context.— t//am] only 
here and 7'^ — Jeiish] see 7'". — Eliphelet] name of son of David 3* 
14' and two persons mentioned in Ezr. 8'' 10". — Bow men]. Cf. 
2 Ch. 14'. — One hundred andjifty]. 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 Shiia (yr^) or perhaps Shu'al (^j;!:^) in place of 
'Eshek (pl^'y) 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. K 

IX. 1-34. The inhabitants of Jerusalem. — This section 
in vv. '-"• "" has marked affinity with Ne. 11 3-". 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 'Uthai (v^U") (v. ■") is equivalent to 'Athaiah (n-ry) (ii''), 
and 'Asaiah (n^f;') (v. to Ma'asiah (nv^-yr:) (ns). (2) The chil- 
dren of Benjamin, with Sallu son of Meshullam in each (v. ' 11'). (3) 
The priests with Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, Jachin in each (v.'" ii'°), 'Azariah 
(jy^'vy) equivalent plainly to Seraiah (i^nr), since their pedigrees are 
the same, i.e., the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, 
the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahituh, the ruler of the house of God (v. " 
1 1"), and ' Adaiah, the son of Jeroham with the same names Pashhiir and 
MalchVjah in his pedigree (v. '^ 1112) and Ma'asai the son of'Adiel the 
son of Jahzerah . . . the son of Meshillemith the son of I miner 
(.T'cSi'D p . . . n-iTm p Ss'ij? p >tt'>"n) (v. '-), equivalent to " Amashsai 
the son of 'Azarel the son of Ahzai the son of Meshillemoth the son of 
Immer " (ninSa'D p 'rnx p Sx-iry p ■<DZ'::y) (11''). (4) The Levites with 
Shemaiah the son of Hashshuh 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 Judulhun in each (vv. '^^'^ ii'^- i^). (5) The 
gate-keepers with 'Akkuh 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, Ejitst. 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 261^ « , 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. vv. - ^•.) 

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.). — llie Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah] 
thus (g, "H, Meyer, Entst. Jnd. 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" 368, 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 
dwelt in Jerusalem " 0:1 -]^-:0 ty«n H^'K), 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 jtrSI in Ne. 5'^ 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, akhough later probably amalga- 
mated with them. They are only mentioned here and in Ezr. 
248. 68. 70 ^7 gi7. 20 '^Q_ T^i. 31 y46. 60. 73 jQ"' "" ii'' ^'. Thcy probablv 
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 divelt 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-e.xilic conditions. According to the 
Chronicler, members of Ephraim and Manasseh adhered to the 
S. kingdom (2 Ch. 28' 30"- '« 34')- They are not, however, men- 
tioned by him in connection with the restoration. 

4-6. The sons of Judah. — 4. Ne. u'^ 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.— ^///ai f] 'Athaiah Ne. iV f (v. s.). The names, 
whichever is original, are obscure and of uncertain meaning. — 
'Ammihud]. Cf y^K—Otnri]. Cf. JK—Imri] Ne. s^1[.—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] ('':^*'tt*n Ne. 11= '•l^'wTl) correspond with the Shela- 
nites Ci^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 line of descent through six ancestors from "the 
Shilonite" is given.— 6. Zerah]. Cf 2' the third clan of Judah. 
—Jeuel]. Cf. g'. Not given in Ne., where the corresponding 
verse (11'') reads "and all the sons of Perez," the last word an 
error for Zerah (Meyer, EntsL Jud. p. 187, Txote).—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 Meshnllam] 
given also in Ne. n' t> but with a decidedly different pedigree. 
It is not improbable that "son of Hodaviah son of Hassenuah" 
(nS'^Dn p ""••"in ]2) is a corruption or derivation of "Judah 
son of Hassenuah" (nS'lJlDH p m'n^) Ne. 11' in^^^^n and 
min'' are confused in Ezr. 2'" and 3^), and hence the pedigree 
of this Sallu son of Meshnllam has here been entirely omitted. — 
8. Ibneiah f] has been seen in "Gabbai" or "Gabbai Sallai" of 
Ne. 11^ — The other heads here mentioned, Elah and Meshnllam, 
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. 11 '2- '^ ><. 
Six priestly families are mentioned, Jeda'iah, 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: 
Jeda'iah, the second course 24'; Jehoiarib, the first 24^; Jachin, 
the twenty-first 24'^ Jeda'iah also appears as a family name in the 
list 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. 12^ f-. Jehoiarib or Joiarib (Ne. 1 1'°) is the name of a priestly 
house of the days of Joiakim whose 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. 1 2«, 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' -'s, 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. 11", 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. 12' 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 MeshuUum for Shallum and the insertion of Meraioth. 
Cf. 5" "• (6'2 H ). While it is possible that this is the true genealogy 
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 rider of the house of God 
may refer either to A hitiib or 'Azariah (Seraiah). This latter mav 
have arisen from 2 Ch. 31 '3, where Azariah of the reign of Hezekiah 
is given that office, or it may describe an actual ofhce of the time 
of this record. This office may not mean that of the high priest, 
since in 2 Ch. 31s several such rulers are mentioned. The sum 
of the numbers of these priestly families given in v. i' is 1,760, 
while in Ne. ii'- 13, u -^yg 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 11''^ ' ; mighty men 
of valor, in ii'^; the work of the service of the house of God, in 11 '2. 
In addition to the names given here, Ne. 11" mentions an overseer, 
"Zabdiel the son of Haggedolim." 

14-16. The Levites. — 14. 6'/zew(/'w/i appears in Ne. ii'^with 
the same pedigree except that instead of closing with //-«;» the sons 
of Merari O-nO ''J2 p) the line closes with "son of Buni" 
{'^y\2 \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. 1 1 '« has no parallel in our 
passage.) — 15. Bakbakkar f ] is a strange name, perhaps the same 
as Bakbukiah Ne. ii'7. — Heresh f and Galal] are wanting in 
Ne. II. — Mattaniah, etc.] in Ne. ii'" {v. s.) is styled "the chief 
to begin the thanksgiving in prayer," RV. The text probably is 
corrupt (see Mattaniah, EBi.).—l^. 'Obadiah] (v. s.).—And 
Berechiah son of Asa the son of Elkanah who dwelt in the villages 
of the Netophathites] entirely wanting in Ne. 1 1 ; 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 (r/. 6'8 <">) . The villages of the Netophathites are 
mentioned in Ne. 1228 as the residences of "the singers." Netopha 
has been identified with ''Umm Toba," north of Bethlehem 
{SWP. III. p. 52), or Beit Nettif, 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. ii'^ 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. ■*% 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. i' compared 
with v. '^), and yet they are called Levites (w. ''• ^e). Their office 
goes back to the Mosaic period (vv. 19 f ), and yet David and 
Samuel are said to have ordained them in their office (v. 2=). 
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 (vv. =2. 25), j^ the description of their duties 
the writer passes at once, without any indication of the fact, in 
v. «" (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 w. "■ '' Ne. ii'^- 19, but later they, or at least the chief 
gate-keepers, were reckoned as Levites (\'v. 19 f- 26 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' «■), and then, secondly, that 


this institution applied only to the subordinate gate-keepers who 
resided in the country (vv. "• 25)^ while the chief gale-keepers who 
resided in Jerusalem (v. ") traced their ofhce to the Mosaic period 
(vv. '^ '■). (3) The abrupt transition of subject may be due to 
corruptions of the text or the omission of verses originally written 
(v. i.). 

17. Shallum, Akkub and Talmon] are among the six fami- 
lies of gate-keepers who returned with Zerubbabel according to 
Ezr. 2<2. Shallum does not appear in Ne. 11", probably through 
a copyist's oversight. He is mentioned with the others in Ne. 1225 
under the name MeshuUam (see also v. "). — Ahiman] (JI^TIS) 
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 (DHTiN) (Ba.), written perhaps to 
take the place of Ater, which may have been dropped from the 
original text, since four names are needed (cf. Ezr. 2^2 ^nd lo^^, 
where Ater ("lt2S) may have been corrupted into Uri ("'I'lhs*)). 
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 Shallum 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 2, 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. Shallwn] 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" 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.). — Ajid 
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. 6'8 ^i)^ ^nd 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 Ph'mehas the son of Ele azar was rider over them in time past]. 
This tradition may have arisen from Nu. 25" "^ , 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 of Shall um 
V. 19, since (identifying Shallum with Meshelemiah and Shelemiah) 
(26=- '^) Zechariah was his son. Zechariah clearly was a man of 
prominence in the priestly traditions, " a discreet counsellor " 
(26''). In connection with w. " f. ike tent of meeting must be 
understood as the tabernacle at Gibeon (Bn., Ki.) or the tent 
for the ark during the time of David, while as a continuation 
of w. '9 '■ clearly the Mosaic tent is meant (Bn.). Vv. i8b-2i 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 its 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. '^a, q- jv^g. 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 Samii'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'' and implicitly in 26' °-. Saviu'el is called the 
seer after i S. 9', also so called in 26^8 29", likewise Hanani 2 Ch. 
i6'- ". 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. i3), 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 Yahiveh, 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. 7^ — 24. Cf. the arrangement of the gate- 
keepers in 26'^ « . — 25. And their brethren who were in their vil- 
lages were obliged to come ercery 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 imder 
gate-keepers who resided in the villages were not yet reckoned as 
Levites. The \\Titer 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. "i" '■; 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 (H, EVs., Ba.). 
In 26-° ^-j 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. 315- !■• '2 Ne. i3<-9. 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. 3-5 Is. 
22=2 -j-^ 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^ 
52 "■) 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. 3022-38, — 31. Shalhim] is the family name and Mattithiah 
the first born represents a different period of time from that in 
which Zechariah was the first born (cf. vv. '»• 21 262). The name 
Mattithiah is frequent i$'^- 21 16^ 253- 21 Ezr. 10" Ne. 8^f, but 
none of its bearers can be identified with this person. — In the 

office of trust over the pastry of flat cakes]. Cf. Lv. 2' ^- 6' «■ "* «•> 


7'i «•, etc. — 32. KehalJiiles]. One of the three great divisions of 
the Levites, cf. Nu. 3"- '"■ ". — J^heir brethren] with reference to 
tlie 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. '^-i«, which relate princi- 
pally of singers (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.), or it closed a list of sing- 
ers who dwelt in the Temple chambers and were freed from other 
service (□''"I'ltaS r\y^b'2), 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. 1°'^, or it is a repetition 
of 8^8 and has come in here with vv. "■■'< and has been adjusted 
to the context by the insertion of the Levites, see S^s. 

4, A comparison with N^. 11* suggests that several names have 
dropped from this line, thus: 

Ne. 11^ v-13 1J3D Sn'SShd p niL30B> p r\-'-\^n p nnj? p n>?j? p n^ny. 
I Ch. 94 \-\Q 1J3 ]D 'ja ta n::N p "ncj? p nin^j? p ip^. 

— ncN] wanting in (B», since the transliteration would be the same as 
that for n:r>', cf. (6k — 5. ''jSi^n] Ne. ii^ ^i'?^r\, read with Nu. 2620 
••tl'^^}, so Be., Ke., Oe., Kau., Bn., Ki. — -njan r^-^ivy] the first-born 
appears wrong when none of Asaiah's brothers are given. (& read 1133, 
which is certainly wrong as far as the suffix is concerned (after jc 
''jSa'n). Possibly the original was ina p ni^-y cf. ina p riTyc Ne. 11'. 
— 10. 3n>inii] Ne. 11'" incorrectly '' p. — 11. nnryi] Ne. ii" ni-ic\ 
— 12. DnT" p] Ne. ii'^-f- nnDt p ixns p n^SSo p. — p V^ny p ''V•$•c^ 
dS'.:'D p min^] Ne. ii'^ nnN p Sniij? p iD^'Dyi. — nicSsfD] Ne. n'l — , 
so ^.—13 presents in iM a long series of constructs (Dav. Syn. § 26). 
Probably, however, before honSs a S from the influence of the final 
letter of 'jip has fallen from the text (Ges. § 128c), or according to 
Ne. ii'2 an ^sry has been omitted {cf. 232*). — 15. Since cnn has no 1 pre- 
fixed, V\ read v-\n carpentarius. Instead of SSji v\t\ Cheyne reads 
nSnnn csn, "the leader in the song of praise," and places after Mat- 
taniah . . . son of Asaph (EBi. ii. col. 2019). — noi] some mss., Ne. 
11" -iiai. — 16. n^yi^tt^ p nnajJi] Ne. jnDU' p Niayi. — ndn] 32 mss. ']Vt<, 
read M. — 18. Pi:nr:] pi. Ges. § 124b or e. — 20b. mj; nin>] (S /cai 
oBroi ^leT' auroO, & oCaci* l^j^o, H coram Domino, AV., RV. 
"And the Lord was with him." — 22. nnn 1 ^nd 5] an accusative of 
the obj. Ges. § 125a f.n. — 23. nncB'DS] /or guards, cf. Ne. 7', BDB. 

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

mo"'??, I. — 25. Nn'^] inf. with S of past time with implied injunc- 
tion, Dr. TH. § 204, Ges. § 114^. — D^'cn rya::''^] definite, regular, 
and expected, since present to the mind, see Ges. §§ 134W, 126^. 
— 26. 7\r:n] Dr. TH. § 201 (i). — 3''i'^n on] an independent clause clos- 
ing a section (Kau., Ki. Kom. Das sind die Leviten). (& omits on 
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 rni o^'^n oni was ]'^2^ 
vn a^iSn. — 27. For cni Be. reads an-:i. — 33. HDs'^sa ar^-hy n^^'^i ddv ••d] 
Rterally, 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. 31'", 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 own 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 Jell down slain in mount Gilboa]. 
According to i S. 28^, the Philistines were encamped at Shunem 
(the mod. Sdlam) and the Israelites were gathered together on Mt. 
Gilboa (the mod. Jehel Fuku'a). 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 l8l 

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 Saul 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. 22^'). — Jonathan, Abinadab, Malchi- 
shiia]. Cf. 833=9''. — 3. The archers hit him]. The Heb. idiom 
has it, "the axchtrs found him." — 4. Draw thy sword and thrust 
me through]. Cf. Ju. 9=^ — 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. 16' ^ -j-, also 
2 Mac. io'3 i4<i-«. — 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. i^. — 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 in 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 ho7ise 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. 
i6'-' ff ) and at Ashdod (i S. 5 i Mac. iqss-ss ii4)_ Dagon may be 
derived from Tl, 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 ]51, 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. 2^,8 ff.; 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, und^r 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 Meriamin, 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 J crash (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 21"' 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' ff-. 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. icnVj] preferred as the original form by Bu., Sm. i S. 31' 
D^cnSj. — s'^M on] I S. TJN iDn. On vtt in distributive sense cf. Gn. 
95 iqs 40^- 5 Ex. 123 and often. — ioSj] i S. vaSjn also v. ». — 2. . . . nnx 
nnvN] I S. 312 nxi . . . pn. On the Chronicler's usage with nnx 
cf. Ju. 20" I S. 14=2. — fnjv] I S. jnjin\ The spelling injv is found 
elsewhere, in i S. 132- 3 and some 27 other times. — 3. Sisjy *?>•] 1 S. 
313 'b> Sx. The substitution of Sy for Sn may be due to the influence 
of Aramaic, which does not use ha. Bn. regards Sj? as the original. — 
nts'pa Dmsn] i S. 'pa dii^jn omen. The Chronicler has preserved the 
better order and according to Bu. the better text. If qii^'JN belonged 
to the original text it should precede amen (Dr.). — onrn JD Shm] i S. 
onicnD nND Vn-'i. Probably the Chronicler's text is an abridgment. 
- The verb SnM presents a difficulty. Dr. takes it from S^n "trembled." 
Sm. thinks that 05 takes the word from S'^n, we think more likely from 
nSn, an apocopated Hoph. or for n';;n;i (Klo.), cf. i K. 2234 = 2 Ch. 18" 
and 2 Ch. 35^3. 05 renders here and 2 Ch. iS^s 3523 by the same word 
iirbvecav, iwdveaa. Bu. gives the clause up as hopelessly corrupt. — 
4. n-j'j-Sn] I S. 3i< Nii'jS. — Before iSSynni i S. has ^l-\p-\\ The Chron- 
icler's text is better (Bu., Sm.). — 5. annn] i S. 31^ mn, which after 
05 is to be preferred (Bn.). — i?:y is omitted after nci. Bn. regards 
both as additions to the original text, pdm is wanting in 05^ by haplog- 
raphy. — -6. inn nn'' mo Ssi] an abridgment of i S. 316 ^0 dj pSd nz•:^ 
nni f<inn dv3 vv:i<. — 7. C'N Sj] i S. 31' ^^m. — pcya -wa] preserving 
more nearly the original text and an abridgment of i S. of which the 
present text is pi^n la^a -\Z'H} pDjrn laya -ii*'n, and in which i3>?a each 
time is probably a corruption of nya in the cities of (Klo., Bu., Sm.). 
Dr. retains the present text of i S. — hn-\'if> ^B'js, are the subject of iDj 
in I S. 05 has here I(rparj\, from which Kau. supplies Sxii'^ ^U'js, 
so also Ki. Some subject seems necessary. (B^ with Tras before 
Iffpa-qX = '■> '?o may retain the original reading of Ch. Then the 
verb must be put in the sg. with C|. — onny] i S. onyn nx. — ona] i S. 
pa. — 8. I S. 3i8hasnB'Sa> ns before vja. — 9. nn^ mn-\ nx iKtrn mo'B'D^i 
vSa] I S. 31' vSa nx itati'DM ib'n-i nn 101311. — ^inWM] Pi. requires as its 
object the head and weapons of Saul (so Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Sm.). 
Since, however, the inf. la'aS implies a personal subject it may be 
well to understand messengers as the object of inStt>ii and point as 
a Qal (Kau., Ki., Bu.). — anoxj; nx] i S. ']i no, the former is to be 
preferred (Bu., Sm.). — 10. oninSx n>a] probably a direct departure 


from I S. 31"' nnntt'y n-3. mncp sg. (Dr., Bu., Sm.). — ipSjSj nio 
pjTrT'j y;pr^] i S. ja* no nama lypn in'u pni. Instead of vpn, they 
drove in as a tent pin, we probably should read lypn in i S. they 
exposed after Lagarde (Dr., Bu., Sm., Ki., Bn.). — 11. B'2> S^ u'-C'i 
■ipSj] I S. 31" nv'^J !r''3' ■'3-i" v'?N 1J?ct^•■'1. Ki. restores the latter in his 
text of Ch. (SBOT., Kom.). (& read ijjSj uir'' Sj, which suggests 
'j CJ' ''3B'' S3 as original here, so Kau., Bn. — "wh Sa hn] i S. icn nw. 
— 12. After Sin i S. 3112 has nSi'^n Ss 13S11. — naij . . . nou nx initm] 
I S. HMj . . . n^u PN inpM. The Chronicler has substituted the 
Aram, and late Heb. word hdu, found in the OT. only here, for 
DMj. — After VJ3 the Chronicler has also omitted ]Z' n'3 pcins. — ciN^'an 
ns'Oi] I S. ntt'a> itOM. The Chronicler perhaps has only added the 
sf. because the vocalisation originally may have been the same {(&, 
#). — Ch. omits 08' DON idib"!. — too h'^nh rnn oninicsj? nt< napM] i S. 
3i'3nr30 h-z."A7\ nnn napM aninicsy ns inp^. — 13. The verse presents 
the heavy peculiar style of the Chronicler. — Sixs''?] inf. used mstead 
of the finite verb (Ew. § 351 c, Ges. § 114/', Dav. Syn. § 96 R. 4), c/. 
6". — ^'■nS] inf. in a supplemental sense equivalent in meaning to gain 

XI. 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 king 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 (r/. w. ^ «). — 3. 
According to the word of Yahweh by the hand of Satnnel]. 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 
sufficient to think of i S. 1$^^ 16' ■ '. 

1. hi<-\^-> hs is3|i<i] 2 S. 5' Sn-ic^ ^taatf So in3m. — idnS] 2 S. icnS icnm 
where isxm is wanting in H and -idnS in <S. — r\:n] 2 S. ujn. — 2. 
The third dj is wanting in 2 S. 5=. — xixinn npN i'^d] 2 S. ir^y i^v 
«'«siD nrron nnx. — Nocm] 2 S. ''ncm is probably a scribal error, Ges. 

XI. 1-9. j DAVID MADE KING 1 85 

§ 74^.— n^n?N ^^^T^^] 2 S. mn^, also (!« in Ch. followed by Ki., SBOT., 
but the Greek tradition seems rather to support 1^, cf. (&^^, B. — The 
second loy is wanting in <& and 2 S., hence is omitted by Ki., SBOT. 

—3, onS] 2 S. 5' + 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 Jehus. This is after the usage of P, cf. Jos. 15^ 
jgie. 28 ju. igio- 1'. Jebus 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 Amarna 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*3 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. 2"). — 8. Millo] 
part of the fortifications of Jerusalem; location and meaning are 
obscure (cf. 2 S. 5^ i K. 9'^ ^* 11"). 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. Ss-ia^ Sdi im-i] 2 S. 5« vrjNi iScn. (gB adopted by Ki., SBOT., 
favoured by Bn., follows 2 S. (&^ and ^ agree with l|. — O'.:" ''Di3\t dci] 
2 S. 3Ci> ^DUTi Sn. — 5. Di3> >a;'> icnm] 2 S. ncN''i. — 8. 30D3 -\";n pii 
3'30n lyi Ni'^an jc] 2 S. 5' n,-i''3i Ni'^i^n p a^3D T'n pM. (gB omits 
3^30,1 -ij?i NiScn p. (|i- follows i|. 3<3Dn is suspicious, especially 
with the art., so perhaps the original was non n]?i and to the palace 
(Bn., Ki.). — nj3 (nja^i) 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^ 333. le (BDB.). — -i-yn -\n'^ rs n^m aNVi] wanting in 
2 S. C&B lias »cai iTToX^fitja-ev Kal eXa/Sej* ttJj' ir6Xtj' with David as the 
subject. (^L follows l|. & 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 (^^ Trfpteiroi-^aaro, and the use of 
rT>n in Ne. 32^. — 9. nini] 2 S. 5'° +''n'^N. 

10-47. David's mighty men. — This section is taken from 
2 S. 238-39 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. =«■», have suggested that the entire list, xx. "■<', came from 
a source independent of 2 S. (Bn.) and perhaps the source of 2 S. 
(Graf). Another explanation is that \^'. ■"'=-" are out of place, 
belonging in c. 12 between v. " and v. » (Bu. in Com.). The names 
in VA^<"'■" are in many instances if not all of persons from east of 
the Jordan. The first twelve of these heroes given in w. '» ^ 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 ki?igdom, 
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 tliis time (We. Prol. p. ij 7,). —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. =''-'"' 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. ^9. — 13. Pas-dammim] 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. a^'prnncn] cf. 2 S. 3« Dn. lo^i and for references 2 Ch. i'. — 11. 
■1CD3] 2 S. 238 nistt', 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. 2339 {cf. Bn.). — oy^tt'^] <&^ leffe^ada, l lecTffe^aaX, 
which are certainly not corruptions of ^ I<r/3aa//, = M. 2 S. z^"* 
na-'j, CgB lea^bade L lecr/SaaX. The Lucian text reveals the true 
reading '?;3-.y or Sy^'^'x (Dr., Ki., et al.). The reading of 2 S. is a 
corruption of Ptt'J-ii^N, cf. S^'. — •'jiDDn-p] 2 S. ■'JCDnn = ■'jCDnn (We. 
TS., Dr., Bu.). In 272 we have Sni^t p, which Bu. adds to the 
text of 2 S. The reference in Hachmonite is unknown. A cor- 
ruption of DiD-n^a has been seen in it (£Bi.).— D^ci^'cn cni] Qr. 'n 
Dv^i'?^n, 2 S. ^wh^n vn'\. Thus the Heb. texts provide three render- 
ings, chief of the thirty (l®" in Ch. preferred by Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.), 
chief of the captains, chief of the third part (of the army), so (S" in 
2 S. preferred by Ba. <&^ in both 2 S. and Ch. represents ti'NT 
nirSrn, 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". — ■\^^^U 
in-'jn dk] 2 S. 238 usyn 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 (S {cf We. TS.). Mar. reads in 2 
S. nxyn his axe, instead of in-'jn his spear. — t:''^!f] 2 S. njcii', which is 
to be preferred, since Ishbaal had the first place and three hundred 
are mentioned slain by Abishai, v. ^o (Ki., Bn.).— 12. p itjjVn] is 
wanting in 2-j*, probably through copyist's error (Dr., Ki.). Mar. 
regards this omission as the better reading for 2 S. 23'. — \-\i-^] 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. D^ai dd] usually taken as equivalent to a^'m dsn (i S. 
17'), is a misreading of Donnj 2 S. 23'. Mar. with probability 
sees in both 2 S. and Ch. a corruption of a''NDi pnpa (r/. v. '* 
14' 2 S. 5"- 22 2313). — After ncnSD'? a copyist has omitted that 
portion of the text found in 2 S. 23 between Oif iddnj D'ni:''^D2 
ncn'^cS V. ', and ninS a^ncSfl iflD.XM v. ", through the eye wandering. 
— For aniys', barley, 2 S. 23" has Qityv, lentils. It is impossible to 
determine which is correct. — 14. The verbs i3X>n>i> niSix>i, and ^y\ 
are to be read in the sg. after 2 S. 23'^ and (& (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.). — ysyvi] 2 S., 05 »'P''1. 

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 different 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 vv. ■=-'«» 
probably came after the list of the thirty (in 2 S. w. "''" after 
v. ") (so Bu., SBOT.). The variations betv^^een Ch. and 2 S. are 
few and unimportant. — 15. Unto the stronghold^ of 'Adullam] 
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. 14' Jos. 158 18'^ 2 S. 5'8- S2 23'3 Is. 175, 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^-1=. — 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 groimd like 
water," Dt. i2'6- 23-25 1^2 


15. (S of 2 S. 23" omits C'x-i and is followed by Bu., SBOT., 
who thinks the word has come from 2 S. 23'*. — ix"i] the true read- 

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

ing. 2 S. i^xp. — mjJD] 2 S. the same. Read mxD 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.— njn^] 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. i^sji] 2 S. 23" asai.— 17. \HT^'\\ 
2 S. 23's niNnM. On the apocopated form of Ch. see Ges. § 756&. 
— 1133] 2 S. 1S3D. -isa a ivcll of living water, but 113 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. '«. — 18. na-Sii-n] 2 S. 23I8 onjjn n»''?tt'.— ion] 
Pi. t, 2 S. ID^ Hiph. — 19. •'n'^Nc] 2 S. 23'^ nin\ p in such an 
expression is the better usage. — nricx] necessary to complete the 
sentence is lacking in 2 S. The original of 2 S., however, may 
have been different (see Bu., Sm.). — .-ir.i'Dja] in 2 S. preceded by 
didShh 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 D.-'irDJ32 
in the following clause. Without this restoration the 3 is that of 
accompaniment, Ges. § 119", cf. On. 9^ Lv. 17", the blood of these 
men shall I drink with {i.e., and therewith) their lives (Ke., Ki.). — 
niNon Dnv>:'Dj3 13] an explanation of the previous Dma'SJ3 from the 

20-25. Exploits of Abishai and Benaiah ( - 2 S. 2^,'^-^^).— 

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 B 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 amoiint of confusion 
and uncertainty. Abishai and Benaiah, while not equal to the 
three (vv. '^ ■ ^s) , 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\jb, was the thirty^ s"^ chief, and he 
swung his spear over three hundred slain and he had renown like 


the three. A tnong 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 life of Abishai cf. iS'^ i S. 26^ "■ 2 S. 16" 18^ 21"' ' . — 
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. 15=' Ne. 11=5. — 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. 2i'9. Another resemblance 
to the Goliath story is the fact that the Egyptian v/as slain with 
his own weapon, i S. 17". — 24. And he had renown like* the three 
mighty men]. Cf. •'^ ^'>. 

20. iti'DN] 2 S. 2318 correctly tiy^^N, so also (B, cf. 2^^. — ntriS::'.-!] 
2 S. Kt. the same; Qr. ^z>'iz'7[ -. but some mss. (see Gins.) and 2 S. 
have u>Z'hz'n, the true reading, adopted by Be., We. TS., and schol- 
ars generally (not by Ke., Oe.). — xSi] Qr. and 2 S. ^\h^, so also (&, 
U, &. The >fS is preferred by Mar., who reads '2 Dp n*?, Jie was 
not reckoned among the three. Others generally read 'h. — Instead of 
nB''?2'3 we read with Bu. and Sm. nz'hz'::. Dr. retains iH 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 D'-S'Ssyj. — 21. niri'^;:'.! p] 2 S. 231^ the same; a comparison with 
v."" shows that we should read a^tr'i'^tr'n ]d (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^juo] retained by Ki. with the rendering "stand er 
zweifach in Ehren"; rejected by Kau., Bn., who (as above) substitute 
ijn from v. =5, which is the reading of We., Dr., and Bu. in 2 S., 
where we have ''jn, a certain corruption. Sm. prefers to read Nin. 
^22. p] before S^n c-iN should be omitted as (5 in 2 S. 232", since 
Benaiah and not his grandfather is clearly described (We. TS., 
Dr., Kau., Ki., et at.). — diSjjo 3n] usually rendered mighty in deeds 
but by Bu., since his origin is here described, mighty in possessions, 
the striking thing being that a man of wealth should be a hero. — 


3sn Ss'is ':•.;• pn] (6 in 2 S. and (S'- here have SxnN <j3 ■'yy nx, 
adopted by We. TS., Kau., Dr., Ki., Bn., and the last four also 
read 3N1CD. Retaining the text the rendering has been given, He 
smote the two altar pillars of Aloah (Ba., WRS., Religion 0/ Semites, 
note L). The use of hdh is against this. We prefer with Bu. after 
Klo. (owing to similarity of '?wsnx with ns in the next sentence) 
DNiina-rvS nsn >J3 •■jp*. This places in a natural order the exploits of 
Benaiah. Otherwise two of warfare are separated by one of hunting. 
The prep, ^.s is used in a pregnant sense. — 23. ma i:'\s] 2 S. 23-' 
nx-io ti'^N preferred by Ba., while the reading of Ch. is preferred by 
We. TS., Dr., Bu., Mar.— 24^. See v. 2°.— 25. See v. 21. 

26-47. The mighty men of valor. Vv. =6 ^la = 2 S. 232^ 39a. 
— The title given in v. ^sa (wanting in 2 S.) to this section shovi^s 
that the Clironicler regarded this list as independent of those men- 
tioned above. The addition of the sixteen names in w. ^^^-"^ 
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 (y. s.), however, appear in the Chronicler's 
list of the captains of David's ho.st (27^-15). 

26-41. — 26. 'Asah'el] {cf. 2'« 27') slain in the war with Ish- 
bosheth. — Elhanan] the name also of the slayer of GoHath (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. 271". — Pelonite] v. i. — 28. 'ira]. 
Cf. 273. — Teko'ite] from Teko'a, cf. 2'-K — Abi'ezer]. Cf. 27 '2. — 
' Anathothite] from 'Anathoth, cf. 6'^ <««>. — 29. Sibbecai] 2 S. 23" 
Mebunai {v. i.). Cf. 271'. — Hushathite] from Hushah, cf. 4^. — 
Ilai] an uncertain name (v. i.). — Ahohite] reference unknown. — 
30. Maharai]. Cf. 27 >3. — Netophathite] from Netophah, cf. 2". 
—Heled] 2 S. 23" Heleb {v. i.). — 31. Benaiah]. Cf. 27 '^ — 
Pir athonite] of Pir'athon, a town in Ephraim (cf. Ju. 12"). — 32. 
Hurai] 2 S. 23'" Hiddai (v. 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.). 


— 'ArbathUe] from Beth-'arabah, a town of Judah or Benjamin 
{cf. Jos. i5»- «')•— 33. 'Azmaveth]. Cf. i2\—Baharuniite] (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"), near 
Aijalon.— 34. Hashem] 2 S. 23^2 Jashen {v. i.).—Gizonile] un- 
certain (v. i.). — Hararite] uncertain. — 35. Sacar] 2 S. 23" 
Sharar (v. i.).—Eliphal] 2 S. 233* Eliphelet {v. i.).— 36. This verse 
is entirely uncertain, probably corrupt {v. -/.).— 37. Carmelite] 
from Carmel, a town near Hebron. — Na'arai] 2 S. 23=^ Pa'arai 
(v. i.). — 38. V. i. — 39. Bcrothite] from Beeroth, a town of Benja- 
min.— 40. 'lihrile]. Cf. 2".— 41. Uriah the Hittite] the officer 
whose wife David iodk.—Zabad] wanting in 2 S. This completes 
the list given in 2 S., where is added "thirty and seven in ail" 
(2 S. 23"). 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. «'), furnishes 3 +2+ 30 =35 names. Usually, however, 
Zabad is grouped with the fifteen new names in vv. "-47. 

— 26. Di?>nn maj] tlie men of valor, wanting in 2 S. 232«. On 
the pi. see Ges. § 124(7.— After ^><i' 2 S. has D^->:'"'^'2.— Instead of 
nn read ^tn {cf. v. '=).— anS n^2r] 2 S. '^ n>2.— 27. nici;'] 2 S. 23^ 
nc^. (gB here and 27* ninctt', preferred by Ki. {SBOT., but not 
Kom.) and Bn.— nnnn] 2 S. mnn, usually followed (Be., Ki.), since 
a locality Tin ]'•; is mentioned in Ju. 71, near Mt. Gilboa. Bn. 
regards this as entirely indecisive. Mar. and EBi. (art. Harodite) 
emend to m;'n, connecting it with 'Arad, a town in the Negeb. In 
278 this warrior is called an Izrahile ('m?i), but the true reading is 
probably •'mr, Zerahite. This favours a Judean origin and so far 
the emendation of Mar. and EBi. — After nci:' 2 S. has another 
hero mm Np^Ss, Elika the Harodite, but since he is wanting in (&^\ 
Mar. rejects him. However, this omission is probably due to homce- 
oteleuton. — ■'ji'^an] 2 S. 2326 ^aSan. This latter is perhaps to be pre- 
ferred, since we know of a corresponding place ta'^D rria, a town of 
Judah, Jos. 152' Ne. ii-^ (Be., Ki.). Yet in 271° we have 'ji^sn 
and Helez belongs to Ephraim. Bn. well says we know too little of 
towns to determine the true reading. Mar. after (&^ KeXw^eJ in 2 S. 
reads ^nSrpn, the Keilathite. — 29. oaD] 2 S. 23" ■'jac. Ch., it is 
generally acknowledged, has the true reading, since Sibbecai the 
Hushathite is mentioned in 2 S. 21^^. — ^^>-;] 2 S. 2328 jid'^x, but d** 
EXXwv •- AXXaj*, hence the name may have begun with y, but the 

XI. 10-47.] DAVID'S MIGHTY MEN 193 

second half is uncertain. We. TS. has Ji'-J.'.— 30. I'^n] 2 S. 23=9 jSn. 
The former attested by 27'^ ■'"I'^n, and as proper name by Zc. 6'°, is 
read (>-i'?n) by Bu. {SBOT.) and Mar. in 2 S.— 31, >jn>nDn] 2 S. 
2330 >}r^-;-\2. The former with the art. is correct. — 32 . mn] 2 S. nn. 
It is uncertain which is correct, but the former is preferred by We. 
TS., Bu., yet the latter by Ki. — ':'NnN] 2 S. 23« jn'^y '3n. Ch. is 
supported by (6" of 2 S. We. TS., Bu., read Sj,'2->.nN.— 33. >cnnan] 
read Tiin^n. The reference is to Bahurim, cf. 2 S. 3'* 16* 17'^ 19" 

1 K. 28. 2 S. has ''cn-\3n. — 34. •'ja] after 05'- 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.). — Drn] 2 S. l-'\ The former is preferred in 2 
S. by Mar. — •'Jiun] wanting in 1^ of 2 S., but (&^ has 6 Vovvl, which 
gives the true reading ^jun, the Gunite, of a family of Naphtali, Nu. 
26^8 (Dr., Bu., Ki., Mar.). — NJ-.r p irjn''] 2 S. nc:;' jnjin\ (gi- in 2 
S. has p and is followed by scholars generally. Whether we should 
read H-ri' or net:' is uncertain. The latter is preferred by Ki. after 
(&^. We TS. prefers the former (or njn) and thinks that Jonathan 
was a brother of Shammah, 2 S. 23", since both were Hararites. — 
35. -ID-'] 2 S. 23" -\-\-y. Ki. prefers the former. Bn. the latter, since 
supported by (g^ in 2 S. — 'jSan vnN ^m3::n lan (36) : nix p '^sj^Sn] 

2 S. 2334 "ijSjd SD-i''nN p aySx •'nincn p i2Dnx p d'^s-'Sn. Kau. re- 
tains the text of Ch. Bn. reads ^ho-hn and ■':^jn 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 lan lis in the place of lODnx 
]3. Bu., SBOT., follows 2 S., except that he reads ni3 instead of 12 
before "TiDpcn. We prefer: Eliphelet the son of . . . the Ma'acathite, 
Eli' am the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite. — 37. ■'3:n p ii>'j] 2 S. 23=' 
^3isn n;'D. Of these two readings between which Dr., Ki., and Bn. 
are undecided, that of Ch. is probably the later, p having been in- 
serted before the place adjective (Bu.). — 38. jnj'ns Sxr] 2 S. 23^5 S},.j, 
]nj 13. 01° in Ch. has p, which is to be read in the place of inx 
(Ki., Bn.), but it is impossible to determine which name is correct, 
probably ''nj'' because Sxr is too common to have likely suffered cor- 
ruption. — in^c] 2 S. n3XC. The reading of 2 S. is of the nameof a place; 
if followed (Ki., but all is uncertain, Bn.), then p represents a proper 
name, ^J3 Bani 2 S. — 0^1 is hardly correct. Read either njn after 
2 S. the Gadile (Ki.) or 'snjn tlie 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 Reuhenite, chief 


of the Reubenites 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 ('tt' V^V)' we should read over thirty {W'^b*^ ^y) (Be., Ki., 
Bn.). According to Ba. thirty with him is a marginal note de- 
signed to follow V. ^"'. — 43. The Aliihnite] is entirely obscure. — 
44. The 'Ashterathite] i.e., from Ashtaroth, a city of Bashan, Dt. 
I* Jos. Q*" et al. — The 'Aro'erite]. The reference probably is to 
Aroer in Moab (cf. 5^). 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. DMnnn] is an impossible form for a singular gentilic name, 
Kau. and Ki. give it up as hopelessly corrupt. Be. suggested ^jnon the 
Mahanite, i.e., from Mahanaim east of the Jordan. (^"^ has Moweiv 
possibly representing 'Jippn the Meonite, i.e., probably one from Beth 
Meon, a city of Reuben, Jos. 13" {(&^ Mie£, ^ Maiodi, are corruptions 
of ^). — 47. noxnn] is also a corruption. Kau. and Ki. attempt no ren- 
dering. Possibly we should read nn^:^ from Zobah {cf. v. 's) (Be., Ba.). 

XII. 1-23 (1-22). David's recruits when estranged from 
Saul. — In I S. 22" 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= 272), 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. 

Xn. 1-23.] DAVID'S RECRUITS I95 

The chapter is assigned by Bn. to the Chronicler's sources; according 
to Ki. vv. 1-22 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. '• » "*) suggests that they were written by the 
Chronicler (r/. 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^ "■ 
20), the statement that large numbers of Benjaminites deserted to 
David (vv. ' ^- " ^- "^ ^•>) and among them even a Gibeathite, one from 
Saul's home town, 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^.) 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 (ni'?;;^), 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 under 
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 ("ITJJ) to helpin vv. '' "s) 22'- (21 <■ ). — 2. Using both the right 
hand and the left in {slinging'] stones and in {shootingl arrows with 
the howl. 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- ^^, 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. 
Ahi'ezer] elsewhere the name of the chief of the Danites. Nu. 
ji2 225 y66. 71 iQ2b j^ — J oash tlic son^ of Shema'iah * f (or J ehosha- 


wa *) the Gibe athile]. The local reference is to Gibeah of Benja- 
min or of Saul the mod. Tell-el-Fid, two and a half miles north of 
Jerusalem. — And Jizi'el f (Jezic'el or Jezo^el, Kt.) and Pelet (2" |) 
sons of Azmaveth]. Azmaveth is the name also of one of 
David's mighty men (11" (/. S^f^). — Beracah -j- and Jehu the 
' Anathothite\ Anathoth was a Benjaminite town, the mod. 
'Andta, three miles north-east of Jerusalem (SWP. III. 7). — 4. 
Ishma iah | the Gibe onite\ Owing to Saul's treatment of the 
Gibeonites, a Gibeonite might well have passed over to David. 
Cf. 2 S. 21 '-^ — 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**). llie Gederathiie] i.e., 
from Gedera, a town of S. Judah Jos. 1535, 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. g), or possibly the town 
was Gedor Jos. 15^^ south-west of Bethlehem mod. Jcdiir (Bn.). 
— 6 (5). El'uzai I and Jerimoth {cf. 7^) and Be'aliah]. This last 
name (rT'^y^), 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^' 939 nu 14?). — Shcmarjahu f and 
Shephatjahu]. Written in the shorter form ("'•tSSw', nnttt:'), 
these names are quite common. — The Hartiphite or Ilariphite]. 
A Hareph appears among the sons of Caleb (s^'). — Sons of 
Jlariph are mentioned among those who returned with Zerubbabel. 
— 7 (6). Ishshijahu |] a name not infrequent in shorter form 
Ishshiah. Cf. 7' 24" et al. — Joezer f]. — Jashobe'am]. Cf. 11". 
• — The names Elkanah and 'Azarel are frequent. — Korahitcs]. 
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. 5 (<>'> cf. 4*. Clearly from v. ' t^t) 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 197 

1. ^jsr:] because of. DBD. njo 6 a and c. — 2. ne'p "'Cpj]. This 
phrase occurs also in 2 Ch. 17'' and Ps. 78^ (where •'cn should be 
struck from the text as an explanatory gloss). (& omits itt-pj con- 
necting ns'p(3) with m;' v. ', and supplies a verb {a-(f>evSovT}Tai) be- 
fore B'J0N2. — 3. nj;c*;'n ija] (so Kau.) read perhaps with (S n^ycs' ]2 
(Ki., Ba.), or possibly the original read >cu-n> p (c/. >'crin, 3I8). 
Then a dittography of the following n caused the trouble. — Snitii 
Qr. '^Nn^i] some MSS. read Vsf and '^nv perhaps a corruption of Sxnn' 
"God sees" (EBl) (cf. v. ^). — 6. ^onnn Qr. ^siinn] with the first 
form agree T' in •<:2, nnn Ne. y-* lo^". — 8. injn] text of Baer. Tnjn 
text of Ginsburg and Ki. BH. Heb. mss. vary, (S —dwp. 

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 gding 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 AduUam 
(ii>5 '• I S. 22* '■) 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.-^ <"'. On their likeness to lions in the fierceness of 
their appearance or onset, and to roes for swiftness, cf. 2 S. i" 2>8. 
—11 (10). Mashmannah f]-— 14 (13). Machbannai -f].— 15 (14). 
Heads of the host] i.e., chief warriors (Ke., Zoe.), better, leaders 
or commanders (Be., Kau., Ki., RV.). Ki. after B 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 ^3; 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'^). 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 >^J^ cf. On. io'« « i2«. Kon. iii. § 256 e. 
— nspS]. The pathah under s is due to the close connection with 
the following word, ^^l omit the phrase and also have airb Tri% 
ipr)iwv, implying that the Gadites came from the wilderness evidently 
to Ziklag {cf. V. >)• — nn"<l "^^"l- Instead of ncii the Venetian pointed 
text, 1526, curiously had pc, perhaps through the influence of Je. 
463 (Be.).— nnn'^] on use of inf. see Ges. § 1140.— 14. la-y >nc?j?] 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. 
J 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. 63' (see Moore in loco).— Chief of the thirty (Kt)]. 
In 11=0 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 (Stt'Cy), 
whom Absalom made his commander-in-chief and later David, 

Xn. 1-23.] DAVID'S RECRUITS 199 

and whom Joab treacherously slew (2 S. 17'* 19'* <"' 20'°). — A^id 
he said]. These words are wanting in ^, but are given in (§. — 

Thine [are ■we\ O David, 
And with thee O son of Jesse, 
Peace, peace to thee. 
And peace to thy helpers * 
Fot 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 band]. David's 
company of four hundred or six hundred men (i S. 22^ 272). The 
word band is usually used of marauders (cf. v. ^^ 2 Ch. 22' i S. 
308- '5. 23 I K. ii^'' el al.). 

18. iniS 23S] equivalent to ^^N 33S. Only here is nni used as a 
substantive. — "'D33 onn ahz] neg. circumstantial clause Ges. § 156c. 
Use of i<h -wiih. prep, is chiefly poetic and late, cf. v. 34. — 19 . o^'S'iS^'n] 
Qr. a''i:'''Sa'n. The former is generally preferred and is the reading 
of (B, ^, H. — ip>:i -\n T]^]. CS read q?:;n in -^S. g> also read lS^ re- 
peating it, and has otherwise amplified the verse and also the preced- 
ing verse. — The pi. T'ltyV should be read after 05, 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 '?S3 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. ^i (20) and assisted him in his raid 
against the Amalekites v. ^^ "". — 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. " <"> 
the time of the accession of these recruits and defines their person- 


ality. Except 'Adnah (2 Ch. i7>< f) and Zillethai {cf. S"), their 
names are not especially rare. — Chiefs of the thousands of Manas- 
sch\ The writer is thinking of the military divisions of the tribe 
of Manasseh according to P {cf. Nu. 3114- ^s. 62. 64)._22 (21). 
And they\ It is difficult to determine whether the pronoun refers 
to the seven Manassites just mentioned (Ke., Zoe.) or all the 
recruits ^'^'. '■" '=<" (Be., Oe.). — The hand 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. 3'.) On 
the wide remove of the writer from historical fact see above. 

20. D")?}!]. While David and his men might be taken as the sub- 
ject, it is better to read with (6 (?) the verb sing. D^^'V, with David 
as the subject (Ki.). — 21. ir:!''^]. The choice of "I'^n here may have 
been determined by noSS i S. 29". — 22. The word inj (1. 17 ?) is 
used of the Amalekites in i S. 308- 's. 23. — 23. arj Dv n;*-] (1. 48). 
This phrase is given elsewhere without ryV. This verse is not un- 
likely from the hand of the Chronicler instead of from his source. 

24-41 (23-40). The number of the soldiers who made David 
king at Hebron. — These verses are another account of the events 
already related in 11'-'. 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 (D''uS"l) are 
interpreted leaders, commanders, or chiefs : and so here by <|>, H, 
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. =3 (32))^ and of Naphtali 
(y_:6 (34)) • a^ 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 vx. " '■-^^ -^ '■-''>, con- 
tained the names and numbers of chiefs and warriors (Be.). 
Others interpret heads as polls, persons (Ba.), after Ju. 5'° (a usage 
not paralleled elsewhere with ti'S"! but requiring r.h^hi, see 


Moore in loco), or as bands, divisions, after Ju. 7'«- 2" 9"- "■ ** i S. 
II" (Ke., Zoe., Oe.). The host is the army of Israel after the 
usage of P. — To turn the kingdom of Satil to him according to the 
word of Yahweh]. Cf. io'< 11' '". — 25 (24). Bearing the shield 
and spear] the large shield (nri) covering the whole man in 
contrast with the small shield (pi3) carried as a protection against 
arrows. The spear (nD"l) 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, m.erely to witness the ratification 
of his kingship by others. The enigma really remains unsolved. 
— 28 (27). And Jehoiada 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'^ «-, 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 
(lj/i), thus in the proper age relation to Benaiah's father. — 
29 (28). And Zadok]. Th.xsZ.diddk, who w'xih. tiventy 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^'->). The twenty-two captains are a reflection of the 
twenty-two priestly classes of the post-exilic period 24'-'^ Ne. i2'-7- 
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 v^rriter 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=2 Nu. i" y-^- '"^ et al.). The writer com- 


plctcly 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). 0/or in their fathers' houses]. 
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 h 
cf BDB. 5 i (a)).— 32 (31). And from the half-tribe of Manasseh] 
i.e., from ]\Ianasseh west of the Jordan. The other half, east of 
the Jordan, is mentioned in v. " C37)_ — \yjiQ ^.^^.g designated hy 
name]. Cf 16" 2 Ch. 28'^ 31'^ 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 shotdd 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 should 
do (® 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. 2o»8 (We. Prol. p. i'j^).—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. for descriptions of similar joy 
and feasting 292"-" 2 Ch. y^-'" i K. 8"--'^'! 2 Ch. 30" ^ . While 
sacrifices are not mentioned here, they would naturally accompany 
a coronation festival with its oaths of treaty or allegiance (r/. Gn. 
2146. 64) _ — Food of flour] 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. 25 '« 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. 16'. These were 
dried grapes, probably also pressed into cakes. 

24. (B has TO. 6v6ixaTa (nice instead of nsDc). 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 
-i-'s before in3, see Ges. § i55<i. Bn. after (& inserts ib'n. — n^s*? Tm'^'^'"'] 
V. " S3X ^siSn, those equipped for the host, i.e., for war, cf. Nu. 31^ 
32" Jos. 4". This phrase is parallel with N3X insii v. ^\ cf. 5'8. — 
34. N3X \s:ir]. See v. -••. — ncnVn i'^d Vja ncn'^n "131;'] setting in order 
for war with every kind of weapon of war, cf. v. '. — iiy'^i] Ges. 
§ 114/'. 05, 31, and some Heb. MSS. have iijrS preferred by Kau., Bn., 
while the text is adhered to by Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ki. Here and in 
V. 35 Tiy is apparently used as a synonym of "iiy, which word actually 
appears in v. '^ in some MSS. {q. v.). Perles suggests as original in 
both passages the word -\-fZ' which in Babylonian as saddru has the 
technical meaning " arranging (an army) in battle array." A copyist 
then inserted "iij; as a gloss to this foreign word in both places, whence 
arose the form -nj; by combination of the two (OLZ. 8, 1905, col. 
181). — aSi aS xSa] with one heart, lit. " with not a heart of two kinds," 
cf. Ps. 12', for construction Ges. § 123/. Dav. Syn. § 29 R. 8. On 
nS3 cf. V. '8. — 35. n^jni] w. ^- 25 ncm. 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-^ 2321) (EBi. art. Spear).— 37. xax insv] cf.v. 
!". — 39. my] some MSS. and <6 •'2-^y preferred by Kau., Bn. {id. or 
^""'y). (f- 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 conce})tion 
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 (11'-') 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 cj. 28' 
2 Ch. 1 2. 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 of 
Israel] i.e., the assembly of officers. — Let its send in every direction 
(Oe., Ba.) or let tis send quickly (Be., Ke., Zoe., Ki.)]. The former 
rendering (RV.) is the better according to the meaning of the verb 
(pS), cf. On. 28^* Is. 543 Jb. ii» (but v. i.).—Wlio are left in all 
districts of Israel] i.e., those who did not come to make David king 
in Hebron. The writer closely connects the removal of the ark 
with the assembly of the hosts described in the previous chapter. — 
TJie 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 V.—In their cities that have 
pasture lands]. 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. 
639 ff. (51 ff., 2 Ch. II").— 3. And let us bring up [lit. round] the arfi 
of our God]. The Chronicler varies in his use of terms designating 
the ark. In passages independent of Biblical sources he calls it 
the arfi of God v. ^ 151. 2. 15. 24 2 Ch. i^ tfie arfi of the covenant of God 
i6^ tfie arfi of Yahweh 153- i^- » 16^ 2 Ch. 8" and tfie arfi of the 
covenant of Yafiweh 16" 22 '^ 282- '^^ and in the Biblical excerpts he 


has allowed to remain unchanged ark of God vv. « ' and the ark of 
the covenant of Yahweh 2 Ch. 5- \ and has substituted for the 
ark of Yahweh, the ark of God vv. >=• '^ {the 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 ofSanl] i.e., we have made no 
inquiry concerning it (cf. 1 S. 7' ' ). — 5. From Shihor of Egypt]. 
In Is. 233 Je. 2's 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. 13' the name is more applicable to the 
Wady el ' Artsh 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. 7« Is. 27'2) (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. Spurrcll 
on Gn. 15'*). — Even unto the entrance of Hamath] the northern 
boundary of Israel (Nu. 13=' 34^ Jos. 13^ Jg. 33) 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. 6'-" with few variations (yet a marked one in 
V. '^), and the text is on the whole here better preserved than in 2 S. 
— Ba'alah] was another name for Kiriath-jearim (Jos. 15'-"- «" 
i8'^). 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 it*] 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. 
— Abinaddb]. 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 (IHSll'^l)- — 8. On the instruments of music v. i., 
and cf. i5's- '3- ^*. — 9. Chidon] the name probably of the owner 
of the threshing-floor. — 10. That Uzza met his death from some 
cause now utterly unknown 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" (1;. 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. i5'8. 

1. •>■(■;•] followed by two genitives, cf. 2 Ch. 11' i2'5 Ges. § 128a. 
(gB /xeTCL Twv irpea^vTipuv Kal before n'w' is not likely original. — 
luj ^3^'\ in short with every leader. For the force of S v. BDB. '^ 5 e 
(d). (S^ Kal ixtra iravrbi 7]yov/j.ivov probably had no different underlying 
Heb. — 2. ai:a ot"^-; ax], ^-j has here the force of a dat. cf. Ne. 2^- ' Est. 
ii' 3' et al. — ij-tiSn mni jc] cf. Gn. 245". — nn'^^i'j nsicj] for the con- 
struction V. Ges. § i2oh. (& connects n:i-iDj with previous clause and 
renders evu)5d)6T]. This suggests that ^ is corrupt. SS. conjecture 
mpj or nxinj Niph. forms, favoured also by Kau., Bn., BDB.; n-iij 
Klo., who connects with previous clause and renders laid wir von 
Jahve unserm Gotie Gunst dazu erlangen. Ki. BH. after (S reads 
nnxij, and from Yahweh our God it is acceptable. Both IJ and & 
favour connecting the verb with the previous clause. — U'-nx h'j]. '^> 
interchanges with Sn in late Heb. v. BDB. Sn note 2 and hy 8. — nisiN] 
this plural of y\t< is almost wholly late (some twenty-two times in 1 
and 2 Ch.) used, as here, for districts of Israel, cf. also 2 Ch. 11" 15^, 
as well as countries adjoining Israel 14" 22' 29'°, et al. (1. 6). — 3. 
injcm] C5 ■i!^'iti'*i^i. J may be a corruption of 1, or vice versa. — 4. 
p nvj'i'S] on the use of inf. after lex </. 27" 2 Ch. 21' Ps. 106" Est. 


4% Ew. § 338 a. — 6. Snis'^ Sdi "in h}!>^] 2 S. 6^ tj-x D>'n •?3i nn 1"?^ opM 
IPX. In 2 S. 6' the people who are with David are only thirty 
thousand, while according to Ch. v. ^ David has assembled all 
Israel. — n•^^n>h . . . nnSya]. The text in 2 S. is corrupt. Ch. prob- 
ably preserves the original with the insertion of D^ijJ^ nnp Sx (Bn.). 
Bu. in 2 S. (SBOT.) reads ri-^-.n-^ nS>-3. — xipj i!rN D^anon 3a'i> nin^ 
cr] 2 S. vhy D"'3■^^n ja'^ ms'^s mn^ oir db* f<npj ncN. Both texts 
appear faulty. Dr., Bu., after 05, omit Dt^ 2 in 2 S. Kau. substitutes 
in Ch. the text of 2 S. with this omission and that of 'ax. Bn. 
with Oe., after (S, reads vSj? mz', 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 Yahzveh . . . whose 
name is called over it; the last phrase indicating merely ownership 
(for ref. see BDB. I. Nnp Niph. 2. d. (4).). Ki. BH. reads ica* 
^z\ — 7. n;'3J3 . . . inxit"! rr^nn 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^DJi ly Sd3] 2 S. 6^ Dicn3 isy S32. Ch. has 
- the true reading. — nnxxnai DTiSsDOi] 2 S. D''SxSxdi DVJJJJcai. 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 anxsn 
are often mentioned by the Chronicler (is^''- ^ i6«- <2 2 Ch. s'^'- 
i3'-- " 15'* 2o28 et al.) (1. 44). — 9. p^o] 2 S. 6^ has ]13J which as a 
part, fixed is meaningless {v. Dr.). — ni nx] wanting in 1^ of 2 S. is 
required by Heb. usage (Dr., Bu.). — 2 S. has also tn^M instead of 
rnxS. — vjr:u'] read perhaps la^r, see BDB. — 10. Compared with 2 S. 
6', whose text is quite corrupt, Ch. has here the original text. — 11. 
-in''i] (& Kal rjdijfjLr]<Tev, which is also the rendering of ^ "inn in i S. 
15", hence the emendations to "10.11 or "ix^j proposed by Dr., Bu., 
SBOT., do not appear necessary (Sm. on i S. 15")- — T"^fl ""^l 2 S. 6^ 
V-iD Ti'N ^;. — 12 . □'h'^nh 1 and 2] 2 S. 68 mn\ — -idxS] 2 S. ncxii. — How shall 
I bring the ark unto me]. 2 S. " How shall the ark come unto me." — 
13. I'Dn] 2 S. 61" no-iS nax. — 14. Before rr-ai of 2 S. 6'" the Chronicler 
has inserted aj? and he has also inserted after 'Obed-edom inoa {v. s.). 
— iS "ll^'^< Ss nxi dik ij;? no nx]. (B omits nij and 2 S. reads nx 
in^a Sd nxi mx naj;. 

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. o-\'n] Qr. has min preferred by Ki. (see his note SBOT.), and 
also occurring in 2 Ch. 2"^- •" '• 8^- '» 92'. In S. and K. we have ai^n. 
This is what we should expect from a compound of nN, which is 
generally seen in Hiram (v. BDB., ai^n after ns; also v. Ahumai 4^). 
oninx is, of course, possible like "'nud. — -\>p "'B'-im] 2 S. 5" px 'i:'ini 
-i.p — n'3 iS nuaV] 2 S. nnS no M2>\ The Chronicler is fond of 
using the inf. of purpose and substitutes it for the ivaw consec. — 2. 
■•d] 2 S. 5'^ ''01. It is d fficult to determine whether the omission of the 
1 is a slip or intentional by the Chronicler to show why David knew 
that Yahweh had established him as king. — raz'i] must be taken as a 
Niph. pf. 3. fern, and so 05 of 2 S., where ^ has ins'^DD ncj. The 
Chronicler has substituted the common word of late Heb. inioSc, and 
also inserted for emphasis n*^;-::^, a phrase peculiar to Ch., to intensify 
the verb, cf. 22^ 23" 293- " 2 Ch. i' 2019, with iy 1612 1712 268 (1. 87). 

3-7. David's sons born in Jerusalem. {Cf. ^'-^ 2 S. 5'' '^)— 
The Chronicler has omitted from 2 S. the mention of the con- 
cubines, either as derogatory to David (Bn., but cf. 3O 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 vv. ^b. ea^ and correctly Beeliada {)}Tb)^2) 
instead of Eliada (yn^^S), cf 3^ 

3-7. Besides the omission of D^rjSo before D'C'J, the Chronicler has 
omitted the reference to Hebron, but has preserved the true reading 
oS^-n^a instead of nSi'n^D. He has also given nn nSn instead of 
inS n^n, and also we have in v. * om^v-i, instead of a^-\'^^n, followed 
by the additional words vn li's. The retention of mj? (v. ") is 
meaningless, since the record 2 S. 32-5, 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 Elohini for Yahweh w. i"- ", 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 Rephaim] 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. 2^- «■ ^'^ 30^ '-.—11. Baal- 
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 ivere burned with fire. 
The Chronicler could not think of any other disposal of idols by 
David than their destruction according to the law, Dt. y^- ". 

8. in ncsj] 2 S. 5" in rs in^-o. — S:] wanting in 2 S. — ^nijoS s-i^i] 
2 S. niiXDH '^N TIM. Probably the stronghold of Adullam was meant 
(Bn.). — 9. rj;:'D-] 2 S. 5'^ u'Jr. This latter is by Ki. preferred. Bn. 
says it is impossible to determine which is original. — 10. a^n^vx:i] 2 S. 
519 nino. — an.-iji] 2 S. D.-inn. — i'^] 2 S. in Sn. — DTinji] 2 S. i~!< pj "'O 
3via''?fln PS, a good illustration of abridgment by the Chronicler. 
— 11. iSj?ii] 2 MSS., (6 sg., 2 S. 5=" in N3M. — d'hSni] 2 S. nnv — n-:}] 
2 S. ijdS. — 12. an^n'TN ns] 2 S. 5^1 Di^ai-y rs. Ch. supported by 
(8 in 2 S. doubtless preserves the original reading (Dr., Bu., Bn., Sm.). 
A transcriber of 2 S. refused to call idols gods. — rso \s-\v^^ in icnm] 
2 S. VB'jNi in DN-iTii, 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 im, the name of the valley. Elohim, as 
above, has been substituted for Yahweh in vv. '^'^ and inserted in 
V. '<, giving 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. When thou hearesl, 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. 38'). 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 r\^hyh after D^ntt'Sfl and waji instead of latfA'' (see 
V. ») with D^NDi after pv;. — 14. (V. s.) DniS>'D 3Dn onnnN n^yn ith] 2 S. 
5" annnx Sn 2Dn 7\);-;n ah. The text of 2 S. is preferable. A frontal 
attack is forbidden and one commanded on the rear. Chronicles gives 
the wrong connection to D.T>-\nN, and yet adapted it probably by changing 
its force from behind them to that of following in a straight direction 
afler them. on^Sya is either an original addition of the Chronicler, or 
possibly the original of 2 S. was sn>^}) n'^yn nS and we have by over- 
sight in Chronicles an interchange of prepositions (Be., Bn.). — In both 
texts read 3D instead of 3Dn (Dr., Bu., Ki., BDB.). — 15. ncnSoa Nsn tn] 
" paraphrase with much loss of originality and vigor " of 2 S. 5'* IK 
V"in.-i. — 16. 'd njno nt< ^T^] 2 S. 525 'd ns i>i. — pyajD] 2 S. j?3jd. 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 D^ndi pay 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. 8), 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"j 
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 {cf. 2 Ch. 29" ^ ). According to Nu. t,^"'- 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 (i65s) may be later interpolations (Hitzig, 
Reuss, Bn.) or more probably they were introduced by the Chronicler 
(Ki. Kom. p. 70). 

The evidence that 1519-21. 23 ^^g 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. 20 f the whole number are classified as singers, including the 
well-known gate-keeper Obed-edom {cf. 15-^ i63' 26^- « s. is) 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 nicSj? Sy (v. 29) is 
found elsewhere only in the titles of Pss. (9' 46' 481^ f, see BDB.), and 
the same is true of nijiDB'n hy (v. 21, cf. Ps. 6' 12' f)- nsj::'^ precedes 
the latter in both Pss. cited, and in Chronicles mh 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. ") 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 (26='), who would be a suitable /Jr/Hce 0/ 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 i5i6-2« seems to have been somewhat as follows: 
The Chronicler wrote vv. '«-'8- 22. 24a. 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 
Dni'v^n (v. '8), 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. •5-21. 23 q\s,o inserted the words, and Obed-edom 
and Jeiel, and Asaph into 16'. Obed-edom and Jeiel were added 
since otherwise only one harp-player would have been mentioned {cf. 
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 16^8 
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 (1521 i65) 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 atiything 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 children (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^^ 2129). — 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 ab )Ut 
the Levites is made in view of the death of Uzza (13'°). It is i n- 
plied that the Law had not been observed in carrying the ark on 
a cart (13'). For the law cf. Nu. i^" 41= 73 10". — 3. This sla e- 
ment or its equivalent is lacking in 2 S., although such an assembV 
might be inferred from 2 S. 6'^ where all Israel is mentioned.- -6. 
Uri'el]. The name occurs in the Kehathite genealogy of Elkaaih 
6' "<>. He is mentioned first because the Kehathites had tae 
duty of carrying the furniture of the sanctuary, Nu. 4^'=. — 6. 
'AsaiaJi]. 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 adivision 
of the Levites. In Nu. 3" the prince of the Kehathites is Elizaphan 
the son of Uzziel. — Shetnaiah] a name of frequent occurrence 
{cf. 9"). — 9. Hebron] a son of Kehath in 52^ (6^) 6^ <'«' 23'^ Ex. 
6' 8 Nu. 3'^ — Eli' el] in the genealogy of Heman 6'' <"' 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 t">. — 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' <") but there the name is a textual error for Izhar. — 11.. Zadok 
and Ahiathar the priests]. This double priesthood is mentioned 
in 2 S. 8" {cf. I Ch. iS'* for true text) 15"- ss i^u 20^6 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" 295- >5- 3< 30'- >«• 24 -^jis 25«) by the v/ashing of the 
body and the garments and the keeping aloof from every defile- 


ment, avoiding sexual intercourse (r/. Gn. 35' Ex. ig'"- '<■ 's- »i). 
— Unto the place which I have prepared for it\ Cf. w. '• «. 
On the construction see textual note. — 13. The verb bear (StT^) 
may be supplied in the first clause (Oe., RV., cf. v. =; ')^ has 
prasentes, on (g v. i.). — Made a breach upon us\ Cf. 13". — For 
we did tiot 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'" 79, but see 
text. n. 

1. ^v;'] is here taken with the force of -ja by Be., Kau., Ki., while 
Ke., Zoe., Oe. give the force to prepare (see ni:-;- BDB. II. 3). — 2. pnt"'] 
on use of inf. cf. Ges. § 114/. — 7. s:;n.;] read P-'-'J, see on 6'. — 12. 
1*7 ■>.nir;.-i Sn-] equivalent to 'ui 'dt ov^ '^n Ex. 232°. On the omission 
of the relative see Ges. § 156?? (d), Dav. §§ 144, 145 Rem. 5, Ew. § 
2,T)T) b; for the same construction where preposition precedes verb 2 Ch. 
i^ and very similar i Ch. 29' 2 Ch. i65 3o'8f . — 13. ^Jl^'^«^3DS] apparently 
a combination of n::'^ and nr^-Nn^, the union being formed as in the case 
of nr: with short words, ht:: E.x. 42, cj*^:: Is. 3", hn'ttc Mai. i" (Be.). 
nsS then has the force of Tw'S Sy wherefore, because, Ew. § 353 a, Koe. 
ii. §§2. 389h. Hence Kau. renders the clause : Weil ihr das erste Mai 
nicht ziigegen ivart. BDB. (under no 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? 05^ reads Sri ovk 
iv Tcp irpbrepov ifxas elvai eroZ/uous (^ omits eroi^vs). Bn. then re- 
gards ll^ as a corruption and reads 'la D'j13J d.~x n't >d.- — 15. aDnj2] 
is wanting in (&^^ and hence is regarded as a gloss derived from 1P33 in 
Nu. 7' by Bn., Ki. — In P the carrying staves of the ark are ana Ex. 
25" "• Nu. 4^ et al., ai3 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. — an^S;*]. The sufl&x refers to the implied 
pi. in Dsno. 

16-24. The musical arrangements for bringing up the ark. 

— On the composite character of this section, see above. — 16. And 
Dav-id comjnanded] 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. s-'" repeated in v. ". — With 



psalteries and harps and cymbals]. These three instruments are 
often mentioned together by the Chronicler v. '» 138 166 2 Ch. 5" 
29" Ne. 12". The c_yw6t;/5 expressed by wmVto^'iw are mentioned 
only in Chronicles. In 2 S. 6^ Ps. 150' the Heb. word for cymbals 
is zelzelim (cf. 138), although we cannot distinguish between the 
instruments (Now, Arch. I. pp. 272 /".). — 17. On the three singers, 
Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, cf. 6'«-=» ("-•'> 25' ff-. — 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 
vv. 'o '• and in part in 16^ {v. s.). — Zechariah] has been identified 
with the Zechariah of 9^' 262- '< {EBi. IV. col. 5390). The name is 
an Asaphite, probably family, name in 2 Ch. 20'^ Ne. 12"- *\ — 
The following Ben, wanting in v. 20 j^s^ should be read Bani 
(v. i.). A Bani appears in the line of descent of the singer Ethan 
(631 (46)) and as an Asaphite (Ne. 11"). — 'Uzzi'el*] (so read also 
in V. " 16^ instead of 'Azi'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'*. — 
Shemiramoth]. 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. 12' Qr. •}•. 
— ElVab] a frequent name, not elsewhere of a musician. — Beniah] 
in an Asaphite pedigree 2 Ch. 20'^. — Ma'aseiah] wanting in i6^ — 
Mattithiah]. Cf. 9=', a son of Jeduthun 253- ='. — Eliphelehu f and 
Mikneiah f ] both wanting in i6\ — ' 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. ■* it^^ 26* « , and as a 
Korahite gate-keeper (26'- *), he is a Kehathite. On his appearance 
as a singer see above and on i6^^. — Je'tel] 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. '^ 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 psaheries]. 
Cf. V. '% stringed instruments perhaps not unhke the Greek lyre. 
—Set to'Alamoth ] lit. to (the voice of) young women, i.e., in soprano 
{cf. Ps. 46' 48'^ BDB. nc^y). The phrase is obscure. Kau. 
and Ki. refuse to translate. — Azaziah] wanting in v. '» and 165, 
hence may not be original. — With harps]. CJ. v. '«, stringed 
instruments whose difference from the psalteries is not entirely 
clear, but they were probably more harp-like. — Set to the Sheminith 
lit. upon the eighth, i.e., prob. to a deep octave or in the bass, 
(f. 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 (g 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 niassa, 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. " 6=^ "9) c)"!. — Elkanah]. Cf. as above q'^. Elkanah, 
derived from the father of Samuel, appears in the genealogy of 
Heman, cf. 6'"-'- (=5-27). 19-21 (34-36). The introduction of two gate- 
keepers here in addition to those of vv. '« ■* is striking and suggests 
that this section is composite. — 24. Shebaniah] also the nam^e of a 
priest in Ne. lo^ '^' i2'4, 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=2 ]sj"e. 1221, 
of Levites in 26^ 2 Ch. 35" Ne. 1235. — 'Amasai] not elsewhere a 
priest's name, but in the genealogy of the Kehathite Heman, 6'" 
(25). 20 (35)^ and of the Kehathite Mahath, 2 Ch. 29'=. — Zcchariah] 
not elsewhere the name of a priest; of Levites see v. '5. — Benaiah] 
not elsewhere as a priest's name; as Levite see v. '^ — Eli'ezer] a 
priest's name in Ezr. 10' ^ — Sounded with trumpets] (hazozeroth 
ril"lVl»n) the long straight metal horns with flaring mouths, 
mentioned almost entirely as a sacred instrument (v. =« j-^s 2 Ch. 
15'^ 2o!'8 2926- 27 -^zr. 3'" Ne. i2'6- 41 espec. Nu. lo^-s) 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 Je'i'el* were gate-keepers for the ark] a curious 
repetition from v. " {q. v.), probably a gloss. 

16. I'txm] a late use of its with the force command followed by inf. 
+ ^7 of pers. (1. 4), cf. 2 Ch. 14^ 29^' 31' Est. i'"; so Kau., Ki. — n^cy.T?] 
inf. instead of the direct discourse in older writings, Ew. § 338 a, cf. 
134 27" 2 Ch. i". — a^->n^] inf. expressing means, Ew. § 280 d, Ges. § 
1 140. — h)p2]. On use of 2 cf. Ew. § 282 d, Ges. § 1195', BDB. 3 
III. 4. — nnci:''^] S should be struck out: a dittography. — 17. in>a'ip] 
(JB Keuralov, (^^^ Kicralov, hence with reference also to 'tr'^p 6" we 
should read iniB'-'p (Ki.). — 18. n-'ji'Dn oninN dhd;?!] □•'jti'C occurs else- 
where only in i S. 15' and Ezr. i'", where the text is corrupt in both 
places (see BDB. njs'c 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^ns Dnc>n 
•\'y; ciZf, and with them their brethren twelve, the first two consonants 
of D^JBTH having come in by dittography caused iti'j? to fall out. — 
S.\"rj.'M J3 inn3i] j3 is wanting in <&, v. '•", and 16^, but it would naturally 
be omitted before the copulative, since it is used nowhere as a proper 
name. Probably 1 and ■> have been trans-oosed and the copulative 
before the resulting ij3 has been .onnecte'' with the preceding word, 
accordingly read '?i<TJ^ ^J3i nnrr. The spellings of tli? first and of 
the last of these names are supported by v. ^^ ''"Jni'i ni-i^r and partially 
by 16^ Vn'^^ nnat (q. v.). — 3n^'?n] withe ut "> suggests some disturbance 
of the text (see Ki. SBOT.). 05 has 1. The preceding name is dubious, 
cf. <S.— 19. rii-n:]. On constr.. Dr. TH. 188, Ges. § iT,id.—22. 
in\j;:] dB^L have Ewvevia, 'Kosvevia, Iex<"'"*, hence Ki. reads 
in<:ji3. — Nii'Dai] wanting in <&, and so omitted by Ki., Bn. — Ntt'ca id-] 
(g dpx(^v tQv (jjSwv, N'j'an •\z' followed by Ki., Bn., the former ren- 
dering NiVD with reference to carrying the ark, the latter being un- 
certain, V. s. — 1L-1] mf. abs. Oe. regards it as a noun or ptc. — 24. onxxnc] 
Hiph. ptc. from denom. issn Kt. D''-)xi;nrj Ges. § 530 (for Dnxnxnc 
Stade, Gram. 280) or onxxna Baer, also BDB. Qr. nnxriD Ges. § 530, 
Baer, Koe. i. § 305 e). Cf. 2 Ch. 5'^ 7« 13 ^928, Piel 2 Ch. 5" f (1- 44)- 
— n^n''] read after v. '^ Sn'J.'\ 

Following the clue of 16* Bn. and Ki. give the original of w. '"• as 
follows: The Levites appointed AsLi)h 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. i'-""; v. ■*^ is 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 akerations 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 0/ 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." — That 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. 23'- ", also 2 Ch. 292". — 27. With a robe of byssus]. 
Not only David but also the Levites and singers are represented 
as wearing processional robes of white linen. — And tipon 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'< 2°. 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. v\'. "-^i- ^*. — 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. aio'^nn] strike out n, a dittography, so Kau., Ki. — aiN— 13;'] 2 S. 
6'= + nn niy which is superfluous here, cf. v. '. — 27. S^idc] either a 
denom. verb from BAram. nSjid Dn. 3-' or from V^s with n inserted, 
BDB. Be. thought \^2 S^ycz Sjji^-d a corruption of ij7 Soj -idijd (as 
in 2 S. 6") through illegibility, and this emendation is accepted by BDB. 
{v. 1*10 p. loi). More Hkely tlie change was intentional, as the omission 
of nini "'jd'^ 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. — itrn]. 
Either the art. is to be omitted or read NS'C3 instead of Nccn, cf. v. ". 
— onTJ'cn^] is an explanatory gloss (Zoe., Bn.) by a reader who under- 
stood nz'T^ri to refer to the lifting up of the voice in song, cf. v. " 
(Kau.). — 29. ^^'1] 2 S. 6'« nim. The latter is striking in pre-exilic 
literature. Dr. TH. 133, Dav. § 58 c, and is probably a corruption. 
— K3]. On the perfect cf. Dr. TH. 165. — pnu'Ci ipi"] instead of 
n3"\3Ci TiDO in 2 S., a substitution made either to suggest a more 
dignified movement or because more intelligible, ioidd is an dTr. Xey. 
and iron a 5is \ey. — XVI. 1. D^nS^ni- 2] 2 S. 6" r\^r\\ cf. 13'. — 
After i.-iN 2 S. has iniiica. — 'ui ni'^jj nnpM] 2 S. nini ■'jdS r^hv; Syn 
D-'DStri. — 2. nin>] 2 S. 6'8 + nixas, cf. 136. — 3. The Chronicler con- 
denses '^NTJ'^ pen ^ih a>'n SjS of 2 S. 6^^ into Sxiu'i r^x S3S. — -13:] 
(the ordinary word for loaf, Ju. 8= i S. 2^5 10' Pr. 6^6 Je. 3721) 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 1^, 
not 05, the numeral, rns, nns, with each gift. — The exact meaning 
of iDU'N ctTT. 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. « 
iy. s.). The appointees already mentioned (15'' ^ ) were set aside 


merely for the purpose of l^ringing 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 \^. ^^ «•. The Chronicler thought 
the tabernacle with the altar of burnt-offering 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. 10' 2, 
while a large numl^er of priests was indispensable at the altar of 
burnt-offering. Since the service before the ark is represented 
as of a musical character entirely, the larger number of singers 
appointed to th?t service is accounted for, also the number seven 
may have influenced the Chronicler {cf. 15"). 

4. The adminir>tration 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 of 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-- '■ '^ ^u 53 <.w ]sju. 5^6 and 
explanations of the titles of Pss. 38 and 70 espec. Briggs, Psalms, 
i. Intro. § 39 (6)); 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 (23^0 f) 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=" «•), 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 
Gibcon with corresponding musical service. The two priests also 
(v. «) sounded the two silver trumpets as if present at the burnt- 
offerings (2 Ch. 2926-28 Nu. lo'- 2- 10). — 6. Jahazi'el] does not ap- 
pear in 152^ For occurrences of the name cf. 12^ '■*^'> 23'^ Ezr. S\ 

4. p-iN] (S + nn^. — 5. Sni;;^'] read ''N''!"! as also in i5'8- 20 q. v., 
so Ki. — SN^i'^2] jn 1524 n^n^ but cf. i$^K 

7. An interesting statement showing that Psalms of thanksgiving 
(Hodii 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, vv. 8-"=Ps_ io5'-'5, w."-33=Ps. 96, 
w. 31-36 =Ps. 106' " "_ The variations from the text of the Psalter 
are slight. The original place of these verses was in the Psalter, 
since vv. 8-22 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 vv. ^*-''* 
existed independently of Ps. 106 (so Cheyne), and if the whole 
section, w. '-=«, is an insertion of a later date than the period of 
the Chronicler (so Bn.), this inference cannot be made. 

8-22 = Ps. 105' -15. 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 au 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 
("IDT) may either mean to sing to (?) God, Ps. 27^ loi' 104'^ 
also here according to BDB., or it may be used of playing musical 
instruments, Ps. ^^^ cj. 144' (parallel to m''wN'), 71'' 98^ 147' 
1493. The parallelism of Ps. 144' suggests that the latter meaning 
may have been intended here, so Briggs. — These two cou})lets 
are based upon Is. 12* ' , which reads as follows : 

"Give thanks unto Yahweh, call upon his name; 
Proclaim among the peoples his doings. 
Commemorate for his name is exalted, 
IMake music (lltiT) 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. io=^ — No assonance appears in this 
verse, but in 12 there is an apparently intentional resemblance of 
sound {niphWothau . . . mophethau) 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, rf. 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 (B 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. i". — 14. He, Yahweh, is our God; 
Jn all the earth are his judgiuents] 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, 22'6-i8^ his oath unto Isaac], On. 26--^ unto 
Jacob for a statute], Gn. 28'3-'5, 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. 343", 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. 203-7. 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"' ^'--s- '"b "» '"^ nb-isb, The strong 
beginning of Ps. 96 is weakened by omitting vv. ^^ ^a^ 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' « a- 
443 a- Je. 2" Ps. 115^-^ while Yahweh made the heavens (v. =«). 
All peoples are admonished to bring offerings unto Yahweh and 
to worship him (vv. ^s. 29). 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. ""^<', is omitted in Chronicles, since 
the Ps. does not come to an end with v. ". — 34-36 =Ps. 106' ■"• <«. 
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. 2,Z" Ezr. 3" i Mac. 4='. — 35. And 
gather us together and deliver us from the nations]. In Ps. "and 
gather us from the nations" is a cleai 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. iri'c] Ps. 1055 vs. — 13. Sx-iii'' i"i;] Ps. 105^ cnn^.s y-^t. — 15. 
n:r] Ps. 105' 1?t (^b^ fj.vrjfxoveio/xei' has grown out of (§*'' ixvT]tiovevwv 
= 15?. Ki. BH. prefers the reading of Ps. but the Chronicler may 
have changed to pi. imv. intentionally to accord with vv. ^ '■ '''■ '2- 
"■ " +. — 16. pri-i^^] Ps. 105' pni:""? which spelling also occurs in Je. 
2,^"^^ Am. 79- '6.— 19. BO.-rnj] Ps. io5'2 crvna, likewise i MS., (&, B. 
This is the better text. — 20, noScm] lis wanting in Ps. 105". — 21. 
c^s*^] Ps. 105'^ a-iN. — 22. 'N'3J3i] Ps. 105's ^N^ij-i. — 23. cv ba.] Ps. 
96' ar''. — 24. 1-1133 rs] Ps. 96^ without tn. — 25. Niiji] 1 wanting in 
Ps. 96^. — 26. nin-i] <& k. 6 debs ijfxQv = ij^hSni. — 27. ■'2pc3 nnni] Ps. 
96* icipcj nsani. nnn is a late word frequent in Aram., elsewhere 
in OT. only Ne. 8'°. The word place may have been substituted 
for sanctuary because more general and better fitting the abode of 
the ark before the Temple was built (Zoe.). — 29. rji:^] instead of 
r.-insn^, Ps. 96^, because the Temple was not built. — y^y n-^-i;]. 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 veneration before the sanctuary, though 
this rendering is excluded in 2 Ch. 20^', which he regards as corrupt 
(OLZ. 8, 1905, col. 127). — V. 29c corresponds to Ps. 969^. — 30. This 
verse is composed of Ps. 96"" =■»<* "">. — rjflSr] Ps. 96' vji:::. — 31. 
Composed of Ps. 96"* and ioa_ — ncN^] Ps. 96'" nrN. — Ps. 96"''-- 
D'i;:'::3 D'cy |n-' wanting in Ch. — 32. Composed of Ps. 96'"' and 12a. 
— r\-[vn }'S;«] Ps. 95'2 ^-p r'?i'\ — 33. ^jsSa n;-^n -t:] Ps. 96'2b i3a K- 
iJisS ij?> 's>\ — N3] Ps. + N3 •'3. — 35. ncNi] wanting in Ps. 106". — 
Myvi ^nSx] Ps. irn'^x ry\7^\ — u'^^xm] wanting in Ps. — 36. i-:n-i] Ps. 
io6<8 i-rxi. — nm'S S'^ni] Ps. ^^-1'^'^.■^. Thus the poetic termination 
of Ps. 106 is turned into an historical statement. On '?'?n cf. Ges. 
§ "33- 


37-43. Levites appointed for service. — A continuation of 
vv. "-^ — 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 (^, 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 J eduthun'* 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 15^' 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 (21^9 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. 29^8 Nu. 28''- «. — 
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 Heman 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 i^^ 
who did not serve in Jerusalem (v. ^). — 42. And in possession of 
them 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 Jeduthtin 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'"'. 2«a and thus is a continuation of v. ', 

37. vnN'?i «idnS] S with direct object, Ges. § 117^. — ora dp nai'^] 

cf. Ex. 5" 16* et al. — 38. pn^T'] is merely a copyist's variation of 

pnn\ — 39. pnx tn] obj. of 2v;^^ of v. ''. — 42. ancyi] BDB. av 3. b, 

•^pniiM j::in] wanting in (S and to be omitted as a dittography 



from V. " (Kau., Bn., Ki.)- Be. holding that 'ni I'a' >'-<2 were equiva- 
lent to the nnjaai o-^^j of v. '' rearranged vv. " '• somewhat after the 
order of v. ^ reading : ^z ni.T'S rnin'? nic;;'3 npj Ti'X onn^n is-.:m 
Dvn;:'D D\-i'?iSi nni-in iinnn ]c^ni D'n'?Nn -i>a' I'rja ncn d'?i3?'^. — 43. 

JDm] 2 S. 2Z"'\ 

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. 51^ <4) (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 unit}^ of worship 
was not ushered in by David through the erection of the Temple 
when "Yahweh had given him rest from all his eneinies round 
about" (v. '). To th«_ 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 / 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 divelt in 
his Iiouse] probably the one built with the aid of the King of Tyre, 
14' = 2 S. 5". — Nathan, the propJiet] (vv. ^- ^- ^^ and parallels in 
2 S. 7, 2 S. 12' +6 times in 2 S. 12, i K. i' f 10 times in i K. i, 
2 Ch. 2925 Ps. 51= (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. 1. — ■ 
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. — // came to pass the same night, that the word of God 
came to Nathan] doubtless in a dream. — 4. Thou shalt 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 v^as 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, Ijut not without extensive 
emendation (see Com. in loco). — 7f. / 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 {v. s.). — 10. 
Will build thee a house] certainly means a dynasty and not a build- 
ing. — 11. J^hou 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. 31 '6 1 K. 2'° 11^3 2 Ch. 262, etc.), while that of Chronicles has no 
exact parallel, yet cf. 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. {v. 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 Ti'JO, iMT twice, njn and mj?n> nnn mn'> ma |nx where 
2 S. 7'- ' have "'3 > I'^sn , nj nxn, r\-p-\^r\ 11-3 yv' D^n'^xn jnx. The 
Chronicler by his last phrase has given a clearer description of the 
position of the ark. — •'^jn] Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. has elsewhere ^jn, except 
Ne. i« {LOT.^^, pp. 155 /., foot-note). — 2. Ch. has again Tin in 
the place of iSrrn, and has omitted l*? before nu';*. — 3. D\-i':'Nn] 2 S. 
7< ninv — ;.^j] 6 MSS., & + n>3j.-i, which is not original, cf. 2 S. — 4. 
•'■^y; Tin Sn] 2 S. 7* in Sn n2>' "tn. — -2;^^ n'^n •>':' njj.n nnx n"?] 2 S. 
v-ias'S no iS njan nPNn. 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. § 126^, 
only definite in the writer's mind and to be rendered indefinite in 
our idiom. — 5. '?n-\S'"i rx \-i'''?;'n iii-s crn j-:] 2 S. 7^ ^J3 tn \iSj;n dvdS 
D'-»x:;2 Sn-\;;". — prcci Shn Sn Snsr: n^n.Ni] 2 S. p';'~2i Snsa iSn.-iD n>nNi. 
This latter is probably the true text (Be., Kau., Ki., Bn.). Bu. 
(SBOT.) after Klo. reads j:>'s ':'N ]yi'::r:! hna Sn Shnd iSn,-\D n^nxi. 
"Thus only," says Bu., "does the necessary sense of shelter under 
strange roofs find proper expression whereas iH (in 2 S.) expresses a 
wandering about in and with a shelter belonging to it corresponding 
to the later fiction of ">>'i2 "^ns in P." But one would expect this 
later fiction to be shown by the text of Ch. rather than S. (Bn.). — 6. 
After '^;a2 2 S. 7' has >:2. — 'Jsr] the true text. 2 S. ■'•J3U', a clear 
case of copyist's confusion of letters. — '•cv] 2 S. + SNTiri ."n. — 7. jd 
■'■^nx] 2 S. 7* -ins-: supported by Ps. 78". — Before ''ntj"> 2 S. has 
''>, an unnecessary repetition and perhaps not original. — 8. pn;Ni] 2 
S- 7' ^~1 — • — 2 S. has "^nj after cr'. (6 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 ''ry is repeated before 'rsntf^ in 
2 S. 7'°. — ^~^2'^] 2 S. ^r^^y;^. Bn. thinks the text of Ch. is original, 
but the use of n'?^ in Dn. 7=5 suggests that this verb was supplanting 
the older and more usual nj;\ Ci tov raireivCxrai reproduces the text 
of 2 S. Perhaps 1| comes from a late transcriber. — 10. C'c:^i] 2 S. 
7'i 3rn jc'^i. In both texts after ^ in 2 S. 1 should be omitted (Dr., 
Bu., Bn., Ki. ?). To retain the 1 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.— IO^in So hn 'nyjsm] 2 S. T'2it< Sod ih inn^jni. 
We. TS., Dr., Bu. prefer for the te.xt of 2 S. as more agreeable to 
the conte.xt io'n Sdd iS inn^jni. Bn. prefers in Ch. roMN as demanded 
by the context. — nini -\h ruji noi iS ijni] 2 S. ncj;' n-ij 'a nini ^'7 luni 
niH'' 1^. Both of these texts are harsh. Ki. in Ch. removes 1 before 
ni3. ($ read I'^uxi and I will magnify thee. This is followed by 
Oe. and commends itself to Bn. In that case we should read nj3N, 
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. ^'7 nuD 'jjni 
nin> iS r^z'-;" no >d. Sm. suggests that the material of v. '" is a gloss 
(see his full comment). — 11. n<m] wanting by error in 2 S. 7'* (Dr., 
Bu.). — "i\-iijs ay no'rS] 2 S. iinnx pn n^yzn followed by <& in Ch. — 
•\>:2r2 rt^n'' -\;'n] 2 S. yyi^v nx'' t^n, also C6 in Ch. The change in Ch. 
has been made to point more definitely to Solomon. — imoSc] 2 S. 
inoSnc, see 14^. — 12. >h] 2 S. 7" ''Di:'S. — indo] 2 S. inaScD nd3. (gin 
2 S. supports the te.xt of Ch. — 13. On omission see above. — tdn] 
supported by 05 in 2 S. 7'^ where l§ has '\^0\ and preferred as more 
pointed by Dr., Bu., Sm. — i^jflS rtTi nB'Nc] 2 S. imiDn la's Sin'^:' djjd 
I^jd'^c. The shorter '^xt of Ch. is original (Be., We. TS., Dr., 
Bu., Sm.). — 14. nSiy nj> paj mni ikddi oSiyn -\y inisScai >ni3a inimDym] 
2 S. 7" dSijj n;;iiDJ nini -|ndo -jijoS oSiy n;; inoSnoi 1013 jdnji. 

16-27. David's prayer of thanksgiving. — Thus David ex- 
pressed his gratitude for the divine promise delivered by Nathan. — 
16. Then David went in], the newly erected sanctuary (Be.) or 
possibly his own house, — and sat before Yahweh]. 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. 955 Dn. 6" "»') and prostration (Nu. 16" i K. 18^2) 
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 te.xt 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 Ucbersetzungen, p. 288) this verse in its most original form 
contained a contrast between Israel's God and the gods of other 
nations. His reconstructed text {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 redeem to himself for a people and to give 
to himself a name 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 
Israel by the change of another ("inS) to one (THS) 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 thon 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 oj 
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 estabhshed. 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 (vv. '' ") ; therefore David's house will endure, for 
whatever Yahweh once blesses, remains blessed forever, and this 
thought is disturbed by the introduction of the imperative. 

16. ijn] 2 S. 7's «:jn, cf. v. '. — s^n'^s mn''] 2 S. nini ijin. — 17. 2 S. 
7'3 has ni> after ppn. — :\i"^n] 2 S. nin^ ijin. — ^>-] 2 S. 'rx. — iiro ijn\N-ii 
n'^j'cn D^!<^]. (Some Heb. mss. have 11.13 instead of "upd, which helps 
not at all in solving the te.xtual difficulty.) And {thou) hast regarded 
me according to the estate of a man of liigh degree, AV., RV. 2 S. 
DiNH nin nsTi, And this too after tlie manner of men, RV., And is 
this the law of man? AVm., R\'m. Both of these texts are clearly 
corrupt and are unintelligible. (B in Ch. has Kai i-rreidh fxe cos Spacns 
dvdpwirov Kai i/i/'wcrds fxe, the last clause of which, and thou hast exalted me 
("'j'?>Mi), gives good sense, and from the first half Bn. would derive ^jn">."1 
HNnDJ and render, Die liessest mich schauen etwas ivie eine Vision. Ki. 
gives 1^ up as hopelessly corrupt. Oe. reads -jVi'cn dtn rmr'D ij.i\s-ii, 
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 n'7;'rn 
(as corresponding to pinic^) as regards the elevation, i.e., the elevation of 
my race (my seed) on high. We. TS., after hints of Be. and Ew. (see 
Sm.), reads in 2 S. DIvNH nin ''jsi.n /Ihc? thou hast let me 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'?j7D in Ch. adds u^y^. Kau. 
favours the reading of We. TS. — 18. nx niaoS -p'^x n^T tvj i^Dr na 
ina;] 2 S. 7=° T''^n nai':' niy in f]-Dv nsi. Ke. defends the text of Ch. 
as the original because the more difficult. Zoe. allows it. Oe. reads 
")2D^ after (S rod do^daai and thus obviates the harsh construction 
of "i^aj; PN. But iT^y nx is wanting in d and came probably by 
copyist oversight from the second half of the verse and 1^22^ is likely 
an error for i^i*^, hence the text of 2 S. is to be preferred (Be., 
Kau., Bn., Ki.). — In 2 S. -\-^2-; is followed by nin^ iji.x. Ch. omits 
■■j-iN, and nv-i>, in M, goes with v. '». — 19. nirr] see v. is. — i-ia;] 2 S. 
7'' T<3i, 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 ynnS 2 S. has Ti3>' but wants .ii'^njn Vd tn. (g^ in Ch. 
omits the clause. Bu. in 2 S. rearranges v. ^^^ (after Reifmann given 


in Dr.) (see Sm.), rt<;r\ n'^njn ^2 rn •]-^2y' 'p-i^nh p-C'i'. The Chron- 
icler, however, had clearly the present order in 2 S. before him. — 20. 
Ch. has retained only .-iin> out of o dvh^n nin> nSij jd "^y in 2 S. 7=^ 
before ^vS". The words n'^'iJ p ^'J may be represented in the So pk 
niSnjn 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 '^Nnr^ instead of ':'N-»u"r, T^n instead of lo'^n, and t:nj instead 
of is-i.s'^, while 2 S. has correctly i'^ avJ'*? instead of 1'^ avz'^, and ."Snj 
instead of ,'T?njn. Both texts require emendation of ins into inx 
after ^^ in 2 S. Ch. has omitted BoS pvy-;"^) (to be read cnS 'Si) after 
sy and also at the end of the verse vn'^s. The passage according 
to Geiger {Urschrift, p. 22S) followed by We. TS., Dr., Bu., Sm. 
(and Ki. in Ch.), originally read as follows: ■^^N ■>« S^nt" "|:;>o ''21 
niNniji n'^nj an"? rv;'>'?i d::^ i'? cv.;''^i c;*^ 1'? nnsS a^nSx I'rn t^tn jf-iNa 
vhSni ^u 123; ^JD3 cnj''. Bn. emends 21- S reading nu-ni and thus re- 
tains the second person and the clause respecting redemption from 
Egj'pt, which clause Ki. regards as an insertion or marginal note. — 22 . 
j-.m] 2 S. 7=^ iS ]m~\ — 23. nin^] 2 S. 7=^ a^n'^s mn\— jcn^] 2 S. cpn. 
— 24. psn] wanting in 2 S. 7-^ and to be struck out as a dittography 
from V. -'. — Sxil;^ tT-n] wanting in 2 S., also to be struck out as a 
mere repetition of the following 'rx-^r^'S dvi'^n. — 2 S. has '?Nir^ Vj? and 
has nini before poj. — 25. '.-i'?n] 2 S. 7" Ssis" viSs m.xas mnv — mj^'? 
r^3 ^'^] 2 S. l"? nj3N nu n::^'^. — After T!3y nsd 2 S. has i^S rx and 
after y::^, TNtn nSspn tn. The former is necessary to the text, but 
the latter is probably a needless copyist addition (Bn.). — 26. The 
text of 2 S. 72s is fuller and as follows : a^^^sn Nin nrs nin> ijin nn>'i 
nNrn r^nv^n rs ^^3J; Ss -i:n.-ii n^vS rn'* -|n3-<i. — 27. -\-\2h nSxin] 2 S. 7='* 
T\3i Sxin. — □'^i;S Tiasi rDia nin'« n.-s "i^] 2 S. mai nini ^jnx n.nN ^3 
uh^^h -]''2'; r'3 T13'' in^i^n. 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 
Phihstines and acquires Gath with its dependencies and conquers 
Moab, Zobah, Damascus, and Edom. As a con^eqaence 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 duuglitcrs] instead of the unintelligible "bridle of the mother 
city" RV. of 2 S. 8'. 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 down 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 
Moabile 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, cf. 20=. — And 
brought tribute] probably, as in the days of Mesha, this consisted 
of wool, 2 K. 3^ — 3. Hadad^ezer*]. Chronicles has here and else- 
where Hadarezer, cf. vv. ^- •"• '» ig'^- i^, as also (^ in all the parallel 
passages in 2 S. The original form of the name was of course 
Hadadezer, 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. 15"- =0 = 2 Ch. 16- " i K. 20', etc. 
Of- these Ben-hadad II. is known in Assyr. ins. as Dadda-id-ri 
(var. ^idri) = 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 Aramcan 
state of consequence during the reigns of Saul (i S. 14^") and 
David, mentioned in Assyr. ins. as Subutu or Subiii (see Del. 
Par. pp. 279^., Schr. KAT.- pp. 182 Jf.), and situated according to 
Noeldeke between Damascus and Hamath (EBi. I. col. 280 § 6). 
— Unto Hajfiath] 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 miles north of 
Damascus. — Ashe 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 
horsemen] 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 hamstrung 
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] for a Imndred chariols. — 5. Aram of Damasciis]. 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 Timcdgi, Dima^a, 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. S^ 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. — Whereivith 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 ($ 
of 2 S. — 9. To u, king ofHamatli] (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=' {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, Alo'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 (vv. =6 ff). — 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 Abshai the son 0/ 
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-Schkhah, 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. nri>i] 2 S. 8' + -tn. — n>rjai nj pn] 2 S. n^sn jpd ns, which is 
" quite unintelligible (see Sm.). — 2. On omission see above. — 2Nin vhm] 
2 S. 8^ ONiD inni. — 3. -irj,mn] many mss., 2 S. 8' ^Ty-n^. Ch. pre- 
serves a corrupt spelling, which since it appears in (6 of 2 S., 'ASpaafa/s, 
may have been found in this form by the Chronicler. — Ch. has 
omitted am p. — n,-i::n] wanting in 2 S. Bn. thinks it is a corruption 
of 7\-2^ry, at Helam, see 19". — ^^sn'^] 2 S. ^''^'n^. The former is read 
after Dr. by Bu., who thinks it represented in iiriaT^aai of (S in 
2 S. — p^d] wanting in Kt. of 2 S., given in Qr. and some MSS. — 4. 
cir-iD didSs nyas'i 2di i'^s] 2 S. 8* c^r-iD tind yzz'y iSn. (6 in 2 S. 
agrees with Ch. But l| of 2 S. is likely nearer to the true reading, 
which may have been originally seven hundred cJiariots, 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. J<2'i] 
2 S. 8^ Nam. — In ityDii instead of ptr'm we have an unusual spelling, 
cf. V. ^ and Syriac ^^ojn^hi. For a full discussion see J. Halevy, 
Revue Semitique, 1894, pp. 280-283. — ■'■>'T"^^] see v. ^. — 6. c^3i'j gar- 
risons given in 2 S. 8« has fallen from the text as the object of 
Di'M. It is found in the Vrss. — vti] 2 S. ^n.-n — •^•<^•^^^^] 2 S. in pn. The 
former gives the better idea, Yahweh gave victory to David. — 7. Sjj 
nj;-] correct over against —33; Sn of 2 S. (Be., Dr., Bu., Sm.). — 
dSb'ti"! ax^;3M] wanting in ^. — 8. nn^J"] true reading confirmed by CS 
in 2 S., where in ^ naan, cf. Gn. 222*. Kau. reads nagni. — jiaci] 2 S. 
T-\2':\ (S in both 2 S. and Ch. has iK tQsv ^kX€ktQj> = m-n.2D cf. 
16" or -\<i2r:T2 (Bn.), •'-iinar: (Sm.). Nothing is known of a city of either 
name. — 'ui T]-y; na] wanting in 2 S., an addition by the Chronicler, 
V. s. — 9. v;r] 2 S. 8' ^>'p, but the text of Ch. is confirmed by (B in 


a S. and is the more probable form (Dr., Bu.). — naix ^Sd] wanting in 
2 S. — 10. n'?s"ii] 2 S. 8"> adds the King's name. — ainn] 2 S. c^iv, 
but since ^ in 2 S. has leddovpav the text of Ch. is to be preferred 
(Dr., Bu.). — .-;;'nji ']D:>^ ant •''73 '^n] 2 S. '^2^ anr "i'?3i p|D3 1V3 rn noi 
ncnj. — 11. N-.:'j] 2 S. 8" tt-npn and also after DMjn the additional 
clause ^22 -itt-N. — ans*::] 2 S. S'^ aisa. The text of Ch. is to be 
preferred (see Sm.). — 2 S. has after pSsjjci the additional clause 
naix ■i'?D am ja iryTin VS^'oi. — 12. onx rt< hdh hmis p i^oni] 2 S. 8" 
D1S HN iriDHo i3'.;'3 a-.:' nn uvm. The first clause, ^«^ David made a 
name, the Chronicler clearly omitted. Instead of ^2~•2 the original 
after (S in 2 S. was lairai (Bu., Ki.). This by a copyist has been 
corrupted into p >::*2«, and then some hand has added the missing 
name of the mother hmis. non may have been the correct reading in 
2 S. (We. TS., Bu.), where as the text now stands we must substi- 
tute Dis for DTN, or possibly the original text may have contained 
two clauses and as a whole read : sin rs irionn larai Q-y •^^•\ t-;"! 
DTK PS nan (Bu., SBOT., somewhat after Be., who read Atid Joab 
the son of Zcruiah smote Edam when he returned from the conquest 
of Aram). Ke. read as Bu. except T'l instead of n^n. The words of 
the title of Ps. 60, n'^3 Nua cnx .--x y^ asv arM, support the reading of 
Be., yet the title most probably is subsequent to the text of Ch. with 
laz'ai (Bn.). — 13. After a-'asj 2 S. 8'* has the additional clause "^aa 
WZ'ii D-' ans, which (if not a dittography) the Chronicler naturally 
omitted as superfluous. — V7\^y\ 2 S. "'Hm. 

14-17. Administrative officers. — Taken from 2 S. S"-''. — 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 Ahilud was the recorder]. This Jehoshaphat 
always mentioned in this way (2 S. S'^ 20=^ i K. 4= f) held ofl&ce 
also in the reign of Solomon (i K. 4^). The functions of the 
recorder ("I'^irTiS, 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 of Ahitub]. Cf. $^* (68). — Ahimelech* 
the son of Abiathar]. V. i., cf. 24'. — Shavsha was scribe]. The 
spelling is doubtful {v. i.). The scribe (1S1D) 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 Jehoiada ] see 11", was over the Cherethites and 


the Pelethites] the King's guard {cf. 2 S. 15" 20' + v. " Qr. i K. 
i38. 4j)_ — ji^ici 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 in after ^hm. — 16. nn^as p iScaxi 3V.;>nN p pns'] 
05, U, 2 S. 8" I'^D'-nx 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., nvj^nx ]:: -["^o^ns p -i.^^3ni pnxi 
(see Bu. Com.). — .s-'v.;'] supported against 7\-<^^> of 2 S. by n^j' 2 S. 
20^5 and Nr^:;' i K. 4'. — 17. ^r\-^-:in *?;;] 2 S. 8'^ imDm by error. — 
•^•cn T''? cjcsin] 2 S. d^'Jid. 

XIX-XX. 3. David's war with the Ammonites and their 
Aramean allies. — Taken from 2 S. io'-'» 11' 1226- 30. 31 xhe 
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 

XIX. 1-15. The King of Ammon insults David. — 1. Na- 

hash the king of the children of 'Amnion] (v. - 2 S. 10= i S. ii'- '• * 
and perhaps also 2 S. 17") was already on the throne during the 
time of Saul (i S. 11' ^■), but this does not 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 Haniin 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 missicjn upon the accession of Solo- 
mon (i 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, Thinkest 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 hi? own 
dignity by directing that they should remain at Jericho until their 
beards should be grown. — Jericho] (ini^) is the well-known town 
in the lower Jordan valley, the mod. Eriha, about fourteen miles 
(as the crow flies) from Jerusalem. 

1. •.;'n;] wanting in 2 S. 10', which has tun before 1:2. Bu. after 
We. TS. omits ]^:r{. — 2. -z] 2 S. lo^ t.;'N3. — Dox"--] wanting in 2 
S., which has the additional phrase vay 1^3 and "^n instead of '-y 
before V3.s. 2 S. lacks "^n before ""ix, though given in some mss., and 
also irnj':' p^n Sn. — 3. 2 S. 10' adds sn^jix after ]ijn, and instead of 
TiSn Vf2-; Mi2 y\i<n '-}^'-^^ -[s-i'^i -^pn^ in;a, 2 S. has i";'"i rx i.nn -\n;'3 
•l''':'x v-\2-; rx nn n'^-;* nDnn'^i nSj-i'ri. — -i3j::n] precedes the subject to 
throw stress upon the idea conveyed by the verbal form, Dr. TH. 
§ 135 (4). — 4. an'^jM] 2 S. 10* Djpr •>sn rx n'^jM. — n;--'s-:n]. The Chron- 
icler has given a less offensive word than STmrr of 2 S. (Bn.). — 5. 
13'?m] and D^i'jxn *?;•] are wanting in 2 S. IO^ 

6-15. The first campaign. — 6. 7. The Chronicler has quite 
rewritten 2 S. 10^'', 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. 
i9=«, 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 Medeba. 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. I'L 
— Aram-ma acah] (Dt. 3^ Jos. 13") was a small Aramean kingdom 
not far from Damascus in Gaulanitis. — Zobah]. Cf. 18^. — 
Medeba] (Nu. 21^° Is. 15= Jos. 13'- '= f; also Moabite Stone 
n^intS, 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. v;'!<3.-i.-i] 2 S. 10^ irN3j. — nMi D>] 2 S. in^. The remainder of 
these verses is quite different in 2 S. {v. s.). — 8. Dnajn n3X Sd] 2 S. lO' 
D^-i3jn N^sn Sd. Dr. accepts 2 S., the construction being that of ap- 
position. Bu. follows Ch. putting N3i- in construct, but both of these 
readings convey the wrong idea that the host consisted of tnighty men. 
The original undoubtedly was onajm n::s.i S:) (Th., Graetz, Oe., Bn.), 
since the mighty men were David's body-guard. — 9. n-'yn nna] 2 S. 10' 
1. ••:•-! n-3. Ch. has the original reading (Be., Bn.). The city is 
Rabbah, the royal city of Ammon. — 'ui D^o^nm] 2 S. repeats the 


names of the four allies. Ch. has given a natural paraphrase. — 10. 
iinsi d'jd] 2 S. lo' iinNsi a-'ja::. — iino] 2 S. mna. Bu. follows Ch. 
— 11. ^r:iN] 2 S. 10" ■'Z'^2i<, which is the better spelling, so also 
V. '^ cf. ii'". — i3-i>'i] 2 S. T^ri. — 12. n;-v;',n'-] 2 S. 10" n;vi"'^. — 
■I\-i;'!i'ini] 2 S. ']h i"'>;'inS vidShi. It is impossible to determine which 
text is original (Bn.), though probably that of 2 S. — 13. •'-\;] pis, 
ark, was probably the original text of 2 S. lo'^ (see Sm.). — 14. liD*^ 
nsn':':;'? ms] 2 S. 10" a-is3 n-rnS-;''. The wording of Ch. is the more 
graphic. — 15. n:;n dj] and rnx] are wanting in 2 S. io'<. ($ reads 
a)id they also fled from the presence of Joab and from the presence cf 
his brother. Hence it is inferred that 2x11 ^jas stood in the original 
text after a->N (Ki.). — 2 S. has after m^^ (2 S. iv) the aaditional 
clause it:>' 'J3 '?>r! axp y:.'^^. The unrelieved statement of Ch. and 
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 
lj5t prestige. — 16. The Arameans had apparently returned to tlie 
north, where they rallied and sent messengers and brought out the 
Arameans that ivere beyond the River, i.e., the Euphrates. Accord- 
ing to 2 S. it was Hadadezer who sent for the northern Arameans. 
Either his authority extended to the region of Mesopotamia or 
he only applied to the Arameans of that country for assistance. — 
Shophach] (v. ^^, Shobach 2 S. io'«- '* f) the commander of 
Hadadezer's army, was placed in command of the new troops. — 
1 7. David in turn gathered all the fighting men of Israel together, 
crossed the Jordan, and came upon them; or better perhaps after 
2 S. (fu. i.) and came to Helam, an unkno\\Ti place. — And set the 
battle in array against them]. These words are superfluous and 
have arisen from a repetition of the te.xt (x'. /.). — 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.) to 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. laJj] 2 S. io'5 f]}i. — The Chronicler has abridged and simplified 
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 ihey sent messengers and they brought 
out, etc., where 2 S. has "Hadadezer sent messengers and brought out," 
etc. — 131-'] 2 S. 131^', so also v. 's. — 17. an'^x Nn^i] to be read with 
2 S. ncxSn xaM, Qr. nr':',-! 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 
E-. 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. 10'^) and the reading of iH upon them is correct and 2 S. 
-lo" should be corrected from Ch. and not vice versa. — ::nSN Ti>-i 
are to be struck out as a dittography from the following and the pre- 
ceding words. — ncn'?s cis .'^NipS i^n iv^] 2 S. 10'' in rN^p':' dis idi>"'. 
(B"" follows 2 S. and ^ Ch., while in 2 S. (S" 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 (B came under its influence. — 18. d^'s'^n] 2 S. lo'^ niNC. — 
^Sji w'^'n] 2 S. d:n3. The te.xt of Ch. is to be preferred as original. 
Dr. and Bu. read tr'ns. — n^sn nosd -\z' -^syy nsi] abridged from 2 S. 
DC r!::M r^^r^ ixjx tc i^ic nvSi. — 19. 2 S. lo'^ has QijSDn Sj with ii^; 
'n in apposition as the subject of inim. — nax nSi im^yi -en o-;] 2 S. 
1N1M Dna;''! '?xt.;'i nx. The Chronicler is more concerned with David 
than Israel and has paraphrased accordingly. 

XX. 1-3. The conquest of Ammon. — 1. And il came to pass, 

at the time of the return of the year, at tlie 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. 

lo^ (see Sm.). — And Jo'ab led forth the strength of the host and 

destroyed the land of the children of 'Amman, 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 individuah'stic. — It 
seems a curious oversight on the part of the Chronicler to have 
retained from 2 S. Now David tvas abiding in Jerusalem, the words 
introducing the story of Balhsheba 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 RabbaJi and destroyed it]. 
Cf. 2 S. 12" 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. 
'Atfiman, thirteen and one-half miles north-east from Heshbon, 
twenty-eight and one-half miles east from the Jordan, w^as the 
capital of the Ammonites (cf. Baed.^ pp. 142 ff.; Buhl, GAP. 
p. 260; and on the history of the place Schiir. Jewish People, II. i. 
pp. 119^.).— 2. AndDavidtook thecrown of Mile om"^] the national 
god of Ammon (i K. ii=- " 2 K. 231') 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 * the?n at saws and at picks 
and at axes. 

1. nnSi] wanting in 2 S. 11'. On other variations from the text of 
2 S. see above. — 2=2 S. 12'". — im] supplied by the Chronicler. — 
Oj??] tliei'' l':i"g, so also 2 S. (^^^ MoXxo(X)/tt /SautX^ws avrdv, and ^ 
in 2 S. MeXxoX tov ^affiX^us avrCjv (other MSS., MeXxo/x, — cj/i). B 
Tulit autem David coronam Melchom de capita ejus. Jewish com- 
mentators interpret as a proper name, zi:^o (cf. i K. ii^- " 2 K. 
23"), adopted by We., Dr., Sm., Kau., Oe., Bn., and others. — nxiC>i 


hpvr.] better '^p-z—.n Ni-rN (Bn.). 2 S. nSp.?:;. — n^] wanting in 1^ of 
2 S., but given in S>, ®, U, and necessary (Dr., Bu., Bn.). — 3. -i:"i] 2 
S. 1231 2^11. The text of Ch., a cltt. Xey., was preferred as original by 
Be., Ke., Zoe., but that of 2 S. correctly by Ki., Bn. — n -ij.:d] 2 S. 
Sr-ian rnrj::, axes of iron. This latter is the true text. 2 S. has the 
additional unintelligible clause ]d''"3 Driis n''3"rti. 

4-8. Philistine champions slain. — Corresponds with 2 S. 
2 1 '8". 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. 2i'5-22. xhe 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. 2ii5-'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. Sihhecai the Hushathite 
(2 S. 2i'8 I Ch, ii29 and the corrected text of the parallel 2 S. 23" 
I Ch. 27" f), i.e., Sibbecai from the town of Hushah ((/. 4^). He 
was of the Judean family of Zerah. — Sippai f ] (SapJi 2 S. 2i'8 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 (1;. i.). — Elhanan, the son of Ja'ir] (2 S. 
21"; and another of David's chiefs 2 S. 23^4 = 1 Ch. ii=« f). — 
Lalpni f] is a fiction from the lehem of Bethlehem in the text of 2 
S. 2i'3 {v. i.)— Goliath the Gittite] (i S. 17^- " 2i'« 22'° 2 S. 2i'« 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 
Jonathan the son of Shime'a. This nephew of David is ap- 
parently called Jonadab in 2 S. 13' °-. 


4. ncjjn] a corruption of 2 S. 21" ii>' ''H.-'i which (6 has (Be, Zoe., 
Oe., Ki., Bn.). — ifJ3] 2 S. 2^2 in 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. — ND"in "iti'?'>o idD pn] (many mss. and editions d^ndih) 2 S. rs 
7\2'\r) nS>3 na'X f]D. — VJ3'i] 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 2M2 after nrnSc. — nn'M3 pn'^N 
riSj ^HN icnS PN (Qr. i^J'O] 2 S. n^Sj pn >cn'^n po nj?' p jjhSn (omit- 
ting D'JiN after nj,"', 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.). "i-y^ is 
clearly to be preferred to ny^ (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. mc] 2 S. 21 2° 
1^13 a corruption (Dr., Bu.). — >aixi on^'j; vz,'^ U't:' v.";'3iNi] 2 S. p;"2sni 
ii:D3 j,'aisi Dins';; ci'i c';:' vVjt pi;'3Xni v-11 probably an amplification 
of the original. — n'^u] 2 S. iS^. — 7. n;'C£'] so Qr. in 2 S. 2121, but Kt. 
i;Tr and i S. 16' nss'. — 8. nSu Sn] 2 S. 21" nSi nSs p>'3ix pn. The 
Chronicler has omitted the numeral because he has omitted the story 
of the death of the first of the four brothers. nSi: should be pointed 
•n'r^j, Ges. § 6gt, cf. 3*. S.x = n'?K 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'-22i). 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 (222-^- '^), 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" s), 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 glory. 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 Tern pel psalmen, 
ZAW. 1899, pp. 130/.). Benzinger carries Buchler's position still 
.further, maintaining that c. 21 (ultimately taken from 2 S. 24), except- 
ing W.6- 28 s.^ is from the same source, but he ascribes 22'*-" 28"* 
14-18. 20 f. 2910-30 to the Chronicler {Kom. pp. 61, 62, 64). Kittel now 
adopts Benzinger's position {Kom.). Buchler'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 whole 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 officers 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. 243). (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). (S) 
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_22i 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 WTiter 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. /.). 

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. 
10''") 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 offence caused by the state- 

XXI. 1-8.] DAVID'S CENSUS 247 

ment 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 Romani, 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, Zee., Ba., et 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 (vy.^- "); 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 measure, hence was entrusted 
to Joab and only those "that drew sword" (v. =) were numbered. 
On Jo'ab, cf. 2'^ — From Be'ersheba even to Dan] i. e., the extreme 
southern and northern limits (see Buhl, GAP. pp. 69 /.). Beer- 
shcba, the modern Bu-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 
biblical derivations of the name, cf. Gn. 21 3' (E), 26'= (J) (see 
Buhl, GAP. p. 183, with references there). Dan, the modern 
Tell-el-Kddt, had the original name of Laish {^^b) Ju. iS^s, 
Leshem {W^h) in Jos. I9<^ It lay in the extreme north of Pales- 
tine, and according to Onom. (2nd ed. Lag. 249. 32, 275. 2;^) 
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. 
11'", also I Ch. 135. — 3. AndJo^ab said, Let Yahweh increase his 
people as much as one hundred times, 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 guilt unto 
Israel?] i.e., the community guilt which results from the sins of 
one or a part of its members, cf. Lv. 4' Ezr. 10' » ". — 5. A^id all 
Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand that dreiv 
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. ^i* is a gloss (v. i.). The numbers in 
both lists (2 S. and here) are at variance with those in Nu. x. 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. i^^ 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. ^o 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. i8»).— 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. 

XXI. 1-8 ] DAVID'S CENSUS 249 

1. iDj."i] rise up, a late usage for earlier dp, cf. 2 Ch. 20" Dn. 8" 
10" II'* (BDB. -icy Qal. 6 c; 1. 88). Zoe. following (g i<XTi\, rendered 
stood, but ^t' and other variations of <& have 6.vi<jTt\, 15 consurrexit, 

& >CLO . — S Ssn^'i Sy NJCJD 1'' Dipx is an attempt to harmonise with 2 S. 
24'. — PD>i] the same form in 2 S. 24', but there + 3 against, while 
here + inf., cf. 2 Ch. 32" (=2 K. i85''' = Is. 36") where only in 
Ch. the inf. follows. Also so used in 2 Ch. iS^, which is certainly from 
the Chronicler, cf. 2 Ch. 32'^ i8'' (without doubt from the Chronicler) J. 
— 2. -iM-i] 2 S. 242 I'rcn. Same change in vv. '• ^i- 21=2 S. 249- ". so. 
The Chronicler seems to prefer nm, cf. 17' = 2 S. 7', 17'= 2 S. 7^ 17'' = 
2 S. 7', ii<=2 S. 5^ — ayn i-ia' Vni 3nv Sn] 2 S. 24* ^^^'H ^•'nn na* 3ni> '?.x 
iHN. Be. read doubtfully ion ib'n S-'nn na^ Sni aNV Sn. Ki. follows 
06 Koi irpbi Toiis dpxovras ttjs dwdtxeus. — naD isS for the unusual t3i-' 
and npi3 (in sense of muster) in 2 S. 24^^. taia* appears also in 2 Ch. 
1 63 (intensive stem) f. — p ij;i v^^ in3d]. This order elsewhere only 
in 2 Ch. 305. 2 S. 242 has yity ivsa nyi pn, so also Ju. 2c' i S. 320 
2 S. 3"' 17" 24'- »5 I K. 55 Am. 8". — njj-iNi] cohortative, c/. Ges. 
§ 48c for form, § 108J for use. — 3. io>'] 2 S. 24^ oyn. The suffix makes 
" Yahweh the real ruler. This is the Chronicler's stand-point, cf. especially 
29". — d.id] 2 S. 243 DHoi onri. The repetition is customary in S. {cf. 2 S. 
12^). The Chronicler's use corresponds to that in Dt. i". — ':iK nSh 
anayS ■'jix'? dSd iScn] is at variance with 2 S. 24' dint "iScn <J^K ^jijji, 
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 6<p6a\iJLol Kvpiov imv /3X^7ro;Tes, 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 irdvTes rip Kvplcp fwv 
fl-arSes makes it altogether probable that (S is corrected from 2 S., hence 
has no independent value. Origen's text (Field) contained only this 
last clause. ^'?D^ ->3tn ^Sn may better be taken as a nominal sentence, 
with ''JIN as the subject and iSnn as the predicate, which should be 
translated "Is not my lord the king" (cf. u^Sd nini Is. 33", nini on 
D^•lSN^ I K. i82'; and on the rather unusual use of nS with a nominal 
clause Ges. § 152^). A 1 may have fallen out before oSa, but is not 
indispensable. nSh must be understood before the second clause as in 
Ju. 928 I S. g^"- 21 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. — rvcvn] cf. Ezr. lo'"- ", also 2 Ch. 24" 28io- "• 
u. 13 ^223 Ezr. 96- »• 13, 15; elsewhere Ps. 696 Lv. 4* 5"- '6 22'6 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*- *. it:B''>i of 2 S. 24^ is replaced 


by the more common "iSn.-i''i. Both are used parallel in Jb. i' 2', v. s. 
V. 2. — 5. iMi] 2 S. 24' ^'?Dn V. s. V. 2 (text. n.). — □■'sj'^n t]hn S.sttt'^ S3 '.im 
3in n"^" f^"^ ^^^ riNDi] '?N-i:''' '?o is certainly used for the whole kingdom 
in V. *. It will also be noticed that in v. ' the Chronicler used "^nt;" in the 
general sense to include the min^ pni ^tt-\y^ -n of 2 S. 24'. 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 "^ntiI'i S.t 
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 (S. 
(The phrase could have been lost from the text of (B (or its underlying 
Heb.) by homoeoteleuton, but the other evidence is strong against its origi- 
nality.) The Chronicler certainly would not reduce the number of 2 S. 
24' from 500,000 to 470,000 (Bn.). The glossator was influenced by 2 S. 
24^ — 6. 2V^i $]. — 7. 'n hy] cf. same construction in Gn. 2i'2 and more 
usually without h-; 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. ri'" 14"' 'i- >*■ " 172. 3= respectively 2 S. 23" 5>9- 20. 2s. 24 
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 256 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^ -j-. — 12. For triads of divine judgments cf. 
Lv. 26" '■ I K. 8" 2 Ch. 20^ Je. i4>2 b. 217-9 241" 279- 13 29" '■ 
^224-36 ^417 ^82 42>'- " 44" Ez. 512 6" '■; also y'^ i2'6; for the angel 
of Yahweh as an expression for pestilence, 2 K. 19". 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. 24'2 Sju. (S ftpw in both places. We., Bu., et al., 
adopt the reading of Ch. in both places. — 11. S:3p] not in 2 S.; an 
Aram, loan-word, late(BDB.), cf. 12" 2 Ch. 29>»- « Ezr. 830 (j. 103).— 
12. cja* tt'i'^;;'] 2 S. 24" D^r-y V22' but (6 rpla erri. The reading of 
Ch. is original (Be., Zoe., et al.). — hddj] an error for n^p:; 2 S. 24" 
Tipj, (S (fterjyeiv ff€,lStefugere (Be., Oe., Ki., Bn.). — dni njtrn'? Tia^iN aim] 
2 S. 24" T^vn DN1 •\Q-\-\ 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 pju'dS arose from a misreading of ptti 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 V-qn, hence we should naturally expect the text as 


given. Moreover, the second clause in 2 S., "idti Nin, shows that some- 
thing more than the flight (iD)) of David was necessary to make this 
punishment equivalent to the others. T'^mn anni adds nothing not 
already expressed in ins. It is far simpler to suppose a l to have fallen 
out after '', as the sense demands, so (&^, SI, hence the clause read origi- 
nally nja'D 1*? n^a^s aim and the sword 0/ 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 (n-'ni'D). — 13. n'?DN] 2 S. 24'* 
n'?i3j, but there ® i/xirecrov/xai. 

14-17. God's judgment and David's repentance. — 14. Ajtd 
there fell {hz'''\) from Israel] because they became the victims of 
the sword of Yahweh; 2 S. 24'5 "And there died (n!2''1) from the 
people" in consequence of the pestilence. The Chronicler em- 
phasises the divine side {v. s. v. '). — 15. And he (God) repented 
him of the evil]. For repentance of God cf. Gn. 6^ Ex. 32'^ i S. 
15" Je. 18'" 42'° Jon. 3'". — And the angel of Yahweh was standing 
by the threshing-floor of Oman the Jehusite]. 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 Jehusite, cf. i< ii''. 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" « 132 ff ), but here the angel hovers between 
earth and heaven. 

15. inSd QinSxH n-'U"i] 2 S. 24'^ inSch iti nVtfM. The difficulty 
with the text of Ch. lies in the indefinite In'^o, since the angel has 
already been mentioned (v. '-) 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 nin> and this the 
Chronicler changed to 3^^^^'^, according to his custom {v. s. v. '). How- 
ever, the text of Ch. should not be changed, for it is the original of the 
Chronicler. — pins'no] other MSB. and editions '2, ^ a>s, S* pO^ but ® '2. — 
mn-' nxT n>ntt'n3i] a clause not found in 2 S. but necessary here to explain 
why God sent an angel against Jerusalem and immediately repented 
(Be., Bn.). — 31] enough, cf. i K. 19' Gn. 45=8. — tj-ix] 2 S. 24""' Kt. 


nnw-i, Qr. r>i^pH;^. 2 S. 24" Kt. n>ps or n;ns^ Qr. as above. 
Elsewhere in 2 S. 24 always as Qr. (& 'Opvh in all cases both 2 S. 
and Ch. & always ^il.— 16. a>cit'n j>3i yiNn pa] so also (S, «I; 
other Heb. MSS. I'inh pai D^r::>n }^3, so U, &.— 17. nsjcS nS ^c;3^] 
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. 
2?>^^ Ju. 62" f- i3>'=- " «■. 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. 622 13" Tob. 12"' '• also Gn. 32" Ex. 20" ^3'" Is. 6^).— Now 
Oman was threshing wheat] is wanting in 2 S. 24, but might easily 
be inferred from v. 2» {cf. the similar addition in (g of 2 S. 24'5 
KoX ^fiepai 0€pL(T/xov TTvpwv) 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. 
24^' a.) 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-offering {cf. Lv. 2''^) was united with the burnt-offering 
{cf. Nu. 155 s.)_ The sacrifice recorded in Ju. 1319 may have 
influenced the Chronicler. — 25. And David gave Oman for the 
place six hundred shekels of gold by weight]. According to 2 S. 
242* 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. 23"*, 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. ")j 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 shov/ed his acceptance of David's 
sacrifices with fire from heaven as at the consecration of Aaron 
(Lv. 9=^, cf also I K. i8=<- ^a 2 Ch. y 2 Mac. 2'° «•). This altar is 
thus put on a par with the former one (Ki.). 

19. -ima] better ^3^^ 2 S. 24'', Be., Oe., Gin. — ^'\r]-' DwO iJi tj-n] 
2 S. 24" nini nix n^'to. 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. '8). — 20. Be. corrected this verse from 2 S. 
24^°. Ke. correctly asserted that v. ^° is not parallel to 2 S. 24^", but 
the latter is reproduced in v. 21. The result of Be.'s correction is a 
doublet in vv. ^o and 21. — ix'^iDn is rendered by (§^ Tbv jSatrtX^a (= 
^'?D^), and D''X3n."io being incomprehensible after "i'^:;n is transliter- 
ated nedaxo-^iiv, but translated by ^ (which has rov ^affiXea like ^) 
Kpv^ofj.€voi. (^^ also has rbv /3acriX^a, but Tropevo/j.^vovs for □•'N^nnn. 
H, 01, follow M. Ki. regards ^'?D^ as the original reading, and the 
mistake by which it was read ixSnn led to the insertion of □''Njnn::', 
which he supposes to have been originally O^DSnna (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) As 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. 'i. 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. 
<B has the supposed original form 1^"^, and also the reading Z'sanrc, 
which is regarded as the result of misreading ^N'?D^ for -|^:.n. (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 consecrate 1 
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. w. ^-- 's- '«• -'= respectively 2 S. 24"- "• 
IS. 25)_ — 22. ■<h injn n'^d ID;:] cf. Gn. 23'. — 23. c'J-n-n] threshing 
sledges. For a description of them, see Bn. Arch. pp. 209/., Now. 
Arch. i. pp. 27,2 f., DB. I. p. 50. — 24. .-~i'?j;ni] Bn. and Ki. correct to 
niSynS on basis of (&, but ri'^>n may be an inf. abs. in ni as other ~'^ 
verbs, cf. 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 Jehusite when he sacrificed there 
. . . then David said, This is the house of Yahweh God and this 
is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel.] Y.-^ 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, yx.-^- =" 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. 
v). — It follows that V. =8 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. 28") 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 wildertiess and the altar of burnt- 
offering respectively, which were at that time in the high place at 
Gibeon (v. 29). 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, p;'3J3] other mss. '3 iti'X, so 51. — 30. nya: J] elsewhere in Niph. 
Dn. 8" Est. 7«; in Pi. Jb. 3^+7 times, i S. i6'« '^ Is. 21* Ps. iS^ 
= 28. 22^. — XXII. 1. D^n'^NH mn^] f/. 29'. The Chronicler seems 
to be fond of this designation for the Deity, i Ch. 17"- " has nin^' 
D'.-:Sn for mn> ij-in in 2 S. 7'8- '»; cf. also '>sn '^ 22'', 'n '^ 28=" 2 Ch. 
j9 6"- "■ « 26" (all probably from the Chronicler); also 32'^ (which 
Bn. and Ki. ascribe to a Midrashic source). Possibly a^n'^Nn was 
inserted by a late editor (see BDB. mni 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 D\n'?Nn 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 (T"l^s) is the only 
timber mentioned, though fir (tt'll^) (i K. 52^ <">) 6''- ^') and 
olive-wood (]12'^ "i^'j;) (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" '• (13 f.) I j28 124). A later writer taking exception 
to the reduction of Israelites to practical slavery made the levy 
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>- '« '• *" '•)), 
The sojourners (gcrtm) were foreigners who for one reason or 
another left their native clans and attached themselves to the 
Hebrews. Like the jar 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. 
2010 2312 (both JE) Dt. 5'^ In P the ger represents the prose- 
lyte of the post-exilic community, cf. Ex. 12^' Lv. 24^2 Nu. 9'* 
1^16. 16. 29_ — 3^ jf0fi i^i 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. 341') 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-trces]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-kno\\Ti Phoenician cities, on which cf. 
I". — 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. 2-4. — 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. Dua"^]. The use in the Qal is late (BDB.), cf. Est. 41^ Ps. ^^^ 
Ec. 2^- ^ 35. 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 '^ (1. 55). — 
Dnjn] (S Trdvras toi)s TrpoarjXvTovs, so HI; S" lio^^ /-^^.i V>,V. gm. 


takes offence at the word in this connection and corrects to antjn or 
CTij.-i, "masons" or " stone-cutters," comparing 2 K. 12" 22' {JBL. 
vol. XXIV, 1895, p. 29), but the Chronicler's motive for introducing 
onjn is evident, cf. 2 Ch. 2'«. — icyi] 1. 89. — dtiSkh no] 1. 15. — 3. 
aiS] also in 22^- ^- ^ 29^ etc., 1. 105. — nnjjn::'^] appears also in 2 Ch. 
34" ti where the construction is the same, a verse agreed to be the 
work of the Chronicler, 1. 34. — pjn] 1. 54. — 4. . . . px'^] cj. Tor. 
CHV. p. 20; 1. 132. — 3-iS] 1. 105. — 5. isnm] EVs. said. Ki. renders 
dachte, cf. Gn. 20" 26' Nu. 24" i S. 2o2« 2 S. 5« 1222 2 K. 5" (BDB. 
"iCN Qal 2). EVs. render these passages thought. laS Sn {cf. Gn. 
8^') may be «\nderstood as well as 12*^2, hence, For David said to 
himself. — 'mjn':'] on '7 see 1. 129. — nSycS] 1, 87. — pisin] 1. 6. — nrjN] 
cohortative used to express self-encouragement, see Ges. § 1086 (a). 
On Chronicler's use of word cf. v. ^, also for pM (1. 54). — 3iS] 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 dependent upon i K. 8'^, which 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. 28^), 
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't'- " (4'^'= 5''). — For his name shall be Solomon] 
(21^1^ peace, n'ch*^ peaceful), but he is also called Jedidiah 
(nnn"' beloved of Yah, 2 S. 12^^ '•). — 10. With only slight varia- 
tions, this verse is a repetition of 2 S. 7'5- '^* = i Ch. i7'2- na^ but 
the order of the last three clauses is reversed. With the first 
clause cf. also i K. s'"-^ ^^^^K — 13. Be strong {cf. i K. 2') and of 
good courage; fear not neither be dismayed]. Cf. 28" 2 Ch. 32' 
Jos. 10", also Jos. I' (where T*"iyri takes the place of S"l\1). 


7. >J3] Qr. »J3; other MSS. 1J3 Kt. and Qr., also ^J3 Kt. and Qr. 
<g TiKvov, B Fill mi. AV., Ke., Zoe., Oe. follow Qr., but the emphatic 
'j« (c/. 28=) favours the Kt. (RV., Be., Ki.). — z:h b;] cf. 28' i K. 
817. u. 18 (=2 Ch. 6'- »• 8) I K. io2 (=2 Ch. 9') 2 Ch. i" 24^ 29"'.— 
8. 3-1S] 1. 105. — 3'2i] c/'. 283 I K. 2=' Ps. 79'; also Ges. § i24«. 
— 9. nc*^-'] CS SaXw/nwi', rarely SaXo/xwi', <S^ and NT. mostly SoXo/twi'. 
— ap--? t]- — 10. ■'nij''3n] 1. 54. — '?nt;''' 'j;'] not found in 2 S. 7'^ = i 
Ch. 17'=. — ipi3^c] 1. 67. — 11. irj7 nini in^]. Same expression is used 
by the Chronicler in v. '", cf. also v. " and 28^°, both agreed to be from 
the Chronicler. — 12. nrai Sjr] cf. 2 Ch. 2" (which Bn. and Ki. 
ascribe to the same source as this passage). Va:;' is used alone by 
the Chronicler in 26'^ 2 Ch. 30", also Ezr. 8'^ Ne. 8', see Tor. CHV. 
p. 24. 

14-16. Transfer of material. — 14. Noiv behold by 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 atid 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.). Without 
number refers to the skilful workers of gold, etc. The metals 
were weighed, not n.umbered. This construction preserves the 
balance for the whole section (vv. ■<-'«). 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 (vv. '^ ' ). 

14. "Ji'^J (5 /caret ttjv Trrwxe^aj' /xov, 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 Miihe 
for this passage, which is followed by Ki. In Ps. 107" poverty is re- 
garded as an affliction (':;), but, possibly in Gn. 3132 and certainly in 
Dt. 26', •>:;' means oppressive toil. Be., followed by Ke., rendered 
durck meine miihevolle Arbeit. The parall.l ^n^ Sdj 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. i2'i 
and see Ges. § iigo. — 15, a::n] skilful, used of artisans of tabernacle 
and Temple, cf. Ex. 28' 316 3S>» 36'- 2- «• « 2 Ch. 2^- i'- ". i3._i6. 
-\:D3 t'S Si-ijSi r;:'njS) fiD^S jnt"^] RV. of the gold, the silver, and the 
brass, and the iron, there is no number, so Ke., Zoe., et al. Ki. Kom. 
translates Gold, Silber, Erz und Eisen ist unermesslich viel vorhanden. 
These renderings are dependent upon the Massoretic punctuation, which 
creates two difficulties, (i) We should expect the Chronicler to use 
Spra px as in vv. ^- ", instead of -i::D3 j-n, when speaking of metals 
v/hich 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 eid:""! anr*? 
hx-\2^y njfnjSi with the preceding verse, "1SD3 px referring to the s^n Vdi 
'2 of V. 15. So (S seems to have understood >5b ^al iras (TO(t>h% iv iravrl 
(pycfi, '5 iv xpv'^^V, ^^ ttPTi'P'V) ^'' X'^^'^'y "■"^ ^^ "■'^''^PV, "^"^ ianv 
dpidfjjbs. (It is not necessary to suppose that (S did not read the arti- 
cle; see Ges. § 126m..) ^ brings out this meaning clearly by repeat- 
ing s4,.r:i:^ " workers " before each metal and by translating iddd pN, 

I"* -'"'-^ ^001^ £w»] j3? , 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 Israeh'tes 
but the original Canaanitish peoples are intended, cf. ii< Jos. 2" 
18' Nu. 32"- 29. — 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. i5'' 28 « I K. 8' = 2 Ch. 52. — 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 days, then (i) 
he made Solomon his son king over Israel, and (2) gathered together 
all the princes of Israel, (3) ivith 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 vv. * s. he addresses the Levites and assigns them their 
task and in vv. 21 »■ he commands the priests to do their work. In 2 Ch. 
29-" cp. "And the Levites 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"- '« 256 

Beginning with the Levites (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. 26), 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'-"). 
(2420-3' is a later 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 officers 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. After the superscription (yy. ' =), 
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. ^--^), the introduction of a new legal age for service (w. '^-"), 
and the duties of the Levites (vv. 26-32)_ 

Ki. assigns 23^-^ and Bn. 23^^-'- to a hand later than the Chronicler. 
The list of Levites, however, should properly be placed first, since 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 23^^-^: (i) the description of the Levitical service is 
general and out of place here; (2) vv. 24-27 contain a correction of v. 3; 
(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. 
"-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 23^^, also 23^- ^); and (3) the sequence of duties 
accounts sufiiciently 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. tpr] not the adj. but 3pers. sg. pf. of the verb. — a"ic> j?3i;'] so 
also in 2 Ch. 24'^; 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 


w. • ' 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. 4'- "• '"• ^- "■ "). The Law also 
knows of a numbering from twenty-five years old and upward (Nu. 
823.26-) (fy_ V. ^). — And their number in men by 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 -I- 2,630 -I- 
3,200 = 8,580 (Nu. 4=«- *"■ ") {cf. v.2^). — 4. 5. Of these iwenty-Jonr 
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 in 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'* «• 29= «•). These over- 
seers were chosen from the existing body of ofl&cial 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." ff). — Which I nmde]. The use of the first person indicates 
that v\'. " '• contain the words of David. The Chronicler refers 
to the musical instruments of David elsewhere, 2 Ch. 29** Ne. 
i2'«, cf. Am. 6k 

3. ncD«i]. This Niph. is used positively only here. — dp?j'7j'^] pi. 
with sf., from r^:)';':; here and in v. ^i head, poll, in which sense only P 
and late, cf. Ex. i6'6 3826 Nu. i^- 's. 20. 22 347._3,-,3js-] js a nearer defini- 
tion of a.-i'?j'?j':', excluding women. — D^r'^r] Ke. corrects to B'lr;' to 
agree with v. ", but see n. there. — 4. m:^] act as overseer, is used in 


2 Ch. 2'- ", Ezr. 3'- ' 2 Ch. 34"- " 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. 34'^ "s), and also at the 
rebuilding when Zerubbabel was governor (Ezr. 3'- ', where the same 
phrase ^}ri-' nij naxSo hy 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 (vv. 24. 28 ff.). — 5, vTii£;j; na'N] (g o^s iiToiricxei' and 13 qua: 
jecerat are an effort to make a smoother reading. 

6-23. 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'-'8), of singers (25'-"), and of 
gate-keepers (262"°), 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. 21, 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. 
29s /•)• 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. " (^. 7;.) 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 Gerslion, Kehath, Merari, cf. 5" (6'). — 7. La dan 
and Shime'i] La dan also in 26^', elsewhere Libni and Shimei, cf. 
6' <i7) Ex. 6" Nu. 3'8. Zockler escapes the difficulty by considering 
La' dan a descendant of Libni. More recently this view has been 
put forward with confidence by Berlin (/. c. p. 292 B). The varia- 
tion may be the result of different traditions. La' dan also occurs 
as the name of an Ephraimite y^^ f. — 8-11. 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 Shime'i with the family of Ladan, his relation- 
ship is not indicated. J. H. MichaeHs, following Kimchi, con- 


sidered this SJiimci a son of La dan {Hie Schimhi, inqttil, non est 
Gersonis filiiis v. ' sed unus ex Lahdanitis v. «). Berlin (/. 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. "^ 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. S") is to be identified with the second 
son of Gershon (v.'), and Shimei ("•yotl*) of v. i" is probably a 
textual error for Shelomolh (jy^ch*^). In 24=2 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. : 



I 71 

V. ^ Ladan Shimei 

V. ^ Jehiel Zetham Joel v. ' Shelomoth Haziel Haran 


I \ \ 1 

V. 1" Jahath Ziza Jeush Beriah 

— 8. JehVel the chief] i.e., chief of those over the treasuries of the 
house of God 26" ' 29^ — Zetham] and Jo'el] appear as sons of 
Jehiel in 26" q. v. Jo'el is possibly the same as Joel in 15'- i'. — 9. 
Shelomoth] v. i. — Hazi'el f]. — Haraji] appears elsewhere only as 
the name of Abram's brother, the father of Lot Gn. ns'-si -)-, cf. also 
the place-name Y\7\ T'^D Nu. 323* = D"!" '2 Jos. 13". — 10. Jahath] 
possibly the same as in 6^- ^s c2o. 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'ush]. 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' o" 26" Ex. 6^^ Nu. 3". — 13. To 
sanctify him as a most holy one] (v. i.). — To hum incense]. 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. iS'". — 15. The sons of 
Moses]. Cf. Ex. 18' '• and for the birth of Gershom Ex. 2". — 
Eltezer]. Cf. also v. *", a common Levitical name. — 16. Shuba'el*] 
(v. i.) became ruler over the treasuries (262^) and is mentioned also 
in 24" ". — 17. Rehabiah]. Cf. 24^1 26^5 -j-. — 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" (6^). — JahazVel]. Cf. 24='. 
Also the name of a Benjaminite 12^ '^t)^ of a priest of David 16% 
of a Levite 2 Ch. 20'^, of an ancestor of one of the families of the 
restoration Ezr. 8*. — Jekameam]. Cf. 24" j-. — 20. Micah]. Cf. 
24=^"; a name not uncommon, f/. 5^ — Isshiah] C/. 24"- 25^ and 
as the name of another Levite 24='; elsewhere the name of one 
cf 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 (2;. s.). — 21. 22. With 
the possible exception of 24=5 '• {q. v.) tradition agrees that 
Merari had two sons Mahli and Mnshi, cf. 6^<"> Ex. 6'3 Nu. 
333. — Ele'azar and Kish]. Cf. 24" '•. Benzinger regards v. " 
as a gloss by the same hand as v. ". This is not probable, 
but Eleazar may be counted as a fathers' house without con- 
sidering V. " 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. 2j*), 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 24'° 
and 6^2 ^*t\ but as the name of a son of Merari v." 2426- =8 54. m 
(19. 29) Ezr. 8'8 Ex. 6" Nu. 3'° f. — 'Eder] is also mentioned in 


24=" f; cj. also place-name 'Eder in extreme south of Judah 
Jos. 15=' |. — Jeremoili\ in 2430 written Jerimoth (v. i.), cf. 7'. 
This list of the sons of Mushi is only found here and 24'°. 

6. 30^"'.?] Baer, Gin.; some MSS. opSn^.i. Probably should be Pi. 
D|?.'?'!i'., BDB., Bn., cf. 24^ — 7. Berlin {v. s.) supposes the original to 
have read: '>'-':'M"'>'^ ['ja*? •'J3 "'>::cm "':3'^] •'ju'j'^. — 9. nic'i't'] Qr. 
n-^pSw, (&^ 'AXudein, a corruption of * SaXwjotei0=n'C — ,cf. v. " 24"- 
22 2625 f- 28. Qr. is followed by Zoe., Oe., Ki., Bn., but there is no 
necessity for reducing all these names to the same form. — '^x'Tn] v. i. 
V. ". — 10. Nr;] in V. " n;<T, (^ Ztfa, H Ziza and one MS. cited by 
Kennic. npt, which is probably original, so BDB. — 11. .ins ^^|■1D';|] 
for one class of officers, see BDB. ^"^po 2 c, or possibly for one appoint- 
ment, which suits 24^ ''. — 13. z^Z'^p cnp vi'npn'?] "B ut tninistraret in 
sancto sanctorum, so §, Zoe., Oe., but the holy of holies elsewhere 'C'-^P 
'pn. 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. — 12;'3] cf. 16= Dt. lo^ 21^ 2 S. 618 ps. 1298 also Nu. 6" «•. 
— 14. Sy ix-)p'] cf. Ezr. 26' = Ne. 7". — 16. ■'ja] pi. when only one son 
follows, cf. 2". — ''!<i3u-] 26" '^>>'3"f, 24-" ':'N3vj', ($ here 'Zoxi^arfK, which 
should be read with Oe., Bn., Ki., cf. Sab. proper noun '^.vai.^. — 18. 
r.^n'^v'] 242= ■r^■z'^y, v. s. v. » text, n.— 19. ^Nnn'] (g" 'OftTjX, a 
lafnjX, U Jahazi-el. Ki. supposes ' to be the result of a dittogra- 
phy from the preceding •■y^ and then resolves this 'i'Nnn into '^n'i>; on 
the basis of (B^. This change introduces a second '^sn;' into this 
list and also in 2420 *-, which though not impossible is not likely. 
Such forms as ':'!<vn (v. ') and "^vsnri; exist side by side, cf. '?N'i;7. 
(4'^) and '"'ti^Vi!! (11" 2721). The evidence of CI is vitiated by the fact 
that in i6« and 2 Ch. 20" '^Nnn'' is rendered 'Of(e)t^X. Ki. ques- 
tions the latter but passes over the former without comment. — 23. 
n^27^] 24'" nio>T', (S^ in both places 'Apeiudd, ^ lapifiud and lepifuaO, 
"M 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 ground 



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. ^^ ^- 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 {cf. Ezr. 2" 8'^ «•). 
The Chronicler, however, makes this practice the rule for the 
whole post-exilic period (Ezr. y) 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'< ff ), 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 vv. ^-^). 
When David divided the Levites into courses (v. «) to do the work 
for the service of the house of Yahweh (v. 2^), 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 serve 
but did not provide for a recount. 

24. onmpo] cf. Nu. i^' «• Ex. 30'*. — niCB' iDDca] cf. Nu. i'« 
3". — opSjSj^] v. s. v. « text. n. — ni;-;] other MSB. •'1:7, cf. Ne. ills' 
and Ezr. 3^ m'-j with Ne. 13'° ^Z'V both pi. Only another way of writing 
the same form. — 27. o^jinnsn T^n n3i3] 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 U jitxta prcs- 


cepta, so J. H. Mich., Ke., Zoe., Bn., Ki., cf. 2 S. 23'. — ncn] Ke. took 
as neuter sg. (Ew. § ^18 /)), since ricn is nowhere found with the signifi- 
cation cunt, and rendered "'This,' i.e., this was done, viz., the number- 
ing of the Levites," but cf. ai n*^}* Nu. 3-'', and Ges. § 141^. /;. Here 
r^-or^ agrees with and strengthens 'iS 'J3 as the most important part of 
the compound subject ''i'? ^J3 idDS, Ges. § 146U. 

28-32. Duties of the Levites. — 29. For the shoivbread] lit. 
bread of rows, cf. g^\ — and for the fine flour for the meal-oflcring] 
cf. Lv. 2'- ■•• ^, — whether for the unleavened wafer] cf. Lv. 2', — 
or of that which is baked in a pan] cf. Lv. 2= 6'^ ^^d^ — qj- [Jiqi 
which is mixed] cf. Lv. 6'* <2", — 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. 1935. — 30. 
On the morning and evening burnt-offerings cf. Ex. 29«'- " 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" -'5), there were three annual historical feasts (Ex. 23'^-"), 
Passover and Mazzoth (Nu. 28'^ -=5), Pentecost (Nu. 282s -s'), and 
Tabernacles (Nu. 29'2-3s). — 32. According to the Law, the Levites 
should keep the charge of the tent of meeting (Nu. iS'- *) and the 
charge of the sons of Aaron their brethren (Nu. 3^ iS^- =) but they 
were expressly forbidden to approach the vessels of the holy place 
(Nu. 18', 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. 328- '2). The Chronicler 
could have secured all his facts from Nu. 3 without consulting 
Nu. 18. 

28. '^:h mn-j] cstr. before S, cf. Ges. § 130a. — ® evidently read 
"ryi (iirl) before nc'vo and B ^3 Syi (et in universis). (S also omits the 
copulative at the beginning of v. 29. As the text stands the repetition of 
inin>) D^n'^xn n"'3 rnimy adds nothing. Hence ^sb should be emended 
to agree with (& and connected with the following verse, 'n Dn'?S (omit 
1 with Ci>) defining nryn more closely, cf. Ges. § 131/. Accordingly 
read 'n onSS o^nSxn p^a may hb'jjd Sjn and in the work of the service of 
the house of God for (in respect to) the showbread. — 31. niSy mSyn "jaSi] 


EVs. render incorrectly and to offer all burnt-offerings. This verse is 
a part of v. ^o 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 i:-ipn motJ'a n>si, which may be 
an intentional correction from Nu. i8^ 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 (23 "-32) is followed 
immediately by the description of David's organisation of the 
priests (24'-''). 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' 

I 1-19 

Schurer (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. 12'-'- '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 5=^ (6=) Ex. 6^\ — 2. An 
abridgment of Nu. 3^ 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. '' and in i8'« (where Ahimelech should be read 
Ahimelech with Vrss.). According to v. « and iS'^ (= 2 S. 8") 
Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar, but in i S. 22-" an Ahimelech 


is the father of Ahiathar. That grandfather and grandson should 
bear the same name is in accord with common Semitic practice {cf. 
^35 t. (59 f.) and Phoenician Eshmunezar Inscription hnes 13/.), 
but the only knowTi son of Abiathar was named Jonathan (2 S. 
i5'« I K. i-i^) and elsewhere Zadok and Abiathar (instead of 
Ahimelech) are associated as the priests, both in the time of David 
(2 S. 15" 17'^ 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 ((f. Jos. 715 -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 sLxteen 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-born to a single younger brother {if. 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 ivith 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 syrunymous, being differ- 
ent designations also for the "chiefs of the priests" of 2 Ch. 36'< 
(Ba., Bn.). — 6. Shema'lah the son of Nathaniel, the scribe] is 
only known from this passage. — One fathers^ house being taken 


for Eleazar and one* taken for Ilhamar] (v. i.). — 7-18. The same 
courses were maintained in the time of Josephus (Ant. vii. 14. 7, 
Vita i). Individual courses are mentioned elsewhere, Jehoiarib 
(Joarib), i Mac. 2' Bab. Taanith 29 a; Joiarib and Jeda'iah, 
Baba kamtna ix. 12; Abijah, Lu. 1°; Bilgah. Sukka v. 8 (see Schiir. 
Gesch.^ II. pp. 22)2 ff.). Jehoiarib, Jeda'iah, IJarim, Malchijah, 
Mijamin, Abijah, Shecaniah, Bilgah, Maaziah occur in either 
one or both lists of priests in Ne. 10' «• <2 « ' and 12' "J-. Se'orim, 
Huppah, Jeshebe^ab, Happizzez, and Gatmd 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 Pashiir (Ezr. 2'8 = 
Ne. 7^0 is wanting 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"). Jeshu'a may 
be the head of the "house of Jeshua" of Ezr. 23« = 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* f. 

1. (&^ omits the second l^ns >i2, so also Origan's text (Field), but ifl 
is probably original. — Nin>:iN] (g 'A/3tou5 here and in v. 2 529 (6') Ex. 
6-3 Lv. 10' Nu. 3^ — 3. (S adds Kar oikovs naTpiQv avruv. — 5. ":33i] 
read with other Mss. •'J32% so H,®, g", Ki.— 6. ins thni . . . inx -inx]. 
Some late MSS. read ins ipni instead of :nN tn>si; ® els eh . . . eh els; 

^ 1 1- ..] ^so l-M ^.*i^|_D, Most commentators correct 

the second inN to nns (Grotius, Ges., Zoe., Kau., Ba., Bn.). Be. retained 
M, finding a relation in the proportion eight to sixteen and thn to 
ins tnNi, 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 (vv. ^- '• * ^- ^). A comparison 
of 252-'' with 259-3' 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. 258-3') until all had been assigned. 
According to this analogy, the older and simpler emendation — the 


second ins to ins — 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. '"" were members of the family of Ithamar, the rest 
belonging to the family of Eleazar. — 13. 3s:iri] (S" omits but ^^ 
IffpaaX, B'^ Isbaal. Ki. conjectures that the original form was Syar'', 
which was omitted in the copy of Greek and intentionally altered 
in M because of the offence caused by the form ^^'J. Gray {HPN. 
p. 24) follows Ki. — 19. Dniiis] Ki. points ar'.'\pD because of the preced- 
ing n'^s. 

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, Jahath, Shamir, 
Zechariah, and Jeralmie'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 
2^7-23 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' ff-; 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 '^ ^ 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.). 
Shuba'el (Shebu'el) is called the chief of the sons of Gershom in 
23'* but here his place is taken by Jehdeiah. In 23'', Rehabiah 


is called the chief of the sons of Eliezer but here (v. '") he is sup- 
planted by Isshaiah. The same is true of Shelomith {Shelonwth) 
(cf. V. 22 with 23 '8); Micah and Isshiah (cf. vv. ^*- " with 232°); and 
Kish (cf. V. 29 with 2322). AH of these names could have been in- 
cluded in 23 '5 «f-, 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. =8^ un- 
wittingly gives the opposite meaning to this passage. According 
to 2322 Eleazar must be counted as a father's house (cf. 2321 < ), 
but here he is excluded. "These were the sons of the Levites 
after their fathers' houses" (v. "">) is a strange subscription to 
what purports to be only a partial list of the Levites (cf. "the rest" 
V. -o), but is easily understood as a quotation of the first part of 
232-' (v. i. V. 30). "These likewise" (C" DJ) (v. 3>) 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 15"- '«, 
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 list containing additional names. That this 
list contains many names set forth in 23 •=■23 cannot be urged against 
this conclusion (as Be.), since those names are given in order to 
place the new ones in relationship to them. — Shuba'el]. Cf. 23 '^ 
— Jehdeiah] is also the name of an officer of David 27'" f. — 21. 
Rehabiah]. Cf 23". — Isshiah] occurs again in v. 25^ cf. 232°. — 
22. Shelomoth]. Cf Shelomith 2^^K—Jahath]. Cf 42.-23. Cf 

23". — 24. Micah]. Cf 2320. — Shamir] here only as a personal 



name, but as a place-name Ju. lo'- « Jos. 15*' f. — Isshiah]. CJ. 
23". — ZecJwriah] a very common name, especially in the writ- 
ings of the Chronicler. — 26. 27. The sons of Merari: Mahli and 
Mushi and* the sons of'Uzziah. The sons of Merari: of 'Uzziah* 
Bani* ( ?) and Shoham and Zaccur and 'Ibri]. The WTiter 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. ^e (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 ">23 into Dj") but it is neither 
likely that Merari had another son besides Mahli and Mushi {cf. 
54 (19) 23" Ex. 6'' Nu. 3" =') nor that the original writer would 
have had the boldness to add another son to the two so well known. 
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 Bani, a common late name, which te.xt is sup- 
ported by (§ {viol avTov = T'JS = '^ "^12) {v. •/.). — The origin of 
this family of Uzziah cannot be determined. Shoham occurs 
nowhere else as a proper name and 'Ibri only as the gentilic of 
Hebrew. Zaccur occurs only once outside of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., Nu. 
13* (P). — 28. And he had no sons] is repeated from 23" evidently 
as an abridgment of that verse {v. s.). — KisJi], Cf. 2y-K — 
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 23^4 (= v. '<"'). — 31. No difficulty need be found 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. ^n2Yi'] cf. 23" text. n. — 21. Bn. omits mnm >:2^ with <S 
but compare the style in w.'"- ". — 23. M and Vrss. are defective. Add 


after 'J3i. CNin jnjn, Ki., Bn. Earlier commentators added only 
]y-\27\ Luther, Be. — 24. -\-\i2t''\ so Kt., but Qr. I'SU', C& ^a/jL-fip, 13 Samir, 
and so ©. — 26. 27. The present Hebrew text of these verses cannot 
possibly be the original, since v. ^sb jg self-contradictory {v. s.) and 
the copulative % lacking before 'J3, must be inserted (Bn.) and ij3 
crept in possibly from v. ". inv^-i^ found only here, is probably an 
error for iim^', so Ki., cf. also BDB., Gray, HPN. p. 291. 1J3 of 
v. " may have read '■:2 originally {v. s.). Accordingly the original text 
read 'in 'n onci ija invjjS ''tid ij3 ■. inv^* >j3i ^•^•:^^ ^'?na ma ''J3. (On 
attempts to find here the original of 23-' ^•, r/. 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 (233° f ). 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. ' s , but it does not follow, as Kittel thinks, that this chapter in 
its original form only dealt with Asaphites. The presence of idn"^ 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 first lot fall 
to them (f/. what Josephus says of the first of the twenty-four courses 
of priests, Vita, I. : iroWr] 5^ k&v rourq) 8ia(popd). 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 (y. /.). — Asaph, Heman, and Jediithiin (= Ethan) were 
descended from Gershom (read Gershon), Kehath, and Merari 
respectively according to 6^^-^'^ (33-47)^ thus representing the three 
chief famines of the Levites {cf. 15"- '^ 16" ^- 2 Ch. 5'^ 29'3 '• 
35'^). — 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* '• '" ^•). — With lyres, with lutes and with cymbals] 
(see Bn. Arch. pp. 2']2ff., 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. y"- 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. y^s.) 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. 12'^ cf. also Zichri 

1 Ch. 9'5 = Ne. II" where "»"i3T should be read for ''IDT). On 
the name cf. 42s 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. lO''-, of a priest Ne. i2'<. 
— Nethaniah] also v. '^^ is found only once elsewhere as a Levite 
name 2 Ch. 17^ |. — Asar'elah]. Cf. Jesar'elah v. •< |. — 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 
(''y i3ty) of V. " must be the missing name, since it is not found 
in vv. ^■* as are all the others enumerated in w. ' =', hence it 
should be inserted after Jeshaiah (thus (g). — Of these six sons 
of Jeduthun only Mattithiah is mentioned in another place, cf. 
1^18. 21 155^ but there he is not called a son of Jeduthun. On the 
name cf. 9^'. — Gedaliah] also v. ', not elsewhere the name of a Levite, 
but the name of a priest Ezr. 10", and otherwise not infrequent. — 
Izri*] so read with v. " instead of Zeri f {v. i.). — Jeshaiah] also 
V. '5, besides the well-known prophet Isa'iah, is a Levitical name 
26^'* Ezr. 8", a grandson of Zerubbabel 3*", a chief of the sons of 
Elam Ezr. 8', a Benjaminite Ne. ii^ — Shimei*] 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 Mattaniah appears as an Asaphite in 9'^ = Ne. 
II'" Ne. II" 128- 35 2 Ch. 2oi< 29". With the possible exception of 

2 Ch. 20'* 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. ii'^ 12^' 
(v. i.). — Shtiba^el*]. So read with (^ and v. 2° instead of Shebu^el 
(Ki.). Also the name of a son of Gershom 23'8 242°- 2° 26^4 |. 
— 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. "^^y was the name 
of a chief musician in the time of Nehemiah Ne. 12^', and is 


not infrequent. — EWathah] also v." f. — Giddalti] also v." f. — 
Romamti-'ezer] also v." f. — Joshbekashah] also v." -j-. — Mallothi] 
also V. " f . — Hothir] also v. ^s -j-. — Mahazi'oth] also v. '» f . — 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, he 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- 
culty is not removed by assigning it to a later hand. See Ew. 
Lehrh. d. hebr. Spr. p. 680; We. Prol. p. 219; WRS. OTJC.^ 
p. 143; Koberle, Tempelsdnger, pp. lit f. — 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 (i» there is correct Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun were the King's 
seers (01 7rpo(f)i)TaL rov /SacriXetu?); 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 pjip) and connect with the 
following (v. i.). Elsewhere the phrase means to heighten the 
power of any one (cf. i S. 2'" Ps. Sg'^ 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. 2) 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 
{Wy^'2'i^), who were distinguished from the mass of the singers, 
the scholars (CT'O^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. N3xn 'i^'i]. The usual rendering the captains of the hosts (EVs., 
Ki., et al.) may be understood as referring eitlier to the commanders of the 
army or as synonymous with princes of Israel considered as the host of 
Yahweh {cf. Ex. 12"- "). Keil 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 the Levites 
(D^i^n ^1-') to appoint singers from their brethren (15"). Although 
N3S n:* is not used of the Levites elsewhere, as Keil pointed out, 
the phrase may refer to them in this case, since n2S is used of the 
Levites in Nu. 43- 23. 30. 35. 39. « g^*- ^\ In all of these passages K3X 
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 Snxa ma;''? KTsh usually rendered " service for the work 
in the tent of meeting," and in Nu. S^^ ma;'n Naxa " 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 majjS 
follows N3S"i. If mayS were intended to describe the service rendered 
by the singers, it should have appeared in connection with its qualifying 
clause 'aa D\x>ajn. Immediately following Nasn iTi', mayS is most 
naturally taken as a genitive modifying Naxn in the same sense as in 
Nu. 8-5, and is better rendered the chiefs of the serving host. — ID** ^i^^ 
pnnn icni] on co-ordinate genitives depending upon the same no- 
men regens, cf. Ges. § 128a. — a''N^a:n] Qr. 0''Na:n. ($ dirocpOeyyofiivovs. 
Najn in vv. ^ «■ favours Qr., and so Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., et al. — ^tt'JN DnoDD 
'd] irjN in apposition with d-isdc, cf. Ges. § 13 iw. — 2. dSnie-n] so 
Baer, Gin., Ki.; also written hSnib-vS, cf v. " n'7Nni?'v — 3. nx] v. >• 
^ix''.; (& here 'Eovpet, = n« = nxi = nx\ hence read nv, so Ki. 


Kom., BH. — 4. "jn't^] v. 's Sn-itj?, 0^ here 'Afapo^^X. Either spelling 
may be original, but since Snvj; as a common Levitical name might 
easily take the place of the less usual ^N"i;>, the latter may be 
preferred with (&, although the writer may have used both forms, see 
on 2 Ch. 26'. — ?Nnr] v. 2" >s:^^s^ <B IfOv^aijX, cf. 23'6. — nirn-] (g 
'Upefiibe, V. 22 niD-);, ^ 'EpeLfxdbd. — nnN^Ss] v." ■"i-^'^n. — Kau. {ZAW. 
1886, p. 260) departed from Ew. and others in the renditions of the 
last nine names (v. s.) by reading second person instead of first, re- 
pointing the text as follows : 2V^ -\T>'. ncc^i nSn.3 dpk ••'^n >j3n n^ 'jsn 
'1JI rn'70 nc'il. Furthermore, he held that if the Massoretic point- 
ing be accepted for ^"••<t, etc., it was necessary to suppose that the por- 
tion of the verse from v'^ij 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 ihe last two lines, Ich preise iind erhehe Hilfe, int Ungliick 
sitzend rede ich iiberaus 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 t ' 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 \i'?ii. (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 tmto me. Thou 
art my God, whom I magnify and exalt. In what follows, instead of 
nrp 3::"i it;' read ■"i-j'nvr inr;. 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 i^m instead of i\7in. The full text is as follows: 

■ ■■ T T - " T 

With r\-z'p + 2 + f comp. D''Cio + n -1- 3 -f tt> in 27". Ti^r] may be 
also connected with the fourth line 'ni nSs thus balancing the second, 
and taken as a Pi. inf. abs. from nSs (= n'^c), Ges. § 75", and the 
couplet rendered Thou art my help when in trouble, Fulfilling 
abundantly visions. — 5. Instead of '1 pf^ read uip with Ki. — 6. r"'3'] 
for ."'•'33. — 8. .-icy^] is apparently the cstr. before a sentence (Be., Ke., 
et al., cf. BDB. ns;- d). — ^^D'?n 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 Hsts 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 Hemanites, 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. 2-4 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 
Zacciir and Joseph (v. 2) 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. ". 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. (6 adds vlQp avrov Kal dSe\(f>C)v airov before nONS. The number 
288 (v. and the analogy of the following verses demand that vnNi VJ3 
-I!-.;; o^jtt' should be added after iDrS (Oe., Bn., Ki.)- There seems to 
be some confusion also in the last part of the verse. — IDnS]. According 
to Bn., this is a dittography from idpS. Ki. strikes it out as a gloss. 
(6 certainly read it.— On nx^ (v. »'), ^'^^<"Hf'' (v. '^), '^'NI'V (v. '»), ''K^w 
(v. 2"), niDT' (v. 22), 7\n-<hii (v."), cf. vv. 2-4 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 vv. '■", and their appointments in vv. '2-". In the former 
division are twenty-four heads of houses distributed among three 
families. The appointments (vv. '2-19) 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-born of Meshelemiah (Shelemiah), receiving a 
special commission (v. ''). The administrators of the treasuries 
(^•v. 20-28) follow the gate-keepers naturally. Similarly the keepers 
of the treasuries follow the account of the gate-keepers in 91 ' ^-j 
where the former are also classed as gate-keepers (9-6). 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. 366- •« 's), 
of a son, i.e., a descendant, of Hebron (2"), and of the head of a 
Levite family (Ex. 621- 24 Nu. 16' «■). The genealogy of Heman, 
the singer, is traced through Korah to Kehath (6'««- <" « >); 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. — Meshelemiah\ Cf. 9^'. — Kore], Cf. 9''. — Ebiasaph*] 
(v. i.). — 2. 3. Zechariah] of the sons of Meshelemiah, is men- 
tioned again in v. '%and occurs also in g''\cf. also 24". — Jedta'el] is 
also the name of a Zebulunite 7«- ">• " (q. v.), and of one of David's 
heroes ii^^, cf. 12=' ^^"^ f. — Zebadiah] a frequent name but only in 
the writings of the Chronicler. — Jathni'el |]. — 'Elani] besides the 
name of the country east of Assy., a frequent post-exilic name, 
but only in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., cf 8^K — Jehohanan] a frequent name, 
especially with the Chronicler. — Elieho'enai] 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 (152' id^ 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. 1", and V. " limits the gate-keepers to these two families (Be., 
Ke., Zoe., Oe.). Since he is also called a son of Jeduthun (16'*) 
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, Jehozabad, 
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. 'Ammi'el is also an east-Jordanic name 2 S. 9^^ 17", a 
Danite Nu. 13 '^ (P), and the name of David's father-in-law i Ch. 
3' |. Sacar only occurs elsewhere as the father of one of David's 


heroes 11", while Issachar is only found as the name of the son of 
Jacob and the tribe bearing his name. The name Pe'ullethai is 
otherwise unknown. — 7. The sons of Shenmiah: 'Othni f, atid 
Repha'el f, and 'Obed, and* Elzabad, and* his brethren mighty 
men of valor (lit. sons of strength) Elihu, atid Semachiah -j-]. These 
six men are otherwise unknown. The name 'Obed is found only 
in Ru. 4"- ='■ " and hi Ch., and Elzabad is the name of a Gadite m 
i2'2 -f-. Elihii is not an uncommon name. With Sema^rhiah may 
be compared the Levitical name Ismuchiah 2 Ch. 3i'3 -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 \t. i>- '^ and in i6'8, where he 
is also associated with 'Obed-edofn as a gate-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^^ |. — 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 ("nSid") nTl), which 
would permit the rendering for he was not the first-born. — 11. 
Hilkiah] is a very common na«me. — Tebaliah -j-]. — Zechariah]. 
On name cf. v. ^ — Not one of these appears as a son of Hosah 
elsewhere. — The total number of gate-keepers was ninety-three 
(62 4- 18 + 13), cf. 9" 16^8. 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. 1D!<] in 9" 1p;3N, (gB here AjStd l,a(pdp. tiD.s was a Gershonite 
(62< f) but fiDo.x was descended from Kehath through Korah {cf. 9" 
6? t. (22 f.) Ex. 6i«- 18. 2i)j hence read either ip^pN or 1??'?^? (Be., Ke., 
Zoe., Oe., Gin., Ba., Bn.), the latter being preferable. — imcStt'D] so 
w. 2- 9; V. » in>D'?tt'; 921 n>!;'?tt'D; 9>7- " DiS::'. — 6. D^^s-ccn] elsewhere 
only in Dn. ii'- ', where the sg. is used. Here abstr. for concr. do- 
minions = rulers; possibly we should read a^Sccn. — 7. ^31>l] ul adds 

cnx. & reads '''!»-*l?aiiikO . — vhn io-^n]. After other Mss. cited by 

Kennicott, also C5, prefix i 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 meti] 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. •. — 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 (vv. '-''). — 15. The 
guarding of the southern gate and the store-house {cf. Ne. la^^) 
fell to Obed-edom and his sons cf. w. *-\ The Chronicler prob- 
ably thought of this store-house as identical with the treasury 
building, hence his addition "with Obed-edom" in 2 Ch. 252^, 
cp. with 2 K. 14'^— 16. The western side fell to the lot of Hosah, 
cf. w. '° '•. Strike out to Shuppim (v. i.). — At the gate of the 
chamber* (v. /.). — 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 (25' «•) is apparent, nor does there 
seem to be any connection with the twenty-four heads of families 
named in w. ^-^K 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. 231' (see Dr. art. Parbar, DB.). 


13. ijjtfi ipii''?]/or every gate, an idiom common in Ch. and late Heb. 
(1. 124). — 14. in>DSi:'] cf. V. ' text. n. — innoii] should read ih^-idtSi 
with Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Gin., et al., but the versions probably read our 
text. <& Kal Zaxapla, viol Swdf- tQ MeXx^^i certainly had our text. 
H Zacharia; is likely a correction also. 21 "i-Sd yyv suggests that 
(SI MeXx^^i originated in an Aramaic gloss to Y}!V. — 16. D''0!r'?] 
should be struck out. Hosah alone is in place (cf. v. '") and aiiJcS 
clearly arose by dittography from the preceding D''£!Dn, Be., Ke., 
Zoe., ei al. — no^r] 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. U renders 
qucB ducit, i.e., •tr (cf. Ju. 5' Ct. i') + npS "the gate which goeth into 
the ascending highway." (^bal have Tracrro^opiou, so also Origen's 
text. TO ira.<TTo<t)opLov is used to translate hdb'S in 9^6 23^' 28'^ 2 Ch. 
31" Je. 35^ Ez. 40" "■ ", hence (& must have read nju'S or Pji:"S. Ac- 
cording to 2 K. 23" there was a chamber on this side of the Temple in 
the D^nno = ijib (cf. v. '*). By itself 05 has no more weight than i^, 
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 (nDiyS) is spoken of as in the 
onnfl (2 K. 23") favour the reading of 05, njt:''? or noirS. On cstr. 
followed by 3 see Ges. § 130a. — 19. ■■n-ipn] ^b j-ead Kaad = nnp, but 
1^ 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 (vv. ^i 2=) and the latter under 
Kehathites(vv."-28). — 20. And the Levites, their brethren, etc. 1 (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. ^e. The same 
two divisions seem to be made in 9^8 «■ (Bn.). — 21. 22. The 
sons of La adan, 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, JehPel and his brethren^ Zetham and Jo'el were 
over, etc.] Cf. 23'. The sons of JehVeli is a gloss (1;. i.). Jehi'eli-\ 
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, cf. 23' 
298. — 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. " ff )j but there is no further mention of the Uzzielites. — 24. 
And^] omitted in translation. Render with v. ^s, of the Amramites 
. . . was Shuba'el* (cf. 23"= . . . rider over the treasuries. — 25. 
And his {ShubaeVs) brethren of Eli'ezer]. His brethren is used 
because all are descended from two brothers, Gershom and 
Eliezer, sons of Moses, cf. 231^ ^ (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.). Benzinger 
prefers the reading of ($ his brother. — Eli'ezer] and Rehabiah]. 
Cf. 23 '5- 17. — Jesha'iah] and the three following individuals are 
only known from this passage. On name cf. 253. — Joram] is a 
common name. — Zichri] is also the name of an Asaphite g'^ (cf. 
Ne. II"). The name occurs twelve times in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. of 
eleven individuals, elsewhere only Ex. 6" (P). — Shelomoth]. Also 
v. " and in v. ^s Shelomith. The spelling of the name fluctuates 
between these two elsewhere and is doubtful. Two other Levites, 
an Izharite 23 '^ 2422 22 ^^nd a Gershonite 23', bore this name, also 
a son of Rehoboam 2 Ch. ii^'' and the head of a post-exilic family 
Ezr. 81". — 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. 
Saul the son of Kish]. Cf. 8^3 = 939. — Abner the son ofN.er]. Saul's 
cousin, cf. I S. 14^°- «', etc. — Jo^ab the son of Zeruiah]. Cf. 2i«. 
The Chronicler presumes that every one who led forth the army 
of the Israelites into battle consecrated of the booty to Yahweh. 

20. n>nN]. Read an^ns with <$ dStXcpol clvtwv, 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. (&^ adds to the con- 
fusion and gives no aid. CU'-, which usually has the fullest reading, 
here follows ^ in v. 21, but omits •''^N^m ^ja from v. 22 and inserts the 
copulative before a.ir. (^^ may have been corrected from 23', but also 
internal grounds point to ^"^x^n^ ■•ja as a gloss. The gentilic form is out 
of place in v. 21, also in v. ", where it is simply repeated, and rn>x pointed 
as singular, as in M, is useless, but as plural contradicts i'?N''n> ^j:i. 


The final ' of •''^N^ni (v. 21) is a remnant of the lost 1 before ant. — 25. 
rnsi] (8 Kul T({i aSeXtpii) airov = vnx'?T adopted by Bn. — ni':'?^'] Qr. 
n^nSi:', v. =» n^chr, (& ZaXunud in both (cf. 23" text. n.). — 26. ntt-S] 
Ke. corrects to "iitn with B, so also Oe., Ki., but cf. 28^' text. n. — ■nts'i 
niNDHi o^'D^nh]. Co-ordinate genitives depending on the same nometi 
regens are unusual, Ges. § 128a. — 27. ptn'^] is used elsewhere to 
repair &n old building 2 K. i2«- '• '^ 22* 2 Ch. 245- 12^ etc., cf. BDB. 
prn Pi. 1. c. Here it must have the same or a more general sense, 
V. s. — ^28. t'npnn] on art. for the rel. pron. see Ges. § 138^, also 
1. 119. — C'^'lpon] Bn. corrects to B''Ji';'sn. — niDSc] 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. 1 1 '6). — Officers] i.e., some minor officials, possibly scribes 
(cf. (g ypafji/xaT€V6Lv). As early as Deuteronomy (17^ ^- 19" 
2V) 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 
himdred Hebronites were appointed to have oversight over the 
business (nSX?^) of Yahweh and for the service (niDJ?) 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 ("131) of God, and [every] affair (131) of the 
King (v. '2). 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. 2 "-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 . naiya pi"''? layn] means literally from 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 
cf the army (vv. '-'5), the list of tribal princes (vv. '^ -'''), the royal 
treasurers and overseers (vv. ^^-^i), and the King's counsellors 
(vv. "-") naturally follow. 

Although the Chronicler has given the list of David's mighty men in 
cc. 11/., 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. 21 jf., 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 jf.). According to 2 S. 238 ^- (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 
(281 «•). 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' s. 259 3 ), 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. ^-'s) contains only the twelve classes, 
the number belongmg to each, and the name of the command- 
ing officer, hence Bertheau thought only a partial account was 
here given. — 2. Ishbaal* (v. 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'" {v. i.). — 
And his course (and) Mikloth the ruler, is obscure. A Mikloth 
occurs in 8^2 9" -•, but there is no ground for connecting him with 
the one mentioned here f. — 5. Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada]. 
Cf. ii^s" 18" 27% also v. ^\ — The priest] is considered a proba- 
ble gloss by Oe., since Benaiah was a militar)' 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 S. 2S"'-''K—'Ammizabad ■\].—7. Cf iV' = 
2 S. 232<. — 'Asah'el] was slain by Abner in the early part of David's 
reign (2 S. 218-"), 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 'Ira^ (11" '■) are trans- 
posed, as are also Abi'ezer and Sibbecai (11=^ '■). 'Ilai (11") is 
omitted, so also Ithai (11") between Heled and Benaiah {iV° ' ), 
the last two also being transposed. — Sibbecai, the Hushathite]. Cf 
20*. Abi'ezer] was a citizen of 'Anathoth, a Benjamite town (cf. 
6" <«»>). — Maharai] of the family of Zerah (cf. 2*). Cf 11 2°. — 
'Othni'el] by his relation to Caleb (Jos. 15" Ju. i'^*-'* 3') was 
incorporated into the tribe of Judah. 

XXVn. 16-24.] THE TRIBAL PRINCES 29 1 

1. mx'iniD'fl'^Nnn'^'] c/. 26^* text. n. — PKX>ni nxnn] used of enter- 
ing and leaving service, 2 Ch. 23*- * 2 K. ii^- '• '. — nnxn] each, cf. 
Ju. S'8 Nu. 17I8.— 2. Dvau"] so also 11", but 2 S. 238 natto 2Z'\ (& 
here So/3a\ (= Sya-i-^), 11" 'leo-eiSaSa (= Ie(re/3aaX = Sj'Ji:"), 2 S. 
238 'le^oade, hence We., e/ a/., are doubtless right in reading .-^oa'i 
as original in 2 S. and ^•J2y> for both passages in Ch. — 4. nn] ii'^ 
nn 12 it>'Sn (but read there with 05 AwSai, "'in), so also 2 S. 23^ 
hence supply p -ir>-'?N, Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ki., Bn.— niSpni inp'^nDi] 
Be., on the basis of the addition to v. ^, struck out the copulative, 
1, before ni'^pn (also Ke., Zoe.). Oe. suggested that this clause, 
which is wanting in (S, arose through dittography. Kittel corrects v. ' 
to ipp^nD bp according to (S, Kal iirl, and reads the same here. — 8. 
n-\vn nincj'] (6^ SaXaci^ 6 'Ecrpae, * Sa^iiaw^ lefpaeX, !■ lefpa. 11" 
nnnn n\::u', ^^ Za/j-adid 6 'Adi, 2 S. 23^^ •'-nnn noi;'. Oe. corrects to 
TnT^n, so also Ki. The form n-\v is found only here, cf. ^mt vv. »■ ". 
— 10. •'ji'^D.-i] (g 6 ^/c ^aWovs. 2 S. 2326 ■•tD'^'Dn. — 12. ^^d'^a?^] Qr. I?'? 
,j,n,. — 15. n_';'n] (g XoXSeta, ii'd I'l^n (g X^aoS, 2 S. 2325 2'^n. 

16-24. The tribal princes. — The two verses concerning the 
census (v\'. "• ^4) 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. 23) were 
numbered. No previous order is followed in this catalogue 
of the tribes (cf. 2' '■ Gn. 35" «■ 46^ «■ 493 f). Gad and Asher 
are wanting. The six sons of Leah come first, in the order of 
their birth (cf. Gn. 29"-35 ^on-20 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. 3022-24 462° 35'"-") and 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 (22 Gn. 352^) 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 Eli'ab* 
and Abner the cousin of Saul, cf. 26^8, are well known. HashaUah 
is possibly identical with the person mentioned in 26^\ Most of 
the other twenty names are common. — 16. El-iezer the son of 
Zichri]. Cf. 23'^ and 26'K—Shephatiah]. Cf. i2\—Maacah] 
as masc. personal name 11" Gn. 22" (J) i K. 2^^ f. — 17. Hasha- 
biah]. Cf. 253. — Kenm'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 78 (q. v.), and a 
Judean g\—Micha'el]. Cf. 5'^— 19. Ishmaiah]. Cf. 12* f.— 
Jerimoth]. Cf. 2SK—Ezri'el*]. Cf. 5=^ Je. 36=^ f.— 20. 'Aza- 
ziah] as a Levite name 15=' 2 Ch. 2)'^'' ■\.—Hoshea'\ Jo'el], and 
Pedaiah] are frequent. — 21. Gile'ad]. Cf. 5'. The term might 
designate all eastern Palestine. (See GAS. HGHL. pp. 548/.) 
—Iddo]. Cf. Ezr. lo^^ (Kt.) ^ .—Zechariah]. Cf 24"-^— J a asi' el]. 
Cf. !!*■' f.— 22. 'Azar'el]. Cf. 2S*.—Jeroham] 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. 218 '-.—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. ih^Sn] Qr. Nin^Sx. Read with (g 'E\ta/3 = 3N"^n, which is 
the name of David's eldest brother elsewhere, 2'' 2 Ch. ii's j S. i6« 
1713. 28. 28^ cf. 2"-'-, so Zoe., Gin., Ki.— 19. "-N'-!;;:] as in 5=^ Je. t,6^\ but 
the Hebrew pronunciation should be '^N''"i.:3.', so <g in every instance, 
adopted by Ki. — 22. oni'] ^ba Icopa^, l lepoa/j.. — 24. -ied:;^ -\2D::n] 
® iv /3i/3\(<f), cf. s^C'H n3T iflD in 2 K. i22» 138. 12 1413. is. 28^ etc. The 
second isD-: probably arose through the influence of the first, hence 
read icD2 with Ki. 

25-31. The officers over the King's possessions. — Twelve 

officers 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. — 
^Azmaveth] also the name of one of David's heroes (11" 2 S. 23"), of 
the father of two of David's mighty men (12^), and a Benjaminite 
name (8'^ = 9") f-— 26. 'Ezri ^].—Cheliib]. 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. 25'. — For the 
stores of the wine]. Cf. 2 Ch. iVK—Zabdi {cf. Jos. 7>- "• " 8" 
Ne. II" (?) t) the Shiphmite] may have been an inhabitant of 
Shepham (Nu. 34>'' '•) (Be., SS. who vocahse ''QSt?') or of Siph- 
moth in the Negeb of Judah (i S. 30") (Ke., Ri. HWB., Ba., 
Bn.), with site unknown. — 28. The sycomore-trees] were pro- 
verbial for their abundance in the Shephelah, cf. 1 K. 10" = 2 Ch. 
1 15 = g27_ 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 (g plain {to irehiov or 77 'TTehivri). (See also 
EBi. IV. col. 4455 and Dr. in DB. III. pp. 893 /.) — Ba'al-hanan 
the Gederite] from Gederah or Gedor, cf. 12^ Baal-hanan was 
also the name of a king of Edom i^'- '» Gn. 7,6^^- '' f. — Stores 
of oil]. Cf 2 Ch. III'. — Joash] also a Zebulunite 7^ {q. v.) f. 
— 29. Sharon] the name of the coast-plain from Joppa north- 
ward to Carmel, noted for its fertility. — Shitrai f]. — Shaphal] 
also name of a grandson of Zerubbabel 3", a Gaddite chief 5'% 
. a prince of Simeon Nu. I3^ and the father of Elisha i K. i9'«- " 
2 K. 3" 6^' f. — 'Adlai |]. — 30. Ohil] a form of the Arabic word 

abil (XjT) "We to manage camels. — The Ishma elite]. That an 

Ishmaelite and also a Hagrite (v. ^i 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 -j-. — Meronothite]. Meronoth {(^^ Mepadcov) seems to 
have been near Gibeon and Mizpah, cf Ne. 3'. — 31. Jaziz f, the 
Hagrite]. C/. S'"'" Ps. 83' ">. 


27. D'cnpai:'] = o^pna + -n + 3 + -t. On -r for icn see Ges. § 36. 
— 29. nai:']Qr. •'tpic, (^ ■' 'Ao-aprais, al Zarpai, so also IS, g- ■ " ^j *■■ 
and so ®. Kt. preferable, BDB. — 31. c'l^in] 1. 107. 

32-34. The King's counsellors.— This catalogue has Jo'ah, the 
captain of the host, and Abiathar, in common with previous similar 
lists, also Jehoiada the son of Benaiah instead of Benaiah the son of 
Jehoiada {v. i.), cf. 18'^-" = 2 S. S'^-is and 2 S. 20"-26. — 32. David's 
lover]. EVs. render 7mde, which is a common meaning of the 
Hebrew word (IH), but no uncle of David by the name of 
Jonathan is knowTi elsewhere, while Jonathan, a son of Shimea 
(Shimei), David's brother, is mentioned in 20^ = 2 S. 21=', hence 
Be., Zoe., Oe., Ba., Bn. take the word (Til) in the general sense 
of kinsman, here nephew. Zoe. cites Je. 32'' as parallel, but there 
son (p) has certainly fallen from the text {cf. w. s- «, 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. i S. 19. 20). The 
Chronicler certainly selected Ahithophel and Hnshai 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 in is used most often as loved one {lover), Ct. i" + 
30 times in Ct., also in Is. 51, where it is equivalent to friend (BDB). 
Lover is not too strong a word to describe the friend of i S. 
igi- 3 2o<i f- 2 S. i-«. A man of skill, a fair rendering of the next 
clause {]'^2'0 w'"'N) {cf. 2 Ch. 26* 34'0. is certainly an apt descrip- 
tion of Jonathan, the son of Saul {cf. 2 S. i-- "). And he was 
scribe (Sin "121D1) could not describe him, but the form suggests 
that these words are a gloss, which is made more probable by their 
absence from (g^ and from Origen's Septuagint text (Field). A 
glossator found a scribe mentioned in i8'« 2 S. S'^ and 2 S. 20", and 
missing the office here, added this phrase to the first oflScer, ignor- 
ing the fact that he was already described as a counsellor (ryT*). 
Although Jonathan had long been dead (i S. 31 2), 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 (n")- 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 during the revolt of the latter (2 S. is^')? then killed 
himself when his counsel was not followed (2 S. 17"). — Hushai, 
the Archite] befriended David during the same rebellion, cf. 2 S. 
1532-" i6i«-i9 175-16. The "border of the Archites" was not far 
from Beth-el Jos. 16^. — The king's friend]. Cf. 2 S. 15" i6'« 
also I K. 45. "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\(ov; io«= 11" 2 Mac. 8' tmv 
7rpa)T(ov <f)L\(ov.) — 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. i8i« = 
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, 2'8. 

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 (28i-«), hence Solomon was publicly advised of his 
responsibility (28'-'°); the plans were transferred to him (28"-'9); 
he was given encouraging assurances of support (2820-21); 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^^-s'), dedi- 
catory sacrifices (i K. S^^-^"), 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 (292'), and a sacred feast (29"'). The 
history of David closes with the anointing of Solomon as King 

(29^=2 1'), 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. Now 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 272-15^ 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. 2724- 31. Male Vulg. filiosque suos) and modems (Be., Ke., Zoe., 
Oe., Ki., EVs.) connect and 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. 1 K. i'- '»• " {v. i.). — 2. My 
brethren]. The King was regarded as the brother of his subjects, cf. 
Dt. I715- 20 also I S. 30=3 2 S. i9'3 "2). — As forme,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" (H^lSD) {cf. v. ") upon 
the ark {cf. Ex. 25") (Be., Ke., Oe., Bn.). — / had prepared] does not 
refer to the preparations of 22* »■ ^ «•, 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. 228. — 4. 5. As Yahweh chose Judah from all the 
tribes {cf. 5"), the house of Jesse from Judah {cf. i S. 16'), and 
David from among all his brethren {cf. i S. i6«-'=) to be the reigning 
prince {cf. ii* 177 = 2 S. 7^ i K. S'^), so he selected Solomon from 
among the many sons of David to sit tipon the throne of the kingdom 


of Yahweh (cf. 29=' i7'0- Solomon is thus clothed with divine 
authority. — 6. 7. V.Ms repeated from 22'° (q. v.). With v. '" cf. 
17", and with v. '^ cf. 1 K. 3'^ 8" 9^. — 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. 4-' '■ " 30'' '• Lv. 2$*\ — With a perfect heart]. 
Cf. 29'- '8 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. 20^ beginning as he leaves off here. 

1. Snpii] elsewhere in Hiph. in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., i Ch. 136 15' (both 
from the Chronicler) 2 Ch. 52 (= i K. 8') ii' (= i K. 1221). 15' is 
ascribed to an extra-canonical source by Biichler, Bn., Ki., but v. in 
loco. — mpSncn] 1. 42. A very common word of the Chronicler. — 
Dimu'DH] for royal officers is late (BDB. mtt' i b), cf. 27' 2 Ch. 17" 
228 Est. ii° Pr. 29'^^. — ^'^■^-\'\ used elsewhere in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. as a general 
term for movable possessions, 272' 2 Ch. 31' 32" Ezr. 8^1 io« all of which 
are probably from the Chronicler, 1. 107. — a^Dnon / ii^y] wanting 
in (&^^, (&^ Kal tCjv vlQv aiirov (riiv rots evvovxois, H filiosqiie suos 
cum eunuchis. Bertheau stated the following reasons for taking rjaSi 
with the preceding "^^hi (i) Sis the sign of the gen. before iVn 
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. ^i [v. s.). Jonathan, the next 
in order (2732), had long been dead {v. s. 27^2), 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 e.xactly where 
they should be expected. By construing rja'ji with the following, with 
Jt, we also have a satisfactory explanation of D>, which is otherwise 
peculiar in this list of accusatives. — 2. ijiynt:'] 1. 115. — Dnn f] occurs 
only in poetry and late writings (BDB.). — ^nio^Dn] 1. 54. — 4. ^^Sc^'-] 05 
Tov yev^adai. fie ^aaiX^a, H ut me eligeret regetn, hence Oe. thinks 
CS, B, read '':3i'?DnS. — 5. hidSc] 1. 67. — 7. imrDn] 1. 54. — ipidSd] 1. 67. 
— ntn dvd] especially Dt., Je., and subsequent writings (BDB. av 
7 h). Used elsewhere in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. only in 2 Ch. 6'^ (=1 K. 8^*), 
cf. also nrn avn^ only in Dt. 6^* Je. 44"; also Ezr. 9'- '^ Ne. 9'", which 
are from the Chronicler (see Torrey, CHV. pp. 14 ff.). — 8. Israel is the 


mn' Snp also in Ne. 13', cf. Dt. 232- ' '• <• «• » La. i'" Mi. 2^ Nu. i6» 
20<. — ar^njn |]. — 9. mrn:: -is' '^2\. Cf. 29'^ aaS matt-nD -ix'''? (from 
the Chronicler) J; elsewhere in OT. Gn. 6' (J) nS naa-n^ ix^ Ss. 
nx' is not found alone in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., and mams only occurs in 
these passages with this meaning, see BDB. nas'nD i a. — ijc'iip] 1. 23. 
— in^ji'] in the Hiph. late (= earlier Qal), only three times in OT. 
(Is. 19^ is from another root, see BDB.), 2 Ch. ii'^ 29". Ki. (Koiit. 
p. 126) says the former could come from the Chronicler. Bn. ascribes 
both to Midrashic sources, 1. 30. — lyS J] Driver gives among the 
words or constructions of the Chronicler which are used elsewhere 
only in poetry (LOT.^^, p. 539). — 10. na-yi prn]. 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 (n'^J^n), 
literally "construction," was probably a description in words of 
the dimensions, material, etc., similar to what is found in Ex. 25"= *•, 
and not a drawing. David delivered to Solomon the pattern of 
the porch, cf. 2 Ch. y i K. 6'; and of the houses thereof (v. 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= f); 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 
surrounding buildings, and delivered to his son the pattern of 
everything which he had in his mind (lit. spirit). This use of 
spirit (ni"l) as the seat or organ of mental acts is late, cf. Ez. ii^ 
20=2 (BDB., m"l. 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 chaynbers 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. '=). Benzinger points out that the word pattern {r\'''11T\) 
could hardly be used for a description of the courses, and 


(g {koI TOiv KaTaXv/xaTcov) certainly connected this verse with 
V. '=". 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 lie 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. 259). 
— 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,"''l) (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^^ 2 Ch. 13" 
291 8), 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>S cf. also i S. 2'3- 1^.— The basins were used for sprinkling 
the blood of the victim against the altar, cf. 2 Ch. 29", and the cups 
were those with which the drink-offering was poured out, Ex. 25^' 
37'8 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. 3o'-"' 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^ "• >5 s- (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. 259- *" 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. 3'5 Ez. I' 3'^ etc.). 


11. n^jari] a pallern according to which anything is constructed, 
P and late (BDB.), cf. vv. '2. is. 19. — VP3 pni] (6 Kal twv o'ikuv avrov. 
This, omitting pn, which is unreadable unless n^jan is supplied, is 
the correct rendering, generally adopted, with the suflSx referring to 
the Temple. Bn. corrects vna to non. — vjijj] also in restored text 
of V. 2° t a 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. a^n':^Nn no] 
1. 15. — 13b-14. (S'^A here and in the following verse abridged. — 15. 
anr Dn>mji :i7\jn nnjcS Sp'^''^^]- Be. construed Vpu'D as ace. of the obj. 
dependent upon pn of v. " (also Zoe., Oe.) and an: as in free subordina- 
tion to on^mji (Zoe.). The text is obscure. — mnp] other MSS. mnva. 
— 18. n-'jan'^i] S the sign of the ace, Be., Ke., et at. — a''33Di D-cnsS] Be. 
corrected to DiJ3Dni d^w-idh with (S, H, but see Ke. — 19. iSjj nini nin a.ira 
S'Dari] 7^•\r^^ must be the subject of SiD'^yn, as it is implied in the phrase 
mn^ TIC (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.). 'Sy has been construed in three different 
ways. Bertheau connected it with 2nD2 as in Ps. 40^ "'Sjj 31P3 "pre- 
scribed to me," hence he rendered the passage das alles hat durch eine 
mir zur Norm gegehene Schrift von Jahve's Hand Jahve gelehrt, and un- 
derstood the law of Moses to be meant, since Ex. 25 jf. was the basis for 
this passage. Keil connected "'':'>' with the preceding nini t^d " 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 writing composed by David could noi be said to teach him, he 
corrected S'^sB'n to ^'?''?K'o'7. Benzinger takes "iSy with S-'Dcn, which is 
not an impossible construction in Ch. — ana] 1. 60. — Sos-n]. The Hiph. 
is so used by the Chronicler in 2 Ch. 30=2 and Ne. g"-", 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 i^'n" {LOT.^^, p. 539). 

20. 21. Encouraging assurances to Solomon.— 20. Be strong, 

etc.], cf. V. 1° 22'='', for Yahweh lu-ill not fail thee nor forsake thee] a 
Deuteronomic phrase, cf. Dt. 316- s 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 pattern 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 (D''12 
nODrii), not found elsewhere, may have been suggested by 
" whosoever is of a wiUing heart " (}2h 2'^12 b^) (Ex. 35^) 
plus "every wise-hearted man" {2b D3n b^) (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 (B aSixn o'ljan ns njni 
nini r^j n^j2ni nion r^^2^ D^n^'jan vnm vn^'Syi vdtjji vnai {v. s.). — 
21 . 'ij SdS]. Be. struck out h but similar uses of h 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. 13c). As in 52 2626 29^, S is apparently used to introduce a 
nominative similarly to a late use of na (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. 2821). As Moses appealed 
to the people for free-will offerings (Ex. 35^-^ cf. 251-8) 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. 
285, is yet young and tender] and therefore cannot carry out 
his father's plans without assistance, cf. 22^. — The palace] 
(ni''3n) a word used ordinarily for a Persian palace or for- 
tress, cf. Ne. I' Est. !=■ 5 2=- 6. 8 ^15^ etc., Dn. 8^, also of 
the fortified courts of the Temple, Ne. 2^, but here, in v.'' and 
possibly in Ne. 7=, 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. 253), also 
stones of onyx] (cnti^) a precious stone, possibly onyx or beryl, 
but identifications are dub. and Vrss. vary; found in Havilah, 
according to Gn. 2 '2. The phrase stones of onyx is also used 


combined with and stones for selling in Ex. 25' t,^^' "^ 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. ■•. 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" lo'i), but such an anachronism is not strange from 
the Chronicler. — The King set aside his private gift to overlay 
the walls of the hotises] i.e., the various rooms of the Temple 
proper, cf 28", also 2 Ch. y-^, 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 2725-31. — 7. Gold, five thousand 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. 
JehVel]. Cf. 26" '■. — 9. These gave with a perfect heart] i.e., 
without grudging, cf. 28 ^ 

1. 'x 12 in3 ins]. On the omission of the relative by the Chronicler 
see 1. 120. Possibly nnN is a copyist error for icn. — n-\>2n] is used of 
the Temple only here, v. 's, and Ne. 7', and of "the fortified court or 



enclosure of the ;emple " Ne. 2^, all passages from the Chronicler {v. s.). 
— 2. ■'331] other mss. S331. — '>mji3n] 1. 54. — ^id] in 2 K. 9^" Je. 45" 
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 •^bj. Here -\^s 
is usually taken as a stone of dark colour. Ki. corrects to •\d': here also, 
but this is doubtful. — S'>!r ij3N1 rt-\p'> px '731 nD|-ni] v^z' meaning marble, 
occurs only here and as rr only Est. i« Ct. 5'*. Elsewhere rr is a 
common word for " fine linen." HDpi 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" 3S'8. 23 3929 the weaver of 
"blue and purple and scarlet" is called a " variegator " (op.^). 
Now, it is exactly this "blue and purple and scarlet" and also 
fine linen (pz-) which we should expect here from Ex. 25' 35' after 
which the Chronicler's account is modelled {v. s.). rwp'^ includes the 
coloured material as the product of the "variegator" (sp^). 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 ^y3. 27. 28. 28j_ Hcncc it Is probable that r}-\p-^ \2H Sdi is a mar- 
ginal gloss intended originally to explain the difficult •\^o, but which 
crept into the text after nnpii instead of before it. This gloss caused 
the addition of the following ij3ni, which (& probably did not read 
{cf. (&^^ Kal irdpiov with (&^ Kal \l9ovs waplovs). Accordingly the 
original read a'sri PiDpni. — diS] 1. 105. — 3. A strangely worded sentence, 
see Dr. LOT.^\ p. 539.— n':'JD] a very late word (BDB.), cf. Ec. 
2' t- — hSvd'?] I. 87. — \iij''3n] 1. 54. — 4. pprn] used in the Pu. of pre- 
cious metals also in 28" (from the Chronicler), and in Ps. 12' <^'; and 
of settled wines in Is. 25', 1. 32. — nvj {]. — 5. .13^'^?:] in sense of 
workmanship only 22'^ 282' (both from the Chronicler) in Ch.-Ezr.- 
Ne.; and elsewhere i K. 7'^ and a phrase of P Ex. 3i3- s 3529. 31 33 35_ 
— D-'B'nn] cf. '4' (= 2 S. 5") 22'6 2 Ch. 24'2 3411 (= 2 K. 22') Ezr. 
3', also I Ch. 41* and Ne. ii^s. — aijnn] Hith. in the sense of offering 
a free-will-offering (for the first Temple), also w. "■ »• ^- '^- "• "; (for 
the second Temple) Ezr. i^ 2^^ 3^ (BDB.). These verses are certainly 
from the Chronicler (1. 70). — 6. ni3Nn n'i''?] usually 'nh ^U'ni, cf. 27' 
2 Ch. i^, but 'nh na* in Ezr. 829. On S cf. 2821 text. n. — 7. D\nSxn n>3] 
1. 15. — 0"'j3nnN] (1. 22) so also in Ezr. 8^' f; 05 xP^<^0'^^, 13 solidos; 
probably = Sapet/cos, cf. iddti Ezr. 2^^ Ne. 769- '» 'i -j-, which repre- 
sents bpaxp-'fi, so Tor. CHV. pp. 17 /., on Ezr. 827. For other views 
see DB. III. p. 421 b, and |D3"\i in BDB. with authorities there cited. 
— 131] cf. Ezr. 26^ = Ne. 766 (xian) Ne. 7"- '» (ni3i) and Ezr. 2" 
(niN3i) ; and elsewhere Ho. 8'^ Jon. 4" Ps. 6818 Dn. ii'2 f (1. 
106). — 8. Nxcjn] = Nxnj -wa, cJ. v. ". — 9. oanjnn] 1. 70. — ■rhy^:^ nnniy] 


" a standing expression in the Chronicler's account of such occasions," 
Tor. CHV. p. 24, on Ne. 8'^ 

The source of 22'-'3 28i-'2- '^b- i' 291-9. 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) : OMoh 22^, nnanoS 22', fi3-\ (as a general term for movable pos- 
sessions) 28', nin ovr^3 28', niaii-na -x> Ss 28', v^tjj 28", mon 29', ppiD 
29S hdnSd (meaning workmanship) 29^ atj (as Hiph. meaning offer- 
ing a free-it'ill offering) 29^- '• '• ', D^jomx 29', m 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 umdi, 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^h'tn-i nin^ 
22', -irj?ii (meaning appoint) 22', dih^nh n^z 22^ 28'^ 29', 2-h 22'- *■ ^- " 
29^ pon 22'- 5- 5- '" 282- ' 29"- \ SnjnS (p with inf. to express necessity) 
22^, nSycS 22^ 292, nixiN 22=, moSc 22"' 285- ', -|c>' nin> •>t\i 22", ^yz' 
2212, Snpii 28', nip^nDH 28', DTna'cn (meaning royal officers) 28', 
Israel the nini Snp 28^, uB-nnn 28', na'j?i prn 281", n>iZT\ 28", 3.-"3 28", 
V'Styn 28'3, la's omitted 29', oicin 29^, nc>S (S introducing a nomi- 
native) 29^, rh^^^i nn:;i:' 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 22'' 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. — 
28' includes almost all the ofl&cers mentioned in c. 27, suggesting that 
t?ie latter, which is from the Chronicler, was before the writer. — With 
nini pidSd ND3 Sj; 28^ cf. a'^iy -\y tidSdoi "ini23 inimnyni 17" (which 
the Chronicler has rewritten from aSiy nj? in3'?cci ino jcnji 2 S. 7'^ 
thus representing Israelitish royalty as belonging to Yahweh). He 
shows the same point of view in Da\'id's prayer nsScDn nin^ -[S 29", 
cf. also nini ndd S>' 292'. — aisnpn nnxxSi a^nSs-n ro pi-ixnS 28'2, shows 
acquaintance with 2620, which is from the Chronicler. — ■'junjn Sn^p'- 
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 ^pz'r: px anS ntr'nj 22' is duplicated by nii'njS 
DM 2-yh 13 hpz'D i^N 'rnaSi v. ". — On the style of 296- ^ see Tor. CHV. 
p. 26. — With onD3 cdSn njiDB'i lai nti'nji . . . d-ibSn ntrnn nnao an? 
29^ cf. the construction nnoo d-'aSn t]hn t\o:l^ q^K hnd onoD an? 22", 
see also Tor. CHV p. 22, on Ne. i'". — With nxdjhi 29^, cf. inxdjh 
V. ". The article instead of the relative Ti'N 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 (22^-^) 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 e.xalt David and the Temple. 
The Deuteronomic colouring (22^ ^- 28' ff) 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. 1,^,^ compared with 2 K. 218). 
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 (2i'-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"-'8) are presented to him, followed by the 
declaration that they came by divine inspiration (2819); Solomon is ad- 
monished and encouraged (282° ' ); the appeal to the princes is made 
and they give generously (29'-'); the assembly ends with a prayer 
(2910-19)^ blessings (2920), sacrifices (29='), a sacred feast (29""), and the 
anointing of Solomon king (29"''). The somewhat parallel passages, 
22« ff- and 282 S-, 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 litUe doubt, the Chronicler's. 

10-19 c 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. '8). — 13. We thank . . . and 
praise] i.e., we are continually thanking and praising. — 14. David 
humbly confesses that by their free-will offerings (w. =■*) 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 
("!3) (cf. 22=) and sojourner (iw'iri), i.e., they are entirely de- 
pendent upon Yahweh's good will, cf. Ps. 39'^ "2) hq's, also Gn. 
2y. Their days on the earth are as a shadow] in their transitori- 
ness, cf. Jb. 8', — and there is no hope] EVs. abiding after (^ 
{yiro^ovr}). The word is used elsewhere only in Ezr. lo^ Je. 
148 1^13 ^o'. The thought is, there is no hope or salvation {cf. 
the parallel clause in Je. 148) 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. 1 S. 7^ — 19. A perfect heart]. 
Cf V. ^.—The palace]. Cf. v. '. 

11. Be. inserted qS after "'3 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. '•2 i e), 
in which case render yea, everything in the heavens and in the earth. — 
14. DD iXyj] occurs also in 2 Ch. 2^ 132" 22' and without n^ with the 
same meaning 2 Ch. 14'" 20"; elsewhere only in Dn. 10^ '« 11^. — 16. 
pnnn] with the meaning abundance is late, cf. Ec. 5', where it is parallel 
to ip3 (1. 28). — N'%i] must be taken as neuter, it is from thy hand, but 
Qr. Nin as masc. referring back to \'\'D'r\r\ is better. — 17. Bn. describes 
^JN as an explanatory gloss on the basis of 05, but it is not certain that 
<j5 did not read ijn. — ixsDjn] n = -\Z'h 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, f/. Ex. 4^' i K. i^i. — 21. As was customary on 


such occasions, sacrifices in abundance], represent the peace- 
offerings 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 appoinied 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. 
j5 B.y — 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'M K. 3 '2. 

22. piji'] is wanting in (S^, ^ 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.). — ^^\y::^^] ^ Kal expi-crav aiirbv, so also 
H, ®. — 24. nnn ni ijnj] cf. 2 Ch. 30^ 'i -\^ 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 (^i^s1^l) and 
Nathan, the prophet (S''iJn) and Gad, the seer (nTrin)]. 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. g'' "• '^ >9) and Nathan (i K. i^ 1° " 23. 32. 34. 
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\': 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.; nabi\ 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. 42 _^.). 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 naW 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 mighty i.e., with the whole account of his reign, 


including all the times that passed over him (cf. Ps. 31'^ "5>), the 

vicissitudes of his life, and over Israel, the events of the nation, 

aud 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. 128 17'" 


26-27. (B omits -\^D i^-x a''C\ni : Sn'-ic-i Sr hy. — i K. ?", the parallel 
to V. ", has D^ju- after anhm D^'tt'Siy, and so <g, H, &. (5. — 30. (g 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' -2); the story of his judg- 
ment between the harlots (i K. 3'«-^5); the list of his officers and 
the provision for his court, and the account of his wisdom (i K. 
4-5" (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"-=»), and portions of the 
description of its ornamental work (i K. 6"-3«) 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'-'); the most holy place (i K. 6'^-" compared 
with 38-9) ; the two cherubim (i K. 6"-28 compared with 3"'-'0 ; the 
two pillars (i K. 71=*-" 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'^"^), 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. s'^-^' <'-'"> 
compared with 22-'< w-is)), 







4-5" (4) 

1-15-26 (1-12) 
r27-32 (13-18) 











Solotnon's Accession and Marriage 
Preparations for Worship at Gibeon 
Yahweh's Revelation at Gibeon 
Solomon's Wealth an(d Horse-trade 

The Judgment between the Harlots 
Solomon's Officers, Provision, and 

The Negotiations with Hiram 
Solomon's Workmen 

Building and Structure of Temple 


The Most Holy Place 

The Cherubim 

Ornamental Work 

Time Occupied in Building the Temple 

Solomon's Palace 

The Pillars before the Temple 

The Brazen Altar 

The Great Basin 

The Bases of the Layers 

The Lavers 

The Candlesticks 

Summary of the Works of Hiram 

Vessels that Solomon Made 

Completion of the Work 

The Ark Brought In 

812-63 Solomon's Address and Prayer 

85^-" Solomon's Blessing of the People 

862-64 Sacrificial Ceremonies 

865 f. The Feasting 

91-9 Yahweh's Covenant with Solomon 

Qio-14 Cities Given to Hiram 

915-23 Solomon's Cities and Levy 


1 1-5 wanting in K. 
i6-i3 abridged. 
114-17 taken from i K. 




2315 rewritten. 

21 (2). 16 f. (17 1.) repeated 

and abridged. 
3'-' abridged with slight 

new matter. 
3»'- abridged. 
310-H rewritten. 

315-17 greatly condensed. 
4' wanting in K. 
42-5 reproduced. 

4* abridged and anno- 
47-10 wanting in K. 
41118 rewritten. 
419 22 slight changes. 
5< no change. 
S^-K musical service 

61" almost no varia- 
71' condensed, new 

7^-' annotated. 
78.10 annotated. 
711-2- enlarged. 
8' -2 reconstructed. 
8'-"' considerable 

1. 1-13.] SOLOMON AT GIBEON 315 

K. Ch. 

9"* Residence of Pharaoh's Daughter 8" reconstructed. 

g'^ Solomon's Offering S'^^-'s greatly enlarged. 

p26-28 Solomon's Marine Trade 8'' '• rewritten. 

10'-" Visit of Queen of Sheba 9'''' very slight varia- 

ioM-29 Solomon's Wealth 9"--8 very slight varia- 

Ill-*" Solomon's Apostasy and Adversaries Omitted. 

ii<' '• Sources of Solomon's History ^29 -31 enlarged. 

Sources: The following is the source analysis given by Ki. after 
Bn. in which B. = Biblical source, i.e., i K.: i'-« Chr.; '-'' B.; »-2'5 d" 
Chr.'s Forerunner; 'e-'' "'-'s) Chr.; 3'-5Chr.'sF.; ^post-Chr.; '-'^Chr.'s 
F.; 4' Chr.; ^-^ B.; «-9 Chr.'s F.; '«-s' B. but post-Chr.; s^-"* B.; '">-i3a 
B. but post-Chr.; i3b-642 B. with 65b- i3. 32b 40-42 f^m Chr.; 7>-6 Chr.'s 
F.; « Chr.; --8'' Chr.'s F.; '^-'s Chr.; '^-u Chr.'s F.; g'-^* B.; 25-28 B. 
but post-Chr.; 29 Chr.; ^o B. The basis of this analysis as far as it re- 
veals a Forerunner of the Chronicler has already been given {v. pp. 
25/.), and 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. i Ch. 23' 29". — Strengthened 
himself] (pTnri'') a common expression in Chronicles to denote 
one's firm establishment in rule or in the maintenance of power (cf. 
J2i3 jy. 8. 21 j^8 159 jyi 2i4 23' 25" 27^ 325 I Ch. ii'° 19'^, see also 
Dn. io'5-2ij 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. y, 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. 2i2». 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. 7'2- '< 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 (g, 
AV., RV. The former is preferable. 

1. ptnnM] characteristic expression of the Chronicler {v. s.).— 
inioVp] kingdom late word cf. 1 Ch. 11'" 1. 67. — ray. . . nin>i] cf. i 
Ch. ii^.— nSi'DS] cf. I Ch. 142, 1.87.— 2. ics'] late force of give com- 
mand, cf. I Ch. i4'2, 1. 4. — D^aDirSi] possibly a corruption for a"J2i:'n 
before which na-Si has fallen out, cf. "M et ducibus et judicihus, and 
D-BDari >-ity in the lists of i Ch. 28" 296. These words are confused 
elsewhere, cf. (&^ tQv Kpirdv where i Ch. 28' has d^idd'^h, also ^^Tif for 
^tastt' in 2 S. 7? cp. i Ch. 176. — Snt^^ S3S2]eithet a repetition of VKna-^ SjS' 
(Be., Ke., Zoe.) or better modifies H^^i h^f, every worthy of all Israel 
(Oe., Kau., Ki.).— nn« >ii'xi] cf 52^ (1. 104), either in apposition with 
V^ SoS (Be., Ke., Zoe.) or better in apposition with i^-'Vi (Bn.). — 
4. Sas] decided adversative in late Heb., cf. 19' 3317 Ezr. lo's Dn. 
lo'- 2', 1. I.— pana] equivalent to 'n nrsa, Ges. § 138/, cf. i Ch. 1512. 
—h naj -'D -i^n] {cf. 2 S. 6") are wanting in (g'' but the words probably 
fell out by homoeoteleuton. — 5. ar] so <&, B, generally adopted; Bom- 
berg ed. QB\— mti-TiM] ($, B, 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 (w.^'s) 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. 3^). Elohim (v. ') has been sub- 
stituted for Yahweh (i K. 3% cf. 1 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 estabUshed forever (i Ch. 225^). This promise had already 
been partially established, for thou hast made me king, hence with 
firm faith Solomon prays for its complete fulfilment. 10. Wis- 
dom (riDDn) and knowledge (j;"It2)] 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. ii^ i S. i8"- •") (Bn.) but rather 
include any transaction of business (Ba.). — 11. Because this was 
in thy heart]. Cf. 1 Ch. 22' 28^. — 12. Such as none of the kings 
have had that have been before thee]. Cf i Ch. 292=, 

10. >-i?:] late Heb., also in vv. "■ '^ Dn. i^ " Ec. lo^" f.— H. ='D3J] 
common in Aram. Cf. Ec. s's where with t-7 and Ec. 6^ where with 
•\'ify and 1133 as here; elsewhere Jos. 22' f- — 12. jinj] sg. with com- 
pound subj., cf. Est 31'.— 13. r^^22^] read after (&, H ns^nn, or omit 
pj,'3J3 . . . nsaS as a misplaced gloss (Ba.). 

14-17. Solomon's wealth. — Taken from i K. io=« ^^ and re- 
peated in part in 9"-2 8. The Chronicler has omitted the story of the 
harlots (i K. 3 '6-28) 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'<-" taken from i K. lo^^-Js. 

2 Ch. 9=^-28 taken from i K. 5« lo^^"^ 5' 10=' 2». 

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.). In K. the two accounts are variant, 
differing 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. 9^ 
V. in loco) than that the reverse should be true. The introductory word 
in the second account in K., ^id-sm 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 (cf. for chariots i Ch. i8< =28. 8^), and 
under Solomon, as here expressed, the purchase of chariots and 
horses became a regular trade. — A thousand and four hundred]. 
In I K. 5« (4") 40,000 stalls of horses for chariots are mentioned, 
in 9« 4,000 {q. v.). — Chariot cities]. Cf. S^ i K. 9''.— 15, Silver 
and gold]. Their abundance 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 kno\\-n by that name in England and America, but a 
tree of the genus of the fig (cf. 1 Ch. 27 2^) 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, 1 788-1580 
B.C., Breasted, History of the Ancient Egyptians, p. 425), and in 
later d}-nasties 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 319 

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 {WI'^'Q Mizraim) we should read 
Miizri OlXa) and think of a land in Asia Minor {v. 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 hy 
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. 15^" Ex. 3'" 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. cn'::i] I K. 10=6 anj^i; Ch. has the true reading supported by all 
the Vrss. in K. — 15. jnrn nNi] wanting in ^ of i K. 10", but (& (both 
here and K.) rb xpvfflov Kal t6 apyvpiov. Probably originally from Ch. 
— 16. Ni|i!;] I K. io-« nipD. Instead of HI drove of horses (still preferred 
by Kau.), Be. already discerned here ID and the name of a place (so 
(S'^'- in K., 'B here), which is the view of most modern scholars, either 
Kueor Koa, a district of Cilicia (Winckler, Alt. Unter. 168 jf. Altorienlal. 
Forschiuigen, i. 28, Bn., Ki., Bur., Sk.), or, better, a place in the direc- 
tion of Egypt (Stade and Schwally, SBOT.). In the former case ansn 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. i7'« 
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 KipD* 
and renders "And the royal merchants were accustomed to bring a 


drove for payment." This is preferred by WTiitehouse, EBi. I. coL 
726. The question of the true reading must remain sub lite. — 17. 
iN>sri iSpi] I K. 10" Nxr.i nSpm. — d-m< ^sSsi] i K. 'n ^j'^sSi. — in<sv] 
(gBAjji of J j;_ ,j<x>, 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 1 K. 5'' "' i Ch. 22'- i"- " 28' 29'«. — And 
a house for his kingdom] i.e., the royal palace and group of build- 
ings described in i K. 71-'= but only mentioned incidentally by the 
Chronicler in 2" "2) yn g". — 1 (2). Derived from i K. 5" «• "^ f); 
here out of place; repeated in w. '^f- "^t.)^ which see. The 
reason for this repetition is not clear. The doublet occurs also 
in (8 of I K., where cp. 2"d.h -^yjth 515 f. tHeb.zgf.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. -1CN11] with force of command or purpose followed by inf. 0- 4)- 
—II. 1, rtri'-y •\B0^^] i K. 52' nc^jyh idm. — ^Sn] sing, after te)is, a usage 
of Ez. and P, Ges. | 1345. — ti^x] sing, after l'^^', another usage of P. 
Ges. § 134^. Wanting in i K., where KS'i appears before SjD. 

2-9 (3-10). Solomon's message to Hiram.— This is based 
upon I K. 515-20 (1-6) 5ut quite rewritten by the Chronicler, or taken 
from another source (Bn., Ki.). The foUowing 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'^u)). (4) The 
promise of Yahweh to David (i K. 5' '(=>). The last three, however, 
are embodied in i Ch. 228"'. And the following are added in Ch. : 
(i) The dealings of Hiram with David (v. =")). (2) A description 
of the Temple as a place of offerings and as being very great (yv.^'- 
"'•')• (3) Words of self-depreciation (v.'t^'). (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. 7a(8a))_ (g) 
The contribution to Hiram's servants (v.'"")). — 2 (3). Huram], 
I K. 5's") Hiram, see i Ch. 14K— 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. sCf), the perpetual shew-bread (Ex. 25"), the 
daily morning and evening sacrifices (Nu. 28' -8), and the extra 
offerings of the Sabbaths (Nu. 289 '■), of the beginning of months 
(Nu. 28" -'5), and of the set feasts (Nu. 28'«-29s«). — 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's i K. 8". — But to offer incense 
before thee]. The purpose isnot to erect 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. 7"). The skill in weaving and engraving is an 
addition of the Chronicler. His need of such a workman is shown 
in I Ch. 292 (see corrected text).^With the wise men, etc.]. Cf. 
I Ch. 2 2'5. — 7 (8). Cypress and al gum trees]. Only cedar trees are 
mentioned in i K. 52" (6) but cypress also in i K. 524(10). Since the 
algum 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.). — And my servants, 
etc.], taken from i K. 5=°(6'. — 9 (10). In the message of 
I K. no compensation is specified (i K. 52°'^')) 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. 5=^f- ""f- '). 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 ((SI 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=' -23 '7-9), and as in the case of Solomon's message is either 


rewritten or taken by the Chronicler from another source (Bn., Ki.). 
The jnain variation is the reference to the skilled workman sent 
agreeable to Solomon's request (vv.>= '• <" ' >). — 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. '» <"' (Kau., Bn., Ki.) giving the reflection of Hiram 
on receiving the request from Solomon an«d thus introductory to the 
written reply and parallel with i K. 5 •(^>. The avowal of Yahiveh 
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). Hurajn-abi], the name 
of the skilled workman in i K. y'^- *"■ " called Hiram. The latter 
half of the name (abi) should be rendered as a title of respect my 
father (Be., Zoe., Oe., Ba.), or better, wy trusted counsellor, cf. Gn. 
45*; Bevre'pov 7rarp6<i 01 add. to Est. 3" (v.« of add.); tw Trarpi 1 
Mac. ii« (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 
y_6 (7)_ — 14 (15). Cf. V.5 <'°'. 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. 

1&-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. ^-'-^^ (13 is)^ where two 
levies of workmen are mentioned, evidently a combination of two 
sources (Kau.? Ki., Bur., 550r.). The first levy (w. ^^ f- <'=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 (\w. "'• <'^'>)> ^^^ 
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 (v. " c^)). The Chronicler's motive of reconstruc- 
tion is clearly to free native Israelites 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. 222. — 
17 (18). Threejhousand and six hundred overseers]. This proba- 
bly was the original reading in Kings and not the present text, 
three thousand and three hundred. 

2. irxo] introduces a comparative sentence of two clauses of which 
the second member is wanting. — 3. •'Jn] Oi + ^:2. — e^cd] spices, used in 
incense; only used in pi. abs., cf. 13", elsewhere only in P. — .iji>'c] 
tech. term used only of the shew-bread, cf. Lv. 24^ «• i Ch. 9^2 232s 2815 
2 Ch. 13" 29'8 Ne. io'<. PI. Lv. 24S f. See also 13". Here along with 
niS>' governed by n^apriS through zeugma. — T'nn] adv. in gen. relation 
Koe. iii. § 3i8d. The idea of perpetuity and the word T'DH are derived 
from Lv. 24^. — 5. no nxyi ini] cf. i Ch. 29". — 6. D;n](5 + Kal elSSra, cf. 
V. '^. — pjix] late form of pjnx deep red purple. — S^did] crimson only 
here and v. " 3'^ prob. a Pers. loan-word (BDB.) for the more usual 
ija> n>'Sin (Bn.). — nSrn] deep blue purple. — 'ui uy] modifies niiry':' and 
nPij"^. — 7. d^ouSn] so .also 9""-, the latter || to i K. lonf- d^jdSn f, 
form dub. — 8. pjnSi] 1 explicative. Behold thy servants shall he with 
my servants even to prepare, etc. (Ke., RV.), but Oe., Kau., Ki., begin a 
new sentence (or continuation of n'^tr) (Be.) And timber in abundance 
must be prepared for me. Ges. § 114/. — xSsn] inf. abs. as an adv. with 
adj. force Ges. § 113^. — 9. 'pnj] Ges. § 106m. — niDc] i K. 525 ,-iS3D=.-i'?0Na 
the true reading, so Vrss. — 11. njo'' iii'n] Heb. tense has force of 
subj. Dr. TH. 38 (/3).— 12. ^-^^•.^•] Ges. § 106/^, Dr. TH. 10.— 
ns omn^] S with the force of namely BDB. "? 5 e (d). The artisan's 
name Huram is given in i K. 7'3 as Hiram. — 13. p nij3 JD nrx p] r 
K. 7" •h\DQi nana Nin ^JD'?^? nu-x p, v. s. — anj;:]!] (g + Kal v(palvei.v — 
j'in'^1 may go back only to a dittography, but notice the following infini- 
tives. — 15. iD-is]-i-is dT. Aram. cf. Ecclus. S:* + often. — nnDDi] rafts, 
Att. etym. doubtful, i K. 523 nnoT also air. — 17. hio] 1 K. 52* 

III. 1-2. The place and date of the building of the Tem- 
ple. — 1. Entirely independent of Kings. — In the mountain oj 
Moriah]. The Temple mount in Jerusalem is identified with the 
mountain in the land of Moriah where Abraham offered Isaac 
(Gn. 222). 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 unto David 
his father in the place which David had prepared in the threshing- 
floor of Oman the Jebnsite*]. 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'-''). — 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 May. 

3-7. The general dimensions of the porch and the holy place. 
— Abridged from i K. 6-- '■ '^-'*- ='■ '" omitting entirely the matter of 
vv. ''-s in 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 which Solomon laid 
in building the hoiise 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. ArcJi. 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. v.^. 
— 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 universall}- 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 vv. ^^- probably never took place, since 
such gold-plating is not mentioned in connection with the plunder- 
ing of the Temple by foes (i K. i42« 2 K. 14'^) nor when stript by 
King Ahaz in financial straits. The metal covering by Hezekiah 
mentioned in 2 K. 18'^ was probably not gold (Bn., EBi. iv. col. 
4932). — 5. And the greater room (Heb. house)] i.e., the holy 
place. — With cypress wood]. In Kings only cedar is mentioned 
except for the floor (i K. 6'^- '»). — Palms and garlands], bas- 
relief work (cf. I K. 6'8- "• 32. 35), — g, j^^d hg 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 farwa in SW. Arabia, citing 
the Arabian historian Hamdani (f. 940 A.D.), while Glaser (Skiz. 
pp. S47 ff.) 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 parallel in i K. — 7. A continuation of 
the description of the holy place. — And he carved chernbim on the 
wall], an inference from i K. 6", which appears to conflict with 
I K. 6'^ Cherubim were on the walls of the Temple described by 
Ezekiel (41'^). 

1. ^ has nin^ as subject of hn-ij, and (5, S>, V, the order psn •yofn DipD3. 
This gives the true text (Kau., Bn., Ki.). To adhere to 1^ 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. uca] wanting in three Mss., 05, B, and to be omitted as a 
dittography (Be., Ke., Oe., Zee., Kau., Bn., Ki.). "In the second [day]" 
RV., would naturally be expressed by Z'-^rh D''j::'3. Ges. § 134/'. — 3. hSni] 
looks toward several following subjects, Koe. iii. § 349n. — iDin] 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" |. — 4. ^ is mean- 


ingless. The following readings have been proposed: icn o'?iNni 
a^-^-z-; PDN njjni D^2n am >jfl ^-j on;:'y pick 13-iN non ^jo Sj; (Oe., Ki.) 
after <& (which has O''::^ after 'Jfl '?>?' and (S'^ twenty cubits for the height) 
and I K. 6^" 3m ijd "^y 13->n noN ontrp n^an Sd^h ■'jb Vj; o'riNni. The 
clause a'•^B'y1 hnd najni is entirely lacking in K. hnd (z;. 5.) is plainly a 
corruption, since a porch of the height of 1 20 feet would be a '^"iJS tower. 
Since the height of the Temple was thirty cubits, some prefer to read 
Dia'Sc mcN najni (Be.). Also <" is read •^^z'y r^-<2r^ '7D\n >jfi Sy ib'K dSinhi 
onrp niDX n^an am ijo Sy i-ixni lam n::N3 (Be., Kau.), ajid the porch 
which was iu front of the main room of the building was ten cubits broad 
and the 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. 2- * 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. 
6'), hence we prefer niDN n^an am ijs Sj? iisn non ijo hy -\Z'H dSinhi 
nry nicN amm onry and the porch which was before the house: the length 
according to tlie 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 ons'yi nxa najni. — 5. ncn] late 
word used especially in Piel. — aia] many Mss., (6 ■\ina. — vSy H'm] cf. 
BDB. n'^jj Hiph. 4, used of ornamentation howsoever made cf. v. '^ — 
onc.n] in I K. 6-9- 22. 35 ^ae nnnn. — miJ'T^i'] i K. 7", in description of 
tabernacle (Ex. 28'^- - ,^g'°)> chains, in i K. 62' D"'XX iiiaD garlands 
of flowers, open flowers, RV. See tjd BDB. 

8-9. The most holy place. — Greatly condensed from i K. 
5i6.2o_ — 8^ Cf. I K. 6-". The third equal dimension of the most 
holy place has been omitted by the Chronicler. — Of six hundred 
talents], 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 ^t»s. 
(BDB.); that would 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 (I (v. i.). — Upper 


chambers], not mentioned elsewhere in the description of the 
Temple in 2 Ch., but in i Ch. 28" (q. v.). 

8. DT-ipn v-\p rT'j nx]. In i K. the term is iian, the hindmost cham- 
ber, 1 K. 65- 16. '<«'•, also in 2 Ch. 3I6 42" from i K. 7" and 2 Ch. 5' « 
from I K. 86- ». D>B'^|-'^ irip also appears in i K 6'6 S^ (as glosses SBOT.) 
7*° (a late Dtic. passage). — 9. anr d^ii'DH oiSpf'? nncDDS Sptrci] and 
the 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. (& adds o\ki] 
ToO €v6s after 'dd^, thus making each nail weigh nearly two pounds; so 
also 15. This equally difficult reading (two-pound nailsl) no doubt goes 
back to a Heb. original, inN Sprc, which is probably a corruption of 
ins SptS' (note '^pii'D a corruption for Spr in 2 S. 21", v. BDB.). Hence 
we render, and the weight of the nails was one shekel for fifty shekels of 
gold {i.e., for one miiia), which gives a proper proportion and one which 
any writer might propose. 

10-14. The cherubim. — Abridged from i K. 6"-28. — 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. 6^6 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. 26" (see DB. iv. 
p. 847). On the colours cj. 2'. 


10. Ci'Si'i:] OTT. images BDB. with nryo image work, TS opere 
slatuario sculpture work (Kc), some special form of sculpture (Be., 
Kau.). Since i K. 6^3 has ]?;ii' ■'Xj? (preferred here by Oe.), it is better to 
follow (& ?| !^\i\Q)v and read O'sya (Bn.) of wood. — idsm] read after i K. 62' 
and <& the sing. — 11. After inN.n (gi- has 3nD, which Bn. would supply 
according to the parallel in v. '2. The npD and JJ^JC should change 
places, the masc. form, as in v. '-, appearing by the attraction of the 
nearer noun Jnjn. — 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 horaoeoteleuton, a common error in this MS. — 13. 
Since iJ'ia is used transitively (i Ch. 2818 2 Ch. 5' i K. 8") either ^dj3 is 
to be struck out (Be.) or D'-iins is to be read (Bn.); Ki. BH. retains the 
text. V. '3a reads like a gloss. Compared with i K., especially if we 
omit V. 12 and v. ''a, we have a beautifully compact and intelligible 
description, showing skilful abridgment. 

15-17. The two pillars before the Temple. — Abridged from 
r K. 7'5-22, 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. 7'3- "). — 15. Two pillars]. Cf. v. ". 
— Thirty-Jive cubits in height]. In i K. 71^ 2 K. 25'' Je. 52^1 the 
height of the pillars is given as eighteen cubits; thirty-five are only 
mentioned here and in Ci> 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 TV* (eighteen) for nh 
(thirty-five) (Ke., Zoe., 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 (n'lli'y H^Dw' riwlli) becoming illegible in some way 
and thus read "|-iS* '0t2^^ W^h'C! (Be.) or something similar (Bn.). 
Possibly the Chronicler read a text of i K. 7'^ in which ^C, 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 = 18 + 12-1-5 
(capital). From the description given in i K. 7'5-2i (with v. '^ 


corrected from Jc. 52-'') and omitted by the Chronicler (although 
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 each (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'3"lD instead of "l"'m3) gives the reading above (Bn.; T^^l^ in- 
stead of "l''2f3 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. 72" apparently two rows of 100 pomiCgranates 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. 2^), 
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- 
zcboth (cf. 14=) (Bn. EBi. IV. col. 493; WRS. Rel. Sent. 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. nsxni] and the plated capital air, see BDB. Its use is guar- 
anteed by the Aram. npds. I K. 7"= has niPD. — 16. 1013] in the 
oracle, possibly a gloss from i K. 62' (Ba.), but more likely a corruption 
of T3-I (with prep.) necklace Gn. 41" Ez. 16". &, 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. rpa] per- 
haps originally ly'^i'a " 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. I. The Furniture of the Temple. 

I. The altar. — This altar of bronze is not given among the fur- 
niture of the Temple described in i K., although mentioned in 
I K. 8«^ 2 K. i6'^''-; 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 preserved 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. i6'< 
(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'^-"), i.e., a 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"". 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 (&^^ of i K., lacking, however, 
the statement of the capacity of the tank, precedes v. *. This 
is the natural order. — Three thousand baths], i K. 7^^ "two thou- 
sand baths." Both estimates appear too large, since at the 
sm-aller 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 '^^-i 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. 727-39^ js 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. 3o>8-"). 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 {cf. Gn. i^ «• » Ps. 24^ 93^). The lavers with their 
wheels and decorations of cherubim (i K. 729 tt.) y\o\. 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. 32'=) and those set up at Bethel and Dan (i K. 


2. '^n] 2 K. 723 1;'. — 3. mm] wanting in i K. 7=^. — o^'ipa] oxen; i K. 
D''i'pDi, laiops {gourds), the true reading although (6 and B have that of ^. 
The change to oxen was made by some ignorant copyist who thought the 
oxen were here mentioned. — iS] i K. i.now'S, needed for clearness of 
meaning. — 3^3D-] wanting in K. and (S. — ncNa '\Z'y\ ten in a cubit (Be., 
RVm.), is grammatically inadmissible. The phrase means for ten 
cubits (U, ^, ®), 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.)- — 3"JD a^n DN □'•D^pc] is wanting in (&^ of i K., and may be re- 
garded there as a gloss (Bn.). — 0''jc] i K. "'J-'. — ip^'i] i K. D''j?pfln. — 
To fit the oxen misread for knops (gourds) in this verse with the following 
verse 05'' has S^o y^vrj ^xt6j'ei;<rai' roiis fibffx^^^ ^f '''V X'^^^"'^'' o-^t^v m> 
ri eiroiij(Tav avroiis dddeKa fj.6<rxovs. (B^ agrees with ll|. — 5. DV"i3 pnriD 
S'Di d-'dSn rt'"'-'] I K. 7=5 '^i3'' r\2 q^dSs. Sioi in Ch., superfluous after 
P'inn, is due to a glossator familiar with i K. (Be., Oe., Ki.), or simple 
pleonasm (Ke., Zoe.). Bn. would strike out either p''rna or h^D\ (S has 
Ktti ^ferAeo'ex', i.e., Sdm. 

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. 25'3-i7, 
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 imaginary product. Some light, doubt- 
less, was in the Temple (cf. 1 S. 3'), very likely one lampstand, pos- 
sibly not unlike that of the second Temple and the tabernacle 
(cf. the vision of Zechariah c. 4, Ex. 25^'=), 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 e.xist — 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. Cy. V. -" I K. 7^^ — According to the prescription concerning 
them] i.e., the prescription in reference to their structure (cf. Ex. 
2^31-37 ^yi7 n.y — jfi iiie te?nple] (^^TI), the holy place; according to 
I K. 7*' 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" f- 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 reality 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. except generally (i K. y^"); 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. 6^6 712 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 (nlTy) 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^^^-tT, 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 (c/. i S. 2'"). — Shovels] utensils for 
cleaning the altar (Ex. 27'). — Basins], used for catching the 
blood and throwing it against the altar ((/. v. »). — 12. The two 
pillars]. Cf. 3'^-". — The two howls 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. 
noteson3•'^— 14. C/.v.«.— 15. C/.v.^— 16. Cf v. '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., (&, I K. 739 after in^:: have n^an, which may be supplied 
here (Bn.). Retaining the present text of Ch. n'':D^n is an example of an 
adj. used nominally (Dav. Syn. § 32, R. 5). — n2Jj] i K. 3jj. — 11. 
mini and 2]. Since this same man is mentioned in v. " and 2'-, Ki. reads 
ON o-\in (SBOT.), yet probably the Chronicler followed the text of 
I K. — nn'On] i K. 7^" nnon. Text of Ch. is the original (so 
Th., St., Klo., Kamp., Bn., Ki., Bur., on i K. 710).— a^nSxn ^^22] 
I K. nini n^a. — 12. nnnani mSjni] i K. 7^' mPDn nSji without doubt the 
true reading (adopted by Be., Kau., Bn., Ki. Kom., BH.). ®^ Kal 
iir'avTwv 7ajXd^ ry x'^^apf^- ^^ follows % — 13. 'iJi DIDd'^] in i K. 
7^2^ 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. — 
>JD Sy] in I K. should be ':'^' S;, (B^, or anic^n k'ni Sj?, as in v. '^ 
(Bn., Ki., Bur.), but the Chronicler probably found the error already 
in I K. — 14. nafj? ' and =] i K. 7" itJ'j! and ma^y 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". — vnnn] 
I K. DM nnn. — 16. nuSran] 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". — ani^D So PNi] I K. iw'S Shnh o^'^^n hj nxi, Qr. nSsn instead 
of Shnh, which latter gives the true reading (see Bur.)- Be., Ke., Oe., 
prefer nS^n diSd.i '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. — rm'^Zf i'?d'? V3N Q-\in] Huram, 
the trusted counsellor oj King Solomon; v. s. on 2"^, and on construction 
cf. Koe. iii. pp. 256/. — pnc] a word appearing in NH.; i K. oidd. — 17. 
Oy'^] I K. 7^^ n3>'C3. (6 in each iv tGj wdxet, H 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. y-^ followed by BDB., Bn., emends to 
nsis m3j?C3 at the crossing of Adamah, regarding Adamah as identical 
with DIN Jos. 3'^ which is there said to be near jms. — nn-nx] i K. j.-ni".^ 
18. c;n] (the original according to Bn.) i K. 7^7 nri. — 3iS] i K. 2-\^. — 
iws:;] 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-^". 

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" 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. 75°) (but v. i.). For 
brevity, also, the Chronicler has omitted the position of the golden 
candlesticks (v. 2" compared with i K. 7<'). — 19. The golden altar]. 
This appears later in the altar of incense of the tabernacle (Ex. 
30'^), 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*« "the table." The Chronicler has plurahsed to conform 
with V. « q. v.— 20. And the candlesticks] the lampstands (r/. v. ■). 
— According to the prescript io7i]. Cf. v. '. The reference here is not 
to their form, but their use. 21. And the flowers] the flower-hke 
ornaments of the stands on which the lamps rested (cf. Ex. 25"»). 
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 room (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 (njM) 
all the vessels which he had made {p~''j) in the house of Yahweh (Bn.). 
SBOT. has still a different text; but our present te.xt of i K. was before 
the Chronicler.— 3vn^N-i] i K. nin\— 3n>Syi pun^rn pni] i K. 1w>n \rh-c'n pni 
v^;.— At the end of the verse i K. hasanr.— 20. After nnjcn hni i K. 7" 
ha.sjive on the right hand and five on tlie left and lacks asrso DijJjS Dn\-nji. 
— 3n;?3S] in order that they should burn. — 21. 2n; n^3-3 Nin] probably a 
gloss, since wanting in i K. 7'^ and also (B. ni'^32 av. — 22. i K. 7" has 
niaoni, " the cups," before rnsrcni. — rir::'jon vnir'^T ron nnsi] i K. 
■•n'jDn r\^2n mnSiS mnoni. Hence read ^v^ viSiSi nn 'S-i^ n'3n nnDi as 
the most probable original of Ch. (Be., Zoe., Oe., Ki., Bn.). Ke. de- 
fends n.^D and 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 tilings 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. i8'» 2 S. S'^ ) 

V. 1. nrr] eleven Mss., 1 K. 7^1 + I'^cn.— n^a"^] i K. n\n. — pnm] read 
after i K., (6^^, &, U, pn. The waw has been drawn from V3N. — Sa] 
wanting in eighteen MSS., 0»^^, #, i K. (Ki. BH.\. 


V. 2- VII. 10. The Dedication of the lemple. 

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. iib-i3a)_ jn i K. this section represents an old 
narrative revised especially by a priesdy editor. — 2. Tlien] 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 the elders.— 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=^). The building may have 
been finished earlier 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. 
•^3.6 66- 12 8'' (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" 4'5); yet in v. ^ he allowed 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. 6'3).— 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 placed 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; t'. i. Thisisbetter 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 expected 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. 457/.; Now. Arch. II. 
pp. 5/.; TKC. EBi. I. col. 307), "a fetish" in which Yahweh dwelt 
(Sm. Hist. p. 71). But if ISIoses 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 ont of the holy 
place]. This statement from i K. (S'"") and continued in the words 
of v.'^'', that then the house was filed with a cloud, even the house of 
Yahweh (i K. 8^"^), is interrupted by the Chronicler with the inter- 
vening \-\'. nb.i3a_ 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. '"'); (2) by describing the musical service at the con- 
clusion of which the house was filled with the cloud of Yahweh 
(vv. '2-'3a)_ — 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. 253-3'), took part in the 
dedication. — Asaph, Heman, and JudutJnm] the leaders or the 
representatives of the three Levitical choirs (cf. 1 Ch. 6'^^- "'«•) 
15" 25'-"). — With cymbals, psalteries, and Jiarps], Cf. i Ch. i5'«. — 
A hundred and twenty priests sounding with the trmnpets]. 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. h>r\^)] I K. S' '^rr'.— After Sn and before D'^Stim^ i K. has 
r\G^-^ ihizn wanting in ® of i K. and hence a gloss. — 3. i K. 8^ has nc'^^' 
(a gloss) after "l^nn; and D'jnNn nno before Jn3 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 
ihat is the seventh month is awkward without the retention of Ethanim, 
but such awkwardness of the Chronicler is not unknown elsewhere 
{cf. I Ch. i4< "in Jerusalem "). — 4. dmS.i] 1 K. 8^ n^jn^n. — 5. jn.sn] 
I K. 84 + nin\— iSyn] i K. iSy^.— DM':'n] i K. □^I'-.n also (&, 15, S>. The 
omission of the 1 is perhaps due to a copyist (Ke., Zoe., Bn., Ki.). 
Since iSy.n is in Ch., it is probable that v. ^^, recognised as a gloss in i 
K. 8^ (St. SBOT., from R.^, Bur., since wanting in ^^^), was introduced 
into I K. from Ch. (Bn., Ki.). Yet dmSh D''jn3n appears also in 23' s 
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. vSy] i K. 8^ -f- 


1PK. — 7. D^jnan] cf. v. K Here the Chronicler retains the priests. 
— 8. 'di vnn] I K. 8' 'on '3.— iddm] i K. iid^i. Be., Ke., preferred 
the latter as the original after i Ch. 28'8 Ex. 2520 379, but Bn. regards the 
former as the original in i K. on the basis of 05 irfpieKdXvirTov. This 
is uncertain, since TreptKaXi/n-Tw is not used elsewhere to render either 
verb (Trom. Concord.). — 9. jnxn jc] 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 p (Be., Ke., Zoe., Ki., 
Bn.). Other emendations: oipn Klo., Dipnn Kamp. (B^ combines 
both readings. — ''Hm] copyist error for vnn, the text of i K. and OS 
(Be., Ki.).^10. rm'^n] i K. 8' a>j3Nn nm':'. — j.-'j] i K. nn + or. — 
After ain both here and in i K., Bn. and Ki., following (^ in K., supply 
iT'ian Pin'?; but while without them the construction is awkward, it 
does not seem necessary to supply them (Bur.). SBOT. on K. regards 
'IJ1 ms ns'N, owing to the lack of connection, as a gloss. — a>"<S':::] i K. 
Dnxo y^nr::. — 11. ^d] here introduces an explanatory clause descriptive 
of the priests. — mae''? pN] Ges. § 114&; Dav. Syn. §§ 94, 95 {h). — 
12. an'nvs'?! . . . aSs'^] S of specification, even. — .■^njoi] governed by 
preposition with previous word, cf. Ges. § iighh; Dav. Syn. § loi. — 
D''"»c>] to be taken as the predicate. — 13. ^n^'i] properly a resumption of 
iH'i in V. ". — onsxnnS] ^, and with following word, of specification 
to wit or even. — yrrmS] Ges. § 1141. — ^hn*-'] S of purpose. — onn^ and 
SSnn] appear correlative with y^cJi'n'?. — nSd r>3ni] the7t the house was 
filled, cf. Dr. TH. § 128, i K. S'" with sam.e construction, n'^o ]y;^^ 
ni.T' n>3 PN. Ki. after (&^ reads ri}7\-> 1133 ]iy nSo non. Be., Kau., re- 
gard mn^ -■'2 as a gloss, explanatory of n''2n and introduced from K. 
Bn., on the other hand, regards the text of Ch. as a correction from K. 
of one who held n'?3 to be intransitive. — 14. D''n'7.N-i] i K. S" nin\ 

VI. 1-42. Solomon's address to the people and dedica- 
tory prayer. — Taken (save vv. "■ ^1 <■) with almost no variation 
from I K. 8'=-5i"'. In the addition in v. '^ is given an interpretation of 
the statement that Solomon stood before the altar (v. '-) (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 yv. ^' '• a new and by far more beautiful conclusion is given to the 
prayer, taking the place of i K. 8" (v." and portions of \^'. ^''^ " 
are also omitted). 

1-3. Introduction. — 1. Yahweh hath promised to dicell 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 (y. 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. Biit\ This antithesis arises 
from the Chronicler's change of the text {y. 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. S^\ which 
reads / have surely built thee a lofty mansion. — And] wanting in 
I K. (v. 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 w. "• appear in C5 of i K. after 8"-" with the following 
additional words D^na'3 pDn cvy, which furnish the additional Hne 
(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 -\cxn instead of isn. M was the text of the Chronicler. — 2. 
'jNi] I K. 8'3 nj3. — poci] I K. |i33. 

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 ^^ — 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, cf. Dt. 


12'- " i4« i6'- « " 262. — 6. Under David both the place and the 
d}'nasty were chosen. — 7. David cherished the design of building 
the Temple, but it was overruled (2 S. 7'»- i Ch. 17'°). — 9. CJ. 2 
S. 7" I Ch. i7'2. — 11. Wherein is the covcTtant] i.e., the tables of 
the covenant (cf. 5'"). 

4. VT-Ji] I K. 8'5 niai. — 5. inj:] i K. i8i« + S{<-\!i'> pn. — onxn yiNc] 
I K. anxDD, cf. 5"*. — 'ji ••mna n'^i] wanting in i K. — 6. ott' . . . inaNi] 
wanting in i K. and (S^ of Ch., but given in 05^ of K., which is fol- 
lowed by Kau., Ki., Bn., but not by St. SB0T.—9. "2] i K. 8" dn -2. 

— 11. jnNH nx] I K. 8=' ]nN'7 oipD. — Snii:" •>:2 cv] i K. iNixna ij>n3!< d;; 

Qi^xD y^KD onu. 

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 (Ex. 9"- "). — 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. '5), but a larger fulfilment is desired (v."). — 14. The incorn- 
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. 7'2 f- I Ch. 17" '■).— 16. There shall not be cut off, etc.]. 
C/. 7'8 I K. 2< Je. ;^^''K 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 (v\'. " '■), (2) 
prayer under defeat (vv. " '•), (3) prayer for rain (w.^s f), (4) prayer 
under various calamities (vv. ^s-ai), (5) the prayer of the stranger 
(w. 32 f), (6) the prayer of the army (w. '« '•), (7) prayer in cap- 


tivity (w. s6-39)_ — 18, With menl 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 affirm 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'-»2 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 iri 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. 
71 *• I Ch. 2i'2). Beginning with the belief that God caused the 
righteous to prosper and brought misfortune upon the wicked 
(cf. Ex. 2320 s Lv. 26, Dt. 28), the ancient Hebrew also inverted 
the doctrine, beUeving 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. 1 1 '^-i? 28^*. Drought was in- 
terpreted as a divine punishment for sin, v. s. w. ^* '•, 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. \2'> et al. 


28-31. Prayer in various calamities. — This covers every case 
of misfortune {cf. 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 e/ 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 ever}- 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 w. 24 f , 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. SBGT., 

36-39. Prayer in captivity.— C/. Dt. 30" Lv. 26" «. This 
petition in i K. 8 is considerably longer (w. *" • ^-"). The Chron- 
icler substituted a more beautiful ending to the prayer in w.^"'. 

40-42. The conclusion of the prayer. — Written by the Chron- 
icler. This differs widely from the conclusion given in i K. 8"", 
where the plea for a hearing of prayer, after Dt. 9=^ =', is based 



upon Yahweh's possession of Israel through their redemption from 
Egypt. Here, on the other hand, with customary post-exilic 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 be opened]. Cf. v. 20 715 i K. 8"- " Ne. i^ Dn. 9". — And thine 
ears attentive]. Cf. 7'= Ne. i«" Ps. 1302. — The prayer of this 
place] i.e., the prayer directed toward this place, cf. v. 2° (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. ii^). Salvation is equivalent to righteousness. — And 
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. 
55') (so RV., Be., Kau., Zoe., Oe., Ki.), or, less good, after 32^^, 
the good deeds of David (RVm., Ke.). 

12. -i::y^i] i K. 8" -|- naSa». — Vijs] i K. -f- DiDtt-n, with which this 
final clause of v. 12 js repeated at the end of v. '3. — 13. Sni^'i . . . ncj? 13 
wanting in i K. — ivd] elsewhere a pot or basin, hence the platform may 
have been round-like in structure (BDB.), but it is better to read jv; from 
]io (formation like -noS from laS, etc.) {cf. Am. 5^6 ?) platform, cf. 05 iSdo-is 
(Klo., Oe.). — '1JI E'-i£3''i] repeated from end of v. '2. — 14 . v^xni DiC';:o] i K. 
823 nnnn ynNn Spi Sycn o^'cao. — 16. Tnina] (an interpretation of) i K. 8" 
<JsS. — 17 . 7\^7^>'\ wanting in i K., but given in some mss. and in 05, &, TJ, of 
I K., hence, as usage in this chapter shows, is to be received into the text of 
I K. (Ki. BH., St. SBOT.).—\w] 4 mss., i K. S^^ 4- nj.— Tn*-] i 
K. "ass nn. — 18. o-^nh pn] wanting in i K. 8", though given in 05 of K., 
and thus accepted by Klo., Bn., Bur., but not by St. SBOT.—l^. At 
the end of the verse after T'JbS i K. S'* -f Dvn given also in 05. — 20. 
rh•h^ onv] i K. S^^ dpi nS'''^, <g, &, in i K. agree with Ch. — Dif iciy oit:''^] 
I K. 829 3!^ ,ctf rrriv — 21. 'junr.] i K. 8'" njnn. — d'cdh p ^n3B' Dipcc] 
a direct change by the Chronicler from O'DB'n Sa ^^^^' DipD hv. of i K. 


8'", making an easier construction (Sn denoting in or at is not common). 
— 22. dn] I K. 8" -\Z'H HN, a change by.the Chronicler for an easier con 
struction. — nSs n^i] (S here and in K. has n?Ni k31 and he comes and 
swears, which is preferred by Kau., Ki., Bn., and Bur. on K., but 
SBOT. and Ki. on K. have nSsa f<ai after Ne. lo'". — 23. o^ca'n jc] i K. 
8^2 a''DK'n simply ace. of place. The Chronicler has similarly inserted 
JD before d^cbti in vv. s^- ^o. — y^.-iS aij-n'^] read after i K. 8=12 and (& 
yen V'tt'inS demanded by the parallelism of the following clause (Ki., 
Bn.). — 24. i-iJ^ DNi] I K. S" tiJjriD. — >j] i K. irs. — utJ'i] i K. + i^Sn 
although wanting in (&, which is followed by SBOT., but since the 
phrase to turn unto Yahweh is very frequent Bur. prefers to retain it. 
The pronoun is certainly understood. — T'Jfl'^] i K. ^'S^•. — 25. jc] cf. 
V. 22.— ion--] wanting in i K. 83^.-26. Supply, after i K. 8^^ 1 before 
onKonD. — Djyn] to be vocalised ajj-i.- after (g in i K. 8^5 (g (Oe., Kau., 
Bn., Ki., also AV., RV.). Ba. prefers (with RVm. and &) JK because 
thou answerest them. — 27. Note n^Dtt'n without the p, cf. vv. 23- =5- 3o_ 
Ki. inserts, after (S, "H. — 28. n^n-' ^3 aj?n]an order of words — subject, con- 
junction, and verb — not infrequent in P (Lv. 12 22 42 51. 4, et al., also 
Is. 2818 Mi. s' Ps. 62") (see Bur. i K. 8").— The I's before ppi^ and 
SiDPi are wanting in i K. 8". — r2\s] 05, i K. i:3''N. — Tix3] read inxa after 
<g of K. (Kau., Bn., Ki.). Oe. reads, after ^, inyii-ai «-\N2. C5 has 
KaTivavTL rwv Tr6\euv. Ba. suggests V"i23 by making a breach in his 
gates. This verse breaks off abruptly without final verb — aposiopesis 
(Ges. §167). — 29.0N3Dnj.'jj] i K. 838iDa'7i'jj.— 30. D''a-^n |d] cf. v. 23. — 
After nnSoi i K. 8^9 has nT;-i.— a^S] many mss., i K. + So.— 31. naSS 
T'3n-i3] wanting in i K. 8". — 32. njjn Sn qji] ^bl ^-^j^ri h:> without Sn, a 
reading followed by Klo. in i K. 8". — After iDa* i K. S" has Jiyce" >o 
^r:•J' HN, which seems to have been omitted through an oversight by the 
Chronicler or by a copyist by homoeoteleuton. — 33 . nn.si] 1 wanting in 
I K. 8^^ but there in (S. — o^DS'n jn] cf. v. 23; similarly i K. 8" has jidd 
instead of pacn. — 34. rans] 1 K. 8" u^n. — T'Sn] i K. run'- Sn. The 
former, required by the person of the verbs, may be the original (St. 
SBOT., Bur.).— HNrn i^j?n] i K. n^jjn. The Chronicler has added the 
pronoun for the sake of clearness. — 35. D''Da'n }d] cf. v. 23. — 36. After 
inx I K. 846 has a>iNri, but 05 of i K. also omits it, and the lack of the 
article with nrnpn and r^2^•^p shows that the word is an insertion (St. 
SBOT.).— 37. Dor] I K. 8" nn^atf. The reading of Ch. is probably 
correct (Bur.), but St. SBOT. retains ^. — ij>"ini UMyn] i K. irijjni 
^y;v•^. 1 should go with both verbs (SBOT., &) or be rejected before 
both (Bur. after 05, "H, ® of i K. and <S of Ch.).— 38. DOtt']. Connection 
requires after d onuc (Ki., Bn.). i K. 8^8 has onn^N. — don lai:' ib'n'] 
wanting in (S^a^ but not in 05''. — After iS'^onm i K. has yhn. — T-yni] 1 is 
wanting in i K.— nuVi] i K. n^ani which Bn. reads.— 39. poDD D'orn jn] 
cf. V. 33. — Dn^njnn] i K. 8!« onjnn. 


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 (w. 54 -ei)^ 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. 8'" '■ 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. 21'"'. 

1. Now when Solomon had made an end of praying]. These words 
are from i K. 8'K— The fire, etc.]. Cf. i Ch. 2126 i K. 18^^" and 
especially for this and the following verse Lv. 9^^ f-. 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'^ '■). 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. 
8"-", 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 (a2{f 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 endnreih 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. 5'^. — 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. 86« 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., Bur., 550r., 
et al.). 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. 2^^), and thus his day of dismissal is the ninth day, the 
twenty-third day of the seventh month (v. i"). (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 Ha math unto the brook of 
Egypt] the extreme northern and southern boundaries respec- 
tively, c/. I Ch. 135. The brook of Egypt is usually identified with 
mod. Wddy el Arlsh, 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 the independent vv. »2b^-i5. 

This new matter, from the common expression my ears shall be at- 
tentive {T\^2•yp 'J'n)) 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. 6''^-^^- "-as). — 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 ?nake it a proverb and a by-word among all 
peoples] the Deuteronomic punishment for disobedience, cf. Dt. 
28", also Je. 24». 

1. naSs* mS3Di] i K. 8" 'ui ^rri.— 1-\> u'sni] Dr. TH. § 128, p. 89 f.n.; 
Ges. § iiib. — 3. nmm] Ges. § 1132; Ew. § 351 c. Such a form of the 
inf. abs. is not entirely unknown elsewhere, cf. Ges. §§ T$n.ff., iiT)X. 
— 4, D>-n S31] I K. 862 123? hii-\'i?-< Sdi.— 5. iSrn] wanting in i K. 8", 
though there in (8. — i K. after n3i has nin^*? nar -\:i'N DTV^n and -\?z in- 
stead of npan in Ch. Kau. prefers ipa as the necessary correlative form 
with INS. — d'hSn] I K. nin\ — n>-n] i K. Ssnc'^ ija. — 6. ann-c-a S'] (S ^^2 
Tas 0vXoKds. U /« 5i</5 qficiis, Be. t^or z7zre« Geschdften, Oe. wfer //z.-e« 
Obliegsnheiten, Ki. 6e/ z7zre» Dienstverrichtungen. — i-n n^y Ti\s] (^ba 
ToO AauetS. — di^3 imt SSna] (g ^^z vfivoii AavelS dia x«p^s aurtD;', H hymnos 
David canentes per matnis siias, approved by Be., Zoe., and Oe., who 
translates mit dem Hallel Davids von ihnen vorgetragen, and Kau. 
indent sie so dett Lobpreis Davids vortrugen, and Ki. mit dem von ihnen 
angestimmten Lobgesang, yet the view of Ke., given above, is to be pre- 
ferred. — anxxna] cf. 1 Ch. 1524. — 7. Instead of n~^ir t-ipM i K. 8" has 
^Sc^ i5'-i|i Ninn ora. — mSyn] i K. has sing, followed by nnj?:n tni. — 
D-'jSnn TNI nnjsn nxi rh^!^ ns S^anS h^T nS nDSc na^j; la^N] i K. has t-'n 
D''D'?S'n "ijSn PNi nnjsn nxi nSijjn nx S'onn ]t2p mn> >jflS. 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" N>nn nj::i precede Jnn and n>"3-J' 
D^n^ followed by the gloss {v. s.) dt> sz'y n>'a-\K D'-D"' nyaa'i close the verse, 
but between onsa and a^a'' t\-;iz' i K. has the words u^nSs nin> •'izh. — 9. 
This verse, save in the words ^rauM orj, is entirely independent of i 
K. 866. — 10. In I K. 866 the dismissal is on the Sth day (of the feast) in- 
stead of the 2yd of the month of the seventh month. And instead of sim- 
ply anions'? Bi'n ns n^v, i K. has aniSnxS i^Siii'^an pn 13-1311 oynnNnSr. — 
n3Vi3n Sy] some mss., i K. 'n So '?>•. — -fn'^] i K. -H nay. — na'rs'Si] an 
addition of the Chronicler. — 11. r>j ns naStf Sdm] i K. 9' diSdd inii 
nua"? naSs'. — ma'):'*? naSif jS Sj; Nan Sz hni] i K. Kcn iu'n naSB* pc>n So hni 
nia'j?'^. The remainder of the verse is wanting in I K. — 12. nSiSa] want- 
ing in I K. 92 or represented in n^jc, which is followed by vSn nxij ns'Na 
Jij?aj3, entirely omitted in Ch. After lasM i K. 9^ has mni and also v'^n 
instead of iS. The new matter in Ch. follows inSfln, commencing, 
however, with a parallel to I have sanctified this hoicse in the statement 
I have chosen this place for myself, etc. — 16. The text of i K. g^'^^ '" is 
now resumed and introduced with Tnna nnj? of v. '2b^ and i is placed 
before intt'ipn and nnja t^'n is omitted after nrn, and r^vrh is read in- 
stead of Dis-S. — 17. After T'2n i K. 9^ has Tw"ai aaS c.^a. — nm^'^i] 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 nSn, cf. dib'Vi i S. 
8'2 3itt'i 2 Ch. 30', Dr. TH. § 206, Ges. § \\a,p. — pni] i K, ^1^, but 
<g, H, &, have ■'pni. — 18. imoSc] cf. i'; i K. 9^ insSoD followed by 
oSyS Snt^'' Vy. — •T'nS ipid] i K. in '?]? ^"Tl2-l. With "'Hid one would ex- 
pect nna (yet c/. 5'"), but probably 'm^ in Ch. has come into the text 
by copyist glancing forward to ms'' nS (Be.). — Snt^o '7i:'id] i K. ndo Sj;d 
Sn-i-;». 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 -^yzwr^ i K. has 3V.;' inf. absol., and after 
DPN has nnND D3'':3i and '\-\':^VT\ nSi instead of Dna?>'i, and the next two 
words are transposed. — 20. •'nanx Syo cntt'.nji] i K. 9' ^^-\v^ ns imsni 
n::-iNn ^jo Sj*a. In i K. nin after T\^v\ is wanting, and instead of -\-hv^ 
cast Old, it has nSrs send out, and Sxnc'i n>ni instead of uj.-'Ni. — 21. 
ji'Sy r\-r\ la-N] i K. 9^ ]v^i} n-n^. The text of Ch. is an endeavour to con- 
strue the predicate of ntn nun as a relative and thus make sense with 
the adj. JvSy. The true reading in i K. was D^JJ ruiiis instead of 
]V^y (after w£^ desolate of &, Ki., Bur., SBOT., et al.) and this house 
shall he ruins: everyone who passes by, etc. — SdS] on the subj. intro- 
duced by S cf. Ges. § 1436. i K. has S3. — After Dii" i K. has p-\\v^. — 
nc3 -iDNt] I K. has nn hy ncNi. — 22 . Dn^r3t< ''nha] i K. 9* on'-nSx. — DN>sin] 
I K. 3n3N rx N'lXin. — After xun i K. has nirr'. 

VIII. 1-18. Various Doings of Solomon. — Taken with 
some changes from i K. q'^-^s. 

1-2. The exchange of cities with Hiram. — I K. 9>°-'^ 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 Cabul 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 reality, 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. BiiiWl 
with the force of rebuild or enlarge (BDB. piii 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. g'^ '■ 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- 
math-zobah, probably with reference to Tadmor, which the Chron- 
icler has constructed out of Tamar (v. i.). — 3. Hamath-zobah]. Cf. 
I Ch. 18'. 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 (ICH), 
but the Qr. or margin has Tadmor (iDin). This is followed by all 
versions (B Palmyra m) 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'' 482* a Tamar ("Ittn) 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 al.), 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 ot fortified 
posts on the northern frontier of Solomon's kingdom. — 5. In i K. 
9'' 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" (^s). — 
6. Ba'alath] Jos. 19^^ i K. 9'^ f, not clearly identified. 

7-10. Solomon's bond-servants. — Taken from i K. 920-". — 8. 
Whom the children of Israel consumed not]. The reading of i K. 
9=' "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- 
plication of I K. 5"-3» (i3-i6)j 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 K. 12) was 
based upon this oppressive measure. This passage (from a late 
addition to i K.) is merely an attempt to rescue the reputation of 
Solomon. (Cf. Sm. Hist. pp. 157/.)- — 10. Even two hundred and 
fifty] is at variance with the number in i K. 9^3 "five hundred and 
fifty" (v. i.). 

11. The house of Pharaoh's daughter. — Rewritten from i K. 
9='. According to I K. 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 K. 78), and according to i K. 
9^^ she moved from the city of David into this houee. 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 K. g^* 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 K., 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 K. 9". According to this verse in Kings, 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. 16'-'^). 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 J huilt before the porch, i.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 comtnand- 
ment 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 v/eekly 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) (cf. Lv. 23' -s" Nu. 28^-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. "= •> 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. 262"-"). — 
16. The final summary: And all the work of Solomon was accom- 
plished frotn 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., Z^e.); or an identity of meaning has been found 
by following (&, ^, in striking out to him (^h), i.e., 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-Ghiidyan, 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 unknown. It has been placed on 
the eastern coast of Africa, in India, and in south-eastern Arabia. 
The latter is the most likely (r/. i Ch. i"). 

1. an-.r-y] Kau., Ki. SBOT., Kom., both here and in i K. 91" prefix 
the article, 'yn, after Kb. — After nnSa* i K. has OTian ^iv nx. — inia hni] 
I K. I'r'Dn P'a nxi. — 6. After nSya nKi this verse corresponds with i K. 
Qi', with variation only of ^:i inserted before the second iij; and before 
pu'n. — 7. The Chronicler has departed from i K. 920 only in transposing 
^iDNH and ^nnn and in the use of the copulative ( 1), which i K. has only 
with 'Dn''n, and in the omission of ''J3 before SNntt'\ — 8. p] wanting in 
& and I K. g^', appears contrary to all the people (v. '), hence is to be 
struck out (Be., Ki.; retained with partitive force by Ke., Zoe., Oe.). — 
Sn-isj" 1J3 Di'^3 nS] is a neat abbreviation of the text of i K. ■'ja iSj^ nS 
oannnS Sntj". — After DcS i K. has ^3y which was struck out evidently be- 
cause regarded as superfluous. — -9. ih'n] wanting in i K. q^^, some MSS., 
and (&, 19, &, is defended by Be. as an Aramaism, but is rightly struck out 
by Zoe., Oe., Kau., Ki. — in^xSoS DnajJ*?] i K. i2y. The Chronicler's 
additions are for clearness.— ncnSc] in i K. followed by mjyi.— vii'^Sc nB"!] 
to be read after i K. and (S rtriSuM Y-\•^^. — 10. I'^sS] i K. 9^3 n3K':'cn Sy. 
The reason of this change is not clear unless for brevity. — OTixm D^'trnn] 
I K. niND iVDni o^B'cn. 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 njs'^ca C'r>n at close 
of verse after d;'3. — 11. m:r\'^ pi., perhaps after the analogy of the plurals 
of place or spatial extension. — 13. ara av imai]. The same phrase 
wanting the 3 with nai occurs in Lv. 23'". To omit 3 gives an easier 
reading, but all mss. have it (Be.); 2 essentia (Ke., Zoe.); <& apparently 
nana (Oe.). — m'^-yn^] instead of inf. abs., Ew. § 2S0 d (Ke., Zoe., Oe.). 
Cf. I Ch. 925 i3< 152 Ges. § 114^ (?) (1. 129).— 'ui jna] cf. Dt. i6^K— 
14. iDy>i] cf. I Ch. 6'« WD (1. 89).— osrcD] cf. I Ch. ig's.— -ip'-n::] cf. i 
Ch. 23" (1. 42).— a.-insi'":] cf. i Ch. 9". — -»>'i:'i -\-;-y^'\ at every gate (1. 
124). — 15. Pixc] retained by Ke., Zoe., cf. Ew. § 282 a; read with 
ID (nisoa) Be., Kau., Ki. Kom.; pi. (n^x::) (&, "H, Oe., Ki., SBOT.—l%. 
ovn n;*] unto the (this) day, 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 this 
day, the foundation of the house until its completion: the house of Yahweh 
was finished (Ke.). ."13XS3 is taken as explained by iDi":. Dr. TH. 
§ 190 Obs. suggests that nvn is a case of apposition. But this rendering of 
Ke. and that of AV. are harsh; better after (i», U, &, read Dvr^from tite day 
of the foundation (Oe., Ki.). (g read also nin'' n^2 n::'^-y ni'?3 -i>. This 
(given above) is preferred by Bn., Ki. Kom. C6^ has this and also 
^T^^2 t;. Bn. regards the conclusion as from the uncanonical source. 
Much, however, is in favour of nin'' .n>3 a'^c coming from i K. g"-^, and 
in no way being a corruption. — 17. ni'^'X '^xi -13 J ]vr;'? nz^y i^n ix] i 
K. 9-6 ni'^^x px irx -I3J ]Vi-;2 nc'-'-y I'^cn r^z-; <jxi. — a^n] i K. liD B\ — 18. 
iS] wanting in i K. 9". — a^'i^yi nrjix v^d; -\-2] i K. ''^'jx viay rx '>jx2 
HT'JX. — -a^] I K. a^n. — The Chronicler has transposed nsSr -"nay a;, and 
ix3''i of I K. 927=8 — 3-.;'::ni] i K. 9-8 a^^r;'i. — i K. has an; before yaix. 

IX. 1-12. The visit of the Queen of Sheba,— Taken with 
almost no variations from i K. 10 ''^ — 1. Sheba] the land of the 
Sabeans, often mentioned in the OT., cf. i Ch. i' ". Since Sheba 
was famous for its trade (Ez. 27"- ") and costly wares (Ez. 38'=), its 
Queen could well have heard of Solomon and his lu.xurious 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] (miTl). 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 likely, the palace (r/. 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. io=* 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) 
throne (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^ 292^. — 9. A 
hundred and twenty talents of gold] a sum equivalent to more than 
three and one-half millions of dollars. — 10. Algum-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. H renders et multo plura quam attiderat ad eiim. Ber- 
theau would read besides that which the king (of his free will) gave 
to her (I^Dn rh ^^2r\). The text of i K. 10", 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. npcs'] I K. 10' njjDC. — After nDSsr i K. has ni,T> av'-', a phrase of 
much difficulty.— n2'?a' pn mDj"^] i K. ipdj"^. The Chronicler's text is more 
definite, cf. v. =. — a'^rn^^] i K. 10= nsS^'ni Nam. — 2-\^] i K. ino 2-\. — 
in>'] I K. rSx. — 2. ncScn ^3■^ d'^;j nVi] i K io' -[Sen p dSu -im nT\ a^. 
— 3. n33n ns] i K. lo^ ncsn So rs. — 4. anitmSm^] wanting in i K. lo*, 
though given in &. — in''Syi] i K. i.^'^yi. 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 niSy means upper chamber, and since (&, 13, § have rniSj? his offer- 
ings, this is preferable (Be., Oe., Kau., Bn., Ki.) {cf. RVm. in K.). 



The last clause in <S here and in i K. is Kal i^ eai/r^s iyivero. (Sp- 
here has this and also Kal ouk fjv ii> avry ext wvevfj.a. — 5, After ncx i K. 
io« has n-in. — 6. oni-ijiS] i K. lo' a^nm'?. — ^^::^^ n^'ans] wanting in i 
K., an addition of the Chronicler for clearness, taking the place of 
J101 noon, which in i K. follows noD^ written noDin. Instead of *?}? i K. 
has Sn. — 7. T'tt'JN] <S, B, # of i K. lo' have y^i':, preferred there by 
Klo., Kamp., Bn., Ki. SBOT., Bur., and here by Kau., Ki., Bn. (&^ has 
this, but (S^ follows m. — 8. isdd] i K. io^ Snii:" ndj. — ^>^S^< mn'S iSdS] 
wanting in i K. — 1^"i':'n] i K. r\-\7\>. — iT'synS] wanting in i K.; a more 
directly Messianic thought, keeping in view the future of Israel. — IJP'i] 
I K. iDitt'^i. — Dn>'7y] wanting in i K.; must refer to Israel. — 9. 2iS] i 
K. lO"" r\2-\7\. — nin] i K. Na. — After xin i K. has aiS ii>'. — 10. dji 
VN^an la'N nnVir nayi a-cn nay] i K. lo" az'i iu'n aiin 'jn dji. The Chron- 
icler puts the activity here of Solomon or his servants on a par with that 
of Hiram or his servants. — aiDij'7N] i K. oijdSn, so also v. », cf. 2\ Here 
I K. adds iND r^^-yrs. — 11. DTuSxn] see v. '". — m'^Dc] i K. lo'^ ij-Dn, 
dTT., a word whose precise meaning is dubious (BDB.), interpreted as 
raised walk, floor, or pavement of some sort with which mSoD would 
agree (Raschi, Be., Zoe.), or more generally as a support, a railing or 
buttress, (B viro(TTr]piy/xara, IS fulcra (Bur.), then 01^703 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.). — mini inxa d^jdV an^ inij nSi] i K. 
nin DVD ly n,s-\j xSi Q'JdSn 'xy p N3 nS. The phrase in the land of Judah, 
instead of in the land of Israel, shows that the Chronicler writes as 
one of his own age (Ba.). — 12. ^D^^1 "iSrn Sn nx-an] i K. lo" 
jflni T\rhv ^SD^ Tia nS jdj; icn in Ch. is simply a synonym for njo in K. 

13-28. The wealth of Solomon.— Taken from iK. lo'^-^s*. 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 pounds (avoirdupois) of gold, worth 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. ^K — 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- 

TX. 13-28.] WEALTH OF SOLOMON 359 

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. Com. in Lange 
Series, pp. 28 /.).— 25-28. Cf. V 

: 14-17 

13. Zi-'Z'Z-^] 1 is wanting in i K. lo'^ — n33] i K. 133. — 14, -\ih 
onnn 'tr'jxs]. Since these words appear in i K. lo'^, they represent 
the original text of Ch. {cf. (§ tCjv dvSpuv also). In their source, i K., 
they are usually regarded as a corruption, and the emendations suggested 
are numerous. Since (S has x^P^^ ■'"'^'' <t>^p<^v tQv vwoTeTayfiivuv, and 
&y;=(popov in ^^ 2 K. 2333, Boe. read '1JI ib'jjjd n^*^, Thenius the same 
with u^'^■^-\r^ "the subject people " for annn, and SBOT. (on K.) with 
a^^jnn for onnn. Ki. Koni. reads there and here onyn -\z'h-q na'^ after 
#, which has "cities" for onn. Kau. following Kamp. . . . Na icnd -13*7 
Abgeschen von dem was einkam von . . . Bn. suggests (Dnj,'?)n iD'i'xa 
'd S31 nnnoni ungerechnet die Abgaben der (Stadte ?) imd der Handler 
und der Konige, etc. — anj?] Arabia i K. 3iyn. The former is read in 
I K. by Bn., Ki., SBOT. (notes), et al. — d^kod onnom] i K. n^Sj-in inDDi. 
— 'M^ ani a''N''3a] an addition of the Chronicler. — 15. Liin-i'^] wanting 
in I K. io'8. — 16. mxD cS::'] i K. 10" D'jd ra'Sc The text of Ch. is 
correct, as the foregoing mxn cs* shows. Gold was reckoned in 
shekels (Bn.). — 17. nino] substituted as more familiar for ifliD in i K. 
ID'S. — 18. a^nxn nddS ann 1:031] i K. lo'' mnxn noaS '?ijj; CN-n. The 
original text of K. as seen in (6 was probably mns'D ND3S a-<hiy ^rxm 
(SBGT.) 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" (i^'^s) was substituted, which 
later was read footstool (vij) (BDB.) and mnND was read onnsD 
(Hoph. part.). (S^^ omits the clause, though retained in (6^, Kal 
i-KowbSiov vir^6r]K€v iv xpu(7y Ttp 6p6v(p. — 19. nsScn] i K. lO-" ni3^DD. 
^20. 103] I K. io2' + N*?. — 21. Dim nny Dj; tt'itt'in nioSn ^SD'7 nvjx '3] 
I K. io22 D"\''n ^jN oy 0^2 nSoS t^w^n ijn ^3. — nvm nj^nn] i K. ijn Nun. 
— niNtt'j] I K. Pum. — 22. nc3ni] i K. lo^^ nnsnSi. — 23. 13SD] wanting in 
l| of I K. io2^, but given in (H, and hence to be read (Bn., Bur., but not 
Ki. and SBOT.).— 25. On vv. 25-28 cf. ii4-iv. Before >7\>^ i K. lo^s has 
Dicnoi 331 nDSty t)D!<"'i, which the Chronicler omits here, but uses else- 
where, cf V*. — ni33iDi . . . iH'i] I K. 231 rnxn jjmsi i^k iS n^i. The 
text of Ch., and Solomon had four thousand stalls of horses, is that of 


(S in K., and according to Bur. was probably the original there, but 
ni:33ici was i3r">cS, yet (& of K. may be suspected of having come under 
the influence of Ch. Moreover, close verbal agreement shovv-s that the 
Chronicler here followed i K. 56, i33-(':'? D'DiD p^•\t^ tfa D^yaiN nn'^^''^ ••nii, 
as his source {v. notes on i""). This reading, except in the final pron. 
suf. (ODio'^), has the support of (&-^^ (certainly original ^), the under- 
lying Heb. of which was doubtless the original of Ch., and should be 
rendered, and Solo7}wn had 40,000 stalls of horses for the chariots. — 
DHTi] I K. io=« cnjM. The former has the support of all Vrss. — 26. 
wanting in Heb. of i K., but present there in (^. 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. r\-'Ti nc'^'j'i for inn) and co'^cn the kings sub- 
stituted for nij'^tsn the kingdoms. — 28. ns'^-.r'S Dnsc3 o^DiD d^n'Sici] i K. 
io28 anx-DD nc'^::''? "wn d^didh nsici. The final phrase, mxnN.i Son, 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 ((/. 1215 i5n 2034 2526 26" 28=6 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 Akijah the 
Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the 
son of Nebat. 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. 22). Nathan the prophet appears 
at the beginning of Solomon's reign (i K. i), Ahijah near its close 
(i K. 1 1" a), 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 
knowTi 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 

ES. 29-31.] END OF SOLOMON'S REIGN 36 1 

thus some condition of future \iie.—And was buried in the city of 
David]. Cf. i Cli. 15". This phrase is also a part of the formula 
just mentioned. 

29. 'ly'] Kt. ■'^y.:, Qr. ny.;.— 30. nohvf •\ha^^^] for the longer text of 
I K. !!■*- noW -hn ifN D'D'ni. — 31. imnp-i] Pi. instead of Niph. n^pn in 
I K. 11''^. 


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'-"- ■^-•* i4-'-2', with the exception of 
1421-2% 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. 12'". The Chronicler's additions to his material 
from I K. in c. 11 are accounts (a) of Rehoboam's fortifications 
(ii5'2), (b) of the immigration from the N. tribes (ii'^-i?), and (c) 
of the royal family (ii's-^s). (5) appears to be based upon i K. 12", 
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 huxilia- 
tion of Rehoboam and the people the wrath of Yahweh is averted 
(126-8. 12), The picture thus given of the reign of Rehoboam is 
strikingly different from that of i K. There the people are repre- 
sented as exxeedingly 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. 12'-''. — 1. Shechem] mod. Nahlus, 
lying under the north-east base of Mt. Gerizim (Baed.^ pp. 215 ff.), 
mentioned frequently in the early narratives of Israel (Gn. 12s 
2)Z^^ 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. ii^ 2 S. 5' i Ch. ii'). — 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^s «-, which he has omitted 
{y. 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. 121-3. — 4^ xhe service and the yoke were the re- 
quired revenue (i K. 5' (4")) and the forced labour (i K. 5"^- 
("«'), 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 Eg^'pt 
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 
feelings 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. i K.ii''^-, 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 (5 of i K. 12), cither a gloss in Kings or to 
be placed after v."".— 18. Adonimm*]. Cf. 1 K. 4' 5^' <"'. This 
officer 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. no3t?] I K. 12' cyy. — in3] i K. n^. — 2. In (&^^ of K. this verse is 
found in I K. 11 between v. "" and v. "b^ with the addition in (&^, "he 
returned (?) and went to his city Sareira which is in Mt. Ephraim." 
Hence as it now stands it should precede v. 1 (3ur.), and is so printed in 
St. SBOT. After Nin i K. 12= has 1J^1y.— a^nxca . . . 3tt';i] i K. 
DnsK3 . . . 2ty^^ The former is the true reading (Ki. BH.). — 3. 
hn-\Z'> So] I K. 123 Ssnii''' '^np ^j. — 4. Before n.-iy i K. i2« has nns. — 
5. Before iiy i K. 128 has isS, which after (6 should be inserted (Ki. 
BH.). Instead of ^y;< -'-; the Vrss. in both K. and Ch. read ~i>:. — 6. 
ntn nj'^] i K. 12^ n:n D;'n .-in. — 7. Before n^nn 05 and i K. 12' have ovn, 
which should be inserted (Ki. SiJ.).— 2iaS] i K. lay. — D;'n''] retention 
of n of article {cf. Ges. § 35«)) other examples 25'" 29'^. — on^xni] i K. 
D.-i-Ji'i ama?i. — 8, i K. 128 has wrongly "v.^'N before ann>'n {cf. St. 
• SBOT., Bur.).— 10. 1-s'] i K. i2'<' vSn.— aj:'^] i K. + nrn.— -i-n.-^] 
I K. •\2-\r\. — ^japtl Tfi';'^ Ki. BH., Ges. § 93(7. {cf. Bur. i K. 12'°). — 
nay] i K. 12'° Dt. 3215 ■\. — 11. D'::;-i] in BDB. corrigenda, p. 1126 
(770'').— On the art. in a'av.ra and a'3-^|->;3 cf. Dav. Syn. § 21 {d).— 
•'3X1-] I K. i2'i + a^PN iD>s. — 12. N3^i] I K. 1 2'2 erroneously 13^1. — 
13. 'n aji'M] I K. 1213 ajrn rs I'^^rn j;"'- — ^^^'P] harsh response, cf. Gn. 
42'- 30 (pi.) I S. 20"'. — D>3m -t^zr^} wanting in i K. — After copm i K. 
has inxyi iii'n. — 14. i'3Dn ns] thus Ki. BH. after the Bomberg Bible, 
a reading confirmed by ^-^^S B. Ginsburg and Baer and Delitzsch have 
n'33N after many mss. The sense, the parallel, and v. '" require the 
former. — v*?]?] i K. 1214 ao'^j? S;. — After ^jn i K. has B3nN id^n. — 15. 
n3Dj f] I K. i2'5 n3D f. In late Rabbinic Hebrew nsp = cause 
(Bur.). — O'lnSsn] i K. nin>. — mni in i K. is wanting after cpn, but 
appears after -13-1. — 16. In i K. 12I6 the verse commences with Ss nim 
instead of ''31, and has an':'N instead of an'^'. After i'^-dhs i k. has i3n. 
— U'ls] wanting in i K., perhaps a dittography from the preceding ''tt". — 
^3=] wanting in i K. — 17. SNn'.:'> ij3i] casus pendens before waw consec. 
{cf I K. 9"') (Dr. TH. 127 (a), Dav. Syn. § 49 {b), Ges. §§ iiiA, 
i43£f). — 18. B-nn] i K. i2'8 a-ns, but CS^S ^, have a->^nN, given also in 
I K. 46 528, hence without doubt correct (Ki. HB.).—'Z'> >J3] x K. '^:i 


'::". — The Chronicler omits i K. 12=", 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 (ly"''). — 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 1 2 "5 as a source of the history of Rehoboam. 

1. n''a hn] I K. i22> no '^3 rs. — ^C'jai] i K. pen toar nsi. — 
''NT.;'"] I K. '^Niw'i no. — no'^rrrn] i K. nsi'^cn. — oyam'^] followed in 
I K. by nD'?^' p. — The Chronicler has thus, without impairing the narra- 
tive, shortened this verse by the omission of five words. — 2. mni] i K. 
12" D'n'^Nn, but some MSB. and the Vrss. have nini in i K., preferred by 
Ki. BH., St. SBOT.^3. '2 Ssiiy^ Sd] i K. 1223 min^ n>a S3. The 
Chronicler frequently uses the term Israel in reference to the S. kingdom, 
cf. i2'-6 15" 212-'' 2819- "_ — pc^j^i] r K. + D;'n in^i. — 4. DTna] i K. 
12=' + '^NTj'i •'ja. — D>'3T' Sn pdSc] I K. nin^ 1313 pdSS. 

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-'2 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 m 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. ii"' (not ^■) 122'- -3. 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. '^ 23 
are assigned by Ki. to another source representing material of historical 
worth. For marks of the Chronicler cf. ni;?l T'j; Vdi (1. 124) r\^~\7h (1. 
134) V. '2; u'lm (1. 20), mr Hiph. (1. 30) v. '<; nsy Hiph. (1. 89) vv, 
■6- 22; 3S j.-^j (1. 78) T. '6; srj? (1. 76) vv. 21. 23; 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 Judaean 
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 with the 
frontier cities fortified by Solomon (i K. gisb.n.is)^ ([^Qy illustrate 
the shrunken condition of Rehoboam's kingdom (GAS. /. II. p. 
89). Winckler (KATj 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-lehem]. 
Cf. I Ch. 2^K—'Etam]. Cf. 1 Ch. ^\—Teko'a\ Cf. i Ch. ^K~ 
7. Beth-zur]. Cf. i Ch. 2*K—Soco]. Cf. 28^^ Jos. 15^5 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. 4'8. — Adidlam] 
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 oflf the Wady es Sur (GAS. HGHL. p. 229), otherwise 
not identified. — 8. Galh\ Cf. 1 Ch. i8>. 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=^ had placed 
Philistia under Solomon. — Mareshah]. Cf. i Ch. 2*2. — Zipli]. 
Cf I Ch. 2*\ 9. Adoraim-^] mod. DUra west of Hebron. — ■ 
Lachish] a notable frontier town frequently mentioned (cf. Jos. 
10 Mi. I '3 2 K. 18''), mod. Tell-el-Hesy, recently excavated, 
thirty-three miles south-west from Jerusalem, and east from Gaza 
(Baed.« p. 118).— Azekah] Jos. io'» '• 15" i S. 17' Je. 34' Ne. 
11=" f, not identified. — 10. Zoreah] Jos. 15" 19" Ju. i^^ « 16" 
i8-- « " Ne. ii"t) mod. Sara, fifteen miles west of Jerusalem 
(BDB.).— Aijalon]. Cf i Ch. 6» ^^^K— Hebron]. Cf 1 Ch. 3' 
64 (55) 42 (5 7) jji, — /^ J iidak cttd in Benjamin]. All of the above- 
mentioned cities are in Jiiduh, 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 {v. 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 (y. 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. pM] in the meaning of rebuilt, fortified (cf. 1 Ch. 11'). — 10. 
nmso i-i;'] cities of ramparts, walls, in v. " i2« 21^ sg. 14', without "i^y 
II" and Is. 293 Na. 2' '2) ? -j-. — n. pnxNi] a construct governing the 
three following nouns. For example of two nouns cf. i Ch. 13'. — 12. 
-\^'•;^ -|ij; Sd^i] idiomatic with the Chronicler. Cf. i Ch. 26'^ Qes. § 123c 
(1. 124). — IN?: n3-\n'^] Ges. § 113^. 

13 17. The immigration to Judah. — 13. And the priests and 
Levltes 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, ^y_ j ch. 6" ^^^^). — And 
their possessions] i.e., their other landed property in cities, includ- 
ing houses, which also were an inalienable possession of the Le- 
vites, although not of other Israelites (Lv. 2529-3^). 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. 
1231, 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] (^\^t22)■ 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. g'^-^^ 



iqs. 13 I K. 3' 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 pjrobably thus used the word here and elsewhere (cf. 
142(3). 4(5) 1^17 176 2o'3 21" 28«« 3H 32'2 S3^-"-^^ 34=)- — And for 
the he-goats] (□''"l^y li^) a term applied to the demons (Arabic 
jinn) 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. 
13" 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. 12"- ^■). 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- 1 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. Dn^jtn] in Hiph. only in Ch. with meaning to reject, 1 Ch. 28^ 2 Ch. 
29*' (1. 30). in^jT.sn with meaning to give a stench (Is. 19^) is probably 
from another root, though of same radicals (BDB.). — 17. i;'^n] (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. B-i. assigns it aus der 

XI. 18-23.] REHOBOAM'S FAMILY 369 

andern Vorlage von Chronislen, 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 Rehoboam 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 (cf. 2 S. 32-5 51^-16 i Ch. 3'-3 i4*-')> hence 
either the son of a concubine or possibly Jerimoth (niD"'"!"') is a 
corruption of Ithre am (D^iri''), 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« ly). — 19. These three sons are not mentioned again. — 
Jeush]. Cf. I Ch. y". — Shemariah], Cf. i Ch. 125. — Zaham-\]. — 
20. Maacah the daughter of Absalom] probably granddaughter, 
since Tamar is mentioned as his only daughter (2 S. 14"). Cf. 
132, where, according to the true text, Ma'acah 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 
'Altai appears among the descendants of the Judahite Sheshan 
(i Ch. 2^5) 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. 23S'2'-'8 26"Q'^-28)| 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 n3 with Qr., (&, H. — '?>n''3N] read S^n^^Nl after (S* (so 
Be., Kg., c/ al. generally), since only one wife of Rehoboam is meant, as is 


shown by the sing. ntt'N and i?ni of v. '». — 21. nb'j] late usage, cf. 13M 
243 Ezr. 92 '2 10" Ne. 13=3 Ru. i* (BDB.).— 22, lo^^cnS >o] either an 
example of a peculiar sentence without verb (1. 117), or more probably 
the verb given in <S SiecoctTo (3!;'n) has been omitted from the text, and 
should be restored (Kau., Bn., Ki. B.B., et al. generally). — 23. p"i] 
wanting in (&. — insM] from X~\D with the doubtful meaning of to distrib- 
lUe (BDB.), (&^^, Kal v^^V^V, as though ',"\d had here the meaning to 
spread abroad, increase {cf. i Ch. 4'*). (B^ conflates two renderings and 
introduces a subject Kal T]v^Ti6r] A^ia Kal 5i^Ko\p€. H renders 'v\ pM 
quia sapientior fuit et potentior super oynnes Jilios eJ2<5 connecting with 
the preceding verse. — nj? S^'^] <& 'ij? Sd*?!, so Ki. SBOT., Kom., BH. 
— a"'a'j psn '?{<;;'m] F. Perles, Analekten Textkritik des ATs. p. 47, 
C'j'j onS NSTM. This emendation is accepted by Ki. BH. — The text of these 
verses'"- =^' is certainly doubtful. Winckler reconstructs them (KAT.- 
pp. 241 /.), v. " VJ3 S33 wSDnS r\y;o p n>3N cniS iCyii, Aiid he ap- 
pointed Abia the son of Maacah chief in order to make him king from 
among all his sons. As S'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.'\ reStu as Winck- 
ler does to draw this conclusion.) The words vnxa n^jj*^ are a gloss. 
The meaning of v. =3^ according to Winckler, has been distorted through 
the insertion from v. - of viZ 'rj:;. It properly belongs with ■w. ^-'-. 
Winckler renders Utui er haute und zerstorte in alien Gebieten Jiidas 
tend Benjamins (alle) die festen Stddte und er tat hinein Vorrdte in 
Alenge. The last clause of v. =3, a^^*: ]^r:n '^n-j'm, speaks of the King's 
own wives and goes with v. ='. 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. i4"-28. The additions are vv.'-'"*- '- {v. s.). 
(These additions are marked by Ki. as from a Midrash, 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. 
— Attd all Israel]. Cf. ii'. — 2. Shishak] Shoshenk, the first 
Pharaoh of the twenty-second dynasty. The results of this invasion 
are inscribed on the temple at Kamak, where a list of some one 
himdred and eighty to\Mis 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- 


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. 11^°), may 
have directly solicited 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. lo'^. — 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. 133 149 17" ff-. — Luhim] 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 16^ Na. 3^ Dn. 11" 
and (Can^) Gn. lo's i Ch. i". — Sukkiyim'\] not yet satis- 
factorily explained. Ci», Iff, 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 CusJiites] the 
Ethiopians, the inhabitants of Cush, a general name for the dis- 
trict lying south of Egypt proper, cf. Am. 9^ The Libyans and 
Cushites are mentioned among the allies of Egypt in Na. 3 \ — 4. 
The fortified cities]. Cf. iv«-. — 5. Shemaiah the prophet]. Cf. 
1 12 ff-. This episode is not mentioned in Kings. — You 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"- 29 — Princes of Israel] in v. = princes of Judah. — 
Righteous is Yahweh]. Cf. Ex. 9" Dn. 9'^ — 7. In a short time]. 
Thus taynO is to be rendered (RVm., Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ba., Ki.), 
and not some 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"*- commenced in v. ^ is now 
resumed. — 9. Shields of gold]. Cf. 9'^ '-. — 10. Guard] Hterally 
runners; a term appHed to a body-guard (cf. 1 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. 3T"] simple perf. after a clause or expression of time, cf. vv. ^- " 
158* 2o> 21" 24*- 23 Ne. i« Zc. 7' Ez. I' 20' 26' 291' 302" et al. Koe. iii. 
§ 370b.— 2. nSj'] cf. V. I. — pr^r] so also Qr. in i K. 14^5, but Kt. pz'^z', 
also (S ^ovffaKei/i. This latter is without doubt correct after the 
Egyptian Sosenq. — 5. "inaiy] prophetic pf., Dr. TH. 13,-7. . . . mN-\3i 
n«n] 'HM might be expected in one clause or the other, cf. v.'; see 
Dr. TH. p. 157 f.n., Ges. § iiib. — na^Sa'?] ace. with V, Ges. § iijn. 
— 9. hp^] a modification of nSy in v. - i K. 14^5 agreeable to the con- 
text. — ^JJD nx] 1 K. 14=6 'd ^o PN. — 10, 11. The rendering of 10^ and 
lib in d is singular and without ready explanation, Kai Kar^crTTjcrev e^' 
avrbv ^ovaaKelfj. S.pxovTas, etc., (ii'') eicreiropeiiovro oi (pnXdcraavres Kai 
ol iraparpixovTes Kai ol iiri(rTp4<f)0VTei eis airavTifffLV rC)v ira.parp€xi>vrwv. 
(&^ follows i^ in io'> and has both (& and the addition 'ui din^ji in ii^. 
— 11. DiNrji D'i-in 1N3] I K. 14-8 a^s-in DIN'.:"'. — 12. Cf. for constr. v.'. 
— n^ncnV] inf. continuing finite verb, Ges. § 114^, Ew. § 351 c at end. 

13-16. The chronology and sources of the reign of Reho- 
boam. — 13. And King Rehoboam strengthened liimselfin 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" after the usual manner of 
Chronicles, cf. 9^9 i Ch. 2929. — 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 ^y^ 

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. 14". — 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. 14' (Bur.), or to avoid connecting name of Yahweh (iT' jah) 
with so godless a king (Bn. ?), or a euphonic change of the ending 
ah (Ki.): the real reason remains obscure. 

13. •'d] introduces the quotation from i K. 14^"', but is superfluous 
and not according to usage elsewhere. — 14. j?in b'>"i] from i K. 14^2 
opening words, but with n-nni as subj. (& of K. has Rehoboam as subj. 
— 15. ti'n\nnS] either inf. of purpose defining the words of Iddo, or with 
S of inscription giving their title (Ba.), or text error or corruption. (B^, 
Kal irpd^eis avroO, VK'jJDi, perhaps favors this last. ^^ has in addition 
Tov yeveaXoyijcrai, 15 et deligenter exposita, with reference to the acts of Re- 
hoboam. — -Dya-in Dvam niDn'^Di] i K. 1430 av^ii ^^y oyam pa nn^n nnnSci. 
— ninnSn, naia] each followed by two genitives, c/". 11' i Ch. 13' Ges. 
§ 128a. — a^3''n So] pred. of copula understood, Koe. iii. § 426k. — -16. In 
I K. 143' after i3P'i|| has r.naN cj?and after T'n it has nijcyn ncyj tcN Ofi; 
but the latter is wanting in (&^^, which furnishes the probably true text 
of Kings. 

XIII. 1- 23. The reign of Abijah (r. 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. '8)^ and 
his short reign is made one of great glory. 


Ki. after Bn. assigns w. '-2° to M, v. ^i to ancient material of historical 
value, and only vv. ■''■ -^^ to the Chronicler. The whole chapter, however, 
may well be regarded as coming from the Chronicler with use of canonical 
material in vv. '-2- "a. The Chronicler's style appears throughout, cf. 
inf. with S V. '; pinnn (1. 38) v. ''; h with inf. after icn (1. 4) v. s; pij-ixn inv 
(1. 97) V. '; the detailed ritual v. " (cf. 2= S'^ i Ch. 23''); nnxxna onxxnn 
(1. 44) V. '^ (cf. I Ch. 15=0; no TiT (1. 92) V. 20; aaS •]•\^ nyj v. ' (c/. i Ch. 
22' 29') (Graf, GB. p. 137). 

1-2. Introduction. — From i K. 15' f- '^ — 1. /w the eighteenth 
year of King Jeroboam] the only example where the Chronicler has 
given a synchronism from Kings. — 2. Ma'dcah*]. Cf. ii^^ i K. 15=. 
Micaiah of the Heb. Text, elsewhere a man's name, is clearly an 
error. — The daughter of Uriel]. In 11=" i K. 152 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. i^^"- '^), 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 Maacahs, 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 -°-"and 15'^). — Uriel]. Be. thought possibly the 
same as the Levite mentioned in i Ch. 155- ", but all is obscure in 
regard to him; neither can it be determined whether Gibeah near 
Hebron (Jos. 15", cf. 1 Ch. 2^') or the one of Benjamin is meant. — 
And war was between Abijah and Jeroboam]. This clause taken 
from I K. IS"* introduces the fine specimen of Midrash which 

3. The assembled armies. — The great numbers 400,000 and 
800,000 are characteristic of the Midrash, cf v.'" 14^ 17'^-". 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 375 

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. Zejnaraim] 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 
EpJiniiin, i.e., on its southern boundary. The place is generally 
identified with es-Snmra 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. g''^-). — 5. Covenant of salt] i.e., an indissol- 
uble covenant. Cf. 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. i8'«, 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^^ ''12), ERV. sons of Belial, a frequent expression 
(Dt. 13'* <"> Ju. 1922 20" I S. 2'2 10" I K. 2I"'- ") but only here in 
Chronicles. — Young] ("Ipi) 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 
instesid 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 
lo'f •, 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 mrdtitiide, etc. ]. Abi jah 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. 28*°^- 29^^ 40'- "f- 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 ff- 8« «• i8« 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" 
1333. — To consecrate himself] (lit. to fill his hand), a frequent expres- 
sion (Ex. 28^' 29'- "• 33. 35 Lv. 833 1632 Ju. 175- '2 I K. 1333 et al.). — 
With a young bullock and seven rams] agreeable to the law of Ex. 
29" 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 
(ri3S'7D) 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 ^^^■), 
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^^ f- Lv. 248).* — 12, The 

* Contrary to the notion of these passages that the lamps were lighted to burn over night, 
it has been held that some at least of them were kept burning also during the day, Josephus 

Xin. 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. 3i«. 

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" «•. — 14. 
On the blowing of the trumpets cf. v. '=>. — 15. Gave a shotit] i.e., 
uttered a religious war-cry; cf. Jos. 6"'-" where the same Heb. 
word is used. — God smote]. Some supernatural help is in the mind 
of the writer; c/. 14"' ('■). — 17. 500,000]. Cf.y.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"). 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. 10^9 Am. 7'^ Ho. 10= Beth-aven=Bethel). — Jeshana-f] 
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, 
3J miles north of Bethel {SWP. II. pp. 291, 302). — 'Ephron-\'\ 
Qr. Ephrain, probably the same as Ephraim (Jn. 11") 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. 25'8) 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. (Cf. 1 K. 1420 151 f • «). 

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 {De Vir- 
timis Of/erenlibiis, 7, init.). Cj. DD. l\. p. 664; Schurer, Gesch} II, p. 286 [HJP. II. i. p. 281]. 


boam (v. »''), 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 (cf. s. v. ^^), yet Graf 
accepted a success of Abijah as historical {GB. p. 137), so likewise 
Pa. {EHSP. pp. 194/.) and McC. {HPM. 1. 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. 15=- ">• '3), overrides the assertion that the successor of Abijah 
was his son (i K. 15^) (We. Prol. p. 210). — 22. Commentary] lit. 
Midrash, see Intro., p. 23. — The prophet Iddo]. Cf. I2'5. — 23 
(XIV. 1). Taken in its first half from i K. 15*. — 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- * ^'•^>. 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 vnriter 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^- that 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. 1528- 33). 

1. Dj?3n^] I K. 151 sq. oaj p. — n^DM] Dr. TH. § 127 ()3), Ges. § iiift, 
I K. iSc. — ni2N] I K. D'3N, cf. i2"«. — 2. inio>D] elsewhere a man's 
name, prob. text. err. i K. 15' noyn, also ii^" q. v., so here (&^. — • 


njjjj p SxniN na] i K. and (S'' diS-^ok na. — 3. noxii] cf. i K. 20'''. — 
nnnSo nnj S^na] a case of apposition, Dr. TH.^ § 190. — 5. nyiS d^S] 
Koe. iii. § 397d, on inf. Ges. § \\i\h and k. — nSn n^nj] a second ace. 
after pj, so Koe. iii. § 3271, perh. better ace. of manner, Ges. § ii8w 
and q; the phrase occurs elsewhere only in P, Nu. 18" {cf. also Lv. 
2"). — 7. rSj)] instead of more usual rSx with yip, BDB. — SySa] cf. 
Moore on Ju. 1922 for renderings in Vrss. and etymologies. The deriva- 
tion from ^"ra and Sy, "without profit," BDB., he regards as dubious. Cf. 
Smith on i S. i'« for references to later discussions. — 'Ui oyami] a cir- 
cumstantial clause expressing time. — prnnn] also in v. « and v. 2', favour- 
ite word 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) . — '^x\ dhni] 
causal circumstantial clause since, etc. — pnn] with the meaning of crowd, 
multitude 14'° 20^ '2 's m ^2', frequent in Ez. and Dn. (see BDB.), 
only used exceptionally in early prose (1. 28). — 9. DiiSni]. Since in 
w. =-'2 Abijah chides Jeroboam with having driven out the sons of 
Aaron, the priests, and the Levites (v. S"), 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 Levites, 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. u)^ it has been 
held (by Buchler, 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 earlier form of the book. But there is really nothing 
in this supposition. The Chronicler wrote sometimes influenced by the 
phraseology of Dt. and sometimes by that of P. Precision in the use of 
language was not one of his traits (v. Intro, p. 19). — mxnNn 'c>'3] 
an expression of the Chronicler (1. 91); (g eK roO \aov t^s yrjs (and 
wrongly) Trdcnjs. ^l follows ^ — n'' nSc*?]. The origin of this phrase, 
equivalent to consecrate, is uncertain. Since it has a parallel in the 
Assyrian umalli kdti " 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' office 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). 
DOlman (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 (Beitrdge, II. pp. 118/.) from the custom of filling 
the hand of the priest with arrows, used in primitive times in giving 
oracular responses; and von Hoonacker (Le Sacerdota Levitique, pp. 
134/.) from filling the priest's hand with something to place upon the 
altar. — n>ni . . . h2' hi\ an example of a subject separated from its 


verb by 1, Koe. iii. § 41211, Dr. TH. § 123(a). — a^'n'^x nS*^] Koe. iii. 
§ 38of, Ges. § 152a, foot-note. — 10. ijnjNi] Ges. § 143a, Koe. iii. 
§ 34ig. — niH'*^] dat. after D\-T\B'a, r/. 22^ 238, Koe. iii. § 327c. — HDNSna] 
(& suggestively iv toXs i(prjfj.eplaii avTwv, possibly read rnpVnc3. — 
11. onopci] Hiph. of verb used in P over thirty times of burning (lit. 
making smoke) the sacrifices on the altar. — aij73 . . . "ip3o] cf. for 
these phrases Ex. 1621 30' Lv. 65 "=) i Ch. 92' 2330 Is. 28'9 50^ Ez. 4613 «■. 
Only in this verse does the repetition of 213; occur. — naij'D] only of the 
rows of the show-bread, and only here in construct before cnS, but before 
i^Dii 2^, elsewhere with art. preceded by an'? i Ch. 9^2 2329 Ne. lo*", by 
]nSs' 2 Ch. 2918, and nunS^' i Ch. 28'^ pi. abs. Lv. 24^ f . — ,inan ]n^z<n Sj?]- 
This phrase also occurs in Lv. 24^. — mi:D] used only of the lamp- 
stands of the tabernacle Ex. 252' 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. 4= " and of that 
provided for Elisha by the Shunemite 2 K. 4'". — niece] used very fre- 
quently in P and also Ch. of priestly and Levitical duties. — 12 . nnxxm] 
cf. I Ch. 152^ (1. 44). 

XIV-XVI. The reign of Asa (r. 9i7-876).~The Chronicler's 
treatment of Asa is based upon the account given in i K. 15' 24. 
There in vv. "-'^ Asa is commended for his piety. This is greatly 
enlarged upon by the Chronicler, and Asa's prosperity is corre- 
spondingly magnified (14'-' "•" 15 '-'0- A magnificent victory 
over an invading force of Cushites not mentioned in Kings is also 
recorded (i4«-'^ o-is)). The remainder of the account in i K. 
(w. 16-22), 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 (i6'->''). 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 i6'-" are from M, while 15'-'* is 
from M2. This double origin is assigned from the double accounts of 
reform, cf. 1425 with 15'. 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 pecuHar style and may well be regarded as his own 
composition. The following are marks of the Chronicler's style: In 
143 S 1DN with following inf. (1. 4); in 14' is'^mn'' pn b-^t (c/. i Ch. 1513213" 
2 Ch. i5 i8') (1. 23); in 146 in>Sx>i (c/. 7" 1312 et al); in 141" 16'* 
M-;z': ^•h•il {cf. 13I8); in 14"' isj? (1. 92); in 1412 n>nD onS ^nS (c/. i Ch. 
22O; in 14" nra a late word 2513 28'« Ezr. 9'- i"- "s. is Ne. 3^6 Dn. 
JJ24.33-J- (i_ loV, the similar phraseology in 152 end of verse and 12^''; jn 
155 mx-iNH {cf. I Ch. 13") (1. 6); in is'^S withobj.; in i5'4 nnxxn (1. 44); 
in i6'8 the repeated use of S; in i6'9 the relative sentence without TlI'n 
subordinated to the preposition {cf. i Ch. i5''0(l- 120); in 16'^ nSynS nj; 
(r/. I Ch. 14O (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 WTOught by Hezekiah 
and Josiah — i.e., the removal of the high places (2 K. 18^ • ^ 23*). — 

2 (3.) Foreign altars] i.e., the altars of foreign gods, cf. Gn. 352-* 
Jos. 242°- " Ju. lo's I S. 7^ Je. 5'9. — 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. 28'^"). The Deuteronomic law forbade their use (Dt. 16^) 
and commanded their destruction (Dt. 7^ 123). — The asherim] fre- 
quently mentioned with the foregoing and likewise forbidden (Dt. 
162') andcommandedtobedestroyed(Dt. 7512'). 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. 
I5'«.) 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 i()ff-, argues for goddess). Asheroth (pi. of Asherah) are 
mentioned in 19= 33', elsewhere as here A shenm 17' 24" 31' ;^y^ 
343- *■ '. — 4. (5). Sun pillars] (only pi., 34^- ^ Lv. 26=° Is. 17^ 2j^-\) 
probably a form of masseboth {cf. v. •^) (GFM. EBi. III. col. 2976), 
regarded generally as pillars dedicated to the sun god (HDn) (Bn.). 
— And the kingdom had rest under him (lit. before him)] re- 
peated with emphasis in following verse, cf. i3"''(i4i). — 5 (6). This 
story of the building of cities has probably some historical basis, 
cf. I K. 15"; 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" '■^*K 
—Bucklers . . . and bows]. Cf 1 Ch. 8^". The shield (]:d) 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' i7'0- 

1. 1 3iBn] wanting in i K. 15" and so also vhSn. i K. adds vas ino. 
—3. icnm] with the force of command (1. 4), or an example, in the fol- 
lowing words, of the indirect discourse, cf. i Ch. 13'. — 6. }nsn imj? 
irJoV] (&^ ivuiiriov TTjs 7^s KvpieOcroixev (S-^ ej w (^^ 4i> y Kvpteijcro/xev 
T^s yyjs. — imy] sufBx masc. because it precedes. — iJUfl':'] at our dis- 
posal, cf. Gn. 139 BDB. njo II. 4. a (/).- -Instead of Mu'-n-, ^^^^ 
read •iiK'"iT when we sought Yahweh our God lie sought us. (B^^ also 
omit mn and read uS n'Ss-'i. Hence Winckler {Alt. Unter. p. 187) 
proposes to read after Dt. 121" ij':' n^'SsM ij''J''ND 3^3Dn ^^h nri 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. ^ <-^)). 
The story is either without historical foundation (so Kuenen, Einl. 
pp. 139/.; St. Gesch. I. p. 355;We. Prol. pp. 257/.), orwith 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 Cnshite] (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 (Naville's Bubastis p. 5 1 ) . Ciishite or Ethiopian 


applied to Osorkon or Zerah must then have arisen from the 
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 Eg}'ptian inroad. (2) Cushite may be connected with 
the Cush of Arabia (i Ch. i'), and thus the inroad may have been 
from Arabia (so Winckler, Alt. Untersuch. pp. 161-166, KAT.^ p. 
144; Hommel, Ades 10th Cong. Interl. des Orientalisles, p. 112; 
Paton, EHSP. pp. 196/.). Agreeable to this are the tents and the 
spoil of sheep and camels mentioned in v. '^ <'5)_ 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.Ji^i Ch. 2^2 — 9 (10), In 
the valley'] probably the valley at whose head stands Beit-Jibrin 
(GAS. HGHL. pp. 230-233). — Zephathah "if], compared doubt- 
fully by Robinson to Tell-es-Sdfiyeh {BR.^ II. p. 31). (g'^^ 
reads northward (Kara /3oppdv), and it is questionable whether 
that was not the original reading, in the valley to the north of 
Mareshah (n:S!if instead of nns:;) (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 Ciishites 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 D''"1"'J? cities, Bn. reads D''a"IJ? Ara- 
bians.) — A terror from Yahweh ]. A panic seized the cities through 
a supernatural terror caused by Yahweh (cf. lyi" 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 (toi)? 'A/Lta^oz/et?) (cf. 22' 
text-note). The booty suggests an Arabian incursion. 


10. n3 . • iDj; rn]. On force of aj? beside or like, cf. 20^ Ps. 7,^25 
BDB. Dj? 3 d. On lo with S following c/. Gn. i^. (g reads oy/c 
dSwarei irapa aol crw^eiv iv TroWots Kal iv 6\lyoii • following the text 
of I S. i4« a-;c2 in 313 ynnS nixj,'D mniS ps. (gL adds here from ^ 
ots o{>K tffTiv tVxi^J. Iff >^o« est apud te ulla distantia utrum in paucis 
auxilieris, an in plurihus. Kamp. preferred to read ixjjS instead of 
itjjS, but that is not necessary.— pcnn] cf. 138. — -ix;"i] na is understood 
(c/. I Ch. 29'S V. 1. 92).— 12. •nj'? nj'] <g has TeSwp, cf. i Ch. 439, "i>' used 
with S, cf. Koe. iii. § 319c. — n^na DnS pxS] a clause denoting the com- 
pleteness of the overthrow. In the earlier stage of the language S would 
have been omitted with ps (Ew. § 315 c). This construction pN is pecu- 
liar to the Chronicler, cf. 20-* 21" 36'^ i Ch. 22^ Ezr. 9" (1. 132). 

XV. 1-19. The exhortation of Azariah, and Asa's religious 

1. Azariah the son of Oded'l not mentioned elsewhere. Cf. 
V. ^ — The spirit of God'\ frequently mentioned as the cause 
of prophetic action and speech {cf. 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, ahhough a state- 
ment of the general lesson to be drawn. — 3-6. Variously inter- 
preted: a description of the N. kingdom (®); a prophecy of the 
future {cf. Ho. y '■) ((S, 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« 62-«); V. ^ the intertribal and interurban conten- 
tions (Ju. 8^-9 '*■" 9'-" i2'-«). 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.] REFORMS OF ASA 385 

without la'w\ The two expressions are synonymous. The giving 
of legal instruction was a function of the priest (Dt. 2,2,^° Je. iS's Ho. 
46 f.) — 5. Lands] i.e., districts of the territory of Israel (c/. 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 representing a 
lacuna which should be supplied after ^, B, with the reading even 
the prophecy which Azariahthe son of' Oded had spoken. — Detestable 
things] objects connected with idolatry {cf. i K. ii^ 2 K. 232^). — 
Cities, etc.]. Since no mention is made of cities taken by Asa, the 
reference is generally supposed to be to those taken by his father 
Abijah (13"). — And he renewed the altar]. This statement im- 
plies some unrecorded desecration of the altar, or it may embody 
simply the historical fact of the renewal of the ancient Mosaic and 
purer imageless worship of Yahweh (cf. Erbt, Die Hebrder, p. 105). 
— 9. Within the territory of the S. kingdom are represented to have 
been members of the adjoining tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and 
Simeon, who were either permanent residents from the first (cf 
ID' 7), or drawn thither by the feeling that through the piety of Asa 
Yahweh was with the S. kingdom ((/. iV"- 3o")- This prob- 
ably reflects the condition at the time of the Chronicler, when 
doubtless many Jews traced their descent from families of the ten 
tribes (cf. Lk. i^*), and the devout sought residence in the land of 
Palestine. — Simeon]. While historically the tribe was probably 
absorbed either by the desert tribes south of Judah or into Judah 
(cf. I Ch. 424 ff), it was reckoned as one of the ten tribes constitut- 
ing the N. kingdom (i K. ii^')- — 10- The third month]. In this 
was the Feast of Weeks, Pentecost, which according to the later 
Jewish tradition commemorated the giving of the law, and 
hence the entrance of Israel into a covenant relation with Yahweh; 
and thus, if this tradition was as early as the Chronicler or his 
source, this would explain the month as appropriate for the cove- 
nant of V. '^ The reason for the date in the fifteenth year of the 
reign of Asa is entirely obscure, and especially so in view of the fol- 
lowing verse, where mention is made of the offering of spoil, presu- 
mably of the contest with Zerah, but since according to 13" (14') 
" the land was quiet ten years" the contest with Zerah took place 


in the eleventh year of Asa; the war, then, is held to have lasted 
some four years (Ke., Zoe., Oe.). But possibly the discrepancy 
arises because the Chronicler here is following a source dif- 
ferent from that of the previous chapter {v. s.). — 12. They 
entered into a covenant]. On form of expression cf. Je. 34'°. It 
means that they bound themselves by a solemn obligation or oath 
(cf. V. '") to seek Yahweh . . . with all their heart and all their 
soul {cf. Dt. 4"). For the manner of taking such an obligation 
cf. 34" Je. 34'^ f-. — 13. This resolution was according to the law 
(Dt. i3«-'<i 172-7). — Whether small or great] i.e., whether young or 
old. — 14. Shout of jo y\ Cf. i Ch. 1528. — On the musical instru- 
ments, trumpets and cornets (nTlSty, TiTl^^n), cf. i Ch. 152^ 

16-19, from i K. 1513-15. — 16. Ma'acah]. Cf 13=. — Asherah]. 
Whether there was ever a Canaanitish goddess Asherah (BDB.) 
is a disputed question (DB., EBi.) (cf. 14^), but the name 
seems to have been so used or understood here. — An horrible 
thing] I K. I5''t, some kind of idol or idolatrous symbol; 
H simulacrum Priapi with reference to the phallus cult. This 
interpretation, as good as any, is usually accepted. — And he 
crushed] wanting in i K. 15", added by the Chronicler, bringing 
the destruction of the horrible thing (miphlezeth) in accord with that 
of the golden calf (Ex. 32") and the asherah (2 K. 23^ 2 Ch. 34^- '). 
— Valley of Kidr on] on the east of Jerusalem, where objects used 
in heathen worship were regularly destroyed (cf. 29'6 30" i K. 15" 
2 K. 23*- «•'=), probably because the place as a burying-ground was 
considered unclean (Kidron, DB.). — 17. From Israel] i.e., Israel 
in the sense of Judah (cf. 11') (Be., Zoe., Oe., Ba.), but this in- 
terpretation is doubtful. Since in 14^ '^' Asa is said to have re- 
moved the high places, the Chronicler probably added here from 
Israel in the meaning of the N. kingdom (over which Asa had 
historically no control) and thus harmonised this verse with 14^ <*' 
(Ki., Bn.). — 18. These dedicated things were possibly spoils of war 
(cf. I Ch. 18"), and since mentioned in i K. 1515 have been re- 
garded as aconfirmationfrom that source of the victories of Abijah 
and Asa narrated in 131s «■ 1495 (Be., Oe., Ba.); another explana- 
tion is that they were removed, through fear of Baasha (i K. 15"), 
from some sanctuary and brought to Jerusalem for safe-keeping 


(Bn.). — 19. And there was not war, etc.]. According to i K. i5'«- ^^ 
war was between Asa and Baasha all their days. This discrep- 
ancy has been explained by regarding the Chronicler's statement 
as referring to the absence of any serious occurrence or an open 
declaration of war in spite of continued hostility (Ke., Zoe., Oe., 
Ba.). In reality the Chronicler, however, probably regarded this 
continued warfare as inconsistent with Asa's piety, and hence 
wrote the history accordingly. — The thirty-fifth year] v. i. 

1, iniiTi-i] Ges. § 143&. — 3. D'-ai D"'!:''i] ace. of duration Ges. § 118^. 
— The usage of S with nS (three times) is peculiar and not found else- 
where (1. 133, Koe. iii. § 402 /3); called an example of ^ with subject (Bn.). 
—5. nisixn] districts of Israel's territory, cf. ii^^ i Ch. 132 Gn. 263''. — 
6. inn^i] in eight MSS. and (&, H, Pi. — 7. idi^] Ges. § 145/). — 8, NOjn -\•^•;'\ 
an insertion, as the abs. nxnjn shows (Ges. § 127/). (&^ Azariah the 
prophet, U Azariah the son of 'Oded the prophet. Perhaps we should 
read }3 in^-i?>- n3T iti-x (Ki. BH.). — pinnn] cf. for construction 12% 
for use I Ch. ii'".— 9. ai'^] cf. i Ch. 433.— 11. ixo.i] rel. om., cf. i Ch. 
9"fc> (1. 120). — 16. m^Dn . . . cn] i K. i5>3 moM icn. — pnM] wanting in 
I K., V. s. — 17. SNTi>^c] wanting in i K., v. s. — After uh<y i K. 15'^ has 
mr\> D-;. — 18. D'nSxn] i K. 1515 mn\ — 19. npin nS nnnSci] i K. i5'6 
om. n"?. 

XVI. 1-6. The war with Baasha.— Derived from i K. 151'-" 
— 1. In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa] wanting in 2 K., 
and with the thirty-fifth year mentioned in 15" historically an im- 
possible date, since according to i K. i68- '» Baasha died in the 
twenty-sixth year of Asa. Hence thirty-fifth (15'') and thirty-sixth 
are due either to copyists' errors, or to an improper reckoning by 
the Chronicler. Under the former supposition the original has been 
held to have been the fifteenth and sixteenth (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe.), 
a view which has been felt to harmonise with the previous state- 
ments that during the first ten years of Asa's reign there was peace 
(13" (14')), and hence (it may be assumed) that in the eleventh 
year the inroad of the Cushites took place (14'^), followed by the 
cultus reform culminating in the celebration and the covenant in 
the fifteenth year (15*-'^), and that then came the war with Baasha 
in the following year. But such a speedy war with Baasha is un- 
thinkable from the Chronicler's point of view. The covenant and 
the loyalty could only have been followed by an era of peace, and 


this is expressly stated in 15'^ where it says, " Yahweh gave them 
rest round about." The Chronicler delayed then the war with 
Baasha until the close of Asa's reign in order to place in this con- 
nection his sin {cj. vv. '«•), late in his life and near its punish- 
ment through the disease in his feet three years later (v. ^^)., for the 
Chronicler undoubtedly thus regarded the disease, and, therefore, 
lie placed the war with Baasha in the thirty-sixth year of Asa's 
reign. Other explanations of the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years 
are a reckoning based on the separation of the N. and S. kingdoms, 
since the thirty-fifth year of the disruption corresponds to the fif- 
teenth of Asa (Mov., Ba.); or a derivation from the Midrash source 
of the Clironicler, which had a chronology or scheme of synchro- 
nism with the N. kingdom quite different from that of i and 2 K. 
(Bn., Ki.). — Baasha king of Israel]. According to i K. 15'* 
Baasha came to the throne of Israel in the third year of Asa, and 
the war between the two kingdoms was continuous (i K. i5'«- 5^). — 
And he built] i.e., as the connection shows, fortified, since Ramah, 
mod. er-Ram five miles north of Jerusalem, is mentioned in the 
earUer history {cf. Ju. 4* 19"). The town clearly commanded the 
highway leading to Jerusalem. How far the Chronicler is from 
being a historian is seen in the fact that no mention is made of the 
implied loss of the cities mentioned in 15*. — 2, Silver and gold]. 
I K. 15" has " all the silver and gold that were left" with reference 
to the loss through the invasion of Shishak (12' i K. 14"). This 
statement is omitted, doubtless, because such a reference to de- 
pleted treasuries would have been quite inappropriate after the 
prosperity of Asa mentioned above. — The line of descent of Ben- 
hadad King of Damascus (c. 885-844 B.C.) (KAT.^ p. 134) is also 
omitted. — 3. A league is between me and thee as was between my 
father and thy father]. Whether this statement is merely rhetorical 
or refers to an actual alliance it is impossible to determine. This 
successful invocation of Benhadad was later paralleled in the 
appeal of Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser, King of Assyria, for assistance 
against Damascus and N. Israel (2 K. 16"'). — 4. The places smit- 
ten are, naturally, on the northern frontier of Israel. — 'Ijon] (i K. 
1520 2 K. 15'' t) survives in the name Merj 'Ayun, a rich oval plain 
at the foot of the mountains of Naphtali, near the bend of the river 


Litanv, and is identified with Tell Dibhin near the northern end of 
this plain(£5i. II. col. 2160; Rob. BR^ III.p.375).— y46e/ Maww] 
I K. 152° Abel Beth Ma'acah and also 2 K. 15==' 2 S. 20'^ (fue reading) 
MAbei^ mod. Abil el Kajuh, a small village on a hill 1,074 
feet above the sea, almost directly opposite Banias, and on the 
main road thence to Sidon and the coast (GAS. in EBi). Mayim 
is probably r'ue to textual corruption. — All the store-cities] 1 K. 
15=" " all the Chinneroth," i.e., the fertile district of Gennesaret west 
of the sea of Galilee, " along with all the land." The rendering of 
the Chronicler seems suggested by this text (v. i.). — 5. And he 
caused the work to cease\ This statement also is derived, ap- 
parently, from a corruption or misunderstanding of the text {v. i.). 
I K. 15-' has "and he dwelt in" (or after (S "returned to") 
"Tirzah." — 6. And he built] i.e., fortified. — Gebd] mod. Jeba, 
seven miles north of Jerusalem, the scene of Jonathan's exploit (i 
S. 14 ' « ), and from the time of Asa apparently the northern limit 
of the S. kingdom (2 K. 23 ', cf. Zc. m'"). — Mizpah] probably 
mod. Nabi Samwil, five miles north-west of Jerusalem. The place 
is frequently mentioned (Ju. 20'' 21'^- » i S. ']'' et al.). The forti- 
fication of these places would protect the S. kingdom from en- 
croachm.ents on the north. 

7-10. The rebuke of Hanani. — Asa is severely condemned for 
his invocation of the aid of Syria, especially after his great victory 
over the Cushites. 7, Hanani] mentioned in 19^ 20'^ i K. 16'' 
as the father of the prophet Jehu. The seer] (nS"in) also v.'", 
used elsewhere by the Chronicler only of Samuel (i Ch. 9^2 26^8 
29"); clearly an archaism; yet regarded as an evidence of an an- 
cient tradition (v. i.). — Therefore is the host of the king of Aram 
escaped out of thy hand]. The prophet seems to imply that if Asa 
had relied upon Yahweh he would not only have conquered 
Baasha, but also the Syrians who were in league with him (v. 3). — 
8. C/. 14'-'^ — Lubim]. Cf. 12K The Chronicler plainly regarded 
the Cushites of Zerah as an Egyptian host. — 9. For the eyes of 
Yahweh, etc.] an expression of divine omniscience and provi- 
dential care (cj. Zc. 4'" Pr. 15^). — For from henceforth thou shall 
have wars]. No additional wars are recorded during the reign of 
Asa, but the policy of foreign alliances naturally provoked them. 



C/. the similar situation in the case of Ahaz (Is. 7 2 K. 16). — 10. 
For similar treatment of prophets cf. that of Micaiah, 18"; of 
Jeremiah, Je. 20=; and, even worse, that of Zechariah, 24", and 
of Uriah, Je. 26-"". 

11-14. The conclusion of Asa's reign. — An expansion of i K. 
15"'. — 11. First and last]. Cf. i Ch. 292". — In the book of the 
kings of Judah and Israel] {v. Intro, p. 22) i K. 15" "in the 
book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah." — 12. In the thirty- 
ninth year] i K. 15-' " in the time of his old age." — His disease, 
etc., to the end of verse] wanting in Kings. — And also in his 
disease, etc.]. Even as in the war with Israel he sought human aid 
through Syria, so here in his last sickness he seeks it through his 
physicians. The reference to physicians is unique in the OT., 
although they are elsewhere mentioned (cf Gn. 50^ in connection 
with embalming, Jb. 13^ Je. 8-). The art of healing seems to 
have been practised by the prophets. Cf. the application to Elisha 
2 K. 4''''-, and the healing work of Isaiah 2 K. 20' Is. 38^. Pos- 
sibly this passage reflects the activity of physicians in the Chron- 
icler's own time. Cf. their praise in BS. 38' -'\ — 13. And died, 
etc.] wanting in i K. — 14. i K. 15=* "and was buried with his 
fathers in the city of David his father." The burial of Asa is de- 
scribed as though of exceeding magnificence or care. The laying 
of him ow a resting-place filed with spices and various perfumes 
prepared after the perfumers^ art was after the custom of preparing 
the body thus for the burial {cf. Jn. 19^" Mt. 27" Mk. 15" Lk. 23"). 
The burning {cf. 21" Je. 34^) was not of the body, since cre- 
mation was contrary to the customs of the Hebrews, but probably 
of spices, possibly originally a form of sacrifice for the dead (Now. 
Arch. I. p. 197; EBi. II. col. 1337). 

1. (SEA 38th year, (gL 30th.— N31 nsv] cf. Jos. 6=.— 2. nxm] i K. 
i5>8 npM. — '0 2r\■{^ pp^] i K. '2 onnijn 3nimr]D3n Sjhn {v. s.). After hSd 
I K. has v^2y ^^3 a:n''V — n':'!;"'!] 1 K. ndn ^SDn urh^^x — ptt-D-n] i K. 
pZ"D-\. — 3. (gACL 5ti,eov Siae-qK-qv followed by ARVm. Let there he. — After 
n*? I K. is'^has inty. — 4. iom] <&, i K. 15=" T'l. — -hiMii . . . Sjn pni] i K. 
1520 iSpdj \-\h ^-2 Sj; nnjo So nsi njyn no Sns pni. The text of the Chron- 
icler is based either on a corruption, illegibiHty, or from a ready sugges- 
tion of the letters, or possibly it is another name of the district given 
owing to its fertility (Ba.), but (S-^bl have irepix'^povs suggesting nn''JD. 



— 5. ipdnSd PS nas-M] a corruption or substitulion for nsnpa a'^'M (i K. 
152')- — 6. npS] I K. i^-ipcii'n. — After min^ K. has "p: VH and after ja'i 
the king Asa, and after >'3J /;; Benjamin.— 7 and 10. nNin]. This title is 
bestowed elsewhere only on Samuel, i S. g^- "• '^ '■ 1 Ch. 9" 2628 2929. 
Since therefore an ancient title, Jastrow finds in the use of the term here 
an evidence at Icaf-t that the story of Hanani is ancient if not authentic 
(JBL. XXVIII. 1900, p. 49). But the application of this term to Hanani 
is made with no reference to the ancient meaning assigned to nsi by Jas- 
trow (v. I Ch. 2929), and the Chronicler may have been led to use the 
archaic term here under the influence of i S. 9'. — 12. x^n^i] v. 1. 40. — 
fl-';nS -ly] cf. I Ch. 142 (1. 87). — '•• t:n-i] v. 1. 23. — D''N312]. Jastrow would 
read either D'n^J U7tto the seers or D^'Nonj un/o the dead {op. cit. p. 49 
f. n. 23). 

XVII-XX. The reign of Jehoshaphat {c. 876-851 b.c.).— The 
Chronicler has made use of all of the narrative given in i K. con- 
cerning Jehoshaphat (i K. 1524b 22'-«'> ^i-so). A slight portion of 
this he has rewritten {cf. 18' -^ 20=5-"), and the whole he has supple- 
mented with a large amount of new material (lyit-'s 1 91-20^°) in 
which the reign of Jehoshaphat appears one of unusual religious 
activity and external splendour. The King busies himself with the 
instruction of his people in the law of Yahweh (ly'-^ and in the 
establishment of a system of courts (19^-"). His rule is also one of 
military success. He buiJt castles and store-cities and had a 
greet army (lyi^-'^). He received large tribute from the Philis- 
tines and Arabians (ly'" «•), and won a most signal victory over the 
Moabites and Ammonites through the direct intervention of Yah- 
weh in response to prayer and praise (20'-"). The King's only 
shortcomings seem to have been his alliances, recorded in i K., 
with the N. kingdom (192 20"), which resulted in his exposure to 
peril at Ramoth-gilead (c. 18) and the loss of his ships (20"). 

While this new material is all of the spirit and style of the Chronicler, 
Bn. and Ki. find here several sources. Ki. after Bn. analyses as follows: 
17"' from I K. 1524b; vv.ib-o from M^; vv. '-^ from an old historical 
source; vv. '"-'s from M2; 18' -3» from the Chronicler; vv. ^t-si from 
I K. 22; 1 91 -3 from the Chronicler; w. ^-n from the Chronicler's fore- 
runner; 2oi-i8fromM; v. '^ from the Chronicler; vv. ^i -33a from i K.; 
vv. 33b-37 from the Chronicler. But all the e.xtra canonical material is of 
the spirit and style of the Chronicler, v. i. and cf. in 17' pinnn (1. 38); 
in 174 2o3 ^7 c'-M (1. 23); in 17' 192 2q'o S with ace. (1. 128); in i;'" 


20"" D'hSn, nini -ino {cf. 14") (1. 96); in i;'" pixinh no'?cr! {cf. i Ch. 
29'", 1. 6); in ly'^ 20" nSycS •\y (1. 87); in 192 vjb Sn nxm {cf. 152); in 
193 aS and tt'Ti after Hiph. of jo (c/. i2'< 30'' Ezr. yi" t); in 19^ 'i:* ■'CPM 
(1. 89), and n'j?i i^j: (1. 124); in 2o« ij\-iaN ti'^'N nin'- very often in 
Ch., and 3S^nnS ^Dp fNi {cf. 14'"); in 20=- '= 3T |icn (1. 28); in 20-0 
n''Sxm (c/. 1312); in 20^' om^'D (only in writings of Chronicler, 1. iii); 
in 20=5 PnS {cf. I4'2, 1. 132); 2o3° also should be compared with 14^-* 
i5'5; c/. in 20" -\sy {cf. 14'° I Ch. 29", 1. 92) (Graf, GB. p. 145). 

XVII. 1-6. The piety and prosperity of Jehoshaphat. — 1. 

And Jehoshaphat reigned in his stead] i.e., in the place of Asa, a 
transcription of i K. 15"''. — 2. Fortified cities have an important 
place in the narrative of the Chronicler. Rehoboam built them 
(ii''-'2); Abijah took cities (13"); Asa built them (i4«-^) and like- 
wise Jehoshaphat {cf. w. '=• '^ 213). — Which Asa his father had 
taken]. Cf. 158. — 3. The first ways of David his father] i.e., the 
earlier years of David before he fell into the sins of adultery (2 S. 
II ff.) and numbering the people (2 S. 24 i Ch. 21) (Be., Ke., 
Zoe., Oe.). But David is wanting in (^-"^^ ((^^ has it), hence 
in all probability is a gloss (Ba.). The reference then is to Asa, 
the father of Jehoshaphat, whose first ways, according to the 
Chronicler, were good (cc. 14, 15) and his latter evil (c. 16). — 
The Baalim] i.e., a false god or gods in contrast with Yahweh 
(cf. Ju. 2"). Baal means primarily a "proprietor" or "pos- 
sessor," hence "master," "lord," and was a common desig- 
nation of deity like our word "Lord." In early times it was used 
of Yahweh, as clearly appears from its appearance in proper 
names (cf. 1 Ch. 8'* 14') and the prohibition of its use by Hosea 
(2 18 (16)) J but later, since the gods of the Canaanites were generally 
thus designated, it canie to signify a false god. — 4. Of his father] 
another reference to Asa (cf. v.^ (^ v. s.). — The doings of Israel]. 
Cf. iVK — 5. Tribute] i.e., free gifts, perhaps, at the King's ac- 
cession, rather than royal exactions (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ba.). 
— 6. And his heartwas lifted up]. Only here is this expression used 
in a good sense, elsewhere it has a bad meaning (cf. 26'^ 32^5 Ez. 
2^1. i.u Ps. 1311 Pr. i8'2, BDB.). — And furthermore he took away, 
etc.]. This statement is not in harmony with that of i K. 22", 
quoted by the Chronicler in 20=3, where it is said "the high places 
were not taken away" but they were frequented by the people. 


Such discrepancies did not trouble the Hebrew historian. — The 
high places and the asheriin]. Cf. 14^ '". 

7-9. The commission for teaching the law. — This narrative is 
a duplicate of the account of the establishment of the judiciary given 
in i9^-'> (Bn., Ki.). No record of such events is found in Kings, 
and it is not impossible that Jehoshaphat, perhaps through the in- 
fluence of his alliance with the N. kingdom {v. i.), introduced some 
new organisation for the administration of justice or law (Winckler, 
KAT.^ p. 252; Erbt, Die Hebrder, p. 109), yet v. i. 19^". The ap- 
pointment of laity in connection with Levites and priests has been 
regarded as a mark of an ancient and reliable tradition (Bn., Ki.). 
Otherwise, however, this section bears every evidence of being late 
and written by the Chronicler. The book of the law of Yahweh is 
a reflection of Deuteronomy, and the names of the commissioners 
as a whole belong to a period later than the ninth century (Gray, 
HPN. p. 231). Already, also at the time of the Chronicler, must 
have begun the study, exposition, and teaching of the law by 
members of the laity who were later reckoned among the Scribes. — 
7. In the third year]. This date is given to show that Jehoshaphat 
at the very outset of his reign concerned himself with the instruc- 
tion of his people in the law. — Ben-hail f] signifies "son (man) of 
might," cf. Abi-hail ii'^; yet possibly it does not belong as a proper 
name in the text, but as in (^, 21, is descriptive of the princes, eveji 
sons of valour {v. i.). — 8. And with them the Levites]. The tend- 
ency of the Chronicler is to dignify the Levites, and thus he assigns 
to them the priestly duty of teaching (cf. v. ' 35' Ne. 8'-" DB. IV. 
p. 93). — 9. And they taught in Jtidah]. The priests were the 
guardians of the law (Ho. 4« '■ Je. iS'^, cf. Dt. 17* ff- i9'5«- ZZ^'')^ ^.nd 
hence its teachers, and under Jehoshaphat an impulse may have 
been given for instruction in the law through the priests and others, 
although such a general measure as is here mentioned is probably 
not historical. — The book of the law of Yahweh] v. s. 

7. SinpS] (g, 31, S'inijj'? sons {men) of strength qualifying mtt', cf. 
I Ch. 5'8 2 Ch. 286 Ju. 21"' I S. 14" 18" 2 S. 2' 1710 2 K. 2^*. — 8. ait: 
n^jnN f ] looks like a dittography arising from the two previous names. 

10-19. The greatness of Jehoshaphat and his army. — The 

summary of Jehoshaphat's reign given in i K. 22" -s" shows that it 


was one of prosperity and peace with the N. kingdom. His might 
is there mentioned, and since he was a good king who "walked in 
all the ways of Asa his father," and "turned not aside from doing 
that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh," i K. 22", the Chron- 
icler naturally ascribes unto him much greatness, with possibly 
some real historical reminiscence (z'. i.). — 10. Then a terror from 
Yahweh, etc.]. The Chronicler represents a supernatural dread 
of Judah, caused by Yahweh, coming upon the neighbouring 
peoples, presumably as a reward for Jehoshaphat's zeal for the law 
(r/. i4>3 (n) 2o29 Gn. 355). — 11. The Arabians]. The term ^rai 
primarily means "people of the desert," and came into use among 
the Hebrews as indicating a particular people, i.e. the inhabitants 
of northern Arabia, relatively late (first used in this strictly eth- 
nographical sense in Ne. 2^^ 6'); and Arabians in the writings of the 
Chronicler probably reflects the powerful kingdom of the Naba- 
teans already established in his day, south and south-east of Judah, 
and he mentions them here and elsewhere (cf. 22' 26') to present in- 
telligibly to his readers an event (whether real or assumed) like 
that of Jehoshaphat's glory. Tlie Philistines would be under- 
stood by his readers from their knowledge of the canonical books, 
the Arabians from present conditions (Noeldeke, EBi. I. col. 274). 
It is yet possible, however, that some tribute from the Philistines and 
desert tribes was historical, a real result of Asa's victory over 
Zerah (i4«-'^ 0-15)) (so at least as far as the Arabians are con- 
cerned, Winckler, KA T.^ p. 252). For a similar tribute oi flocks or 
their product cf. 2 K. 3'. — 12. Castles and cities of store]. Cf. v. ^. 
— 13. And he had great property]. (BDB.) The context shows 
that by this property the writer meant military supplies (so Ke.). 
The rendering "work for equipping and provisioning the fort- 
resses" (Be.) is certainly not so good. — 14. The soldiers were en- 
rolled according to their families. — Adnah] is also the name of a 
Manassite, i Ch. i22» "o)_ — XQ. Who willingly offered himself unto 
Yahweh]. Cf. Ju. 5^ It is unfortunate that the Chronicler has 
not explained why this phrase of honour was applied to Amasiah. 
— 17. Equipped with bow and shield] i.e., light-armed troops, for 
which Benjamin was famous. Cf. i Ch. 12^ and (on shield) cf. 1 Ch. 
1225 (24) 2 Ch. 14' <8>.— 18. The total number of these warriors is, 


of Judah 780,000, of Benjamin 380,000, making a grand total of 
1,160,000. Tiiis is the largest force assigned anywhere to the S. 
kingdom. On the gross exaggeration of such numbers cf. ly, 
and for other lists ii". From Jehoshaphat's connection with the 
N. kingdom and his assistance rendered in war {cf. c. 18) it is 
probable that he maintained something of an army, and so far 
some historical truth underlies this section. 

10. niH"' ins] a terror from Yahweh. Subjective genitive, Ges. § 128^. 
— ns-iNH] a late usage, cf. i Ch. 132 2 Ch. ii=3. — 11. dvid'^d jm] 
partitive use of is, cf. i Ch. 4^2 930. 32 2 Ch. 32=1 (BDB. p 3. b (a)).— hddi 
net] and silver for tribute ARV., Kau., after H et vectigal argenti, but 
better silver a burden, i.e., a great quantity (Be., Ke., Zoe., Oe., Ki.). 
(g Kal 86fj.aTa (vSTOi). — 3''X''3"i>'n] a late form, elsewhere either D''2i>'n 
(21I6 22') or D''''3"("n (26'). — "11N3 . . . □'•k;'\-ii] wanting in 05^, ffi. — 12. 
^S^] with co-ordinate adj. denotes continuance, cf. Ex. 19'' i S. 2'^^ 
2 S. 3' et al., V. Ges. § 113W. — n^;aS i>']c/. i Ch. 14=. — nrj-1^3] fortresses, 
pi.' of n'jio, a late word {cf. mo i Ch. 291), also pi. 27^ t- — -"30n >■>';] 
store cities, cf. 2 Ch. 8". — 14. nSs] looking forward has the force of a 
neut. sing., cf. 3^. And this was their enrolment according to the houses of 
their fathers of Judah captains of thousands : Adnah the captain, etc. — 
Dn>ni3!< n''2'^] pi. Ges. § i2^r. — 16. S^n inj] to be taken either collec- 
tively referring to the 200,000 of 'Amasiah, or must be read nuj.— 17. 
PZ'p ip-i'j] cf I Ch. 122. 

XVIII. 1-34. Jehoshaphat in alliance with Ahab. — Taken 
from I K. 22' -351 almost verbatim except in the case of i K. 22'-', 
which is rewritten or replaced in 18' -2. The narrative in i K. be- 
longs to the prophetic stories forming a part of the history of 
Ahab, and is the only instance of an extensive excerpt from the 
history of N. Israel in Chronicles. It was apparently introduced 
for the honourable part which Jehoshaphat performed in seeking 
the word of Yahweh through Micaiah, and especially as a back- 
ground of the reproof given for the alliance with Ahab in the 
following chapter. 

1-3. Jehoshaphat allies himself with Ahab. — Vv. ' f are from 
the pen of the Chronicler. — 1. And had wealth and honour in ahun- 
dance] a duplicate of 17^''. — And he formed a marriage alliance 
with Ahab] through the marriage of Jehoram the son of Je- 
hoshaphat with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab (2 K. 8"). From 
the disruption at the death of Solomon until the reign of Je- 


hoshaphat, the N. and S. kingdoms seem to have been openly hos- 
tile to each other. How a reconciliation was effected between the 
two, whether by war or negotiation, is unknown, but, in view of the 
military service rendered to Israel in the Syrian wars (i K. 22 2 K. 
8-' f) and against Moab (2 K. y «•), Judah appears to have been 
a dependency of Israel. Yet, notwithstanding the denunciation 
given in 19^, this alliance must have contributed much to the wel- 
fare of the S. kingdom, and probably laid the foundation for its 
prosperity under Jehoshaphat. Possible influences of the alliance 
have already been noticed (v. s.). — 2. At the end of years'\ an in- 
definite expression of time substituted by the Chronicler for "and 
it came to pass in the third year" (i K. 22^), where the reference is 
to the period of peace between Syria and Israel (i K. 22'). The 
Chronicler probably referred to the marriage affinity, and means 
that some time after this Jehoshaphat visited Samaria. — And 
Ahab killed, etc.]. Ahab is represented as receiving Jehosha- 
phat on a friendly visit with great honour, and inducing him to 
join in the expedition against Ramoth-gilead, but the probability 
is that Ahab first decided on the expedition and then called upon 
Jehoshaphat to join him, whereupon the latter comes to Samaria 
(Klo., Bn. on i K. 22^). — Ramoth-gilead]. Cf. for location i Ch. 
665 (80 )_ This frontier town was taken from Israel by the Syrians 
during either the reign of Baasha (i K. 15") or more probably in 
the reign of Omri (i K. 2o3''), and not restored according to the 
treaty made after the battle of Aphek (i K. 2o3''), hence the expedi- 
tion of Ahab. — 3. From here through the chapter the narrative of 
I K. 22^-" is followed almost verbatim. While Jehoshaphat in the 
language of diplomacy in this verse expresses unanimity and full 
co-operation with Ahab, the subsequent narrative seems to reveal 
an underlying reluctance on the part of Jehoshaphat to enter 
upon the undertaking from doubt in regard to its successful issue. 
For changes in the verse compared with i K. 22" v. i. 

2. D'jtf yph] a substitute for niciSs'n nr^o •'hm in i K. 22^ (v. s.). — 
ni'Sj . . . ^\2V^] wanting in i K. — 3. Ch. omits i K. 22^. Snii:'^ i^^v aNns 
and nTin> ^'?c are wanting in i K. 22''. — ^nj.'] i K. tin + nDnScS. — 

lS 1DN>1] I K. SnIB'i -i':'D Sn tODU'lH'" -lDNi\ — "'DJ? lD}.'3l] I K. "l^iVD "'Oi'3. — 

HDnSna ^]^sy^] wanting in i K., which has instead T'Dids ididd. 



4-27. The prophecy of Micaiah. — This is one of the most 
illuminating narratives in the OT. respecting the prophets of Yah- 
weh. Micaiah vs. the four hundred shows that as sharp a line of 
cleavage ran between prophets of Yahweh in the days of Elijah and 
Elisha as in the days of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, when these latter de- 
nounced false prophets who clearly spoke in the name of Yahweh 
(Je. 23'ff- 28' «• Ez. 122' ff. 1^1 fi.), The appearance of four hundred 
prophets of Yahweh at the court of Ahab reveals that this story 
was written from a different point of view from i K. 17-19, where, 
under Ahab and Jezebel, the prophets of Yahweh are banished and 
slain and only Elijah appears left. Some prophets of Yahweh, 
then, were time-servers, ready to compromise with the worship 
of Baal and to prophesy according to royal pleasure, while others 
stood, like Elijah, for the worship of the righteous Yahweh alone. 
With these latter, Micaiah must be classed. These prophets were 
the forerunners of Amos, Hosea, and the other authors of OT. 
written prophecy. Some OT. writers only recognised this second 
class, while others took a broader view and enable us to trace more 
accurately the actual events of history. — 5. The prophets]. These 
were prophets of Yahweh, since the King was inquiring after the 
word of Yahweh (v. ^). — 6. Is there no prophet of Yahweh here 
besides] i.e., in addition to the four hundred who had spoken with 
such unanimity. Jehoshaphat evidently felt that Ahab had only 
called the prophets who were subservient to his desire and re- 
sponded accordingly. — 9. Clothed in garments] i.e., in royal attire. 
— In a threshing-floor]. A tlireshing-floor would be a large, flat, 
open, and elevated place, and hence convenient for such a convoca- 
tion; but probably the phrase should be struck from the text 
{v. i.). — And all the prophets were prophesying before them] per- 
haps by lifting up their voices in unison, or by certain dervish-like 
manifestations of ecstasy (cf v. ")• — lO* Horns of iron] an em- 
blem of offensive power (Dt. ;iy^ Am. 6'' Je. 48" Dn. 8^ f ). 
Such symbols were customary with the prophets. Cf. Je. 27^ 
28"' «f- where Jeremiah wears a bar as a symbol of captivity and 
Hananiah, a prophet of the type of Zedekiah, breaks it from off his 
neck. — 12. Behold the prophets have with one mouth spoken'^ good 
unto king] so (g (z'. i.). — 14. The first reply of Micaiah is clearly 


ironical, although not without a touch of politeness in favouring the 
Kmg's desire. — 16. This vision is usually (and correctly) taken to 
indicate the outcome of the campaign : Ahab will fall and the peo- 
ple will return home. 

Ba. interprets differently. He renders Yahweh hath said, These have 
a master who is no master, i.e., Ahab was-no shepherd but a spoiler of his 
people, and Ba. thinks that the words in peace cannot fittingly apply to a 
return of Israel home after a disaster in battle. The vision means, then, 
that the man who has misgoverned Israel wDl not be permitted to lead 
to victory. 

18. Ahab would remove the depressing effect of the oracle upon 
Jehoshaphat by insinuating that it proceeded from personal hos- 
tility. — 19. Micaiah indicates his words by a vision showing how 
Yahweh was leading Ahab to destruction through a spirit of false- 
hood in the mouths of his prophets. The scene is of Yahweh as 
a heavenly king holding a court or council. For Yahweh's method 
of dealing with Ahab cf. Ps. iS"'' "6 b), — 20. The Hebrew allows 
either a spirit or the spirit. If we read the former, one out of the 
rest of the angelic beings who attend Yahweh, then we find here 
in its most elementary form the doctrine of the later Jewish and 
Christian Satan; but this interpretation is doubtful. The spirit is 
the personified spirit of prophecy {cf. v. =2). The spirit, then, 
which moved the four hundred prophets was the true spirit of 
prophecy, though leading them into falsehood. The real deceiver 
is Yahweh. Such a conception, however repugnant to us, was 
agreeable to the Hebrew mind. Cf. Yahweh's hardening the heart, 
Ex. 4^"' 73 9'2 iQi- 20- 27 iiioj sending an evil spirit between Abime- 
lech and the men of Shechem, Ju. 9==; inciting David to wrong, 
2 S. 24'. — 23. Zedekiah insultingly challenges Micaiah to vindi- 
cate his prophecy. — 24. Micaiah accepts the challenge and says 
that Zedekiah shall perceive its truth in the disaster which shall 
overtake him, a fugitive hiding for his life. — On inner chamber, cf. 
I K. 20'". — 25. Joash the king's son] not elsewhere mentioned. 
— 26. Bread of affliction and water of affliction] i.e., bread and 
water in scant measure, cf. Is. 30=". — 27. The test of prophecy ac- 
cording to Micaiah is its fulfilment. Cf. v.^* Dt. 18=^' '•. — And he 
said hear ye, etc.]. These words are a marginal gloss taken from 


Mi. I', and form no part of the original narrative of i K. 22. 
They were inserted by some one who identified Micaiah with 
Micah, the prophet of the days of Hezekiah. 

4. DVD] first of all, first, cf. Gn. 25^' i S. 5'" (Dr.) i K. i^i (Bur.).— 
12T pn] wanting (6ba. — 5. jjn^a] i K. 22^ yaiNo. — ^SJ^] i K. i'^nh. 
The latter, as the forms Snns and n*^]? show, is correct. — Sn] i K. hy. — 
D^n^N.n] I K. 'JIN. The original in i K. was ^^^\ found in twenty-nine 
Mss. (Ki. BH., St. SBOT.). The changes to "'J^^• and DTiSN-n were made 
to avoid the association of nini with false prophets. — 6. inNc] inND the 
reading of some mss. and also preferred by Ki. (BH.) and St. (SBOT.); 
ditto in vv. ' '-. — 7. ny-\h vdi ho 'a naioS iS;? N2jnD urx] i K. 228 
;n DN '»3 210 >Sy Naj.-i> nS. — xinj wanting in i K. — nSd-'] i K. nSni ; 
ditto in V. ^. — 9. Dom] wanting in i K. 22"', evidently inserted to 
make easier the reading pJ3 in a threshing-floor. (S of i K. has for 
pj3 Dnj3 d-'^'^Sd only evonXoi. This Icjks as though pJ3 were a 
dittography of Dnj3 (Bur., St. SBOT.) and thus had no place in the 
text of K. Paul Haupt (SBOT.) thinks pj, from connection with Arabic 
verb ^f^ to polish and Assyr. gurnu " coat," may mean polished 
armour and that the word to be rejected is Dnja as a gloss. At any rate 
the various proposed emendations, such as Dma embroidered (Be. after 
Th.), 01133 >-\)2 (Ki. BH. after Klo.), p^l nJ3 (Bn.), seem not commend- 
able. — 10. 1*^] used reflexively Ges. § 135/. — ~J>"J3] cf. i Ch. 7'". — 
11. inji]. The obj. is understood.— 12. nai] read after ® iXdXrjaav 
•nai Bur., Bn,, Ki. BH., et al. — iro] dageS forte conjunctive, Ges. 
§ 20/. — inN3] I K. 22'3 -inN 1313. — 13. ■'n':'N] i K. 22" •'Sn r\^n\ (g, U, 
"■^x Din'^N, which was probably the original in Ch. — 14. n3''a] shortened 
from iniDiD. — l^i^] i K. 22'^ the same, and also '^■'nj instead of ''<-\r\n of 
Ch., but nSxni r\h-;. ^abl in both K. and Ch. has all these verbs in the 
sing. This probably was the original and the change to the plural has 
been made by copyists to emphasise the presence of Jehoshaphat. — 
D3T'3 unji;] I K. i^DH T13 mni |nji. — 15. icn] for use as conj. cf. 
BDB. T^'N 8 a (/3). — 16. ph] fem. to agree with |nx. Some mss. have 
on^, agreeing with Snt^\ — 17. ynS] i K. 2 2'8 j;t which Ki. {BH. not 
SBOT.) adopts.— 18. p"?] (5 has Oi^x oiirws, I3 ah, both here and r K. 
22'^ adopted by Th., Kau., Bn., Ki. in SBOT., Kom. The force would 
be. My personal bias is not, as you charge, determining my words con- 
cerning you, but your downfall is the purpose of Yahweh. — u'Ctt" ] i K. sg. 
— o^'Diyn N3X] host of heaven, i.e., the organised body of angels or divine 
beings with whom Yahweh associates, cf. Ne. g* Ps. 10321 1482 Is. 242' 
Dn. 8'° Jos. 5"f-. — iSndi:'! irD'' Sp onDj;] i K. — i^sTtJ'ai ij''D"in vSj; idj? 
— 19. Sn-i^'' i'^d] wanting in i K. 2220. — idn'] wanting in (Sabl and 1 K. 
and to be struck out; a clear dittography from following IDX. At the 
end of the verse (&^ has the addition Kal eJirev oi/rws Oi) dvvi^a-ei, also in 


I K. with addition ko2 elirev 'Ev ffoi. — n33, hdd] i K. nsa. naa. — 20. 
nnn] on art. with indefinite force cf. 20^^ and Ges. § 126(7. St. 
(SBOT.) reads pji'n (c/'. Jb. i^^) and regards nnn as a substitutionary 
gloss. This is favoured by Paul Haupt, who says nnn is " certainly not 
the spirit of prophecy " {v. s.). The strongest argument in favour of 
this view is the fact that nnn, a fern, noun, is here construed as masc, 
but its use in v. -' seems fatal to the thought of an original ]a".rn. — 21. 
nn"-] I K. 2222 nn.— 22. After ^sa read So after ®al g,_ -jj^ and i K. 
2223. — 23. Tnn] wanting in i K. 22=% yet probably to be read there 
(Klo., Kamp., Bn., Ki., Bur.) since nt w is never used of a verb. — l^i^] 
"ins (Ki. BH.).— 25. inp] i K. 22=6 sg.— jisn] (g^ 'EfJ-vP, CS^^ ^efi/xvp, 
also <JS of I K. (the 2 comes from preceding irpos), hence the name 
probably was iss Immer {cf. i Ch. 9'2 24'^ Je. 20', et al. (Bur.)). — 26. 
omcNi] (S^^ I K. 22" sg. — vnS D''21 yn*? on'^] examples of apposition 
Dr. TH. § 189 (i), Ges. § 131c.— •'3v^'] i K. >Na.— 27. aSa . . . y;-cz''\ 
V. s. D''Dj? used very seldom, if ever, of Israel (v. Bur.). 

28-34. The defeat of the allies. — 29. Ahab disguised himself 
probably to escape a central attack such as was made on Jehosha- 
phat, and also perhaps from the superstitious notion that by 
changing his identity he could in some way escape the evil foretold 
by Micaiah. — 31. And Jehoshaphat cried out'\ probably to his 
men, but the Chronicler understood it as a prayer and added the 
remainder of the verse, which does not appear in i K. 22.^ — 34. 
Ahab's first impulse when wounded seems to have been to leave 
the battle (v. '''>), but when he noted the fierceness of the fight he 
had himself propped up in his chariot and kept his place against the 
enemy. This is a splendid testimony to his prowess, even as one 
also is given in the command of the King of Syria to fight only with 
him (v. 5°). The Chronicler omits the details given in i K. 22^8-39 
of Ahab's death and burial, because they would have been irrele- 
vant in his narrative. 

29. Niai B'onnn] either an example of inf. abs. used for the cohorta- 
tive in excited speech Ges. § ii3<^^, or to be changed after Vrss. The 
former is allowed by Bur., Bn., et al., but rejected by St., Sw. in SBOT. 
on I K., which gives the latter reading after 05, &, Ol, NiaNi CijnnNi, pre- 
ferred by Ki. BH., but (S*b of Ch. has KaraKaXvxpdu fif. — ^nJa] Q5 ?«)» 
apparel. — in3m] about thirty MSS., 05, 13, i K. 223° sg. — 30. After h nir'N i 
K. 22" has DiJif 1 cir'Sa'. — Vnjn nx] read after 05, i K. nm. — Snjn, japn] 
I K. without art. — 31. ncs*] i K. 2232 + -|n. — laDM] i K. no'-i. The 
former to be preferred (Klo., Ki., Bur., et al. — UCD . . . nn^] wanting 



in I K. — an^D'i] (^ airiffrpexpev aiiroiis probably reading on^D'i. M is far 
more expressive. — 33. icn*?] in his integrity or his imiocency, i.e., without 
guile or definite intention in view of the result, "at a venture," cf. 2 S. 
15". — ]'<->Z'n poi O'pain ]^2] between the tassets and the breastplate. 
pai in the sg. Is. 41" f- The plural of this word meaning cleaving, join- 
ing is most appropriate for the tassets consisting of jointed pieces. — 
231'^] I K. 2234 i2D-('^. — ijnNSini] I K. "'jN^sini. — njncn] (g nnnSon, proba- 
bly the true reading. — 34. hn-\\vi iVm] i K. 2233 -^Scni. — n^DjJD] better 
Hoph. after i K. — ti-ncn . . . nj?] i K. a-i]J3 pdii. At the titne of ike 
going down of the sun is drawn from i K. 2235a. 

XIX. 1-3. Jehoshaphat reproved for his alliance with Ahab 
by the prophet Jehu. — A section clearly from the Chronicler. 
The N. kingdom in the mind of the Chronicler was entirely apostate 
from Yahweh, and hence the association of Jehoshaphat with 
Ahab was completely sinful and worthy of rebuke. — 1. In peace] 
with possible allusion to the words of Micaiah, 18"^. — 2. Jehu the 
son of Hanani]. Cf. i K. 16' and, on Hanani, 2 Ch. 16'. The